GM Crops
Agenda item 4 is consideration of Nicola Sturgeon's report on the potential impact of GM crop trials. Before we proceed, I would like to thank Nicola for undertaking this work over the summer recess, especially given the complexity of the issue in question. I ask Nicola to speak to her report.
I will be brief. I begin by reminding members of the remit for my report. I was not asked by the committee to reach conclusions about the safety of GM crops or to make substantive recommendations. When undertaking an exercise such as this, it is difficult not to reach conclusions or to develop views—sometimes quite strong views. Although I have developed views on the issue of GM crops, I have tried to exclude them from the report because they were not part of my remit. I was asked to examine the available published evidence regarding the potential impact on health of GM crops, to gather some opinions and to propose a course of action for the committee.
In my brief paper, I have indicated which people I spoke to, which evidence I examined and which documents I had recourse to. This is not an exhaustive review of the evidence—I would have needed a good deal more time to produce one. However, I now have a good insight into the issues at stake, which I will discuss in a moment.
In response to the website appeal, we received a large number of submissions from members of the public, which are available for inspection by the committee. The overwhelming majority of those submissions were opposed to GM crops, although one or two took a different view.
I have attempted to outline as briefly and simply as possible what I understand the potential health risks associated with GM crops to be. Some of those risks are associated mainly with consumption of GM foods. However, some are relevant to the debate about GM crops, because they could arise through entry into the food chain of such crops or inhalation of pollen.
Potential health risks include toxicity, allergenicity and antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance is a topical issue because of the controversy over Aventis seeds earlier in the summer and the concern that some seeds with an antibiotic-resistant gene got into the crops. That raises concerns about the robustness of the safety procedures and the testing that is carried out.
Those are the potential health concerns in general. A specific issue that I did not know about until I looked into the matter arises out of the current and planned crop trials. The current trials are trials not of the crops, but of a herbicide that is being used on the crops to see what effect it has if it is used on a GM crop at different times of the year from when it would normally be used on conventional crops.
There is also concern about the gene that is being used in the crops, which is known as the phosphinothricin acetyl transferase—or PAT—gene. That gene remains in the crop and could have potential health implications through its entry into the food chain or, later, through direct consumption. There is no rigorous testing of that, as the trials are not trials of the crop. The crops have already been assessed as safe, although the testing that took place before the trials went ahead was perhaps not as rigorous as it should have been, given that there are potential serious health risks.
Those are some of the fears that people have. The conclusion that I had to draw was that there is no conclusive evidence to show that GM crops harm our health; however, equally, there is no conclusive evidence to show that they do not. I do not think that the Health and Community Care Committee is qualified to be the arbiter to decide between those two positions. It is not for us to say whether GM crops are harmful: that is a medical and scientific debate that it is not appropriate for us to enter into. Nonetheless, there are some issues that would be worthy of further inquiry by the committee.
First, given the lack of evidence about the health impact of GM crops, should the trials be halted in line with the precautionary principle? There are two views on that, as one might imagine. Some people say that the lack of evidence about the health risks means that GM crops are safe and that, therefore, there is no reason to halt the trials. The alternative view says that, until we have reliable scientific evidence to show that there are no health risks, the precautionary principle should dictate that we do not go ahead with the trials. A compelling argument for that point of view is that the release of GM organisms into the environment is irreversible—once it is done, it cannot be undone. If we are not sure that the trials are safe, it is irresponsible of us to allow them to go ahead.
In the interests of balance, an important point to make—which is not in the written report—is that the Scottish Executive argues that it is proceeding in line with what it calls the precautionary approach, rather than the precautionary principle. There have been smaller-scale trials of the crops before the farm-scale evaluations. The Executive argues that the step-by-step process that is being followed is in line with the precautionary approach. However, others who talk about the precautionary principle take the absolutist view that we should not even start the process until we are sure that the procedures are safe. That is the first issue on which the committee could take a view, following some sort of inquiry.
The second issue relates to the risk assessment procedure, which is a complex issue. I shall briefly run through the legislation that governs the actions of the Scottish Executive with regard to GM crops. As we have all heard Ross Finnie say on many occasions, the Scottish Executive acts on the advice that is given to it by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. Before ACRE gives advice, it asks whoever is applying for a licence to provide it with risk assessment information.
