FIFTEENTH SPECIAL REPORT
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
reported to the House on the GM Planting Regime in its
Eleventh Report of Session 2003-04, published on 8 July 2004 as
HC 607. The Government's Reply to the Report was received on 29
September 2004.
Government response
Introduction
The Government welcomes the opportunity to respond
to the EFRA sub-committee's conclusions and recommendations regarding
the issue of the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops and the related
issue of liability.
The Government recognises that
measures are needed to ensure that GM and non-GM crops can co-exist.
Our statement to Parliament in March set out the parameters for
the approach we would take on this issue. We envisage that there
will be a regime where GM farmers will observe a code of practice
which has statutory backing. The aim of the measures is to ensure
that adventitious GM presence in non-GM crops is within the 0.9%
EU traceability and labelling threshold. In addition, we said
we would explore with stakeholders:
- whether a lower GM threshold
might apply for organic production;
- options for a mechanism to redress economic losses
experienced by non-GM farmers who, through no fault of their own,
suffer financially because a GM presence in their crops exceeds
the legislative thresholds for labelling; and
- guidance to farmers interested in establishing
voluntary GM-free zones.
In July, after the Committee's
report was published, the Government further announced a two-stage
process of consultation with stakeholders on the development of
a co-existence regime. Our intention remains to introduce co-existence
measures before any commercial cultivation of GM crops takes place
in the UK. However, no commercial cultivation of any GM crop is
expected before 2008. Accordingly, we have some time to consider
this issue and the Government is proposing a comprehensive approach
to engaging with those who have interests and expertise in this
area.
Recommendation 1
There is huge confusion in both the
Government's and the European Union's position in relation to
GM crops, especially in relation to the thresholds of contamination
of non-GM crops and thus liability. The Government cannot allow
the commercial cultivation of GM crops in the United Kingdom until
there is clarification of these critical issues. Until this is
done no credible co-existence regime can be constructed. (Paragraph
18)
Recommendation 2
The current European Union interpretation of 'zero'
contamination is that it is set at the limit of technical measurability:
0.1 percent. This is therefore the standard set for organic crops.
We believe that proposals to allow "adventitious or technically
unavoidable" contamination are likely to be confusing, unworkable,
unacceptable to consumers and potentially destructive of the UK
organic food industry. We recommend that the planting regime for
GM crops respect the legal requirement that organic crops suffer
zero contamination, and so does not undermine the Government's
encouragement of the organic sector exemplified by the Organic
Action Plan. (Paragraph 21)
It is unfortunate that the sub-committee consider
there is confusion in both the Government's and the European Union's
position in relation to GM crops. The Government set out its policy
in a statement to Parliament in March this year and our approach
is consistent with the European Union position generally, and
in particular the Commission's Recommendation on co-existence
guidelines published in July 2003[1].
On the specific issue of thresholds, the Government
has made its position clear. It regards the EU traceability and
labelling threshold of 0.9% for adventitious or technically unavoidable
GM presence in non-GM produce as the appropriate level, taking
account of what is reasonable and pragmatic.
The EU has concluded that the 0.9% threshold is the
level at which practical measures can be taken which are aimed
at avoiding GM presence in conventional food and feed but without
introducing such burdens or expense that the lawful activities
of growing and supplying approved GM produce becomes uneconomic.
While it is not envisaged that EU-wide measures on co-existence
will be developed, the European Commission has issued the above
mentioned Recommendation. That states at 2.1.4 that "[Co-existence
measures] shall not go beyond what is necessary in order to ensure
that adventitious traces of GMOs stay below the tolerance thresholds
set out in Community legislation".
Thus, the positions of the Government, the EU and
the European Commission are clear and consistent.
We are aware that some bodies have argued for alternative
interpretations of the EU legislation so far as organic crops
are concerned. However, legislative requirements for coexistence
measures that aim to achieve zero GM presence in non-GM crops,
including organic, would be contrary to the legislative regime
in EU Regulations 1829/2003/EC and 1830/2003/EC. To require measures,
such as separation distances that are not proportionate to achieving
the 0.9% threshold set down in those Regulations, would not be
consistent with the above European Commission Recommendation.
Imposing such measures would amount to a ban on GM crops (if GM
growers were made responsible for implementation) or on the equivalent
non-GM crop (if non-GM growers were made responsible). Either
way, the outcome would clearly not be consistent with EU legislation.
We must be realistic about what is practical and proportionate
and how the legitimate interests of two lawful activities should
be balanced.
In relation to organic production minimum standards
are laid down in EU regulation 2092/91. This:
- prohibits the use of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the organic process,
except in the case of veterinary medicinal products;
- contains a provision that allows for a specific
de minimis threshold to be set at EU level for "unavoidable
contamination" from GMOs.
