Home > Press releases > 2007 > Food Standards Agency meeting to review GM rice contamination scandal

Making life better for people by inspiring solutions to environmental problems

2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994

Food Standards Agency meeting to review GM rice contamination scandal

Nov 28 2007

Root out GM bias demands Friends of the Earth

An official review of the Food Standards Agency's handling of last year's GM food scandal where unlicensed GM rice was illegally imported into the UK and sold to British consumers, is to be held tomorrow (Thursday 29 November).

Friends of the Earth campaigners, who will attend the review, believe that the FSA failed to take the necessary action to prevent consumers being exposed to the illegal GM rice when the incident came to light last year. The environmental organisation has issued four key demands to ensure that the Agency radically changes its biased approach to GM foods to prioritise consumer protection over industry interests.

A High Court judge recommended that the FSA carry out a review after Friends of the Earth took the Agency to court over the incident in February [2]. The FSA has promised to use the review to "identify lessons learnt" and "consider the views of stakeholders" [3].

Friends of the Earth's GM Campaigner, Clare Oxborrow, said:

"The Food Standards Agency must learn the lessons from this scandal and ensure that British consumers are protected from illegal GM food. This was the biggest GM food contamination incident ever to have hit the UK, and the FSA's handling of it was completely inadequate. This review must lead to a new approach. The FSA must stop bending over backwards for the food and GM industries, and genuinely put the interests of consumers first".

The contamination came to light in August 2006 when US authorities revealed that unapproved GM rice (Bayer CropScience's LLRICE601) had contaminated commercial long grain rice supplies. The illegal rice was exported around the world - including to 19 countries in Europe and all UK supermarkets. In Europe, authorities put in place an emergency law to stop further illegal rice being imported and to ensure it was removed from the market.

However, the FSA - the UK authority responsible for ensuring the law was implemented - failed to make sure that contaminated rice was identified and removed from sale. Instead, throughout the incident, the FSA focused on minimising the impact on the food industry, notably the big supermarkets, instead of preventing consumers from being exposed to the illegal rice. For example, the FSA:

• held private meetings with supermarkets and advised them that they didn't need to either test for the illegal GM rice or remove contaminated products from their shelves, even though its presence was illegal;
• refused to issue a single food alert - the usual way of triggering local authority enforcement action, such as food testing;
• published premature reassurances that the rice "is not a health concern" despite the lack of data to back this up.

As a result contaminated rice was still on sale until at least January this year - five months after the incident was revealed, and two months after the FSA claimed there was none left on the market [4].

Friends of the Earth is making four key demands:

1. Protect consumers: the FSA must significantly improve its response to any future GM contamination incident so that it puts consumer interests first. This includes working with local authorities and the food industry to quickly identify and remove any illegal food from sale, taking a precautionary view on safety when key data is missing, and providing information to consumers about the products affected.
2. Prevent future incidents: the FSA should work with authorities in Europe to pro-actively identify at-risk countries (those growing GM versions of food/feed crops commercially or in field trials) to help prioritise monitoring of imported food and feed for GM contamination. It should ensure that local authorities are adequately funded to carry out routine testing of imported food and feed.
3. Reverse the "bias": the FSA must urgently address the underlying bias in favour of GM foods that has underpinned its inadequate response to this contamination incident. At least two independent reviews have found the FSA biased in its approach to GM crops and food. In May 2003, the FSA's own Consumer Committee reviewed the work the Agency had done around the GM public debate and found that "the information provided [by the FSA] in the booklet and on the web-site was useful but incomplete and therefore biased, as it ignored existing concerns about GM food". The Baroness Dean review in 2005 interviewed a range of stakeholders and found that "Although some stakeholders, such as some consumer groups, felt more strongly than others, the nature of the feedback was consistent: the Agency gave the impression that it supported the concept of GM foods and discouraged the purchase of organically-produced foods" [5] [6].
4. Hold the FSA to account - in order to ensure the above are achieved, a select committee should be set up to put in place effective Parliamentary scrutiny of the FSA's activities and ensure full accountability and independence and that it genuinely puts the interests of consumers first.

Notes

[1] The FSA review will be held at 2pm at the Mothers Union, Mary Sumner House, 24 Tufton Street, SW1P 3RB
www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2007/nov/gmrice

[2] www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/ ¬
food_standards_agency_take_21022007.html

[3] Letter from the FSA to Friends of the Earth 20^th August 2007

[4] Friends of the Earth found contaminated batches of rice still on shop shelves in January 2007 - see ref. [2].

[5] FSA Consumer Committee Review - FSA work on consumer attitudes to GM food, 2003
www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/note030503.pdf (PDF†)

[6] Baroness Dean Review of the Food Standards Agency, 2005
www.food.gov.uk/aboutus/how_we_work/deanreview

Background to the incident

Contamination in context

Although there have been many instances of GM contamination (24 in 2006 alone), this incident has been the most significant to affect the UK. Two previous high profile contamination incidents were the Starlink maize and Bt10 maize incidents, both originating in the US (www.gmcontaminationregister.org).

