Examination of Witnesses (Questions 540-559)
13 JANUARY 2004
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP AND
DR COLIN
CHURCH
Q540 Sue Doughty: We have an increasing
move to increasing biodiversity, particularly in the light of
the Curry Report. We had a comparison during these trials of GMHT
crops within existing biodiversity. Looking at it now, would it
not have been good if we could say how can we not only base line
against the existing biodiversity but improve the biodiversity
of the land where we were growing GM crops?
Mr Morley: We are trying to do
that, following on from the Curry Report and the way that we are
constructing our new agri-environment schemes, the entry level
scheme and the higher tier scheme. That is all separate work but
the FSEs were set up to compare GM crops against current practice
on conventional crops, which is only right and proper because
that is the only way that you can do that. Some of the mitigation
measures in relation to improving biodiversity are crop management
regimes and also agri-environment regimes such as uncultivated
strips and buffer corridors that you would apply to any crop.
It is not crop specific; it is management and ecology specific.
As I mentioned earlier on, what did come out of this FSE was the
quite big disparity in some of the effects of biodiversity on
conventional crops. This is clearly linked with chemical management
regimes. I am very pleased that Professor Pollock and ACRE are
going to look further into this, because I think this is an area
of further investigation. It may well have a fundamental impact
on biodiversity of the type that you are mentioning.
Q541 Mr Savidge: How do you respond to
the biotech industry's claims that you were insufficiently sensitive
to the security risks of vandalism at the sites growing GM crops
for the national seed trials and the farm scale evaluations? How
do you respond to the accusation that Defra did not carry out
its statutory obligations in that regard?
Mr Morley: I do not accept that.
We do carry out our statutory obligations. It is a matter of considerable
regret that the fact that we have tried to be open and transparent
and give public information in a way that has not been done before
has been abused by a minority of people who have used that information
to vandalise crops. As we can now see from the benefits of the
FSEs, that was a very misguided, ill thought out policy. We would
be very reluctant to restrict that information in the future.
Obviously, we cannot ignore the fact that it has been abused in
this way but at the moment we feel we have established that we
have made the information on sites available through our websites
and we would be reluctant to go back on that. That is not being
irresponsible. It is not failing to carry out our statutory obligations.
I believe that we have done that. We have also tried to take into
account the concerns of the industry who are carrying out legitimate
activities.
Q542 Mr Savidge: If I could return to
the subject of atrazine, is Defra interested in the analysis of
the 25% non-atrazine sites? Following what you said about ACRE's
advice, will Defra insist on redoing the tests with something
other than atrazine?
Mr Morley: We do not have to go
through the whole FSE trials again to look at the issue of atrazine.
We are interested of course in the 25% of conventional maize that
did not use atrazine. I think there were no noted differences
of effect in the trials which suggests that the atrazine is not
having the effect that is claimed. Those people who say that atrazine
has distorted it would say that 25% is not enough to give you
a clear picture. We are not unreasonable about this. It is not
unreasonable to raise the issue of atrazine and the fact that
it is being phased out. We would want to see further work on comparisons
between conventional maize with a different chemical regime and
the GM maize.
Q543 Chairman: You did not deal with
the question of the accusation that has been levelled at you,
I think by Bayer, that you were failing in your statutory duty
to protect the sites. What statutory duty are you aware of having
in this regard?
Mr Morley: I am not sure we have
a statutory duty to protect sites in terms of a legal responsibility.
We have a statutory duty to ensure that the seed listing procedures
are put in place and followed. I believe that we have carried
that out.
Q544 Sue Doughty: I would like to look
at the issue about releasing information because we are not quite
sure why information is being released in two tranches. Were you
under pressure to release the information about the first three
trials so that the industry could get on with it?
Mr Morley: I am not sure what
you mean by the two tranches. The spring and the autumn sowing,
you mean?
Q545 Sue Doughty: Yes.
Mr Morley: It is simply that the
winter sown rape is a year behind the evaluation of the others.
Therefore, the evaluation is not done on that.
Q546 Chairman: Why did you not wrap them
up together?
Mr Morley: You would have had
to wait for the results of the winter sown rape. As we have the
results of the three, I do not think it is unreasonable that we
make that public as soon as we have it.
Dr Church: The other concern is
to make sure we have that information as soon as possible in case
the two dossiers that are in the European process come forward
for the UK to give its opinion.
Mr Morley: I am also sure that
if we sat on the information we would be accused of some kind
of complicated plot.
Q547 Sue Doughty: Would you agree with
the industry? Where do we now have the industry? We are in a situation
where we have had the first three crops and the industry was hoping
to get its last approvals with that. They would say the moratorium
was over. You have concern. What should they be reading into the
situation now?
Mr Morley: Each individual crop
is treated on its individual merits. That is what we are in the
process of doing. We have had the FSEs; we are grateful for the
industry's co-operation and they deserve credit for that. However,
we now have the advice from ACRE which has come to Defra. We will
have to consult with the devolved administrations before we formally
respond to that advice.
Q548 Sue Doughty: There are other crops
where we are wanting to start having a rolling programme of evaluations.
Are you going to wait and cluster those so you have three or four
coming together? How do you intend to run those? Are you going
to fund them? Are you going to run them? What do you expect to
happen about future crops coming up for evaluation?
Mr Morley: Future crops will have
to go through the same evaluation process that we will apply.
Ironically, what I was saying on another issue in relation to
waste licences is that there are no shortcuts in this process.
These are serious evaluations. The public expect us to do them
properly and they will not be rushed. We will do them properly
and thoroughly taking into account the merits or otherwise of
individual applications.
Q549 Sue Doughty: Who will be funding
those?
Mr Morley: The FSEs were funded
by Defra but generally speaking the evaluation, work and trials
are done by the biotech company concerned with the individual
crop concerned.
Q550 Sue Doughty: Do you expect any changes
in the way that will happen in the light of the first three results?
Mr Morley: No. I do not expect
any changes in relation to the evaluation process. It will be
applied as thoroughly as we have always applied it. The FSE has
given us an awful lot of information, some of which will guide
us in relation to other applications, but each application is
treated on its merits. Because one crop does well or comes out
worse in this trial, it is not a green light for all crops to
follow it either side of this argument. They must be looked at
separately.
Q551 Chairman: You say that any future
trials need not be as large scale as the ones that we are looking
at today, but can you give us a feel for how small scale they
might be, how many farms you might need to conduct those trials
on, how long they might last? A year? Three years? Five years?
Dr Church: It depends on what
you are trying to look for. I am not trying to avoid the question
by answering in that way. For example, it could be the case that
in order to demonstrate the effect of, say, maize modified to
be herbicide tolerant as opposed to a new pesticides regime other
than atrazine, the study may be to compare the new regime with
atrazine. There may not need to be a GM component, given that
we already have the information to compare atrazine with the GMHT.
That can be applied in a number of different ways and that could
be something that would be doable on a relatively small area.
I am afraid I could not give you an exact answer as to the numbers
of fields that would be necessary for any given scientific research
but the researchers in the FSEs found that they had more than
enough sites for what they needed. They came up with some estimates
of what you might need for certain studies.
Mr Morley: All new applications
go to ACRE. It is for ACRE to decide about the information that
they need to be confident about making a decision either way.
They would stipulate some of the details. It may vary from crop
to crop but ACRE is our expert advisory body.
Q552 Chairman: All of this suggests perhaps
that some of us are right to think that the outcome of these trials
has created a huge degree of uncertainty. There is no certitude,
despite all the science that has been conducted, and however much
one respects the integrity of that science. There is no certainty
either over timing. I appreciate that you have to consult the
devolved administrations but can you give us some idea of when
we might be in a position to hear some decisions?
Mr Morley: I think it would be
a comparatively short period of time in relation to our formal
response to these recommendations, just as soon as we have had
chance to consult with the devolved administrations. I would have
thought you would be looking towards the end of the month or the
beginning of February.
Q553 Paul Flynn: One of the answers you
gave me was about gene transfer to the human gut. As far as we
know, the only trial we have heard about was one involving only
12 samples and I believe in seven of the cases transfer was discovered
of GM material to the human gut. As this seems to be a great deal
more important to most consumers that a substance that previously
has not been ingested by human beings before has been transferred
to the human gut in this way—rather more important than
biodiversity or whatever—can you tell us what the government
is doing now to ensure that we have as thorough a picture of that
as we have on biodiversity?