Therefore, while the intentional and known use of
GMOs in organic production is prohibited, the principle of accepting
an unavoidable GM presence below a certain threshold is acknowledged.
No such threshold specific for organic produce has yet been set
so the general threshold of 0.9% set in the EU Regulations on
traceability and labelling applies to both organic and conventional
products. This has been confirmed in the Commission's European
Action Plan for Organic Farming (June 2004). Nevertheless, and
although aiming for zero is unrealistic, we have said that we
will look at whether a GM threshold below 0.9% should apply specifically
for organic production. We will be exploring this point with stakeholders
as part of our consultation.
If there are indications that the European Commission
is actively considering setting a specific threshold within EU
regulation 2092/91, we will of course contribute to these developments.
However, until such a threshold is set, the UK could not prohibit
the marketing of products which were labelled as 'organic' but
which contain up to 0.9% adventitious GM presence. Accordingly,
it is important to consider the competitiveness of UK organic
producers compared with non-UK producers if UK producers were
to bear some or all of the costs of the measures needed to achieve
a GM presence at a threshold below the 0.9% EU threshold.
The Government is encouraging the expansion of organic
farming through various measures, including a specific scheme
that offers financial help to farmers converting to organic methods
and have published an Organic Action Plan that aims to boost domestic
organic production. The Government recognises that particular
concerns have been raised about how GM and organic crops may co-exist
and is keen to ensure that the possible introduction of GM crops
in the UK should not unreasonably disrupt our burgeoning organic
sector. In this context, it is important to recognise the minimal
organic production of maize and oil seed rape which are most likely
to be grown in the UK as GM crops in the foreseeable future and
for which cross pollination is a significant consideration. We
understand that organic production accounts for less than 0.1%
of the total area of each crop in the UK.
Recommendation 3
Government guidelines on separation
distances should be regularly and independently audited and reviewed.
The Government should clarify how a regime of auditing and review
would be funded and conducted. Any audit regime must, in particular,
carry the confidence of the organic farming movement in the United
Kingdom. (Paragraph 28)
Separation distances are an established
mechanism to minimise cross-pollination between two different
crops. For example, they are routinely used in certified seed
production and information is available to identify the distances
that should limit cross-pollination frequency to specified levels.
In 2000 the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) completed
a Defra-commissioned review of separation distances to limit cross-pollination
between maize and oilseed rape crops to certain thresholds on
a whole-field basis. We have asked NIAB to review the recommended
separation distances in their 2000 report in the light of new
data provided by gene flow studies from the Farm Scale Evaluation
trials and any other relevant data. Therefore, the separation
distances that will be proposed for the co-existence guidelines
will be based on the best available scientific evidence. We will,
of course, publish this review so that it can be examined alongside
our proposals.
The Government agrees that the effectiveness
of these separation distances should be evaluated and reviewed.
In line with a recommendation by the Agriculture and Environment
Biotechnology Commission, the Government proposes that there should
be a closely monitored introductory period for co-existence arrangements,
followed by a review of their effectiveness and changes made if
necessary. We will seek the views of stakeholders on an introductory
period and review of the measures as part of our consultation
before determining the precise arrangements. We recognise the
importance of trying to ensure that both the separation distances
that are recommended and the process of evaluating them have the
confidence of relevant parties.
Recommendation 4
We are sceptical about the concept of 'voluntary'
GM-free zones. We recommend however that the Government consider
carefully the arguments in favour of mandatory GM-free zones,
particularly at the level of regions, and nations such as Wales.
We recommend that the Government set out its views on this point
in its response to this report. (Paragraph 34)
The Government has said that it will provide
guidance to farmers on the establishment of voluntary GM-free
zones. However, it is not the Government's role to advocate such
zones, nor does it regard them as necessary.
Under EU law, a GM crop will be approved for cultivation
throughout Europe only if a detailed assessment confirms that
it does not pose an unacceptable risk to health or the environment.
It is possible for an area to be exempted from an EU consent for
a GM crop, but only if there is good evidence that it poses a
particular risk to the area in question. In practice, it is unlikely
that a GM crop would present a risk only to a specific geographic
area. In all normal circumstances, therefore, it can be expected
that GM approvals will be on a EU-wide basis.
