Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
17 MAY 2004
DR COLIN
MERRITT, DR
JULIAN LITTLE,
MR BOB
FIDDAMAN AND
MR DANIEL
PEARSALL
Q80 Joan Ruddock: This sounds like quite
a significant change in terms of seed purity that would be acceptable
or would be inevitable, perhaps, if we had GM crops growing in
this country under the regimes proposed.
Dr Merritt: I am not sure I understand
the question.
Q81 Joan Ruddock: I am suggesting that
the levels of seed purity could not be maintained in the way that
they are today.
Dr Merritt: I see no reason why
they could not. The levels I have just talked about in the US
for seed production are higher levels of purity than our standards
for collection of seeds. Remember, the thresholds that I talked
about for seed production, 99.5/99.7, are the thresholds, they
are not what the industry is normally operating at. What you are
measuring in a test like that is what is the norm. When we talk
about the guidelines and the management advice that we have discussed
that has been developed over a number of years, they are working
on a level in the worst case scenario and, in fact, most of the
time, by definition 99-point-something per cent of the time, that
you will be at vastly lower levels of admixture than the threshold.
Q82 Joan Ruddock: Can I turn to organic
production because I think you will have heard from other evidence
that where the consumer does want to avoid GM, organic is the
guarantee. Do you believe that there should be a different threshold
of contamination for organic crops and products as opposed to
conventional non-GM?
Mr Fiddaman: Personally, I do
not see why there should be any different level from that applied
to non-GM conventional growers, which is 0.9%. You have just heard
from the professional end of the seed industry in the sense that
they are delivering much higher levels than that as a natural
basis and on that basis I feel that the organic sector could provide
99.9%, which is their 0.1% detectable that they are saying they
are prepared to work to. Nought per cent does not exist because
you cannot stop things happening. It should be deliverable if
they want to set the system up. If they do not believe the separation
distances that science has shown can deliver what we have just
heard in relation to the seed purity standards then obviously
they are at liberty to extend them, but it has got to be shown
to be of benefit if they think they can derive that from it.
Q83 Joan Ruddock: If regimes are set
up in the way that I think you are suggesting, how will the organic
farmer be able to protect him or herself and get down to the lower
levels?
Mr Fiddaman: Why are you assuming
that the organic seed would be contaminated in the first place?
If it has been grown on organic farms in organic conditions you
are not going to get that scenario.
Q84 Joan Ruddock: I misled you in that
sense. I had diverted to talk about seed because I thought that
was interesting and we had not heard about it, but I am talking
now about normal growing of organic crops in organic conditions
producing an organic product. There the separation distances will
be key in some parts.
Mr Fiddaman: We have heard oilseed
rape is one of the crops but so far the evidence we have had is
that 50 metres would deliver a separation distance and that would
be within the GM growers' responsibility because that is already
part of the system and would apply, as it does now, to the rape
growers, his responsibility is to deliver that 50 metres minimum.
If the organic grower was at that barrier level I would say if
they were growing organic rape they should not be in a position
where they would be above the agreed minimum level.
Joan Ruddock: Liability is a key issue.
Chairman: We are coming on to liability.
Before we do that could we move on to Patrick.
Q85 Patrick Hall: Can I just follow up
on some points that we have just been looking at. Looking at the
evidence supplied to this Committee by abc at paragraph 2.7[53]and
the comment that was made earlier on by Mr Pearsall, I think I
heard him say that the industry had no view on the issue of thresholds,
if I can paraphrase.
Mr Pearsall: No view on whether
they were correct or not. The point was that these are arbitrary
levels that are reached as a result of technical and political
consultation and there are different levels.
Q86 Patrick Hall: Marketing considerations,
in fact, as well. Let us accept the fact that it is not possible
to have absolute perfection and levels of detection at a minimum
anyway, 0.1% or whatever it is that has been mentioned, and that
is the level that supermarkets seem to require for certain products
from certain producers. I get the impression from paragraph 2.7
that the idea of a threshold is, in a sense, anticompetitive and
market protectionism is the phrase used here, that having levels
of tolerance imposed by one part of the industry on the other
is not the right way to go about it. Is it not the case—if
I get this wrong please tell me—that certainly the United
States has opposed labelling so that people can make the choice
and, indeed, Monsanto has been one of the leading companies in
the world opposing labelling? How does that square with the paragraph
here that talks about anticompetitive practice as if it were a
bad thing?
Dr Merritt: I am sure that may
be the way it is described in the press very often but the reality,
as I understand it, in the USA is that they have a labelling policy
and it is different from ours. They adopted a policy in which
there was no requirement to specifically label positively GM content.
They do not preclude non-GM labelling but you have to demonstrate
that what you are claiming on your label is true. There is no
requirement to label positively for GM if there is no difference
in the status of the end product, it is a case-by-case basis.
