House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Written Evidence

Memorandum submitted by Friends of the Earth

GM GOVERNMENT DECISION

Friends of the Earth inspires solutions to environmental problems, which make life better for people

Friends of the Earth is:

— the UK's most influential national environmental campaigning organisation;

— the most extensive environmental network in the world, with almost one million supporters across five continents and over 60 national organisations worldwide;

— a unique network of campaigning local groups, working in over 200 communities throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland; and

— dependent on individuals for over 90% of its income.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Government GM policy announcement on 9 March 2004[48]made by Margaret Beckett opened the door to the commercial cultivation of GM crops in the UK. The crop in question was the GM fodder maize tested in the Farm Scale Evaluations 2000-2003. This maize contains the GM trait T25 which confers tolerance to Bayer CropScience's herbicide glufosinate ammonium (trade name Liberty). At the time of the announcement, one variety of T25 maize, known as ChardonLL, was awaiting addition to the UK's National List of Varieties (The Seed List). On 31 March 2004, Bayer crop Science withdrew their application for ChardonLL. This means no UK varieties of the GM fodder maize could be approved for the market until the statutory two years of National List Trials have been completed and the data arising from them assessed. As no new applications for T25 varieties were received by DEFRA in 2004, the earliest date a new variety could be added to the National List would be 2007, but it is highly likely that interested parties will use the right to object to such a listing[49]which would delay listing until 2008 at the earliest. Under the EU GMO Deliberate Release Directive 2001/18/EC all marketing consents issued before 1998 expire in 2006 and new applications submitted follow the more demanding risk assessment of the 2001/18 Directive. Thus before any further T25 varieties could be grown, a new marketing consent would have to be approved for T25 maize under Directive 2001/18/EC.

1.2 Following the Bayer announcement to withdraw the application for ChardonLL, attention will focus on the proposals, also announced by Mrs Beckett on 9 March 2004, that the Government intends to consult the public and stakeholders about coexistence of GM and non GM crops. This consultation is likely to cover all the crops likely to be subject to genetic modification over the next few years.

1.3 Additional large scale trials may be required for some GM traits in some crops before marketing consents could be approved. Friends of the Earth believes that prevention of GM contamination and liability must be governed by law in the UK before further releases of GM crops take place for whatever reason.

1.4 Friends of the Earth welcomes the DEFRA Committee Inquiry into the commercialisation of GM maize and crop contamination. We hope that the Committee will have time to examine this issue further following the government consultation promised for summer 2004, and to investigate these issues in relation to other GM crops such as oilseed rape and sugar and fodder beet.

2. PREVENTING CONTAMINATION

2.1. Friends of the Earth believes that legislation should be introduced that seeks to ensure that levels of GM contamination in non GM crops is not detectable at the current level of detection for GM presence (0.1%). Furthermore legislation should also be introduced to make the consent holders for GM traits (Bayer CropScience in the case of T25 maize) strictly liable for any economic, environmental and health harm caused by the release of their products.

2.2 To this end Friends of the Earth drafted a Private Members Bill which set out the measures we believe are the minimum required to achieve the objective of keeping GM contamination below the limit of detection from field to plate (Annex I). [50]This Bill included minimum separation distances and times which would be required to meet this standard of purity. It also included measures to minimise the possibility of admixture of GM and non GM crops along the supply chain, post harvest. The Bill was adopted by Greg Barker MP following the members' ballot in December 2003. In a meeting between DEFRA ministers, Greg Barker and ourselves it was clear that the Government was not prepared to support the Bill and might block its passage. In the event Greg Barker decided to table a shorter bill[51]which would have required that Coexistence and Liability Legislation should be approved by a full vote of the House of Commons before any further planting of GM crops, commercially or in trials, could occur. At the second reading on 26 March 2004, a procedural vote prevented a proper debate of the issues and a vote. However, the Bill may receive debating time on 14 May 2004.

