Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

GM GOVERNMENT DECISION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  1.  The Government set out its approach to GM technology, including its use in crops, in a policy statement on 9 March 2004. Each application will be considered on a case-by-case basis, including an assessment of any potential risks to human health and the environment. Applying this approach to the GM crops in our Farm-Scale Evaluations (FSEs), we concluded that the UK should oppose the commercial cultivation of the relevant varieties of GM beet and oilseed rape using the management regime tested in the FSEs, but that we should agree in principle to the commercial cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant maize, subject to certain conditions. Bayer CropScience has since announced that it no longer intends to market the relevant GM maize for commercial cultivation in the EU. Nevertheless we intend to press ahead with developing measures to facilitate the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops and to address related liability issues. We plan to consult stakeholders shortly with a view to having coexistence measures in place by spring 2005. We look forward to the results of the EFRA Committee's inquiry as a contribution to this work.

BACKGROUND

  2.  The Government's recent policy statement on GM was the culmination of a long and painstaking process. In response to concerns which had been raised about GM crops, we commissioned the biggest programme of farm-scale trials anywhere in the world, as well as a GM "dialogue" comprising a public debate, science review and a costs and benefits study. We also received a report on coexistence and liability from our strategic advisory body, the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC). In deciding our policy we gave full consideration to all the available evidence.

  3.  We concluded that case-by-case regulation of GM crops remains the right approach. We continue to take public concern very seriously and we recognise the need to address people's legitimate anxieties about GM crops. We have published a detailed written response to the GM dialogue[5]which explains how we are seeking to address the concerns which have been raised. Our top priority is to protect human health and the environment, and GM crops will continue to be strictly regulated in accordance with the precautionary principle. We are also committed to providing choice for consumers through mandatory labelling, and for farmers by putting in place measures to facilitate the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops.

  4.  The results of the Farm-Scale Evaluations of three spring-sown GM herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops underline the importance of a case-by-case approach. Broadly speaking, the results suggested that growing GMHT beet and oilseed rape would be worse for biodiversity than growing conventional beet and oilseed rape, whereas growing GMHT maize was better for biodiversity than conventional maize.

  5.  On the basis of the FSE results we concluded that:

    —  the UK should oppose the commercial cultivation of the relevant varieties of GM beet and oilseed rape in the European Union using the management regime tested in the Farm-Scale Evaluations;

    —  we should agree in principle to the commercial cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant maize, but only subject to two further important conditions:

    —  first, that restrictions should be imposed on the existing EU marketing consent, which expires in October 2006, so that this maize could only be grown and managed as in the trials, or under such conditions as would not result in adverse effect on the environment.

    —  and second, in response to concerns which have been raised about the phase-out of atrazine in the European Union, that the consent holders should be required to carry out further scientific analysis to monitor changes in herbicide use on conventional maize and to submit new evidence if they sought to renew the existing EU marketing consent in 2006.

  6.  We made it clear that before commercial cultivation of GM maize could proceed, separate approval would also be required under seeds legislation, and also under pesticides legislation for the associated herbicide use. Furthermore the relevant variety, Chardon LL, would not be added to the UK National List of seeds until the necessary amendments to the EU marketing consent were in place. At the time of the statement we anticipated that Chardon LL would not secure all the approvals required for commercial cultivation to take place before spring 2005 at the earliest.

  7.  On 31 March Bayer CropScience, the company which holds the existing EU marketing consent for the GM maize tested in the FSEs, announced that it had decided to withdraw its application to add Chardon LL to the UK National List of seeds. Notwithstanding Bayer's decision, we plan to press ahead with measures to facilitate the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops and to address related liability issues, to ensure that a coexistence framework is in place in the event that any GM crops are approved for commercial cultivation in future.

  8.  We have indicated that we are minded to proceed on the basis that:

    —  there should be a closely monitored introductory period, following which we will review the effectiveness of any arrangements;

    —  that GM farmers should bear the main responsibility for implementing measures to minimise GM presence in neighbouring non-GM crops;

    —  that these measures should be based on the EU's 0.9% labelling threshold and should have statutory backing;

    —  we will explore further with stakeholders whether a lower threshold might be feasible for organic crops;

    —  we will consult stakeholders on options for providing compensation to non-GM farmers who suffer financial loss through no fault of their own as a result of GM presence in their crops;

    —  that any compensation scheme would need to be funded by the GM sector itself, rather than by Government or producers of non-GM crops;

    —  we will provide guidance to those farmers wishing to establish voluntary GM-free zones.

  9.  We are currently drafting a consultation document which we plan to publish shortly. Our aim remains to have measures in place by spring 2005, even though we do not now anticipate that there will be any commercial cultivation of GM crops in the UK in the immediate future.

