SnowBall archive 8.96-97
[Index][Thread]

GE - oral PQs from Feb 3rd 99


Genetically Modified Foods

5. Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley): What measures he is taking to ensure that
consumers have adequate information on genetically modified foods. [67800] 
6. Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North): When he plans to meet the Advisory
Committee on Novel Foods and Processes to discuss genetically modified food.
[67801] 
8. Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): What discussions he has had
with the food industry in relation to genetically modified foods. [67803] 
10. Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): What discussions he has had about
compulsory insurance schemes to cover genetically modified products. [67805] 
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff
Rooker): I am aware from on-going meetings with the food industry, and having
met the ACNFP, that all GM foods marketed in the United Kingdom receive a
thorough safety assessment and are required to be clearly labelled in
accordance with EC legislation. I have not had any discussions about
compulsory
insurance schemes to cover GM products. 
Judy Mallaber: I congratulate the Minister on tackling the labelling issue,
but
does he agree that that must be combined with ensuring that consumers have
access to GM-free foods? Will he commit himself to ensuring the greatest
possible openness on this and other food policy issues? Does he share the
concern that I felt, when I visited the BSE inquiry with a constituent of mine
whose son died of CJD, that the successive tragedies relating to the food
industry must have some connection with the culture of secrecy that I saw
displayed in that inquiry, which we saw with the previous Government? 
Mr. Rooker: To take my hon. Friend's final point first, the culture, in
terms of
transparency and openness as opposed to secrecy, changed in May 1997. In the
brief time that I had to reply to yesterday's debate, I gave examples of what
we have done in that regard, including putting non-scientific lay members on
all the advisory committees, publishing the minutes and the agendas of all the
scientific committees, being open about labelling, and publishing the brand
names of our chemical surveillance, veterinary medicine and pesticides
residues
programmes. The culture has changed dramatically. We will pursue with the EU
the gaps in the labelling provision for GM foods relating to additives and
flavourings, which I mentioned yesterday. 
Ms Walley: My hon. Friend is doing a brilliant job and has the confidence of
Labour Members in the work that 
4 Feb 1999 : Column 1064
he is doing. In relation to the ACNFP, is he aware that one particular
batch of
yellow Apache tortilla chips has been withdrawn because of suspected GM
contamination? Does he intend, as part of future assessments, that the ACNFP
will test for cross-pollination as part of its assessment for the
authorisation
of novel foods? 
Mr. Rooker: Cross-pollination is a matter for the Department of the
Environment's regulatory process under the Advisory Committee on Releases to
the Environment. No crop is grown in Britain, whether genetically modified or
otherwise, unless it has been approved by another Government Department, not
this Ministry, and it is important that that separation continues. 
I am not aware of the individual case to which my hon. Friend refers. Only
four
products have been approved in Britain and have gone through the regulatory
process governed by the ACNFP, and they are the genetically modified tomato
paste, the vegetarian cheese and the soya and maize. 
Mr. Miller: Did my hon. Friend notice the contradiction from Conservative
Members yesterday who originally resisted the labelling of GM foods and now
seem to be on the offensive? Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in the
programme
to bring about greater transparency and choice for the consumer, so that the
consumer can choose, he will ensure that his Department does not suggest to
the
consumer that there is risk? As he has just said, consumers have a high level
of protection in the programme, and what we need to ensure is that the
consumer
has choice. 
Mr. Rooker: The consumer has choice in two ways, and they are both necessary.
This covers a point that I neglected to make to my hon. Friend the Member for
Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley): labelling is crucial, but, unless there is
an alternative product, there cannot be any of the choice that is so crucial.
On the initiative of the Government and of the Department, and as a result of
discussions that we had a year ago, we published a list of 59 suppliers of
GM-free maize and soya--they are mainly from the areas in which it is grown,
such as Canada and the United States, although there are some suppliers in
Holland--so that British food manufacturers and producers know where to go for
GM-free supplies. 
Obviously we require also, through the European Union, a de minimis level so
that there is a percentage under which a product can be properly qualified as
non-GM. False allegations are made by some food manufacturers, who claim that
they are supplying GM-free food when their own contracts with suppliers allows
up to 1 per cent. GM food. 
Mr. Simpson: I congratulate the Minister on supporting the introduction of
regulations in respect of GM products, which the Tories always blocked or
refused to support. Will he consider three possible extensions of that? First,
will he consider notifying retailers, whether they are in this place or any
other, that they, too, will be included in the chain of product liability, in
the way that retailers are in relation to beef on the bone? Will he also
consider the possibility of attaching an obligation to have full public
insurance indemnification at the point of product licensing? 
4 Feb 1999 : Column 1065
Finally, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will not
enter into any mutual recognition agreement with the United States giving
access to United Kingdom markets to GM products that have come through
licensing processes less stringent than those that apply in the United
Kingdom?

