Genetically Modified Organisms (Hansard, 14 January 2003)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)
My Lords, the public debate on GM issues is being managed by an independent steering board, which is drawing up proposals on the best way 131 to involve the public. It has begun with a series of discussion workshops to identify the questions and concerns that the public have on GM. The steering board will submit a final report on the debate to the Government by the end of June. The Government will then consider the report very carefully.

§ Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, will he accept that it is far from satisfactory that we are half way through the timetable proposed by Mrs Beckett for public debate and the public have not been involved at all? Will the Minister re-consider his phrase "independent steering board"—when the group includes the head of communications at DEFRA, who is in my view far from independent? Lastly, given that this matter is of intense importance to public health and to the environment in Britain, do not the public have the right to a far greater input than is currently planned by the Government?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the steering board has already set up a number of public workshops, and more are to be set up in the coming two or three months. There will, therefore, be a substantial opportunity for members of the public and organisations interested in this subject to give their views. As to the independence of the board, the chair was designated and was asked to run matters by the Government, but he had complete independence in terms of choosing the other members of the board. The communications director is there in order to ensure adequate communications. That does not indicate that the board is a government-controlled body.
As to additional activity, the Government are currently considering requests for additional resources. I think that we shall look favourably on that, but we have yet to make a final decision as to whether this exercise needs more resources. What the board al ready has in the pipeline is adequate public consultation.

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, when the Government come to consider this subject, will they take account of the experience in America? Is my noble friend aware that a substantial proportion of food crops in America are genetically modified—a high proportion of the soya bean crop, for example, which is used in food? Is there any record of ill effects on human health, or have any agronomic or environmental problems arisen in America from the use of GM crops over a number of years?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, public consultation is only part of the exercise in which the Government are engaged. We are examining the whole range of GM matters, not simply crops. Scientific and economic assessments are taking place. In that context, we shall look at the experience in other countries. The experience in the United States is that a high proportion of both soya and maize is genetically modified. GM proposals that have been licensed in the United States have clearly passed safety tests; there is, 132 therefore, no safety implication. On the issue of environmental damage, the jury is to some extent still out. That is the area being addressed by the current farm-scale trials in the UK, rather than the issue of human health. It is not yet clear what the balance will be in terms of the environmental impact.

§ Lord Hylton
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the scale of the English countryside is so small, and its biodiversity is so great, that it requires far greater care than is needed, say, in the American prairies?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, clearly, agricultural methods, topography and size of operation are different. The same considerations are necessary in relation to public health and environmental damage. There are two issues: first, whether there is direct environmental damage; and, secondly, how far—if in general the European public want to have a choice between GM and non-GM—the growth of GM crops within Europe might contaminate non-GM crops. That is one of the issues that we are addressing.

§ Lord Swinfen
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that bodies with different points of view on GM organisms are properly funded, so that their views can be put forward? Or do the Government intend to fund only their own point of view?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the Government are funding the operation of the steering board to allow every point of view to come into play. We are funding neither pro-GM nor anti-GM groups, commercial or voluntary; we are allowing the debate to take place.

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, following the point made by my noble friend Lord Carter, will the Minister confirm that in regard to GMOs not only have there been no reports of adverse health implications, but there is considerable evidence of the beneficial effect of GMOs in the production of medicines, and in particular of vaccines?

§ Lord Whitty
Yes, my Lords. In the medical field there have been substantial developments which depend on GM technology, some of which have been put to use.

§ Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, perhaps I may return to the spirit of my noble friend's Question, which relates to public engagement. Is it not necessary for the Government to be a great deal more imaginative and to attempt to draw into this debate a much wider slice of the public? It is no good confining the debate to those who are already in the know. Surely we need to spend some money on producing the kind of materials that will reach out to a much greater part of the population if we are not to run into the usual argument that Parliament carries on its affairs over the heads of the public.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, that is exactly what this exercise is designed to do. We have produced materials 133 to present the arguments and the facts in an understandable and attractive way. The workshops and the various proposals for further activities proposed by the steering board are not based on the parti pris companies and lobby groups on either side of the argument; they are based on a more random selection of members of the public.

§ Lord Geddes
My Lords, just what is a public workshop? How many are there, or will there be, in this context; and how often will they meet?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, there are currently nine public workshops and the steering board is about to begin a full roll-out of the programme. Roughly speaking, there might be 100 people at each workshop. But there are other activities besides the workshops and it is open to any individual or organisation to submit their views to the steering board and have them reflected in this process.

§ Earl Howe
My Lords, does the Minister agree that crop trials are an important ingredient in this context? Why is this debate due to take place before the results of the crop trials become available?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the debate that we are stimulating relates to the issue of GM in all its contexts. The issue of the farm-scale trials is a relatively narrow aspect; namely, whether, on what basis, and under what regulation one might allow the commercialisation of particular crops. That is a specific question which requires a commercial-scale trial evaluation, the results of which will begin to come through in the next three months, with completion due to take place next year.

§ Lord Winston
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there has been a general failure on the part of the public to recognise that, in the past 20 years, genetic modification in the case of animals has led to one of the most important advances in our understanding of a whole range of medical issues such as cancer? Does he further agree that genetic modification holds huge prospects for parts of the world where people are starving, or are short of water? The modification of crops could lead to alleviation of the effects of drought and to an improvement in much-needed food sources in the under-developed world?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I accept that there are substantial potential advantages from certain forms of genetic modification. As I said, some have been demonstrated in the medical field. I accept, however, that there are significant public anxieties about how, and how far, we allow the commercial development of genetic modification in the provision of foodstuffs and its impact on the environment as a whole. Therefore, there is a valid and profound discussion to be had. The whole point of this public debate is to ensure that all points of view are considered and, we hope, to create a greater consensus. One of the difficulties is that 134 supporters of GM are gung-ho about its benefits, while opponents are equally doom-laden about its likely effects. We need to attempt to find an area where the point of view of each side can be taken into account and be recognised, and where there is a rational basis for going forward.