| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Steen: In conclusion, I do not believe that terminator technology should be ruled out for ever. We cannot say that. What we do know is that there is insufficient evidence on how the technology would operate in practice, when one takes into account the possibility of gene silencing and gene instability, and cross-pollination if some seeds that carry the gene turn out to be fertile.
As things stand, there is little to recommend the commercial use of so-called suicide seeds when we consider the likely impact on developing countries, which are especially vulnerable to any crop failure. If
8 Mar 2006 : Column 923
terminator seeds become mixed up with normal seeds, the scale of the catastrophe could be horrific. Once the technology is let out of Pandora's box, there is no putting it back. We must be more certain of the consequences before we release the genie from the bottle—if the House will excuse the mixed metaphors. We can guess, however, that the consequences could be far-reaching and dramatic. This could be another historic turning point, as significant as the agricultural or industrial revolutions. It could be a major technological change in society and the world.
I urge the Minister to reaffirm the Government's commitment to a precautionary approach and not accept a case-by-case assessment at the meeting tomorrow to determine the EU's position on terminator technology at the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity in Brazil later this month. I hope that he can give me a robust reply, because at least his party and mine have shown, by being here, our interest and concern about this new and quite frightening technology.
7.2 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate and thank him for the usual generosity and kindness displayed in his introductory remarks. I hope that he and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) will not feel slighted if I disabuse them of the notion that they have either a Minister of State or a Secretary of State to reply to this important debate; I am afraid that they have a mere Under-Secretary. I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, who usually speaks on such matters. He is in Brussels at an Environment Council. My fellow Under-Secretary of State also cannot be here, but he will attend the forthcoming conference in Brazil on behalf of the Government.
I listened with great care and interest to the hon. Member for Totnes. He is right to draw attention to the subject in light of the forthcoming meeting on the UN convention. I am grateful to him for giving the Government the opportunity to put one or two things on the record, because there has been misleading reporting in the past week or so in the national press.
Terminator seed technology, which the hon. Gentleman described well, is still at the concept stage. It will not be with us in the foreseeable future. As he acknowledged, the leading biotechnology company Monsanto has said that it has no plans to market terminator seeds. The Government are not aware of any commercial activity in terms of that development anywhere in the world.
As with all new technologies, terminator seeds present both risks and potential benefits, as the hon. Gentleman also acknowledged. Those need to be carefully considered before countries agree to approve them for use. The issue, which he outlined in detail, of farmers saving seed from their harvest to grow the following year is clearly a consideration, for some countries more than others. So, too, is the potential benefit of having the means to reduce the spread of novel genes from genetically modified crops. As for the international
8 Mar 2006 : Column 924
position, no country can be forced to accept terminator seeds. The Cartagena protocol on biosafety under the UN convention on biological diversity was developed to ensure that all countries that are signatories to the protocol can make their own decisions about whether to authorise a genetically modified organism for import.
Mr. Steen: That is not quite the point. If the major seed companies that control 80 per cent. of the world's seeds produced only terminator crops, it would not be long before there was nothing else to buy, as there would not be a choice. The question whether or not a country signs up to the protocol is a red herring.
Mr. Bradshaw: It is not entirely a red herring. There are no companies, as I said, that are even thinking about commercialising such seeds. The strength of the countries that have come together under the Cartagena protocol make it very unlikely that the scenario about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned will develop. As I was saying, the protocol takes a strong precautionary approach, which means that countries can decide not to allow imports, even if there is lack of certainty about the extent of possible adverse effects. The protocol allows socio-economic considerations to be factored in.
Mr. Horam: Is the Minister saying that a country must agree to the introduction of the seeds before they can be sold commercially there?
Mr. Bradshaw: That is absolutely right. The Cartagena protocol encourages all parties to share information on potential impacts—socio-economic information as well as scientific, technical, environmental and legal information on genetically modified organisms—which will assist in informed decision-making. There has been talk in the media recently of the moratorium on the use of terminator seeds—indeed, the hon. Member for Totnes referred to it. The House may find it helpful if I read out the decision made at the fifth conference of the parties.
Mr. Steen: There is no point in one African country deciding not to go down that road, as the seed will just blow over its border. That is the problem.
Mr. Bradshaw: That is exactly why it is important that those countries have come together in the protocol. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, developing countries in particular share common concerns. It may be helpful if I read out the decision, because it has been suggested that there is a moratorium, but that is not quite the position. Paragraph 23 of decision V/5 by the convention on biological diversity recommends that
"in the current absence of reliable data on genetic use restriction technologies, without which there is an inadequate basis on which to assess their potential risks, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, products incorporating such technologies should not be approved by Parties for field testing until appropriate scientific data can justify such testing, and for commercial use until appropriate, authorized and strictly controlled scientific assessments with regard to, inter alia, their ecological and socio-economic impacts and any adverse effects for biological diversity, food security and human health have been carried out in a transparent manner and the conditions for their safe and beneficial use validated. In order to enhance the capacity of all countries to address these issues, Parties should widely disseminate information on scientific assessments, including through the clearing-house mechanism, and share their expertise in this regard."
Later this month, the convention will meet, as the hon. Gentleman said, to consider a progress report by its scientific sub-group before deciding whether a further decision should be made. I am grateful for the opportunity to stress that the UK Government's position has not changed, although misleading press reports have given the impression that it has. We would like to continue with the decision reached by the convention in 2000.
As the hon. Member for Totnes knows, EU legislation is the competent legislation on these matters as far as the UK is concerned, and he was right to point out that it ensures that there are very strict controls on the general use of GMOs. No GMOs can be marketed until they have been approved by a rigorous assessment procedure. Decisions on each GMO are considered separately against a list of criteria laid down in the legislation. Like any GMO, one that makes use of terminator technology would be approved only if the evidence showed that it would not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
Like the hon. Member for Totnes, the Government recognise the importance of constantly expanding our understanding of GMOs. To keep abreast of possible developments in that and related areas, we have commissioned a study to review the various technologies that might be used to achieve biological containment of GM or non-GM crops. The study will review the current state of play in the development of GURTs and will be published later this year.
Mr. Steen: So can I tell my constituents that the Government support a continuation of the moratorium in terminator technology seeds? Will the Government argue for that position in Brussels tomorrow, so that the EU will adopt it in Brazil later this month?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |