Examination of Witnesses (Questions 506-519)
13 JANUARY 2004
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP AND
DR COLIN
CHURCH
Q506 Chairman: Good afternoon, Minister
and Dr Church. Thank you very much for coming back to the Committee.
You come on an interesting day because, whether by coincidence
or otherwise, as you will know, ACRE have published their advice
on the farm scale trials. I would like to ask you a few questions
about the advice that has been given. It seems at first sight
to be not exactly robust. I see that the deputy chairman of ACRE,
Professor Pretty, is quoted as saying, "This is neither a
green light nor a death knell for GM. We are saying yes but to
the maize and no but to rape and beet." He added, "It
is not yes, no, no. The buts are very important." How robust
is that?
Mr Morley: It demonstrates that
these are very complex and complicated issues. I want to put on
record our appreciation for the work that ACRE has done and also
our Scientific Steering Committee. This has been a very thorough
evaluation through the farm scale evaluation process and we very
much welcome that. The conclusion they have to come to is that,
first of all, it is quite clear from the FSEs that the GM maize
came out better in relation to the environmental consequences
than conventional maize. There have been some doubts raised by
the fact that the conventional maize, the common herbicide, is
atrazine and atrazine is to be phased out by 2005. That is how
it was when the trials started, so the trials are absolutely relevant
but it may well be the case that the chemicals that might replace
atrazine may have a different environmental effect. ACRE's advice
is that any go ahead for the maize is conditional on further work
to examine that particular point. They have taken seriously the
points that were raised about atrazine and we think that is right
and proper. On the other two crops, where they are basically recommending
that they do not get the go ahead, again the evidence in the FSE
report is very clear on that in relation to the detrimental effects
on biodiversity. The biotech sector have been saying that the
key to all this has been the chemical regime and that is true,
not so much the effects of modification, but the chemical regime.
The GMs are modified to take particular chemicals. It may well
be the case theoretically that you could have a different chemical
regime, where you could have a less detrimental effect from a
GM crop. ACRE cannot evaluate that because they are evaluating
the regimes within the FSEs. That is what their remit was and
they are quite right to do that. It is for the biotech companies
themselves to demonstrate that there could be another chemical
regime that could be more beneficial. At the moment, we have no
information on that, so therefore we can only take decisions on
the basis of the FSEs. That is the criterion that ACRE were using.
Q507 Chairman: How can they prove that
without having a whole series of new trials?
Mr Morley: They will have to have
new trials if they want to demonstrate that.
Q508 Chairman: You would be willing for
the taxpayer to fund those trials, would you?
Mr Morley: No. I do not think
it is for the taxpayer to fund because we have funded the FSEs
which have been very detailed and comprehensive trials. If companies
wanted to demonstrate there were different chemical regimes, that
is for them.
Q509 Chairman: It seems to me that after
all this lengthy, complex and convoluted process we are not very
much further forward, are we?
Mr Morley: I think we are further
forward. The details of the report which I took the opportunity
over Christmas to read were very good. It also raised some quite
fundamental issues, apart from the GM issue. There is the whole
issue of chemical management of conventional crops, because it
is quite significant that the crop that came out best in terms
of biodiversity was a conventional crop. The crop that came out
worst on its impact on biodiversity was also a conventional crop.
I have had the chance to speak to Professor Pollock and I know
that ACRE would like to do some more work on the implications
of chemical management regimes. We very much welcome that from
Defra because I think there is an awful lot we can learn from
that. I wonder if Colin Church would like to say a word. He is
head of our chemicals and GM division.
Dr Church: If the biotech industry
wanted to demonstrate that a different chemical management regime
with herbicide tolerant crops was a good thing in their eyes,
it would not require, we imagine, trials anywhere near the scale
of the FSEs because first of all one of the things the FSEs enabled
us to do was to understand how big such a trial needs to be to
deliver sound evidence. Secondly, it gave us a lot of base line
information that would help understand the effect of other herbicide
regimes.
Q510 Chairman: But they would be field
trials, would they not?
Mr Morley: They would have to
do field trials, yes.
Q511 Chairman: As things stand at the
moment, in the absence of that extra work, there is no way that
you can agree to the commercial growing of beet and rape, is there?
Mr Morley: We have the advice
from ACRE. I know it has been presented in some areas as not very
clear. It is a very clear steer to me. You will appreciate that
we do have to consult with the devolved administrations before
we make any formal response to the advice. Therefore, I am not
in a position today to give you a definitive government response
until we have had the chance to consult with our partners in the
devolved administrations.
Q512 Chairman: We have not heard from
the industry today—at least I have not—but they were
very clear in evidence to this Committee that they believed that
the farm scale trials vindicated their position and that they
could proceed apace with full scale commercialisation. What do
you say to that?
Mr Morley: That might be their
opinion. It is not necessarily our opinion.
