Oral evidence: GM foods and application of the precautionary principle in Europe, HC 328Wednesday 19 November 2014
Oral evidence, 19 November 2014.
Witness
Professor Sir Mark Walport, Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Government and Head of the Government Office for Science, gave evidence.
Chair
Sir Mark, welcome back to the Committee. Thank you for appearing before us for the second time in two weeks. On this occasion it is a totally different subject. I know you have been following our inquiry. I do not want to detain you too long, but there are a few key questions we want to follow up. The first is simply to ask what involvement you have had in the development of Government policy regarding the use of genetic crop technologies, and food security issues more generally.
Sir Mark Walport
As you know, my job is to provide scientific advice to the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet. Part of that advice, at the request of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, has been to provide advice on GM technologies. We did this through working with the Council for Science and Technology and wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, which was published on 21 November 2013. Alongside that, we commissioned Sir David Baulcombe, a very distinguished plant scientist, and a group of his colleagues who had been involved in writing a previous Royal Society report on agricultural technologies, to produce a report for the Council for Science and Technology. That was published a little bit later, in March of this year. We have provided a quite significant evidence base to enable the Government to formulate their policy.
Chair
Do you consider that policy to be an evidence-based policy?
Sir Mark Walport
I do consider that to be an evidence-based policy—indeed. The science is clear, and I am happy that the Government have taken on board the science.
Chair
Looking elsewhere, in Scotland, the Scottish Government appear to be saying that the cultivation of GM crops “could damage Scotland’s rich environment”. Is that statement evidence-based?
Sir Mark Walport
I do not provide advice directly to the Scottish Government; I advise the UK Government. Scotland has a chief scientific adviser. That is not the same as the position taken by the UK Government. I can comment only on the position taken by the UK Government.
Chair
Is there any part of the geography for which you are more directly responsible where that comment would apply?
Sir Mark Walport
I think the application of the science applies to the whole of the United Kingdom from a scientific perspective.
Chair
Thank you very much.
Graham Stringer
I do not know whether you are, Sir Mark, but I am profoundly depressed by the EU’s decision not to replace its scientific adviser. Have you made any recommendations, and what do you think that we as MPs or a Committee can do about that situation?
Sir Mark Walport
I was in Brussels last week. The UK position is absolutely clear that scientific advice is important at the level of the EU Parliament and EU Commission. The important thing for the UK Government to press for, which I believe is the policy, is that there should be strong scientific advice within Brussels. I do not believe that they have finally determined what the position is on that, and it is something we need to press for strongly over the coming weeks.
Graham Stringer
As I understand it—correct me if I am wrong—this position is not going to be replaced. It was inadequate in itself. We have had the person before the Committee. She made it very clear that she was under-resourced, so there is a real loss here. Is it sufficient—I do not think it is—for the Government to take just a generalised view, with which nobody would disagree, that policy should be evidence-based? Should not the Government be pressing that that position be replaced and better resourced?
Sir Mark Walport
I think you have put your finger on the issue. The important thing is that the strongest scientific advice permeates all levels of all Governments, as far as we are concerned, because we work with many Governments. As you rightly point out, the resources available to Anne Glover were insufficient to enable her to have the maximum impact, though she did an extraordinary job and I would like to pay tribute to that. It was a pleasure to work with Anne Glover during her tenure. She did a lot in terms of assembling scientific advisers from around Europe at a recent conference in Copenhagen. But I think she would also agree that the resources were inadequate. It is possible to debate whether having a reporting line just to the President of the Commission alone is sufficient. My role is to report to the Prime Minister and Cabinet—the Government as a whole. So the UK needs to press for a system of scientific advice that provides advice to all of the key participants in Brussels. The job needs to evolve, and I do not think it is clear what the Brussels position is on that. All they have said is that the position in its present form is not going to be replaced. There is still a lot to play for in pushing to get very strong scientific advice coming into the Commission.
Graham Stringer
If you are going to make direct representations to the Commission, will you make them available to this Committee and the House of Commons?
