TUESDAY 18 JANUARY 2000
_________
Members present:
Mr Peter Luff, in the Chair
Mr David Borrow
Mr David Curry
Mr Alan Hurst
Mr Michael Jack
Mr Austin Mitchell
Mr Mark Todd
_________
MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH
EXAMINATION OF WITNESS
BARONESS HAYMAN, a Member of the House of Lords, attending by leave of
that House, Minster of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food, examined.
Chairman
468. Baroness Hayman, thank you very much indeed for coming before
us in this Committee in our last evidence session on our inquiry into the
segregation of GM foods. I hope you will understand that we have taken a very
narrow and specific area in the GM debate to try to produce some worthwhile
conclusions. Other committees have covered a wider range of issues and there
was a very helpful debate in Westminster Hall last week which was attended by
Michael Meacher. You are the first Lords Minister who has appeared before
this Committee although you told me you think your predecessor was Mr Rooker
and we have certainly had him before us regularly. You are very welcome
indeed. Can I ask you first of all a general question and perhaps, without
being too partisan, express a view. The question is what do you think the
limits are of government responsibility generally in relation to GM foods and
GM crops? From my point of view the Government is sometimes seen as a very
articulate advocate of GM crops rather than a neutral referee. What do you
think the role of government is?
(Baroness Hayman) I do not think it is our role to be an advocate. I
do think it is our role to be a protector, a protector of public health and
a protector of the environment. So I think there is a responsibility to
safeguard public health, which is of course predominantly around food and food
safety, and to make sure that the regulatory processes ensure that for GM
food, for any novel foods, and indeed for food in general that that which is
offered to the consumer is safe to eat. So I think that is the prime
responsibility and I am Food Safety Minister which is why I saw myself as
Jeff's successor rather than Bernard Donoughue's in terms of portfolio. I
think that is one responsibility. Equally, we have a responsibility towards
the environment and to assess very carefully what the effects of the
introduction of specific GM crops with specific properties might be on the
environment. Over and above that, I believe that we have a responsibility as
a government for providing informed consumer choice and that takes us into
areas not necessarily of regulatory processes but certainly areas such as
labelling, whether it is compulsory, or labelling in the sense of monitoring
the claims that are made for foods or products and ensuring that they are not
deceptive in any way.
Chairman: Thank you. Mr Jack has a supplementary early on.
Mr Jack
469. You mentioned your role, Baroness Hayman, as the Food Safety
Minister. Could you sketch in briefly for my benefit the relationship that
you have on these matters with the Department of the Environment. Is there
some kind of co-ordinating structure upon which you and Michael Meacher sit?
Where is the boundary drawn between your responsibilities on issues which are
the subject of this inquiry?
(Baroness Hayman) There is an interface, you are absolutely right to say
so, but not so much on the food issues. For example the Advisory Committee
on Novel Foods and Processes, which is the regulatory body for assessing the
safety of new foods, reports at the moment to me as Food Safety Minister into
MAFF. When the Food Standards Agency is set up on April 1 and takes over that
responsibility, it will take responsibility for that. The Committee on
Releases into the Environment (ACRE) feeds into both MAFF and to DETR and that
is more around MAFF's responsibilities in terms of agriculture looking at the
potential effects of GM releases on the agricultural environment and on other
crops than perhaps the wider bio-diversity and environmental responsibilities
of DETR so, yes, there is a lot of close working on GM issues in general
across government but particularly a lot of close working at both official and
ministerial level between Michael Meacher and myself.
470. Is there normally one Minister who would deem themselves to
be in charge of the GM area?
(Baroness Hayman) The GM area goes enormously wide, of course, it goes
into medicine and health. I suppose in terms of the Cabinet co-ordinating
responsibility that Dr Mowlam has she has a responsibility for co-ordinating
government response on GM issues.
Mr Curry
471. Can I just pursue that a little further because in the past
when we have had inquiries into this matter we have had a MAFF and a DETR
Minister and Mr Meacher has been unaccustomedly bashful today as far as I can
see. Either he has been bashful or been brushed off, I am not quite sure
which is the right one. Now we have had Mo Mowlam introduced into the
conversation. This is pretty incoherent, is it not?
(Baroness Hayman) I do not think it is incoherent. I think it is a
recognition that GM issues can affect and do affect a variety of government
departments. I have not mentioned the DTI so far but obviously the
application of GM technology in industry and bio-sciences is very important.
I think Mo Mowlam's responsibilities are for ensuring that the different
strands of ministerial activity are co-ordinated and I think the need to
recognise some of those broader issues is reflected in the Government setting
up of the two broad strategic Commissions on biotechnology, again looking more
broadly across the piece, while there are specific responsibilities, for
example the regulatory responsibilities that have to be focused in one
department or with one Minister who may be the licensing or statutory
authority for instance.
472. Do you see different departments, as it were, taking up the
cudgels for different interests. Jack Cunningham, when he was the
co-ordinater or enforcer, repeatedly said, "We have got to realise that
Britain is a major leader in the field of biotechnology and if we look as if
we are inhospitable to this we are going to be threatened as a base for these
very high-tech industries." I do not think that is unfair. He did say that
repeatedly. Michael Meacher appears to have been the chap who has flown the
flag of consumer interest. Sometimes it is quite difficult to decide what
flag MAFF has been flying at all. Would you accept that it has looked a
little as if different Ministers have been flying different flags and it is
very difficult to find out where the admiral is in all this?
(Baroness Hayman) I am not sure I can put myself into your mind to see
your perspective of where different Ministers may stand. I can only answer
for myself. My title within MAFF is Food Safety Minister so I see myself as
having overwhelming responsibilities in that area and I think that is a quite
clear responsibility for someone with my portfolio within MAFF as long as MAFF
retains those responsibilities. Equally, I think the Government overall has
to make sure that we do not have different strands of government pulling in
different directions. I was trying to articulate earlier on that we do see
ourselves having prime responsibilities in the protection of public health and
the protection of the environment. Equally, I think it is true to say that
there are opportunities or potential opportunities over a range of
bio-technology issues including GM which it would be irresponsible for any
government simply to ignore or rule out of court, whether they are advances
in medicine, whether they are industrial opportunities or whether they are
opportunities that some in agriculture see for limiting the use of agri-
chemicals and getting higher yields and better and cheaper food to the
consumer.
473. You made the distinction a few minutes ago in response to Mr
Jack and said, "I deal with the agricultural environment and other crops but
if it is not a crop then it is DETR." It is difficult to enforce it. You
cannot walk round the edge of a field saying, "That is a bit of agriculture,
that is my responsibility. That is a weed, that is DETR's."
(Baroness Hayman) I think weeds are absolutely crucial to agriculture.
474. So you do have a wider responsibility.
(Baroness Hayman) The margins of fields are of great interest within the
agriculture environment, as you well know. Neat little boxes are not always
available. Biodiversity issues are in the main of course the responsibility
of DETR. Agricultural issues are the responsibility of MAFF. Because there
are overlap implications we do ensure that there is a great deal of
conversation between Ministers in the appropriate cases, that submissions come
to the two Ministers, and that officials keep up the dialogue.
Mr Mitchell
475. Can I take you back to before that detour. You said that
Government is not an advocate of GM technology. You could have fooled me
because my reading of the situation is that the Government did indeed begin
as something of an advocate of something that was considered technologically
beneficial to British science, and in the face of a clamour produced outside
by the opponents of GM food we resiled from that position. Would that not be
an accurate reading of the situation?
(Baroness Hayman) I am looking into your perception of what government's
attitudes have been in the past. I think that the Government has always
recognised that there is a great potential in GM technology and that there is
a great potential because of the sort of science-based industry that we want
to create and the expertise that we have in this country for exploiting that.
We have to recognise as a country those potentials and I do not think we
should inappropriately bar them. Equally, I do not believe it is Government's
job to tell people what they should eat or make them buy things that they do
not want to buy. I do believe it is Government's job to ensure that
appropriate regulatory processes are in place and I think, yes, you are
absolutely right, there has been a growing public concern manifested
particularly in the media but also through individuals about the need for a
proper exploration of the implications of the use of these technologies
particularly in the environmentalist setting and in food so that people can
be assured as to their safety and I think that is perfectly appropriate and
the Government has responded to that.
476. The Government should be an advocate of something that could
well be a scientific advance bringing plentitude and cheaper food and not be
deterred by the clamour of the forces of conservatism.
(Baroness Hayman) I think we have to recognise that role and why I went
back to the referee role is I think the role of Government is to make sure
that the scientific evidence and the regulatory structure are there and that
they are transparent so that people can make their own choices. Of course,
you cannot always follow what is going on. People do change their minds. If
you think back to tomato paste, the first GM food introduced in this country,
it was not introduced by sleight-of-hand. It was very clearly marked, there
were leaflets about it and it sold very well in supermarkets at that time.
Equally, there has been since then a change perceived in consumer attitudes
and many supermarkets now choose deliberately to make a marketing ploy of not
selling GM products. I do not think government should be up and down on the
peaks of what is out there in the market place. That is for the market-place
to determine. Equally, I do think government should hold fast to its
principles and I come back to those principles about safety in both the
environmental and health sense.
Chairman
477. Without labouring the point, I would echo some of what Mr
Curry has said. We had a great deal of trouble getting evidence even from
DETR in this inquiry. We eventually received a memorandum which has been
extremely helpful and deals with some of the issues which go to the heart of
this inquiry. It surprised me, however, that we only got that memorandum last
week and it would have been helpful to have had it months sooner when this
inquiry was announced in the summer. There is a suspicion in my mind that
there is a lack of co-ordination between the two government departments of
state. I put it no higher than that.
