Examination of Witnesses (Questions 350-359)
10 DECEMBER 2003
DR ROGER
TURNER, MR
DANIEL PEARSALL,
DR PAUL
RYLOTT AND
DR COLIN
MERRITT
Q350 Chairman: Good afternoon and
thank you very much for coming along. May I begin by asking Dr
Merritt a question about Monsanto's engagement in the future of
GM in this country? I think there has been an announcement that
you are actually down-scaling your activities in the United Kingdom
considerably. It would be very helpful, in case the press reports
have not been accurate, if you would let us know exactly how and
why.
Dr Merritt: I am very happy to
do that. As was announced in the middle of October, our company
announced its plans to sell the cereals business for Europe, which
really amounts predominantly to a wheat breeding business—and
this is a conventional wheat breeding business but it also includes
some barley—which is predominantly the former Plant Breeding
Institute Business, PBIC Business, of Cambridge and some related
stations in Europe. It actually has nothing directly to do, contrary
to some press reports, with our involvement in biotechnology,
but obviously there are some conjectural links made to investment,
which I cannot really particularly confirm or deny.[1]
Q351 Chairman: You cannot confirm
or deny them?
Dr Merritt: It is debatable as
to whether that is indirectly related to market conditions in
Europe. I think a better way to put it is that in corporate terms
if you are looking at a given investment in resources at any one
time, you look at wherever that is best placed in terms of return
on your investment. That decision led to a number of changes at
that time, one of which was the divestiture of that particular
business.
Q352 Chairman: That does not send
a message of enormous confidence about the future in this country,
or indeed in Europe?
Dr Merritt: I think it sends to
me, as a Briton and a patriot, if you like, some note of concern,
amongst other changes in the industry, about confidence at the
moment, but it does not directly link to the current question
on biotechnology.
Q353 Chairman: Dr Rylott, I think
your company also announced slightly earlier that, as it was reported,
you are pulling out of GM testing in Britain. Is that correct?
Dr Rylott: No, that was not correct.
What we announced was that, due to the legislation surrounding
the way that this disclosure of the sites was made, with the six-figure
grid reference and the constant and recently reaffirmed nature
of some activist groups saying that they will destroy any trials
that are put into the ground, we approached DEFRA to see if there
was any chance of relaxing that disclosure so that they could
actually uphold their statutory duties in being able to carry
out these trials. ACRE themselves said that they had no concerns
about the disclosure of the site, particularly as we were talking
about a well-characterised GM that had been grown in the UK since
1989, but unfortunately DEFRA decided that they could not relax
the disclosure rules. That meant that, quite frankly, the chances
of being able to conduct those trials without there being interference
was negligible, and so we took the decision to throw no more good
money after bad. Until such time as DEFRA are in a position to
carry out their statutory duties, we will not be investing money
in trials.
Q354 Chairman: You take the view,
which is not a view that has been expressed by others who have
given evidence here, that the damage done to a small number of
the sites severely compromised the integrity of the experiment?
Dr Rylott: No, this was a different
set of trials. I apologise if I did not make that clear. These
were National List trials, which are typically about the size
of a tennis court, and quite clearly can quite easily be damaged
overnight. Those have been targeted over the last three or four
years to such an extent that in the last three years the Government
has not actually got any results from those trials because they
have been systematically taken out. That was the set of trials
that we had applied for consent to continue with, but that was
the set of trials as well where there was no relaxation on disclosure,
and so we decided that we would not plant this year.
Q355 Chairman: What do you see as
the long-term consequences for your company of being unable or
unwilling to proceed with those?
Dr Rylott: The long-term consequences
for our company are not particularly significant because, if you
look at what is happening with GM around the world, it is going
forward in leaps and bounds. I think the implications for the
UK are quite obvious. When it comes to doing trials work, particularly
the near market trials which need to be done specifically to the
UK so that you are producing information that the farmers themselves
can make rational decisions about in terms of which varieties
they think perform well in the north of England or the tip of
Scotland or whatever, those trials need to be carried out in the
UK. If we are unable to continue to carry out those trials, then
the UK farmers will be at a disadvantage.