Several people to whom I spoke and who submitted evidence to me during my inquiries expressed real concerns about the robustness of the risk assessment process. There are concerns that it is not very transparent or objective. There is also no standard format for it, and it varies from case to case. The emphasis appears to be on proving that GM organisms are safe, rather than on assessing honestly the potential hazards. The risk assessment process is over-reliant on modelling instead of relying on scientific evidence, and there is no set period of time over which risks must be assessed. For example, you can say that something poses no risk over the next year or two, but is that the same thing as saying that the same substance will pose no risk in 10 or 20 years?
Those are some of the concerns that have been raised. I spoke to a toxicologist, Dr Howard, who articulated many of those concerns, but it is fair to say that they were echoed by a number of others.
The third issue that I flagged up for possible inquiry is whether the existing guidelines are sufficient to prevent the cross-contamination of conventional crops. Some people are of the opinion that the recommended separation distances between GM crops and conventional crops are not adequate. The lady whom I quote on page 5 of my paper conducted a study into maize pollen. It is important that I point out that the current trials involve oil-seed rape, so that study may not be altogether relevant. However, her firm view was that the recommended separation distances are insufficient. The British Medical Association has also indicated that the separation distances should be reviewed in the light of new research.
The protesters from the Munlochy vigil presented evidence in connection with their petition that suggests that some of the other guidelines have been breached, such as the time gap between harvesting a GM crop and planting a conventional crop and the guidelines on cleaning tractors and drills. In the interests of balance, I note that the relevant organisations said that they do not think that those breaches were an issue, but other people have a different opinion.
Although GM crops have potential direct health implications, the environmental risks, which are much harder to judge in the short term, may also have secondary health implications. If cross-contamination takes place, those potential risks may become real.
The last issue that the committee should look into is whether it should be incumbent on the Scottish Executive to monitor the health of populations who live around GM trial sites. It amazes me that no such monitoring takes place. Although some may argue that the lack of evidence of risk to health means that GM crop trials are safe—I will inject my own view here—there is another, almost more compelling, argument. How will we ever know if GM crops are safe if we do not try to find out by monitoring their health implications? There are questions about how such monitoring could be carried out, as it may be a long-term exercise. Even if health risks are found, they may not be dramatic. People may not fall down dead, but there may be increases over a long period in the incidence of certain diseases. That issue is worthy of further inquiry.
My strong recommendation is that we examine those four issues further. I know that we have a packed work schedule, but I do not think that the inquiry has to be time consuming. In fact, given that new trials are due to start in the autumn and that we will be debating the commercialisation of GM crops before too long, it is imperative that any committee inquiry is quick, so that it influences that debate.
I have suggested witnesses from whom we might wish to take evidence. I have had discussions with them in the course of my work on this area, and all have important points to feed into the debate. In line with my remit, that is my proposed course of action for the committee.
Did the Transport and the Environment Committee do some work on this issue without considering the health aspect? I probably know the answer to that question, but I have forgotten.
That is why the matter has been passed to us. The Transport and the Environment Committee examined the environmental implications of GM crops and it felt that another committee should examine the health implications.
Did the Rural Development Committee consider it at any point?
I do not think so.
I have a funny feeling that the Rural Development Committee might have had a hand in this.
Perhaps at an early stage, but not in a substantive way.
I am told that the Rural Development Committee did consider it, but I presume that it did not consider the health aspects.
No one does. That is why I recommend that we inquire into those issues. We are not qualified to make scientific judgments, but there are some issues, such as the safety mechanisms and whether we are really adhering to the precautionary principle, that no one is considering objectively and independently. Those are legitimate areas of inquiry for the Health and Community Care Committee.
Could you make any judgment about the kinds of issues that we might investigate? Your report lists several topics such as the guidelines to prevent cross-contamination, the risk assessment procedures and monitoring of the health of people living nearby. I took your point that that could be long term and that it might be difficult to track people who live there for only a few years before moving on.
Are you of the opinion that the Scottish Executive has room for manoeuvre and can do more than it is doing at the moment? We do not want to suggest something to the minister only for him to turn round and say that he does not have the power to do it under EC directive 5000 or whatever.
The three pieces of legislation that I have outlined set the framework. However, at the end of the day it is up to the minister to decide whether such trials go ahead. The minister acts on the advice of ACRE. There is an argument about whether he must act on that advice. I do not think that he must act on it, but the convention is that he does. Within that, he has much more room for manoeuvre than he is currently exercising in relation to the judgment about safety.
He would probably argue that he has tried to do that in the past week.
