Genetically Modified Crops
The next item of business is a statement by Allan Wilson on genetically modified crops.
I thank the Parliament for giving me the opportunity to make this statement. Members will understand that I wished to make clear the Executive's position on genetically modified crops as soon as possible after the announcement that was made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Unfortunately, the parliamentary timetable did not allow scope for me to make such a statement yesterday, but I was able to inform members of the Executive's position in my response to a question lodged by Alasdair Morrison. I am glad, however, to have the opportunity today, courtesy of the Parliament, to make a more detailed statement on our policy on GM crops. I am more than happy to debate the matter at some future date, should that be the wish of Parliament.
We have listened to the public's views. It is clear that people are uneasy about GM, and that there is little support for early commercialisation of GM crops. I am equally clear that we do not have the scientific evidence to do that, nor do we have the power to impose a blanket ban on GM crops or, indeed, the power to prohibit GM crops in particular areas. However, we will take action to protect the interests of Scottish consumers and to ensure that there is consumer choice.
As I have stated consistently, the Executive's primary concern is to safeguard the health of the Scottish people and of our wider environment. We will not allow GM crops to be grown in Scotland unless we are satisfied that they do not pose a risk to health or to the environment. In keeping with the partnership agreement, our approach is cautious and precautionary and it takes into account the long-term interests of the people of Scotland. Indeed, it was that precautionary approach that led the Executive, along with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to set up the farm-scale trials in 1999. Those trials are easily the most extensive study on farmland ecology that has ever been undertaken. We set up the trials because we wanted to be sure that questions that the nature conservation agencies had raised about the management of GM herbicide-resistant crops were answered before we reached decisions on them.
We have now accepted the advice of our statutory Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment on the three spring-sown farm-scale evaluation crops. We will oppose the cultivation of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant spring-sown rape and beet, as grown in the farm-scale evaluations, as the management regime that was associated with those crops had a more harmful effect on biodiversity than that of their conventional counterparts. We have agreed with the United Kingdom Government a process for taking forward the amendment of the consent for GM fodder maize to ensure that it can be grown only as in the FSEs, as that was better for biodiversity than conventional maize cultivation.
There has been some speculation in the media regarding the inclusion or otherwise of Chardon LL maize in the national seed list. I would like to make three points on that. First, the national seed list is a reassurance measure for farmers. The safety of this GM maize was confirmed by its gaining part C consent in 1998. Secondly, any decision on the listing of Chardon LL would be a collective decision of the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. Thirdly, Chardon LL already appears on the Dutch national seed list and it could, of course, enter the European Union common catalogue from there. For those reasons, the talk of a veto is wholly misplaced.
The FSE results have vindicated our precautionary, case-by-case, evidence-based approach. The review of GM science further reinforced the fact that it cannot be treated as a homogeneous technology and that its application needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. We cannot and should not dismiss the potential of GM technology out of hand, as some would have us do. We can be proud that Scotland is host to some of the world's leading biotechnology research and development, and we should be cautious about undermining the potential of that innovative sector to contribute to our long-term competitiveness and the future well-being of Scotland and its people.
The Executive accepts that science alone cannot provide all the answers to the policy questions with which we are faced. The results of the public debate demonstrate that the biotechnology companies have failed to persuade the public about the benefits of GM foods. Although most people can see that there might be potential benefits in medical applications of GM technology, they remain unconvinced about the use of GM in agriculture. The Executive's role is to ensure that the regulatory process operates properly and that applications are subject to robust and detailed scrutiny so that we can satisfy ourselves that the products that receive approval are as safe as conventional crops.
At the same time, we want to ensure that Scottish consumers can make informed choices about whether they wish to buy GM products. According to Greenpeace, no less, the new EU rules from April will provide us with the strictest and most comprehensive labelling regime in the world. If any GM product is present in a food product, it must be labelled as such. An exception is made for approved genetically modified organisms that are present for technically unavoidable reasons, but even in that case, labelling will be required at very low thresholds.
We recognise that it is important for producers to meet public demand for non-GM produce, and we will therefore introduce statutory co-existence measures. We will consult all concerned on the most appropriate co-existence arrangements to deliver choice for consumers and farmers and on possible compensation arrangements for farmers who suffer economic loss.
We have approached farming organisations to initiate discussions on how we might protect consumer confidence in Scottish produce if the GM maize variety to which I referred receives all the necessary approvals to be grown. We will work with those organisations to develop guidance for farmers who wish to establish GM-free zones in areas where the crop could be grown.
The Executive believes in responsible science and responsible policy making. We act within a strict regulatory framework that permits GM developments when it can be shown that they do not represent an increased risk to human health or the environment. On the basis of ACRE's advice, we could not consent to the commercial cultivation of GM beet and oilseed rape as grown in the FSEs, but we can agree in principle to the cultivation of the GM maize variety, subject to further important conditions.
We recognise that even where GM products are considered safe, people should be able to choose whether to consume them. For that reason, we will consult on the introduction of statutory co-existence measures and we will work with farming organisations to develop guidance to farmers who wish to establish GM-free zones.
We have been accused of not listening to the public debate and of ignoring public concerns. That accusation is untrue. We have listened, but it is clear from that process that there is no single, simple, yes or no answer about GM crops.
I commend the policy and my statement to Parliament.
I intend to allow about 20 minutes for the minister to take questions on the statement, so I ask all members, and particularly the opening Opposition spokesmen, to keep their questions tight.
The minister's statement was nine pages of very little. I am a long-time opponent of GM crops, but I could be a late convert to the technology if I thought that it could genetically modify a backbone into the minister and his Cabinet colleagues. Perhaps the minister will show that he does not need that genetic modification by answering three simple questions. Are the minister and the rest of the Executive for or against the commercial growing of GM crops in Scotland? That is straightforward. If they are against it—the voluntary ban scenario suggests that—what avenues are being explored proactively to delay or prevent the planting of such crops? Will the minister say with a yes or no whether, if he had refused to agree to the listing of Chardon maize, that would have been an end to the matter for Scotland?
Ms Cunningham's tongue is genetically modified, as it is forked. In the absence of credible scientific evidence of potential harm, a ban such as that which she suggests would be illegal. We do not have evidence for the banning of GM maize. Ministers must act responsibly and legally, even if the Scottish National Party will not. We do so within a long-standing EU framework that permits GM developments when it can be shown that they do not represent an increased risk. Legal advice on that is clear. Ms Cunningham's party and its leader may have scant regard for the law on fishing and agriculture, but the Executive does not wish to take that position.
I answered fully the Chardon maize question in my statement.
No, you did not.
I answered the question fully. As I made clear, the Executive does not hold the power of veto on the national seed list. National listing is not a GM safety assessment; other measures for that exist under the directive on the deliberate release of GMOs. The placing of varieties on the national list requires collective agreement among the UK Administration and devolved Administrations, so the minister's backbone does not enter into the question.
The Executive agrees that the listing of Chardon LL maize should be deferred until the current EU marketing consent has been amended to reflect advice from scientific advisers about the special conditions in which Chardon maize can be grown.
I will start by asking the same question that I asked the First Minister two weeks ago. Does the minister have the power to prevent the commercial growing of GM crops in Scotland?
On a more technical issue, I return to national approved lists. If the minister is asked for permission for Chardon LL to be included on the national list of approved seeds, will he grant such permission? Will he consider using the option of not granting permission at some future date with some other crop? The minister has stated that he will not allow crops to be grown in Scotland where there is evidence of potential harm. In relation to the national seed list, will he use his veto for that purpose?
The Government's labelling and traceability regime, which is expected to extend across Scotland, may or may not include the use of imported unsegregated protein supplements. The minister appeared to indicate that such supplements will not be included in his labelling regime. Will he give an undertaking that such supplements, where they are used as feed, will not activate the labelling and traceability processes that he outlined in his statement? Will he also say whether the use of such feedstuffs in specific areas may militate against granting GM-free status in the minister's voluntary GM-free zones?
The member has asked many questions, a number of which I have answered to a certain extent.
I have the power, which we may choose to exercise, to ban GM crop cultivation in Scotland if there is scientific evidence to underpin such a decision—that is, if potential harm is posed to human health or to the environment. We have no such evidence of potential harm to human health or to the environment in relation to the Chardon maize seed to which the member refers—hence our application to the EU for an amendment to the part C consent, given that it dates back to 1998 and that a voluntary regime has precluded its cultivation since then. We take the best possible scientific advice and base all our judgments on a case-by-case, evidence-based scientific approach. However, we do have such a power.
On the national seed list, as I said—I will repeat this for what must be the third time in the past 10 minutes—the seed has not been listed because we have sought EU approval for an amendment to the part C consent. If that approval is secured, which it may or not be—the decision will take several months—the devolved Administrations will discuss with the UK Government the prospective listing of that seed. I point out again and repeat for SNP members, who do not seem to understand the process, that Chardon maize is already listed on the Netherlands' national seed list and therefore could be approved for admission to the EU catalogue from that source.
I give members a strict assurance that we will engage in discussions with all the relevant parties, including the national organisations that represent farmers and landowners, about our proposals to establish GM-free zones where there is a demand for that to happen. I say that because I understand that we have a joint objective and interest. As I have said, I am persuaded that the public are uneasy about the science that underpins GM crops. As a consequence, there is a lack of consumer confidence in the product. Therefore, our interests coincide in trying to secure public and consumer confidence in the product. We will consider that matter in respect of all imports and the cultivation of the crops. I think that that answers the final question that was asked.
