Volume 2

EC regulation of genetic modification in agriculture / Select Committee on the European Communities.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Select Committee on the European Communities.
Date:
[1999], ©1999
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: EC regulation of genetic modification in agriculture / Select Committee on the European Communities. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    24/428 (page 16)
    [Lord Moran Contd] except if I go to Iceland. Who knows how long they can offer that alternative? 45. Clearly, it is very difficult to provide the sort of label that can be readily understood by the consumer and is more or less accurate? (Professor Burke) Yes. This is a sophisticated science which is quite hard to explain. The science carries social overtones. The consumer has lost some confidence in the regulators, particularly in the light of BSE. The consumer does not know how seriously to take the case put forward by Greenpeace and the Natural Law Party. The consumer finds it hard to weigh the level of risk. We cannot put a number on it. But the consumer has the right to choose. We find it very difficult to supply the information that the consumer needs in a way that he can make use of it and so make sensible choices. But people do make choices. In the week following the BSE issue I stood beside a deep freeze in a supermarket. People were saying, “It’s half-price and the risk is very low. I’m buying it.” We make risk-benefit decisions all the time. Lord Redesdale 46. You said that it was very difficult to carry out tests on genetically altered material. How do we ensure that imported products have been assessed and labelled correctly? (Professor Burke) I think that this will be very difficult. There is a test for the gene which is sophisticated, expensive and involves the use of radioactive material and similar sophisticated biochemicals. It must have a lower limit of sensitivity. I do not believe that we can be sure. For that reason the EU Commissioners proposed a label which said “This may contain genetically modified material”. That pleased no one. The manufacturers were placed in an impossible position. They had a label that they could not defend. Greenpeace did not like it because it believed that it was being fobbed off. What is the consumer to make of a label which says that certain products may contain such material? Particularly in the case of commodity crops I think that manufacturers to be sure that they are not misleading their customers will label all their soya products. The choice will arise either by a particular supermarket offering an alternative or, as in organic produce, by market segmentation within a supermarket chain. We are running a rather interesting social experiment to see how deep the concerns are. My general experience is that the British consumer is very pragmatic. He or she is cautious particularly after BSE but is not a hypochondriac. Lord Grantchester 47. This has virtually been answered. How would you label? (Professor Burke) I think that we must label. We as regulators must not be seen to have things to hide. If the public wants to know then it is reasonable to give them the information in an open democratic society. The difficulties arise in how that formulation works. The matter is subject to some difficulty. The EU was unable to reach a decision in part because of the very different social approaches of different members. Professor Beringer referred to _ the differences between the US and Britain. There are also big differences between Britain and Austria. The EU has had difficulty in reaching a consensus. Quite recently the British have put a proposal to the Commission, which I believe is very sensible. I understand that that is to be discussed by Ministers in the next few days. During its presidency the British are making strenuous efforts to reach an EU-wide approval system for labelling. Of course, it will be a compromise; there is no other way to proceed. We live in a society that is different from that in America where new technology is not treated with quite the same caution as here. Lord Rathcavan 48. Do you advocate a symbol for genetically modified labelling? You gave one example. I wonder what that means to the general public. (Professor Burke) You can always supply more information, for example leaflets at checkout counters and so on. There has even been talk about intelligent PCs which can be interrogated. But that is for a very small percentage of the population who want to take it that far. There was talk—I am unsure of its current status—of a stamp or kite mark. Chairman 49. But that is an example of voluntary labelling? (Professor Burke) Yes—because of the failure of the EU to come to a conclusion and_ because supermarkets and manufacturers were _ rightly concerned to be as open as they could. 50. Would you be in favour of a threshold below which there should not be labelling, or do you think that any detectable presence of GMOs should require labelling? (Professor Burke) As in all these situations, if any foreign substance is present one must have a lower limit. That lower limit can be set either by a toxicological test—that below that level there is no danger—or, more likely in this case, below the limit of detection. I do not know the limits of detection, but they are real. 51. And it will vary over time? (Professor Burke) Indeed. The tests will probably become more sensitive. Lord Jopling 52. You spoke of the complication of carrying out tests to see whether a product is genetically modified. How many places are there in the country which can carry out such tests? How long do they take? What would be the rough cost to a food manufacturer? (Professor Burke) You may have to ask the Clerk to obtain some of that information. Any molecular biology research laboratory would be able to carry out