Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-222)
19 NOVEMBER 2003
LORD (PETER)
MELCHETT AND
MS GUNDULA
AZEEZ
Q220 Mr Thomas: That makes the question
I was going to ask even more confusing. It leaves me in this position.
Your evidence to us so far has been very clear in questioning
the design, the timescale and the cost of these trials, yet you
said you do not have any problem with the Scientific Steering
Committee's integrity as regards these trials. I do not know where
that leads us as to what to take from the trials at all. Do you
have any faith therefore that these trials did in fact find out
anything of value about the growing of commercial GM crops in
this country?
Lord Melchett: In one sense no
and in another sense yes. That is not going to be terribly helpful
but I will try and explain it clearly. In the sense that my answer
is no, it has always seemed to us that whether GM crops should
be grown or not should be determined by factors other than their
very short-term impact in limited terms on biodiversity. That
was also, as I said earlier, the outcome from the Agriculture
Environment and Biotechnology Commission after they looked at
the trials, and that view was then accepted by the Government
and hence the Government's public debate, the economic review
and the science review. Our view is that for the Government the
decision should be guided primarily by their strategy for UK agriculture,
which has been set out at great length by the Curry Commission
and accepted by the Government in their Strategy for Sustainable
Agriculture. For us, one of the key elements, and indeed for the
Government, is that farmers should get closer to the market and
to the public and to consumers. We think that if you are looking
at this, it should not be determined on whether it increases the
number of weed species by 10 or 20% or decreases them by that
much but whether this is going to help the sort of UK agriculture
which might have an economic future, existing and thriving in
this country. The Government view, which we share and strongly
support, is that that means an agriculture which meets consumers'
needs and what consumers want. We do not think this technology
helps in that respect. The second thing we think should guide
the Government is whether they are going to be able to maintain
choice. Again, this is something that is integral to their own
agricultural strategy. We think the evidence from North America,
which is the relevant evidence, and not the farm scale evaluations,
which did not look at this, shows that it will be very difficult,
very expensive and in some cases definitely impossible to maintain
choice in the sense that non-GM food and non-GM crops will be
become unavailable in this country, depending on what GM crops
are commercialised, how quickly, on what scale, all sorts of variables.
In general terms, I think that is an accurate statement based
on North American experience. Then, finally, I think the Government
should take account of their own review of the science, which
does show that there are generic uncertainties about the technology
and some unknowns. Although this has not been drawn out of the
Science Review very clearly, it is there. This technology does
have generic uncertainties and generic unknowns. We think those
things are important. The reason I said yes, finally, is that
we exist under a regulatory regime set up by the European Union,
which insists on evidence about harm to human health or damage
to biodiversity. In that respect we think for sugar beet and oilseed
rape the trials are useful in the sense that they will allow the
Government to trigger the regulatory regime to prevent these cops
being grown. No doubt if maize was re-run without atrazine on
a non-GM site, the same would be true there. That is the regulatory
regime. Policy should not be determined by what the regulatory
regime is but by what the Government's policy is.
Q221 Mr Thomas: The other part of
the Government's policy of course is a Biodiversity Action Plan.
These tests were based on the null hypothesis, the idea that there
would not be any significant difference between GM and non-GM
crops in the effect on biodiversity. Two questions arise from
that. Do you think the evaluations looked at biodiversity in accordance
with the Biodiversity Action Plan or even in a way that you would
like biodiversity? Secondly, what do you think the impact of the
findings of those farm-scale evaluations has been on that null
hypothesis idea, which certainly the chemical companies seemed
to be quite wedded to several years ago?
Lord Melchett: My view on biodiversity
is that because the negative impacts tend to be cumulative over
time and often only emerge, as I have said, after some years of
introducing a new technology or a new cropping regime or whatever,
and, secondly, because biodiversity impacts which we have suffered
since the Second World War in this country and are now well-documented—as
I said earlier, because of the Game Conservancy's research—we
know emerged from the interaction of a number of different factors,
not just what one crop does or does not do, and particularly changes
in rotation and patterns of farming—I do not think these
have told us much about biodiversity or how to do anything about
the Biodiversity Action Plan. That is, except in this respect,
that speaking to a number of the scientists involved, the one
thing that has shocked them is how bad both sets of crops were
for biodiversity. Anyone who has walked through or even disturbed
a maize crop, as I have, would know that there is really very
little other than maize; once you get the crop away, it kills
everything underneath it. It is not a crop that is native to this
part of Europe and has very little attraction to any native species
at all. Sugar beet, frankly, is not much better, depending on
how many weeds the farmer allows to grow in it.
Q222 Chairman: Lord Melchett, I am
afraid that I am going to be impertinent and rude. A little electronic
bird has informed me that we may have four votes downstairs from
4.50, which means that rather than keep the next set of witnesses
hanging around for the best part of an hour and coming back to
them, I think we are going to try and squeeze them in now. There
are further questions I know the Committee would like to put to
you, and I hope that will all right if it is done in writing.
Lord Melchett: We would be delighted
to answer anything else. 3
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
I am extremely grateful for your thoughtful answers and also for
your forbearance at the truncated session.[16]
16 Please see supplementary memorandum, Ev. Back
|
