§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.ߞ[Mr. Ottaway.]
2.35 pm§ Mr. Conn Pickthall (West Lancashire)I am pleased to be able to introduce this Adjournment debate, even though it is on a Friday afternoon. I apologise to the Minister for keeping her from her constituency.
This morning, we had an excellent debate on the banning of the carrying of knives, a matter on which the House was in total agreement. Nevertheless, knives are palpable thingsߞthe danger can be seen and can at least be tackled. The ingredients in our food may, in the long term, be just as dangerous, but we cannot see them. Our first defence must be Government vigilance on our behalf, and our second must be effective labelling. Food is an enormous subject which I cannot hope to cover in the time available, so I intend to concentrate chiefly on labelling, and on the recent anxieties about genetically modified soya and maize.
The House of Commons research document on genetically modified food, which was printed in June 1994, and is perhaps due for an update shortly, refers to a graphic article in The Independent of October 1993 about a group of German chefs who illustrated their concern about the issue by constructing the following menu. The starter would be smoked trout fillet with the gene for human growth hormone and a tomato salad with the flounder fish gene. To follow, there would be grilled chicken with the bovine growth hormone gene and a baked potato with the scorpion gene. Melon with a virus gene would be the dessert. At the time, all those foods had been developed and field-tested. All of them are transgenic.
The range of genetically engineered foods is enormous, from tomatoes that do not rot quickly to salmon that are infertile and do not want to migrate, and fish in Canada that are growing human insulin. I do not suggest that all those developments are harmfulߞindeed, many may bring benefits. I assert, however, that I do not know, the public do not know, the Government do not know, the EC does not know and the scientists do not know what the long-term effects will be, both on human health and on the structure of agriculture across the world.
The Minister will be all too well aware of the appalling history of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. In the early 1980s, the Government stated as fact that there was no danger in reducing the temperature of processing animal food. The warnings from my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark), for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang)ߞthat are all recorded in Hansard--went unheeded. The Government consistently said that they were following the science of such matters, but scientific opinion has changed, and occasionally has been proved wrong, resulting in the current tragic debacle.
We might well find ourselves in the same position in respect of genetically modified foods. It behoves MAFF, 588 the Department of the Environment, the Government and the European Union to approach the matter with the utmostߞeven excessiveߞcaution.
Early-day motion 337, tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), deserves support and the Government's attention. It rightly says:
the food industry should not be allowed to use the general public as guinea-pigs".In 1993, the Polkinghorne report, while claiming that copy genes of animal and human origin did not merit identification, stated:The first and most important requirement is for a system of labelling which permits informed choice".I hope that the Government take that as a baseline position, and pursue the matter hard in Europe in the few months or weeks that remain before the final version of the EU regulations on novel foods.The then Minister, now the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, accepted Polkinghorne's proposal on labelling as forming the basis of the Government's submission to the novel foods regulations, with the caveat that the rules would not apply if the inserted copy gene had been destroyed by processing. Inevitably, food producers will claim precisely that, just as we were told with certaint3, that lower incineration levels destroyed the BSE prion.
It appears that the novel food regulations will cover products from crops with altered agricultural characteristics, genetically modified foods that raise safety concernsߞsuch as allergens from genes that have a source in brazil nuts, for exampleߞand genetically modified foods that raise ethical concerns, such as those foods eaten by vegetarians which may contain animal genes, such as most vegetarian cheese. It is worth pointing out that only the Co-op labels vegetarian cheese properly.
Those criteria will raise endless debates about what the regulations cover and who makes the decision in that respect. Food manufacturers are anxious to evaluate new products against the novel foods regulations. It is quite possible that new genetically engineered food could be placed on the market without any independent safety evaluation.
In some quarters, particularly Compassion in World Farming documents, it is estimated that only about 5 to 10 per cent. of genetically modified processed foods will fall within the regulations. That means that up to 95 per cent. of genetically modified processed foods will not be appropriately labelled. I hope the Department of the Environment and MAFF will recognise and address that appalling possibility.
The growth in the introduction of genetically modified food has caused considerable public anxiety, and I have a large postbag on the matter. I received a letter from a Hindu mission in north London, declaring that its ethic is to adhere to a pure, unadulterated vegetarian diet. It expressed alarm that customers have no control over the methods used in genetic engineering. I also received a letter from a Christian group in my constituency, the Order of the Cross, asserting precisely the same thing about its members.