GM rice contamination

Genetically modified LLRICE601, engineered to be resistant to Bayer's Liberty herbicide, was not approved anywhere in the world at the time that the contamination was announced in August 2006. It had been grown in experimental field trials in the US from 1998 to 2001 by GM company Aventis (since taken over by Bayer CropScience). The company had never intended to proceed with commercialisation for LL601. But in an attempt to limit its liabilities after the extent of the contamination became apparent, Bayer applied to the USDA for commercial approval for LL601 and in November 2006, this approval was granted.

Despite the US approval, all GM rice varieties - including LL601- are still illegal in Europe, for food use and cultivation.

Following the announcement of LL601 contamination, further contamination was discovered involving two other GM rice varieties, LL62 and LL604. In a twist that pitted one GM company against another, BASF estimates that it lost $1 to $15 million because its non-GM `Clearfield 131' seeds were contaminated with Bayer's LL62 and LL604 rice [i].

Bayer has an application pending for approval to import LL62 rice into the EU as food.

How did it happen?

Because of the lax US controls on experimental GM field trials, a year-long investigation by US authorities, published in October this year, failed to find out how LL601 and LL604 entered the food chain. Vital records, such as maps of where the field trials took place, were not kept or maintained. As a result, Bayer will not face any official enforcement action [ii].

What was the impact in the UK and Europe?

Europe is a major importer of US long grain rice and as such the contamination incident had a significant impact. Early on in the incident, Friends of the Earth found contaminated rice in two out of four samples tested, both from Morrison's. It later became clear that all UK supermarkets were affected. The rice industry estimated that around 50% of US long grain rice imports into Europe were affected. Contaminated rice was discovered in 19 countries in Europe.

Five days after the incident was announced the European Commission put in place emergency legislation to

• ensure that any US long grain rice imported into the EU had been verified free of LL601 to prevent any further GM rice being imported (this was later tightened up to require counter testing at ports of entry after rice supposedly free of contamination tested positive in the Netherlands) and
• ensure that countries "verified the absence" of contaminated rice already on the market.

Food companies in Europe area now also pursuing legal action. Tilda is seeking damages from Riceland Foods and Producers Rice Mill for traces of unapproved GM rice found in the food supply [iii].

And contaminated rice is still being discovered on sale in Europe over a year after the incident came to light. In October, authorities in Austria reported finding LL601 on the market [iv].

Why did Friends of the Earth take legal action against the FSA and what was the result?

Although the FSA, the lead authority for the incident, took action to prevent further contaminated rice entering the UK, Friends of the Earth believed it failed to take the necessary action to "verify the absence" of contaminated rice already on the market. Friends of the Earth's concerns included:

• failure to issue any food alerts which would have alerted local authorities of the need to carry out testing for contaminated rice in their areas
• failure to publish the details of known contaminated rice products to help consumers avoid them
• holding secret meetings with the food industry advising them not to test its products for contamination or remove contaminated rice from sale - even though the presence of unauthorised GM rice in food is illegal
• ignoring key parts of the market such as the catering sector - which the FSA itself estimated forms 60% of the rice market
• forming a premature view that the rice was safe, despite the fact that key safety data was unavailable

Whilst the judge did not find the FSA acted unlawfully, he did find that it had made a number of mistakes in the way it handled the incident, including communicating with local authorities too slowly, failing to issue a single food alert to local authorities, and failing to publish details of contaminated products [v]. He stressed that a review would help the FSA address these issues.

What was the impact on rice farmers in the US?

The rice industry in the US has been devastated by this incident. Because of the lack of liability legislation, hundreds of US rice farmers have resorted to legal action against Bayer in an attempt to reclaim their losses. These actions have been consolidated into class action law suits [vi] expected to cost Bayer (and/or its insurers) $1 billion in compensation. In its defence, Bayer claimed the incident was "an Act of God" [vii].

Costs from lost exports in the 2006/07 crops is estimated to be $254 million and future export losses are estimated to be $89 million to $445 million depending on how long the two major export markets (the EU and the Philippines) remain closed [viii].

What was the extent of the contamination worldwide?

Rice contaminated with LL varieties has now been found in nineteen European countries: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. Contamination has also been found in rice purchased in the United Arab Emirates, Dubai, Kuwait and the Philippines; in food aid in Ghana and Sierra Leone; and rice being imported into Russia [ix]

What has the incident cost the industry worldwide?

The resulting worldwide economic loss is estimated to range from $741 million to $1.285 billion [x].

References

[i] `Risky Business' Greenpeace report on rice contamination, November 2007

[ii] www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/ ¬
us_investigation_over_gm_r_09102007.html

[iii] Producers Rice Mill target of biotech rice lawsuit." February 10, 2007
www.nwaonline.net/articles/2007/02/11/news/021107arbiotechlawsuit.txt

[iv] http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/rapidalert/reports/week41-2007_en.pdf (PDF†)

[v] Judicial Review Judgement
www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/foevfsa.pdf (PDF†)

[vi] www.bayerricelitigation.com/

[vii] Firm Blames Farmers, 'Act of God' for Rice Contamination 22 November 2006
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ ¬
2006/11/21/AR2006112101265.html

[viii] See Ref. 1.

[ix] GM Contamination Register Report, February 2007. Greenpeace International.

[x] Table 5.6.1 `Risky Business' Greenpeace report on rice contamination, November 2007

†To view PDF files you will need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader. Visually impaired users can get extra help with these documents from access.adobe.com.

Copyright © Friends of the Earth | Contact Us |
Support Friends of the Earth