I have tried to keep my opinion out of this as much as possible.
Do you believe that in the areas that we have outlined there is some scope for the minister to move further than he has so far?
Yes.
I congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on her report and I think that it reaches the right conclusions. We are the Health and Community Care Committee and therefore have a unique role in relation to the issue. That role has been recognised by the other committees in the Parliament. I take the point that there is a dispute about what constitutes the precautionary principle, but the Health and Community Care Committee must come to a conclusion on the precautionary principle after considering the risk to the health of the population. We must pursue that role.
We have a similar role in relation to the risk assessment procedure. It may be sufficiently robust to protect the environment in the view of the Transport and the Environment Committee, but we must ensure that it is sufficiently robust to protect the health of the population, which is our concern. Is cross-contamination a threat to the health of the population? That is our concern. Should there be long-term health monitoring? That is something that we might want to recommend to the Scottish Executive.
We cannot ignore the petition. We must pursue it as urgently as possible.
I, too, would like to congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on her report. I know that there is a large amount of information out there and that it takes a tremendous degree of focus to produce such a concise report. That view is summed up by Charles Saunders, the public health consultant at the BMA, who says that
"we do not have the knowledge base to make a valid decision about the potential health risks".
That should be the base of our thinking on the report.
I am concerned about the point on page 2 of the report about the GM DNA transfer into the human intestine and the potential for antibiotic resistance. I do not think that the Health and Community Care Committee can ignore that. I support the suggestion that we take evidence and hold a concise inquiry. I would like to add the Food Standards Agency to the list of witnesses.
The other point in the report is the principle of substantial equivalence. I am no scientist, but I understand that GM is not a conventional counterpart to other types of inputs to horticulture. GM is far more complex. Whatever base it had in testing, I do not think that it can be classed as a conventional counterpart.
I visited Moray beekeepers during the summer and discovered what an enormously complex issue GM is. The beekeepers are concerned about GM and want their honey and other foods to be clearly labelled as GM free. Honey is one of nature's greatest foods and the beekeepers are concerned because they cannot label it as being totally GM free. That is another reason for adding the Food Standards Agency to the list of potential witnesses.
I am concerned because the existing trials do not measure the effects on the environment or on public health. We will know more about the health of moths, bees and beetles than that of humans. As a health committee, we must have baseline data and forward data not just for six or 12 months, but for a population such as primary schoolchildren or elderly people. I am concerned about the fact there is insufficient evidence and about the fact that no evidence is being sought to address public health concerns. Ross Finnie made the point that the crops have been in existence since 1989 with no detrimental incident. That is like saying that the road is safe because no one has been killed on it. Neither the minister nor anyone else has sufficient evidence to reassure the public that GM crops are safe for public health.
I support Nicola's recommendation that we take more evidence and that we produce a concise report in order to bring the matter into the open so that the Health and Community Care Committee can give people the assurances that they seek that the crops are not detrimental to their health.
I take on board those points, but we have been there before with MMR. We produced a report, but some people continue to disbelieve what we said.
I support the view that we need to take the issue further. As Nicola Sturgeon pointed out, the tests are of a herbicide and not of the crops. Those who are in charge should have clarified that to the public long before now. I also dislike the phrase "precautionary approach." The precautionary principle is so important that it is enshrined in the Treaty of Rome. To use the lesser term "precautionary approach", which probably has no meaning in law, is deceptive. Furthermore, members will perhaps recall that in spring 2000 there was an accidental illegal planting in Scotland. Ross Finnie had to rip up the field.
He has enough on his plate without having to go out and rip up the fields.
After the Canadian seed producer informed Westminster—members will remember that there was a long delay—I discovered that there had been an illegal GM harvest in 1999, involving rogue seeds. We are already deeply into the subject and we owe it to the public to investigate. I would add to the witness list, if possible, a representative of the seed producers.
Nicola Sturgeon has put a lot of work into the report and has raised many issues. Most of what I would have said has been said. It would be worth our while to look further into issues that Nicola raised in her report. Mary Scanlon referred to a concise inquiry, but I fail to see at this stage how we can timetable that. We must bear it in mind that there are issues that we decided not to investigate because of pressure of work. We must try to be fair to everyone. We should seek further evidence, but colleagues want to add more witnesses to the list of potential witnesses. I am a wee bit concerned about how we might timetable that. We should bear that in mind when we are making our final decision. Issues that Nicola raised are potentially concerning and we should look further into the matter.
