GM Debate

2.30 pm

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): I start by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.

This debate is not about the pros and cons of GM, so I shall not go down that road. First, I believe that there is no such thing as risk-free food. That is seriously important, because if the debate is to mean anything it must be about risk assessment. There are risks in every sort of food; whether food is fatty or non-fatty, or a host of other things, we take a risk with every spoonful that we consume. It is also true that there is no such thing as GM-free food. It is a bizarre deception that people should think that food can be labelled GM-free even if it has up to 1 per cent. of GM produce in it. Patently and obviously, such food would not be GM free.

Looking at it semantically, one could say that all food has been genetically modified; it is a question of who does it, how it occurs, how fast it is done and how long it has taken to evaluate. I visited the Broom's Barn establishment 18 months ago to find out about GM sugar beet. I learned an enormous amount in my day away from Parliament, and I began to understand what is at stake. The images of Frankenstein food quickly slipped away as I came to understand the enormous potential of GM foods and the good that could come from them—for the environment, for the nutrition of people around the world, and for other uses including pharmaceutical ones.

In our debate, we first need to know the facts. That is where the Government have been slow, and I am critical of them for that. Getting information from the Government is like trying to get water out of a stone. The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) is absolutely right to press the Government hard on the basic facts of the matter. Only when we have more facts can we make an appropriate risk assessment.

I have asked a series of parliamentary questions in order to elucidate some interesting information, and I have perused the daily outflow of answers on GM from DEFRA. It is clear that the Department is working extremely hard, and I commend the Minister and his officials for that. I was also interested in the answer of the former Secretary of State for International Development to a question from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). She said:

" Developing countries must have the opportunity to make their own informed decisions on whether or not to adopt modern biotechnologies based on an assessment of the risks and benefits from their safe development and use. Developed countries have a responsibility to help developing countries build the capacity to make these choices."—[Official Report, 24 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 67W.]

If we block people's choices by saying that certain foods cannot be imported, even if they are safe, because the EU has a 1 per cent. threshold, we shall be doing them no favours.

I turn next to an answer from Lord Warner, an Under-Secretary of State for Health in the other place. He said:

8 Jul 2003 : Column 217WH

" All genetically modified foods approved for sale in the UK have undergone a rigorous pre-market safety assessment by independent scientific advisers . . . There is no evidence that the consumption of genetically modified food has caused an increase in allegenicity. The available evidence does not indicate that GM DNA transfer to gut bacteria has adverse consequences for metabolism, organ development, and the immune and endocrine systems. DNA is consumed as part of our normal diet."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 July 2003; Vol. 650, c. WA153–4.]

Indeed it is—just as, every day, we all consume genes. That is important.

I tabled a question about what evidence there was on the safety of GM food consumption, and asked for a statement. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), replied:

" The available scientific evidence does not support the view that the consumption of the genetically modified foods approved to date would lead to any harmful effects. The safety is assured using procedures developed by the World Health Organisation."—[Official Report, 30 June 2003; Vol. 408, c. 117W.]

I asked, pursuant to that question, whether she would list the scientific evidence on which her answer was based and whether she would describe the procedures developed by the WHO. Answer came there none—so far. It is extremely important that those sorts of answers are produced.

The same Minister, in an answer to a question from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), said:

" Details of the research programme"—

the Food Standards Agency's programme—

" are published in the FSA's research and surveys programmes annual report and are available on the FSA web site".—[Official Report, 3 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 483W.]

The website address is given, but the website simply does not work. People cannot get the information—that is worse than useless, because it makes the Government appear to have something to hide. I do not believe that the Government have anything to hide. I wish them well; it is extremely important that they win the debate. I want genetic modification to be used in the production of food; it would have a huge impact and could be of benefit around the world. However, it is right, of course, to ensure that the scientists are completely open.

I end with a plea that the Government do something radical: start to be an open Government. It does not matter whether we are talking about nuclear energy, about the response to terrorism or about GM foods—it is about time that our Government came clean with the public. The culture of the United States of America is wholly different in that respect. Some in this country, particularly civil servants, argue that our Government are dangerously open; they are not.

The approach of the Americans—I have discussed it with them recently, with respect to terrorism, on a visit to the United States—is that the more information that can justifiably be made public, the more people will realise that someone is on to them before they start. A similar argument applies in this country. We need to be far more open and to present the scientific evidence in a way that the layman can understand—then we will have a proper debate on GM.

click here for the full debate

House of Commons – Westminster Hall - Tuesday 11th November 2003

GM Science Review

9.41 am

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on calling for the debate. It is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) here. I congratulate him on his new position in the unbeatable line up.

The hon. Lady seems to live in a world of certainty, which is one of her problems. She thinks that, when scientists say that matters are hard to predict or that there are areas of uncertainty, it sometimes nullifies all scientific progress. Well, not in my book.

I find the hon. Lady's attitude to such matters so negative that I think that she is a red flag walking in front of a train. I must draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. The way media and pressure groups have portrayed the various studies that have been produced by the Government does not do justice to those studies. In a year in which the planting of GM crops throughout the world exceeded twice the area of the United Kingdom, we must consider carefully what the studies have meant.

