Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence


Memorandum submitted by Consumers' Association

GM GOVERNMENT DECISION

INTRODUCTION

  1.  Consumers' Association welcomes the Committee's inquiry into the implications of the government's recent decision to agree to limited cultivation of genetically modified (GM) maize in the UK. We would like to draw the Committee's attention to the implications of this decision for consumers and highlight some of the findings from our consumer research into attitudes towards GM foods which we consider need to continue to be borne in mind.

  2.  In general we consider that the government has given the go-ahead to cultivation of a GM crop prematurely. We also consider that in doing so it failed to take account of the results of its public dialogue and in particular the GM Nation public debate. Its position also stands in stark contrast to its rhetoric about reconnecting farmers with consumer demand. Fortunately the decision by Bayer CropScience not to go ahead with commercialisation of the crop concerned, Chardon LL maize, provides an opportunity for the government to re-assess its position and the measures that need to be taken before commercialisation should go ahead.

CONSUMER ATTITUDES AND CONCERNS

  3.  We have monitored consumer attitudes towards GM foods over the last 10 years. There is no doubt that the use of genetic modification in food raises concerns for many consumers. While proponents of the technology often dismiss such reservations as media-fuelled and misinformed, our research highlights that consumer attitudes to the technology have remained fairly consistent over the years. Rather than being irrational, they reflect the fact that many people still feel that not enough is known about the implications of the technology and as they also currently see no benefits offered by the technology they consider it premature to go ahead with growing of GM crops. Our most recent survey in 2002 found that less than a third (32%) of respondents were in favour of growing GM crops at the current time[10] The main reasons given were concerns that there was a lack of information, concerns about food safety, environmental impact and long-term consequences for health. However people acknowledged that it was possible that the technology could offer consumer benefits in the future.

  4.  The results of the Public Debate clearly highlighted public unease about the technology. As the report of the Debate makes clear: "They were uneasy not only about issues directly related to GM technology but about a range of broader social and political issues. The mood ranged from caution and doubt, through suspicion and scepticism, to hostility and rejection." The Debate also made clear that the more people engage with GM issues and discover more about them, their attitudes harden. Although these people are more willing to accept some potential benefits from GM, they become more doubtful about the others and express more concern about all of the risks most frequently associated with GM.

  5.  The results of the GM Citizens' Jury[11] that we jointly funded with Greenpeace, Unilever and the Co-op and which was organised by Newcastle University also concluded, after six weeks of hearing evidence from a wide selection of expert witnesses, that there should continue to be a moratorium on growing of GM crops at the current time. Similarly, the Citizens' Jury organised by the Food Standards Agency last year also unanimously agreed that more time is needed to understand the long-term environmental implications of GM crops before farmers start to grow them in the UK and that "growing crops in the UK would be irreversible and might eventually reduce choice."

  6.  The government has stressed that under Directive 2001/18, which deals with the deliberate release of GMOs, it can only prevent cultivation on environmental or public health grounds. It is also clear that the government sees clear benefits from the use of GM technology and has concerns that failure to go ahead with commercialisation may be damaging to the technology overall. However, we are concerned that a decision to go ahead before consumer concerns have been adequately addressed by more fully investigating the environmental, health and consumer choice implications, will be far more damaging in the long-term. As the Strategy Unit's report into the costs and benefits of GM crops which formed one of the strands of the government's public dialogue acknowledged, there are unlikely to be any short term benefits from growing of GM crops and any benefits will depend on consumer acceptability.

PRESERVING CHOICE

  7.  While ultimately it should be a question of choice whether or not consumers choose to eat GM foods, we are concerned that that choice would not be a meaningful one. The new GM food and feed regulations establish a threshold for adventitious contamination by GM material of up to 0.9% in the case of non-GM identity preserved supplies. Up until now, issues around consumer choice have focused on dealing with the nature of the global commodity crop market and potential for contamination of crops grown in North America and Brazil. The 0.9% threshold was established on this basis. At the moment, there is no consumer demand for GM products. This is reflected by the policies of the main retailers, manufacturers and caterers. A survey that we carried out at the end of 2002[12] highlighted that they all had non-GM policies and in most cases these extended to GM derived ingredients. It is clear that they have no plans to sell GM products for the foreseeable future.

  8.  Co-existence rules are therefore crucial if consumer choice is to be maintained if GM crops are grown in the UK. In her statement to the House of Commons outlining the government's policy on GM commercialisation, the Secretary of State Margaret Beckett stated that farmers who wish to grow GM crops should be required to comply with a code of practice based on the EU's 0.9% threshold and that this Code should have statutory backing.

  9.  We consider that the approach outlined by the UK government, as well as by the European Commission which has failed to take a lead in this area, to be inadequate. If consumer choice is to be effectively maintained, we consider that clear and binding rules are needed if it is to be ensured that farmers comply. It is also essential that these rules are adopted at European level, while allowing some flexibility for the specific circumstances that apply in Member States in order to ensure that consumers are adequately protected. If different rules and measures are adopted within different Member states it is impossible to see how a meaningful choice could be maintained within the common market. We do not consider that a code of practice with statutory backing would go far enough. Once GM crops are grown there will be no going back if non-GM and organic products are contaminated. It is also vital that careful consideration is given as to how choice will be maintained along the supply chain to prevent accidental mixing and contamination. We are disappointed that the Food Standards Agency has not represented consumer interests in this respect.

  10.  Consumers expect contamination to be kept to an absolute minimum. We are therefore concerned that 0.9% will be used as a threshold. The aim should be to work to the lowest level of contamination that is possible. The government acknowledges that specific concerns apply to organic crops and has stated that it will explore further whether a lower threshold should be applied to organic crops on a case by case basis. We agree that this should be the case. We agree with the conclusions of some members of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) that it is appropriate to work to a zero threshold which in practice would mean a 0.1% threshold based on the practical limit of detection.

LIABILITY

  11.  It is also essential that clear rules dealing with liability are in place before commercialisation of any GM crop should go ahead. Clear rules are needed to deal with environmental damage (currently being considered at EU level based on the "polluter pays" principle) and also in the event of contamination. Margaret Beckett in her statement on the government's policy announced that there will be a consultation on options for providing compensation to non-GM farmers in such an event and that such a compensation scheme would have to be funded by the GM sector. We welcome such a consultation and believe it is essential that such rules are clarified before any commercialisation is given the go-ahead.

MEETING DEMAND

  12.  If commercialisation of the GM maize had gone ahead, as the government has permitted, the maize would be used for animal feed. Under the GM food and feed regulations the animal feed would have to be labelled to indicate the presence of any GM ingredients or derivatives although the final meat or dairy product would not have to be labelled. We have welcomed efforts by some retailers and manufacturers to provide consumers a choice of meat and dairy products that are reared on non-GM feed. Given that at the moment the majority of consumers have no desire to consume products of genetic modification, it is again very unfortunate that supply chain issues did not appear to have been thought through. Provision of non-GM supplies to the consumer have been a challenge that the food industry has had to meet in response to consumer demand. It is incredible that the government could put this at risk by authorising the growing of a crop which offers no consumer benefits and for which there is currently no demand.

  13.  Typical of the whole handling of the introduction of this new technology, there has been a total failure to recognise consumer attitudes and demands. Unlike any other food, the introduction of new products has not been dependant on consumer demand, but rather decisions about what is or is not acceptable for us to consume has been made by those further down the food supply chain. We welcomed the fact that the government finally agreed to organise a public debate. However this was given limited resources both in terms of financial support and time. Despite this, many people participated and came forward with their views. It is very unfortunate that the government has decided to dismiss the concerns that were raised and which clearly reflect the views of the vast majority of the population. We have still to see an official response to the conclusions of the Debate.

INTEGRATING CONSUMER CONCERNS

  14.  This highlights a broader need to have more effective mechanisms for integrating public opinion into policy decisions. The issues around genetic modification and the extent of public concern are highly complex bringing together issues around consumer safety, but also concerns about social, ethical and environmental impacts of the technology. Despite this, decisions about whether or not to grow GM crops are narrowly based on a scientific assessment of risks to public health and the environment. The extent to which the public perceives the risks associated with GM and find them acceptable will be depended on these broader factors—for example while the technology is perceived as offering no consumer benefits, people are unlikely to be willing to accept any risk. Within the recently agreed GM food and feed regulations, there is the scope under Article 7 for "other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration" to be taken into account when authorising products. As explained in recital 32 of the regulation: "It is recognised that, in some cases, scientific risk assessment alone cannot provide all of the information on which a risk management decision should be based, and that other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration may be taken into account." No similar provision exists within Directive 2001/18 dealing with the deliberate release of GMOs and this should be addressed.

Consumers' Association

April 2004




10   GM Dilemmas, Consumers' Association policy report 2002-998 in-home interviews were carried out with a nationally representative sample aged 15 plus across Great Britain between 16 to 22 May 2002. Back

11   www.gmjury.org.uk Back

12   GM Dilemmas, Consumers' Association policy report 2002. 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