I agree with the principle of the point that Janis Hughes made and I agree that the committee has a heavy work load, but I remind the committee that the matter is of enormous public interest. The health aspects have been ignored and there is a responsibility on the committee to push the health issues and to try to get some answers or raise more questions about some of the health aspects. I would support giving some of our time to that purpose.
I arranged for members to be issued with a copy of our forward work plan so that we could see what scope we have in that regard.
I believe that there should be a focused inquiry. It is important that we try to get answers to the four main questions that Nicola Sturgeon's report posed. However, we have to do that without affecting the progress of the draft mental health bill.
It seems that everyone agrees that the focus has not been on the public health aspect of the situation and that a lot of the work has been focused on the commercial side—companies that produce seeds—and the rural and environmental side. Did you come across any information on the public health impact elsewhere?
I have not conducted an extensive review of the wealth of evidence, but none of it appears to be conclusive. However, we could certainly draw on evidence from other parts of the world.
Have organisations such as the World Health Organisation and the World Food Programme done work in this area?
Yes. I have gathered a lot of material that I can make available for background information.
I accept what Janet Hughes said about the need for the inquiry to be focused and concise. If we let it, the inquiry could take two years because there is a great deal of information. That is why I have tried to focus on the issues on which we could add something useful. If we invite witnesses, we should give them a clear steer as to the issues on which we want them to focus. It is understandable, but people who know a lot about the subject can talk for a long time about it. I am happy to work with the clerks to draw up the briefs for witnesses.
I do not want to lengthen greatly the list of experts, but it would be interesting to hear from the Food Standards Agency because the research that was commissioned by the FSA that suggested that GM DNA can transfer into bacteria in the human intestine was immediately downplayed by the FSA, which more or less said, "The results of the research notwithstanding, there is no risk and no need to worry." It would be interesting to hear the FSA's take on that.
It is important to make people aware of the fact that it is not the crops that are on trial but the use of herbicide. That means that the safety assessment of the crops might not have been as rigorous as it should have been. Another point is that one of the health implications that arise from this area is to do not with the GM crops but with the increased use of herbicide that might result. There is a chance that, the more pesticide resistant the crops are, the more pesticide farmers will use.
I forgot to touch earlier on the rule of substantial equivalence, which causes me enormous concern. That rule says that if two products, one non-GM and one GM, are equivalent apart from the genetic modification, there is no need to worry about safety. That takes no account of what the addition of the GM element does to the chemical composition of the product and it does not take account of any unexpected effects of adding the GM component.
Mary Scanlon is right to say that no baseline data exist and that no health monitoring is being undertaken, which concerns me. We are focusing on crop trials, but another issue, which the chief medical officer in England has acknowledged, is that wider population surveillance on the effect of GM foods on public health is needed. However, perhaps that issue is outwith the scope of our inquiry.
The crops have been sown, grown and ploughed. It is frightening that nobody has taken account of their impact today, tomorrow, next year or 10 years down the line. That is all I want to say—I am reaching the stage when I, too, could talk for ever about the subject.
We will probably have to rely on you a lot on the subject. I thank Nicola Sturgeon for assisting us.
I agree with everything that members have said. Enough questions are posed. Even if we start from the standpoint that, as Nicola Sturgeon said, no conclusive evidence exists either way, we should raise some public health questions, which might concern whether it is sensible or right to go ahead without continued monitoring of public health. It devalues the statement that there is no impact on public health if no monitoring programme has been established to work out whether an impact exists.
If we start from that baseline and take on board Nicola Sturgeon's recommendations, we can decide to produce a report, take evidence and investigate some causes of great concern. I was greatly concerned when I read about the antibiotics issue and when I heard Nicola Sturgeon talking about the increasing use of herbicides and pesticides.
We might want to examine several issues. We must take into account the need for balance in the evidence that we take. It might be easier to find people who are happy to tell us that they are unhappy than to find people who are happy, but it is incumbent on us to take a balanced approach with witnesses. Two suggested witnesses that could be added to Nicola Sturgeon's list are the Food Standards Agency Scotland and seed producers. I go along with those suggestions. Does everybody else agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Janis Hughes made an important point. I am well aware of the complexities of the issue and as Nicola Sturgeon said, we could probably do a two-year inquiry on the matter and not produce a conclusive result because we are not the people who will give the definitive answer on whether GM crops are safe. We are not scientists or clinicians, but we can raise several issues or set the ball rolling in having those concerns raised by using a shorter period to prepare a report than we might otherwise like. I would prefer to take longer, but the reality is that the mental health bill will mean that extra time for such an inquiry is scarce. I suggest that members examine the forward work plan. We could take evidence on 13 and 20 November, consider a draft report on 27 November and agree to the report on 4 December. That would give us three weeks in which to take evidence, because we can always agree to a report ad hoc, but we can have no more than three weeks of evidence taking—it will probably be two weeks—and a month for the inquiry.
