The following are the proceedings of the House of Commons European Standing Committee:

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman: †

Hugh Bayley
†Atkinson, Mr. Peter (Hexham) (Con)
Baker, Norman (Lewes) (LD)
Binley, Mr. Brian (Northampton, South) (Con)
†Blackman, Liz (Erewash) (Lab)
Bone, Mr. Peter (Wellingborough) (Con)
†Breed, Mr. Colin (South-East Cornwall) (LD)
†Coaker, Mr. Vernon (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)
†Doran, Mr. Frank (Aberdeen, North) (Lab)
†Efford, Clive (Eltham) (Lab)
†Field, Mr. Frank (Birkenhead) (Lab)
†Moran, Margaret (Luton, South) (Lab)
†Morley, Mr. Elliot (Minister for Climate Change and the Environment)
†Paterson, Mr. Owen (North Shropshire) (Con)
Geoffrey Farrar, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(5):
(Stafford) (Lab)

Column Number: 3

Wednesday 19 October 2005

[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]

Marketing of Genetically Modified Maize

2.30 pm

The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): It is nice to see you in the Chair for today’s deliberations, Mr. Bayley. It might be useful if I outline the background to our discussions and say a word about the EU procedure. The motion concerns two draft Council decisions about whether the EC should permit the import of two types of genetically modified maize grain for processing for use in animal feed. The decisions do not cover use in food. That is subject to a separate approval. The applicants are not seeking approval to cultivate the crops in the EU, and the motion relates only to food and non-food processing.

Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall) (LD) rose—

The Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the practice in European Standing Committees is to have interventions not in the opening speech, but only during the debate, which comes later.

Mr. Morley: I shall be happy to answer questions when the time comes.

Two years ago, member states adopted a new system for making decisions about GM food and feed. The regulations came into force in April 2004 and provide for a single procedure for decisions on the import of grain, its use in food and feed, and, if appropriate, cultivation. However, applications already in train will continue under the old system because they started under it. For today’s decision, the procedures under the old system—directive 2001/18—apply. For food products, the novel foods regulation applies. The two GM maize products under consideration are MON 863 from Monsanto and 1507 from Pioneer. Both are grown in the United States of America and both are modified to give plants resistance to attack by insect pests. The EU assessment procedure is the same both applications.

Applications are made to one of the member states, which becomes the lead authority. That in respect of MON 863 was made to the German competent authority and that in respect of 1507 to the Netherlands. The lead member state scrutinises the application for compliance with the requirements of directive 2001/18 and, in particular, to ensure whether all appropriate measures would be taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment that might arise from the proposed use of the genetically modified organism.

Column Number: 4

When the member state is satisfied with the application and the assessment, they are passed to the European Commission and other member states for scrutiny. Member states can scrutinise the dossiers and lodge concerns and objections. Members of the public also have the opportunity to comment on applications. The applicant has the opportunity to provide additional information to address any concerns raised. If any objections raised by the member states are not resolved, they are referred to the European Food Safety Authority for independent scientific assessment. EFSA publishes its opinion on the objections. If it is satisfied with the scientific evidence, Cion—the Commission—proposes a draft decision for consideration by member states.

The decision is then discussed and voted on at the 2001/18 regulatory committee. If no qualified majority is attained, the decision is forwarded to the Council of Ministers for a decision. If, again, no qualified majority is attained in the Council of Ministers, Cion adopts the decision in accordance with the scientific advice and the lead member states issue the consent. That procedure has been applied in such cases. It has been followed for both cases under consideration today, the details of which are set out in the Council decisions and my explanatory memorandum.

In the United Kingdom, the dossiers are scrutinised by officials, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs, the Food Standards Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and English Nature—all of which are independent expert scientific organisations. In both cases, the UK was satisfied that the application and the safety of the GM products complied with all the requirements of the directive, apart from two issues that needed to be addressed at the time. Those two issues were traceability and labelling, and post-market monitoring.

New regulations on traceability and labelling subsequently came into force in April 2004, so any products intentionally containing MON 863 or 1507 maize must be labelled. The UK strongly supported those regulations. The UK was satisfied with the requirements for post-market monitoring and reporting intervals as specified in article 4 of the respective decisions. When our concerns were met, the UK supported those applications.
EFSA concluded that Monsanto’s maize MON 863

“is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human health or, in the context of its proposed use, on the environment”

and that Pioneer’s maize 1507 will not

“have any adverse effect on human or animal health or . . . the environment”

in the context of its proposed use.

When making decisions on how to vote, the Secretary of State is required to take advice from the Food Standards Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and ACRE. When both products were considered at Council, no qualified majority was reached and the dossiers were referred back to Cion for a decision in line with the scientific advice. On 8 August, the European Commission adopted the decision that the competent authority for Germany

Column Number: 5

should grant consent for placing MON 863 on the market. Any consent issued will not be effective until the separate application for the use of MON 863 in food is approved. No decision has yet been taken on 1507. I hope that that outlines the background.

The Chairman: We now have until half-past 3 for questions to the Minister and I remind the Committee that those should be brief and asked one at a time. Given the number of Members in the Committee, there will be ample opportunity for them to ask more than one question if they wish to do so.

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con): Thank you, Mr. Bayley. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon.

Why was Germany chosen as the competent authority for the first product?

Mr. Morley: The procedure is that any applicant GM company can choose to make the application in any EU state. Monsanto made the application to Germany, but I do not know why it chose Germany.

Mr. Breed: I thank the Minister for that comment, which has clarified the point I was going to raise earlier. Can he tell us why so many EU states were apparently unhappy to the extent that a qualified majority vote was not obtained? Why was there so much unhappiness?

Mr. Morley: The Council fell into three categories. Some member states had gone through detailed national assessments and concluded that there was no scientific basis for opposing the application. The UK fell into that category. Some were opposed and one or two gave reasons for their opposition to the applications. The third category, which was substantial, consisted of those member states that abstained on the decision. That led to no overall majority, which meant invoking the procedure whereby the decision was referred back to the Commission.

Mr. Paterson: Could it be that the supplier of the products chose Germany because its testing system might be easier? Is there any difference between the testing regimes here and in Germany?

Mr. Morley: I would doubt that, because I think Germany has sophisticated procedures for analysis and testing. As I said, when an application is made to a lead member state, other member states, including the UK, receive details of the application. We put that application through our own national assessment procedures. An application made in a non-UK state does not mean that we cannot apply exactly the same procedures and testing and obtain the same expert advice that we would if the application were made to the UK. In that respect, it is irrelevant where the application is made because we apply the same procedures.

Mr. Paterson: Which member states raised objections and what were the nature of those objections?

Column Number: 6

Mr. Morley: I shall give those details in my summing-up.

Mr. Paterson: When this issue comes before the Council, will a decision be made under QMV?

Mr. Morley: Under the procedure that I spelt out, the matter would be decided under QMV, but in this case QMV was not established. Under the procedures laid down in the Community rules, the decision is referred to Cion, which then takes that decision.

Mr. Breed: On QMV, I understand that those that abstain are counted as voting against. Will the Minister clarify that?

Mr. Morley: No, that is not the case.

Mr. Paterson: Under the existing mechanism, could the Government proceed unilaterally and approve the product, even if there was a logjam in the Council?

Mr. Morley: No, not under Community procedures. It must go through the procedures laid down in the regulation.

Mr. Paterson: Can the Minister comment on the 90-day subchronic rat study? How is that relevant to animals with two stomachs, such as cattle, which are likely to eat this product?

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman did not say that a number of rat studies took place in relation to a number of events. In general, rat studies are carried out as an assessment of the effects involved with feed studies. An established international procedure on the matter is laid down by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the idea is that there should be some standardisation of approach. It is an established test.

Mr. Paterson: So, if the Government are happy with the test, will they support the proposal in the coming Council?

Mr. Morley: Yes. As I said in my opening statement, the advice from our expert committees—the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs and ACRE—is that this particular application meets the standards in relation to human health and the environment.

Mr. Paterson: I am pleased that our body, ACAF, was unequivocal. It said that the product does not pose a risk to human health and the environment. The Food Standards Agency said something slightly different—that the product is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human health. Is there a difference, or is this just a question of wording?

Mr. Morley: It is just a question of wording. In both cases, the wording is used consistently in relation to applications.

Mr. Breed: According to some notes that I have received, Monsanto refused to publish some documents it was asked to publish to provide material for the assessment. Does the Minister agree with those states that felt Monsanto should have published those

Column Number: 7

documents, and is he happy with the fact that if they were published he could disregard information of that sort before coming to a decision?

Mr. Morley: On the latter point, the details of the rat-feeding study were made available to our expert scientific committees. Greenpeace asked for details of the Monsanto study and its request was initially refused on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. In my view, it is always better to make scientific studies of this type available in the public domain so that people can see that there is proper evaluation and scientific assessment. I understand that Greenpeace took the matter to court in Germany and succeeded in having the study released into the public domain.

Mr. Paterson: Is there an effective test for the detection of MON 863? Is it available and, if so, how much does it cost? Who would be in charge of that test?

