GM (Genetic Modification)
Answers to some frequently asked questions about GM crops
Contents:
- Current situation/policy
- Safety of GM crops
- The Farm Scale Evaluations
- ACRE
- Choice
- The GM Public Dialogue
- Other Issues
Current situation/policy
Q. What is the current situation with GM Crops in the UK?
There are currently no GM crops being grown in the UK. They have previously been grown for research and development purposes at a number of sites. The main example of this was the Farm Scale Evaluation (FSE) trials that ended in 2003. No GM crops are expected to be grown here commercially before 2009 at the earliest. For the foreseeable future, the only crops likely to be proposed for cultivation in the UK are commodity crops – e.g. oilseed rape – not horticultural products like fruits and vegetables.
Q. What is the Government's policy on GM crops?
The Government set out its policy on the commercial growing of GM crops in a statement to Parliament in March 2004. This reflected a careful evaluation of all the available information including the reports from the GM public debate, science review and costs and benefits study (see section below). No other country has undertaken such a comprehensive assessment of the case for and against GM crops. Having weighed all the evidence, we have concluded that the only sensible approach is to assess each GM crop on an individual case-by-case basis.
The Government's top priority is to protect human health and the environment. Under European Union (EU) legislation each proposed release of a GM product is subject to a detailed risk assessment which involves careful scrutiny by independent scientists. An evaluation is made of all the risk factors that may arise, including possible toxic or allergenic effects and the likely consequences of any gene transfer. The Government takes a precautionary approach and we will only agree to the commercial cultivation of a GM crop if we are satisfied that it is safe. To promote transparency and greater public confidence in the way these decisions are made, this independent advice is published on the Defra website (www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/regulation/euconsent.htm) along with the Government's subsequent conclusions.
Q. Hasn’t the Government already agreed to the commercial cultivation of GM crops?
In our GM policy statement we gave our specific view on three GM crops grown in the Farm-Scale Evaluation trials. We confirmed that we would not agree to commercial approval for the GM beet and spring oilseed rape involved, because the scientific evidence suggested that the herbicide use associated with these crops - although not the GM plants themselves - could have an adverse effect on the environment. However we agreed in principle to the commercial cultivation of the GM maize grown in the trials, subject to certain conditions. In the event, Bayer CropScience subsequently announced that they would not in fact market this particular GM maize variety.
Q. When will approved GM crops be grown in the UK?
We do not expect any commercial cultivation of GM crops in the UK before 2009 at the earliest, but beyond that it is not possible to say when the first crop might be introduced here and what type of crop it might be.
Decisions on the commercial approval of GM crops are taken collectively at European Union (EU) level on a case-by-case basis. Various applications to grow GM crops are currently working their way through the EU system. Details on the applications and their progress is available on our website (www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/regulation/registers.htm). A small number of GM crop varieties have all the approvals necessary to be grown. However these are maize varieties which are suitable for cultivation in Southern Europe and which are resistant to pests which are not present in the UK. Therefore, we do not expect them to be grown in the UK.
Q What type of GM crops are being developed?
There are two main types of GM crops that are in commercial use around the world. These are either crops that have been developed to be resistant to certain crop pests, or crops that have been developed to be resistant to a particular herbicide (weed killer). These GM traits are being used in crops such as soya, maize, oilseed rape and cotton.
Safety of GM Crops
Q: How is the safety of GM crops assessed?
Under EU legislation each proposed release of a GM product is subject to a detailed risk assessment which involves careful scrutiny by independent scientists. An evaluation is made of all the risk factors that may arise, including possible toxic or allergenic effects and the likely consequences of any gene transfer to other organisms. This takes account of relevant evidence from tests and trials as well as existing scientific knowledge. Ensuring safety is the Government's clear over-riding objective on this issue. We take a precautionary approach and will only agree to a GM crop release if we are satisfied that it is safe.