Does the minister agree that freedom of choice should be available to farmers who may wish to avail themselves of the technique that we are discussing if they see an advantage in it? For that reason, co-existence measures become quite a high priority. Will the minister expand on the consultation that he proposes to undertake on co-existence measures and tell us what timeframe he envisages for putting in place agreed co-existence measures?
That is an important question, which underpinned our decision yesterday. We decided that we would not proceed with the process by which Chardon maize could be grown in Scotland at some point without the prior existence of a statutory co-existence regime that will underpin that prospective consent. That is an important development and I was pleased to persuade colleagues in other parts of the United Kingdom of its value.
The consultation process, which will get under way shortly, will be wide-ranging and inclusive and will take account of the issues that Nora Radcliffe raised. We are conscious of the fact that the cultivation of GM crops could impact on neighbouring conventional or organic farmers. That is why, in tracing and labelling arrangements, we have taken steps to introduce strict thresholds on the adventitious presence of GM crops and we will consult on separation distances between conventional crops and prospective GM crops, whether they are grown on this side or the other side of the border.
I welcome the application of the precautionary principle, which means that GM rape seed and beet will be banned for good scientific reasons.
I want to press the minister on his welcome acknowledgement that many of us remain sceptical about some of the over-extravagant claims about GM technology. Will the minister outline precisely how he intends to avoid cross-contamination from GM crops on conventional and organic crops in particular, so that we as consumers will retain a real choice when we buy food? Further, will he set out how he sees the delivery of an effective liability regime that will ensure that conventional and organic farmers are not put at risk?
As Sarah Boyack knows, I share her scepticism about some of the claims that the biotech industry makes; the tenor and scope of my statement reflected that. Equally, like Sarah Boyack, I would not turn my back on technological or scientific advances that could benefit humankind. Consequently, we will not turn our back on GM technology, which as I said, is not a homogeneous technology.
On adventitious presence, I referred to the labelling regime and perhaps there will be a lower threshold in relation to organic produce to protect organic interests. Further, the statutory co-existence regime will underpin, among other factors, separation distances between conventional, organic and prospective GM cultivation.
Sarah Boyack's last question was about liability. The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission report on co-existence and liability does not recommend a strict liability regime for GM crops; it prefers a less adversarial approach that is based on a temporary compensation scheme, with insurance as the longer-term solution. I agree with that approach and I think that it is up to the commercial insurance industry to respond in the longer term. It is important, however, that AEBC has recommended that in the meantime there should be special compensation arrangements for farmers who are liable to suffer financial loss. We will consult all interested parties on options for providing compensation to non-GM farmers who may suffer financial loss through no fault of their own as a result of their produce having a GM presence that exceeds the statutory threshold. Any such scheme would have to be funded by the GM industry—I made that clear in the statement—rather than by Government or the producers of non-GM crops. The public purse will not be used to compensate farmers who are affected in that way.
Is it not correct that Executive policy on this issue is as contradictory as are the words "voluntary" and "ban"? The Executive could have blocked the seed-listing process, citing all the good reasons that the Westminster Environmental Audit Committee gave last week.
Yesterday, Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat shadow minister for food and rural affairs, said in a Lib Dem press release that
"giving the go ahead for GM maize"
would show
"breathtaking distain for both the public and MPs … The decision on GM maize marks a watershed and will inevitably pave the way for other GM crops to be licensed."
Does the minister agree with those comments? Does Mr Finnie agree with those comments? Why has the minister ripped up the partnership agreement commitment on GM crops, which states that there will be opportunities for peer review of the field-scale trials before any decision is made on the commercial growing of GM crops? Why has the Executive dropped that commitment?
No, no and no—I hope that that is clear enough. The Environmental Audit Committee report to which the member refers called for further testing of maize as a result of the banning of Atrazine. We do not believe that there is a need for the farm-scale evaluations for maize to be repeated, because the publication of research in the scientific journal Nature, as recently as Friday, suggests that in the short term the banning of Atrazine or any of the other triazines will not invalidate the conclusions of the FSEs with respect to maize. Further research will be passed to ACRE for more detailed advice—that is what scientific advisers are for.
I agree that some future research may be necessary, especially if the industry were to apply for renewal of the release consent in 2006, which is a possibility. I repeat that any such work would need to be conducted at the industry's expense; it would not be funded out of public money. Such evidence would be carefully assessed by ACRE, which advises us.
Today's announcement in no way breaches a commitment in the partnership agreement, which states:
"We will rigorously apply the precautionary principle in our approach to the planting of GM crops."
We have done that. We have carefully considered the findings of the public debate, alongside those of the science review and the cost and benefit study and the results of the farm-scale trials. Our approach remains cautious and precautionary. I repeat that we will not allow GM crops to be sown unless and until we are satisfied that they do not pose an increased risk. There is no green light for GM in Scotland. There is no single yes or no on the issue.
