Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380-399)
10 DECEMBER 2003
DR ROGER
TURNER, MR
DANIEL PEARSALL,
DR PAUL
RYLOTT AND
DR COLIN
MERRITT
Q380 Mrs Clark: You have said I have
come up with a list of misconceptions. Do you not think that these
misconceptions have been very much in the public arena? Other
groups that we have interviewed have actually come out and said
this as if it is fact, so naturally we assumed it was. Would it
not have been better if you had been completely transparent and
had published a list of criteria and made sure that you put that
out in the media so that you could not be misrepresented?
Dr Rylott: We did that to some
extent. This is one of the difficulties that has always existed
in the last three or four years, as you have suggested; a number
of misrepresentations have continued in the media. For example,
at one period of time we placed an advertorial, as you might call
it, in the Farmers' Weekly asking if farmers would like
to take part in the farm scale evaluations. It was very clear
from that what the conditions were, that they had to have grown
the crop before and that, once they had volunteered and we were
sure that they fitted the criterion that they had grown the crop
before, we could then put them forward to the scientists and then
to the Scientific Steering Committee, which chose from that basket
of volunteers. It was always very clear, if anyone ever asked
us what the criteria for that was, and we would very openly tell
them. I reiterate what has been said, that on going round and
speaking to these farmers in the first instance to see if they
were willing to put up with some of the intimidation—and
as a company we did check that—an awful lot of them were
very sceptical of the technology; they were definitely not all
pro-GM farmers. A number of them had very serious concerns about
GM themselves but felt that they wanted to see it for themselves
rather than make their decisions from what they had read in the
papers. This gave them the opportunity to do so.
Q381 Mrs Clark: If I can press you
slightly more on that, do you not think you might have had a better
press if you had been up-front to the media and said, "We
put out this advert. We have asked people and quite a few are
quite sceptical about it"? It seems to me that what you have
done, in terms of the media, is to be reactive. As you said yourself,
if asked the question, you were prepared to say that perhaps it
would have been better to have been more proactive.
Dr Rylott: That makes perfect
sense.
Q382 Mrs Clark: I now ask Monsanto
and Bayer, and Monsanto specifically -may I tell the Committee
that I spent an informative day with Monsanto, which is near to
my constituency in Peterborough, some months ago, so I have particular
ideas myself—what proportion of farmers per crop put forward
by you were used in the eventuality? For example, were there any
suggestions from the SSC, or indeed the research consortium, that
those who did come forward were not sufficiently representative
in the way that they should have been, either from a geographical
point of view or indeed any other? Again, it sounds as though
you did have problems in finding farmers in any particular area,
or indeed for any particular crop. Obviously I am interested in
Cambridgeshire from this point of view. Were you encouraged to
seek out sites that were perhaps less intensively managed? I am
interested in the role of the NFU here because, as you will be
aware, we did interview the NFU recently. Sadly, that had to be
a rather truncated session, but I think we are planning to put
a note to them with our other questions. Did the NFU do all this
work themselves or did Bayer and Monsanto play a collaborative
part in that?
Dr Merritt: The NFU did help but
we ourselves did the donkey work of going round and making the
first face-to-face calls with farmers. The reasons for that is
of course that first we had to make them aware of some of the
implications of doing the trials, as Paul Rylott has already said.
One of the things we wanted to make sure farmers were aware of
was the potential interest by the media in them and the invasion
into their lives, the potential for intimidation. Therefore, we
did not want people to go into this and then drop out in large
numbers. That was quite important.
Q383 Mrs Clark: That interests me
because I had formed again the misguided impression perhaps that
the NFU had been in the driving seat. It seems to me now, from
what you have said, that they were just maintaining a sort of
hands-off watching brief.
Dr Merritt: They did a lot of
work to spread the word about asking people to volunteer. Let
us be absolutely clear: all farmers volunteered in the end to
do this work. It would be nice to say that we could pick out the
people we really wanted purely on a statistical basis and command
them to do trials, but I do not think that was realistic. There
had to be a degree of self-selection. The Scientific Steering
Committee, which was given full charge to determine this programme,
wanted the process to be statistically based rather than there
to be no choice—in other words, whatever we put forward.
We were asked every year to provide a larger number, something
like 50% more than were actually selected I think it turned out
to be, so that there was some selection that was not to do with
exactly who we had put forwards. To answer your second point about
regions, yes, there was obviously some challenge to get a good
coverage of the whole area. If you did the work according to an
accurate representation of the proportions in different regions,
with this relatively small number compared with tens of thousands
of farmers, it would have over-represented the most intensive
areas for that crop. Therefore, we were requested to find more
farmers in the remoter areas or the less important areas for each
of those crops. That challenged us slightly but there was also
the ability, in the second and third years, to adjust the balance
so that over the three-year period we reached the balance that
the Scientific Steering Committee was asking for. It was up to
them in the end; they decided, as we understand it, that they
were very satisfied that that reflected the balance of the crops
around the country.
