Memorandum submitted by the National Farmers'
Union (Scotland)
GM MAIZE DECISION
SUMMARY
1. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute
to the inquiry of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
into the implications of the Government's recent decision to agree
to the limited cultivation of GM maize in the UK. The decision
by Bayer CropScience not to commercialise its Chardon LL variety
in the UK will delay commercial production of GM crops in the
UK but the inquiry raises important issues. The following are
the views of NFU Scotland on the first three issues to be considered
by the Committee:
— Imposition of statutory separation
distances on GM growers, to try to ensure that other growers can
meet contract specifications would represent a fundamental change
from current practice.
— The Government should consider alternatives
to statutory separation distances such as those suggested by the
EU Joint Research Centre.
— If mandatory GM separation distances
are applied these should not be set at a width intended to keep
admixture below the level of detection.
— Where farmers have planted GM crops
in accordance with all legal requirements and codes of practice
no liability for admixture in neighbouring crops should be applied
to them.
— Retention of sealed samples by farmers
would be needed to establish liability for admixture caused by
excessive levels of GM in purchased or processed farm saved seed.
— Liability should be limited to real
losses and should be reduced if good practice to avoid admixture
was not applied by non-GM growers.
— We do not accept the principle of
"strict liability".
— Owners of GM varieties should be
liable, with Government, for any losses due to damage to the environment,
animal health or human health that should have been tested for
prior to approval for commercial production.
— The Government's role in determining
liability would be through enforcement of regulations on GM production
and provision of independent testing of seed/grain samples.
— We do not oppose the concept of voluntary
GM-free zones, we believe that compulsory GM-free zones would
be illegal.
— The meaning of GM-free zones must
be defined.
— A tolerance should be applied to
allow GM-free zone status to be maintained without 100% compliance.
— Government could play a role in establishing
GM-free zones through provision of grants to encourage participation.
It would also have a role to substantiate GM-free claims.
BACKGROUND
Maize
2. In Scotland maize is primarily grown
in the Southwest by dairy producers. Maize is therefore grown
as an alternative to grass and is fed on-farm to cattle. Little
or no Scottish grown maize is marketed.
Terminology
3. Although commonly used, the phrases contamination
and cross-contamination are inappropriate in relation to the question
of co-existence between approved GM and non-GM crops. Where a
crop is found to contain grain of another variety this is more
correctly called "admixture". This is the term used
by EU Commissioner Franz Fischler.
Current Practice
4. Ensuring the co-existence of cropping
between farmers is not a new issue. Farmers who grow particular
varieties, eg barley for malting, are required to achieve a specified
varietal purity. Seed producers are required to achieve even higher
purity levels. Neighbouring oilseed growers may be producing varieties
for food use or varieties only suitable for industrial purposes.
In maize growing regions "waxy maize", used in processed
foods as a stabiliser and thickener can be grown as well as non-waxy
varieties. In each case contracts specify maximum admixture levels.
5. Each crop variety or variety type is
grown to meet market requirements and currently no grower is given
priority over another. In other words it is the responsibility
of each grower to take the necessary measures to avoid admixture.
If admixture in excess of contract specifications takes place
there will still be other markets for the grain.
6. As each grower is deemed to have an equal
right to grow for his market of choice there is no liability for
losses due to admixture in a neighbouring crop.
GM Production
7. The production of authorised GM crops
adds a new facet to crop production but there are clear parallels
with the situation that exists today. Today it is seed and organic
crops which command a premium, reflecting higher production costs,
including those associated with avoiding admixture. In the future
another category of grower, the GM grower will be added. While
Scottish maize is likely to be consumed on farm, in other areas
the grain could be sold into markets which do not require non-GM
assurances. It is likely that non-GM grain will initially be a
premium product in a mixed GM/non-GM environment, similar to the
relative market positions of conventional and organic grain today.
Co-existence
— In relation to co-existence, what
physical separation will be required between GM and non-GM crops
in order to guard against GM admixture.
8. Physical separation is not the only method
of keeping admixture below required specifications. The European
Commission's Joint Research Centre's (JRC) May 2002 report "Scenarios
for co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic
crops in European agriculture" considered other methods including
use of higher purity seed, staging of flowering, and careful handling
of grain post harvest. In its modelling of five different farm
types growing maize it found that use of isolation distances was
the best method for farms growing both GM and conventional maize
varieties. For organic farms current methods were sufficient to
avoid admixture over 1% and post-harvest management was sufficient
on farms where maize made up a small (20%) proportion of the farm
area. This could well equate to Scottish farms where much of the
land on maize producing farms would likely be in grass.
9. The appropriate distances for separation
are crop specific due to the differences in potential for admixture.