I make that suggestion to members, with a view to the fact that the time scale will be inadequate for doing the proper job that I want us to do as a committee. However, we must balance whether it is more important to do some work on the matter this side of the dissolution of the Parliament than it is to be able to say that we have inquired as completely as we would have liked. On balance, I recommend that we opt for a short-term inquiry report that focuses on raising issues. That will give the Executive time to respond before the Parliament is dissolved. If we go into next year and manage to find a greater amount of time to do the report, we might not get a response from the Executive prior to the conclusion of this session of the Parliament.
I agree as long as the clerks are able to advise us that our decision to go ahead will not impede the progress of the proposed mental health bill. If the inquiry can be fitted in, that is fine.
I probably should not say this on the record, but the suggestions for times that we could fit in the report came from the clerks who are sitting beside me. All of us are aware of what is ahead of us and none of us wants to impede the proposed mental health bill or in any way jeopardise our understanding of that bill and its complexities. We are all aware that it will be a difficult bill for the committee to deal with and that we have a real duty to the one in four Scots who suffer from mental health difficulties to ensure that we do that job properly. That said, the committee has agreed unanimously that the public health issues in relation to GM crops need to be raised and answered. My suggestion would allow us to go some way towards doing both things.
We all know what our priorities are and that all are important. I am happy with the time scale for the inquiry. I am aware that I have a head start on other members on the issue, but we should have enough time to reach some conclusions. In an ideal world, I would like more time, but I am aware that we do not live in such a world. The second round of GM crop trials is due to start in the autumn and a November inquiry would not allow us to influence matters. Given that Ross Finnie has given the go-ahead for the trials, members could say that we are too late in any respect; however, that opinion is open to debate.
If we hold an inquiry in November, that will allow us to put our view on where the debate is headed, which is towards commercialisation. It is important for us to ensure that our views are injected into that debate early. The upside of the time scale that we are discussing is that it would allow us to do that.
Given that we have to ask for written submissions and that two weeks will be spent in recess and we are already in mid-September, the time scale is all right. I want to reiterate a point that Nicola Sturgeon made about ensuring that those who submit written evidence are asked to focus clearly on the public health issues. Perhaps the paper and the headings that it contains, including the need for research, should be used as the basis for guidelines. We do not want tomes of evidence about environmental problems—that is for another committee. We need to ask for evidence that places a clear focus on health. If we get that, we can do the inquiry within the time scale.
We have included the Scottish Executive on the list of witnesses. I assume that the committee will want to hear from Ross Finnie, Malcolm Chisholm and the chief medical officer for Scotland.
Members indicated agreement.
The best-known supporter of GM in Britain is Lord Sainsbury. Why not invite him or some of his people? The convener may smile, but I am serious.
I am smiling because we tell ourselves that we have restricted time scales, but we always do a good job of adding names to our lists.
Given members' agreement, we should keep the list as it is. I have listened to what Nicola Sturgeon said, but I do not see how we can hold the inquiry any earlier.
If I was to pick from the list someone not to call for written evidence it would be the Royal Society. That is because voluminous written scientific evidence by the society is in the public domain. It might be better to focus on the society's published work instead of inviting it to give evidence.
I added the Royal Society in the interests of balance because, although the society has raised some reasonable questions on the issue, it is not anti GM crops.
I disagree. We should invite the Royal Society to come before the committee so that we can ask face-to-face questions. It is essential for us to hear answers to questions of a scientific nature so that we can form as objective an assessment of the issue as possible. We should keep the Royal Society on the list.
Another thing that pops into my head is that this agenda item results from a petition. When we are doing work that relates to a petition, we normally try to hear from the petitioners. We must give the petitioners scope to bring a range of people with them who they believe can focus on the health aspects. I appreciate that we are looking at two very long sessions at the very least, but it is the committee's unanimous view that we should hold such an inquiry.
That brings us to the end of the public part of our meeting.
Meeting continued in private until 10:55.