2.3 Friends of the Earth is very concerned that the Government will seek to limit the scope of the domestic rules on the coexistence and liability provision to meet the current EU threshold for the labelling of food and feed[52]of 0.9% for any ingredients, including those derived from GM crops (eg vegetable oils, lecithin and starch). The 0.9% threshold was a pragmatic decision of the EC and European Parliament and is not based on criteria designed to safeguard the environment or health of people or animals. We are also concerned about the proposals from the EC to set thresholds for GM presence in seeds higher than the limit of detection. A revised proposal from the EC is expected in the next few weeks following widespread criticism of the original threshold put forward in 2000 which ranged from 0.3% to 0.7% depending on the species of crop. English Nature's position is that seed thresholds should be set to protect the environment rather than to meet the 0.9% threshold and that the lowest possible threshold should be aimed for. [53]Contaminated seed would mean that consumer and farmer choice of a GM-free option would be lost. The contamination of basic seeds could also reduce choice for future generations.

2.4 Friends of the Earth believes that statutory rules for the prevention of contamination should extend to the handling and storage of seeds and harvested crops and products derived from them. We believe that this is necessary to ensure that farmers and consumers can continue to choose GM-free crops and food in the future and to protect the environment and human health from potential long term impacts.

2.5. Key to deciding what measures will be needed is a precise definition of what the EC and UK government understands by "adventitious and technically unavoidable" presence. It is not at all clear that there is a common understanding of the meaning of these words. The EC Regulations 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed Article 12.3 are clear that the 0.9% threshold below which no labelling is required is to cover adventitious presence and not planned presence:

2.5.1 In order to establish that the presence is adventitious or technically avoidable, operators must be in a position to supply evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that they have taken appropriate steps to avoid the presence of such materials.

2.6 Although these regulations do not apply to crop growing the meaning of adventitious and technically unavoidable must also logically apply to coexistence schemes. Therefore, coexistence laws must also aim to "avoid the presence" of GM materials and should not be designed to allow a GM presence up to 0.9%.

3. What physical separation will be required between GM and non-GM crops in order to guard against cross-contamination?

3.1 The separation distance required for maize seed production set by the OECD, EU and UK is 200m. This is designed to limit contamination to between 0.1 and 1.0%, depending on the approach used in breeding the variety. For open pollinated varieties, which would be the situation if commercial maize was grown in the UK, the threshold is 0.5 to 1.0%. Two hundred metres is the SCIMAC code separation distance for seed production, sweet corn and organic production. The distance for fodder maize growing currently being used is a mere 80 metres (the original SCIMAC distance was 50 metres) remembering that this is based on the whole crop not just cobs.

3.2 Maize produces distinct male and female flowers, known as "tassels" and "silks" respectively. Most pollination events are due to airborne and windborne pollen from other plants[54]and only one in 20 are self pollination. Maize produces large amounts of pollen. Honey bees and other insects do not generally assist with cross pollination in maize but bees will utilise maize pollen as a source of food, so the potential exists for honey to be contaminated with GM maize pollen. [55]

3.3 The UK does not produce maize seed because of our climate. Maize growing is mainly for fodder which is made into silage and fed to cattle. Some sweet corn is produced commercially, and it is a common amateur crop on vegetable plots and allotments. Most maize is grown in the south and west of the UK as the crop requires milder weather to reach maturity.

3.4 Scientific papers indicate that there is good evidence to suggest that maize pollen cross-pollinates over much greater distances than 200 metres. Despite rapid deposition of pollen close to the source plant, the huge amounts produced (up to 25 million pollen grains per plant) result in significant amounts being airborne (125,000 grains) even when concentrations have dropped by 99.5% at 500 metres. [56]

3.5 Contamination of maize seed lots with GM traits has already occurred in France where levels are reported to be over 1%.[57]

