Examination of Witness (Questions 20-39)
29 OCTOBER 2003
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
MP
Q20 Gregory Barker: Am I right in
thinking that the issue of accurate crop yield measurement was
not incorporated into the design of Field Scale Evaluations?
Mr Meacher: You are correct.
Q21 Gregory Barker: Why was that?
Mr Meacher: I do not actually
know the answer to that because, as I have indicated, I was not
responsible for the structuring of the trials but I can venture
an answer, which is that I think SCIMAC were responsible for the
design of the trials and that was not something which SCIMAC would
have wished to include.
Q22 Gregory Barker: So do you think,
for example, that the failure to have an accurate measurement
of sugar content in the GM sugar-beet could be obtained when the
crop was harvested prematurely to avoid problems with British
Sugar was a major flaw or, for example, how could the consultants
assess the quality of the maize crop for making silage based only
on height when dry matter and cob brightness are also important
elements in the making of silage?
Mr Meacher: Well, you are raising
very significant technical questions which I cannot possibly answer
but if you ask is that important, I think it is important. I think
before we go down the track of commercialisation of GM crops we
need to explore exhaustively the impacts, the potential impacts
upon the environment in every aspect and on human health. So I
agree that this kind of further research should be done. I am
not saying that we should endlessly prepare and research PHDs
for someone to carry through. In the end if you are going to take
a decision we need to be sensible about this and decide how much
information is necessary, but I do not think anyone can say that
the range of information in these Farm Scale Evaluation trials,
even though they were conducted well and even though the results
are very interesting and actually quite surprising, is yet sufficient.
Q23 Gregory Barker: With the benefit
of hindsight are there any particular environmental impacts which
you would have wished to put into the criteria in the trials?
Mr Meacher: I did indicate this
earlier and I certainly think that the most important issue which
was excluded is this question of yields. You need somehow to devise
a test where farmers are seeking to maximise what they would naturally
do in a marketplace situation, in other words that they are seeking
to maximise the yield, and on that basis we look at what are the
environmental impacts because if we had a result where the environmental
impacts were pretty minimal or nothing to worry about but the
yield was only half of what the farmer thought he might be able
to get or would need if he were going to make it a commercial
proposition I think that trial is worthless. Until he is getting
a commercially reliable result using techniques which he might
reasonably adopt to maximise the yield I think the trial is not
realistic.
Q24 Gregory Barker: Were the biotech
companies able to have any influence here, for example were they
more concerned about the biodiversity implications than the yield
at that stage?
Mr Meacher: In so far as I believe
to be the case, that SCIMAC had a major influence over the structuring
of the trials, I think almost certainly it was not total or unique.
I am sure they discussed it with my officials in the Department
at that point and may well have discussed it with the independent
research contractors. But I do think that the industry had a major
role to play here. It was certainly they who found the farmers,
of course, who provided the fields to grow and paid them, I believe,
a certain sum to agree to participate. So the industry had a major
influence and over the maize trials I do believe that Bayer crop
science—and it was that company which was particularly concerned
with maize—it had certainly been reported to me that they
advised or instructed (whichever word you think appropriate) farmers
who were sowing GM maize to have only one spraying by glufosinate
ammonium, which we will no doubt talk a little more about later,
and of course the effect of only having one spraying is that the
weeds then do come up again. If the weeds do come up again that
minimises the environmental impacts in terms of biodiversity because
there is food for the invertebrates and the other creatures to
eat.
Gregory Barker: Thank you.
Q25 David Wright: When the scientists
and the panel came together to model the structure of the trial
clearly they had a view about the number of sites that they were
going to use across the UK, the farm sites. It is my understanding
that the number of sites which eventually were used was less than
those originally planned. Do you think that that has compromised
the modelling work in any way, particularly when, as the Chairman
said earlier, there were already some breaches in protocol throughout
the process?
Mr Meacher: I think what the Chairman
was referring to were not Farm Scale Evaluation trials. I think
I am right in saying that.
Q26 David Wright: But do you think
the modelling was breached by the fact that less sites were used
than originally envisaged?
Mr Meacher: Let me start off by
saying the number of sites was, I think, 283 for the three crops,
something between 90 and 100 for each crop. I do not believe that
that has compromised the results. I do not think the number of
trial sites is the reason why we should have any doubts about
these results. I think they have a wider validity, for the other
reasons that I have questioned. I think that is the relevant point.