  10.  The following sections address the specific issues which the Committee has indicated that it intends to consider.

SEPARATION DISTANCES

  11.  We envisage that farmers growing GM crops will be required to apply separation distances to minimise cross-pollination with neighbouring non-GM crops. We agree with the AEBC's recommendation that GM farmers should bear the main responsibility for implementing measures designed to keep GM presence in non-GM crops below the EU's 0.9% labelling threshold. We will consult on whether a lower threshold might be applied in the case of organic crops, and if so whether the GM farmer or the organic farmer should be responsible for applying the separation distance.

  12.  Separation distances will need to be determined on a crop-by-crop basis. For the purpose of the Farm Scale Evaluation (FSE) trials, separation distances allied to a notification requirement were applied under the terms of a code of practice drawn up by the farming and industry group SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops). Under the SCIMAC guidelines the FSE growers were expected to notify their neighbours of their intention to sow a GM crop if their neighbours' land fell within a specified distance, the idea being that the farmers should then discuss their respective cropping plans as necessary. The separation distances which were applied under the SCIMAC code are shown in the table below. (Note: A nominal distance was included for beet crops because special factors apply which mean that cross-pollination should not be a serious issue. See further comments on beet in paragraph 14 below.)

SEPARATION DISTANCES IN SCIMAC CODE

CropSeed crops
(same species)
Organic crops
(same species)
Other non-GM crops
(same species)


Oilseed rape
200m 200mConventional varieties and restored
hybrids: 50m
Varietal associations and partially restored
hybrids: 100m
Sugar and fodder beet600m 600m6m
Maize200m200m Sweetcorn: 200m
Forage maize: 80m



  13.  In 2000 the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) completed a Defra-commissioned review of the separation distances required to limit cross-pollination between maize and oilseed rape crops to 0.1%, 0.5% and 1% on a whole-field basis. This recommended the following distances:

RECOMMENDED SEPARATION DISTANCES FROM NIAB REVIEW


Distances needed for specified cross-pollination threshold:
1.0%

0.5%

0.1%


Oilseed rape

Conventional varieties
1.5m10m100m
Varietal associations100m (insufficient data)(insufficient data)
Maize

Grain (sweetcorn)
130m200m420m
Forage maize80m130m 290m



  14.  The NIAB review did not make recommendations in relation to beet crops because cross-pollination does not affect the composition of the utilised plant tissues (only vegetative parts of the plant are harvested rather than seeds or fruits). This means that if a GM beet cross-pollinates a non-GM beet plant the root of the latter will not have any GM content (DNA or protein). Moreover, beet crops are normally harvested before they flower and farmers usually control any "bolting" plants that flower prematurely.

  15.  A Defra-funded research report[6] on gene flow from the GM maize crops in the FSEs has provided further data relevant to the consideration of separation distances. A parallel report on gene flow from the FSE oilseed rape crops is in preparation and will be published in due course. We have asked NIAB to review the separation distances in their 2000 report in the light of the new data provided by the FSE gene flow studies and any other available data.

LIABILITY ISSUES

  16.  When considering liability issues it is important to distinguish between liability for any economic loss which might be suffered by non-GM farmers as a result of GM presence in their crops, and liability for any environmental damage which may be caused by GM crops and other genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Both issues are discussed below.

LIABILITY FOR ECONOMIC LOSS

  17.  If broadly effective measures are in place to manage the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops, then in principle the instances where non-GM growers might suffer an economic loss should be relatively infrequent. However we recognise that there may still be cases where non-GM farmers could suffer a loss through no fault of their own because GM presence in their produce exceeds statutory thresholds. There may be an economic loss if the value of produce labelled as containing GM is less than the value of produce which does not contain GM.

  18.  Non-GM farmers could seek to recover any loss through the civil courts under the common law of negligence or nuisance. There is no direct precedent for such a claim, although there are analogous cases that may be relied upon. As a result it cannot be said with any certainty whether a common law claim for economic loss would succeed. In any event we agree with the AEBC that it would be preferable to avoid a situation where farmers are forced to seek redress through the courts.

  19.  We have therefore accepted the AEBC's recommendation that there should be special arrangements for compensating farmers who suffer a financial loss through no fault of their own. We have said that we will consult stakeholders on options for providing compensation, while making clear that any compensation scheme would need to be funded by the GM industry itself, rather than by Government or producers of non-GM crops.

  20.  There are a number of issues which still need to be resolved and on which we plan to consult stakeholders. These include:

    —  How to ensure that any compensation scheme is fair and is not open to abuse.

    —  How liability should be established ie whether liability should be fault-based or whether strict liability should apply.

    —  Whether any compensation scheme should be voluntary or compulsory.

    —  Whether compensation should be payable only in relation to the 0.9% threshold or also in relation to a lower threshold for organic produce.

ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY

  21.  The AEBC also made a number of recommendations in respect of liability for any environmental damage which may be caused by GM crops or other GMOs. The Secretary of State already has powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to require companies to take remedial action if they have committed a criminal offence. The EU has recently adopted a Directive on Environmental Liability, which covers the release and contained use of GMOs. However the scope of the Directive is limited, including to serious damage to European protected species and natural habitats. Under the Directive the relevant biotechnology company may be held liable for damage caused by one of its products.

  22.  The AEBC recommended that the Government should use the general approach of the EC Environmental Liability Directive in developing the UK's liability regime for any damage caused by the release of GMOs into the environment. In addition it recommended that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 should be amended to allow environmental remediation to be ordered by the regulatory authority without the need to first secure a conviction for an offence.

  23.  We have not yet reached any firm conclusions with regard to the AEBC's recommendations on environmental liability, though we accept that the issue needs to be addressed in advance of any commercial cultivation of GM crops. We will continue to give consideration to the AEBC's recommendations and will set out our conclusions in due course.

VOLUNTARY GM-FREE ZONES

  24.  Under current EU legislation once a GM crop has been approved it can be grown commercially anywhere in the EU. Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment provides that member states may not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market of GMOs that comply with the requirements of the Directive. However, conditions imposed with respect to risks to the environment or human health as part of the marketing consent under the Directive could deal with certain geographic areas differently. If such conditions were to be imposed, this could have the effect of limiting the marketing of a GMO in some geographic areas. In practice if a GM crop were considered to pose a risk to a particular geographical area of the UK then it would probably pose a similar risk to other areas in the EU, and this would make it very unlikely that EU member states would approve the crop for marketing at all.

  25.  The European Commission has made it clear that mandatory "GM-free" zones would not be consistent with the Directive, if the effect was to deprive individual farmers of the opportunity to grow GM crops which have been approved for commercial cultivation in the EU. However the Commission has indicated that voluntary GM-free zones are permissible, whereby farmers in a particular area might enter into a voluntary agreement not to grow GM crops. The Government is therefore proposing to provide guidance to farmers wishing to establish such voluntary GM-free zones. We envisage that guidance will set out the legal framework and address practical issues which farmers may wish to consider. The final content of any guidance will be determined in the light of consultation with stakeholders.

  26.  In offering to provide guidance the Government's aim is purely to assist those farmers who might be interested in establishing voluntary "GM-free" zones. The Government is not advocating the establishment of such zones, nor does it regard them as necessary. The coexistence measures which we plan to put in place are intended to provide a reasonable balance between the economic interests of GM and non-GM farmers. Nevertheless we accept that some farmers may still want to explore the option of setting up voluntary "GM-free" zones.

What Changes in legislation will be required to allow GM crops to be grown?

  27.  Directive 2001/18/EC already provides for GM crops to be considered for commercial cultivation on a case-by-case basis and, once they have the necessary approval, to be marketed anywhere in the EU. The EU's new GM Food and Feed Regulation (1829/2003/EC), which came fully into effect on 18 April this year, provides a single approvals procedure for GM food and feed products to the same standards as Directive 2001/18/EC. Before any crop can be grown commercially separate approvals will still be required under seeds legislation and, if appropriate, under pesticides legislation for any associated herbicide use.

  28.  Directive 2001/18/EC was amended in 2003 to include a provision which allows member states to implement national coexistence measures. The UK Government and the Devolved Administrations have made it clear that we intend to make use of this provision to put in place coexistence measures in the UK. We currently envisage that regulations will be made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to deliver coexistence measures, subject to final decisions on the detailed measures in the light of consultation with stakeholders. We will continue to work closely with the Devolved Administrations with a view to maintaining a co-ordinated approach, though it is possible that the DAs may decide to put in place their own national arrangements.

What will be the scope and scale of the 2006 re-licensing procedures?

  29.  At the time of writing no GMOs have been approved under Directive 2001/18/EC, though a number of consents issued under the predecessor Directive 90/220/EC will remain valid until 2006. The procedures for renewal of these existing consents are set out in Article 17 of Directive 2001/18/EC.

  30.  Applications for renewal must be submitted before 17 October 2006 to the member state which issued the consent. The consent holder must submit:

    —  a report on the results of any monitoring carried out in line with the consent conditions;

    —  any other new information which has become available with regard to risks to human health and/or the environment; and

    —  as appropriate, a proposal for amending the consent, including any future monitoring.

  31.  Member states must then reach a collective decision on whether to renew the consent, on the basis of an assessment by the lead member state, within the timescales laid down in the Directive.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

April 2004





5   Available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/debate/pdf/gmdialogue-response.pdf Back

6   Available at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/research/epg-1-5-138.htm Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 8 July 2004