3.6. Maize pollen is heavy compared with that of other wind pollinated species. However, scientific research is limited to distances of 800 metres from the crop and to a height of 4.6 metres above the ground. [58]The percentage of hybrid kernels in maize cobs at various distances from the source of pollen has been looked at by several researchers. This is relatively easy to do in maize because there are varieties that produce distinctively shaped or coloured kernels (black, blue and yellow for instance). Outcrossing of 0.21% at a distance of 800 metres has detected. [59]At 200 metres, these studies found average cross pollination rates of 1.6% and 0.5% with a maximum of 2.47% recorded in an individual sample. The same study found a rate of 6.1% at 75 metres. [60]3.7. Recent research findings published by Defra[61]confirm that cross pollination can occur at levels above 0.1% beyond 200 metres from the source of the pollen. A level of 0.14% was detected at 650 metres. This is entirely consistent with the previous research findings and with anecdotal reports from the USA. [62]From published research Professor Jean Emberlin of the National Pollen Research Unit stated in her evidence to the ChardonLL hearing in 2000 that: "The available data indicates that 200m is unlikely to be a satisfactory separation distance if 0.1%, or even 1%, are the maximum levels of acceptable contamination." [63]

3.8. As maize does not survive the winter in the UK there are no issues relating to contamination via volunteers. This also applies to wild relatives because there are none in the UK.

3.9. Based on the available evidence the SCIMAC separation distance for maize will not prevent contamination above 0.1%. The evidence suggests that a minimum separation distance of 2,000 metres between maize crops would be required to ensure that no GM presence could be detected in the non-GM crop.

4. If cross-contamination occurs, how will liability be established and responded to, who should be legally responsible and what should the limits of that responsibility be-and what role should Government play in determining these matters?

4.1 The GM Contamination Bill makes it very clear that the liability for GM contamination of non GM food and crops (including organic) should lie strictly with the consent holders of the GM trait(s). This provision is designed to make it easy for parties affected by GM contamination to receive compensation for losses caused by GM contamination. It would then be up to the GM consent holder to seek damages from parties that they thought had caused the harm by failing to following the rules of growing and handling GM crops.

5. What processes will be involved in determining how GM-free zones will be established at both a regional and local level and what role should Government play in this development?

5.1 The EC has amended the GMO Deliberate Release Directive to allow member states to "take appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMO products in other products" (Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC.

5.2 This is not compulsory and leaves it open to Members States to take no action to prevent contamination or to adopt a voluntary approach. Friends of the Earth believes that the EC decision to allow many coexistence regimes to exist will inevitably mean that the EC will have to introduce legislation at a later date to harmonise the coexistence rules across the EU. We believe that the approach adopted by the EC may have been motivated by a desire to avoid a long and difficult legislative process to introduce coexistence regimes for the whole of the EU when faced with a complaint to the World Trade Organisation by the USA and its allies on the continued de facto moratorium on GM commercial applications in the EU.

5.3 Friends of the Earth rejects the voluntary approach to preventing GM contamination because of the very poor track record of voluntary approaches in agriculture (eg the voluntary NFU code to control straw burning which operated in the mid 1980s). We believe that the rules on contamination and liability should be debated by the full house of Commons and result in an Act of Parliament. To try and introduce such measures via a Statutory Instrument would ignore the importance of this issue and the deep concerns amongst the public about the "creeping contamination" by GM crops.

5.4 Under current EU legislation member states and regions cannot introduce blanket bans on GM crops. However Article 19(3)(c) of the GMO Deliberate Release Directive allows for conditions to be placed on marketing consents for GMOs preventing them being grown in particular geographical or ecological zones. This case by case approach has to be backed by evidence that the release of the particular GMO will be harmful. As part of Friends of the Earth's GM free Britain campaign, 28 local authorities have voted to use Article 19 to try and ensure that their area remains free of GM (see Annex II for a list of councils with GM free policies)

5.5 In her statement of 9th March Mrs Beckett introduced the voluntary approach to setting up GM free zones.

5.5.1 The Government will also provide guidance to farmers interested in establishing voluntary GM-free zones in their areas, consistent with EU legislation. [64]