Q513 Chairman: If you did decide to go
ahead with forage maize, what conditions would you attach to the
commercial planting?
Mr Morley: As I understand it,
the forage maize in this trial does have part C consent for commercialisation.
However, that consent expires in 2006. I would have thought that
if we want to have further growing of the maize, it would have
to be part of a detailed evaluation of comparisons, compared to
conventional maize which will not be using atrazine. I cannot
say how true or not it is because these are for experts to evaluate,
but the claim was that it was not a fair trial because atrazine
clearly has a more detrimental environmental effect than the chemical
regime used with the GM maize. If atrazine is replaced, that may
not be the case. That might be wrong because the chemical regime
with conventional maize is to use a herbicide very early on in
the growing season. I would imagine that whatever replaced atrazine
the chemical regime would be very similar in terms of applying
it very early on in the growing season. Therefore, it strikes
me as unlikely to be necessarily better in relation to the environmental
impact, but that has to be examined. We can do the evaluation
because the part C runs out in 2006. If the evaluation comes out
badly for that particular maize, that would be new information
and that would affect whether or not the consent would be renewed
in 2006.
Q514 Chairman: Is it important that ACRE
have said that, were commercialisation of maize to go ahead, it
would have to be done on exactly the same basis as the farm scale
evaluations?
Mr Morley: Absolutely, yes.
Q515 Chairman: This is a system of growing
and herbicide application which has been described by the industry
as a worst case scenario in terms of yield and normal practice.
Is that not a big drawback?
Mr Morley: I am not sure that
is absolutely true. My understanding is that the FSEs were managed
in a way that was designed to be the most cost effective application
of herbicides that you would normally have in a normal, commercial,
growing regime. I do not think that is necessarily fair comment.
Q516 Chairman: You would not react kindly
to pressure from the industry to try and bend those arrangements
so that they could do it in a different way?
Mr Morley: No. If the industry
wanted to demonstrate that there was a better chemical regime,
we are always willing to consider that as we are willing to consider
any approach that is made to us in relation to agronomic management.
However, on the basis of these FSEs, it is very clear that two
of the crops have a negative environmental impact. It is consistent
in relation to the three year trial. It is very clear in relation
to the differences. It is also very clear that the maize has a
beneficial effect by a factor of times two incidentally in relation
to the outcome of the trials, but that is on the basis of a particular
chemical management regime. If it was to get consent—and
there are still a lot of issues to resolve before that happens—it
would be on the basis of applying that particular regime that
was applied in the FSEs because that is what the evaluation was
based on.
Q517 Chairman: What further work are
you doing or do you feel needs to be done on issues like separation
distances and pollen contamination?
Mr Morley: That is still under
discussion. There have been separate studies of pollen spread
and gene flow produced. Those are some of the studies which will
influence the final details of coexistence rules. That work is
still under way.
Q518 Paul Flynn: We have had a great
deal of evidence on the setting up of the trials and some of it
is confusing to us. When the trials were first envisaged, the
crops to be involved were genetically modified herbicide tolerant
forage maize and spring and winter oilseed rape. Can you tell
the Committee how beet became included in these trials?
Mr Morley: Yes. I may not be able
to give you the exact dates on this, but the history of the trials
goes back to 1997 when I was a MAFF minister, serving at that
time with Jeff Rooker, who is now Lord Rooker, Lord Donoughue
and Jack Cunningham, who was the Secretary of State. There was
a lot of discussion in MAFF at the time and there was some unhappiness
amongst ministers about what we felt was a rush to commercialisation.
It always gives me a wry smile when I read reports about how the
government has a secret agenda to force GMs upon an unwilling
population. If there had not been questions raised in 1997, we
would have a whole range of GM crops commercialised in this country
now, but there was unhappiness amongst ministers about what we
felt was undue haste. English Nature had expressed concerns. ACRE
itself had expressed concerns in 1996 about the issue of environmental
impact. It was felt from MAFF at the time, in conjunction with
DETR, that there would be a need for research into the environmental
effects of these crops. That was commissioned in 1998. It was
a joint announcement between DETR and MAFF at the time. The beet
trial was behind the trials of the maize and the oilseeds. It
was originally started by the industry and it was included later
within the trial in November 1999. The reason why it was included
within the FSEs is that it was felt, not unreasonably, that if
you were going to have a trial it would make more sense to have
the three crops being trialled together. The beet was incorporated
later on into the FSEs.
Q519 Paul Flynn: It seemed to coincide
with the changes in the moratorium. There was a three or four
year moratorium on the growth. There was not a trade off in the
moratorium in the inclusion of beet because it not only increased
the value of the trials but also greatly increased by about a
third the cost of the trials?
Mr Morley: It did include some
of the costs of the trials. Some of the initial work costs had
been carried by the industry. I do not think you could describe
it as a trade off in that way.
| 
