Asked by: Virginia Crosbie (Conservative - Ynys Môn)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of genetically modified foods on public health; whether he has had discussions with corporations involved in the manufacture of genetically modified foods about indemnities for potential future harms; what the annual budget is for the Genetic Modification Inspectorate (GMI); and what plans he has for future funding for the GMI in the context of the potential impact of the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022 on the planting of genetically modified crops.
Answered by Mark Spencer - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
i) All GM food and feed products must undergo an extensive and robust risk assessment process under the Food Standards Agency’s GM regulatory framework to ensure they are safe. The risk assessment involves a thorough assessment of whether the food could be toxic, its nutritional value and whether it could cause allergic reactions. GMOs will only be approved to enter the food chain if they are judged to not present a risk to health, not mislead consumers, and not have less nutritional value than existing equivalent products.
After an authorisation has been issued in accordance with the GM food and feed regulations, authorisation holders are required to inform government of any new scientific or technical information which might influence the evaluation carried out of the safety in use of the food or feed.
ii) The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has not had discussions or been approached by corporations interested in exploring indemnities for future harms, should they occur and are revealed to have proven links to GMO foods.
iii) The current annual budget for the Genetic Modification Inspectorate (GMI) is covered within the gross funding model under the Animal and Plant Health Agency commission from Defra, and as such it is not possible to draw out any specific amount relating to this. As of May 2024, there have been 16 field trials using the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022. The GMI has not reported any additional demands as a result.
Asked by: Henry Smith (Conservative - Crawley)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps he is taking to end the use of cages in farming.
Answered by Mark Spencer - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
We have delivered an ambitious legislative programme since the publication of the Action Plan for Animal Welfare, which will deliver significant improvements for animals in the UK and abroad. We are firmly committed to maintaining our strong track record on animal welfare and to delivering continued improvements, both in the course of this Parliament and beyond.
Mindful of the challenges facing the sector, we are not consulting on cage reforms. The market is already driving the move away from using cages for laying hen production. Egg producers and consumers should rightly have pride in the quality of British eggs, with about 75% coming from free range, barn and organic production systems. The UK also has a significant outdoor pig sector with 40% of the national sow breeding herd farrowing freely on outdoor units with no option for confinement.
We continue to work with the farming industry to maintain and enhance our high standards of animal welfare. The Animal Health and Welfare Pathway, part of our domestic agricultural policy, supports farmers to produce healthier, higher welfare animals. The Government’s welfare priorities for the Pathway include supporting producers to transition away from confinement systems.
Asked by: Charlotte Nichols (Labour - Warrington North)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if she will take steps to help ensure that ultra-processed foods are easily identifiable to consumers.
Answered by Andrea Leadsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
Nutrition labelling helps to support consumers in making informed choices about their food and non-alcoholic drinks by providing information on the nutrient content of products. Front of Pack Nutrition Labelling is intended to support healthier choices by communicating complex nutritional information via colour coding, in a way that is easy and quick to understand.
While there is no universally agreed definition of ultra-processed foods, NOVA is the most widely used classification system. NOVA categorises foods by how much processing they have been through rather than their nutritional composition. There are considerable uncertainties about whether these foods are unhealthy due to processing, or because a large majority of processed foods are high in sugar, calories, saturated fat, and salt.
The Government’s dietary advice, as depicted within the Eatwell Guide, already shows that many foods that would be classified as ultra-processed are not part of a healthy, balanced diet, as they are high in sugar, calories, saturated fat, and salt. The Government’s advice on healthy eating, including the Eatwell Guide principles, is communicated through the NHS.UK website and Government social marketing campaigns such as Better Health, Healthier Families and Start for Life. Further information on the Eatwell Guide is available at the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-eatwell-guide
Asked by: Gen Kitchen (Labour - Wellingborough)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps his Department is taking to encourage (a) farmers and (b) food producers to use sustainable farming methods in Wellingborough constituency.
Answered by Mark Spencer - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
Defra is investing in sustainable farming methods, in the Wellingborough constituency and across England, through our environmental land management schemes, in particular the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI). The SFI aims to support the environment and food production, and it rewards farmers for practices that will help to produce food sustainably and protect the environment at the same time, while also providing them a reliable income for doing so. That is because we know that food production and nature preservation go hand in hand. Those practices will help to look after farms in the short and long term by improving soil health or mitigating the impact of extreme weather.
