Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
24 MAY 2004
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY, MP AND
DR LINDA
SMITH
Q160 Joan Ruddock: It is not below 0.1%,
is it?
Mr Morley: You can detect there
is 0.1.
Q161 Joan Ruddock: I know you can.
Mr Morley: But it is whether it
is really practical.
Q162 Joan Ruddock: Where between 0.1
and 0.9?
Mr Morley: That is right. You
have to examine what is feasible, I think.
Q163 Joan Ruddock: But where is that?
Mr Morley: That will be part of
the consultation in terms of we will obviously receive different
representations, I am quite sure. All I can say to you, and I
know it is not a great answer, is I would like to see that set
at the lowest practical level.
Q164 Joan Ruddock: Have any other Member
States expressed a view on this?
Mr Morley: Austria have approached
it on the basis that they would like to take the GM-free route
and they would like to make it statutory GM-free areas, but it
has been made clear by the Commission that that is not acceptable
and will not be allowed. All the other figures for organic have
been 0.9. Denmark, France and Germany have said 0.9.
Q165 Joan Ruddock: If it were to be placed
lower than 0.9, who do you think should then be responsible for
seeing that the lower standard is met? Is it the organic farmer?
Mr Morley: If you had a lower
threshold there would be some responsibilities on the organic
farmer, but also you would have to gear your thresholds in relation
to the GM farmer to deliver 0.5. At the moment we are gearing
to 0.9. We may have a lower figure for the organic sector but
we would have to do that on a voluntary basis in relation to the
thresholds that we would set. The difference would be that it
would be enforceable if it was an EU standard.
Chairman: We will come back to GM-free
zones in a minute because we did take some time with Professor
Grant. If we could now move on with Patrick to look at the separation
distances and some of the implications of whether these distances
are going to be easy to determine and introduce. Patrick?
Q166 Patrick Hall: Could I look at what
I think has happened but also looking at the Department's evidence
to this Committee[7]I
may have got some of this wrong, so can I clarify this first.
The SCIMAC guidelines came out before the NIAB work. That is correct,
is it not?
Mr Morley: And before the FSEs,
yes.
Q167 Patrick Hall: So the SCIMAC guidelines
predate the year 2000 and that was looking at the separation distances
required to achieve a one% labelling threshold. Defra asked NIAB
to carry out some work on some different threshold levels and
what separation distances would need to be attached to those levels.
I think just recently—it says in your evidence—that
body has been asked to review the work that was done a few years
ago in the light of the farm-scale evaluations.
Mr Morley: That is right.
Q168 Patrick Hall: When is that current
review likely to be available?
Mr Morley: I think the work on
maize has been produced. The work on oilseeds is due this summer,
is it, Linda?
Dr Smith: Yes.
Mr Morley: We would expect that
work to be reviewed, possibly by ACRE in terms of a peer review.
Q169 Patrick Hall: Is it the NIAB guidelines
that are likely to be those the Government proposes to adopt rather
than the SCIMAC one which is older and also not based on 0.9?
Mr Morley: It is true that SCIMAC
produced separation distances. Those separation distances were
based really on established agronomy in relation to different
strains of the same plant, for example. They were using figures
like that for separation. The work that has been done by the National
Institute of Agricultural Botany is more up-to-date in the sense
it is actually doing some gene flow studies from the field-scale
evaluations. It is very useful data. When we have all that data
together, when we have an opportunity for giving it a thorough
scientific review, it will form the basis of the separation distances
that we will put forward as a recommendation in the consultation.
That will be open for consultation and it will be open for comment
and discussion.
Q170 Patrick Hall: With the aim of that
being the statutory basis of how we achieve the EU threshold?
Mr Morley: That is right. The
aim will be to deliver the minimum of that 0.9, that will be the
aim of it. That will be the scientific basis of the judgment.
Q171 Patrick Hall: How and who will monitor
and enforce practice on the ground vis a vis those separation
distances?
Mr Morley: There are a number
of ways that this can be approached and, again, we will consult
on this because there are different options. It could be that
we would have a role for our GM Inspectorate, for example. It
could be done in relation to standards applied of Crop Assurance.