Sir Mark Walport
The short answer is that I had a meeting. I do not think a verbatim record was taken of it. I think the Government’s position is clear on this. They believe it is important that there should be strong scientific advice in Brussels.
Graham Stringer
But that is not in writing.
Sir Mark Walport
I have not written so far; plenty of others have. There has been a very strong response from the UK.
Graham Stringer
You mentioned the Baulcombe report. I think the implications of what you said were that you supported the conclusions.
Sir Mark Walport
Yes.
Graham Stringer
That is right. What has been the impact of the Baulcombe report?
Sir Mark Walport
The Baulcombe report was very widely covered at the time it was launched. There was an event at the Science Media Centre that I attended. It was covered in the national newspapers—The Times, The Guardian, the Financial Times, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail, BBC, Sky, Reuters and the technical press—and it has been widely cited since its publication as a reliable source of evidence. It has been used in DEFRA by Ian Boyd and DEFRA policy teams. It is a widely respected report from a distinguished group of scientists. We commissioned it because we wanted the best scientific advice from the relevant experts, and that was what we got.
Graham Stringer
Are there any gaps in the current evidence base on the potential impact of the cultivation of GM crops?
Sir Mark Walport
That turns on a more general point. One of the issues is that we tend to talk about this as though it was a generic technology, which we should not do. Whether GM technology is a good or bad thing is not a sensible question; it depends on how it is applied. The question in every case is: what gene, what organism and for what purpose? Therefore, as each crop emerges, there are particular scientific questions which are resolved during field trials and other trials, and during the regulatory process. It is not that the scientific knowledge is ever complete. It depends on each organism and gene, but it is important to recognise that humans have been genetically modifying crops in random ways by breeding for millennia. Corn is descended from a plant called teosinte. Its genome has doubled; it has undergone millions of mutations, and we rightly consider the product safe to eat. If with modern technology we alter a single gene in a single well-defined place without leaving any other transgenic material at all, somehow this is considered potentially unsafe to eat.
Graham Stringer
We have received a great deal of evidence saying just that. Does the Council for Science and Technology have any further plans to look at GM?
Sir Mark Walport
We are not doing more work at the moment. Work has been done by others. EASAC—the European Academies Science Advisory Council—has also produced a very good report in this area. I am not sure that further scientific work of the sort found in the Baulcombe report is needed at the moment. This is still a fairly fresh document. While the science changes that fast, the basic principles of the science are not changing.
Graham Stringer
Was the recent triennial review of the Council for Science and Technology a useful exercise?
Sir Mark Walport
Yes, it was a useful exercise. It reinforced the importance of the council and its status as an NDPB, and it encourages us to be more proactive.
Graham Stringer
Why did it take so long? I understand it took 18 months.
Sir Mark Walport
I am not the person to ask that question, I am afraid; I do not know. I do not think anything mysterious was going on behind the scenes.
Graham Stringer
But you will be responding to its findings.
Sir Mark Walport
Yes, but largely working on them.
Stephen Metcalfe
Your first themed report in your new role is being published.
Sir Mark Walport
Yes. I will leave a copy behind.
Stephen Metcalfe
Fantastic; thank you. That is very useful. You can remind us of the title: “Innovation: Managing Risk, Not Avoiding It”. In selecting that title, does that mean the Government are too risk averse in their approach?
Sir Mark Walport
No, not at all. I think it reflected the fact that during the first 20 months of my tenure in the role as Government chief scientific adviser I have repeatedly encountered issues around how risk is managed in relation to innovation. GM is an extremely good example, and it is one of the things that stimulated the production of this report. Some of your previous witnesses have contributed chapters to it. The issue is that innovation is sometimes seen as creating new risks, as opposed to innovation that is required on many occasions to reduce the risks we face. In the context of genetically modified crop plants, it is about providing alternatives that will defend crops against pests; it is about growing crops more effectively in harsh environments. There are all sorts of benefits in making them nutritionally more effective. I do not think we have had the best discussion about risk. One thing we may come on to is that this is a discussion as much about values as it is about science. We sometimes confuse the two. We pretend that the debate about genetically modified crops is a debate about science when the reality is that the science is very clear. It is really a debate about values. People with strongly held personal beliefs believe there is something wrong in humans modifying nature in some way.