Q384 Mr Francois: Approximately how
many volunteers did you get? How many farmers volunteered—obviously
you did not use them all—to participate?
Dr Merritt: As I say, we had approximately
50% more than in the final trials.
Q385 Mr Francois: What was the raw
number? How many said they would do it?
Dr Merritt: About 450 agreed,
of which 280 were taken up. Here were a lot of repeats. In some
cases the Scientific Steering Committee wanted new blood each
year, as it were, and in other cases they wanted to gain some
experience of how farming practice changed with the second year
of experience, so there were some and some.
Q386 Mr Francois: But 500 actually
volunteered?
Dr Merritt: That number originally
presented to us, yes.
Q387 Chairman: I am still not entirely
clear as to the criteria used when selecting down from the 500
odd to the 280. I notice that on the Bayer website, in commenting
on the outcome, they say that some of the differences in outcome
may be accounted for and "the inclusion of farms operating
less intrusive farming practices were favoured in the site selection".
That was news to me. Was that an important part, in your view,
of the choice of farm?
Dr Rylott: If I may return to
the process of selecting the farmers and give you the way that
we did it at Bayer, obviously, at the end of the day, it was Bayer
technology, or Monsanto technology, that was going on to the farms.
We have a duty of care to ensure that that is stewarded properly
and so we have to have a close relationship with those farmers
to ensure compliance with the consent conditions, for example.
The NFU, the Maize Growers Association and a number of other farming
communities and organisations put out the word, including a commentary
in places like the Farmers' Weekly, that there was a need
for farmers to volunteer to take part in the farm scale evaluations.
We were given some very broad brush strokes of what to look for
by the scientists in that, when it came to doing the science,
they needed to be able to compare the GMHT crop with a non-GM
crop and it was imperative that the farmer had grown the crop
before and knew how to grow forage maize or oilseed rape or sugar
beet. It also had to be in an area that was typical of where those
crops are grown, and so there was no point in putting sugar beet
in Aberdeenshire because nobody grows sugar beet in Aberdeenshire.
Those sorts of very broad brush strokes or criteria were given
to us. Those were the sorts of things that we were able to screen
when the farmers phoned in to say that they were interested. We
asked, "Have you grown the crop before? Where are you growing
it?" As Colin Merritt has suggested, we then went to see
these farmers to check that they actually did have the field,
and one or two matters like that, and to ensure that they were
comfortable with doing the trial, and also that their families
were comfortable about it because it is quite an undertaking.
When we were comfortable that they understood the ramifications
of doing the trial and they satisfied those original criteria—geography
and growing the crop—we then presented those growers' names
to the scientists, who then looked at their criteria, which were
based on a whole range of other things, as we understand, in terms
of farming practices. They would send a questionnaire to the farmer
and they would find out, based on things like countryside stewardship
schemes, whether that farmer was a member of LEAF and things like
whether he was classed as an intensive or less intensive farmer.
Then it was down to those scientists to get a representative sample
of farming practices and geography to present to the Steering
Committee, which rubber-stamped that selection of farmers. We
were then able to go to the farmers and organise all the necessary
regulatory requirements to facilitate the trials.
Q388 Chairman: So less intensive
farming practices were not particularly favoured in the choice?
Dr Rylott: My understanding, having
listened to the results presented by the consortium of scientists,
is that apparently within the Scientific Steering Committee there
was a request that there should be—and I think this came
from English Nature—more less-intensive sites. The argument
was that for something like a spring crop, if the sites were less-intensive,
perhaps those sorts of sites inherently had more weeds than those
that were farmed more intensively. It would help to ensure that
they saw the differences to a greater extent than if they were
all very intensively-farmed sites.
Q389 Chairman: So they were favoured?
Dr Rylott: They were not favoured
by ourselves but by the Steering Committee. You would need to
check the figures with the scientists.
Q390 Mr Thomas: May I ask one question
on that? I am still not clear, therefore, whether you as a company
feel that the results of the farm scale evaluations were in any
way skewed or biased because of the selection process which you
have just outlined? Is it possible to give a yes or no answer
to that?
Dr Rylott: I do not think they
were. We wondered, in the first instance, when we first heard
about there being extra sampling from the less intensive sites,
which may not in reality be truly representative of UK agriculture
in totality, whether that may have had an effect, but, looking
at the results, it would appear that the selection that you see
is constant, both from less intensive to more intensive farming
systems, so it would appear not to be the case.
Q391 Mr Thomas: When you made your
earlier statements to this Committee in answer to questions from
me about moving ahead with this programme of managed development,
that was on the basis that you believed the results of these farm
scale evaluations. You did not have any caveats in that sense
with them?
Dr Merritt: It was not in that
sense. There are some caveats in terms of the reality of applying
a new technology compared to a well-tried and tested one and that
is a different issue.
