Volume 1

Scientific advisory system : genetically modified foods first report / Food and Technology Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology
Date:
1999
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Scientific advisory system : genetically modified foods first report / Food and Technology Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    7/48 (page 5)
    (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) G) (k) (I) THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE Vv SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Scientists and research institutions must recognise that they can have a major impact on public opinion, particularly when novel products are being considered. It is right that scientists should warn of possible health hazards but they must accept that such influence needs to be wielded with the utmost responsibility (paragraph 27). We recommend that directors of research establishments and university departments should take steps to ensure that all scientific staff are able to respond effectively and competently to media pressure. This is clearly not the case at present (paragraph 28). We recommend media coverage of scientific matters should be governed by a Code of Practice which stipulates that scientific stories should be factually accurate. Breaches of the Code of Practice should be referred to the Press Complaints Commission (paragraph 29). . GM technology and its potential benefits may be permanently lost to the UK unless there is rational debate. The Government must provide leadership in this debate but it is also incumbent upon scientists to present findings clearly and in a manner not open to misconstruction and on the media to report accurately (paragraph 31). To reduce the risk of fraudulent use of GM free labels we recommend that the Government obliges retailers not to claim GM free status unless a full audit trail from seed to supermarket shelf is in place (paragraph 33). It is important that threshold levels for the labelling of GM foods are established and are understood by the public. Thresholds should be open to review as the technology to test for GM material improves. We recommend the Government pursues these objectives in its negotiations with European partners on labelling and thresholds and in other international fora (paragraph 34). The Government should press for international agreement on regulations requiring the separation of GM from conventional crops. These requirements should also be extended to include animal feed and meat products (paragraph 35). We recommend that the Government seeks to ensure that EU regulations permit local discretion in relation to specific farming practices and habitats in any particular region (paragraph 41). We recommend that the Government seeks to establish international agreement on what constitutes a ‘valid’ scientific reason; and that the definition of validity is based on the precautionary principle. We further recommend that the Government should press for Codex to find a means of reconciling the US, EU and UK approaches to GMO regulation (paragraph 42). We recommend that the Government avoids circumstances where large changes in the membership of scientific advisory committees are required at the same time (paragraph 46). We recommend that the Government rejects calls to include, as a matter of course, representatives of any particular interest on scientific advisory committees concerned with genetic modification technology (paragraph 47). We recommend that the Government rejects proposals to bar employees of biotechnology or food companies from serving on scientific advisory committees. It is vital that appointments to scientific advisory committees should continue to be