Stephen Metcalfe
Does your report explore that?
Sir Mark Walport
The report explores that theme in detail. It explores different issues in relation to innovation. There are some innovations where the issue is who pays for it. That is sometimes an issue with vaccines, for example. There is the issue of what I have characterised as “my pain, your gain” where an innovation creates something in someone’s immediate environment that appears to benefit others but not them. There is the whole issue of science and values and unintended consequences. We explore all of this in some detail. If we are to have the best conversation, we ought to be clear as to what we are talking about.
Stephen Metcalfe
I very much look forward to having a look at it. It is the process that interests me. Is it your report, or is it the Government’s?
Sir Mark Walport
It is my report.
Stephen Metcalfe
Has anyone in Government seen it or signed off on it?
Sir Mark Walport
It has been seen, but it has come out only today. I do not think people have read it, but it is my report.
Stephen Metcalfe
But does it need to be signed off by the Government? Is it their policy?
Sir Mark Walport
It is not Government policy. In that respect it is analogous to the report produced by the chief medical officer each year. She produces two reports: a statutory report on the health of the nation and a themed report, for example, on antimicrobial resistance. This is along those lines.
Stephen Metcalfe
She made a very stark statement when introducing her report to us 18 months to two years ago about the risks of antimicrobial resistance. What are the key themes we should take from yours? Are you going to try to trump her and say we are all doomed?
Sir Mark Walport
Certainly not. The key message for this is that we need innovation to solve many of the problems the planet faces—everything from infectious diseases, to climate, to how we feed the planet and how we protect the environment. We need innovation to do that. In order to do that, we need the best discussion—we need a better discussion—about the terminologies so that people do not confuse risk and hazard; we need to understand when people are having two different conversations, one about science and one about values, or changes in their immediate circumstances; and we also need to have a discussion about regulation to make sure that is also fit for purpose.
Chair
Although it is nothing to do with this inquiry, out of interest, you and I have discussed before—in fact we shared a platform—school practicals before you started in your current role. One of the themes of that discussion was the lack of training of teachers in managing risks. Do you explore that theme?
Sir Mark Walport
If that is a health and safety discussion, that is a very different matter. It is part of the educational system; it is how we frame numbers. There is a good chapter by David Spiegelhalter in the book about that. We sometimes see that x doubles the risk of a particular cancer, say. That sounds very bad, but if it changes it from one to two in a million that looks rather different. How we frame the discussion is very important as well. All of these issues are raised in here. There is no magic bullet answer to this, but we will have the best discussion only if we understand the terminology and are accurate when we use terms like “risk”, “hazard” and “uncertainty”. All of these things really matter.
Stephen Metcalfe
My final and slightly flippant question is: what would you like the headlines in the newspapers tomorrow to be about your report?
Sir Mark Walport
That is very interesting. One of the challenges is that this is not a topic that is simply captured in a three-word headline. It is not “Chief Scientist proposes magic solution for innovation”.
Chair
Give us 140 characters and then we will tweet it for you.
Sir Mark Walport
Okay, someone here can tweet it. I suppose the title captures it: “Innovation: Managing Risk, Not Avoiding It”.
Pamela Nash
Sir Mark, I would like to ask you a bit more about the precautionary principle. What is your definition of the precautionary principle, and when do you think it should be applied?