5.6 The concept of a voluntary approach to establishing GM free zones emerged from an EC consultation process.

5.6.1 Voluntary agreements among farmers on zones of a single production type: Groups of farmers in a neighbourhood may achieve a significant reduction in the costs related to the segregation of GM and non-GM production types if they coordinate their production on the basis of voluntary agreements. [65]

5.7 Thus the UK government and the EC have recognised that people do want to protect their crops and food from GM contamination. What they don't seem to have done is to analyse how a voluntary approach delivers the outcome that most EU citizens support—a GM free environment and food. This suggests that the creation of voluntary GM-free zones will fail to provide the level of protection from GM contamination that is required to protect the environment, agricultural seeds and crops and meet public demand for GM-free food.

5.8 Friends of the Earth believes that a voluntary approach to setting up GM free zones is fraught with difficulties. In our recent contact with DEFRA officials it appeared to us that the concept of voluntary GM free zones has not been thought through by officials.

5.9 Some of the questions that require answers that seem not to have been addressed include:

5.9.1 Farmers would need to be able to buy seeds free of GM contamination to ensure that a voluntary zone was GM free. The latest EC proposals for seed purity would allow seeds contaminated between 0.3 and 0.7% to be sold as GM. [66]This proposal was drafted for all agriculture, not for farmers within voluntary GM-free zones. GM free zone farmers would have to pay for seed lots to be checked prior to sowing and would be unable to get a refund if they contained GM at or below the legal thresholds. The sowing of GM contaminated seed would mean the voluntary zone would fail as soon as the first crop was sown. Who would pay for seeds to be checked? What happens if one farmer cannot obtain GM free seed?

5.9.2 Setting boundaries for voluntary GM free zones would be crucial. How will boundaries be decided? Who will decide? What happens along national and regional borders if the neighbouring areas are not establishing GM-free zones? Will there be buffer zones? How will these be enforced in the absence of legislation?

5.9.3 What democratic process would be followed to decide on whether to establish a voluntary GM-free zone? What happens if nine farmers say "yes" and the tenth refuses to join and insists on growing GM crops?

5.9.4 To give such a scheme a fighting chance of success would farmers joining a voluntary GM-free zone have to sign a contract binding on all participants? Who will pay for individual contracts to be drawn up? Who will pay for the registration of the body establishing the GM-free zone? Most voluntary organisations have a legal constitution. Would voluntary GM free zones have a legal constitution? Will all the costs of establishing zones fall on GM free farmers?

5.9.5 How long will GM free zones be in operation? Who will decide on the length? What happens along boundaries if a neighbouring GM-free zone agreement is terminated before the agreed term expires?

5.9.6 What happens if a farm within a GM free zone is sold because of retirement, death of the owner or any other reason and the new owner refuses to join? If a new owner or tenant is refused permission to grow GM crops by the existing GM free contracts could they take legal action under the Human Rights Act or on the grounds of restraint of trade?

5.9.7 How will zones accommodate tenants and owner-occupiers? Will agreements be tied to the farmer (who plants the crops) or to the land?

5.9.8 If tenants want to join but the landlord refuses who will take precedence? And vice versa?

5.9.9 Does the GM free zone apply to imported animal feed as well as crops—bearing in mind that feed could be spilt and germinate to produce pollen which could pollinate crops in the zone?

5.9.10 What happens if a crop in a GM free zone is contaminated by pollen from outside the zone or feral GM populations are found- will the scheme continue? How will GM volunteer and feral plant control within the zone be carried out and paid for?

5.9.11 What happens if a member of the GM-free zone deliberately grows a GM crop? How will other members seek redress? Will the GMO consent holder be liable or the farmer? Will the biotech companies have to be party to GM voluntary agreements so they know who not to sell GM seed to around the country? Will there be a public register of GM free zones to assist with establishing buffer zones?

5.9.12 If a zone is established including farmers who have previously grown a GM crop (either experimentally or commercially) and contamination arises from volunteer or feral plants, who will be responsible for compensating losses that other members incur? Oilseed rape seed can be dormant in the soil for 7-10 years and beet seed for longer.