Q356 Mr Challen: I am wondering,
in the light of the evidence we received from DEFRA, which was
that forage maize, for example and possibly oil seed rape were
very close to commercial planting, how close those were to commercial
planting before concerns were raised about biodiversity and so
on?
Dr Rylott: I will try and answer
those questions in the first instance, given that the forage maize
and the oil seed rape varieties are Bayer technology. Just before
the farm scale evaluations, the maize had a Part C clearance,
which meant that it was eligible for planting anywhere within
the EU, without any conditions of separation distance or notification
or anything like that; it also had full novel food clearance and
clearance for feeding to animals, which of course is its use.
It was still awaiting the varietal national listing here in the
UK, which you have to have before you can offer a variety for
sale to farmers; it was also awaiting full herbicide clearance
to allow the farmers to spray the herbicide on to the crop. That
was the status of T25, as it is referred to. For oil seed rape,
there are two scenarios. The first is that the oil seed rape actually
had a full Part C clearance for seed production purposes in the
UK, so it was eligible to be grown to produce seed in the UK,
and that was just a UK-specific commercial clearance. When it
came to European clearance, it had been given clearance for full-scale
commercialisation within Europe but, unfortunately, due to the
unlawful activity of the French rapporteurs, that was never posted,
and so effectively it is caught within the rest of the de facto
moratorium.
Q357 Chairman: What is the unlawful
activity?
Dr Rylott: Basically, when you
go forward to be granted a Part C consent, and that is a commercial
licence for growing across the EU, that goes through a rapporteur
country. In this particular instance, the rapporteur country was
France. Basically they give it the clearance; they then pass it
through to the other Member States to see if they agree with that
decision. The rest of the Commission and the Member States agreed
with that decision. It was then for the French effectively to
post it on the website, for want of a better description. They
did not do that and, within a few days of them not doing that,
the de facto moratorium came into place. Had they done
it when they were supposed to have done, it would also have been
in the same situation as the forage maize.
Q358 Mr Challen: Was there any response
from SCIMAC on the concerns that were raised?
Dr Turner: No, not directly.
Q359 Mr Challen: I am directing these
questions generally at anybody who wants to take them up. What
was your reaction to the Government's desire to see the test for
harm in the European Directive strengthened? Do you have any reactions
to that?
Dr Turner: The particular varieties
had been tested in the open air as part of the National Listing
and developed by the crop variety owners over a decade or more.
They had come through all of those with flying colours. I think
that as and when 2001-18 came into effect, some, like the Part
C maize, had already passed through and others were coming up
to that point. I hope Monsanto and Bayer say the same. Basically,
I think the feeling was that you would have them all as part and
parcel of the same Directive, the same regulations, even though
some had gone through it.
Mr Pearsall: I would add to that
to clarify that in 1998 English Nature raised concerns about the
biodiversity implications but it was clear in discussions around
the revision of the Deliberate Release Directive from 90/220 to
2001-18 that indirect environmental effects, including impact
on biodiversity, would be taken into account. Towards the end
of 1998, European Environment Ministers agreed that even prior
to the ratification and finalisation of 2001-18, the biodiversity
provisions would be applied to new applications. Our understanding
was that, in the context of the concerns expressed by English
Nature, the UK Government were in particular working to ensure
that the same provisions were applied to applications which were
already well advanced through the system. I think, from a SCIMAC
perspective, we were supportive and recognised the rationale behind
that. Clearly, as an organisation, SCIMAC is committed to the
responsible and step-wise integration and development of this
technology. In the context of agricultural policy developments,
which were clearly placing environmental issues, including biodiversity,
at the heart of the agenda, it made absolute sense to look at
those effects. I think you really have some of the background
to the establishment of the farm scale evaluations there.
1 Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural
Crops, a grouping of industry organisations along the UK farm
supply chain. Back
|
