Memorandum submitted by Munlochy GM Vigil
(A16)
1. We have long campaigned for a public
debate on the issue of GM crops and food. We believe it is essential
that the public has as much say as possible in the future of the
food it eats, and quite obviously the issues surrounding GM are
fundamental to this. We therefore supported the exercise entitled
`GM Nation?' and the work preceding it undertaken by the
AEBC and the independent Public Debate Steering Board. We would
also like to pay our compliments to the way in which the results
were processed and presented.
2. We ourselves took part in the debate
and organised numerous events across Scotland focussing mainly
on the Highlands. We found a good level of public interest and
knowledge. People who involved themselves came from all age groups
and all sectors of society. At this level `GM Nation?'
has to be deemed a success, although there was constant scepticism
about whether the government would listen.
3. The debate lasted six weeks and was not
heavily publicised or in our eyes adequately funded, however forty
thousand people took part making it the largest public exercise
of its kind ever carried out. We therefore support the reasons
behind the debate, the fact that the debate occurred, and in most
ways the way it was carried out. However, we do feel that more
funding should have been available, more time given over to the
process and better publicity used. These would have all improved
the debate.
4. Referring to the points made in the last
paragraph (3), we feel that it is important that you are aware
that the Foods Standards Agency decided early on in the process
to run its own parallel public debate. This cost £110,000,
reached very few people and served only to confuse the general
public. The problems outlined above, could have been partly addressed
if the FSA had simply backed the independent Public Debate Steering
Board, provided £110,000 to the `GM Nation?' budget,
and helped publicise the whole exercise. We feel it was a gross
error of judgement on behalf of the FSA not to do this, and question
the motives of its `parallel debate'.
5. The materials used in the debate were
on the whole acceptable, although there is always room for improvement.
However, once again we feel that it is important to draw your
attention to the fact that the Food Standards Agency published
its own materials. This again confused the overall issue and unfortunately,
as has been well documented, these materials were not acceptable.
It is worth quoting at this stage directly from the FSA Consumer
Committee Report to Board (6th May 2003) on the FSA's materials
and debate:
Point 5: "It said that the information
provided in the booklet and on the website was useful but incomplete
and therefore biased as it ignored existing concerns about GM
foods."
Point 6: "The Committee questioned
the methods adopted and the use of resources. Whilst it agreed
qualitative research was needed to explore consumer concerns in
more depth, the Committee felt that the commissioned research
had not achieved this very effectively." It went on to say
that the programme lacked clear objectives.
6. As far as we are aware the FSA's information
also contained inaccuracies. An example of this is shown on page
17 of their booklet (`GM Food—Opening Up The Debate'), where
it is stated that Australia, China, India and Germany grow GM
foods. This is not the case. GM flowers and cotton are grown in
Australia, China and India, but they do not allow the growing
of GM food crops. Germany does not allow the growing of commercial
GM crops at all.
7. It is wholly unacceptable that a public
body such as the FSA produces biased and inaccurate information,
and we request that appropriate action is taken by the Committee
on this point.
8. We also feel that it should be questioned
why the FSA decided to carry out its 'parallel debate', when a
more than adequate public debate was to be held. Moreover, why
when this caused considerable concern, expressed by a wide range
of well-respected organisations, did the FSA choose to continue
instead of taking the far more effective decision of supporting
`GM Nation?'
7 October 2003
| 
