| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Morley: I may be able to help my hon. Friend. We asked the German authorities for their opinion on the incident and they told us that the death of the cows was not linked to Bt maize and that a similar number of cows died in almost identical circumstances in the following year, when Bt forage was no longer being used. The German authorities concluded that the cause of death was botulism.
Alan Simpson:
The Spanish authorities reviewed that evidence and made an appraisal of their consents for Bt 176 maize, which had received commercial consent in Spain, and they have now withdrawn that consent. I cite that example in respect of the death of the cows in
5 May 2004 : Column 1459
Germany not because I was looking for an opinion but because I was looking for a scientific appraisal based on more than one bloody cow. That is not a decent basis for scientific scrutiny; it is not good science, and that is the platform on which we must insist that the Government and this country proceed.
Members have mentioned the problems of the villagers in the Philippines, 100 of whom became seriously ill with debilitating illnesses in the midst of the GM maize area. The research conducted by Professor Traavik identified that 39 of those villagers carried in their blood antibodies to the Bt biopesticide in the GM maize. I am not asking that we necessarily accept such things; I am saying that we must insist on the replication of tests where concerns arise, but we have not had that. All the mention of the Pusztai experiments has not resulted in a replication of the studies that he conducted; nor of those conducted by the authorities in Egypt that found similar problems with gastrointestinal infections in the mice that ate GM potatoes.
I am not saying, "Shock, horror! We must ban it!" or that we should vilify the scientists who have raised those concerns. All I am saying is that good science proceeds on the basis of replicating the research and subjecting it to rigorous study. We have to demand more tests. There is no demand for consents. Our starting position is that we must say, "No, we can't proceed on a case-by-case basis because we don't have the science to make the decisions." We have to move beyond the benchmarking of substantial equivalence to the testing of transgenes and their toxins.
One of the scientists told me that substantial equivalence is really daft. If two cows are standing side by side—one has BSE and the other has not—it could be said that they are substantially equivalent. How would we know that they are different? We would conduct tests on the cow with BSE. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who suggested that we should test the genetic modifications, rather than the things with genetic modifications. We should move to direct scrutiny, rather than indirect reference pointing.
On the liability regime, I do not believe that co-existence will be possible. In truth, I have never understood the concept of being a little bit pregnant. A little bit of contamination will make a product contaminated and unsaleable, and it will threaten to destroy the basis of our organic farming and the non-GM products that fetch a premium in the marketplace because they are what consumers want. What will separate out those things is making the producers of the crops liable for the contamination or the damage that they may cause. That is why the industry is running from that process.
How do we fund independent research? It is straightforward; we tell companies, "Fine, you seek approvals and produce the GM crops that you want, and then we as a Government will institute independent scientific scrutiny and we'll send you the bill." The costs would be fully recovered from the companies that wanted the consents, but the science would not be dependent on the evidence that the companies chose to release.
5 May 2004 : Column 1460
The reality is that the GM issue has never been about feeding the world, but about who owns the food chain. The companies that are pushing GM through are down to their last card: contaminate or bust—in fact, contaminate or they go bust—and we will see quite unscrupulous efforts to compromise the food chain and our environmental systems, so that people can throw up their hands and say, "You may have been right, but it is out there now: the damage is done and we must make the best of it." We are still able to make a choice: we can still say no, and the best way to say no is for the Government to give a lead in defining a different base on which we can establish the science of good scrutiny.
7.45 pm
Sue Doughty (Guildford) (LD): I am glad to have been called in this debate, rather than the one earlier this afternoon. I add my support for the report produced by the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I serve, and for the comments of our Chairman, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). We need to take a wider view of the science—it is not a question of being pro or anti-science. Generally, I am against GM, but in deciding whether it is right or wrong, people should not jump to conclusions. We need to know much more. I am worried about the risks, and science should identify what they are.
I congratulate the Government on the fact that they carried out those trials—it would be wrong not to give them credit for the care that they took over them. The Committee rightly made criticisms of the trials, but our Government have gone much further than other Governments. We believe that lessons were learned from that experience but, in a supportive manner, we believe that there is more that we need to look at. The trials were a step on the road and not, unfortunately, an end in themselves. There has been endless procrastination, with one test after another, and we need to understand why the Government are so uncertain about the technology. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) spoke eloquently about his research and the reason why he was so uncertain about the technology. We are not saying, "We are agin science." We are not. One of the major companies in the field is based in my constituency, which is also home to a leading technological university that does wonderful science. Whenever I visit, I never fail to be impressed by the quality of its work and the things that it invents and discovers.