More information about how GM crops are regulated is available in the GM regulation section of Defra's website www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/regulation/index.htm
Q. What about long term effects?
The EU controls operate on a step-by-step basis. The initial development and testing of a new GM crop is done in the laboratory and it will only be released into the environment for further work when this is deemed sufficiently safe. The first release into the open will be at a small-scale with precautionary measures taken to isolate the GM plants from the wider environment. It is only after these initial stages that approval might be given for a larger-scale field release, assuming that the accumulated evidence supports the view that it is safe to proceed. Overall, therefore, a GM crop is subject to an extended process of tests, trials and evaluation before it may be approved for commercial use. In addition, the controls require a GM crop to be monitored after it has been cleared for marketing, to check whether the assumptions made about safety are confirmed in practice.
Q. But isn't more long-term research needed to prove there is no risk?
Every activity carries some degree of risk and it is not possible for research to eliminate all conceivable risk, no matter how long-term it is. A judgement has to be made about the evidence needed to make a balanced decision. As noted above, GM crops are subject to a rigorous assessment procedure which will ensure that the potential risks are considered very carefully. If there is a need for specific research to be undertaken we would expect this to be identified as part of the evaluation process.
Q. Isn't it the case that genetic modification is an unstable process and genes are inserted at random to make a GM plant - doesn't this makes unexpected effects likely?
It is true that with current GM techniques there are potential uncertainties about how inserted genes may perform, and this means it is possible for unexpected effects to occur. But this is also the case with conventional plant breeding. Both GM and conventional varieties undergo extensive testing to select those which have desirable traits and reject those which do not. If a newly-created GM plant has an unstable genetic structure this is likely to manifest itself early on, resulting in that plant not being developed any further. A GM crop will go through years of research and development and many generations of plant breeding before it is ready for possible commercial use. By that time, if the GM plant is growing in a stable and reliable fashion it may reasonably be concluded that the novel genes have been inserted stably into the plant's genome.
Q. What about cross-pollination between GM and non-GM crops?
Cross-pollination is a normal process between sexually compatible plants and the fact that a GM crop may transfer genes to other plants does not mean that there will be an adverse effect on the environment. Before a GM crop can be approved for release the consequences of any potential cross-pollination are carefully evaluated as part of the statutory risk assessment process. In addition we recognise that GM cross-pollination could affect the economic interests of conventional and organic farmers. This is covered later in the section on choice.
The Government's Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment ACRE (see later) has said that if GM herbicide-tolerant crops transfer genes to other crops or wild relatives this poses a very low environmental risk. This is because the herbicide-tolerance genes are not likely to give the recipient plants any competitive advantage that would make them more invasive or 'weedy'. Each GM crop has to be considered on a case-by-case basis because they may differ in their potential impact.
Q. But if anything does go wrong the impact will be irreversible?
The effects of a GM crop are not necessarily irreversible. For example, in this country maize has no wild relatives and does not shed viable seed, so if a GM maize is grown the GM genes do not persist in the environment. Even for a crop like oilseed rape that does have wild relatives and feral populations and can release viable seed, the available evidence indicates that GM herbicide-tolerance genes are unlikely to persist. This is because if wild plants are cross-pollinated by oilseed rape crops the resulting hybrid is normally 'stunted' and unlikely to reproduce. In addition herbicide-tolerance genes do not confer any selective advantage to feral plants in unmanaged areas. Again, each GM crop, and the risk that it may pose, has to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The Farm Scale Evaluation (FSE) trials
Q: What did the trials investigate?
The FSE trials measured the impact on farmland wildlife of the herbicide use associated with four GM herbicide-tolerant crops, as compared to the herbicide use with the equivalent conventional crops. They were not designed to look at the impact of the GM crop itself. The four crops are: spring-sown oilseed rape, maize and beet, and autumn-sown oilseed rape
Q. What did the results show?
The results for the spring-sown crops (oilseed rape, beet and maize) were published on 16 October 2003. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment were asked to advise ministers on their implications and they published their advice on 13 January 2004.
ACRE advised that if the crops were to be grown and managed as in the FSEs:
- there would be no adverse effects on the environment from growing GM herbicide-tolerant maize compared with conventional maize
- but that there would be adverse effects from growing GM herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape and beet compared with their conventional equivalents.