(Baroness Hayman) I apologise if anything reflects on either MAFF or
myself. As far as I was concerned, I was invited and came along. I did not
understand it was a joint invitation and that I had to bring Mr Meacher with
me.
478. We have had some debate over a lot of these inquiries and it
has conveyed an impression, let us put it like that. Let's look at MAFF
specifically. What about your role now the Food Standards Agency is up and
running in relation to GM foods, can you define that for us factually.
(Baroness Hayman) I think the vast majority of my role in relation to
GM foods will pass over to the Food Standards Agency, that is in relation to
both food for human consumption and for animal feed. The responsibilities
that will stay with MAFF are the responsibilities that relate to what I was
talking about earlier, the agricultural implications of GM technology, new
plants, seed listing, those sorts of issues, but as far as food safety is
concerned that will transfer over on 1 April to the Food Standards Agency.
479. Thank you. Let us look at some more factual stuff. We have
discussed already briefly Dr Cunningham's announcement about the establishment
of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission and of course the
Human Genetics Commission although that is not relevant to this Committee.
In its response to the Environmental Audit Committee's Report the Government
said that the Commission was being set up. In the most recent memorandum we
have had from MAFF there are further hints. I think it says at the end of the
report that the Commission "is expected to start work shortly". So what is
the current position?
(Baroness Hayman) You need a Civil Service lexicon to know what
"shortly" means.
480. Exactly!
(Baroness Hayman) There are three bodies with overarching
responsibilities on GM issues because the Food Standards Agency will have
responsibility on GM food. The Human Genetics Commission, which is starting
its work, and I believe the Chairmanship of that has been announced, will work
around the implications for human health in particular. We have not appointed
a chairman to the Agriculture and Environment Commission which is why that
body has not started its work. I understand that that appointment is to be
re-advertised later this week.
481. Re-advertised?
(Baroness Hayman) Yes.
482. So "shortly" in that lexicon is likely to mean?
(Baroness Hayman) In the spring.
483. And the spring, Minister, the spring? June, July, August,
that sort of spring?
(Baroness Hayman) I do not want to weasel my way out of this but the
appointment is being made through the Cabinet Office rather than MAFF
appointment therefore I do not want to give a commitment about a timing that
I cannot discharge myself.
484. We will keep an eye on that. Apart from the Chairman who is
going to be on it? There are some hints in the memorandum as well about
ethicists and so on. Will it be seed producers, farmers? Who is going to be
on it?
(Baroness Hayman) My own understanding of this is that the desire is to
have on these Commissions a broad range of interests that do reflect the fact
that these will not be the expert scientific committees to go through a
regulatory process or application.
485. That will be done elsewhere?
(Baroness Hayman) That will be done elsewhere. --- That they should be
broader therefore they should not be dominated by scientists with an interest
or a knowledge of the subject, if I can put it in fairly crude terms, and that
they should reflect a range of people. That should not rule out people who
have some knowledge of the subject. I think that would be quite
counter-productive but it certainly should have the ability to reflect the
views of consumers, the views of people who have ethical interests, the views
of people who are in farming, for example, rather than simply come from a
narrow field.
486. It is an issue that this Committee has wrestled with in the
past. How do you get the views of consumers represented on these Commissions?
(Baroness Hayman) I think it is a difficult challenge and you have
difficulty either way. You have difficulty if you go for the "professional
consumer", someone who works full time in the consumer movement because people
feel that is not representative of people who do their shopping twice a week
and do not take a specialised interest. Equally, and I have done this myself
in the past and I know, the problems of having heaped on your shoulders the
responsibility of representing vast numbers of other people that you have no
network or way of finding out their position just because you are plucked off
the street as an ordinary consumer is difficult. I think that the process of
open application, the process of trying to persuade people to come into this
and not only taking people who are on the list of usual suspects, if I can put
it that way, does give them opportunities and I think we have to make sure
that they then have feedback from consumer organisations and other groups so
they are not only representing their own interests.
487. I have to say when Janet Bainbridge came to this Committee as
Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes she struck me
as a pretty well-informed consumer as well. We are, after all, all consumers.
(Baroness Hayman) I think that is right. After this meeting I am going
to chair the last meeting of the Consumer Panel at MAFF which brought together
individuals and I know that the Food Standards Agency are thinking about how
they could best structure their consumer advisory grouping for the future.
488. I do not want to labour these organisational points for to
long but they are important and there have been concerns expressed for example
by consumers in Europe that there are gaps in the process. What you are
saying is that the three bodies being established, including the Food
Standards Agency as one of those three, means that there will be no gaps.
They are the overarching organisations that will take care of everything
between them.
(Baroness Hayman) I think that was the intent of the Government when
responding to the Select Committee report about oversight of technology, yes,
that there should not be any gaps.
Chairman: Minister, thank you very much. Mr Mitchell?
Mr Mitchell
489. On the consumer choice issue, do you think there is a genuine
hostility to GM foods on the part of consumers or alternatively there are
doubts whipped up by a machinery of panic mongering and fear creation?
(Baroness Hayman) I would not go for either generalisation, if I may say
so. Undoubtedly, there are people who have a genuine hostility to GM produce
and who want to be able not to buy it. Equally, I think that there are many
people who do not see any advantages at the moment in the GM products that
they are being offered and therefore decide to take a very precautionary
approach. And there are equally, I am certain, people who are not
particularly worried either way and make their purchases on completely
different issues. I believe one of the challenges in labelling and
information for consumers is the range of interests that consumers have.
Saying consumers with a capital C is answering for the whole of the population
of this country because we are all consumers and there is a vast variety of
issues that interest people. Some people are interested in the food they eat
because of religious scruples. Some people are interested because of ethical
issues about animal welfare. Some people are interested because they have a
health problem themselves around an allergic reaction to a particular food.
Some people are interested because they particularly want to buy on country
of origin. There is a whole range of issues and for some people undoubtedly
GM is an important issue. I think we should be facilitating choice around
that range of issues and I would not under-estimate the strength of feeling
of some people about GM food and protecting their right not to buy it.
Equally, I would not generalise from that strength of feeling to say that it
is across the board.
490. But inherently consumers' main preoccupation is price and
quality, is it not? It is useful to create fear amongst consumers as a means
of combating GM because that is the Achilles' heel of GM production. What is
basically a scientific issue is being turned into a consumer issue because
that is the best and easiest way of attacking GM.
(Baroness Hayman) You can read this two ways. You can either read it,
as you are suggesting, that consumers just do not understand the science ---
491. I was not saying that.
(Baroness Hayman) --- Or else they would not be taken along this scare
route. I think it was implicit in what you were saying actually. Or you can
take it, and I think this is what is there, that predominantly consumers do
their own risk benefit analysis when they are shopping about what is important
to them and the benefits of what is being offered at the moment do not seem
to them to outweigh what may be in their mind very remote but possible risk
and therefore they take a very precautionary approach, or some of them choose
to. I am sure you are right that all the evidence points at base to the fact
that most people go on price and quality and our responsibility, coming back,
is around the quality issue and the safety of a product that is GM.
492. But this is the consideration for consumers, to repeat the
Asda advert. You yourself said that the tomato puree that Zenica put out was
of high quality and sold well and was competitive.
(Baroness Hayman) And, equally, it has now been withdrawn, not on any
safety grounds ---
493. Because of the panic.
(Baroness Hayman) I think what I am trying not to do is say, "Consumers
believe this ..." or, "Consumers want that ... " because I think there is a
range of opinion there and I think markets do ebb and flow and popularity ebbs
and flows and different products will get different responses.
494. If you are taking that position it follows that government
responsibility is to guarantee the continuation of non-GM supplies to the
consumer.
(Baroness Hayman) I am not sure that is the Government's responsibility
to guarantee. If I think about people who are vegetarian for example, is it
the Government's responsibility to guarantee the supply of vegetarian food?
I think it is very important that the Government makes sure that people do not
label food as vegetarian and we then find out that they are doing so
misleadingly so consumers are misled. The market will decide whether
vegetarian food or organic food or halal food is actually produced and I am
not sure it is for the Government to guarantee that. I think it is for the
Government to guarantee there is an appropriate regulatory process that
ensures that safety considerations are to the forefront and it is the
Government's responsibility to ensure that appropriate labelling is on produce
and it is the government's responsibility to ensure that consumers are not
misled. After that I think then you have to let the market and individuals
decide.
495. If we lie back and leave it to the market given international
trade agreements is it not going to be very difficult for the market to
continue to provide in the way you are saying it should?
(Baroness Hayman) Are you thinking particularly in terms of identity
preservation?
496. What is exportable and importable under international trade
agreements and the difficulty of classifying it.
(Baroness Hayman) But I think that a lot of the identity preservation
issues throughout the food chain will actually be led by market forces rather
than regulatory forces.
497. Okay, but again another problem with the market if you are
going to create those distinctions is the cost of segregation. Who is going
to carry those costs?
(Baroness Hayman) I think within the food chain that will be sorted out
amongst the individual people at stages of that chain depending on where and
who can bear it, but there will be costs inherent in segregation.
498. Which in the end will be borne by the consumer?
(Baroness Hayman) And in the end those will be borne by the consumer,
I think that is right.
499. The result of this concern/fear that is being created is that
consumers will have to pay higher prices?
(Baroness Hayman) Consumers who want to guarantee the identity of
preservation and the separation, yes.
500. Which you say the Government does.
(Baroness Hayman) I said the Government has responsibility for ensuring
that people have information about the food that they buy.