Sir Mark Walport
There are many definitions, so I do not think adding another one would be helpful. That is one of the points in itself. This goes back a long way. The Rio declaration said: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach should be widely applied by states according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” I think the relevant one in terms of this discussion is the EU definition as a precautionary principle. I have got it from the EU website. I do not think it would make best use of my time to read it all out to you. There are some quite important things. When it comes to the evaluation of the precautionary principle, it “shall be informed by three specific principles: the fullest possible scientific evaluation, the determination, as far as possible, of the degree of scientific uncertainty; a risk evaluation and an evaluation of the potential consequences of inaction.” That is extremely important, because there are potential consequences from doing something but equally consequences from not doing something, and sometimes the two are not considered. The EU says it quite nicely. Then it refers to “the participation of all interested parties in the study of precautionary measures, once the results of the scientific evaluation and/or the risk evaluation are available.” You cannot argue with the precautionary principle; it makes sense. It basically says, “Do a full evaluation of the science before you make a decision,” but it also says you must think about the consequences of both action and inaction. The issue is not the principle itself but its application. I am afraid the precautionary principle has been used as a method of putting a red stop light in front of innovation rather than recognising that innovation is something where you need to consider both the benefits and risks. Sometimes there may be an amber light and it may be necessary to collect more evidence; on other occasions it may be that the balance of not doing something is worse than doing something.
Chair
In the context of GM foods, what are the inactions?
Sir Mark Walport
The inactions are, for example, that a blight-resistant potato developed in this country is not at the moment undergoing further development. That is a serious problem. The consequences of inactions are that we are potentially, particularly in Europe, denying access to technologies that will help to feed people in ways that damage the environment less.
Chair
And globally.
Sir Mark Walport
Globally, much of Europe is an outlier because, as you will know, GM crops have been grown around the world for at least 18 years, and on a large scale. The imported foodstuffs that feed our animals are largely GM to a significant fraction, so Europe is not benefiting as much as it can from these innovations.
Pamela Nash
Is it fair to say, Sir Mark, that you think there has been damage to the reputation of the precautionary principle because it has been misused and invoked in situations where it might not have been?
Sir Mark Walport
The danger is that the precautionary principle is becoming a misinterpreted couple of buzzwords. As I say, you cannot argue with the principle; it makes complete sense. Look before you leap; think about what the consequences are, and what the consequences of not doing something are. I am afraid it has become terminology politicised with a small “p”.
Pamela Nash
In your advice to the Government, is the precautionary principle something you still use and advise Government on? Are there any examples when you have done so?
Sir Mark Walport
It is a general principle that makes sense, but the issue is entirely how it is applied. That is what matters.
Graham Stringer
You said before that you thought this debate was really about values and not science. How do you and the Government go about informing the public of what the science is so they can use their judgment on the value judgments?
Sir Mark Walport
First, it is about presenting the science in a clear fashion. One of the consequences of Sir David Baulcombe’s report was that there was a lot of clear presentation. If you looked at the media that followed the report in March, much of it was very good and balanced. If you look at public attitudes to GM in the UK, the British social attitudes survey in 2008 found that 35% of the UK population were opposed to GM; in 2014 it had fallen to 28%. Most people do not have strong views about GM crops in food. That 2014 survey showed 36% thought the benefits of GM outweighed risks; 36% had no strong feelings either way; and 28% thought the risks outweighed the benefits. Therefore, 72% of the public either had no strong feeling or thought there were benefits. We have to be quite careful about over-interpreting very strong statements about public opinions. I think that the debate when the CST letter and the Baulcombe report came out was considerably less febrile than the debate a number of years ago that preceded the GM Nation consultation.
Graham Stringer
Do you think we need more public engagement?
Sir Mark Walport
You can never have too much public engagement, but it is about the right sort of public engagement. In this report Tim O’Riordan writes very nicely about public engagement, as does Nick Pidgeon. It is about trying to have a conversation with people who do not start necessarily with very strong preconceptions, because so much of this is a value-based discussion. We have to be a bit more honest about when we are talking about science and when we are talking about values. The broader European point is that, inevitably, values about individual innovations vary between nation states. The question is: should the values of one group of countries trump the values of another? That brings us to the principle of subsidiarity on GM, which I hope we are moving to, where GM foods can be regulated at European level but individual countries can choose to opt out of growing them.
