Health and Community Care Committee, 19 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 19, 2002

Official Report 326KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Genetically Modified Crops (PE470)

Item 4 concerns petition PE470 on genetically modified crops. The petition was submitted on behalf of the Munlochy vigil to end the farm-scale trials of GM oil-seed rape, which is modified to resist herbicides. The Transport and the Environment Committee has forwarded the petition to us, having previously considered a similar petition from Friends of the Earth Scotland, which I think the Rural Affairs Committee also considered.

The Transport and the Environment Committee has asked us to consider the public health aspects of the issue. I am interested to hear the committee's views on what to do with the petition. We can do a range of different things, such as write to the Minister for Health and Community Care or the European Commission on the health issues. Much of what the Scottish Parliament information centre and others have given us on the issue has focused more on the environmental issues rather than on what research—if any—has been done on the health matters. There might be some scope to go in that direction.

We could take evidence on the petition, although I am aware of our work load. We are coming up to the summer recess, after which we will immediately be into consideration of the mental health bill. We could also appoint a reporter, or we could take no action. Those are some of the options. I am sure that the committee will think of others.

There is a job of work for us to do. The previous inquiries have concentrated largely, but not exclusively, on the environmental impact of GM crops. We need to consider more closely the alleged or potential public health implications.

We have a timing problem, because we are about to go into recess. It would not do any harm to write to the minister and get a response from him. However, we also need to take evidence. The problem is that the matter is urgent, as the crops are flowering. To wait until after the recess would be to wait too long. Perhaps someone might be prepared to act as a reporter over the recess so that we have something concrete to return to at the end of the summer.

I spoke to Charles Saunders from the BMA after he gave evidence this morning. He said that there are no data on the impact of GM crops on public health. In fact, at the end of the trials at Munlochy, we will know more about the effects of GM crops on moths, beetles and butterflies than on public health. He also said that the BMA wrote to the health department two months ago and has still not received a reply.

John McAllion and I were at the Medical Research Council at the Royal College of Surgeons last week. The MRC sent some evidence to us because we said that we, as members of the Health and Community Care Committee, were concerned about the issue because of the Munlochy trials. The evidence says:

"GM foods raise several human health issues, some of which are specific to GM technology … Given the range of potential health effects and the complexity in studying some of them,"

more research is needed.

Highland Council supports the recommendations of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission that further data be gathered and considered. I think that Highland Council has said that to the convener as well.

I see from paragraph 2.3 of the submission from Highland Council that the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in the National Assembly for Wales have entered into a partnership arrangement pressing for a moratorium on all GM crop trials in Wales. They also seek to exploit the marketing opportunities of identifying Welsh agricultural produce as GM free.

The BMA, the MRC and Highland Council are seeking information and there are genuine concerns relating to GM crops and public health not only in relation to Munlochy, but throughout the Highlands. We have to address the issue and assure people that GM crops are safe or otherwise. There is a concern that there is more information on moths and beetles than there is baseline data on public health. I do not want to be a reporter on the issue, but I think that we have to seek reassurances.

Let me establish what your suggestion is. We have to acknowledge that we are approaching the summer recess. There is a work load issue for when we come back, because we will have a contentious bill to consider, which will be time consuming. Nicola Sturgeon has put forward her suggestion; what do you propose we do at this stage, Mary?

I suggest that we take evidence from the Minister for Health and Community Care and representatives of the Scottish Executive health department. I would like to hear evidence from the BMA and from Professor Hooper of the University of Sunderland, who has done a considerable amount of research into the effect of GM crops on public health.

So you are suggesting a full inquiry. Bear in mind that, once we open that up, we have to hear from everybody, to be fair.

We have to hear from both sides, but we have to hear from the people whom I mentioned. Professor Hooper's comments make quite frightening reading. I know that time is not on our side, but we have to reassure people about public health. We cannot just leave it.

Could we hold a special meeting early in the recess to handle this? It is a serious issue. The problem is that the crops are flowering right now.

I would find that suggestion a bit difficult.

We have to keep in mind the fact that the Transport and the Environment Committee was sufficiently worried by the petition to recommend to the Minister for Environment and Rural Development that the field trial be ended and the crop ploughed into the ground. That committee took the issue very seriously. It did not feel qualified to comment on the field trials' health implications, but felt that those should be pursued. That is why the petition was referred to this committee. We cannot just ignore the matter; we have to do something about it. The question is; what do we do?

