| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.51 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): I welcome the opportunity afforded by this debate, requested by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), to be able to report the important progress that the Government have been able to make over the past few years on a subject that is, to judge from the hon. Gentleman's speech, wide-reaching and timely. If I do not reach the end of my speech, I will
13 Dec 1996 : Column 591
ensure that my office copies the full speech to him. He raised many important issues, all of which I would to like to cover, and I will certainly bring him up to date on the latest position on genetically modified maize, which is a current matter for concern.
The use of genetic modification in food production will increase in importance in coming years, so it is vital that robust procedures are in place to safeguard the consumer. The hon. Gentleman gave an indication that he understands some of the difficulties in doing that, but I do not argue with the principle of safeguards for the consumer, and I believe that the UK leads the world in that regard.
In regulating developments in biotechnology, the UK has always maintained a precautionary approach. That is especially true of the operation of the various independent expert committees that offer advice to the Government.
A question that is often asked is whether regulatory controls on biotechnology are adequate. The UK was one of the first countries in the world to introduce controls on modern biotechnology, as long ago as 1978. They were not introduced in response to any identified health or environmental problems, but rather followed a precautionary approach, because of the recognised lack of familiarity with the behaviour of genetically modified organisms at that time and the need to provide for safety.
It is well known that the rate of growth in the world population is set to outstrip the world's capacity to feed itself using existing food production techniques. That problem will become most acute in areas such as sub-Saharan Africa, where drought and storage losses already result in food shortages. The issue was discussed extensively at the United Nations world food summit held in Rome last month.
The UN is confident that, through the use of modem biotechnology, it will be possible to increase crop yields dramatically, but that is only one of the advantages that modern biotechnology can bring. The technology also has the potential to offer many benefits to UK consumers, including improved nutritional qualities, flavour, choice of foods and lower prices.
In the UK, the safety of all genetically modified foods is rigorously assessed by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes--ACNFP--which is an independent body of experts chaired by Professor Derek Burke, former vice-chancellor of the university of East Anglia.
The ACNFP bases its safety assessment on the concept of substantial equivalence. That concept, which has been endorsed by the World Health Organisation, involves a comparison of a genetically modified food with its conventional equivalent, considering carefully any differences, both intentional and unintentional.
In doing that, the committee conducts a thorough examination of the results of a wide range of analytical and toxicological tests. I had the pleasure of sitting in on one of the committee's meetings only last week. I assure the House that the high respect with which the committee is held worldwide is fully justified by the critical and thorough approach that it brings to its work and the
13 Dec 1996 : Column 592
The ACNFP has consulted widely on the structured procedure that it follows in assessing the safety of GM foods. That approach ensures that all information that is considered relevant to a specific application is provided by the applicant. The procedures being developed by the European Community Scientific Committee for Food are based closely on that tried-and-tested method of safety assessment.
The ACNFP takes great pride in operating a policy of openness and in publishing reports on each novelfood that it approves. It has found--I hope that thehon. Gentleman will welcome this--the presence of a consumer representative on the committee to be particularly helpful in ensuring that issues of public concern are taken into account during its deliberations.
The ACNFP works closely with other advisory committees, including the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, the Food Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. That close collaboration enables the ACNFP to tap into a wide range of expertise in reaching a final decision on the safety of a specific novel food. Its procedures are also underpinned by an £800,000 research programme, which is funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, which ensures that the science that the committee applies is kept fully up to date.
The hon. Gentleman specifically raised the labelling of genetically modified foods. The existing EC legislation on the release of GMOs, and the UK regulations that implement it, already contain labelling requirements where they are related to safety concerns. The UK has been pressing, however, for the labelling provisions for GM foods to go wider than that.
In recent years, the independent Food Advisory Committee, which advises the Government on food labelling issues, has considered the labelling of GM foods in great detail. It first issued labelling guidelines in 1993. Those took account of two public consultation exercises, as well as the views of the committee mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, which was set up in 1992 under the chairmanship of the Rev. Mr. Polkinghorne to consider the ethics of genetic modification and food use.
As a result, the guidelines recommended that a genetically modified food should be labelled if it contained a copy of an ethically sensitive gene--that is, a copy of a gene from an animal of religious significance, a human gene or an animal gene introduced into a plant. In recent months, the extent to which it is possible to introduce statutory labelling provisions for novel foods has been the subject of much debate in Europe. The UK has been pressing for the proposed EU regulation on novel foods and novel food ingredients to be adopted as a matter of urgency.
