Environment and Rural Development Committee, 10 Nov 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Official Report 120KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Genetically Modified Organisms (Traceability and Labelling) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/438)<br />Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2004<br />(SSI 2004/439)

---

Plant Health (Great Britain) Amendment (Scotland) Order 2004 (SSI 2004/440)<br />Avian Influenza (Survey Powers) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/453)

I would welcome members of the public, but none is here yet. We have received apologies from Alasdair Morrison. I remind everyone to switch off their mobile phones before they are caught out.

Agenda item 1 is subordinate legislation. Members have a series of papers for four instruments that we will consider under the negative procedure. Members have an extract from the Subordinate Legislation Committee's report; that committee commented only on the Avian Influenza (Survey Powers) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/453).

Do members have comments, questions or observations? I read the Genetically Modified Organisms (Traceability and Labelling) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (SSI 2004/438) and I was glad to see background information and detailed discussion in the regulatory impact assessment. The regulations seem to be a response to consumers who want clarity about the contents of food products. I am glad that that robust approach is being taken and I hope that it will help people to have confidence in what they buy in shops. I have no comments on any other instrument.

I echo your remarks about consumer confidence. I am concerned about how the model in the regulations has been written, because it takes an approach that requires more money to be spent to test whether products are GM free. That is the wrong way round. If costs are to fall on anyone, they should fall on the people who wish to introduce GM products. That is my fundamental problem with the adopted paradigm.

However, given that the paradigm has been adopted, if consumer confidence is to be improved, labelling and testing must be transparent. The Food Standards Agency Scotland is not very good at providing information on the subject. I hope that the committee will keep a close watch on how the matter pans out. We are dealing with just one statutory instrument, but the implications are wider. I put it on the record that we must keep a close watch.

I am happy with the provisions and I would be concerned about a move away from catch-all Government action that is designed to protect against the inclusion of genetically modified material when it is unexpected. The regulations take the right approach, which is why I support them.

The new requirements to label GM animal feed and to keep five years of records to allow products to be traced through the supply chain if necessary are important for confidence that a robust system is in place. I note Rob Gibson's comment that we will keep an eye on the matter.

Testing is important if we are considering the establishment of a liability and co-existence regime, especially to trace potential harmful effects to the holder of the consent to release GMOs. The regulations are necessary.

Members have no comments on any other instruments. Are members happy with the instruments and do they agree to make no recommendation to the Parliament on them?

Members indicated agreement.