Mr. Morley: I think I will have to deal with that point in my summing-up. It very much depends on what the hon. Gentleman is referring to—testing for what? Does he mean testing in meat or in milk, for example? This application relates to feed. When that feed is processed and fed to animals, the proteins are destroyed. So, it is undetectable in meat and milk, because it does not really exist within those products.

Mr. Paterson: I understand that, but is the product detectable in a batch of meal?

Mr. Morley: I am pretty sure that there are tests available to identify it. I am sure about that.

Mr. Paterson: And who would pay for that?

Mr. Morley: There is a GM inspectorate. It works with the feed companies and the biotech companies. The inspectorate is expected to carry out tests on the quality and standardisation of feed. For example, if non-GM feed were contaminated by GM grains, which has happened on occasions, the companies would be obliged to report it to the GM inspectorate and the Department. When that happens, the product is withdrawn from the market, so there is a procedure to ensure that what is specified about a particular shipment or product, or what is marketed in animal feed, is checked.

Mr. Paterson: Will the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs run the post-approval monitoring regime? For how many years after the product has been launched will DEFRA monitor its sale, distribution and, as we have just discussed, its possible mixing with non-GM products?

Mr. Morley: For post-market monitoring, first, we expect to have information from the company. Secondly, our own GM inspectorate carries out checks and monitors the audit trail of products. That level of monitoring will be carried out indefinitely, because it takes place all the time to ensure that what is marketed meets the description on the label.

Column Number: 8

Mr. Paterson: Will the monitoring extend to the animals that have eaten this product? The Minister rightly said that the proteins disappear, but will there be any monitoring of the impact on animal health during the next few years?

Mr. Morley: There have been various studies to try to analyse the long-term effects of GM feed and, as a matter of fact, GM foods. The studies tend to take place in places such as north America, where GM products have been on the market for a long time. There have been studies of whether there is any detectable influence on human health, and I am pretty sure that they have all been unable to identify any change.

Mr. Paterson: So will those products be labelled clearly? There is the product itself, the animal feed—but what about the meat that may come from cattle that have eaten the product? Will that be labelled as well?

Mr. Morley: The feed is most certainly labelled. It is a requirement that the UK strongly supports. Farmers will know whether a particular feed contains GM product or non-GM product. As for meat and milk, as the GM protein is undetectable and there is no taste, one cannot have labelling, because one cannot check the product.

Mr. Paterson: Does the Minister think that the product will sell? Where does he think that the main market for the product will be? Will it be on the continent or in the UK?

Mr. Morley: The product is already on sale in several countries throughout the world. Whether it will sell in the EU or in the UK is a matter for the market, not the Government. Our priority has been to ensure that consumers, whether individuals, farmers or companies, have the information that they need to make those choices. Whether they wish to buy the products is entirely up to them.

Mr. Paterson: Why, in the last document in the bundle—the Minister’s letter to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood)—did the Minister say:

“The consent to import will not be effective unless and until the separate application for use of MON 863 in food is approved.”?

Mr. Morley: Because that approval procedure is separate. If there were an application for food use as well as animal feed, it would make sense for the product to be dealt with at the same time for approval.

Today, we are dealing with the application for animal feed, and we are going through the procedures for that. There is a separate procedure for food use, and that product is going through the procedure as well.

Mr. Breed: The Minister will be well aware of the part that animal feed played in BSE. We should all, therefore, be careful about what we might be approving. On the basis of that experience, will the Minister confirm that if, in future, there is clear

Column Number: 9

evidence that this feed is responsible for any problem that occurs in animals, the liability for it will fall back on the producer?

Mr. Morley: As part of our coexistence rules, we are waiving a liability regime. Generally, as the law stands, there is already redress through the courts for a farmer who buys a product that harms his cattle or proves a liability a some way. However, growing GM crops is more complicated. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is currently no application to grow GM crops in the UK, nor is there likely to be for some time. We are trying to address that issue as well. If it is established that there is a potential problem with liability in relation to GM feed, we should consider it as part of the process. However, I am pretty sure that the supplier is already liable for any problem.

Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham) (Con): On Monday, I had the pleasure of serving on another European Standing Committee, which dealt with food use. I left that Committee slightly puzzled, so I wonder whether the Minister can help me. If the resolution made on Monday goes through, it will be possible to use the GM maize in animal feed. Will it then be possible for the product of that feed to be fed to the public, so to speak? One of the problems with labelling was that we could not clarify what would happen if a producer of poultry were to use GM maize to feed the poultry, and the poultry meat went into a food product. Would that product be labelled as GM food?