Mr Morley: This is a matter for
the Food Standards Agency because these are health issues. You
will recall, because we served through the BSE period together,
that we always argued for an independent Food Standards Agency
and now we have one for these precise reasons. The guidance should
be simply on the basis of consumer protection without any hint
of commercial interference or involvement. That is what the FSA
are for. They have two current programmes running. One is a £1
million a year and one is a £6 million over 3 years programme.
They did look at the issue of safety of GM food, both in relation
to experiments of that kind and also a review of the science which
is available. They concluded that there is general agreement amongst
food scientists and regulators that existing assessment techniques
are sufficient to ensure that current GM foods are at least as
safe and nutritious as their conventional counterparts. That is
on the basis of independent science. We do take this seriously.
We asked for those scientific assessments and that is the view
of the FSA, who are our statutory advisory body.
Q554 Gregory Barker: All the signs are
that the British public remain still very resistant to GM and
GM food and the supermarkets remain very reluctant to stock a
wide spread of GM products. Therefore, do you envisage that there
will come a time—are you keen to see a time?—when
there will be a stable market for GM products in the UK?
Mr Morley: That is a matter for
consumer demand. It is clear from the results of the consultation
exercise that there is a lot of concern about GMs. There is a
lot of resistance to GMs. GM foods and products are a reality.
They are available in this country for sale. There are processed
foods which contain GMs. They are labelled. We think that has
to be the absolute bottom line: that there must be clear labelling
and traceability, precisely so consumers can exercise their choice
about whether they want to buy them or whether they do not. Retailers
are free to stock them or not stock them. The reality is that
if there is no demand for GM products there will be no GM crops,
whether they are approved or not. That is a matter for the market
place and consumers. It is not a matter for government.
Q555 Gregory Barker: I am encouraged
to hear you say that there is a need for clear labelling. Why
do you think there is only a need for clear labelling down to
0.9% of traceability?
Mr Morley: Because there has to
be a practical threshold level where you can identify traces of
GM. Theoretically, you can do it at a lower level than that but
in terms of practice, for example, sampling a barge full of grain
or soya, there has to be a level that you would regard as reasonable
or practical and you could have some confidence in. The view was
that 0.9 was the level that provided that confidence. That may
change in time as new processes, more sensitive equipment and
better management regimes are put in place, but at the moment
it is felt that that is the lowest practical level that you can
apply.
Q556 Gregory Barker: It is desirable
to get that level down?
Mr Morley: I think it is desirable
to have the lowest reasonable level that can be applied in relation
to thresholds.
Q557 Gregory Barker: Given the PM's stance
in favour of biotech innovation, as we heard at question time
last week, do you think that any resistance by the public to GM—planted
crops or in consumer products—is being taken into account
in Government decision making? What weight are you putting on,
for example, the GM Nation results in formulating this policy?
Mr Morley: It was always made
clear at the very start that the GM Nation was not a referendum
on GM; it was a consultation process in terms of exchanging views,
listening to people's concerns, trying to address their queries,
and to have a genuine debate between those who are in favour of
GM and those who are opposed. Some people have argued it was a
skewed debate particularly in favour of those who were against.
I do not know whether that is fair comment. What I do know however
is that you must take people's concerns into account, which is
why we have approached this on a cautious basis. It is why we
have tried to recognise that there are legitimate concerns about
health effects of GMs and they need to be addressed. There has
to be thorough, robust research on that. In terms of my responsibility
as Environment Minister, there are environmental concerns to make
sure that there are not detrimental effects in relation to the
environment. The FSEs were part of that process which in part
reflects that public concern.
Q558 Gregory Barker: Given that you are
a cautious, sensible Minister wanting to do the right thing with
a professional staff serving you at Defra, how different a course
of action would you have taken? What would you have done otherwise
had you not been informed by this groundswell of opinion in GM
debate?
Mr Morley: I do not think you
were here at the beginning when I said, going back to my appointment
to MAFF in 1997, that there was concern in MAFF amongst ministers
in 1997 that there was an undue rush towards commercialisation.
The whole issues of FSEs and moratoria came from that ministerial
concern.
Q559 Gregory Barker: Since the GM Nation?
Mr Morley: Yes, but the concern
has always been there because there has always been caution amongst
ministers which reflects the concern from general consumers. GM
Nation confirmed that. The narrow and deep survey was very interesting
in relation to the results from that and we will be setting out
a detailed response to GM Nation from the government where we
will try to address some of the concerns that were raised as part
of that consultation.
| 
