Thank you for inviting me to speak here today at the Women's Food and Farming Union's conference on whether GM crops are fit for purpose? For what purpose? Presumably, most people would say for more food, cheaper food, better food. The answer to that is no they are not - in fact GM crops pose serious health and environmental concerns and are opposed by the majority of people in Wales. I have learned from experience that there is nothing as political as food. Having enough food to eat is a basic human right. But having control over what we eat is also a right. We can only have that control when we know where the food came from, how it was grown, how it was produced or processed, how it was packaged and how it actually reached our shop shelves. Then we can make real informed choices about what we eat.
It is obvious from the contact I have with my constituents that public opinion is still very much against genetically modified organisms. In a UK government consultation, nine out of ten consumers chose not to eeat GMOs. According to the most recent official study from the European Commission, 61% of Europeans are opposed to the development of GM food in Europe, with 59% believing it is not safe for their and their family's health. Last year, a petition organized by Avaaz and Greenpeace calling for a ban on GM crops until safety tests are improved, reached its target of a million signatures.
I am seriously concerned about the risks posed by genetically modified organisms. The introduction of GM products into food could introduce new allergens and exacerbate the growing problem of antibiotic resistance. The development of herbicide resistant weeds means that more and more herbicides are being used on GM crops. For example, around 200 million litres of biocides were used on GM soy crops in the Southern Cone in South America last year. And GM crops in the United States were treated with 26% more pesticide per acre than conventional crops.
We often hear about world food shortages and that GM crops are needed to feed the developing world. But it's locally grown food that is of most value, not genetically modified crops grown on a large scale by large companies. Biodiversity could be threatened. GM crops could affect insect and birds, especially if resistance is developed. Remember that the UK government's own GM crop trials showed that two out of three damaged the environment.
But the European Commission still seems intent on bowing to heavy lobbying from the GM industry to increase GMO use in Europe. Within weeks of the most recent Commission's appointment, a new strain of genetically modified potato - Amflora - was authorised. There are specific concerns about the safety of Amflora, a starch-altered potato, which contains antibiotic resistant marker genes which are restricted under EU regulations. This was followed by an announcement allowing the import into Europe of six further GM crops. And now draft legislation for authorising GMOs has been proposed, which would give national governments the right to ban GM crops or not on a national level.
The reason for these proposals is that the Commission is getting frustrated with the difficult process of authorising new strains of GMO. One GM crop has been approved for cultivation in the EU since 1998, MON 810. The current system is that the Commission has to make a proposal for an authorisation of a new GMO. If a majority is not reached in the GM Standing Committee made up of EU government representatives, then the matter is transferred to the Council and the European Parliament becomes involved as well. The Commission has even listed widespread opposition to GMOs as an identified problem in its work programme.
The 'solution', they hope, will lead to quicker authorisations at EU level with the responsibility for any bans handed to governments. In theory, this could be appealing for an anti-GM country, such as Wales, but in reality it has great dangers, not least the very real and almost inevitable risk of cross-contamination. Due to cross-border free trade, GM seeds and products would circulate freely, contaminating conventional and organic farmers' products, even in those countries which have succeeded in banning the strain. There will also be a distortion in competition practices, as farmers using GMO products may be at an advantage. In addition to that, increasing GMO authorisations in Europe would send a signal to the rest of the world that GMOs are becoming more acceptable.
The legislation does not seem as if it will come into force as it is thought that as many as ten Member States in the European Council are blocking the report. This is not surprising as many people, and governments, maintain their concern about the dangers of GMO.
The Welsh Government takes the most restrictive stance possible on GMOs. The Welsh government is a member of GM Free Network of Regions, along with 169 other regions in 28 different countries in Europe. This network is active in information sharing and the development of co-existence plans for GM and non-GM crops. I chaired a GM free network conference last year where I had the opportunity to question the Commissioner John Dalli about his intentions.