The problem is what we do with those inventions and developments and how we use them. I support the precautionary principle and do not believe that we should let the genie out of the bottle until we have a clearer view of the technology. Part of our debate has focused on the trials at Reading university, in which cattle were fed on Chardon LL maize. The mortality rate of chickens that were subsequently fed on GM maize was twice that of the control group. We need to know more about the effects of GM and its impact on the food chain as a whole. It is not a question of someone asking, "If I eat GM maize, do I get a cold next week?" We need to consider what will happen to our children. At my age, I will almost certainly not have any more children, but we must consider the impact on future generations. In America, people are not yet in a position to see the impact of GM on their descendants,
5 May 2004 : Column 1461
but we already have enough information to see what is happening in other species, and to consider whether those developments were intentional. Are we managing the consequences and do we understand the risks, or are unexpected events occurring? Are we testing for a frequent incidence of such events?
Science should increase our understanding of the issue. It is valid for people to ask whether we could use GM to improve and increase food stocks. There is a commercial benefit in the technology, which is why people are investing in it. But for what purposes should we use it? In our report, we were concerned that crops in the trials were not grown for maximum yield. Any self-respecting farmer, particularly in the current economic climate, grows crops for maximum yield and uses maximum product, but in the trials, farmers were told that they should not aim to achieve maximum yields and should not use herbicide as often as they would like. The technology was not tested in the context in which it would be used.
We have heard many reasons why people would like to take the technology further. We should take up the points made in the debate today and consider what else we could do instead of using GM crops, particularly internationally, to improve food production and to invest in peace. Better trading conditions would produce many benefits in terms of food. There must be much wider scientific testing of the impact of all the aspects that we have heard about today.
I shall close my remarks by expressing the hope that before we go further in the real world, the Government will take on board the fact that we have undertaken only half or perhaps only a quarter of the tests on GM products that are needed.
7.50 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): Like the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), I believe that in a debate such as this it is the responsibility of the House to consider the public interest, to examine the evidence and to inform public opinion as well as other hon. Members. Perhaps there is more agreement than has been suggested in the course of the debate, as hon. Members try to be careful and precautionary.
I understand that the House is naturally concerned that the Government might go too far or that decisions might be taken from which it is difficult to come back. However, there has been more agreement among hon. Members in this debate than in some previous debates on the issue. Most of today's debate has been mature and reasonable in tone, although not all the opinions expressed have been as carefully rooted in the evidence and in the science as the opening speech from my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and the robust but fair contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson).
It was disappointing that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) seemed to visit us briefly from another planet to talk childishly about rush and hassle, when my hon. Friend the Minister made it clear in his introduction that we have no intention of rushing and that we have taken a precautionary approach in these matters. My hon. Friend stressed in his introduction that we have looked deliberately for
5 May 2004 : Column 1462
adverse health effects. While keeping an open mind, we cannot ignore the lack of negative evidence. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House would share my respect for the integrity that my hon. Friend brings to bear on his portfolio in general, and on this issue in particular.
We need to keep a sense of proportion. We should remember that a limited number of GM foods were authorised under the European Union arrangements in 1996, when the Conservatives were in office. In the interests of balance, I should mention that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) gave UK support for three separate EU authorisations in 1998 for different types of GM maize. That is why the views that he expressed with such passion in the Chamber today seem a little tendentious to Ministers who are trying to deal with these issues now.
After a little introductory knock-about the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) made two important points about the need to take a science-based approach and to recognise that modification of crops and foodstuffs is not new. I agree with him on that point. We ought to take an objective science-based approach to the subject of GM foods, as to every issue that the public expect the House to deal with responsibly and carefully. I do not think that the public are too surprised if there is an extreme style of debate in the tabloids, for instance, but they expect better from Members of Parliament. Respect for the House is not necessarily helped when an august and expert organisation such as the Royal Society rightly demands that misleading criticisms, not from a tabloid newspaper, but from a Committee of the House, be withdrawn.
In the light of the comments of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, I was surprised that he did not make more reference to the views of the Royal Society that were set out today. Lord May, the president of the Royal Society, said:
"I have expressed my disappointment to the Committee that they have still not publicly withdrawn their misleading criticism of the journal papers about GM farm trials. The Committee's statement, about 'significant doubt as to the robustness, validity and relevance' of the results of the farm scale evaluations, was both inaccurate and damaging. The papers describing the results of the trials were subjected to a rigorous independent peer review before publication in the journal."
"The Committee did not place enough weight on scientific information that has been subjected to peer review."
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |