The
Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development (Allan Wilson):
I thank the Parliament for giving me the opportunity to make this statement.
Members will understand that I wished to make clear the Executive's position
on genetically modified crops as soon as possible after the announcement
that was made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs. Unfortunately, the parliamentary timetable did not allow
scope for me to make such a statement yesterday, but I was able to inform
members of the Executive's position in my response to a question lodged by
Alasdair Morrison. I am glad, however, to have the opportunity today,
courtesy of the Parliament, to make a more detailed statement on our policy
on GM crops. I am more than happy to debate the matter at some future date,
should that be the wish of Parliament.
We have listened to the public's views. It is clear that people are uneasy
about GM, and that there is little support for early commercialisation of GM
crops. I am equally clear that we do not have the scientific evidence to do
that, nor do we have the power to impose a blanket ban on GM crops or,
indeed, the power to prohibit GM crops in particular areas. However, we will
take action to protect the interests of Scottish consumers and to ensure
that there is consumer choice.
As I have stated consistently, the Executive's primary concern is to
safeguard the health of the Scottish people and of our wider environment. We
will not allow GM crops to be grown in Scotland unless we are satisfied that
they do not pose a risk to health or to the environment. In keeping with the
partnership agreement, our approach is cautious and precautionary and it
takes into account the long-term interests of the people of Scotland.
Indeed, it was that precautionary approach that led the Executive, along
with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to set up the
farm-scale trials in 1999. Those trials are easily the most extensive study
on farmland ecology that has ever been undertaken. We set up the trials
because we wanted to be sure that questions that the nature conservation
agencies had raised about the management of GM herbicide-resistant crops
were answered before we reached decisions on them.
We have now accepted the advice of our statutory Advisory Committee on
Releases to the
Environment on the three spring-sown farm-scale evaluation crops. We will
oppose the cultivation of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant
spring-sown rape and beet, as grown in the farm-scale evaluations, as the
management regime that was associated with those crops had a more harmful
effect on biodiversity than that of their conventional counterparts. We have
agreed with the United Kingdom Government a process for taking forward the
amendment of the consent for GM fodder maize to ensure that it can be grown
only as in the FSEs, as that was better for biodiversity than conventional
maize cultivation.
There has been some speculation in the media regarding the inclusion or
otherwise of Chardon LL maize in the national seed list. I would like to
make three points on that. First, the national seed list is a reassurance
measure for farmers. The safety of this GM maize was confirmed by its
gaining part C consent in 1998. Secondly, any decision on the listing of
Chardon LL would be a collective decision of the UK Government and the
devolved Administrations. Thirdly, Chardon LL already appears on the Dutch
national seed list and it could, of course, enter the European Union common
catalogue from there. For those reasons, the talk of a veto is wholly
misplaced.
The FSE results have vindicated our precautionary, case-by-case,
evidence-based approach. The review of GM science further reinforced the
fact that it cannot be treated as a homogeneous technology and that its
application needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. We cannot and
should not dismiss the potential of GM technology out of hand, as some would
have us do. We can be proud that Scotland is host to some of the world's
leading biotechnology research and development, and we should be cautious
about undermining the potential of that innovative sector to contribute to
our long-term competitiveness and the future well-being of Scotland and its
people.
The Executive accepts that science alone cannot provide all the answers to
the policy questions with which we are faced. The results of the public
debate demonstrate that the biotechnology companies have failed to persuade
the public about the benefits of GM foods. Although most people can see that
there might be potential benefits in medical applications of GM technology,
they remain unconvinced about the use of GM in agriculture. The Executive's
role is to ensure that the regulatory process operates properly and that
applications are subject to robust and detailed scrutiny so that we can
satisfy ourselves that the products that receive approval are as safe as
conventional crops.
At the same time, we want to ensure that Scottish consumers can make
informed choices
about whether they wish to buy GM products. According to Greenpeace, no
less, the new EU rules from April will provide us with the strictest and
most comprehensive labelling regime in the world. If any GM product is
present in a food product, it must be labelled as such. An exception is made
for approved genetically modified organisms that are present for technically
unavoidable reasons, but even in that case, labelling will be required at
very low thresholds.
We recognise that it is important for producers to meet public demand for
non-GM produce, and we will therefore introduce statutory co-existence
measures. We will consult all concerned on the most appropriate co-existence
arrangements to deliver choice for consumers and farmers and on possible
compensation arrangements for farmers who suffer economic loss.
We have approached farming organisations to initiate discussions on how we
might protect consumer confidence in Scottish produce if the GM maize
variety to which I referred receives all the necessary approvals to be
grown. We will work with those organisations to develop guidance for farmers
who wish to establish GM-free zones in areas where the crop could be grown.
The Executive believes in responsible science and responsible policy making.
We act within a strict regulatory framework that permits GM developments
when it can be shown that they do not represent an increased risk to human
health or the environment. On the basis of ACRE's advice, we could not
consent to the commercial cultivation of GM beet and oilseed rape as grown
in the FSEs, but we can agree in principle to the cultivation of the GM
maize variety, subject to further important conditions.
We recognise that even where GM products are considered safe, people should
be able to choose whether to consume them. For that reason, we will consult
on the introduction of statutory co-existence measures and we will work with
farming organisations to develop guidance to farmers who wish to establish
GM-free zones.
We have been accused of not listening to the public debate and of ignoring
public concerns. That accusation is untrue. We have listened, but it is
clear from that process that there is no single, simple, yes-or-no answer
about GM crops.
I commend the policy and my statement to Parliament.
The Deputy Presiding Officer: I intend to allow about 20 minutes for the
minister to take questions on the statement, so I ask all members, and
particularly the opening Opposition spokesmen, to keep their questions
tight.
Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP): The minister's statement was nine pages
of very little. I am a long-time opponent of GM crops, but I could be a late
convert to the technology if I thought that it could genetically modify a
backbone into the minister and his Cabinet colleagues. Perhaps the minister
will show that he does not need that genetic modification by answering three
simple questions. Are the minister and the rest of the Executive for or
against the commercial growing of GM crops in Scotland? That is
straightforward. If they are against it—the voluntary ban scenario suggests
that—what avenues are being explored proactively to delay or prevent the
planting of such crops? Will the minister say with a yes or no whether, if
he had refused to agree to the listing of Chardon maize, that would have
been an end to the matter for Scotland?
Allan Wilson: Ms Cunningham's tongue is genetically modified, as it is
forked. In the absence of credible scientific evidence of potential harm, a
ban such as that which she suggests would be illegal. We do not have
evidence for the banning of GM maize. Ministers must act responsibly and
legally, even if the Scottish National Party will not. We do so within a
long-standing EU framework that permits GM developments when it can be shown
that they do not represent an increased risk. Legal advice on that is clear.
Ms Cunningham's party and its leader may have scant regard for the law on
fishing and agriculture, but the Executive does not wish to take that
position.
I answered fully the Chardon maize question in my statement.
Roseanna Cunningham: No, you did not.
Allan Wilson: I answered the question fully. As I made clear, the Executive
does not hold the power of veto on the national seed list. National listing
is not a GM safety assessment; other measures for that exist under the
directive on the deliberate release of GMOs. The placing of varieties on the
national list requires collective agreement among the UK Administration and
devolved Administrations, so the minister's backbone does not enter into the
question.
The Executive agrees that the listing of Chardon LL maize should be deferred
until the current EU marketing consent has been amended to reflect advice
from scientific advisers about the special conditions in which Chardon maize
can be grown.
Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con): I will start by asking the same
question that I asked the First Minister two weeks ago. Does the minister
have the power to prevent the commercial growing of GM crops in Scotland?
On a more technical issue, I return to national approved lists. If the
minister is asked for permission for Chardon LL to be included on the
national list of approved seeds, will he grant such permission? Will he
consider using the option of not granting permission at some future date
with some other crop? The minister has stated that he will not allow crops
to be grown in Scotland where there is evidence of potential harm. In
relation to the national seed list, will he use his veto for that purpose?
The Government's labelling and traceability regime, which is expected to
extend across Scotland, may or may not include the use of imported
unsegregated protein supplements. The minister appeared to indicate that
such supplements will not be included in his labelling regime. Will he give
an undertaking that such supplements, where they are used as feed, will not
activate the labelling and traceability processes that he outlined in his
statement? Will he also say whether the use of such feedstuffs in specific
areas may mitigate against granting GM-free status in the minister's
voluntary GM-free zones?
Allan Wilson: The member has asked many questions, a number of which I have
answered to a certain extent.
I have the power, which we may choose to exercise, to ban GM crop
cultivation in Scotland if there is scientific evidence to underpin such a
decision—that is, if potential harm is posed to human health or to the
environment. We have no such evidence of potential harm to human health or
to the environment in relation to the Chardon maize seed to which the member
refers—hence our application to the EU for an amendment to the part C
consent, given that it dates back to 1998 and that a voluntary regime has
precluded its cultivation since then. We take the best possible scientific
advice and base all our judgments on a case-by-case, evidence-based
scientific approach. However, we do have such a power.
On the national seed list, as I said—I will repeat this for what must be the
third time in the past 10 minutes—the seed has not been listed because we
have sought EU approval for an amendment to the part C consent. If that
approval is secured, which it may or not be—the decision will take several
months—the devolved Administrations will discuss with the UK Government the
prospective listing of that seed. I point out again and repeat for SNP
members, who do not seem to understand the process, that Chardon maize is
already listed on the Netherlands' national seed list and therefore could be
approved for admission to the EU catalogue from that source.
I give members a strict assurance that we will engage in discussions with
all the relevant parties, including the national organisations that
represent farmers and landowners, about our proposals to establish GM-free
zones where there is a demand for that to happen. I say that because I
understand
that we have a joint objective and interest. As I have said, I am persuaded
that the public are uneasy about the science that underpins GM crops. As a
consequence, there is a lack of consumer confidence in the product.
Therefore, our interests coincide in trying to secure public and consumer
confidence in the product. We will consider that matter in respect of all
imports and the cultivation of the crops. I think that that answers the
final question that was asked.
Nora Radcliffe (Gordon) (LD): Does the minister agree that freedom of choice
should be available to farmers who may wish to avail themselves of the
technique that we are discussing if they see an advantage in it? For that
reason, co-existence measures become quite a high priority. Will the
minister expand on the consultation that he proposes to undertake on
co-existence measures and tell us what timeframe he envisages for putting in
place agreed co-existence measures?
Allan Wilson: That is an important question, which underpinned our decision
yesterday. We decided that we would not proceed with the process by which
Chardon maize could be grown in Scotland at some point without the prior
existence of a statutory co-existence regime that will underpin that
prospective consent. That is an important development and I was pleased to
persuade colleagues in other parts of the United Kingdom of its value.
The consultation process, which will get under way shortly, will be
wide-ranging and inclusive and will take account of the issues that Nora
Radcliffe raised. We are conscious of the fact that the cultivation of GM
crops could impact on neighbouring conventional or organic farmers. That is
why, in tracing and labelling arrangements, we have taken steps to introduce
strict thresholds on the adventitious presence of GM crops and we will
consult on separation distances between conventional crops and prospective
GM crops, whether they are grown on this side or the other side of the
border.
Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab): I welcome the application of the
precautionary principle, which means that GM rape seed and beet will be
banned for good scientific reasons.
I want to press the minister on his welcome acknowledgement that many of us
remain sceptical about some of the over-extravagant claims about GM
technology. Will the minister outline precisely how he intends to avoid
cross-contamination from GM crops on conventional and organic crops in
particular, so that we as consumers will retain a real choice when we buy
food? Further, will he set out how he sees the delivery of an effective
liability regime that will
ensure that conventional and organic farmers are not put at risk?
Allan Wilson: As Sarah Boyack knows, I share her scepticism about some of
the claims that the biotech industry makes; the tenor and scope of my
statement reflected that. Equally, like Sarah Boyack, I would not turn my
back on technological or scientific advances that could benefit humankind.
Consequently, we will not turn our back on GM technology, which as I said,
is not a homogenous technology.