Q392 Mrs Clark: Can we concentrate
on the farmers in a slightly different way and look at what they
signed up to or otherwise, and obviously by that I mean contracts.
We have been given to understand that the contracts were not perhaps
as we thought before between SCIMAC and the farmers themselves
but between the individual farmers and the individual companies,
whether we are talking about Bayer, Monsanto or anybody else.
I would like to know whether, before they signed up, you took
the time to sit down with them and go through it and say exactly
what they are signing up to?
Dr Rylott: Yes.
Q393 Mrs Clark: As a result of that,
did you change anything if they objected?
Dr Rylott: No. Can I outline this
again? Clearly, once the farmers had been selected by the scientists,
they then called us and said, "We now have the following
list of 20 farmers that we would like to take part in the trials".
We then visited each of those 20 farms to be able to sit down
and chat to the farmer about what the implications of doing the
trials were and to make sure that he or she understood what it
was that they had to do in terms of the protocol of the trials
and the regulations surrounding the release of GM varieties, et
cetera. Once they understood all of that, we then signed a contract.
The reason that we have a contract again is very clear. In the
first instance, in order for a farmer to be able to claim area
aid, the variety normally already has National Listing and is
an eligible variety, as it is called. Clearly, these varieties
had not got National Listing because they had not gone through
that system. In order for the farmers to be able to claim area
aid, they must have a contract so that they can demonstrate to
DEFRA that it is a research trial that they are carrying out.
They are then eligible to claim the area aid. There is a physical
and economic need for there to be a contract. Those contracts
then clearly laid out what the terms of recompense were to that
particular farmer, explained what the seed supply was and what
the consent conditions were in terms of what he was allowed and
what he was not allowed to do within the regulations, both for
the GM and for herbicide use on those crops.
Q394 Mrs Clark: Is there anything
else that you have not told us that was an integral part of the
contract?
Dr Rylott: No.
Dr Merritt: I suspect our contracts
were slightly different between the companies. I can tell you
that our contract was not about the management of the trial. I
am very clear on that. It was about the supply of seed, ie we
would supply seed but that any surplus seed, in keeping with our
consent conditions, had to be returned to us. It was about compensation
for the fact that they would not have a crop growing and therefore
would effectively lose income over that land; there was that element.
It was about ensuring that the growers would adhere to our consent
conditions. We therefore had to provide a very simple guide of
the things about which it was essential to comply. Clearly, when
there is this number of trials around the country, our consent
conditions are absolutely vital. We had to clarify those. It was
then also a little commitment from us, in a sense, to provide
support to the growers and to make sure that they absolutely knew
where and when their commitment started and stopped and what support
they would get in the event of things like requirements for communications
with their community, that we would give them support and come
and join in with meetings. If they had problems dealing with any
intimidation or legal issues, we committed to give them some support.
It was not to do with the actual trials programmes themselves.
Q395 Mrs Clark: In terms of the actual
seeds and herbicides, am I correct in thinking that your two companies
provided these and not SCIMAC?
Dr Merritt: It had to come from
the companies.
Q396 Mrs Clark: Turning to Friends
of the Earth, and I do not know whether they are your best friends
or not, they have claimed to the Committee in their evidence that
you influenced the size of the field use in the trials and that
this was not a decision, as perhaps might be expected, of the
independent experts but of the industry itself. Are they right
or wrong?
Dr Rylott: In the instance of
Bayer products, absolutely wrong.
Q397 Mrs Clark: That is a definite
no?
Dr Rylott: They are absolutely
wrong.
Dr Merritt: If you mean an influence
on the size of the trials, in the case of the sugar beet crop,
in the discussion in the methodology year, we made it clear. We
were in a situation here of crop destruction because the crops
had not been improved and therefore the harvested crop has to
be disposed of. Because of the sheer size of the problem of the
destruction of sugar beet, which produces 60 to 80 tonnes of material
per hectare, we therefore built in a large plot size, which went
up to about two hectares, sometimes three or four, rather than
having the endless, enormous fields that you sometimes get in
East Anglia. It was a requirement of that methodology year for
the scientists to assess and convince themselves that the biodiversity
measurements that they were going to take, which went basically
from the field margins to about 30 metres into fields, was representative.
It was their decision that that size was acceptable; it was not
our decision.
Mrs Clark: But they say that you did
provide them, in terms of the particular crop, with the evidence
for them to make their decision.
Q398 Chairman: The question was,
did you influence the decision about the size of the fields, and
the answer must be yes.
Dr Merritt: We influenced it in
the sense that we explained the practical difficulties of dealing
with that kind of crop.
Q399 Chairman: So the answer is yes.
Dr Merritt: In advance of the
programme, but it was the scientific consortium and the steering
committee which decided that that protocol was appropriate.
Chairman: We know they took the decision.
| 