It is true that quite a large number of sites were vandalised,
were partially or in some cases completely destroyed. I utterly
repudiate that. I think that is absolutely the wrong way. I completely
reject that kind of violent action. However, it did—and
I can certainly remember discussions in the Department—get
near to the point at which it could have affected the results
but the argument which was put to me, which I accepted, was that
there was still a sufficient number of fields not to interfere
with the general validity of the trials and I think that is correct.
Q27 David Wright: Just to push you
on that, to be very clear what you are saying is that you had
some advice from scientists in the Department to say that the
trials were still valid, that there was not too much breach, if
you like, of the original proposals?
Mr Meacher: Correct. There was
not a breach of the validity at all. There was a significant amount
of damage done but that was not sufficient to breach the statistical
validity of the trials. That was the advice given to me and I
have no reason to doubt it.
Q28 David Wright: Following on from
that, during the period of the trials there was a lot of coverage
about progress on separation of crops. There was quite a considerable
amount of TV. coverage about revising the separation distance
between GM and non-GM crops during the trials. Do you think that
the distances which were used in the latter part of the exercise
protected the interests effectively of organic and GM-free cultivation,
particularly taking into account your comments when you were in
Saskatchewan recently, I understand, where you said that if you
cannot control flows across the Prairies how are you going to
do it in small scale farm trials in the UK?
Mr Meacher: That is my view and
you have rightly quoted it. I think there was a very real problem
about coexistence, which is the jargon word for what you are referring
to, how you can create a framework to prevent cross-contamination
mainly by pollen but actually contamination of seed is another
source of this as well as contamination of farming equipment.
So it is not just pollen but pollen is probably the main one.
The problem, of course, is that pollen does have an unfortunate
capacity to blow around and on a windy day it can blow a long
way and there are plenty of trials and plenty of research which
show that it can blow miles. We also know that bees, unfortunately,
do not take account of Government diktat and have a tendency occasionally
to fly three or five miles and on the way back to forage. So it
is a very difficult issue, genuinely. All that I would say is
that the separation distances used in the trials were again decided
by SCIMAC. Government was really presented with these as being
adequate. They varied between 50 and 200 metres and again it is
true, as I understand, that something like around 99% of the pollen
will probably fall within those separation distances. The problem
is that 1% of pollen is still a large number, several thousands
or even tens of thousands of pollen, and on a windy day that can
still go considerable distances. Now, in Canada, where they introduced
commercial GM in 1996, we have a laboratory which we can examine
after seven years. I did speak to the members of the Canadian
NFU, who were gung-ho for GM in 1996 because they had been told
by Monsanto and others that this would increase their yields,
it would reduce the use of herbicides and contamination containment
could be reasonably easily dealt with. All of those, they told
me—and do not take my word for it because you can get evidence
from them—were now not believed by their farmers, that yields
had actually gone down, that herbicide use was more than the companies
had said it was going to be, at least twice spraying and sometimes
three times, and that containment was a very real problem, as
you have just said, in terms of the Prairies. My argument is that
if you have got the Prairies with these colossal open spaces and
you cannot protect organic canola or organic oilseed rape then
how will you do it in these tiny islands where there are 60 million
of us and farms jostling very close?
Q29 Chairman: With the greatest possible
respect, you actually signed off on those separation distances
and you agreed to a 1% tolerance rate for cross-pollination and
there are people who suggest that a 1% tolerance rate is like
agreeing to being 1% pregnant; it is enough!
Mr Meacher: Well, I do understand
that argument. The problem is, if you do not wish to be pregnant
that is fairly simple. We know what to do in order to secure that.
It is rather more difficult in terms of getting down to 0 or whatever
fraction of 1% you choose. My own preference would certainly be
0.1%. That I think is about the level of detectability and I think
one part in a thousand would probably be accepted—although
this has never been tested, despite my wish for it to be tested—by
the British public. I was told, when I did question this, that
this was SCIMAC's view, this was what SCIMAC had agreed and, "If,
Minister, you wish to challenge that then you will have to introduce
regulation." The opportunity of introducing regulation would
probably have destroyed a voluntary moratorium and there would
have been all the general difficulties of getting agreement across
Government. So I agree with you, it is not ideal, it is not satisfactory
but in the circumstances it was probably the best that could be
secured.