5.9.13 Will members of the zone be legally able to use that fact in labelling or advertising their products? How will GM free status be verified and by whom? Who will pay for verification and inspection?

5.9.14 Will there be a limit on the size of voluntary zones? Could they cover entire regions of countries? As they may be tacitly sanctioned by the UK government and EC will they be challengeable under WTO rules?

5.10 Friends of the Earth believes that the right to introduce GM free zones based on local economic, social, cultural and scientific conditions should be enshrined in EU law.

6. What changes to legislation will be required to allow GM crops to be grown?

6.1 No GM crops should be grown experimentally or commercially until the UK has introduced measures the same as those contained in the GM Contamination Bill drafted by Friends of the Earth and Greg Barker MP. Anything short of these minimum measures and procedures would be a threat to the livelihoods of farmers, the environment and health, and consumer and farmer choice.

7. What will be the scope and scale of the 2006 re-licensing procedures?

7.1 The GMO Deliberate Release Directive 2001/18 requires that marketing consents issued before 1998 will expire in2006. This requirement would cover T25 maize. Under 2001/18 there is a tougher and extended risk assessment which requires evidence on the indirect and long term impacts of GMOs. The FSE for maize provided some evidence in respect of biodiversity but as the conventional herbicide regime using atrazine, simazine and cyanazine will be banned after 2005, new biodiversity data comparing GM weed control with the impact on wildlife of the herbicides which replace atrazine in conventional maize will be required.

7.2 All the requirements set out in annex 2 will have to be met before a further Marketing Consent is granted.

Friends of the Earth

April 2004

Annex II

GM-FREE COUNCILS LIST

Last updated: 30/04/2004

Those with * have included the Article 19 point in their resolutions ie are the strongest

ENGLAND

County councils:

Cornwall*

Cumbria*

Dorset

Devon

Somerset

Herefordshire

Warwickshire*

Lancashire

Shropshire*

Oxfordshire*

Staffordshire

Gloucestershire*

Hampshire*

Wiltshire

Unitary authorities:

Bath and North East Somerset

Brighton and Hove City Council*

Bristol City Council*

South Gloucestershire*

York City Council*

Bournemouth

East Riding of Yorkshire *

Wokingham*

Isle of Wight*

Metropolitan districts

Newcastle

Dudley Metropolitan Borough council*

London boroughs:

London Borough of Southwark*

London Borough of Havering*

District councils:

South Hams (Devon)*

South Somerset*

Chesterfield

Wealden (E Sussex)

Mid Devon*

Weymouth

West Lindsey

Penwith (SW)

Ryedale*

Colchester*

Gravesham*

West Dorset

Lewes*

North Dorset*

National Parks Authorities

Lake District National Parks Authority*

North York Moors

Town/Parish councils:

Bridport (Dorset)

Norton Radstock (within Bath & NE Somerset)

Goole (East Yorkshire) Edenthorpe Parish Council

Corscombe, Halstock & District (Cornwall)

SCOTLAND

Highland Council

West Lothian*

WALES

County Councils

Caerphilly

Carmarthenshire

Ceredigion

Conwy

Denbighshire*

Flintshire

Pembrokeshire

Powys

Swansea

Community Councils

The following have adopted or are supporting GM free policies:

Blaenhonddan

Brecon Town Council

Coedffranc Community Council

Glyn Ceiriog Community Council

Felinfach Community Council

Gorslas Community Council

Halkyn Community Council

Haverfordwest Town Council

Llanarthne Community Council

Llanbedrog Community Council

Llanddaniel-Fab Community Council

Llandegla Community Council

Llandyfaelog Community Council

Llangattock Vibon Avel Community Council

Llangernyw Community Council

Llangynwyd Middle Community Council

Llannefydd Community Council

Machynlleth Community Council

Magor with Undy Community Council

Milford Haven Town Council

Neyland Town Council

Porthmadog Town Council

Rhyl Town Council

St Davids City Council

Ystrad Fflur Community Council

Friends of the Earth

April 2004