The aim is for the scheme to be flexible for farmers in both the actions that they can take and the land on which they farm. Rather than prescribing what farmers must do, they should have a menu from which to choose what works best for their farm and to their advantage. That is helping those farmers to make their businesses more sustainable.
What is more, Defra is listening to and acting upon farmer feedback about environmental land management schemes. In 2024, we are increasing payment rates for the SFI and Countryside Stewardship (CS) by an average of 10, increasing the number of actions on offer in our environmental land management schemes with up to 50 new actions, making schemes more flexible and easier to access, and continuing to prioritise an ‘advise and prevent’ approach across schemes and regulation, which will make things fairer for all farmers participating in schemes. We will begin to offer SFI and new CS Mid Tier and Higher Tier agreements through rolling application windows this summer with the first agreements starting from the autumn. As a result, applicants will get agreements quicker and earlier than the current annual cycle for CS agreements. These, and other changes, will make it easier for our schemes to slot into farm businesses, providing more money for farmers deliver change and ensure we get the scale and ambition we need to positively impact the environment.
We have already seen strong demand for SFI agreements, with 22,209 applications received and 21,243 agreement offers issued across England.
Asked by: Tracey Crouch (Conservative - Chatham and Aylesford)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether he has made a recent assessment of the potential impact of the use of glyphosate in urban areas on (a) human health and (b) the environment.
Answered by Mark Spencer - Minister of State (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
A pesticide may only be authorised and placed on the GB market once the active substance it contains has been approved. This happens following a thorough risk assessment carried out by our expert regulator, the Health and Safety Executive. Glyphosate is currently approved as an active substance for use in pesticide products in GB.
Glyphosate was reviewed in 2016 (when the UK was an EU Member State). The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose any risks to human health and the environment. When the GB approval of glyphosate is next reviewed, we will again consider our position based on the legal requirements and a careful scientific assessment of the evidence and risks. The Government’s first priority with regard to pesticides is to ensure that they will not harm people or pose unacceptable risks to the environment.
It is for each Local Authority to decide the best way of delivering effective and cost-effective weed control in its operations without harming people or the environment. There is a legal requirement to minimise the use of pesticides along roads and in areas used by the public.
We want to address some of the key barriers to uptake of integrated pest management in the amenity sector and reduce reliance on pesticides, whilst recognising the continuing role pesticides will play, for example, in making sure public highways are accessible and safe.
Asked by: Matthew Offord (Conservative - Hendon)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps he is taking to (a) work with the Mayor of London and (b) otherwise help improve air quality in London.
Answered by Robbie Moore - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
The Mayor of London is responsible for air quality in London and has devolved powers under the Environment Act 1995 allowing him to require London boroughs to take action to address local air pollution. The Mayor has received over £6.6bn of funding for transport in London since 2020, and London authorities have received further funding for specific air quality projects totalling almost £102m.
Nationally, we are driving down emissions and concentrations of the most harmful air pollutants and reducing their impact on public health and the environment. This Government has delivered significant reductions in emissions since 2010 – with emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) falling by 24%, and nitrogen oxides down by 48%. We met our targets to reduce emissions for all five key pollutants in the latest reporting year.
PM2.5 is the most harmful pollutant to human health, which is why we have set two new targets to drive down PM2.5 concentrations under the Environment Act 2021:
These targets mean that on average, people’s exposure to particulate matter will be cut by over a third by 2040, compared with 2018 levels.
Asked by: Viscount Waverley (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to monitor and address any disruptions in the flow of essential food and agricultural products resulting from the introduction of import controls, particularly in the event of unforeseen logistical challenges.
Answered by Lord Douglas-Miller - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
We have introduced controls which are more proportionate to risk and worked with port and airport operators, traders, Port Health Authorities (PHAs) and the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) to make sure we have the right infrastructure, systems and resources in place.
This has culminated in recent months with an extensive period of operational testing. Collaborating with several ports, PHAs, APHA and traders, we have used these tests to ensure that stakeholders are prepared for the new controls.
Defra is confident that existing and new Border Control Posts infrastructure will have sufficient capacity and capability to handle the volume of expected checks outlined in the Border Target Operating Model, with robust, dynamic and effective operational measures ready to call upon if needed.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether she has made a comparative assessment of the impact of ultra-processed foods on public health in (a) the UK and (b) other countries; and whether she has made an assessment of the impact of the UK exiting the EU on levels of consumption of ultra-processed food.
