Memorandum submitted by Munlochy GM Vigil
GM MAIZE DECISION
GM LIABILITY AND CONTAMINATION
1. We predicate this submission on the basis
that contamination of the environment and agricultural produce
from Genetically Modified Organisms should be avoided.
2. Our position is that there is still insufficient
evidence to prove that GM crops and foods are safe in terms of
the environment and human health, and should not be released into
the open environment and food chain until the many outstanding
safety issues have been fully addressed.
3. However we are aware that commercial
agendas are pushing the process of commercialisation of GM crops,
and as such see the need for pre-emptive legislative action to
protect the present food production system in the UK, and the
UK environment. This means statutory co-existence and liability
legislation that aims to avoid contamination, and provides adequate
redress for any contamination that does occur. This is also the
position of the Governments Advisors, the AEBC.
4. The European Commission also allude to
this position in their latest recommendation on GM co-existence
(23 July 2003), when they state (2.1.7) that "during the
phase of introduction of a new production type, operators who
introduce the new production type should bear the responsibility
of implementing the farm measures necessary to restrict gene flow"
and "farmers should be able to choose the production type
they prefer, without imposing the necessity to change already
established production patterns".
5. The emphasis is clearly on the continuation
and protection of existing methods of agriculture.
6. Supermarkets across the UK and EU, in
response to widespread consumer concerns about the safety of GM
produce, have removed GM from their product lines. They operate
at the minimum detectable level of GM contamination: 0.1%. Co-existence
measures must be sufficient to maintain the integrity of conventional
and organic produce at or below this level. The importance of
this is increased when contamination from GM can also occur in
seed lots. (The latest EU proposals would allow adventitious presence
of GM in conventional seeds at 0.3% for oilseed rape and 0.5%
for sugar beet and maize—already above the 0.1% operating
level, and a long way towards the statutory 0.9% level). Further
contamination can occur during transportation and in mixing, and
from "volunteers" in future rotations.
7. Contamination from all these areas also
needs to be kept to an absolute minimum and the legislation must
incorporate measures to achieve this.
8. If it is seen from long term practice
and experience that initial co-existence measures are unnecessarily
tight, then it may be argued that they can be relaxed. If these
measures are initiated at an insufficient level, the long term
contamination of agricultural produce, the environment and the
UK's reputation would be extremely difficult, if not impossible
to reverse.
9. To avoid the latter position strict statutory
measures need to be put in place to avoid GM contamination at
the minimum detectable level, and an effective regulatory framework
is needed to enforce these measures.
10. If contamination of agricultural produce
or the environment does still occur there needs to be statutory
liability to compensate any loss and repair any damage. This must
be strict liability and similarly should cover any harm to human
health and livestock.
11. Liability needs to fall on the patent/consent
holder as they are the protagonists who declare that their testing
methods are sufficient and their products are safe, and are also
the beneficiaries of any commercial gain. This approach also brings
the added benefit of ease of traceability, as the GM construct
responsible for the contamination can simply be traced back to
the patent/consent holder.
12. As no insurance company is prepared
to insure against the risks of GM crops it is necessary that the
patent/consent holder can show that they have sufficient resources
to meet any claim made against them. To this end they must be
required to set up a liability fund to cover the conceivable costs
that they may have to incur. Otherwise, the public, who clearly
do not even want the commercialisation of GM crops, would be left
to cover the costs through general taxation.
13. This liability fund would also need
a statutory basis and adequate and effective regulation.
14. The same co-existence and liability
measures must also be in place and in operation before any further
"open air" trials of GM crops are allowed in the UK.
15. The European Parliament has stated that
GM-free zones should be allowed and have statutory backing. There
should be no restriction on the size of GM-free zones.
16. Our proposals are the minimum necessary
to protect the reputation and viability of existing UK agricultural
practices, the UK environment and consumer choice.
Munlochy GM Vigil
April 2004
| 