ACRE also recommended that:
- any future commercial cultivation of the GM maize should be restricted to the conditions under which it was grown in the FSEs (i.e. the same herbicide management regime), or conditions that have been shown not to result in adverse effects
- further work be conducted to investigate the implications of the impending withdrawal of atrazine (the main herbicide used with conventional maize); and that a requirement be imposed to monitor how the management of conventional maize develops in response to the phasing out of atrazine.
The results of the FSE trials of autumn-sown oilseed rape were published in March 2005, and the conclusions reached on them were the same as for the spring oilseed rape crop.
Q. The FSE maize results are invalid because they compared GM maize with conventional maize used with the banned herbicide atrazine?
The FSE trials were designed in 1999 and from then until 2005 atrazine was the most commonly used herbicide on conventional maize crops (starting in 2005 its use would be phased out). The GM maize in the FSEs already had an EU consent for commercial cultivation which lapsed in October 2006. ACRE considered the position in that context.
ACRE recommended that further work should be done to explore the implications of the phasing out of atrazine relative to the FSE results and, in effect, that the GM maize consent should not be considered for renewal after 2005 without evidence that allows a comparison between the GM maize herbicide regime and whatever replaces atrazine as the main herbicide used with conventional maize.
Q: The impact on biodiversity of GM crops should have been compared with organic crops?
The FSE trials compared GM management with a range of intensities of conventional crop management. Although increasing, organic crops still represent only a very small area of total UK production of the crops most likely to grown in GM varieties for the foreseeable future. In practice, for the foreseeable future, if GM crops are grown they will replace conventional varieties not organic ones so that is the key comparison.
ACRE
Q: What is ACRE?
The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) gives statutory advice on the risks to human health and the environment from the release and marketing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The committee also provides advice on the release of certain non-GM species of plants and animals that are not native to Great Britain. ACRE advises the UK Government and devolved administrations of Scotland andWales, while in Northern Ireland ACRE’s advice is received by the Department of the Environment.
Members are selected and appointed in open competition in accordance with guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Those appointed are independent and selected purely for their scientific and technical expertise. The range of expertise on ACRE includes molecular biology, plant virology, farming practice, ecology, entomology, vaccinology, sustainable agriculture and biodiversity and conservation.
Q: What does ACRE look at and what evidence does it base its decisions on?
Any person wishing to release a GMO into the environment must have a consent covering that release. There are two types of consent, those for research and trial purposes, and those for commercial marketing (these are sometimes referred to as 'Part B' or 'Part C' consents respectively, after the relevant section of the EU Directive on GMO releases under which they fall). To obtain either an applicant must submit a dossier of information to the authorities. ACRE considers these dossiers and provides technical advice on them to Ministers. The dossier must provide information on the nature of the GMO, how it has been modified, the precise nature of the research programme proposed, where it will be released and how the release will be monitored. The applicant must also supply information for evaluating foreseeable risks, whether they are immediate or delayed, from the release of the GMO.
To promote transparency and greater public confidence in the way these decisions are made, Defra publishes this independent advice on its website (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/regulation) along with the Government's subsequent conclusions.
Further information about ACRE including its advice is available on its website at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre or by contacting the ACRE secretariat by e-mail at acre.secretariat@defra.gsi.gov.uk or by post to: ACRE Secretariat, Zone 4/E6, Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6DE.
Choice
Q. How can people exercise choice in relation to GM products?
The Government supports mandatory labelling requirements which allow consumers to make an informed choice. There are European Union rules to ensure that GM products can be traced and labelled throughout the food chain so customers can choose whether to buy GM products or not. Crops, products or individual food ingredients must be traced and labelled if they intentionally consist of GM organisms, however small the amount, or are derived from a genetically modified organism. In addition if a product has an adventitious or technically unavoidable GM presence above 0.9% in any one ingredient it must be labelled.
Q. What about those who want GM-free products?
The EU 0.9% labelling threshold (see above) recognises that it would be difficult to avoid very low levels of unwanted GM presence. Moreover, it is normal within agriculture to operate a pragmatic tolerance for perceived impurities – because it is generally not feasible to guarantee that you can avoid them completely. Even if no GM crops are grown here we will still get GM traces in imported material. That is the reality in a situation where GM crops are already being grown on a widespread basis in other countries.