This week in the Environment, Health and Food Safety Committee, I went to listen to the European Commission present their report on the socio-economic implications of GMO cultivation. We have been waiting for this report since a 2001 directive obliged the Commission to consider the socio-economic implications every three years. Considering we have been waiting ten years for this first report, I was extremely disappointed with its quality.
The report itself refers to the poor quality of evidence from Member States, saying that some of it was simply a "copy and paste" from their stakeholders answers.
If we look at the actual content of the report, it mainly concentrates on the impact on GM farmers. This is completely unacceptable, as any report should also look on the impact on non-GM farmers, especially when considering the cost of avoiding GM contamination. It needs to look at the effect on those farmers who do not choose to grow GM crops, as well as on retailers and consumers. Additionally, the report only considers the yield of crops and the income of the farmers. This is insufficient - a full socio-economic impact report should consider biodiversity, operating and administration costs and consequences for the food sector and employment rate, involving all economic players.
It is also surprising that not one single negative impact is mentioned in the report, when even official EU research has concluded that there are some. For these reasons, I've called in the committee for the Environment Department of the Commission to reject this report and plan a proper, sufficiently researched one.
There are increased concerns about the agency designated by the Commission to assess the scientific evidence of each GMO strain. The European Food and Safety Agency (EFSA) bases its assessments on science submitted by the applicant, i.e. the GM producer, and not on independent research. This is obviously unacceptable and I am glad to be sponsoring a petition by GM Free Cymru to the European Parliament calling on EFSA to be investigated. This petition has been upheld by the Petitions Committee, who has asked the Environment Committee to respond.
I want a ban on new GMOs until the risk assessment procedure for each authorisation is improved; measures to avoid contamination are implemented and all food produced from animals who have been fed with GMOs is clearly labelled as such. Labelling is essential for consumers, and a huge amount of people from Wales have been in touch with me calling for customers to have the right to make an informed choice on the food they buy.
I was glad to hear the European Court of Justice's ruling last month on a case concerning the contamination of honey with pollen from genetically modified crops. The court ruled that honey contaminated by pollen from a particular GM maize variety cannot be sold, as this maize has not been specifically authorised in honey. This case shows that co-existence is not workable. Permitting the growing of GM crops will lead to the contamination of non-GM crops. Beekeepers and farmers cannot prevent the contamination of their honey by GM pollen. The only way to avoid this is to ban the cultivation of all GMOs.
This conference today asks whether GMOs are fit for purpose. Their purpose, it is claimed, is to feed us in the face of climate change challenges. But GM crops do not produce higher yields. None of the GM crops so far developed for commercial cultivation have produced more food. And this isn't even the intention of the industry - 99% of commercial GM crops are modified to create herbicide tolerance or insect resistance. The most central issue is that most GM crops are not even produced for food. There is no commercial production of most of the world's staple crops, such as rice, and with a few exceptions; no GM fruit or vegetable has been developed sufficiently for commercial cultivation.
It's said that GM crops can be developed for use during difficult conditions, such as drought. But these claims have not yet resulted in actual cultivation of such crops. In fact, successful genetic modification to overcome drought conditions has proved impossible because it would require major changes to the metabolism of the plant. GM crops have been found to not fare well in poor conditions, such as soil damaged by desertification.
So instead of GMOs being a solution to the world's problems, I believe that they actually threaten real answers to today's climate change crisis. The biotechnology companies involved in developing GMOs are patenting natural genes - so far, 532 patent documents have been filed. This restricts farmers' access to seeds, preventing them from saving seeds from crops to sow the next year.
The focus on GM technology is taking attention away from a more sustainable solution for tackling climate change. In April 2008, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development concluded that GM crops are not the way forward. Instead, agro-ecological solutions need to be found.
Last year, there was a 3% increase in GMO production in industrialised nations worldwide, but a 15% decrease in Europe. This is a trend that I, and a majority of the people of Wales, want to see continue. In the interests of all our farmers and consumers, there should be a ban on new GMOs until science proves no risks to human health or the environment.
Diolch yn fawr.
Jill Evans ASE/MEP