Mr. Rooker: The answer to my hon. Friend's last question is yes. Nothing
will be
put on sale in this country unless it has gone through the regulatory process
that we carry out ourselves, in conjunction with our European Union partners.
It simply will not be possible for a third country, such as the United States,
to supply foods to member states of the EU--whether this country or any
other--unless those foods have been approved by regulatory processes in this
country and the EU. 
All food retailers are liable for what they sell, under the Food Safety Act
1990. It has got to be safe; the liability is clear, and it is no different
for
GM foods. As I made clear in the debate yesterday, under common law, the firm
holding the marketing consent for the GM crop can be held liable in law for
any
damages arising from, or ill effects attributed to, that crop. That will be
extended in due course, under the product liability to primary agricultural
producers under the European Commission Green Paper on food law. 
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): The Minister says that labelling is
crucial in
respect of GM products. He will remember that the second of the three options
offered to him by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee regarding
beef on the bone was to label beef on the bone as potentially harmful to human
beings. Why has he chosen the most extreme option offered to him by SEAC while
simultaneously choosing to ignore the good advice given to him by English
Nature, which said that GM foods may be harmful and therefore there should
be a
moratorium? Why does he believe SEAC while choosing to ignore English Nature? 
Mr. Rooker: First, English Nature has not said anything whatever about GM
foods
being harmful. The answer to the rest of the question can wait until 12.30. 
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): I ask my question in all seriousness, because
constituents are writing to me about this issue. In respect of the Minister's
Department, the Government have suggested that they want to separate the
producers of food from such Departments as the Department of Trade and
Industry, which looks after industry retailers. How are the
responsibilities of
Lord Sainsbury being separated, because he is in charge of the Government's
science policy? We rely on scientists to give proper advice to the Government,
but he clearly has interests--which he has fully declared--in developing and
selling GM foods. In respect of those responsibilities, can the Minister
reassure the House that it will be clear to my constituents that the
Government
are being even handed? 
Mr. Rooker: I hope that I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. My noble
Friend
has made his position absolutely clear, but he is in no way involved in the
regulatory process in decisions relating to novel foods. Clearly, the
Government--[Interruption.] No, because the Department--and, in due course,
the
Food Standards 
4 Feb 1999 : Column 1066
Agency--is responsible. We can completely separate sponsorship of the industry
and producers from consumer interests. 
The issues of biodiversity and biotechnology involve more than one Department.
Obviously, the Department of Health has an interest, as has the Department of
the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We have established a new Cabinet
Committee so that joined-up decisions can be made across government. As for
food regulations, to which the question specifically relates, my noble Friend
is in no way involved in that part of Government activity. 
Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnorshire): Will the Minister note farmers'
concern about the development of genetically modified crops and foods, which
they believe is being driven by multinational chemical companies? Will he
impose a five-year moratorium to ensure that public safety is not at risk? 
Mr. Rooker: The best way in which I can answer that question--I am not playing
with words--is by saying that there is a moratorium on a free-for-all in
regard
to the planting of such crops. That will not happen: farmers and companies
will
not be free to plant what they like, where they like. I made that clear
yesterday, and I do so again now. 
Under the guidelines that will be introduced under the final proposals of
SCIMAC, the supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops--when we
have them--there will be controlled introduction and management of GM crops.
The planting of each crop will depend on where the next is planted; it will
not
take place in isolation. It will not be possible for hundreds of acres to be
planted willy-nilly, with no respect for what is being planted
elsewhere--whether it is genetically modified, or an ordinary crop. I hope
that
I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that there will be considerable control
over planting. 
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk): Does the Minister understand what English Nature
said? It said that the large-scale introduction of genetically modified crops
into a small and crowded country such as Britain could have serious
environmental consequences. In view of that advice, why will he not do as
English Nature suggests, and allow the research for which the Government are
paying to be completed before he starts authorising the commercial development
of GM crops? It would be prudent to allow a short period during which the
research could be studied, before deciding how safely the commercial release
could take place. 
Mr. Rooker: That is exactly what is being done. The hon. Gentleman is
right: in
this country, we grow our food in the countryside, whereas farmers in the
United States grow their food on the prairies. In northern Europe--the rest of
the European Union is virtually the same in this regard--we must be
particularly vigilant in protecting the environment and biodiversity. That is
why we have these controls. The same point was made by both the Minister for
the Environment and me when we gave evidence to the Select Committee in the
other place. 
We have assessed English Nature's views. So far, we have been given no
scientific reason why planting should not take place, provided that the final
approvals are given. 
4 Feb 1999 : Column 1067
There is currently no commercial planting of GM crops in this country, and, if
it happens, it is unlikely to happen before late autumn this year. 
Mr. Tony Colman (Putney): I welcome my hon. Friend's assurances. Will he also
assure us that the current labelling discussions will include the subject of
animal feedstuffs? There are fears that there could be a repetition of the BSE
problem, and that farmers will claim that they did not know what was in the
feedstuffs. It is important for farmers to be able to reassure the ultimate
consumers--ourselves--that what we are eating does not contain GM foods,
should
they choose to do so. Farmers must be able to choose whether to incorporate
GMOs in animal feedstuffs. 
Mr. Rooker: That is an important point. Back in 1992, a committee headed by
Professor Lamming suggested the establishment of a special independent
advisory
committee dealing with animal feedstuffs. The previous Government accepted
that
recommendation, but did nothing about it. Such a committee is now being set
up,
and we hope to announce the appointment of a chairman before Easter. 
If hon. Members refer to columns 691 and 692 of yesterday's Hansard, they will
see that, in response to a question from the hon. Member for North Cornwall
(Mr. Tyler), I published in full a background note that I had received
concerning genetically modified crops. I am sure that the note will be of
interest both to the House and to the companies mentioned in it.