Memorandum submitted by the Agricultural
Biotechnology Council (ELD 04)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Agricultural Biotechnology Council
(abc) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee's inquiry on the Implementation
of the Environmental Liability Directive.
1.2 abc is the umbrella group for the agricultural
biotechnology industry in the UK. The companies involved include
BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow Agrosciences, DuPont/Pioneer, Monsanto
and Syngenta.
1.3 abc's goal is to provide information
and education about the use of Genetically Modified (GM) technology
in the UK and around the world, based on respect for public interest,
opinions and concerns.
1.4 abc supports an approach of actively
engaging with all stakeholders in the public policy arena on issues
relating to the use of GM technology. As such, the group submitted
a response to the Government's consultation on the Environmental
Liability Directive (ELD), which closed on 28 February 2007. The
following submission to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Select Committee builds on our response to the consultation in
a manner that aims to answer the specific terms of reference set
by the Committee. We have, therefore, limited our responses to
the Committee's questions relating to the defences the Government
is seeking to apply under Article 8 (4) of the Directive.
2. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
— abc backs the Government's moves
to enshrine the ELD into National law as a means of protecting,
conserving and enhancing the UK's biodiversity.
— abc is supportive of the Government's
science-based and proportionate approach to the implementation
of the ELD, which looks to avoid gold-plating existing legislation
and ensure that the UK's agricultural sector remains progressive,
profitable and sustainable.
— abc fully supports the use of "permit"
and "state of knowledge" defences as they relate to
the use of GM technology in the UK. We believe their introduction
is wholly appropriate due to the stringent regulations already
in place to ensure that only when Genetically Modified Organisms
(GMOs) have been assessed to be safe to human health and the environment
are they allowed to be grown or consumed. We also believe the
defences are critical to secure continuing innovation in the agricultural
sector which can be deployed in a manner sensitive to the natural
environment.
3. THE "PERMIT"
AND "STATE
OF KNOWLEDGE"
DEFENCES
3.1 abc agrees with the Government's general
approach of the ELD into UK law. In particular, we welcome its
preference for:
— Carefully managing the interface
between EU and UK environmental law in accordance with the principles
of Better Regulation;
— Ensuring evaluations of liability
are proportionate, underpinned by sound science, and assessed
on a case-by-case basis; and
— Introducing the "polluter pays"
principle into UK law in a sensitive manner, which secures the
protection of the natural environment whilst ensuring that the
UK's agricultural sector remains progressive, profitable and sustainable.
It is essential that the concept of "polluter" is used
rationally, consistently and uniformly by all groups involved
in the use, maintenance and protection of the natural environment.
3.2 abc believes that stringent regulations
are already in place to militate against the possibility of "significant
harm" (invariably undefined) from Genetically Modified Organisms
(GMOs). EC Directive 2001/18 EC ensures a step-by-step, case-by-case
assessment of potential risks to the environment before any GMO
can be released or placed on the market. This includes an environmental
risk assessment, as well as a post-market monitoring plan including
the monitoring of the long-term effects of that GMO on the environment.
3.3 abc believes that these requirements,
as well as the obligation to conduct extensive field trials to
test the suitability of specific GM crops to UK conditions, provide
a comprehensive framework of governing the impact of GMOs on the
environment. We are, therefore, fully supportive of the Government's
proposal to implement a permit defence, as this will provide legal
security for users of approved GM products who comply with the
extensive legal requirements associated with such products. Failure
to implement the permit defence will prevent insurers from entering
the market, which runs contrary to Article 14 of the ELD. It will
also serve as a barrier to innovation.
3.4 abc also strongly supports the Government's
view that the "state of knowledge" defence is justifiable.
Science is continually evolving. As with all forms of innovation,
it is unreasonable to expect the manufacturer or user of a GM
product to be able to predict effects that may arise in the future
and that were beyond the state of scientific knowledge existing
at the time of sale and use. This approach is consistent with
the Government's science-based and proportionate approach to policy
making and regulation. It will not, as other groups have attested,
prevent research into potential adverse effects of GM technologies.
April 2007
|