If there were some substantive difference in the end product,
such as we heard about with the higher Omega 3 fatty acid level,
and it would change the food status of the end product then that
would require labelling. That is the situation. In a way, I always
think you can liken it to the way we deal with pesticides and
organic labels here. We do not require pesticides in foods to
be labelled, we allow a negative labelling in the sense of an
organic label means that they were not produced using certain
pesticides. That is a different approach to labelling than the
one we have now adopted in Europe. The fact is we have a labelling
system in Europe now which requires GM content or even origin
to be labelled and, therefore, we have to set a threshold as we
do in any other system. Again, you can take parallels with the
organic sector which has thresholds set in some of their standards
for things like lead and arsenic contamination. You have to set
thresholds because natural levels would preclude you from setting
zero. Thresholds then become either a matter of safety level or
in this case of GM, assuming they are approved through the regulatory
system, one which is determined on political and market criteria.
Q87 Patrick Hall: Would it be fair to
say that the biotech industry could actually live with a 0.1%
threshold since that is technically deliverable?
Dr Merritt: You cannot generalise
on these things but I believe that for most of the commodities
0.1 would be an extremely expensive or impossible level to work
at. In most of the commodity crops, we were hearing of levels—this
is really a question for the whole supply chain to resolve all
the different stages as we heard—between 1 and 5%. Japan
has set a threshold level for its labelling at five%; others have
talked between those levels and we, of course, started at 1% for
the European proposal which after firm negotiation reduced to
0.9%. Whether that is the limit or whether you could push lower,
in some cases it would not be difficult but in other cases either
it would be impossible or very expensive. As I said before, the
final point is, if you are working to a threshold you are not
working to be just below that threshold because the risk factor
from a commercial point of view is if you are having a proportion
that exceeds that level, that is where the cost is. So in practice
you have to work much lower, probably to a factor of 10 anyway,
even then you are working to a 0.9% threshold.
Q88 Chairman: If I can move us on to
distances and GM-free zones. Have you got any misgivings at all
about the distances? I am really looking to SCIMAC for an answer
to this. Do you have any misgivings at all about the distances
you set in both the field and farm-scale trials? Does that have
any impact at all on the movement towards some form of commercial
growing?
Mr Pearsall: I think our first
point would be that the precautionary approach that we took in
terms of taking worst case scientific evidence—I say worst
case, in other words conditions that are ideally suited to cross-pollination
occurring—certainly has been borne out by the gene flow
studies that were carried out on the maize trials. As Bob mentioned
earlier, we are awaiting further gene flow studies that were carried
out at the oilseed rape sites. We would remain confident that
the scientific evidence of gene flow as opposed to pollen dispersal
is compelling and mounting with each study that is conducted.
Q89 Chairman: Is there any more need
for research in this area or are you absolutely confident that
when we look at product liability your buffer zones, the distances
that you would want to see in place, are sufficient really to
be able to nail the lie that the distances are actually greater
than were previously presumed?
Mr Pearsall: We have always made
clear the position that the SCIMAC guidelines are subject to continuing
review and are an evolving set of protocols which will continue
to be based on the best available scientific evidence. I do not
see any reason to depart from that position. I simply reiterate
the point that the evidence that has come to light during the
process of the farm-scale evaluations and from other sources has
reinforced the precautionary nature of the separation distances
that we specified.
Q90 Chairman: Do you define between low
risk and no risk?
Mr Pearsall: Sorry, could you
just repeat that.
Q91 Chairman: Do you define the difference
between low risk and no risk as much as given in the evidence
we have been hearing that it is impossible, in a sense, to see
the elimination of risk completely? That has come up already in
the previous sessions. Does that cause you any concern at all?
Mr Pearsall: I think it depends
what you understand by risk. We take the view that the crops involved
have been through a rigorous process of scrutiny in terms of their
safety to environment, to human and animal health. The SCIMAC
guidelines are based on that premise. The regulation is in place
to address issues of safety. What we attempted to do in developing
the SCIMAC protocols was to minimise the potential for cross-pollination
within a practical farming situation drawing on experience of
seed production and other farming situations where crops are grown
to particular market specifications. There is not an issue of
risk in terms of safety involved.
Q92 Chairman: This is perception.
Mr Pearsall: It is about choice,
as Colin mentioned earlier. SCIMAC very much comes from a position
that says choice and access work in both directions and the initiative
supports farmers' ability to pursue a range of different approaches
to crop production, and that may well include GM crop production
in the future.
Q93 Chairman: If I could move on to the
notion of GM-free zones. Do you welcome what the Government has
talked about in terms of voluntary GM-free zones, certainly in
preference to statutory underpinning?
Dr Little: It is clear that we
are in a situation where GM crops have been very successful when
grown elsewhere. This afternoon we heard the NFU saying that their
members want to be able to access this technology in this country.
There may well be groups of farmers who do not want to access
this technology or actually see an advantage from not doing so.
That is their choice. Their choice to not grow GM is equally as
valid as a choice to grow GM. If there is a group within a particular
area that takes this view then a GM-free zone is clearly possible.
