HL Deb 26 June 2003 vol 650 cc434-6

3.24 p.m.

Baroness Byford

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What research is being done into the effect which genetically modified crops might have on human health.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)

My Lords, the GM science review is currently examining the considerable research already available on the health impact of GM crops and is expected to report next month. On the food side, the Food Standards Agency spends about £2 million a year on research into GM food safety. Each individual GM crop and each individual GM food must be rigorously researched and tested, including for any potential toxicity or allergenicity, before approval can be given.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that his former colleague, Michael Meacher, accused Tony Blair's spin doctors and Ministers of systematically ignoring and rubbishing the evidence that genetically modified crops could be a health hazard. He said that many of the health tests carried out were scientifically vacuous. If that is so, and if, as the Minister has indicated, the current research will not be available until next month, is it not ridiculous that the Government are going ahead with their GM consultation when the evidence on which we should be basing our decisions is not yet available to the general public?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, as I have explained to the House on several occasions, the GM consultation is covering a whole range of aspects relating to the use of genetic modification techniques. It is not related to any particular decision on commercialisation. Two other strands of that examination of the issue are the science review, to which I have referred, and the economic review. Both pieces of evidence will be available next month. The totality of the public consultation and those pieces of research will form part of the background for future decisions. So it all fits together. I refute completely the noble Baroness's interpretation of my former colleague's remarks. He was in fact pointing out that there are areas of research that need further consideration. That is indeed what the Food Standards Agency is engaged in.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, will the noble Lord explain whether the Government's view on genetically modified crops is that they are all right until they are proved wrong, or that they are unacceptable until they are proved right?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the Government's view is that the case for GM crops has yet to be proved and the case against GM crops has yet to be proved. That is why we require this information. That is why the science review is so important. That is why, on every individual application for an individual commercialisation of a GM product, we have laid down, both at British and at European level, rigorous tests of its safety and its effect on the environment. We have yet to take decisions on new individual applications.

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is some danger in the kind of confusion that has been reflected in terms of the issues of food safety and human health and the desirability of commercial cultivation and environmental effects? Can he confirm that every novel food—including, but not exclusively, food based on GM crops—has undergone a rigorous safety assessment and been approved, and that the Food Standards Agency agrees with that? Does he further agree that it is important to look at health benefits in the round? Perhaps non-food crops. such as GM cotton, which are saving the lives of agricultural workers in China because of the reduced effects of pesticides, should also be considered.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, to take my noble friend's final point, that is why the debate has to be very rounded. We need to examine the economics in development situations as well as in the UK and European situations, and the benefits or otherwise of GM crops in the round. As regards the first part of her question, I think that there is some confusion between the growing of crops—which raises issues of potential environment problems, and therefore issues of regulation for the co-existence of GM crops and other crops—and the issue of food safety, which, as my noble friend indicates, is thoroughly researched before any permission for commercialisation is given.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, will the Minister accept that the implications for human health may not relate only to GM crops themselves? The herbicides used on such crops, because they are herbicide tolerant crops, are extremely strong and extremely toxic, and can end up in water courses. I believe that the United States Environmental Protection Agency is beginning to have severe doubts about the use of such herbicides. Do we really want such herbicides used to that degree in England?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the method of production that includes the use of herbicides, and the relative use of herbicides on potential GM crops, will be part of the assessment of the environmental impact of giving approval to commercialised crops in this country. The noble Baroness is right that it is not just the crops themselves, but the total production effect.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government's approach to this general area is fairly complacent, to say the least? I say that simply on the back of the fact that these crops are now in fairly widespread use across many countries, without apparent harm so far.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, I am not sure that the first half and the second half of the noble Lord's question stand together well. I deny that the Government have shown any complacency. There is widespread concern about the impact of the crops; and there are widespread claims for the benefits of these crops. What we intend to do—and engage the public in—is carry out an assessment of the balance of those arguments, based on sound science. That is what we are involved in now.

It is not an issue of complacency, nor is the fact that crops have been successfully cultivated in other countries necessarily a sufficient criterion for us taking that decision in Britain and Europe. Our decision will involve the public view and will meet the public's concerns, but will be based on sound science.