I have had about 100 letters from individuals making such comments, but perhaps more unexpectedly, I 589 received one from Sainsbury's, which said that its policy is that all genetically modified foods should be labelled, but that
all UK food retailers will be selling foods containing GM soya and maize and will be unable to label their products. Growers and food processors say they cannot currently segregate genetically modified commodity crops throughout the supply chain. This is because many growers are using both varieties and are not separating the crops at harvest time. Sainsbury's are able to label the GM tomato puree only because the company worked in partnership with the grower and planned FOR segregation and for appropriate labelling. Sainsbury's would greatly prefer to be able to identify those products containing ingredients derived from genetically modified commodity crops, such as the new varieties of soya and maize and to label them.Sainsbury's and Safeway have both informed me that they clearly label genetically modified tomato pureeSainsbury's strikingly so. They cannot label foods containing genetically modified soyaߞmore than 60 productsߞbecause they do not know which they are. Sainsbury's has produced an excellent leaflet for customers explaining its dilemma about soya and maize, but the matter should not be left to such voluntary action. Many other supermarket chains and other retailers do not take action.I have to hand a letter from the British Society of Plant Breeders Ltd., which says:
The BSPB supports the provision of full information relating to genetically modified foodstuffs",and adds that it is seeking to set up a cross-industry code of practice with the National Farmers Union and many other producer interests. Clearly, those are straws in the wind, showing that consumers, retailers and at least some United Kingdom manufacturers are extremely alarmed at the growing uncertainty about what is in their food. I believe that they are right to be so alarmed.Recent concerns have centred, as I said, on soya and maize. Maize is being genetically engineered in the United States to protect the crop from corn borer. In the UK, it is used in starches and glucose syrups, which are in turn used in baking, brewing, margarine and similar products.
At present, the genetically modified maize accounts for only 1 per cent. of the UK's need, but since the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes has given it the nod, its prevalence will increase. Consumers will have no idea either of the nature of the genetic modification, since no labelling is involved, or which products they buy contain the GM maize. There is still some time for the Minister to take another, and a critical look, at that product before it becomes endemic in our diet.
A new genetically engineered soya bean has been developed by Monsanto in the United States. It has been developed to resist a herbicide that is also made by Monsanto. That new, genetically manipulated bean will shortly be a key ingredient in hundreds of foodstuffs consumed by British citizens, because it is so widely dispersed as an ingredientߞMonsanto says that 60 per cent. of all foodstuffs will contain itߞthat it is claimed by, among others, the Food and Drink Federation that it 590 will be impractical to label every product containing it. That is not good enough.
The Americans claim that it is impossible to segregate ordinary soya from genetically modified soya, although Monsanto successfully segregates for the purpose of providing a seed stock. Segregation would on the one hand make labelling possible and on the other enable UK food manufacturers and retailers to choose non-genetically modified soyaߞthus being responsive to their customers' concerns. Incidentally, Monsanto was also responsible for the development of bovine somatotrophin. When some US dairy producers took fright at the genetic modification involved and advertised BST-free products, Monsanto took out lawsuits to stop them so doing.
Monsanto claims in its letter to me that there is no difference between ordinary soya beans and what it calls round-up soya beans, and that they therefore should not be segregated. I maintain that members of the public who notice what is going on simply do not believe that, and will increasingly demand to know what is in the food they eatߞround-up or otherwise.
I do not have time to go into the dangers of genetic modification producing new allergens in foods, the use of genes as markers that might create resistance to antibiotics, the effect on agriculture of concentrating production in the United States, or the possible creation of herbicide-resistant weeds. The potential medium and long-term effects of self-reproducing genetically modified organisms are not well understood.
When we consider that they will form part of baby food and almost everything our children consume, it is no wonder that some of us fear that we may be producing genetically modified people. Why not? We are already producing genetically modified animals, including cows that yield double the milk and have half the life span.
I conclude with three points for the Minister to consider. First, I understand that labelling is difficult in some cases, but consumers have the absolute right to know what goes into their food, however problematic the labelling process might be. Secondly, the Government and the EU should resist the power of giant food companies in the United States, which are effectively dictating what we must eat, without giving any convincing estimates of the long-term effects.
Thirdly, at the least, it should not be against Government policy to dig in our heels on the issue in Europe, and we should ensure that the novel food regulations, which will be produced early in 1997, protect European citizens from the possible effects on human health and on the structure of agriculture, about which we have not yet been reassured by scientists, and for which, as early-day motion 337 says, we may be acting as guinea pigs.
§ 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 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 ProcessesߞACNFPߞwhich 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 592 dedication with which it scrutinises even the smallest details of applications. It places considerable emphasis on the need to proceed with caution. If it has the slightest doubt about a food, it will not approve it.
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 novel food that it approves. It has foundߞI hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome thisߞthe 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 geneߞthat 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, 593 the Food Advisory Committee immediately updated its guidance on labelling to reflect the common position of the novel food regulation.
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, whichߞalong with othersߞhas 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 complexitiesߞof which the hon. Member for West Lancashire will be awareߞin achieving segregation 594 throughout the food chain. Both he and I are conscious of the fact that, if segregation is to take place, it must do so at an early starting point in the food process.
I wish to bring the hon. Member for West Lancashire up to date on the question of genetically modified maizeߞa 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 maizeߞparticularly that coming in from the USߞrests 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 believeߞalthough I do not wish to pre-empt their conclusionߞthat 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 thatߞpending the outcome of the decisionߞunprocessed 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, 595 particularly the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, which I have visited. I have heard about its case-by-case method of dealing with the matter.
I will keep the hon. Gentleman informed of the outcome of the more topical issues that are in front of the 596 United Kingdom Government and the European Union at the moment.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Three o'clock.