501. When it comes to labelling do you think the consumer
appreciates and understands the difference between GM free and non-GM
ingredients?
(Baroness Hayman) No, I think it is very confusing and I think we are
in a difficult position here on this labelling as we are on a whole lot of
other labelling issues. I think there is a difference between what has to be
compulsorily labelled, and that is food that has GM material in it, and that
is EU-wide and there is competence there and that has been decided, and what
people choose to use often as a marketing tool which is around categorising
something as GM free and using that as a claim. We do not at the moment have
a satisfactory and universally accepted definition of "GM free" and we are
pressing within Europe to get that definition so that people understand better
and can be assured of the implications of that and indeed that it can be
policed by local authority trading standards officers, or whoever it is.
502. That will be the basis of the Government's labelling
approach?
(Baroness Hayman) Yes. I want to go much wider on labelling and talk
more widely about what is useful for consumers on labelling, the format of
labels, how we can make sure people can understand the information that is
there. There is a whole range of issues about labelling that are very
important.
503. If consumers want GM free food, either because they have read
all the scientific literature and think that is best for them or because they
have been panicked into that attitude, if all the traders and producers and
marketing people can guarantee is that it is non-GM, does that mean that the
market is working or not?
(Baroness Hayman) The definition of what has to be labelled as GM has
now been extended to cover additives and flavourings. That is one of the
things that has happened since my memorandum was sent in and those regulations
have now been adopted and will come in on April 8 or April 10. People who
therefore do not want to buy GM material can be assured that they are doing
that by buying anything that does not say "This is GM" on it.
504. You are being driven back stage by stage to a narrower and
narrower definition.
(Baroness Hayman) I think you have to have a definition that is testable
and a definition that is universally accepted. There is no point in having
a definition where if you are a trading standards officer or you are going to
analyse the food you do not know whether there has been any GM process at any
time further back in the production of this food because that is a meaningless
thing. It has been accepted worldwide and certainly within Europe that the
definition of "containing GM material" or "GM food" is something that has
something that is tangibly and testably in the finished product. I think
anything else would lead to the most terrible confusion.
Mr Jack
505. Could I just return to your observations about the tomato
paste because a lot of the questioning has been about how you can define
things that do not have GM in. Here was an example of a clearly segregated
product which was the product of GM technology. It was clearly labelled and,
as you said, there was a lot of information available to consumers enabling
them to make what one might have thought by the sales success of that product
was an informed choice but all of a sudden it disappeared from the supermarket
shelves and it seemed that the users of that product were not consulted. Did
you or anybody else in Government attempt to objectively evaluate why all of
a sudden what had been deemed by quite a large number of people to be a wholly
wholesome and safe product suddenly lost confidence and was rejected wholesale
by those consumers or was it a question that the pro-tomato paste lobby simply
had its product taken away without any consultation?
(Baroness Hayman) You are trying to put me in the position of being a
food manufacturer or retailer.
506. The question I want to know is at a very important moment
when there was choice and then there was not seemingly because the public lost
confidence in the product what did MAFF or any other part of Government do to
find out why there was this change in appreciation because if people are to
believe in future messages about the safety and integrity of GM I want to know
about those thought processes because here we have a situation where a product
which was deemed to be safe and okay suddenly lost confidence and I want to
know why.
(Baroness Hayman) I will find out, if I may, what happened in that
because I was not the Minister responsible at that time. I would guess that
nothing very different may have happened from a whole range of products that
come and go off the supermarket shelves. I am often irritated when I go
shopping to find that a particular manufacturer no longer makes something that
I really liked that obviously a lot of other people did not and therefore on
commercial grounds they have taken it off the shelves.
507. I used to work for Marks & Spencer and I have made those
decisions about when you take a line out of the catalogue because it is not
selling and there is a difference between that and responding here to a loss
in consumer confidence to a product that was clearly labelled and clearly
explained to the consumer. Because the reverse is we are talking about
explanations and labelling for those who do not want a product with GM in it.
I want to know what establishes the boundaries of consumer confidence when
they are presented with the type of messages that at one time convinced a lot
of people to buy the tomato paste?
(Baroness Hayman) I still think that some of those answers are for those
who are involved in the commercial business of producing and selling those
products. I take your point, however, and I would say that it was not
Government regulatory action that took that product off the shelf. I think
that one of the ways we do have to respond in the wake of a great deal of
public comment and a loss of public confidence (and I think in the broader
issues around GM technology that then comes back to your tin of tomato paste
on the supermarket shelf) is by having very open and transparent processes for
regulation and scrutiny of new products to ensure that people's confidence is
built up again. I know you saw Janet Bainbridge and the way in which the
Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes is working, the way it is
trying to take out even further into the public arena the details of
applications as they are made and giving people the opportunity to comment on
them, the overarching Commissions that we are setting up, that broad public
participation in the debate and the creation of robust structures which are
not dominated by those with the vested interests will over time create
confidence. From that confidence whether something then is commercially
successful or not is for the commercial world but, equally, I accept that
there is a responsibility within government which I think is best discharged
by having very robust processes to make sure that people can have confidence
in the regulatory processes. I think one of the reasons for the withdrawal
of enthusiasm, if you like, was a lack of understanding and public knowledge
of the very detailed work that does go into the regulation of these products
but I do not think it was widely known or appreciated and there was concern
that it might not be thorough enough.
508. But a lot of people had confidence to buy the product in the
first place.
(Baroness Hayman) Yes, public debate about issues sparks people off into
thinking about things or changing their purchasing habits and that happens on
a range of issues.
Chairman: I suspect this argument is not getting very far so I will
call a halt. Mr Mitchell has a couple of points to raise.
Mr Mitchell
509. Is the Government concerned that non-GM foodstuffs are going
to become beyond the economic reach of the mass of consumers or certainly the
poorer consumers?
(Baroness Hayman) I think that is a debate that is had equally about
organic produce. At the moment there is not a big price differential. There
is very little GM produce in supermarkets and it is GM ingredients of other
produce rather than individual items. The supermarkets that have chosen not
to stock GM produce have chosen to do so without passing on vast costs or any
price differences to the consumer. I think there are issues further down the
line. I think there certainly would be issues on animal feed, for example,
where we are talking about much greater use of GM product at the moment, but
as things stand we have very few GM foods, they are a very small proportion
of food and the costs that have been, as I understand it, incurred by
supermarkets in offering the range of non-GM foods have not been passed on to
the consumer. So I do not think it is an issue at the moment.
510. You mentioned the role of trading standards officers and
tests that would be verifiable that they could do. Is there any danger given
that Richard North has written at some length about the thought(?) police that
we are going to get on their part the same kind of hostility to GM foods that
they have shown for instance to non-pasteurized/unpasteurized milk in cheeses
and there will a witch-hunt against GM foods if that kind of panic-mongering
goes on?
(Baroness Hayman) I do not see that myself. I think that local
authority officers have shown a proportionate response on a variety of issues.
Of course, there are two sides to every argument and for all the people who
want stricter controls, monitoring and testing there are people who feel that
this is an unwarranted intrusion into people's opportunity to buy what they
want to buy and to consume things in a fairly robust nature without worrying
too much. I think it will be for individual local authorities to ensure that
the response is proportionate and sensible and the Food Standards Agency does
have very clearly in its framework the responsibility to look at the costs and
benefits of enforcement action and to strike a sensible balance between them.
What that balance is can only be determined by the circumstances.
Chairman: We will be watchful. Mr Curry?
Mr Curry
511. Let's go back to the food chain, much closer to your parish.
How important are the field trials?
(Baroness Hayman) I believe that they are extremely important in terms
of an assessment of the environmental consequences of growing these crops in
this country. I think that there is a widespread desire to know exactly what
the effects of new crops are on bio-diversity, on the agricultural
environment. As far as food safety assessment is concerned, I do not think
there is a great deal of relevance because that has to be done through
assessing the product that is consumed rather than issues about growing. So
I can envisage a situation where it is perfectly possible to say that a food
is safe to market whereas we might not wish it to be grown in this country
because of our particular environmental consequences.
512. Your answer then is that they are very important in the
argument about the wider ecological impact, not on the food safety impact?
(Baroness Hayman) Yes, although I do not think that you can totally
separate the public confidence issue.
513. That is not the thrust of what I am going to be getting at.
Could you come to valid conclusions without field trials?
(Baroness Hayman) On the environmental and agricultural?
514. Where you have defined them as important?
(Baroness Hayman) I believe that the field trials are essential to a
proper assessment of the implications of the properties of particular GM
crops.
515. So what happens if Greenpeace trash them?
(Baroness Hayman) These trials are being legally carried out under very
carefully agreed protocols that we have agreed with SCIMAC. We firmly believe
that there is an obligation on everyone who participates in this debate from
whatever side to allow those trials to go ahead so that all of us can have the
evidence on which to take appropriate decisions about the way forward.
516. But the leader of Greenpeace does not agree with that. He is
a Member of your House.
(Baroness Hayman) I think he is on leave of absence.
517. I know but his people trashed the trials last summer and then
he complained that he was not given bail to go to Kenya for his holidays.
(Baroness Hayman) I do not believe it is for me ---
518. I am sorry, this is a serious point. You are sponsoring
these trials, you are paying people to do these trials, you determine what
happens to the product of those trials, and yet we have seen clear evidence
that certain organisations appear determined to prevent their taking place.
The trials are widely advertised, they are identified by very close
topographical references which are available on the Internet and you have said
that they are very important, but they are at risk of being trashed. Do you
think you have a responsibility to stop them being trashed?