Chairman: Thank you.
Q30 David Wright: Was there any other
pressure upon you to take that decision or was that a decision
you took solely on your own?
Mr Meacher: There was not any
pressure upon me. The arguments were put to me, as I have just
explained, "If you don't like 1%, if you think it too high,
if you think the separation distances should be greater,"
my officials will tell you I was constantly arguing for greater
separation distances but, as I say, there were two problems. If
you do not make it 200 metres what do you make it? If you make
it 500 metres it is still the case that some will get beyond 500
metres. If you make it 10 miles that is absurd. Where do you draw
the line in between? There is no absolutely authoritative definitive
line which you can draw in the messy world out there in agriculture,
that is the problem.
David Wright: Thank you.
Q31 Paul Flynn: Do you accept that
some industry organisations have said that as a result of these
demonstrations there is a case for saying that if GM is managed
sensitively it could actually turn out to be beneficial for the
environment?
Mr Meacher: I think you may be
referring to a quotation that I recall, possibly in the Western
Morning News, is it? If that is a quotation, or wherever it comes
from, I do find that absolutely extraordinary because the evidence
given in the Farm Scale Evaluation trial results seems to me overwhelming
and compelling and it is perfectly clear that the balance (at
least in the case of oilseed rape and beet) is overwhelmingly
that the biodiversity impact of GM is worse, that there is harm.
In the case of maize, which we may come on to in a moment, it
is arguable. But to suggest that there is benefit to the environment
in the case of the other two crops I just think is absurd; it
is risible.
Q32 Paul Flynn: The figures which
you quoted about the beet fields where there was 1,707 beetles
discovered in the non-GM crop and 1,576, I believe you said, in
the other crop, the difference between those two is about 7 or
8%, possibly not significant. The difference between those crops
and the maize and rape of course were 50%, there was more than
double in the one. Does it not suggest that the differences between
the GM and non-GM are far less significant than the differences
between the various types of crops?
Mr Meacher: Yes.
Q33 Paul Flynn: Is there not an unintended
conclusion from this, a very valuable one, that what is important
for wildlife and the diversity of wildlife is to vary the crops?
Mr Meacher: What you have said
is perfectly fair and indeed I myself have taken exactly your
own point, that the differences between the crops is more significant.
Contrary to what anyone had thought before, contrary to what the
scientists or anyone expected, the differences between the crops
is significantly greater than between GM and non-GM. However,
whilst you are right that in the case of beetles, in the case
of beet, the differences are relatively marginal, there were other
differences between GM and non-GM which I think were in the extreme
case 5 to 1, in many cases 1.5 to 2. So I think it is significant.
I do not want to overdo it but I think it is significant. I was
asked to comment on your quote that if sensitively handled it
could actually be beneficial to the environment. That seems to
me a perverse interpretation of the results as we have them.
Q34 Paul Flynn: Were your views on
GM a significant factor in your leaving the Government?
Mr Meacher: That is a rather wider
question.
Q35 Chairman: That is a Newsnight
question!
Mr Meacher: Well, Mr Paxton always
keeps the best until last! I think you would have to ask the Prime
Minister that since, perhaps not surprisingly, he did not tell
me and many people have surmised about that and I have thought
about it. I do not know. It is certainly true that my views were
outspoken. They were outspoken in Government. There was a period
of four years when my views were perfectly clear and perfectly
well known to the Prime Minister and everyone else. Why at this
point I should have been dropped, as I say, I do not know. GM
may well have had something to do with it but I really do not
know.
Q36 Paul Flynn: Could I ask finally,
do you think the results of these trials, including the unintended
consequences which came up, have wider lessons for us all in the
way that we look at the biodiversity in agriculture and using
break crops and so on? Do you think there is a valuable lesson
to come out of these trials?
Mr Meacher: I do and I think that
if we are looking for a more sustainable agriculture it is not
just a simple question of GM or not GM, I think it is a much more
varied, diverse kind of agriculture, such as indeed was recommended
by the excellent report from the Currie Commission, which Defra
is now trying to implement. So I do think there are very much
wider results and we should not get absolutely hung up on the
question of GM. It is a very important issue but it is not the
only issue.