The JRC report also indicates that admixture potential depends
on other factors such as the intensity of local production. Several
studies have examined cross-pollination in maize. Some of these
have indicated that to achieve cross-pollination levels of below
0.9% (the threshold for labelling of food products as GM) separation
distances of more than 200 million could be necessary.
10. It has always been the responsibility
of the seller of the grain to achieve admixture levels required
by contracts, not his neighbour. To impose statutory separation
distances on GM growers, to try to ensure that other growers can
meet their contract specifications would represent a fundamental
change. Traditional liaison between farmers could negate the requirement
for mandatory separation distances in most cases.
11. It has been argued that GM growers should
be responsible because they are the ones who will benefit from
production of the GM crops but this is also true of the growers
of the (higher priced?) non-GM or organic crops. All these crops
will have been declared safe by Government. In the case of Chardon
LL farmers would have been growing a crop found to be better for
the environment than conventional maize crops. It is unreasonable
to restrict the choice of growers as to where they should plant
GM varieties when the issue is not food safety but contract specifications.
12. In contemplating the principle of compulsory
separation distances the Government should consider alternatives
(as suggested by the JRC report) and future scenarios involving
other crops or when GM cropping may predominate.
13. If compulsory GM separation distances
were to be applied then these should not be set at an unreasonable
level. For example, distances should not be set at a level attempting
to keep admixture below the level of detection. Neither should
confidence levels be set so high that GM crop production would
be non-viable. This would not be consistent with EU or UK policy.
Liability
— If GM admixture occurs, how will
liability be established and responded to, who should be legally
responsible, what should the limits of that responsibility be
and what role should Government play in determining these matters
14. In the case of admixture of legally
approved GM crops any suggestion that the "polluter pays"
principle should apply must be disregarded. The question to be
addressed is liability for economic losses due to the inability
to meet contract specifications.
15. Where farmers have planted GM crops
in accordance with all legal requirements and relevant codes of
practice then no liability for admixture in neighbouring crops
should be applied to them. This does not mean that the source
of the cross-pollination is unidentified but there will always
be a statistical probability of higher than expected rates of
cross-pollination due to unusual local or weather conditions.
16. Conversely, liability could be applied
if a GM farmer was found to have breached legal conditions. This
would of course have to be proved.
17. If mandatory separation distances are
not applied then the primary responsibility to avoid GM admixture
will rest with the non-GM grower; liability would not arise due
to cross-pollination. There are however other potential routes
for admixture including seed and post harvest handling.
18. Seed purchased by the grower could have
levels of GM admixture outside tolerences or farm saved seed,
processed by a seed dresser, could have come into contact with
GM seed. In these cases liability could be established by farmer
retained samples of the seed. Similarly, admixture could take
place during shipment to the first buyer of the crop although
current protocols should minimise this risk. Retention of sealed
samples by farmers would be needed to establish liability.
19. Liability should be limited to real
losses and should be reduced if good practice to avoid admixture
was not applied by the non-GM grower. Losses would relate to costs
associated with rejection plus the loss of value if the crop had
to sold as GM or the cost to reduce the admixture level to that
required by the contract.
20. We do not accept the principle of "strict
liability". It does not seem reasonable that the biotech
company holding the rights to a variety should be held responsible
for economic losses resulting from admixture. The owners of the
GM varieties should however be liable, with Government, for any
losses due to damage to the environment, animal health or human
health that should have been tested for prior to approval for
commercial production.
21. The Government's role in determining
liability would be through enforcement of regulations on GM production
and provision of independent testing of seed/grain samples.
GM Free-Zones
— What processes will be involved in
determining how GM-free zones will be established at both a regional
and local level and what role should Government play in this development.
22. NFU Scotland does not oppose the concept
of voluntary GM-free zones. We believe that compulsory GM-free
zones would be illegal. Zones should not be constrained by size;
individual farm businesses should be able to establish themselves
as GM-free zones.
23. The meaning of GM-free zones must be
defined. It would not be logical to allow GM crops authorised
for UK production to be fed to livestock within a GM-free zone
if local farmers were denied the ability to grow those crops.
Constraining both production and use of GM crops would however
make such zones less attractive to farmers.
24. Another issue which would need to be
addressed is uniformity of zones. Would the presence of a single
GM grower negate the status of the whole zone? Would the boundaries
need to be redrawn or could a tolerance be applied. Note that
food stuffs which are below 0.9% GM do not have to be labelled
GM but they are not considered "GM-free". We suggest
that that a tolerance should be applied.
25. Government could play a role in establishing
GM-free zones through provision of grants to encourage growers
to participate. It would also have a role, via trading standards,
to ensure that GM-free claims were substantiated.
National Farmers' Union (Scotland)
April 2004
| 