(Baroness Hayman) I think we have a responsibility to ensure that the
appropriate level of safeguards is there. Equally, I do not believe going
away from our fundamental belief in transparency over time as being the way
in which to build up confidence, that we should anticipate a trashing or a
destruction of those trials before it happens. I think we should see how we
go.
519. But, hang on, you cannot anticipate it after it has happened,
can you?
(Baroness Hayman) No.
520. You said there should be safeguards. What do you mean by
that?
(Baroness Hayman) I think it is important, for example, that the local
police force in an area where there is a trial are aware that that trial is
going ahead and that a farmer who is participating who felt he needed support
should know where he could go for that support. What I am saying when I say
I do not think one should anticipate or answer hypothetical questions is that
we are not in a position at the moment of knowing what will happen. I think
that the agreement that Michael Meacher took forward with SCIMAC about the
conduct of the trials has been extremely important. It has assuaged the
concerns of many of the environmental groups and I hope that those trials will
go forward successfully and I am not going to be drawn into what would happen
if they did not.
521. We all hope that that is going to be the case, do we not, but
the fact is that in the past there have been deliberate attempts to trash them
and as a result of that some farmers have withdrawn from them. You need
farmers to volunteer for this. You want them to be participants, we all want
that, but if they feel when something happens the Government throws up its
hands and says, "Oh dear, we cannot do anything about it", they will not want
to carry on with it. Here is something you have defined as being very
important that is at risk from freelance activity. The point of my question
is merely to know whether you felt the precautions or safeguards as you have
called them which are now in place are adequate or whether you think having
sponsored them that you have some sort of duty to make sure they take place
peaceably.
(Baroness Hayman) I think we have a responsibility to keep a very close
eye and assess what is happening in terms of disruption if it does occur.
Equally, the Government has not just sat back and washed its hands. It has
been absolutely clear that people should obey the law and there is no
justification whatever for illegal action.
522. We agree on that.
(Baroness Hayman) Prosecutions are a matter for the prosecutions service
rather than for Government.
523. Let's look at another way round this. If a product or a crop
were approved elsewhere in the European Union, and, after all, under the rules
an approval in one Member State is supposed to run through the whole European
Union, could it be planted in the United Kingdom without having gone through
a field trial?
(Baroness Hayman) We have at the moment a voluntary system to which all
the participants have signed up that it could not under those voluntary rules
be planted here.
524. Yes, but do you think that if it went through its trials,
leaving aside the voluntary rules, that you would be satisfied sufficiently
about the ecological and for that matter the food safety impact that it should
be capable of being planted in the United Kingdom?
(Baroness Hayman) I think we have made it clear that we do want to know
the environmental impact and the biodiversity impact within the United
Kingdom. That is why we have set up the farm scale evaluations and why we
want to see crops being introduced here to go through that process.
525. So the notion of a European approval system with one Member
State being nominated, as it were, to do the trials and once that trial has
been completed that clearance coming via Brussels with a rather elaborate
mechanism is dead?
(Baroness Hayman) I do not think it is dead. We are all looking at the
WTO level and at the Biodiversity Protocol level at the particular ways in
which individual States' environmental concerns and the scientific evidence
that is necessary at WTO level, for example, on plant, animal or human health
grounds for not participating in Single Market or normal trade considerations
can be properly discharged. I think here we have made it absolutely clear
that we do believe we want to know the environmental impact within the United
Kingdom so that we can see whether there are any scientific grounds for not
participating in the Community approval process.
526. So you would say that this is a case where the normal Single
Market rules are inappropriate?
(Baroness Hayman) I am saying that the Single Market rules always allow
for individual action for the protection of human health, for example, and
that we want to see the ability to look at environmental issues and
biodiversity issues. I do not think that is simply a United Kingdom
phenomenon. There are other countries both within Europe and internationally
that are equally interested in those issues.
527. Let's say a crop has come through a field trial and that you
are satisfied as a result of that that it does not have any pernicious
environmental effects and, as you have said, a field trial would not be the
area where you would see food safety issues, you are satisfied with food
safety, are there any other tests, research, trials it would have to go
through before you were ready to approve it for commercial planting having
come out successfully of the field trial cycle?
(Baroness Hayman) I do not think so. May I double check that and let
you know if that is an incorrect answer?
Chairman
528. Can we move on in the same area to the SCIMAC guidelines?
The government welcome the SCIMAC initiatives. You said in your response to
another select committee that you were seeking to persuade the European
Commission to use these as the basis for legislative proposals on a statutory
footing. Have you had a response from the European Commission to that
suggestion?
(Baroness Hayman) That is something that I believe we are still pursuing
within Europe. I think there is an interest in these issues amongst other
countries as well as our own and we do believe that we are something of a
pathfinder here. It may be that we can help in terms of the Commission's
deliberations.
529. There must be some concern among some circles that SCIMAC is
an industry initiative. It is owned by farmers; it is owned by plant
breeders. It is not owned in any sense by the government at present. Do you
feel that putting the SCIMAC guidelines on a statutory footing would address
the concern some people have expressed that the guidelines are owned by those
who benefit from the planting of the crops?
(Baroness Hayman) Yes. Certainly we would like to see them on a
statutory footing. What I was not quite certain about was where we are within
the European process of pushing that through. We have a number of initiatives
in Europe at the moment.
530. We will have to settle for a later note on that. The issue
really is whether the SCIMAC guidelines are the right ones. We have had
evidence in the past from the Soil Association calling for six mile
notification zones and that contrasts with the SCIMAC guidelines which are
very modest distances. The largest is 600 metres, so they are asking for
something eight or ten times the distance. Last week, we had a very
interesting report prepared by the National Pollen Research Unit at University
College, Worcester. I do not think I have to declare an interest but I live
in Worcester. I have a full copy of the report here. It is desk research
conducted by two academics into pollen dispersal in specific crops. It is a
very thorough piece of work. In some areas, it makes it clear there is no
cause for concern at all but I am concerned about the very sharp difference
of view expressed between SCIMAC and this report about oil seed rape. I will
read the summary: "Oil seed rape presents a high risk for cross-pollination
between source and recipient fields. It is interfertile with a number of wild
relatives found in the UK and introgression of transgenes seems likely.
Pollen dispersal has been recorded at up to 4km by insects (some 20 fold
higher than the recommended isolation distances), and to 3km by the air flow.
Notable potential exists for cross pollination with feral populations which
are common in the UK, giving rise to well distributed further sources of
possible contamination." I will not go through the whole report; it is 60-
something pages long. It deals with each species in turn. It says something
similar about sugar beet which also expresses concerns of a similar kind but
of a lower order of magnitude. It says there are particular concerns about
wheat and potato and on maize one needs to look carefully at what it says but
on oil seed rape there seems to be a good scientific basis for worrying
whether the SCIMAC guidelines are right or not. Have you had a chance to
reflect on what the Soil Association's new report, conducted by these
independent academics, actually says?
(Baroness Hayman) Yes, we have, because I think some of the evidence
from it was brought out earlier, although it was only published last week.
The issues about cross-pollination are of course ones that ACRE looks at in
determining releases into the environment. Within the SCIMAC agreement, there
are different separation distances for different crops which reflects what you
were talking about, that oil seed rape can cross-pollinate more easily and
over greater distances than other crops. The SCIMAC guidelines do include
separation distances that have been widely used in the past to protect crop
integrity in commercial agriculture. While pollen can travel several
kilometres, the issue is the likelihood of cross-pollination and that reduces
very much over distance. This is an area obviously of great concern,
particularly to the organic movement. They have been talking about separation
distances much larger than the SCIMAC distances. We had a meeting last week
when we brought together the organic sector and SCIMAC to consider how the
guidelines might be developed to address the issue of detectable GM material
being found in organic crops which is obviously a major issue for them. We
are drawing up together a research specification which will be discussed in
March so that we can look at whether there is the need for further research.
MAFF does have a programme which addresses the risk assessment of GMOs in the
agricultural environment which includes already studies which are intended to
quantify the extent of pollen transfer. The Farmscale Evaluation Programme
will allow us to have research with crops grown on a field scale. I am not
saying that we do not need more research on this but the Farmscale Evaluations
will allow that. Equally, I think we need to look at whether we need to
develop those separation distances in the light of the concerns of the organic
sector and that is what we are going ahead with.
531. I want to return later to the organic sector. This report,
although it is commissioned by the Soil Association, does not specifically
address the organic sector. It addresses those farmers who want for whatever
reason to grow non-GM crops. Oil seed rape distances under SCIMAC, which you
are currently urging the European Union to put on a statutory footing, are the
smallest for oil seed rape of any of the crops, 200 metres. It is 600 for
sugar beet, 600 for fodder beet and 200 for forage maize. Yet here we have
this new report which says that data suggests that transgene movement to non-
GM fields and/or feral populations is highly likely following commercial scale
release. "Transgenic individuals have been identified in feral populations."
They are implicitly recommending a much higher separation distance. Are you
going to put on hold your recommendations to the European Union about putting
these SCIMAC presentations on a statutory basis until you have reviewed what
seems from very powerful evidence here to suggest that oil seed rape in
particular needs much, much higher distances than had previously been thought?
(Baroness Hayman) I will write to you about the European thing. The
important thing is there to have a statutory basis. The content has to be the
right content. One is not putting in tablets of stone what may need to be
developed or changed. If I can go back to the separation distances, these are
internationally recognised. There is about 50 years of experience in terms
of providing seed purity across the world. Over time, they have given a seed
purity in excess of 99.5 per cent. These are not figures plucked from the air
or that we have no experience of in the past. Equally, we have to look at
whether there is new evidence or whether there are particular issues that mean
that we need to change things. I am not suggesting that we necessarily have
got it 100 per cent right now.