Perhaps I can help the minister and the chamber by asking him to clarify several points. Will he name the definitive study of the effect on human health of GM crops on which he bases his advice? Will he confirm that the studies of GM maize in cattle feed have not been evaluated? Does he agree that, because of that uncertainty, the precautionary principle dictates that in the interests of the health of the people of Scotland, of our animals and of food choice in this country, he must oppose the inclusion of Chardon LL maize on the UK seed list?
For I suspect the umpteenth time, I state that Chardon LL maize has not been listed. We have applied for an amendment to the part C consent to take account of the outcome of farm-scale evaluation trials, as I said on the previous occasion when we debated this matter.
We take the very best scientific advice. I have referred to the science review, as well as advice from ACRE and the AEBC. Many assertions are made about the likely adverse effects of growing GM crops. Another has been made today. Numerous allegations of possible harm circulate. Where there is a case to support those allegations, it is always investigated. The statutory Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment carefully monitors new information about the risks. Where that information has implications for advice that ACRE has given and the existing consents, the situation is reviewed and further advice is given, if necessary. Despite claims to the contrary, no credible evidence has emerged that has called into question the safety of any GM crop that has been trialled in Scotland. The consent that we are discussing refers to one type of maize that is grown for fodder, prospectively on a very small hectarage in a very small part of Scotland.
Does the minister agree that the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy will leave Scotland's agriculture industry far more open to market forces than is currently the case and that every opportunity to attract premium prices by securing high-quality niche markets will need to be taken? If so, does he also agree that securing those markets will be heavily dependent on the purity and integrity of Scottish produce, which is likely to be put severely at risk once we have gone down the route of accepting GM commercialisation?
I agree with half of what Alex Fergusson said. I agree that we face an opportunity and I have said as much to colleagues previously. There is a coming together of Government and producers in relation to marketing opportunities that arise as a result of our proposal to introduce voluntary GM-free zones. There is an opportunity to address a lack of public confidence in the technology and to ensure that there is increased consumer confidence in the Scottish product. That combination of forces will add momentum to our proposal for GM-free zones, which is a product of the cautionary and sceptical approach that I have outlined.
The other side of the same coin, however, relates to the issue that was raised by Sarah Boyack. Scotland has long had a worldwide reputation for scientific advances and biotechnological innovation. We cannot turn our back on what is not a homogeneous technology in order to accommodate a particular part of that technology. People who do that run down Scotland's long-term economic and scientific prospects. I will not take that point of view, because I believe in the long-term advances that scientific progress, including in relation to GM technology, can bring to humankind.
In light of the fact that the GM crop trials that were conducted in May did not test whether genes could flow from GM crops to other crops, whether the pollen would spread or what effects GM crops might have on soil organisms, will the minister explain how the liability regime will protect non-GM farmers? He has not given us much of an explanation of that today and I would like to hear more from him on the subject.
Ms Byrne asks some interesting and complex questions.
The purpose of the farm-scale GM evaluation programme was not to test the safety of the crops. Approval would not have been given for the programme to go ahead if the safety of the crops had not been established over more than a decade of research. Indeed, Chardon LL maize, which is now the subject of discussion, was approved back in 1998.
Gene flow was tested in some separate experiments. Gene flow is not a safety issue per se and does not, of itself, constitute harm to the environment. However, the gene flow research will inform all our deliberations on the development of a programme of statutory co-existence. I would be happy to get back to the member separately and in more detail on some of the issues relating to gene flow, but the important point to make is that we have responded to the scientific advice and the outcome of the farm-scale evaluations, as I said we would. We have refused permission for the growing of spring-sown oilseed rape and beet but, with the UK Government, we have applied for amended consent to the pre-existing consent for Chardon LL maize.
I hope that every member of the Parliament will endorse the application of the precautionary principle to the testing and licensing of genetically modified crops. However, does the minister agree that there must be a place for bioscience in a smart, successful Scotland? Does he further agree that it would be a bad day for Scotland if blind prejudice were ever to take precedence over good science?
Absolutely, and I said as much in response to Alex Fergusson's question. I will not be the minister who allows prejudice and misinformation to blind us to the potential of science and technology. Scotland has a global reputation for science and technology, which does our economy tremendous good.
I quote Sir David Carter, the chairman of the British Medical Association's board of science, whose assessment was published in association with our response. He said:
"Our assessment of all the available research is that there is very little potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects. However the BMA recognises"—
as do I—
"the huge public concern over the impact of GM foods and believes that research is still needed in key areas to allay remaining concern about the potential risks to human health and the environment."
I endorse such a science and evidence based case-by-case approach as the correct one to adopt in this regard.
I apologise to the three members whose names remain on my screen, but I must move to the next item of business.