Answered by Andrea Leadsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
United Kingdom dietary recommendations are based on independent advice from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN). In July 2023, the SACN published a position statement on processed foods and health, summarising a scoping review of the evidence on food processing and health. The statement can be accessed via the following link:
The statement included an evaluation of the methods of applying the ultra-processed food (UPF) definition in the UK, the suitability of such methods, and consideration of the availability and quality of evidence on food processing and health.
It made reference to international policy and recommendations with respect to food processing and estimates of processed food consumption in the United States and France. The statement notes that estimated average UPF consumption in the United States was comparable to estimates conducted for the UK. Estimated average UPF consumption in France was somewhat lower than the UK. However, it is unclear if this is due to differences in dietary patterns, data collection methods, the methods used to estimate UPF consumption, or a combination of some, or all, of these issues.
The SACN concluded that observed associations between UPF and health are concerning, but it is unclear whether these foods are inherently unhealthy due to processing or due to their nutritional content. Given the SACN’s concerns, the committee has added the topic of processed foods to its watching brief and will consider it at its next horizon scan meeting in June 2024. No specific assessment has been made of the impact of the UK exiting the European Union on levels of UPF consumption.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether she has made a recent assessment of the potential impact of consumption of ultra-processed foods on health.
Answered by Andrea Leadsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
United Kingdom dietary recommendations are based on independent advice from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN). In July 2023, the SACN published a position statement on processed foods and health, summarising a scoping review of the evidence on food processing and health. The statement can be accessed via the following link:
The statement included an evaluation of the methods of applying the ultra-processed food (UPF) definition in the UK, the suitability of such methods, and consideration of the availability and quality of evidence on food processing and health.
It made reference to international policy and recommendations with respect to food processing and estimates of processed food consumption in the United States and France. The statement notes that estimated average UPF consumption in the United States was comparable to estimates conducted for the UK. Estimated average UPF consumption in France was somewhat lower than the UK. However, it is unclear if this is due to differences in dietary patterns, data collection methods, the methods used to estimate UPF consumption, or a combination of some, or all, of these issues.
The SACN concluded that observed associations between UPF and health are concerning, but it is unclear whether these foods are inherently unhealthy due to processing or due to their nutritional content. Given the SACN’s concerns, the committee has added the topic of processed foods to its watching brief and will consider it at its next horizon scan meeting in June 2024. No specific assessment has been made of the impact of the UK exiting the European Union on levels of UPF consumption.
Asked by: Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the use of oxo-degradable film, which breaks down into microplastics in the soil, in farming, given that the EU only permits biodegradable film, which breaks down into carbon dioxide and water.
Answered by Lord Douglas-Miller - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
Healthy soil underpins a range of ecosystem services including food production, biodiversity, carbon storage and flood risk mitigation. Addressing contaminants in soil, including microplastic pollution, is vital for protecting and improving soil health. We are working to build an understanding of the impact of microplastics to soil and to develop mitigation capabilities.
The plastic problem is one of management not eradication, to reduce, reuse, and recycle the material we have and not let it escape into, and damage, our environment. We have focused our efforts in tackling the most commonly used and littered plastic items, but we are aware of concerns with the use of agri-plastics too, particularly with single-use types such as mulch films.
We are concerned about the potential for oxo-degradable plastic to release microplastics. In 2021, we published our response to a call for evidence which also covered oxo-degradable plastics. Most respondents objected to their use and supported introducing a ban. A review by the Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee (HSAC) showed there is no environmental benefit to oxo-degradable plastic, and they are likely to be harmful when released into the environment. This year, Defra has commissioned a second HSAC review and are minded to introduce a ban on this material pending evidence from the review.
The UK Government continues to take a cautious approach to biodegradable plastics. The UK standard for biodegradable plastics (EN13432) allows for contaminants in the final output: “no more than 10% contaminants to pass through a 2mm sieve”. This means that microplastics less than 2mm could be produced by a biodegradable plastic mulch film that meets the standard and be spread to land. Additionally, while we are not aware of any biodegradable plastic that can reach levels of 100% biodegradation, evidence used to inform the European Union’s legislation around biodegradable plastics in agricultural applications may not apply to the UK. The UK has differing conditions, such as temperatures and humidity levels, which affect biodegradability.
We will continue to review the evidence around both types of plastic to take a systematic approach to reducing the use of unnecessary and harmful single-use plastics.