§ Mr. Alan SimpsonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if in relation to the Monsanto field trials of genetically modified sugar beet approved to take place in Ruddington, Nottingham, he will set out details of(a) the pre-planting environmental audit of the area surrounding the field test site, (b) the sub-soil analysis of the field test site prior to planting, (c) the terms and timing set for impact assessments and (d) who will be responsible for the monitoring; (e) what steps he will take to ensure that the monitoring is independent of corporate genetically modified crops interests. [81075]
§ Mr. Meacher(a) The pre-planning environmental audit of the area surrounding the field test site included details of the release site ecosystem including climate and fauna, details of any sexually compatible wild relatives or cultivated plant species present and the proximity of officially recognised biotopes or protected areas.
(b) Adverse effects on soil micro-organisms arising from the expression of the transgenes introduced into the genetically modified sugar beet were not identified as a potential hazard in the risk assessment. This is because the gene products are not associated with any known toxicology effects on micro-organisms and are of microbial origin. As the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) accepted this assessment, the release consent did not require a sub-soil analysis of the field test site to be undertaken prior to planting.
(c) The terms and timing set for impact assessment are set out in the terms and conditions of the consent. All consent holders must notify the Secretary of State of the effects of the release for assessment of any risks to the environment. In this particular consent, the consent holder is also required to submit a report to the Secretary of State on the outcome of the release one month after the termination of the trial. For two years following the trial the consent holder must ensure effective control of volunteer GM sugar beet.
(d) The consent holder is responsible for monitoring the outcome of the release. The programme of inspections by the Health and Safety Executive ensures that the terms and conditions of the consent, including any monitoring requirements, are adhered to.
(e) Independent monitoring of the results will be undertaken by ACRE.
§ Mr. BakerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the implications for British beekeepers wishing to produce honey free of genetically modified material of the commercial growing of genetically modified oilseed rape. [81395]
§ Mr. Meacher[holding answer 20 April 1999]: In evaluating a risk assessment for the release of a genetically modified (GM) plant, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment will always take into account the consequences of bees visiting the flowers of the GM plant. The Advisory Committee for Novel Foods 366W and Processes have considered the food safety issues relating to the presence in honey of pollen from GM plants.
If in the future we move to the widespread cultivation of GM crops in the UK, it may not be possible in those areas with intensive arable farming to guarantee that honey will be entirely free of genetically modified material. I am aware that the European Commission is currently considering guidelines for those wishing to make claims that foods are free from GM materials.
§ Mr. BakerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the farm-scale sites for genetically modified sugar or fodder beet, indicating the (i) location, (ii) area grown and (iii) consent holder and number. [85943]
§ Mr. Meacher[holding answer 8 June 1999]: SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops) are carrying out a farmscale evaluation of genetically modified (GM) sugar beet with ecological monitoring at Manor Farm, East Bradenham, Norfolk. The total area of the trial is two hectares. The consent holder is Monsanto Life Sciences and the consent number is 98/R22/12. Further information on the trial and the environmental risk assessment are available on the statutory public register held by my Department.
The Government are not directly involved with this trial. GM sugar and fodder beet are not included in the joint Government/SCIMAC farm-scale evaluations which I announced to the House of Lords Select Committee on 21 October 1998.
§ Mr. Alan SimpsonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions where the seed used for and to be used for this year's farm-scale trials of genetically modified oilseed and maize were grown; and where the seeds to be used for next year's trials will be grown. [85948]
§ Mr. MeacherThe seed being used this year in the farm-scale evaluations of genetically modified maize and spring oil seed rape has been imported from outside of the European Community by AgrEvo UK Ltd.
The particular varieties of seeds to be used in the evaluations of winter oil seed rape, starting later this year, and for the evaluations planned for next year, have not yet been decided. Consequently the source of the seed is not yet known.
§ Mr. Alan SimpsonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations were undertaken with neighbouring farmers about the location of genetically modified crop farm-scale trials. [85950]
§ Mr. MeacherAll crops in the farm-scale evaluations are being grown in accordance with the SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops) guidelines. The code sets out requirements for separation distances between genetically modified (GM) crops and conventional and organic crops. Neighbouring farmers must be contacted if these separation distances cannot be maintained within the boundaries of the farm.
The farm-scale evaluations of genetically modified spring oil seed rape were planted under a consent issued under Part B of Directive 90/220/EEC. This required 367W consent holders to place an advertisement in a local paper, giving information about the release including the exact location of the field, prior to planting. The farm-scale evaluations of genetically modified maize were planted under a consent issued under Part C of Directive 90/220/EEC. This does not require consent holders to make any public notification prior to planting.
§ Mr. BakerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the crops grown in genetically modified crop trials which have so far entered the food chain by(a) type, (b) volume and (c) date. [75111]
§ Mr. Meacher[holding answer 8 March 1999]: Material from genetically modified (GM) crop trials cannot enter the food or feed chain without specific approval. No material has been used as food. Of the 154 consents for GM crop trials issued one, in respect of a GM maize, has approval to be used as animal feed. Consent was issued in April 1996. It is not known whether the crop was used in this way but, if it was, the yield from the site would be less than one tonne. Two further consents, in respect of GM oil seed rape given consent in August 1994 and March 1997, have approval for the meal from the trial crop to be used as feed. Again, it is not known whether the crop was used in this way but, if it was, the maximum yield would be in the region of 4 tonnes.