Q. How will conventional and organic farming be protected from GM contamination?
We have published a consultation paper on proposals for managing the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops, should approved GM varieties be grown here commercially in the future. The proposals aim to minimise any unwanted GM presence in non-GM crops as far as possible, below the relevant 0.9% EU labelling threshold. In particular, farmers growing GM crops will be expected to observe statutory separation distances to limit potential GM cross-pollination. This will provide a pragmatic basis for distinguishing between GM, conventional and organic production. The deadline for responding to the Defra consultation paper was 20 October 2006. We will publish a summary of the responses and in due course indicate how we intend to proceed having weighed up all the comments.
Q. Who will be liable if conventional and organic farmers suffer economic losses?
In our coexistence consultation paper we set out possible options for compensating any losses that non-GM farmers might face, should they have a crop with a GM presence above the 0.9% legal labelling threshold. In our earlier GM policy statement we made it clear that any such compensation scheme would need to be funded by the GM sector itself, rather than by the Government or by non-GM farmers.
Q. Is it possible to make a particular area GM free?
It has been suggested that conditions could be attached to GM crop approvals to ensure that they cannot be marketed either in the UK as a whole or in localised “GM free areas”. The relevant EU legislation works on the basis that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be marketed without restriction across the EU if all appropriate measures are taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment. In principle, therefore, the only grounds for narrowing the geographical scope of a GM marketing consent would be if this were justified by some clear evidence identified in the risk assessment that the GMO in question poses a risk to a particular area. Under the EU rules, if a GMO was considered unsafe for commercial use in a large geographical area within the EU, it is highly likely that authorisation would be refused outright.
It would be possible for all the farmers in a particular area to make a voluntary agreement not to grow GM crops. We set out possible guidance on this in our coexistence consultation paper.
Q. How is the Government ensuring seed stocks are free from GM contamination?
Our GM Inspectorate audits seed companies to ensure that they are taking appropriate steps to avoid any unauthorised GM presence in their conventional seed stocks. This applies especially in relation to imported seed supplies at particular risk of containing adventitious GM seed.
Proposals are awaited from the European Commission to establish EU labelling thresholds for the adventitious presence of approved GMOs in non-GM seed. Once such proposals are issued we will consider them in line with the scientific evidence and also in terms of their practicality for producers and enforcement officers.
Q: Who will be held liable for any damage to health or the environment?
In considering this it must be borne in mind that there are strict controls on the release of all genetically modified organisms. A GM crop cannot be released or marketed unless a rigorous assessment confirms there is no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. It should not be assumed, therefore, that a GM crop will lead to any problems. Nevertheless, existing product liability laws will apply to GM products as they do now to non-GM products.
In addition, there is a specific EU Directive on environmental liability covering a range of activities, including the deliberate release of GMOs in respect of damage to European protected species and natural habitat types. Our plans for implementing this Directive will be set out in a consultation paper to be published in due course.
The GM Public Dialogue
During 2002 and 2003 the Government sponsored a ‘GM Dialogue’ process which had three elements:
(i) a public debate: This was organised by an independent Steering Board chaired by Professor Malcolm Grant. It was jointly funded by Defra, DTI and the Devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The main phase of the debate - 'GM Nation?' - was launched on 3 June 2003 followed by six regional launch events across the UK designed to publicise the debate and encourage people to take part. Local authorities and other organisations were also invited to host their own meetings and were provided with debate materials to help with this. Individuals could also participate through the debate website. It is estimated that over 600 local meetings were held as part of 'GM Nation?' and the Steering Board received about 37,000 feedback forms. The Steering Board published their report on 24 September 2003 and this identified some key messages.
It found that people are generally uneasy about GM and the more people engage in GM issues, the harder their attitudes and more intense their concerns; There is little support for early commercialisation of GM crops; There is widespread mistrust of government and multi-national companies; There is a broad desire to know more and for further research to be done; Developing countries have special interests; and that the debate was welcomed and valued.