Graham Stringer
Apart from the report, where would you direct a member of the public who wanted to learn more about the science and regulation of GM foods?
Sir Mark Walport
The Royal Society has good literature on it. If you look at Rothamsted and John Innes, the plant science community itself is good at producing documents. The Science Media Centre has held events. I do not think there is any single core of public engagement materials on GM, as far as I am aware. There is an awful lot of material out there, and sometimes one of the challenges is to recognise the status of different documents.
Graham Stringer
Do you think that the Government, over the period you have just described, have got better at communicating science? If so, in what way have they got better?
Sir Mark Walport
I think we have all got better. This is not something just for science; it is for the scientific community as a whole. We have moved from the traditional deficit model of public engagement, which basically says, “You don’t know. We’re going to tell you,” to a much better situation where we engage in questions and answers. I think we are getting better at it. As we have discussed before, if you look at science in the media, there is much more of it than there was. There are now many professional science journalists who make every effort to report accurately. Just going back to the Science Media event around the CST letter and Baulcombe report, the quality of the journalism was good. That probably reflects to some extent the fact that attitudes are, if anything, more positive about GM. At the risk of being repetitive, one has to recognise that there is the science and we have to communicate it clearly, and then there is the values discussion, which is a different one.
Chair
We understand that currently GO-Science is conducting a food security research project with Which? What is the project about, and what does it hope to achieve?
Sir Mark Walport
It is another aspect of public engagement. We are now broadening it to food security. If you asked a lot of people, they would not believe that in the UK there are any issues with food security. Our shops are full of food; food comes from every continent on the planet, apart from Antarctica. It is not something that is high in people’s minds, and yet there are issues with food security. We have seen price surges in staple crops around the world. The supply lines for food staples cannot necessarily be absolutely guaranteed. There are some important plant diseases. There is a wheat rust, Uganda 99, affecting other parts of the world at the moment. There are challenges to plant and animal health, as I think we would all recognise. It is a partnership with Which? that came out of work of the Food Research Partnership.
Chair
Who asked whom?
Sir Mark Walport
We talk to each other.
Chair
It evolved.
Sir Mark Walport
It was a discussion. I do not know. It is another public engagement exercise.
Chair
Will I have to log on to the website of Which? to find out the outputs, or are you going to tell us?
Sir Mark Walport
The outputs will be made publicly available—
Chair
Oh good. Sir Mark Walport—following the principle of open access. I am cautious about giving you dates because I will get into trouble if I come back and they have not been met. It will be during next year.
Chair
How do you intend the guidance from that report to feed into Government policy?
Sir Mark Walport
I am not sure that it is guidance from a report. It comes back to the fact that public engagement is not a done and dusted thing; it is a continuous process.
Chair
We have talked about this on other occasions. There could be implications for research councils, encouraging them to look at how they measure impact, and public engagement by young scientists. We could go back to the classroom and look at issues there; we could look at how we support the Science Media Centre. There is a whole raft of potential Government inputs.
Sir Mark Walport
I think that is right. I suspect the answer is: all of the above. What this will tell us is how we, the public, think about different issues connected with food and food technologies. This is not specifically about GM; it is about a whole range of agricultural and food technologies and how people think about food security. It is difficult to know what the lessons will be until we have done it, but studies like that will inevitably tell us, for example, where people find out about things.
Chair
In terms of this particular inquiry, there have been some industrial consequences as a result of concerns about European-wide regulation. What engagement did your science team have with the companies that have subsequently pulled out of European research in this field?
Sir Mark Walport
The short answer is that there are people from companies represented on groups that I engage with, but in relation to GM I did not have direct meetings with specific companies who were saying they were about to pull out of x or y. They have been part of the mixture of people that we have spoken to.
Chair
Thank you very much for your attendance this morning. Oral evidence: GM foods and application of the precautionary principle in Europe, HC 328 2