It could be done in relation to contractual standards applied
to GM farmers in terms of the contract for the growing of the
actual crop. It could be done in whole-farm assessments which
are coming as part of the changes within agriculture. There are
a number of options by which we can do that. Do you want to answer
that, Linda?
Dr Smith: I think that covers
the range. May I add something about the SCIMAC code because the
SCIMAC code, as you said, was published before the start of the
farm-scale evaluations and as a result of the review that NIAB
did of separation distances, SCIMAC then amended their code and
used figures that were recommended in NIAB.
Q172 Patrick Hall: That was part of the
FSEs, was it?
Dr Smith: For the farm-scale evaluations,
yes. As the Minister has said, there are several ways of ensuring
compliance with the code. SCIMAC themselves put forward a system
of assurance through the sale of the seeds which was the basis
of their code, which would be one of the things that could be
looked at as part of the consultation. There were sanctions through
the contract in selling seeds, that the farmer had to comply with
the code and if he did not apply with the code then sanctions
could be applied. That is one of the options but there are others.
Mr Morley: That was a voluntary
code that people voluntarily entered into. What it meant was that
if farmers transgressed the code then the company would no longer
sell them the product.
Q173 Patrick Hall: Can I just anticipate
a few years hence when the whole structure of regulation, law
and licensing is focused around, and flows from, the 0.9% labelling
threshold. You said, Minister, that one could, and you are in
favour of I gather, look at lower limits for organic.
Mr Morley: Yes.
Q174 Patrick Hall: That was the example.
That would have to be negotiated with the EU Commission, would
it?
Mr Morley: No. We could set our
own standard in the EU and we could build that into the statutory
code.
Q175 Patrick Hall: Would that not be
challengeable?
Mr Morley: Yes, it would be challengeable
because at the moment the standard that we would agree would be
a voluntary standard and we could not apply it as a statutory
standard because of the current 0.9 threshold.
Q176 Patrick Hall: So the position of
producers who want to achieve a more challenging threshold, such
as organic producers, and indeed the supermarkets say they want
to be able to sell GM-free, or at least at a lower threshold,
that could only be achieved on a voluntary basis but there are
bound to be instances where neighbours do not agree and challenge.
Before we enter all that, is this not the time to try to avoid
it by having some legal flexibility by negotiating with the EU
Commission about circumstances under which 0.9% could actually
be lowered? Is this not the time to do that?
Mr Morley: Under the present rules
and the present Directive, Member States are free to set a lower
threshold for organics. We are taking up that option, it will
be part of our consultation. You are right about the enforceability,
potentially this looks to be a very difficult area because of
what is, what is not a factor. As I mentioned to you, you can
legally sell imported organic food using the 0.9% threshold. It
does not mean that we cannot explore this. It does not mean that
if there is support for this approach that we cannot build this
into the guidelines in the way that we structure the co-existence
rules to deliver that as an objective in relation to the organic
sector. Clearly it would be preferable to remove any doubt or
any potential for legal challenge to have the force of EU law.
We are prepared to argue for that. I do not know the views of
other countries, we would need support for that, but it is something
that we are prepared to look at.
Q177 Chairman: Can I be clear about a
couple of points. The AEBC have talked about this idea of an introductory
period and in a sense that follows on from what Patrick has been
saying, that now is the time to do things. Have you actually taken
the AEBC's advice to look at how you would put that in place or
is this still something being discussed by Government?
Mr Morley: We are following the
advice that the AEBC has given us and that will influence the
shape of the consultation document. We will build their advice
into that.
Q178 Chairman: In terms of the monitoring
of this—again Patrick was trying to get this from you—who
is going to do this monitoring?
Mr Morley: There are a number
of ways it can be done and what we will have to do as part of
the consultation is decide what is the most effective way forward
on that.
Q179 Chairman: You have not got a notion
at least of whether it is going to be self-policing or an independent
body?
Mr Morley: I have given you a
range of examples of what could be done. You could do that as
part of the statutory code.
Chairman: Let us go on to GM-free zones.
I think it is fair to say that this has not got a terribly good
press so far from the people we have been cross-examining. If
we go over to Bill on GM-free zones.
7 Ev 61 Back
| 