Mr Jack
532. I would appreciate a note from MAFF to help me understand a
bit more about the real risk factors which can occur when pollen drift
happens. I could see that if you had crops at different stages, one where
pollen was produced, one which was not at that stage, pollen drift might have
some effect on the plants growing where pollen had not yet occurred, but if
you have two plants at an equivalent stage in their development and pollen
from one lands on another I am struggling to understand what then happens to
the cross-pollination under those circumstances. In other words, where are
the risks that suddenly by mutation new things happen so that a non-GM crop
could be corrupted by virtue of the pollen from a GM crop landing on it? The
Chairman has put forward a very interesting finding but what I would like to
know is what actually happens in the real world? Is there a real risk or is
this just an interesting scientific finding and we should say, "Yes, there it
is but does it have any relevance?"?
(Baroness Hayman) I would be delighted to respond to that request in
writing because it is not my area of particular expertise. I think you are
right. It is the effect of this that is important, just as it is the property
of a new crop, whether it is herbicide tolerance, rather than the process that
is the issue that we ought to address.
Chairman: Far be it from me to put in a commercial for the National
Pollen Research Unit but you will find those issues addressed in this report.
It does vary from plant to plant.
Mr Jack: But it is different, with respect Chairman, to pollen
drifting around and the effect it has and how it arrives.
Chairman: It is dealt with in this report.
Mr Hurst
533. To those of us without any great scientific background, some
of these things are a mystery. One cannot help but go to ancient woodlands
and be told by the woodman that if the wood is restored to its more natural
location all sorts of plants not seen for decades will start flowering again,
which suggests species lie in the ground and, if conditions change, will come
back up again. It is only yesterday that all of us were being briefed, were
we not, on air quality and the pureness or otherwise of air? They convinced
me at least when I was so told that one of the risks of poor air quality in
the past summer was the winds coming from the continent of Europe diminishing
our air quality. That is quite a long distance away. What I am a little
concerned at is do we have yet enough research to make judgments about
distances and indeed about periods of time that the plants can reproduce
themselves after they have changed from one form of production to another?
(Baroness Hayman) As I said earlier, I think that these are all
important issues to explore. We do have a great deal of experience in
conventional agriculture in terms of introductions of new crops, plant
breeding for different qualities, things like separation distances that
provide seed purity. That does not mean that knowledge stops there. There
is a research programme that is going on, funded by MAFF, to look into some
of these areas. Equally, we are talking with the organic movement in
particular to see whether there are very precise questions to which they need
the answer. These things are of interest generally about new crops or
environmental effects -- you were talking about air pollution -- far more
broadly than simply around the issue of a GM problem.
534. Narrowing it to GM crops, we have received evidence from the
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors that the growth of GM crops may well
affect the value of that land and the neighbouring land. Do you believe that
a notification system should be instituted as to the intention to grow GM
crops on particular parcels of land?
(Baroness Hayman) I believe it is important that we maintain the
transparency of the regulatory system as it is at the moment, which means that
we do have to be very clear about where crops are grown on an experimental
basis. If a crop has gone through all its regulatory processes, I am not
certain what the justification would be for singling out a GM crop rather than
any other crop for compulsory notification.
535. Does it not touch upon the distances question that our
Chairman was raising just now? If I am a farmer who is farming however many
yards away from a GM crop on that parcel of land, is it not right that I
should have a register that I could check to see if my neighbours were growing
GM crops rather than not?
(Baroness Hayman) The SCIMAC guidelines put the onus on farmers growing
GM crops to notify their neighbours of their intentions by specific dates and
to reach agreement on planting strategies. There is a penalty in the case of
non-compliance as part of the measures that have been drawn up by SCIMAC.
That would allow the good neighbour information going across in the way that
you suggest and that is in the guidelines. That would hopefully, in time,
have statutory force.
536. If I am the neighbour so affected -- in other words, I am not
growling but my neighbour is -- and I do not think it is going to be terribly
good either as to the health of my own crops or indeed the value of my land,
what mechanism is there for me to object?
(Baroness Hayman) One has to say what is the danger that is perceived.
That is difficult to see if the regulatory process has gone through. If, for
example, you have organic and non-organic conventional crops next to each
other, exactly the same issues arise. People will want to farm in different
ways. We have to have appropriate separation distances that do not allow for
contamination over and above what is acceptable, but equally one cannot have
huge walls between different areas. You have to have a system by which
neighbours can co-exist with different forms of farming. You cannot have a
100 per cent total purity because we do not have the sorts of barriers that
will do that on any issue. We have to devise what are appropriate levels of
adventitious contamination to allow people to continue to safeguard the purity
of what they are doing.
537. There is the economic factor. If I may use one of the most
over-used words these days, transparency -- which, as I understand it, means
that you understand what the position is -- if I am a purchaser of land, is
it not right that that is one of the elements that my solicitor would look
into, so that I know what is being grown on certain land around me, so that
I can make a judgment about the potential value of that land?
(Baroness Hayman) I am not quite sure how the notification under the
SCIMAC agreement would apply to disclosure of information from the person
currently farming to someone they were selling onto. Perhaps I could find
that out for you and let you know.
538. I am thinking of an updated version, I suppose, of the
Domesday Book. That is not meant in any sense other than a book which is a
book of record. It would be relatively easy to see which parcels of land were
growing what kind of crops if a central register was kept because there may
well be a perception, rightly or wrongly, that land values will rise or fall
depending on, firstly, whether that land is growing GM crops and, secondly,
whether it is adjacent to land that does.
(Baroness Hayman) I am just asking myself, in having the dialogue, what
is the justification for making GM crops special in that area, rather than
crops that have had heavy pesticide use. There may be a range of other issues
that equally could affect the value of land or neighbours. I am asking myself
why one takes GM out particularly in that area. Obviously, in terms of the
trials of the SCIMAC agreement, we are looking at ways to make sure that this
is transparent. I think we have to be careful about assuming that GM crops
are completely qualitatively different from anything else and that different
rules have to apply in all aspects of the way in which they are handled post
introduction, after very careful scrutiny and regulation.
539. I accept that. It may be premature until we see the effect
it will have on land values but if there is clear evidence subsequently in
time that there is an effect on land value then I would submit there is a case
for having a register to show particular parcels of land and their
agricultural history in that regard.
(Baroness Hayman) I think it is an interesting issue. Certainly the
issue about information for vendors I will chase up and let you have, if I
may.
Chairman
540. Let me return now to the question of GMs. You said that a
meeting Joyce Quin hinted was going to happen has now happened between organic
farmers and SCIMAC.
(Baroness Hayman) Yes.
541. Were they able to find any areas of agreement?
(Baroness Hayman) I was not at the meeting myself. I understand it was
a constructive meeting. There was a conversation about how we can bridge the
gap because, as you said earlier, the organic movement has talked about very
long separation distances, has been very concerned about every organic farmer
within a wide range being notified about what was going on, rather than simply
neighbours. I think it was a constructive meeting that started talking about
the things that Mr Jack was talking about: what the results would be, why this
information is important. Therefore, what is the relevance and what should
be the appropriate distances. They did not reach a conclusion about that but
they are going to meet again to talk about it. Equally, the research issues
that people wanted to focus on.
542. Are they meeting again under the auspices of MAFF, the
government or independently?
(Baroness Hayman) Under the auspices of MAFF, yes.
543. Clearly, these talks have important implications for putting
separation distances on a statutory footing.
(Baroness Hayman) They do and they have important implications for the
organic sector which is one that MAFF has supported.
544. All the evidence is really that the organic sector regards
GMs as the work of the devil and they cannot be tolerated at all. There is
an absolutism here, rightly or wrongly -- I do not pass judgment on that --
and they feel that GM contamination, even at very low levels, renders their
organic produce non-organic. Can the government credibly encourage both GM
and organic sectors? Is it possible to have a policy which actually meets the
concerns of both sides?
(Baroness Hayman) I was heartened by the report of that meeting in that
there was a willingness to try and recognise the need for co-existence. There
are very strong feelings within the organic movement but equally a recognition
I think that it is not appropriate for government to outlaw the technology
simply because someone else does not believe in it and without a proper basis
for so doing in terms of protection of public health or the environment. I
hope that over time a modus vivendi will be possible to work out.
545. If I am right, the European Union rules, we are told by the
Soil Association, for organic production were revised last year to prohibit
GMOs in organic production. I do not quite know what that means in terms of
thresholds or what the definition of prohibition is but is there not a
question here ultimately -- maybe your last answer suggests there is not --
that there are two incompatible crops here. Whose right should take
precedence?
(Baroness Hayman) I think we have to find a way of a proper recognition
of the interests of both sectors. There is an issue of whether GM is
different from other non-organic production. The organic movement has to
recognise and find a way of living with adventitious contamination from
conventional crops. It has to find a way of dealing with spray drift; it has
to find a way of dealing with non-organic material in animal feed, of laying
down tolerances and working out what the criterion for calling something
organic is. They have taken a very clear view about GM technology as being
a very particular and more worrying form of conventional agriculture than the
norm, but we have to find, as a society, a way of marrying up and determining
what are the legitimate aspirations of the different areas. I do not think
it is legitimate for government -- whether that is because of international
obligations on trade; whether it is in terms of simply dealing fairly with
British agriculture or British industry -- to take action against a sector
which is not based on scientific evidence. We have to get that evidence and
that is what the government is trying to do, but you cannot simply ban
something, to put it crudely, because some people are very ideologically
opposed to it.
