MONDAY 8 MARCH 1999

PROFESSOR PHILIP JAMES and DR ANDREW CHESSON

  260. Do you think the principle of substantial equivalence to assess the safety of novel foods is satisfactory, both for food safety and consumer confidence?
  (Professor James) Answer, no, and we set out in detail why we think that there are new approaches to that. One can get into a wonderful, four-hour debate on what one means by substantial equivalence and its implications in the regulatory process for sifting data. I do not know whether Dr Chesson would like to add anything on that.
  (Dr Chesson) Yes, I think there is a tendency to assume that all genetically modified foods are equivalent and much the same thing. I think there are some areas in which substantial equivalence plays a much more important part than in others. I do not particularly have any great concerns about the relatively few constructs which have gone through the regulatory systems in the UK and in Europe to date, but I think we are looking at such a very large, potential range of transgenic crops and foodstuffs in the future that I think the whole concept, the framework, of substantial equivalence will assume increasing importance. And, I think, used in the way that it is currently used, I do not think it will necessarily be adequate for that purpose.

  261. Do you want to see any changes, that you would want to recommend, to both the principle and the practice of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and processes' assessments?
  (Professor James) We proposed in our papers that, in fact, there needs to be a much more proactive approach to developing novel science, which, as it were, goes in parallel with these exciting developments in molecular biology. And we believe that, in fact, there is a series of scientific technical innovations that can be applied to enhance the confidence that we have that there are no unpredictable effects, as a result of transgenic inserts. And Dr Chesson, as a result of his detailed analysis of the various portfolios being put forward, and because he is involved both personally and in an Institute that is involved in trying to develop these novel techniques, we actually believe that there are mechanisms now that are coming into play that we should actually begin to use, and would give greater confidence both to the professionals and to the public.

  262. Can I ask you about labelling of GM foods. What changes would you like to see, and how far should labelling go? Should you, for instance, have to label products which are not genetically modified, apart from the root of the product, which might be modified, in order to make it less attractive to pests, or frogs, or whatever?
  (Professor James) I think that the issue of labelling, in terms of GMOs, is at present a mechanism whereby people might be allowed to discriminate, and it is a standard response which is totally to be expected. But where we come from is that, as you look at what is happening out there, I find it very difficult to believe that any labelling mechanism is going to be of any use in ten years' time. And that is why we have spent so much time trying to think how to enhance the safety assurance of the GMO process. We think that that is more important than trying to devise ever more complex and, essentially, difficult systems to monitor GMOs. I do not believe that in the future this is going to be possible, unless you create a complete, separate food system, where, under no circumstances, are GMOs used at all. Otherwise there are going to be GMO plants throughout the food chain.

  263. But that will not work for products that have already been approved, will it; we will still need labelling for those?
  (Professor James) Sorry. That is why I prefaced my remarks. I think there is labelling now, and the standard response is: "We must have labelling", fine, I am not against labelling. I am just saying that, actually, if you look at it, I do not think it is going to work. That is all I am saying.

  264. First, I just want to tag on something to that area. You say that, in ten years' time, you take it that there is an absolute inevitability that our food production, in ten years' time, will be dominated by GM crops?
  (Professor James) I did not say dominated, but that, in fact, there would be so many GM crops that they would, essentially, pervade the food chain.

  265. My next two or three questions are on the proposal by the Royal Society, amidst others, that there ought to be some overarching body, above the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, above ACRE and above, perhaps, the Food Standards Agency, too, in this area. What is your view on that proposal?
  (Professor James) As I put in our report, I think that, obviously, it is important to have the linkages made, but I do believe, at the moment, and Dr Chesson may disagree with me, that the environmental issues are really very complex and very different from the health issues. Therefore, I see that the health issues will predominantly relate to the Food Standards Agency, but I do believe that the overarching system proposed by the Royal Society, in effect, under my original proposals, would be dealt with by virtue of conjoint groups, between Environment and Food Standards Agency, for example.

  266. Where would consumers fit into that structure?
  (Professor James) That is the beauty of the Food Standards Agency, if it goes through, the consumer representation, public interest representation, is extremely important, and that is why it should be there.

  267. Right; but we heard earlier on that the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes has one consumer representative, one ethics specialist, and, otherwise, I do not know, eight or ten food company and academic scientists in this field. What kind of balance would you see within the Food Standards Agency and within, if there were to be an overarching body, should not the consumers have something like a third of the total representation, not just a token one?
  (Professor James) I think it is important that I make a distinction between consumer and public interest, I think it is better to talk about the public interest, not just about consumer groups. I think that I have never thought it wise to specify a proportion, but I totally agree with you that tokenism is inappropriate, and I do believe that, if the public, in Britain, and, indeed, in Europe—it is the same—if we are going to make any headway, in terms of trying to properly allay and not simply con people, I think there is a need for a completely different process. And that is why, to go back to the Pusztai affair, for me, personally, it was so tragic, because, in fact, there are legitimate issues of science which Dr Pusztai had contributed to so marvellously, and the question is how to get these legitimate interests locked into a process. I have been trying to do that for quite some time. I do not think we have got it right, and I think we are going to have to evolve a system, because if we do not do things better than we do now we are going to be running into a crisis every few months.

  Chairman: I am going to finish there, and I am going to finish on that note, because I was delighted, Professor James, that you felt generous and honest enough to finish with a tribute to the work of Dr Pusztai over all the years that he has been an experimental scientist. And, although there has been controversy in these last few weeks, it is very heartening, I think, for this Committee to hear you pay tribute to Dr Pusztai in that way at this time. However, may I thank you for your evidence this afternoon and the evidence you gave us in writing before the Committee meeting; can I thank you, too, Dr Chesson, for the support you have given; and thank you both for assisting us in this difficult but very interesting inquiry. Thank you.