A common position, which had the full support of the UK, was agreed by member states in October last year. To demonstrate the UK's commitment to the regulation,
13 Dec 1996 : Column 593
Although recognising the concerns expressed by a some consumers, the FAC acknowledges that there are practical limitations to food labelling. The hon. Gentleman touched on this, particularly in relation to soya. Any compulsory labelling requirements for novel foods must be enforceable, which in turn depends on whether the novel food can be distinguished from a conventional food. In the case of food ingredients such as highly processed soya derivatives, such distinction is not scientifically possible.
The FAC recognises that many consumers are unfamiliar with genetically modified foods, and has stressed that, particularly when labelling is not a condition of approval, manufacturers and retailers should be encouraged to provide additional information in response to public interest. That includes additional labelling information where appropriate. The hon. Member mentioned Sainsbury, which--along with others--has responded to this.
I can inform the House that a final text of the regulation was agreed in Brussels at the end of last month. The text represents a good deal for the UK. It contains extensive labelling provisions which, most importantly from the consumer's point of view, are enforceable. Although the text has been agreed by the conciliation committee, the proposal has yet to be adopted by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. I very much hope that both sides will progress this without delay.
Agreement of the regulation will lead to special labelling when a novel food is judged, on the basis of scientific assessment, not to be equivalent to an existing food. Food would also be labelled if there are any special ethical concerns, or if it contains a genetically modified organism.
The Food Advisory Committee met yesterday and agreed that it would use the final text of the draft EU novel foods regulation as the basis for its future discussions on the labelling of novel foods. The FAC also discussed a paper from consumer organisations on the case for labelling foods containing ingredients made from genetically modified soya beans, a matter to which the hon. Member for West Lancashire referred, for reasons I understand.
After careful consideration, the FAC reaffirmed its previous advice that compulsory labelling of genetically modified soya products should not be a condition of approval, since such products were indistinguishable from conventional products. I have heard what the hon. Member for West Lancashire said today, and we shall pay careful attention to his views. However, the FAC also reiterated its conclusion from an earlier meeting that the provision of voluntary information, including labelling where practicable, should be used to supplement any labelling recommendations made by the committee.
Finally, the Committee fully accepted the importance of accurate information for consumers. It noted and supported industry efforts in pursuing segregation of genetically modified crops, although there are some complexities--of which the hon. Member for West Lancashire will be aware--in achieving segregation
13 Dec 1996 : Column 594
I wish to bring the hon. Member for West Lancashire up to date on the question of genetically modified maize--a matter to which he referred and which the Government have considered.
In accordance with the comitology procedures of directive 90/220, a decision on issuing a marketing consent for the importation of genetically modified maize--particularly that coming in from the US--rests with the Commission. Before reaching a decision on whether to allow marketing consent, the Commission has requested the advice of three of its scientific committees. The scientific committee for pesticides has finalised its advice and concluded that it has no concern that would prevent a marketing consent from being issued.
The scientific committee for food and the scientific committee for animal nutrition are meeting today to finalise their opinion on genetically modified maize. We believe--although I do not wish to pre-empt their conclusion--that they will recommend that a marketing consent be issued. The advice from all three committees will be forwarded to the Commission tonight. On Wednesday 18 December, the Commission is expected to reach a decision on marketing consent.
The Department of the Environment is co-ordinating a UK response to the Commission decision, and a Cabinet Office meeting has been arranged for 3.30 this afternoon to discuss the handling of the outcome of the decision. This is a matter of concern, on which I have received a great deal of correspondence.
I can assure the hon. Member for West Lancashire that--pending the outcome of the decision--unprocessed genetically modified maize is, to the best of our knowledge, not being distributed in the UK or the rest of the EU. If it has been imported, it would be illegal for it to be distributed, and obviously Customs and Excise is aware of this fact. Given his interest in bringing this subject to the Floor of the House, I will make it the business of my office to ensure that he is contacted directly as soon as we have further information.
The hon. Gentleman has rightly identified that there are concerns about this science. On the other hand, I would not want the House to believe that it does not have potential benefits. It is a question of getting the balance right between dealing with the concerns of the House and the wider public, particularly consumers, and ensuring that we do not dismiss a science that has potentially a lot to offer, not just in this country but, as I explained, around the world.
To that end, we have tried at the Ministry of Agriculture to ensure that the general public have an understanding of the basics of the science. We have introduced literature in our "Food Sense" series, for example, to ensure that people understand it. It is not something that we are gung-ho about. As I identified, we think that a cautious approach is needed.
We have the advice of independent scientific committees, in which I have a great deal of faith,
13 Dec 1996 : Column 595
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |