The Segregation of Genetically Modified Foods - Reply by the Government to the Report (Paperback)

The Committee believes that it is vital that confusion over GMOs is replaced by rational debate and education so that the market can serve those who actively choose to grow or consumer genetically modified foods, as well as those who choose not to. 'Identity preservation' (IP) is preferred to the term 'segregation'. Segregation means 'keeping crops apart', while IP applies where there is a positive desire to preserve the identity of source of a crop or product and implies traceability, which segregation does not. There is also a distinction to be made between 'non-GM' and 'GM-free': there is not yet a satisfactory definition of GM-free, but once it has been agreed, the Committee expects it to be enforced. The Committee believes that the consumer must be able to choose GM or non-GM foods, by means of labelling backed up by full traceability. The Committee recommends that the separation distances in the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC) guidelines be reviewed if there is clear evidence of cross-pollination taking place.In general, the Committee believes that further research and co-operation between the interested parties should continue; that notification of field trials should be compulsory and that the drawing up of a Code of Practice would help in the building of consumer faith in the transparency and effective of all controls.