546. That is a very clear message to the organic sector that they
will have to be like Dr Strangelove and learn to stop worrying and love GM.
(Baroness Hayman) Those are your words, not mine.
547. That is what you just said. The organic sector must stop
worrying. You will find a way of containing GM and they can carry on and co-
exist. That is not how most of my organic friends see it.
(Baroness Hayman) I do not think I said that they must learn to stop
worrying. They want their concerns recognised and I think government has to
provide a forum in which this technology, if it is developed, recognises and
meets legitimate concerns. Equally, they recognise that they do not have a
veto over other agricultural methods, whether GM or non-GM, just because they
are not the methods that they choose to adopt.
548. For whatever reason, the presence of a GM crop or a GM
foodstuff could have an impact on values; it could lead to civil actions;
there could be a question of liability for financial loss. That question does
exist. This question was raised during the debate in Westminster Hall last
week which your colleague, Mr Meacher, answered by Brian Iddon. He asked,
"Will liability lie with the companies that sell the products, the farmers who
grow the crops or with government who license the crops to be grown?" Do you
have an answer to that question? It may even require legislation. Do you
intend legislation to carry forward liability lines?
(Baroness Hayman) It may involve legislation and it may involve
legislation at an EU level rather than a United Kingdom level. It is one of
the areas where we would want the Commission to bring forward proposals so
that that can be determined on an EU basis, because we might have a situation
where the approval, for example, or the regulatory body was in another
country. It is not something that you can simply do on a United Kingdom
basis. It is one of the areas where we are pressing the Commission to take
action.
Mr Jack
549. In your evidence in paragraph 12, you talk about, "With the
cooperation of the Canadian and US authorities, a list of suppliers and
distributors of non-GM soya was therefore published and placed on the Internet
by MAFF in 1998", and you then go on to comment about what US grain handlers
have offered. Has anybody from MAFF or another government department been
through the chain of supply which is reported by this Internet site to examine
its methodology for achieving separation and the integrity of its results?
(Baroness Hayman) I know that there have been visits to, for example,
South America, looking at sources of supply of non-GM material. The precise
nature of the evaluation of the supplies that were put on that website -- I
think it is clear on the website that there is a need to check the integrity
and for individual suppliers, people who are using the supplies, to assure
themselves. I think it is an information base, rather than a verified source
of supply.
550. The reason I ask that question is that we have had evidence
from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, who consider that the whole
matter of segregation should be a seamless protocol, as they describe it, from
plough to plate. On the other hand, SCIMAC have a different view. They have
a baton approach where one person in the chain passes the responsibility to
another. I wondered whether MAFF, in looking at perhaps two different
approaches, had from an objective and scientific point of view evaluated
whether they both worked. Could one say with confidence that if you follow
that route A or B it would maintain the integrity of segregation whatever the
methodology or were there any watch points, because people will often turn to
government as an independent source and say, "If we are going to have systems
of segregation, have you studied them? Are there potential breaches or are
you happy that if you follow methodological approach A" -- either the
chartered surveyors' or the SCIMAC approach -- "you have an evens chance of
getting a segregated crop from the beginning of the process to the end".
(Baroness Hayman) I think this is part of the work that needs to be done
in the definition of "GM free" because obviously it is at points throughout
the supply chain where there is risk of contamination and there are a large
number of points between farm and fork, where you need to look at the hazards
of identity preservation. I do not think we have come down on one method or
another but within the European context of defining "GM free" that is where
the debate about the appropriate methods of identity preservation has to be.
In terms of what has to be labelled as containing GM and the one per cent
threshold, that applies only to things that have been sourced as representing
themselves as non-GM. It is not something where there has not been any
attempt to verify whether this is GM or non-GM.
551. The reason I am probing this is that there was a hint in some
of the oral evidence we had that people may not always stick to the rules.
There may be people who would cheat and say, "This is a segregated, GM free
crop" within the terminology you have just described, but it turns out that
it is not. I can imagine that if that occurs one of the partners who will be
brought in to help adjudicate and deal with such matters is the government.
You talked about SCIMAC's approach as one -- and there are others -- almost
saying, "It is up to the commercial market place to sort out a system that
will work and the customer should have confidence in what the supplier is
sending; it is not a role for us." Do you have a view as to who should
determine what these protocols should be, the baton approach or the all-
encompassing? Do you think that MAFF has a role in putting some basic ground
rules in that people should observe, good practice, or are you strictly in the
stands, watching the game on the pitch?
(Baroness Hayman) I think there is an issue and it is the issue between
what it is essential and statutory for people to label which is containing GM.
Government has a responsibility for a definition of that -- that has been done
now at the EU level -- so that that can be verified; so that it can be tested
by a Trading Standards Officer. Equally, I drew a distinction about the
claims that may be made. The claims for GM free will take you through the
supply chain and identity preservation issues. No one has to claim something
is GM free or label it as GM free. If they do, it will be covered by the
general rules of not being misleading and then it will be again for Trading
Standards Officers to look at whether the particular product fulfils the
definition of GM free. That is why I come back to the importance of the EU
having a level playing field here so we all know what we are testing against
if someone makes that claim.
552. You are quite content that the various points at which you
objectively establish something that can be measured and defined are
sufficient checks for you to be happy that there will be a diversity of
approaches employed by commercial suppliers and buyers when it comes to them
getting their GM free crops from wheresoever they get them?
(Baroness Hayman) My responsibility and in future the Food Standards
Agency responsibility will be to ensure that there is a definition that is
verifiable and that consumers are not misled. I am not sure whether it would
be our responsibility to say the actual process in which someone who makes a
claim ensures that it is appropriate. We have to make sure that it is
testable.
Mr Todd
553. Could I refer you to paragraph five of your Department's
submission on the issue of the Novel Foods Regulation, particularly the
reference to the requirement for specific labelling where a food may give rise
to ethical concerns? What do you think that means?
(Baroness Hayman) This comes from the Novel Food Regulation.
Chairman
554. I am giving a lecture in Evesham in April on the ethics of
genetic modification so I am very anxious to have a good response to this,
Minister.
(Baroness Hayman) It is based largely on the Polkinghorne Report of
1993, the genes from animals of religious significance, animal genes in plants
or human genes in food. I think it is dealing with potential for the future,
not with what is happening at the moment, the possibility that has been
suggested around the transfer from one of the genes, the genetic modification
trans-species.
Mr Todd
555. That was the origin of it. What do you think it means? In
other words, that is where that particular item stemmed from but when one
introduces the concept of an ethical concern about food obviously that opens
up far more than just the narrow report as being the origin of it.
(Baroness Hayman) This is about an ethical concern in a GM food, so that
is very specific. It is not, for example, about animal welfare, issues that
might be characterised as ethical.
556. I was not seeking to spread it from that. What I was
suggesting was that the use of GM technology to produce a food in which GM
components are absent but the process involved the use of GM might be seen as
an ethical matter to many consumers. Would you agree with that?
(Baroness Hayman) I think that is stretching what this is about. I
recognise that some people are interested in the use of a GM process as well
as whether there is GM material in the finished food. That comes into how we
define whether something uses the phrase "GM free" rather than how we demand
that something is labelled as containing GM material. This was very specific
around concerns that were expressed that, for example, some people might have
no worries at all about a form of maize that was herbicide resistant. They
would see that as an advance on conventional plant breeding and not of
concern. If at some point in the future -- and this is not happening now --
someone wanted to take a gene from one species, an animal species, and put it
into a plant, there were people who would have ethical concerns about that and
who would want to know. That should be appropriately labelled.
557. As is my wont, I look at this in a slightly different way.
A lot of this debate is about size, but when you introduce the issue of ethics
into it that becomes a matter of individual judgment and morality, does it
not? If the EC and this government wishes to recognise the right of an
individual to have their own moral choice over both the process of the food
production and the food that they eat, is that the intent of the government,
to provide that choice within a labelling regime? At the moment, as I think
we have conceded, you are saying that takes it a bit too far. It does not do
that. Someone who has an ethical concern about the GM process per se would
not be satisfied with the current labelling regime because it would not
indicate that that process was used.
(Baroness Hayman) There are two levels of decision making that have to
be taken. We cannot cover on labelling physically all the concerns that a
wide variety of consumers might have about a food because those are many and
various. The whole of the packet would be taken up with them. There has to
be a decision statutorily about what does have to be included and what there
is no choice about. Equally, because there is a range of things people are
interested in, there are lots of possibilities opened up by technology, for
example, of finding out a great deal more about what a food contains, what
processes have been used, so that the enquiring consumer with a particular
interest can find out more about a particular product. One of the things I
think is interesting in food labelling for the future is the possibility that
you will be able to take something, take its bar code, take it to a scanner
in a supermarket and find out a lot more about it, which is much more tailor
made to your particular concerns.
558. It will show you the beast that it came from.
(Baroness Hayman) Realistically, because we are all individuals and have
different concerns, you cannot provide that for everybody on everything.
559. I understand that but the point I am trying to draw out is
perhaps it was rather incautious to introduce this concept of ethical concerns
into what has otherwise been a debate about the scientific safety and
environmental impact of the product, because it does introduce a wider
potential agenda of concerns on the labelling front. You are conceding that
the government at the moment sees no reason to respond to one particular
ethical concern about the process of GM technology.
(Baroness Hayman) This was obviously in the minds of European
legislators at the time, probably sparked off by the Polkinghorne Report, and
by particular concerns on the potential of transgenic. A hazard of
legislators the world over is that they will take an issue of particular
concern and we all know that that can happen and it may not be comprehensive.
I have not looked at the debates on why it was included, I am afraid.