Mr. Morley: Theoretically, if the maize were approved for food use, it could be used for animal feed if it had approval for animal feed—it has to have both—and we are now dealing with the application for animal feed. As I said earlier, the procedure is that the feed will be labelled as containing GM products, but if it is fed to chickens and the chickens are then marketed, they will not be labelled as GM because they are not GM. They might have had the food, but the proteins will have been completely destroyed. It will be impossible to identify any GM proteins within the meat; therefore the chickens will not be labelled.

Mr. Paterson: Has MON 863 been approved for animal feed use in any other country? If so, has the Minister been in touch with that country about adverse effects?

Mr. Morley: It has been approved for use in other countries. There is an international reporting procedure for faults that are identified with the feed, and our expert committees are in touch with experts in other countries. If any problem were identified or suspected, they would be aware of that and would ask for information or further tests. They would certainly react to any hint of a problem in the use of the product in other countries. This product has to have approval to the effect that it will not pose a risk to human health or to the environment. If there were any suggestion that it would, it would not get approval.

Column Number: 10

Mr. Paterson: Has any adverse effect been reported in Europe from any of the six previous GMOs mentioned in the bundle as having been given market authorisation?

Mr. Morley: No. None has been reported.

Mr. Paterson: Nearly there, Mr. Bayley. I am intrigued that a large part of the bundle is given over to documentation on the prohibitions from Austria, Germany, France, Luxembourg and Greece. Why is that?

Mr. Morley: It is important for the Committee to be aware of the views of other countries, and to know which countries have put in place prohibitions and the reasons behind that. That is, therefore, included in the documentation.

Mr. Paterson: What is the Government’s position on the prohibitions? Do they support them, or do they support the Commission’s plan to overrule them?

Mr. Morley: Our view is that each individual application should be dealt with on its own merits, so each application should be assessed through the expert scientific procedure. A product may well be unsuitable for a particular member state, because the country may have some particularly sensitive flora, or certain ecosystems or climates that mean that the product is unsuitable. A number of countries have made that case. We are receptive to such arguments, and we do not have any problem with a member state saying that a particular product is not suitable for use in that country; states have every right to do that. However, we expect them to put forward the science-based case for it. The problem is that some of those member states have not done so, and it is difficult for us to support a position unless we can see the scientific case.

Mr. Paterson: Where there is conflicting advice, it seems that the Commission has the power to steamroller the nation state. Ultimately, do the Government believe that the final decision should lie with the Commission, which appears to have the whip hand under the treaties, or the nation state?

Mr. Morley: The decision on the product comes in the form of a recommendation by the competent authority. It cannot take the decision unilaterally; it must go to the Council of Ministers through the expert working groups of the Commission, and they decide together.

I want to make it absolutely clear that not reaching agreement in the Council, and sending the decision back to the Commission instead, is not very satisfactory. I would not use the expression “steamroller”, because the Commission is obliged to resolve a deadlock, and to do so on the basis of the best scientific advice. I have no doubt that that is what it does. We discussed the matter at the recent Environment Council on Monday. Denmark asked to raise the matter under “any other business”, and a number of member states expressed their dissatisfaction with the procedure. Of course, part of the problem is the large number of member states that

Column Number: 11

abstain. Why they abstain I cannot really say; frankly, it seems to me that one should simply take a decision, and say yes or no on the basis of the evidence. There are few occasions when there is a case for abstention, although there are some—in fact, we have had one or two such occasions ourselves—but generally speaking the decision is better made in the Council than sent back to the Commission.

Mr. Paterson: But if the Council ducks the issue, which is effectively what happened this time—I see the Minister nodding—surely that puts the ball back in the Commission’s court. Is it correct that, ultimately, the Commission has the whip hand, and can impose its will on a member state?

Mr. Morley: Under the terms of the procedures, which have been agreed by the European Union and the Council of Ministers, if there is no agreement in the Council, the Commission will make the decision on the basis of scientific advice.

Mr. Breed: It is clear why a number of states abstained: they were subject to considerable pressure from the United States.

Let us try to understand what a constituent might say. Say that we allow the proposals through—and they will go through, I am sure—and animals in this country, such as cows or chickens, are fed such products. If a constituent accepted that, but went to their local supermarket and said, “I don’t want to purchase meat that has been produced using GM feed,” even if the meat is labelled, how will they know whether it has been produced in that way? As has rightly been said, there is no test to determine whether meat has been produced using GM feed. Is not labelling therefore ineffective? And does that not mean that producers can exploit the opportunity to say that meat is not produced using GM feed, in the sure knowledge that no one could prove whether that was so, and then to seek a premium price?

Source:

United Kingdom Parliament: European Standing Committee (19 October 2005). (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/euro/st051019/51019s01.htm)

<<<back