I think the only place where this has been looked at in any detail
to date was on the borders of Scotland where the Scottish Executive
did look at this as a possibility, having a GM-free area for their
dairy farmers regarding GM maize. In this case the majority of
farmers who were questioned on this particular issue actually
said that they wanted to access this technology and did not see
any advantage whatsoever of going for a GM-free zone. As a way
of going forward, if farmers want to club together and form a
GM-free zone then we do not see any huge issues associated with
that except where individual farmers within an area do not want
to be part of a GM-free zone.
Q94 Chairman: What would happen if the
EU changed its stance and said to make any sense of this it has
got to be given some statutory backing? Have you got an off-the-shelf
response that you would give?
Dr Little: You are in a situation
where you are making a decision for farmers as to what they can
or cannot grow or what technologies they can and cannot access
within a particular area.
Q95 Chairman: That happens in all walks
of life.
Dr Little: Okay. If you are in
that situation and you want to say "all the farmers in this
area do not have access to this technology", is there going
to be some compensation for those farmers who see themselves at
an economic disadvantage compared to their neighbours? If farmers
are growing GM crops, are choosing to grow GM crops, it must be
because they are offering them an advantage, presumably economic.
If you are putting in a statutory GM-free zone you may well be
in a situation where there are compensation issues as well.
Q96 Chairman: I would like to think through
the logic of that. I am sure there are examples where people have
to make sacrifices because of the situations in which they find
themselves. On the logic of saying that there will be reverse
compensation, maybe we will pick that up in terms of responsibility
and liability in a minute. I am not sure if I got an answer but
I was asking if there was a move towards statutory underpinning
of GM-free zones, how abc or SCIMAC would respond to that. Would
you try to oppose that in the courts? Certainly you would lobby
against it, would you not?
Dr Little: It is difficult to
see how the industry would be prepared to back such a proposal,
although you would have to look at the proposal. Any situation
where somehow Europe has allowed the growing of GM crops and then
suddenly takes that right away seems rather perverse. We would
have to have a look at the actual proposals.
Q97 Chairman: So you are not involving
yourself in any discussion with those who would want this to be
the way forward if there is going to be any commercial growing
of GM?
Dr Merritt: Certainly not at an
industry level. We have been involved in monitoring the UK farmers'
opinions through the National Farm Research Unit which has done
a farmer survey on a monthly basis for four years. It has now
touched on 22,000 farmers' opinions, 65% or thereabouts on average
are of the opinion that they would like to be able to grow these
crops. It seems to be that the majority will. The words of Franz
Fischler, which was that no one sector should deny another, seem
to underpin the whole principle at the EU level on co-existence
at the moment. Under the current thinking, that does not preclude
voluntary local groups attempting to do that but probably we would
be opposed to anything statutory because, by definition, it would
be denying those within that area that is likely to exist the
option that they require. Also, it would be very difficult to
maintain that in a flexible way as things change.
Chairman: Finally, could we go on to
product liability and the responsibility of whoever it is to take
the lead.
Q98 Patrick Hall: Let us leave aside
the safety issue, because that is another big debate, and accept
there is not a safety issue just for the sake of the debate, although
obviously lots of people are not convinced about that yet, certainly
amongst the public. Leaving aside the risk to human and environmental
health, I think you have acknowledged that there is a marketing
issue vis a" vis the rights of people to purchase
something that is defined as organic, non-organic, GM or non-GM.
If there should be a mixing, and these things do happen, that
could clearly destroy the economic value of a product that claims
to be non-GM and, therefore, the question of liability and responsibility
for that situation arises. The biotech industry not just gives
the impression but openly says that it could not be liable and
cannot follow in detail what happens to its seed; therefore it
is down to the producer. The Government here seems to be saying
something a little different inasmuch as the consultation on compensation,
although taking place, has been attached to a statement that any
compensation scheme would have to be funded by the GM sector.
That certainly includes the biotech industry, it may include farmers
who use GM products, although I think the NFU does not think it
is the latter. What is your position, if there is a collective
position on this?
Dr Little: Can I start off by
saying we heard earlier various statements saying that industry
has said under no circumstances would there ever be a compensation
scheme. I think any comments along those lines were taken out
of context. The industry has never said that it would never under
any circumstances look at liability issues. It is clearly something
that we recognise some people have concerns about and, as such,
we welcomed Mrs Beckett's statement on 9 March when she gave provisional
approval, and I think a symbolic approval, for GM crop commercialisation
in the UK and said that she wanted to sit down with stakeholders
and look at issues surrounding co-existence and liability. As
an industry, we very much look forward to those discussions taking
place and we will participate fully in those.
Q99 Chairman: Is that the view of SCIMAC
given that you have a role to play?
Mr Pearsall: It is the case that
we have not yet seen the consultation from Government. I would
reiterate the point that we have made in our written submission
that the issues of liability need to be set in their proper context.
We have cited a number of parallel examples in which crops are
grown for particular market demands and the potential for farmer
suing farmer exists in the same theoretical way as it is being
presented in the GM context, and it has not proven to be an issue.
I think it is with that caveat that it needs to be set in its
proper context and taken into proportion.
53 Ev 31 Back
| 