The full report is available on at www.gmnation.org.uk
(ii) a study of the costs and benefits of GM crops: this was undertaken by the Government's Strategy Unit and considered a range of possible scenarios for the future development of GM crops in the UK, including a "no GM" scenario. The report of the study, entitled "Field Work: Weighing up the costs and benefits of GM crops", was published in July 2003 is available at http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page3673.asp.
The central conclusion of the study is that existing GM crops could offer some cost and convenience advantages to UK farmers. However, any economic benefit is likely to be limited, at least in the short-term, as only a narrow range of existing GM crops are currently suited to UK conditions, and weak consumer demand is likely to limit take-up. Looking to the longer term, future developments in GM crops have the potential to offer more wide-ranging benefits, to both farmers and consumers.
(iii) a scientific review: The first report of a GM Science Review was published on 21 July 2003. It covers the science relevant to GM crops and food, focusing on the interests and concerns that the public have raised. The review has been led by the Government's and Defra's Chief Scientific Advisers working with the Food Standards Agency. They are being assisted by a panel with independent members. There is a dedicated website (www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk) from which the report is available. The Science Review Panel will reconvene in the autumn to take account of the comments on its first report, any scientific developments emerging from the public debate report, and the results of the Farm Scale Evaluation GM crop trials. The Science Review panel published their second, supplementary, report on 22 January 2004.
Their overall conclusion was that GM is not a homogeneous technology, and each application must therefore be considered on a case-by-case basis. They highlighted the importance of the regulation of GM keeping pace with new developments. They concluded that there is no evidence to suggest that GM foods pose a greater risk to human health than their conventional equivalents, despite the fact that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people for several years. For the current generation of GM crops, they considered the most important issue is the impact of herbicide-tolerant crops on the environment
Q. How has the Government taken account of the GM Dialogue in determining its policy on GM crops?
The Government set out its policy on the commercial growing of GM crops in a statement to Parliament in March 2004 . This reflected a careful evaluation of all the information available to us, including the reports from the GM public debate, science review and costs and benefits study. We published a detailed response to the reports of the GM Dialogue on the same day as we made our policy statement explaining how we intend to address each of the concerns raised by the public.
Other Issues
Q. What about the safety of GM Food
The independent Food Standards Agency (FSA) is the responsible UK authority for evaluating GM foods under the relevant European Union legislation. The FSA's current view is that the existing safety assessment procedures are sufficiently rigorous to ensure that approved GM foods are as safe as their non-GM counterparts.
The safety of GM food has been considered in depth in the Science Review that forms part of the Government-sponsored GM dialogue. The first report of the Science Review Panel notes that there is general agreement among food scientists and regulators that existing assessment techniques are sufficient to ensure that current GM foods are at least as safe and nutritious as their conventional counterparts. Worldwide there have been no verifiable ill effects despite the fact that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people for a number of years.
Q. What value is being given to the experiences of growing GM crops in North America, or elsewhere in the world?
There have been contradictory reports about the performance of GM crops elsewhere in the world. Any evidence that is relevant to the safety assessment of GM crops in the UK is always considered very carefully. In general though it is a valid argument that agronomic conditions differ between the UK and, North America for example where the majority of GM crops are grown, to the extent that direct comparisons are not always of value.
Q. Why are GM crops being considered when the benefits are not clear?
The costs and benefits study (see section on GM Dialogue) concluded that the GM crops currently available may offer some benefits to UK farmers, but that future developments in GM crops could potentially offer more significant benefits. It is important to keep the door open to those future benefits. We also need to think about the competitiveness of UK farming. If farmers in other countries have access to GM crops this could put our farmers at a competitive disadvantage. In addition we need to consider the signals which our decisions on GM crops will send about the UK as a base for science and innovation.
Q. What impact will GM technology have on agriculture in developing countries?
The Department for International Development has lead responsibility on the impact of GM crops on developing countries. Their view is that GM technology has the potential to provide benefits for people and the environment. The Government wants to help ensure that in developing countries it is used safely, appropriately and effectively to bring real benefits to poor people, and that these countries are able to manage this technology responsibly. The key point is that developing countries should be able to make their own informed choice on whether they want to use genetic modification or its products. GM technology is a possible tool, not a panacea to the problems of agriculture and food supply in developing countries.
Page last modified 1 November, 2006