Serious allegations have been made, and it is clear from the Transport and the Environment Committee's correspondence that nobody has considered the health implications for the population in the Munlochy area. The Minister for Environment and Rural Development accepted that. No tests have been carried out. We have to take seriously the comments made by Dr Charles Saunders and the other experts who have been mentioned in e-mails that have been sent to committee members.

There are two ways of doing this. We could hold a full meeting of the committee and invite those experts to give evidence, along with the Minister for Health and Community Care, or we could appoint a reporter to contact all those people and report back. But when would the reporter report back?

Let me pick up on the point that Nicola Sturgeon made about timing. If we knew that we were to hear from the minister next week, I do not feel that I have enough background information to do justice to that opportunity. I would be surprised if most other members did not feel the same. If we had a reporter working over the summer and then considered whether to take further evidence on that basis as soon as we return after the recess, that would probably be the best solution, given the time scale available.

I think that that is the way to go. I would be happy to do some work on the matter over the summer, contacting the relevant people so as to form a view on whether it would be desirable for us to inquire fully into the matter and, if so, on whom to invite to speak to us. If we let the matter lie over the summer, we would not be giving due consideration to the seriousness and urgency of the issue.

The chief medical officer for Scotland was at a meeting with the Medical Research Council that John McAllion and I attended. We all know that there is a lot of conflicting evidence. As a responsible committee, we want to make the best judgment that we can. Would it be possible for us to ask the CMO to ask someone on the Medical Research Council to review the evidence and give us a steer, rather than tying up a member of the committee?

I think that the only way to go forward is by accessing as many different points of view as possible. I have only one concern. I take on board the comments and the offer that Nicola Sturgeon has made and that is very good. However, we were in a comparable situation in relation to the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine report, for which we agreed to have one reporter, Mary Scanlon. On reflection, I think that we made a mistake because it was too much work for one person and it was very technical. We did not appreciate at the outset what a difficult task we had set. We might go down the reporter route, but I think that the situation is similar to that of the MMR report and that we might need a second reporter or perhaps require SPICe involvement at a much earlier stage. I put that suggestion into the melting pot. On reflection, I felt guilty that the Health and Community Care Committee had, because of the nature of the inquiry, put too much on the shoulders of one individual.

We are not necessarily looking for someone to go away and come back with definitive conclusions. We need someone to make preliminary inquiries and suggest a way forward for the committee. That way forward might be a full inquiry or involve taking evidence from a few people. We do not need someone to come back to us by the end of the summer and say that GM crops are safe or not. I would share your concerns if that were what was expected. My concern is that we make progress over the summer. If we do not, we will miss the opportunity to do anything on the subject.

Certain key people, such as the MRC, the BMA, the petitioners and local residents, have to be contacted over the summer or we will not make the best use of the time. I take on board that point.

Perhaps the committee could write to some of the people who might wish to make submissions in relation to health or tell us where we can find the health information. It should be easy to get a few names to give us a kick start. We all suspect that there is very little information in relation to human health.

If we decided to appoint a reporter, the committee would make such an inquiry. The information would be put on the website that the reporter, on behalf of the committee, was seeking information on the health aspects of GM. It would be up to the reporter to take forward all the work that they were able to over the recess. After the recess the committee as a whole could make a judgment about the next steps on the basis of that work.

In our advertising we need to be specific about the fact that the individual reporter would be acting as a sieve for the committee, finding out what evidence is available, what is relevant and what the committee could undertake. The reporter would look at all the material available and suggest the direction that the committee should take. We need to be specific about the remit of the reporter.

The problem is that there are no data on public health. That is what Charles Saunders was saying. Even if we recommend a study, there are no data, which is why the BMA, the MRC and the people in Munlochy are so concerned.

That is for the reporter to investigate and substantiate. For example, I understand that the schemes that are in place—obviously we are not at the forefront in this and other countries are much farther down the road—require to have on-going monitoring.

There must be data somewhere, even data that rule out a potential impact on human health. You cannot tell me that research has been done on the matter for 20 years—or whatever length of time it is—and there is not somebody somewhere who has got some kind of data, even if those are data that actively rule out an impact on human health. These things have been monitored all the time.

We need to put the matter into the hands of a reporter. I welcome the fact that Nicola Sturgeon is happy to take on the role. She will consider the issue over the summer and, when the committee returns after the recess, we can decide on the way forward on the basis of the work that she will have done. I know that the timing is not perfect, but that is the best that we can do in the circumstances. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Nicola Sturgeon for that.