560. Returning to the issue of numerical counts and science, how
far has the issue of adventitious contamination or addition to a food at
European level now got in defining that matter?
(Baroness Hayman) It has got to the point where it has been agreed, the
acceptance, with a product that has been sourced as GM and non-GM and can have
one per cent of an ingredient with adventitious contamination and still not
need to be labelled as GM. It is one per cent of an ingredient, not
necessarily one per cent of a finished product. Because the processed soya
or maize is in most foods a very small component, you are actually talking
about a lot less in terms of the finished product that is bought off the
supermarket shelf. That one per cent was taken as what was testable and
reasonable in current circumstances and looking at the issues of sourcing.
Of course, that takes us back into the issues of potential contamination
throughout the sourcing process. That comes in in April. There will have to
be a surveillance programme around that and that will be something the Food
Standards Agency takes responsibility for through local authorities. What we
did press for within Europe was a review of that level, whether one per cent
was the right level, because there was a debate about that, whether it should
have been lower or higher. We think it is quite possible if identity
preservation sources are developed over time and if across Europe we have
assessment methods that are sufficiently sensitive to bring that level down.
561. How is the use of GM ingredients by caterers being
approached?
(Baroness Hayman) That was the other area on which progress has been
made within Europe because we did extend the GM labelling requirements to
catering establishments. There was some concern because, although that
responsibility was put on the eventual supplier to the consumer, there was an
exception for catering suppliers from the GM labelling regime. Also,
agreement was reached within Europe equally so that catering supplies have to
be labelled so that restaurateurs can know what they are doing. That has
equally been adopted and will come in in April.
562. Have any checks been made?
(Baroness Hayman) I think local authorities have the responsibility for
enforcement.
563. Do you have any knowledge of whether any checks have been
made?
(Baroness Hayman) Not at the moment. I believe that there are annual
returns that will be able to monitor. Some of it is sparked off by consumer
complaint or asking people to investigate.
Mr Borrow
564. In your responses to Mr Jack a few minutes ago, you touched
on the issue of testing in general. This Committee has heard from a number
of witnesses concerns about the accuracy of testing and the extent to which
testing is to a common level within the United Kingdom and across the EU.
What moves are there towards development of common testing standards across
the EU?
(Baroness Hayman) There are quite a lot of moves. We have an evaluation
programme in this country, a proficiency scheme to determine the availability
of labs to offer a reliable detection service and to ensure that the required
standard is achieved. The EC Joint Research Centre in Italy has organised a
series of trials with labs across Europe to ensure that methods currently
available are sufficient to detect GMOs at that one per cent threshold level
in line with the current legislation. We are fairly confident that across
Europe there are those detection facilities available that can be quality
assured. Obviously, it may be that different techniques become available to
allow better sensitivity and different product may need different testing
techniques.
565. We are moving to a situation where the testing techniques for
each particular product will be common across the EU and we will not have
different testing techniques operating in different EU Member States?
(Baroness Hayman) What is important is that we have equal quality and
reliability in all European states. I am not sure that we have to be didactic
about there only being one mechanism. We have to look at the output here and
if the output is the same quality assurance of the testing, but that is really
what the trials that are going on at the Research Centre are about.
566. The aim is that whatever the actual technic of testing that
is used, whether in Frankfurt or in Edinburgh, the consumer can be assured
that the standards of each of those tests are identical?
(Baroness Hayman) Yes.
567. Even if the techniques are slightly different?
(Baroness Hayman) I think that has to be the important issue, rather
than the process issue.
568. Again touching on something you mentioned in your replies to
Mr Jack, the issue of labelling, I got the impression from your reply that you
saw that the question of whether labelling was accurate was a matter for the
consumer to make a complaint on, rather than for the government to monitor the
accuracy of. Could you clarify that?
(Baroness Hayman) No. I was talking very much in the context of
restaurants and the work that was going on with Trading Standards Officers for
seeing whether labelling was being correctly carried out there. Obviously,
some of that work may be sparked off by complaints by individuals that a
restaurant is not complying with the regulation of showing on its menu whether
it has GM materials. That was one possible way. The government obviously has
a regulatory role to ensure that legal requirements are carried out so that
things that should be labelled "GM" are labelled "GM". That is an ongoing
responsibility. Equally, there is a general responsibility about misleading
advertising and misleading claims that have to be carried out. One of the
difficulties at the moment for a local authority Trading Standards Officer,
if something claims to be GM free, is assessing whether that claim is true or
not, because we do not have an agreed definition against which you can test
the product. We need to do some work there to allow the surveillance to be
carried out effectively.
569. It links back into the question of testing. If we have
common standards of testing, we need to make sure that we have common
standards on labelling and that both the testing and monitoring are two sides
of the same coin.
(Baroness Hayman) That was why it was important to get a level agreed
so that wherever you were it was the same regime as to whether something
needed to be labelled "GM" or not.
570. Related to testing, one of the issues that has been raised
with the Committee is the extent to which testing is appropriate simply for
the final product or whether there should be a common approach throughout the
EU to testing of ingredients and of the process itself and of the final
product. What is your thinking on that?
(Baroness Hayman) I very much agree with the EU and international view
which I think has been that testing has to be meaningful. Therefore, there
has to be some GM material that can be tested for that makes the final product
different from a non-GM final product for there to be a realistic regime of
labelling and supervision and monitoring of that labelling. Equally, I do
think it is important that, when we get on to voluntary claims that are made,
there should again be an understanding of what a claim implies so that that
claim can be tested to protect the consumer from being misled. That is level
playing field stuff again and the same quality again.
571. Is it your view that the area where voluntary claims are
being made about products and verification of testing standards is the area
where more progress needs to be made?
(Baroness Hayman) That is the area that we hope the European Commission
will move on to next and make progress with quickly, because I think that is
the next important area -- that and animal feed labelling.
Mr Jack
572. Mr Borrow raised the principal issue which I wanted to know
about. As I understand it, in some manufactured items, it is impossible to
identify GM material because the manufacturing process homogenises everything
to a point where you cannot test for it. If I have followed your logic
carefully, what you are saying is that within the realms of our consumer law,
if you are going to say that something is GM free under those circumstances
where testing the final product cannot give you a test, you have to be able
to say that all the ingredients in it are at least GM free. Otherwise, the
claim is invalid. Is the European law in this area going to go into the
detail of the various permutations that could come together? It is easy with
raw material to test it because you have it in front of you. It is easy if
you are the manufacturer to test it because you have the ingredients, but if
you buy something from a third party and they say "GM free" you have to take
it at face value because the thing you buy cannot be tested for GM. There are
a lot of possible permutations and loopholes. Is the European law going to
approach each one with a protocol? Is it going to be very specific or is it
going to rely on surrounding legislation to ensure that there is an inner
discipline in the chain of production so that when claims are made they are
true claims?
(Baroness Hayman) You have perhaps put your finger on why it has taken
some time to produce a definition of "GM free" that is testable and usable and
why I think it is important that we keep that area in the voluntary labelling
regime because no one is obliged to put a label saying "GM free" on something.
If they choose to do that, there is going to be rigour at certain places
within the process. What exactly those places should be is something that we
need the Commission to bring some proposals for and then individual countries
to look at and consult with their own manufacturers and retailers about
deliverability and testability of, because I am very anxious that we should
not have meaningless standards, or standards that cannot be tested. Whether
an enzyme that has been produced by GM technology should be allowed into a
definition of "GM free" or not is one individual bit of debate that I am sure
will take place, just as something so highly processed that it has no DNA
material at the end of it. I think there has to be a debate about each of
those issues, so we do have a comprehensive definition and one that is
testable and assurable.
573. As the United Kingdom government will make a contribution to
that debate, at what stage is our own thinking on addressing some of the very
pertinent questions that you have just enunciated?
(Baroness Hayman) We need to see some proposals from the Commission as
to what they would want to see. I have a personal view that you start with
some basics and you may add sophistication to them, but it is important to get
a regime that is comprehensible and verifiable. Then you build on that as
necessary, rather than producing something that is so difficult to fulfil and
so complex that you throw the baby out with the bath water and no one uses the
nomenclature from the start. That is very much a personal view.
Mr Todd
574. When someone uses the term "GM free", what do you think it
means?
(Baroness Hayman) That is what Mr Jack and I were just discussing. I
think it means different things to different people at the moment. Some
people use it interchangeably as something that does not have to be labelled
as "GM". Some people and some retailers are using it to suggest that there
has been no "contamination" with any form of genetic modification, whether by
process or animal feed ----
575. It is not a very helpful phrase to use?
(Baroness Hayman) At the moment, because it does not have a definition,
it can mean a variety of things to a variety of people.
576. What do you think the definition should be?
(Baroness Hayman) It needs debate amongst consumers, however we
represent them, manufacturers and retailers so that we isolate the important
elements that matter to the people who are going to rely on these claims and
the elements that can be readily tested and verified, so that we get a
definition without being didactic about what the definition should be. It
should be something that is broader and more comprehensive than just something
that does not need to be labelled as "GM" because it is a marketing claim in
a sense.
577. Indeed. Would you accept the view of an organic specialist
that currently they seek a definition of zero threshold essentially on their
product and that it would be confusing in the market place to have a
definition agreed by this wide community of interested parties that you talked
of which indicated that GM free might involve some degree of tolerance of
certain aspects of GM technology in the process?
(Baroness Hayman) I think that is a very debatable issue because the
organic sector is a small proportion of the market and they may choose to have
very specific requirements, including in the area of GM as they might have in
pesticides or anything else, which are different from and more stringent from
the definition that could apply to conventional food. It may well be that
some people who are not interested in organic food are interested in "GM free
food" but are willing to have a different definition.