On adventitious presence, I referred to the labelling regime and perhaps
there will be a lower threshold in relation to organic produce to protect
organic interests. Further, the statutory co-existence regime will underpin,
among other factors, separation distances between conventional, organic and
prospective GM cultivation.
Sarah Boyack's last question was about liability. The Agriculture and
Environment Biotechnology Commission report on co-existence and liability
does not recommend a strict liability regime for GM crops; it prefers a less
adversarial approach that is based on a temporary compensation scheme, with
insurance as the longer-term solution. I agree with that approach and I
think that it is up to the commercial insurance industry to respond in the
longer term. It is important, however, that AEBC has recommended that in the
meantime there should be special compensation arrangements for farmers who
are liable to suffer financial loss. We will consult all interested parties
on options for providing compensation to non-GM farmers who may suffer
financial loss through no fault of their own as a result of their produce
having a GM presence that exceeds the statutory threshold. Any such scheme
would have to be funded by the GM industry—I made that clear in the
statement—rather than by Government or the producers of non-GM crops. The
public purse will not be used to compensate farmers who are affected in that
way.
Mr Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green): Is it not correct that
Executive policy on this issue is as contradictory as are the words
"voluntary" and "ban"? The Executive could have blocked the seed-listing
process, citing all the good reasons that the Westminster Environmental
Audit Committee gave last week.
Yesterday, Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat shadow minister for food and
rural affairs, said in a Lib Dem press release that
"giving the go ahead for GM maize"
would show
"breathtaking distain for both the public and MPs ... The decision on GM
maize marks a watershed and will inevitably pave the way for other GM crops
to be licensed."
Does the minister agree with those comments? Does Mr Finnie agree with those
comments? Why has the minister ripped up the partnership agreement
commitment on GM crops, which states that there will be opportunities for
peer review of the field-scale trials before any decision is made on the
commercial growing of GM crops? Why has the Executive dropped that
commitment?
Allan Wilson: No, no and no—I hope that that is clear enough. The
Environmental Audit Committee report to which the member refers called for
further testing of maize as a result of the banning of Atrazine. We do not
believe that there is a need for the farm-scale evaluations for maize to be
repeated, because the publication of research in the scientific journal
Nature, as recently as Friday, suggests that in the short term the banning
of Atrazine or any of the other triazines will not invalidate the
conclusions of the FSEs with respect to maize. Further research will be
passed to ACRE for more detailed advice—that is what scientific advisers are
for.
I agree that some future research may be necessary, especially if the
industry were to apply for renewal of the release consent in 2006, which is
a possibility. I repeat that any such work would need to be conducted at the
industry's expense; it would not be funded out of public money. Such
evidence would be carefully assessed by ACRE, which advises us.
Today's announcement in no way breaches a commitment in the partnership
agreement, which states:
"We will rigorously apply the precautionary principle in our approach to the
planting of GM crops."
We have done that. We have carefully considered the findings of the public
debate, alongside those of the science review and the cost-and-benefit study
and the results of the farm-scale trials. Our approach remains cautious and
precautionary. I repeat that we will not allow GM crops to be sown unless
and until we are satisfied that they do not pose an increased risk. There is
no green light for GM in Scotland. There is no single yes or no on the
issue.
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP): Perhaps I can help the minister
and the chamber by asking him to clarify several points. Will he name the
definitive study of the effect on human health of GM crops on which he bases
his advice? Will he confirm that the studies of GM maize in cattle feed have
not been evaluated? Does he agree that, because of that uncertainty, the
precautionary principle dictates that in the interests of the health of the
people of Scotland, of our animals and of food choice in this country, he
must oppose the inclusion of Chardon LL maize on the UK seed list?
Allan Wilson: For I suspect the umpteenth time, I state that Chardon LL
maize has not been listed. We have applied for an amendment to the part C
consent to take account of the outcome of farm-scale evaluation trials, as I
said on the previous occasion that we debated this matter.