Leading up to the science review, the strategy unit economic review concluded that there were many potential benefits for genetic modification. It said that existing crops that offer cost and convenience advantages to United Kingdom farmers will be available, that future developments in GM crops have the potential to offer more wide-ranging benefits to farmers and consumers and that possibilities included GM crops with agronomic benefits more suited to the UK. The review pointed out that GM crops could deliver direct health benefits and that the overall balance of costs and benefits will depend on public attitudes. We are engaged in a battle for public attitudes.

The strategy unit recognised that, although economic benefits to the United Kingdom are likely to be limited in the short term, that was due mainly to the relatively minor status in the UK of the crops presently being considered and would increase considerably when traits suited specifically for the UK and GM crops, such as wheat, were available. It is worth noting the limitation of benefit that the unit identified was due to the limited market and public perception, not that the intrinsic economic benefit of the crop was low.

The science review was extremely positive. It concluded that, globally, there have been no observed detrimental health impacts as a result of the introduction of present GM crops and GM foods. The science review was based on a wealth of accumulated

peer-reviewed scientific evidence and nearly 700 publications. It stated that there were no expected or observed detrimental health impacts from the introduction of present GM crops and GM foods. It went on to say that genetic modification, as an option for developing crops, was as predictable and reliable as other crop breeding methods, that DNA—or genes—were a safe, normal component of food regardless of origin and that a case-by-case assessment is essential for GM crops. It said also that there was no evidence that current GM crops would become "super weeds", and concluded that

"they were very unlikely to invade our countryside or become problematic plants."

Finally, the science review concluded that the current herbicide-tolerant crops envisaged for the UK offered increased flexibility and an improved environment profile of weed control.

The report also concluded that the UK and Europe have a very strict science-based regulatory regime, which ensures that today's GM products are at least as safe and nutritious as their non-GM equivalents. Biotechnology companies support such science-based reviews, which lead to a better understanding of the true impact—that is, the risks and benefits—of GM crops within the UK and globally. They welcome the science review's important contribution.

When it came to reporting the "GM Nation?" debate, it focused almost entirely on an uncontrolled and self-selecting sample and paid little attention to the check of the focus group survey. That was interesting, especially as Professor Malcolm Grant—the chairman of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission—commented publicly that the wider self-selecting arm of "GM Nation?" was not representative of the UK public. We knew that of course and we should not assume that such an organisation is representative of the public.

Although participants had concerns, the more representative focus groups also saw the positive benefits of GM crops in providing cheaper foods, helping British farmers and improving the environment by reducing inputs, such as pesticides and fertilisers. There was also the possibility of significant medical advantages, and that GM could help developing countries. Interestingly, a comparison of samples of people from the focus group with samples of people from the "GM Nation?" debate showed that when it came to helping developing countries only 12 per cent. of people in the debate, as opposed to 55 per cent. of the focus group, thought that that was significant. Only 15 per cent. of those involved in the GM debate, as opposed to 52 per cent. of the focus group, thought reducing inputs was important. When it came to helping poor old British farmers, only 10 per cent. of people in the GM debate, as opposed to 48 per cent. of the focus group, thought that that was important.

When the results of the farm-scale evaluations were added to the above reports, it suggested that none of the reports should be viewed in isolation. The farm-scale evaluations confirmed what industry had long argued: the flexibility of GM crops allows them to be grown in a way that benefits the environment. I have seen that myself. I spent a day at Brooms barn and saw what was being achieved in the sugar beet experiments. I came to understand the issues, which were different from what I thought they were until I went to see for myself. I subsequently read the scientific review of the Brooms barn experiment and the reports in the press, but the latter bore little resemblance to what the science suggested in the report itself.

Pressure groups claim that GM crops are, in effect, green concrete and would wipe out wildlife. The farm-scale evaluation results showed that that was scaremongering and not supported by the facts. On the contrary, the evidence reiterates that commercial experience around the world shows that GM crops are more flexible and can enhance biodiversity. It is also important to remember that the farm-scale evaluations were not putting GM on trial. As the statement by the scientific steering committee said:

" The researchers stress that the differences . . . were not a result of the way in which the crops were genetically modified. They arose because these GM crops gave farmers taking part in the trial new options for weed control."

What was significant was not GM versus conventional farming, but different approaches to crop type, herbicide use and management practices. That research highlighted that the impact on biodiversity is all to do with how crops are grown and how farmers control weeds. When a person wants to grow a high-quality, safe, affordable food, they have to control weeds that would otherwise degrade quality, safety and affordability.

After the most intense year of debate and investigation we have expanded proof of the economic benefits and safety of GM crops and there is no evidence of health or environmental risk. There is a good argument, based on the scientific evidence, for moving forward with the responsible, case-by-case introduction of GM crops to the UK under our robust, safe regulatory system. If the Government decided to proceed, they would allow UK farmers and consumers to benefit from the choice and flexibility offered by GM—that is denied them at present.