Appendix I  To EEC/06/169/HQ

Devon County Council Response to the Defra Consultation on Proposals for Managing the Coexistence of GM, Conventional and Organic Crops

1. Devon County Council has, in recent years, given detailed consideration to GM issues on many occasions and, through this process, has established a consistent policy position. Therefore, this Authority welcomes the production of the current consultation on proposals for managing the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic groups. Through the response set out below, the County Council reiterates its overall views relating to GM crops and expands on these as these relate to issues of coexistence.

2. The Council's policy in relation to the GM issue is one based on the precautionary principle, which advocates a very cautious approach to any future commercial release of GM crops and which properly takes account of concerns in relation to the potential effects on biodiversity, on the labelling of GM products and proper protection for the non-GM sector, especially organic farming. The proposals and general content of the current consultation appear to be inconsistent with these aims. On this basis, a number of specific concerns are raised below.

3. Following the previous review, in 2000, of the use of separation distances between GM and other crops, Devon County Council expressed its views to (the then) MAFF that a significant increase should be made to these separation distances in order to protect the integrity of organic farms in Devon as well as the interests of conventional farms producing crops that are not genetically modified. For example, separation distances should take account of the ability of bees to travel up to 5 km when foraging as in the case of oilseed rape.

4. More recently, in 2003, this Authority restated to the government its concern about the potential implications for genetic modification technology and asked that commercial implementation should not be approved until such time as scientific evidence (including that from farm trials) has shown that there are no harmful impacts on human or animal health or the environment.

5. In April 2004 the County Council adopted and expressed to Defra a refined position. This particularly highlighted the need for discussions on how organic and other non-GM crops can be protected from contamination if GM crops are grown in the UK and drawing the government's attention to the importance of organic and other non-GM food production for the county of Devon.

6. It is accepted that this current consultation is helpful for the manner in which it advances such discussions and the County Council supports the intention to facilitate choice between conventional, organic and GM crops. However, this should be achieved by adopting practical measures which eliminate the possibility of unwanted mixing of GM and non-GM material.

7. Despite the careful and scientifically-based approach which has been taken in defining a management regime for co-existence, this has been built around the assumption that the currently identified threshold for accidental contamination of 0.9%, which is an EU requirement in connection with the tracing and labelling of GM food and feed products, should also be adopted as benchmark against which coexistence measures should be designed. Despite the legislative context for this 0.9% figure in respect of traceability and labelling, no proper justification or scientific case is offered in relation to its adoption as a broader benchmark for acceptable levels of GM contamination. On this basis, the proposed regime will provide no general incentive to reduce contamination to the lowest practical levels but, instead, will result in a planned approach for GM contamination up to this threshold at the farm level, thereby removing the buffer for any accidental contamination further up the food chain. The concept that a degree of contamination is acceptable in principle is not justifiable and its elimination is aimed for by the adoption of the lowest reliable limit of detection of 0.1% as the contamination threshold for both conventional non-GM and organic crops and foods. The purchaser of non-GM foods should be confident that the degree of GM contamination is negligible.

8. Such an approach is considered by this Authority to be essential to maintain the integrity, viability and continued expansion of the organic sector, based on a position of public confidence in the quality of its produce.

9. Compensation for the owners of crops and produce affected by GM contamination should be on the basis of the contaminator’s liability framed in law and not reliant on a voluntary industry-led scheme as proposed.

10. The Defra viewpoint expressed in the consultation paper is that a public register of GM crops is not necessary from a regulatory standpoint and is unlikely to assist the operation of the proposed coexistence regime. However, in the absence of a publicly accessible register, the current scepticism relating to GM crops could be amplified by a belief that the government is supporting a 'secret' approach to their commercial release. The hostile reaction that this might provoke is likely to be at least as significant as the risk of the misuse of a public register. However, in order to limit the bureaucratic complications and costs of a register, it would be reasonable for this to be based on an internet based notification procedure.

11. The consultation paper also indicates that Defra does not advocate 'GM-free zones' or see them as necessary given that the coexistence measures proposed in the paper aims to safeguard the interests of all farmers. Instead, it is intended to offer guidance on voluntary GM-free zones. Whilst this might accord with current EU law, it is important that Defra understands the strength of public support that has been expressed in relation to the establishment of such zones. There is an increasing momentum for the creation of a GM-free zone in the South West peninsula. On this basis, rather than simply providing guidance on the establishment of voluntary 'non-GM cultivation zones', which are implemented through groups of like-minded farmers, Defra should also commit to exploring with the European Commission other potential approaches to the establishment and operation of such zones, even if this requires some change to EU law.

12. Environmental safeguards should be put in place to prevent cross pollination with wild species and the adverse impact on farmland wildlife resulting from GM farming practices such as the use of broad-spectrum herbicides on crops which are modified to be herbicide resistant.

13. Devon County Council urges the Government to utilise primary legislation for the measures finally proposed so that Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise any which give rise to concern.