Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-250)
19 NOVEMBER 2003
SIR BEN
GILL, MS
ELIZABETH HOGBEN
AND MR
BOB FIDDAMAN
Q240 Mr Thomas: In your evidence
you say that you want to ensure that the growing of GM crops in
the UK identifies closely with public opinion and delivers a meaningful
choice for consumers. There is public accountability there. Could
you tell us a bit about the nature of the contracts between the
biotech companies and the farmers on these farm-scale evaluations?
Mr Fiddaman: Yes. As you well
know, the company changed its name twice throughout the four years
that I was involved because they bought each other out or whatever
else happened. The contract that I had was on the basis that they
took a good average yield value because the separation distance
varied with the total crop that I was growing under GM and non-GM.
I actually also took part in one of the Varietal Association trials
which, as you are probably aware, has a greater separation distance
recommended, and that was in the second year of the trials. They
took all that product away. Obviously I was compensated for it
in that sense and I was guaranteed an income but the actual costs
of growing the crop were mine. I used my machinery, my labour
and all the inputs were mine, except for the GM seed and the GM
spray, which were totally under research control, and those were
supplied by the company. They took back any surplus there was
at the end of the season.
Q241 Mr Thomas: Did the contract
tell you how to manage the crop?
Mr Fiddaman: The contract did
not tell me how to manage the crop. I was expected to manage it
in a similar way to the conventional crop in the sense of general
activity, because I was still growing the conventional crop for
my own benefit in the area that was not affected by the trial
and therefore I was putting normal inputs into it. The answer
is that I was driven by that process.
Q242 Mr Thomas: So the conventional
crop was outside the contract you had with the biotech company,
is that right?
Mr Fiddaman: The contract was
that I would provide a site; half the field would be used for
GM and then there would be a separation distance, and they would
compensate me for the area of cropping that I would not be able
to sell, which was the whole of the GM and that area of the non-GM
that was affected by the separation distance.
Q243 Mr Thomas: Is the Union as a
whole satisfied with the way your sites were chosen? You have
already mentioned that they might have reflected more on the crop
management side, that those were managed for environmental purposes.
Do you believe that they delivered the right range of crop growing
of the three crops that would reflect the commercial growing of
the crops in this country at the moment?
Sir Ben Gill: There is no indication
that I have from the dialogue I have had with those involved with
the growing of crops and with others to suggest that there is
a skew in the results because of the selection of the farms. The
only concern I had about the ability to select farms was the abuse
and threats, threats of life, threats of damage to some of my
members, indeed physical attacks that took place that prevented
some of my members taking part in the trials.
Q244 Mr Thomas: Who made the final
decision as to whether a farm was in or out of the trials? Presumably
more people expressed an interest than actually took part?
Mr Fiddaman: The Steering committee.
Q245 Mr Thomas: Not yourselves. You
were a sort of clearing house, if you like.
Sir Ben Gill: We were asked to
provide names, we helped to provide names and they went in to
the Steering committee.
Q246 Mr Chaytor: Just going back
to the question of yield and the 10% premium that you broadly
identify, thinking back over the whole debate about the merits
or otherwise of GM, from your point of view and that of your colleagues,
as far as you can assess it, do you think that a 10% premium would
be sufficient to merit the full commercialisation of GM crops
given the uncertainties about the longer-term consequences and
the effect on bio-diversity?
Mr Fiddaman: I think if you associate
that with the management of a crop it is certainly easier as far
as GM is concerned. As always it is to do with the price of seed
and there is inevitably a price to pay for technology, but that
would have been at a level that would have been no worse than
the best hybrids.
Sir Ben Gill: I think I should
make it clear that at no time would we ever consider the commercialisation
of any crop until it has been passed through all the appropriate
safety mechanisms.
Chairman: I think that is understood
by the Committee.
Q247 Mr Chaytor: There is a difference
between the safety mechanisms and bio-diversity impact, is there
not?
Sir Ben Gill: I would put the
two together. We have to look at any farming practice. Whatever
we do as farmers there is an interaction with bio-diversity because
we are seeking to change what would happen if it were not there
with what we do to produce food or to create the landscape, and
that applies to planting trees and everything else. We have to
recognise that but you must take a holistic approach.
Q248 Joan Walley: Do I assume it
was an oil-seed rape you grew in trials on your farm?
Mr Fiddaman: Yes.
Q249 Joan Walley: Was your response
to the exchange earlier on that you could not grow anything but
GM crops for the next 15 years on that area?
Mr Fiddaman: On the standards
that are proposed by the EU of 0.9% I can deliver that within
four years. The basis on which that trial was done was as if no
control was done by the farmer during the following crops to reduce
the potential seed level going back into the soil, that is not
normal farming practice. We do that every year. I do that every
year with conventional rape. We have gone from hear rape, which
is industrial oil-seed rape, which is poisonous to animals and
humans, it is now grown conventionality in agriculture and yet
there is no difficulty in growing conventional rape after a normal
break period in crop rotation and going back again because the
levels of admixture there might be are well below the necessary
level that is required for admixture levels proposed by the EU.
Q250 Chairman: We have been beaten
by the clock today. As I said to the previous witnesses I have
no doubt the Committee will have further questions for you. 4
If you are content we will submit those in[18]
writing and we look forward to hearing from you.
5 I am grateful to you for coming along. I am sorry it has been
such a short session.
Sir Ben Gill: Thank you.[19]
18 Please see supplementary memorandum, Ev X Back
19
Please see supplementary memorandum below, Ev x. Back
| 
