To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he intends to take to enable consumers to make a choice over whether or not to consume genetically modified soya and maize. [13106]

We intend to continue to encourage food manufacturers and retailers to provide information for consumers about the use of these products.

No doubt the Minister is well briefed on public anxieties about genetically modified ingredients in food. Does she agree that consumers should be free to choose non-genetically modified food and that their freedom depends on accurate labelling? Will she join United Kingdom producers and retailers in campaigning to get Monsanto, the American firm, to segregate genetically modified food from non-genetically modified food to allow for such labelling? Will she urge the Commission to reinstate its ban on unprocessed genetically modified maize?

The hon. Gentleman touches on exactly the point in the production chain where segregation is needed—right at the beginning. Under legislation, it is not possible for me to ban a product; but, as he rightly pointed out, it is possible for the people who are sourcing the product to stipulate quite accurately whether or not they will buy genetically modified foods. I had a series of meetings with the industry on 7 January to discuss exactly this point. Some companies, such as Iceland and Tesco, have publicly said that they are making that a requirement. The hon. Gentleman will know that three committees of the Commission examined the issue which he raised. They decided not to change their mind about it and we are bound by Commission rules in terms of what we can and cannot ban in this country.

Arising directly out of the question asked by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), clearly the new food safety council will need to be carefully harmonised with the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and other advisory councils, otherwise there will be duplication and a muddle, which would be unusual for the Ministry.

The chief food safety adviser will have an overview of all the committees. In respect of the matter that we are discussing, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes chaired by Professor Burke has been in place for many years to scrutinise and examine applications for genetically modified foods. We believe that strict scrutiny is necessary—something that is not available in other countries such as the United States—and we are pleased that the European Union has now adopted the British system whereby an advisory committee makes recommendations to Government. The point that my hon. Friend raised means that, when a chief food safety officer is appointed, he or she will also have the opportunity to comment on the advice that the Government receive and how they put it into policy.

The Minister may have seen early-day motion 280, which I tabled more than two months ago and which gained all-party support from Members. Does she accept the view of the Consumers Association published in today's Which?, which suggests that she and her colleagues throughout Europe may be simply too late to be able to guarantee segregation of genetically modified ingredients in our foodstuffs? Is it not a classic case of the horse charging around the countryside, having long since bolted, while we are trying only now to shut the stable door?

I wish the hon. Gentleman would do his homework a little more carefully. We have just agreed, in December, with the European Commission—a body of which the hon. Gentleman and his party are very much in favour—that we should have Europewide regulation in this matter. It has been the United Kingdom Government who have been pressing—

In the lead.

I could not have put it better myself. I notice that today's Consumers Association report does not question in any way the safety of the product. It raises the point about labelling—

And segregation.

And segregation. As a Minister I cannot insist on segregation; if I were to insist that only segregated crops came into this country, I would be in contravention, first, of European Union rules and, secondly, of World Trade Organisation rules. It is a matter of the industry, of which we are very supportive, sourcing its product by making it very clear what it will and will not buy.

Following on from the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), will she make it clear that the Government accept the principle that consumers should be able to choose whether they eat genetically modified foods? That means that there has to be proper labelling and segregation at the point of production. Is it not of concern that genetically modified maize incorporates a gene that confers a resistance to the antibiotic Ampicillin and that there is a danger that such resistance will be transferred to humans? Having failed to block the entry of that maize at European level, what are the Government doing about it?

The Advisory Committee on Novel Food and Processes, which looked at genetically modified maize, gave the product its approval, but added a caveat. The caveat was not sufficient for it not to allow the approval to come forward as a recommendation to Ministers. The committee stipulated, however, that work was needed in respect of unprocessed modified maize that could go into animal feed. We accepted that and took that case to Europe. Three committees of the European Commission looked at the advice of Professor Burke's committee that was given to us, and rejected the case.

I have just given the hon. Gentleman an account of why it is not in legal terms possible for Ministers to block entry into this country. However, there is an opportunity for the industry, which we are supporting, to make it very clear what it will and will not buy. For our part, I can tell him that we will take forward work and research and look at the effects—

Too late.

It is all very well the hon. Gentleman shouting out, "Too late." We have an extremely good and well-qualified advisory committee, whose advice the Government take. If European committees do not accept that advice, we are subject to qualified Majority voting. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands how that works. Unfortunately, the European committees did not accept our committee's advice.