Q37 Mr Savidge: The GM herbicide
tolerant crops in the farm scale trials were measured against
crops under conventional herbicide management. Did I understand
you to say in response to a question from Colin Challen that you
felt that their performance should have been measured also against
organic or low intensity herbicide regimes and if so how would
you respond to the industry's argument that that would have been
inappropriate since it was never the intention to replace organic
crops with GM crops?
Mr Meacher: First of all, you
are correct in saying that I did believe there should have been
a comparison with organic or low intensity farming, that part
of the spectrum of conventional farming. It is the first time
I have heard this, what you say is the industry argument, that
there was no intention of replacing organic by GM. I agree, that
never was the aim, but that is not the point. That is a singularly
irrelevant point, it seems to me. One is talking about the introduction
of GM on a commercialised basis where it could be grown anywhere
and the possibility, which I think is a very strong likelihood,
that it would cross-contaminate organic and in effect wipe it
out like organic canola has been wiped out in Canada. That seems
to me the issue.
Q38 Sue Doughty: We come on to the
issue of the trials of GM maize and the cultivation which included
the use of atrazine, which of course as we know is about to be
banned. What impact does the use of that herbicide have on that
particular trial? Is the trial still valid? What are your views
on it?
Mr Meacher: Well, I think it is
invalid. Atrazine was, as you say, used in the Farm Scale Evaluation
trials in respect of non-GM maize even though it was already banned
in the Netherlands and Germany and it was known that a ban was
being considered in France and, as we now know, God moves in mysterious
ways his wonders to perform and when the EU banned this throughout
the EU a fortnight before these results came out I think that
is a remarkable coincidence. But that is exactly what happened.
So the fact is that atrazine will not be used in future. It is
going to be phased out once the regulation has gone through, within
the next eighteen months. It is going to take a bit of time but
that is always the case, but it will not be used in this country
or in any other country in the EU and therefore a comparison in
terms of the biodiversity impacts with non-GM maize using a chemical
which will not be used in future clearly, it seems to me, is invalid.
If you want to have a valid comparison it must be using a chemical
which will actually be used in future and my surmise—and
it is no more than that because no one knows and we are all in
for a lot of surprises here—is that if you used what presumably
must be a less toxic chemical, one which is not going to be banned
by the EU, then you would find very similar results in the case
of maize to the other two. Glufosinate, which is the chemical
weedkiller used in respect of GM maize, is itself a pretty toxic
chemical. It is a neuro-toxin, it is a teratogen, which means
it can harm embryos, and it is a very powerful chemical. I think
if you had a less toxic chemical for non-GM maize than atrazine
you would get, as I say, very similar results, namely that in
respect of non-GM maize the biodiversity impacts were better.
There is a further point which I could make, which I do not think
has been made and which I think is important, that Liberty (the
brand name given for glufosinate) was used on GM crops throughout
the Farm Scale Evaluation trials when it was known, I think, to
ACRE and to SCIMAC that Liberty would not be used on its own in
any future commercial growing of Chardon LL or any other GM maize
varieties because in order to be effective it has been used in
the United States in a mix which is Liberty ATZ, ie it involves
a significant proportion of atrazine, which I think the manufacturer
recommends to be something of the order of 32% but which American
research, and I quote Professor Mike Owen of the Iowa State University,
who said that the atrazine percentage in the Liberty ATZ mix is
probably nearer to 90%. So that also is going to change dramatically
in future. So for both of those reasons I think we clearly either
have to accept that in the case of maize, as with the other two,
we should not proceed—I think there is a logical case for
that—or that at the very least there have got to be further
trials using chemicals which do not include atrazine. My last
point is that it must be a commercial yield trial, not with the
industry influencing the number of sprayings which take place.
If we had new trials on that basis I think they would be worthwhile
doing.
Q39 Sue Doughty: This leads on to
the fact that the Scientific Steering Committee argues that enough
of the trials were comparing GM cultivation with traditional herbicide
regimes which did not include atrazine so that the overall results
are still valid. From what you are saying there are some queries
altogether about the maize trials?
Mr Meacher: As I understand, the
large majority of the maize trials did involve the use of atrazine.
I accept not all of them, but I equally make the point which I
have just made that marketplace situations in the United States
where farmers are concerned about yields also involve atrazine
heavily involved in a Liberty ATZ mix. So for both sides of the
equation I think we need new trials which do not on either side
include atrazine.
| 