578. As you rightly said, this is all about marketing and
presentation of goods to a customer. A unique selling point for an organic
specialist might be that their product was genuinely, 100 per cent GM free.
They would be disappointed to find that one of their customers could go to a
local supermarket and find a product marketed as GM free under a future
threshold agreement put together by this community of interests, which would
destroy their unique selling point, because the customer would presumably say,
"I can go and buy that in Tesco or in Sainsbury's", or wherever.
(Baroness Hayman) That is one element that would go into the discussion
about what the definition should be. I do not think it should be the only
defining element. If you look at fat content, for example, there are
different claims about fat content: low fat, reduced fat, fat free. There are
different levels at which different consumers may pitch where they want to do
their buying. It is possible that exactly the same will pertain in terms of
GM content.
579. We have had a variety of views about where the threshold
should operate. We have had one view which is that it should be based on due
diligence which is that the suppliers should seek to find sources they can
rely on and use their best endeavours if they fail in some way and be subject
to a claim; that there should be no thresholds in this because they do not
have particular faith in how the threshold will be measured. How would you
perceive that?
(Baroness Hayman) That was not the view we took in terms of the
definition of GM and what needed to be put in there. I tend to be of the view
that if you cannot measure it you cannot change it. Measurement is important.
In a sense, the labelling requirement for GM is a combination of the two
because there has to be due diligence to get a product that is not GM and then
there has to be a test of a one per cent threshold, but one per cent is not
so that people can mix GM and non-GM in a proportion that only gives you one
per cent of an ingredient.
580. That is one per cent of any ingredient?
(Baroness Hayman) Yes. It is a mixture of the two, but I think it is
important for testing and measuring that you do have some objective standards,
not simply qualitative tests.
581. Novartis have told us -- and indeed others have said it --
that it is difficult to obtain seed where a tolerance level of one per cent
is possible in all crops. It is in some crops but not in others. Does that
present a difficulty?
(Baroness Hayman) I do not think it does because we are talking about
several stages down from the seed in terms of the ingredient in the food.
Generally, seed purities are around 99 to 99.5 per cent. Perhaps I could look
particularly at that bit of evidence.
582. We have heard evidence that it varies and can go below 99 per
cent in some instances. I am intrigued by that because you said seed is some
way back in the process. If you were able to obtain seed with a purity level
of only 98 or 97.5 per cent, would the crop outcome be acceptable as being GM
free under the one per cent definition?
(Baroness Hayman) No. The one per cent definition is not GM free.
583. It appears to be moving a little that way.
(Baroness Hayman) That is quite important because you might want seed
purity to be one of the tests in your definition of GM free, or one of the
barriers or one of the tests, before you could claim something was GM free.
You might want to set a level for seed purity and you might want to set a
level for whether enzymes produced by GM technology are appropriate. That is
different from the obligation to label as containing GM material which has to
be related to the end product and measurement within the end product. That
is where the one per cent threshold comes in.
584. Corresponding with your one per cent threshold, how would you
perceive a crop with a seed purity below 99 per cent?
(Baroness Hayman) That is where the parallel breaks down because seed
purity levels are not relevant to the labelling of a finished food as having
GM content or not, although they may be in future relevant to the claim that
something is GM free.
585. The crop from that seed will be an ingredient of a food. The
one per cent tolerance level and the fact that the seed purity may be below
99 per cent is not relevant to whether that ingredient which comes from that
crop ----
(Baroness Hayman) What is relevant is what is in the ingredient and that
may be determined by all sorts of issues. The seed purity may start it off
but it may be processing and all sorts of things.
Mr Jack
586. Some people are exercised that giving GM foods to animals may
have some problems but in your evidence, paragraph eight, you make a bold
claim that there is no suggestion that the use of GM animal feed gives rise
to any safety concerns. Upon what do you base that statement?
(Baroness Hayman) The approval processes and the scrutiny of the GM
ingredients that were carried out by the Advisory Committee on Foods and
Processes before they would be permitted into animal feed and the research
that suggests that the product from animals fed on that feed does not have any
difference from the product of animals that have been fed on non-GM food.
587. The second half of that sentence talks about the fact that
there is not a problem in terms of the composition of the meat or other animal
products. So that I am entirely clear on that, what you are saying is that
if, for example, you fed a beef animal on soya which was of a GM type, when
it came to serving the beef that came from that animal, you would not be able
to detect any geo-DNA which indicated that that animal had been fed on a GM
substance.
(Baroness Hayman) That is my understanding of the scientific position,
yes.
588. I presume that that general statement applies to all the
normal species which are consumed by human beings, whether it be land based
or, for example, farm salmon or anything like that. There is not a cross-
contamination problem in that context.
(Baroness Hayman) No.
589. I gather that your government is pressing the Commission to
develop detailed labelling requirements at Community level to address this
particular issue. Are you doing that because it is the right thing to let
people know? If there are not any problems as your two definitive statements
have said, one may say it is not an issue. Is it purely for information that
you are pressing for progress in this area?
(Baroness Hayman) The issue about the content and labelling of animal
feed goes wider than GM material. It is an issue of EU competence and there
has been some concern in some far more fundamental and less scientifically
abstruse areas, so I think we need to make progress at the European level
about labelling of animal feed in general. It is not a safety issue as far
as we are concerned. We believe there would have to be the proper regulatory
processes there. We have set up the Advisory Committee on Animal Foods
precisely to specialise in this area, rather than being a sub-group of the
Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. I think it is an issue of
consumer information. There are farmers who want to know more about the
content of their animal feed including whether it is GM or not. We should
meet that request for information. People should be able to know what they
are using and what its content is. That may be important to them in a
commercial environment if we do get into situations where people are trying
to source because they want to make a claim, for example, about GM food and
they want to know about traceability throughout the food chain. It is part
of a wider movement to greater traceability.
590. Do you think we are going to get into the theatre of the
absurd? We were talking in our earlier discussions about the distances
between GM and non-GM crops. Let me put a hypothetical situation to you.
Beef animals are being grazed on grass very close to a field where there is
an oil seed rape crop of a GM type being grown. The pollen which may contain
DNA material from these GM crops blows over the hedge on to the grass. The
cattle eat the grass. The farmer might say, "My grass is GM free", but it is
not. How do you deal with that kind of issue because there are some people
who may take such a view for purity and say, "I cannot guarantee" and then
there will be a fear generated that somehow there is a problem; whereas your
very clear definition here says there are not any problems. How are we going
to deal with that in the real world?
(Baroness Hayman) We are going to need some common sense because we
could get into the ultimate chicken and egg argument here. In terms of feed
is it enough to know what an animal has been fed on for a year before it came
into the food chain or ever? Do you need to know what its mother was fed on?
We need some common sense.
591. What about these rules that are going to try to deal with
some of these difficult issues that ought to be covered? Is it purely
information or should it go beyond that? I am talking about EU rules for
animal feeds?
(Baroness Hayman) I think there are two issues. One is to tighten up
on some of the definitions of what is allowed into animal feed, and that is
not a GM issue. That is an issue about animal feed overall because there is
concern about what goes into animal feed. We know that can have major public
health repercussions. That is not an information issue; that is an issue
about safety and content, but that is not particularly a GM issue because
there is no reason for us to believe there is any concern about the GM content
of animal feed. I think it is basically an information issue and we have to
have some common sense about how far back you go, what you label and in what
detail you label. Otherwise, you can get into the land of trying to be so
precise and give so much information that you give nothing of any use to the
end user.
592. What is the general level of enthusiasm from our EU partners
to all of this? Is everybody very gung ho, saying, "Yes, this is an issue we
have to tackle" or are some of them sitting about saying, "It is all too
difficult. Let's play it into the long grass"? Where are we in terms of
progress on this?
(Baroness Hayman) The discussion today has illustrated that there are
lots of areas where more work is needed to be done and it is quite detailed,
difficult, technical work that then requires quite an input of policy,
judgment and proportionality. Working your way through it takes some time.
We are tackling this seriatim. We have done the labelling of foods for
restaurants and additives in flavourings. We have done the issue of the one
per cent. I hope we will move on to the definition of "GM free" next.
Equally, animal feed has been around for quite a long time and it has not made
the progress I would like to have seen.
593. Our EU partners perhaps do not share the same enthusiasm as
we do for sorting these problems out.
(Baroness Hayman) We have a very well developed sensitivity to some of
these issues in this country and in some countries there is not the same level
of anxiety or putting it up as a priority. A lot of it is simply workload
with the Commission. I do not think it is particularly a reflection of a lack
of enthusiasm or people trying to block things. It is a matter of there being
a very big workload.
594. Is the proposal to have a European Food Standards Agency
going to help or hinder this process?
(Baroness Hayman) I think it will help it.
Chairman: I think probably we will not get drawn into that, much as I
would like to. We ought to let you go, Minister. We are very grateful. We
expect to be able to get the transcript of today's proceedings onto the
Internet tomorrow in uncorrected form. This means there is sometimes an
incentive for your officials to check what you said rather quicker than
normally is the case, but, secondly, you have promised us a number of detailed
responses on issues which you did not have the information at your fingertips
on. It would be very helpful to have all of them by the end of next week,
please. Some Members of the Committee thought I was a little unfair when I
used my parallel about Dr Strangelove. I apologise for that. Perhaps A
Clockwork Orange would have been better but, like Peter Sellers in almost my
favourite film, you have worn a number of hats with great skill and we are
very grateful to you. Thank you very much.
