APPENDIX 5
Memorandum submitted by the Soil Association
(G7)
We are unable to make a full assessment of the
role of DEFRA and whether its vision is being achieved. However,
we would like set out a few areas where the Department is doing
well, should improve and is failing.
1. Good—Organic Action Plan
We are very pleased that the Department has
decided to develop an organic action plan. This is being done
in full co-operation with the organic stakeholders and the discussions
so far are addressing all the main issues.
2. Needs improving—human health and
animal health
DEFRA needs to realise much more fully the fundamental
role of food and agriculture in achieving the Government's health
objectives and preventing the health budget from spiralling. Food
and agriculture policies are a key means of achieving a preventative
approach to public health problems, and would balance the Department
of Health's focus on treatment once problems occur. DEFRA should
take a larger leadership role and be more courageous in investigating
how different food production approaches affect the final levels
of nutrients in our food. For example, there needs to be an assessment
of how nutrient levels have changed since the adoption of intensive
production methods, and a reassessment of how the department measures
yields from farming (larger yields are often simply the result
of greater water intake and do not reflect a great "food"
content). Similarly, the Department needs to change its animal
health policies so that again, the focus is on prevention rather
than simply controlling and treating diseases. For both human
and animal health, this would involve a review of similar issues
(plant and animal nutrition, management practices and appropriate
breeds/varieties).
3. Failing—GMOs
We are extremely disappointed and concerned
with DEFRA's handling of GM food and crops. DEFRA seems to have
taken a strong position in favour of the introduction of GM crops,
that seems in complete contradiction with the scientific evidence,
public opinion and a sound approach to risk management. The Government
seems to be heavily influenced by pressure from the biotechnology
industry and is apparently taking their views completely uncritically
as "science". We are absolutely confident that the science
is far more strongly in favour of those who oppose the introduction
of GM food than those who favour it, and the Government risks
making a very grave mistake.
There really should not be a question of introducing
GM food and crops in the UK at this stage in the development of
the technology. Many risks have already been identified, much
of the science remains to be understood, there is little evidence
of benefits and many reports of problems from those who have taken
up the technology in North America (contrary to the impression
given by the biotechnology industry) and there is a serious threat
to organic farming for which there is much public support and
many established benefits. Moreover, there is no particular problem
that this technology can address for which there are not already
far better potential solutions with none of the risk. DEFRA should
be pursing such solutions instead.
For example, though we do not favour centralised
breeding methods as the ideal approach for delivering health and
local adaptability, other modern breeding methods such as genomics
("marker assisted breeding") make use of today's knowledge
of life sciences but do not involve any of the risks of genetic
engineering as they are based on natural breeding processes. (The
reason why this approach is not being pushed by the biotechnology
companies is because the multiple traits cannot be patented).
We urge the EFRA committee to very seriously
question DEFRA's handling of this area of policy.
May 2002
| 
