By Angela Green: Formal complaint raised against FSA on public consultation relating to genetically modified precision bred organisms.
A group of experts representing business, farming, certification, academia, science and civil society have lodged a formal complaint against the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA), raising serious concerns about its public consultation process on genetically modified precision bred organisms (PBOs) *1 and calling for the consultation to be withdrawn.
The complaint, submitted to the Agency and copied to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to whom it reports, alleges multiple breaches of Cabinet Office Consultation Principles and serious misrepresentation of the facts, which call into question the integrity of the Agency and its stated goal of transparency and truthfulness.
Gene edited foods, the food chain, the hospitality and catering food chain
The ten signatories *2 – including familiar and trusted names in the farming and food world including Doves Farm Organic, Sheepdrove Organic Farm, Riverford Organic Farmers and Slow Food in the UK – contend that the information within the consultation pack is misleading, specifically regarding the nature of precision breeding and the science around its safety. The complaint questions the claimed independence of the FSA’s Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) and its subcommittee, involved in providing scientific advice to the FSA on the safety of PBOs. Moreover, the group alleges that the FSA has, in several instances, seriously misrepresented the results of its own public surveys, and a literature review it commissioned into detection of precision bred organisms, in order to create a narrative designed to influence the outcome of the consultation.
Erik Millstone, Emeritus Professor of Science Policy, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, said: “The government’s policy on gene edited foods is dangerously irresponsible. Ministers are favouring short-term commercial interests of biotechnology corporations and neglecting the protection of public and environmental health.
“Ministers are pretending to have sufficient robust knowledge about the consequences of commercialising the new technology, while ignoring all the experts and the evidence indicating that our knowledge is rudimentary, dreadfully incomplete and uncertain.
“They are only listening to the advice of those who have been selected to tell them what they want to hear. Their policy is a recipe for serious failures.”
Another key concern emphasised in the complaint is the overly technical nature of the consultation materials, creating a barrier for the general public, and indeed anyone who has not been immersed in the PBO debate, to fully engage and contribute meaningfully. The group contends that accessibility and clarity are paramount for genuine public participation.
Michael Antoniou, Professor of Molecular Genetics and Toxicology at King’s College London, said: “Not only is this consultation misleading and anti-democratic, but it also misrepresents the science underpinning gene editing.
“Gene editing is prone to causing a wide range of unintended DNA damage, altering patterns of gene function and consequently the biochemistry of the organism, which could lead to the production of unexpected toxins and allergens.
“Citizens should be protected against these risks. Yet as the FSA’s consultation materials show, the agency has produced a weak regulatory framework that will not oblige the developer to investigate their products for unintended genetic damage or compositional changes that could endanger health or the environment.
“So, products will reach the market that have been inadequately evaluated for safety. Furthermore, the FSA’s insistence in its consultation materials that no GMO or ‘precision bred’ labelling will be required means that the consumer will not be aware that any adverse reactions they may experience could be linked to a gene-edited product and therefore they will not report it. Labelling alerts the consumer to the potential cause of any adverse reaction and enables the regulator to more easily trace the source of the problem.”
In addition, the complaint addresses the perceived lack of time allocated for respondents to comprehensively analyse the consultation pack and respond to the consultation (8 weeks instead of the gold standard 12 weeks). It also argues that the timing of the consultation, coming over the Christmas and New Year period, will mean potential respondents may not be able to engage. For businesses, for instance, the holiday period of one of the busiest times of the year and a significant source of annual income. Cabinet Office Principles specifically advise against consultations over holiday periods.
The complaint also criticises the FSA for failing to perform a full impact assessment on its plans to remove labelling and traceability from genetically modified precision bred organisms in the food and feed system. Impact assessment is a critical component in evaluating potential consequences – across the whole range of stakeholders – of regulatory decisions related to precision bred organisms.
Instead, FSA has relied heavily on a highly discredited impact assessment performed by Defra in 2022 and rated as “not fit for purpose” by the Regulatory Policy Committee. The deregulation of genetically modified PBOs and the removal of labelling and end-to-end traceability in the food system, the complainants argue, will have a domino effect throughout the food system affecting non-GM, organic, artisanal and natural food producers who wish to avoid PBOs, removing consumers’ right to choose whether or not to purchase and consume these foods as well as farmers’ right to choose whether to feed them to their livestock.
Given the number of concerns raised by the signatories, they demand and immediate withdrawal and postponement of the current consultation until these problems can be addressed, ensuring a fair, transparent, and accessible public engagement process that aligns with established guidelines and principles.
A copy of the complaint can be downloaded here.
References quoted:
*1. The FSA consultation launched 8 November 2023, aims to elicit the views of consumers, UK and international food/feed businesses and industry trade bodies, competent authorities (UK Local authorities and port health authorities), non-government organisations/civil society and third-party assurance organisations on the FSA’s plans to create a new regulatory regime for genetically modified precision bred organisms, as part of the Genetic Technology Act 2023. The two-tiered system proposed by the FSA will allow the majority of PBOs to enter the marketplace without a formal application process, without labelling or assessment and without end-to-end traceability. It shifts the responsibility and liability for traceability and avoidance of PBO contamination away from regulatory authorities and onto businesses and other stakeholders.
*2. Signatories to the letter are: Pat Thomas (Director, Beyond GM/A Bigger Conversation); Rob Haward (Managing Director, Riverford Organic Farmers); Clare Marriage (Chief Executive Officer, Doves Farm Foods); Shane Holland (Executive Chairman, Slow Food in the UK); Erik Millstone (Emeritus Professor of Science Policy, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex); The Kindersley Family, Founders, Sheepdrove Organic Farm); Claire Robinson (Co-Director, GMWatch); Steven Jacobs (Business Development Manager, Organic Farmers and Growers); Michael Antoniou (Professor of Molecular Genetics and Toxicology, King’s College London); Natalie Bliss (Technical Manager, Product Certification Schemes, FoodChain ID).