In addition the European Commission's Recommendation
on co-existence guidelines states that, subject to gaining the
relevant approvals, no form of agriculture (conventional, organic
or GM) should be excluded in the EU; and that co-existence measures
should be proportionate, not going beyond what is necessary to
ensure that GM presence is below the tolerance thresholds set
out in EU legislation. Mandatory "GM-free" zones would
clearly not be consistent with these principles. This means that
under current EU legislation it is not possible to declare parts
of the UK "GM free" on a mandatory basis if the effect
would be to deprive individual farmers of the opportunity to grow
GM crops which are approved for commercial cultivation in the
EU. We see no prospect at the current time of the EU position
changing to accommodate mandatory "GM-free" zones and
indeed the Government does not support changing EU law to make
them an option.
Recommendation 5
We believe that environmental damage and liability
is inextricably linked with the matters we have discussed in this
report. We therefore believe that it should properly be subject
to the Government's consultation process. The Government cannot
proceed to allow cultivation of GM crops until this matter is
resolved. (Paragraph 36)
The Government recognises that environmental liability
is an issue that has to be addressed. However, we intend to deal
with it separately from the consultation on co-existence. Co-existence
is an economic issue. We shall explore mechanisms for redress
where farmers do suffer an economic loss. It does not necessarily
follow that there would be any direct similarity between redress
for economic loss and a liability regime for environmental damage.
Furthermore, GM crops will only be approved for commercial release
after a thorough assessment of potential risks to the environment,
and if approved they will also be subject to post-release monitoring
plans.
We will be consulting separately on the implementation
of the new EU Directive on environmental liability in the UK,
including its application in relation to the release of genetically
modified organisms. We are also considering recommendations made
by the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission on
this subject and will respond to these in due course.
Recommendation 6
The second major strand of the consultation exercise
should be the question of how liability should be determined and
how compensation should be funded. In particular the Government
must decide who should accept liability and fund compensation,
and the mechanisms by which compensation should be paid. At the
centre of this mechanism must be a guiding principle that economic
liability should extend to the level of proven economic losses
suffered by non-GM and organic farmers as a result of admixture
or contamination. It is a duty of Government to ensure a consistent
approach to environmental and economic liability. (Paragraph 40)
We should keep this issue in context. If effective
co-existence arrangements can be put in place then compensation
cases should be a rare occurrence. Nonetheless, in the Government's
policy statement in March we set out our intentions to consult
stakeholders on options for providing compensation to non-GM farmers
who suffer financial loss through no fault of their own. In doing
so, we made clear that any such compensation scheme would need
to be funded by the GM sector itself, rather than the Government
or producers of non-GM crops.
Insurance cover is unlikely to be available in the
short term, so it is appropriate to consider other ways of dealing
with this potential problem, at least in the interim. Therefore,
our consultation will set out options for a redress mechanism
to compensate non-GM farmers if they suffer financially because
a GM presence in their crops exceeds the legislative threshold.
The consultation will need to address the issues of who precisely
will fund any scheme and the circumstances for which redress would
be available. In addition the scheme should clearly be designed
to encourage compliance with co-existence measures, and not open
to fraud or abuse.
Recommendation 7
We recommend that the Government begin
the process of consultation soon, so that final details of a co-existence
and liability regime for GM crop cultivation can be settled. To
do so, the consultation exercise must focus on threshold levels
and on the details of economic and environmental liability. In
conducting the consultation, we urge the Government to keep in
mind the recommendations made in this report. We will examine
closely the way in which the consultation is conducted, specifically
in relation to the way issues of damage and liability are addressed.
(Paragraph 41)
The Government's statement to Parliament in March
set out the parameters for the approach we would take on this
issue. This made clear our intention that farmers growing GM crops
should apply measures to ensure that adventitious GM presence
in non-GM crops is within the 0.9% traceability and labelling
threshold adopted by the European Union. In addition we would
explore whether a GM threshold below 0.9% might apply for organic
production; options for a mechanism to compensate non-GM farmers
if they suffer financially because a GM presence in their crop
exceeds the 0.9% threshold; and guidance for farmers interested
in establishing voluntary GM-free zones.
In July the Government further announced how we intended
to consult with stakeholders on the development of a co-existence
regime. Firstly, we will engage with stakeholders to ensure we
have sufficient background and evidence. We have embarked on a
small programme of workshops with a variety of stakeholders. These
workshops are not concerned with choosing between different proposals
and options but are intended to draw upon technical and practical
expertise outside of Government as to how we could fulfil the
parameters of the policy statement. Our conclusions from this
initial engagement with stakeholders will form the basis for a
second phase of consultation when everyone will get a chance to
contribute to, and comment upon, our ideas when we publish a written
package in the autumn.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
September 2004
1 Commission Recommendation of 23 July 2003 on guidelines
for the development of national strategies and best practices
to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional
and organic farming (2003/556/EC) Back
| 