We take the very best scientific advice. I have referred to the science
review, as well as advice from ACRE and the AEBC. Many assertions are made
about the likely adverse effects of growing GM crops. Another has been made
today. Numerous allegations of possible harm circulate. Where there is a
case to support those allegations, it is always investigated. The statutory
Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment carefully monitors new
information about the risks. Where that information has implications for
advice that ACRE has given and the existing consents, the situation is
reviewed and further advice is given, if necessary. Despite claims to the
contrary, no credible evidence has emerged that has called into question the
safety of any GM crop that has been trialled in Scotland. The consent that
we are discussing refers to one type of maize that is grown for fodder,
prospectively on a very small hectarage in a very small part of Scotland.
Alex Fergusson (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con): Does the minister agree
that the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy will leave
Scotland's agriculture industry far more open to market forces than is
currently the case and that every opportunity to attract premium prices by
securing high-quality niche markets will need to be taken? If so, does he
also agree that securing those markets will be heavily dependent on the
purity and integrity of Scottish produce, which is likely to be put severely
at risk once we have gone down the route of accepting GM commercialisation?
Allan Wilson: I agree with half of what Alex Fergusson said. I agree that we
face an opportunity and I have said as much to colleagues previously. There
is a coming together of Government and producers in relation to marketing
opportunities that arise as a result of our proposal to introduce voluntary
GM-free zones. There is an opportunity to address a lack of public
confidence in the technology and to ensure that there is increased consumer
confidence in the Scottish product. That combination of forces will add
momentum to our proposal for GM-free zones, which is a product of the
cautionary and sceptical approach that I have outlined.
The other side of the same coin, however, relates to the issue that was
raised by Sarah Boyack. Scotland has long had a worldwide reputation for
scientific advances and biotechnological innovation. We cannot turn our
back on what is not a homogenous technology in order to accommodate a
particular part of that technology. People who do that run down Scotland's
long-term economic and scientific prospects. I will not take that point of
view, because I believe in the long-term advances that scientific progress,
including in relation to GM technology, can bring to humankind.
Ms Rosemary Byrne (South of Scotland) (SSP): In light of the fact that the
GM crop trials that were conducted in May did not test whether genes could
flow from GM crops to other crops, whether the pollen would spread or what
effects GM crops might have on soil organisms, will the minister explain how
the liability regime will protect non-GM farmers? He has not given us much
of an explanation of that today and I would like to hear more from him on
the subject.
Allan Wilson: Ms Byrne asks some interesting and complex questions.
The purpose of the farm-scale GM evaluation programme was not to test the
safety of the crops. Approval would not have been given for the programme to
go ahead if the safety of the crops had not been established over more than
a decade of research. Indeed, Chardon LL maize, which is now the subject of
discussion, was approved back in 1998.
Gene flow was tested in some separate experiments. Gene flow is not a safety
issue per se and does not, of itself, constitute harm to the environment.
However, the gene flow research will inform all our deliberations on the
development of a programme of statutory co-existence. I would be happy to
get back to the member separately and in more detail on some of the issues
relating to gene flow, but the important point to make is that we have
responded to the scientific advice and the outcome of the farm-scale
evaluations, as I said we would. We have refused permission for the growing
of spring-sown oilseed rape and beet but, with the UK Government, we have
applied for amended consent to the pre-existing consent for Chardon LL
maize.
Mr John Home Robertson (East Lothian) (Lab): I hope that every member of the
Parliament will endorse the application of the precautionary principle to
the testing and licensing of genetically modified crops. However, does the
minister agree that there must be a place for bioscience in a smart,
successful Scotland? Does he further agree that it would be a bad day for
Scotland if blind prejudice were ever to take precedence over good science?
Allan Wilson: Absolutely, and I said as much in response to Alex Fergusson's
question. I will not be the minister who allows prejudice and misinformation
to blind us to the potential of
science and technology. Scotland has a global reputation for science and
technology, which does our economy tremendous good.
I quote Sir David Carter, the chairman of the British Medical Association's
board of science, whose assessment was published in association with our
response. He said:
"Our assessment of all the available research is that there is very little
potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects. However the BMA
recognises" —
as do I —
"the huge public concern over the impact of GM foods and believes that
research is still needed in key areas to allay remaining concern about the
potential risks to human health and the environment."
I endorse such a science-based, evidence-based and case-by-case-based
approach as the correct one to adopt in this regard. |
