The controversial debate about whether Mr and Mrs UK Public are changing their minds about genetically modified food has reached its most crucial stage.
So, hopefully, the GM issue will be reinstated at the top of the industry's agenda, however many more multiple takeover bids there may be in the coming months.
For despite the dismissive comments of some of the more fanatical lobbyists, the fact that nine members of a 15-strong jury voted in favour of GM food after a three-day debate organised by the Food Standards Agency is highly significant. And this result must surely form the platform for more informed deliberations in the coming months.
Of course, it was only to be expected that Friends of the Earth would point out that a significant number of jurors this time round voted against the proposal. Given the ferocity of their opposition to anything remotely GM, they would say that, wouldn't they?
But if that same jury had been asked to vote five years ago, there would probably have been an overwhelming vote against any notion of GM foods on store shelves.
At that stage it was virtually impossible to debate genetic modification without the talk being infected with violent rhetoric, personal abuse and Frankenstein-masked protestors tearing up the test crops.
But in recent months I have detected a softening of the rhetoric and more apparent willingness by passionate figures from the opposing camps to listen to scientific advice and then engage in a more rational, intelligent dialogue.
The first real evidence of this trend emerged in December 2001 when The Grocer staged a London debate on the issue between Patrick Holden of the Soil Association and Monsanto agricultural chief Hugh Grant. The debate proved that, while there was still a massive gulf between the two sides, at least those two articulate advocates were prepared to debate the issues in public in an intelligent fashion, without the hysterical asides which had spawned so many scary, ill-informed tabloid headlines.
Of course, there is still a long way to go before the multiples can even consider whether GM could become any sort of norm in the ingredients formulae for our major products. But, to allow consumers to ultimately make a reasoned choice, the debate must continue to be prompted by one of the most important organisations ever to come on to the UK's agri-food scenario the Food Standards Agency.
Given the uniqueness of its role, that organisation was always going to attract its critics. So it is not surprising that a newly formed "gang of eight", consisting of predictable lobby voices such as the National Federation of Women's Institutes, public service union Unison, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, GM Free Cymru and the Soil Association to name but six should dismiss the FSA's efforts as "indistinguishable from those of the pro-GM lobby".
But the FSA, in its strictly independent role, well away from the influencing hand of ministers, has attempted from its inception to display a policy of openness. And it has certainly not, as some of its critics have unfairly alleged, proved to be "anti-consumer and biased in favour of GM technology".
Meanwhile, the Consumers' Association is right to press the FSA, as part of the ongoing debate, to carry out further research into the safety of GM crops production. Sound scientific information is the only way to clear the clouds of confusion, and in some cases fear, in consumers' minds. Trouble is, scientists have traditionally not been good communicators. So that's where the FSA comes in, as a qualified interpreter that must cut through the jargon and hype and restore sanity to the discussions.
Mind you, recent comments suggest that it will be a long time before some lobbyists trust the FSA. Therefore it is only right that they should continue to ask questions of the scientists and the government.
But, hopefully, the crackpot protest fringe has had its day. In many cases, its headline-seeking hysteria is being replaced by a more rational approach, as even some of the tabloids take a calmer stance. Hopefully, this trend will continue.
{{COMMENT - GUEST }}
So, hopefully, the GM issue will be reinstated at the top of the industry's agenda, however many more multiple takeover bids there may be in the coming months.
For despite the dismissive comments of some of the more fanatical lobbyists, the fact that nine members of a 15-strong jury voted in favour of GM food after a three-day debate organised by the Food Standards Agency is highly significant. And this result must surely form the platform for more informed deliberations in the coming months.
Of course, it was only to be expected that Friends of the Earth would point out that a significant number of jurors this time round voted against the proposal. Given the ferocity of their opposition to anything remotely GM, they would say that, wouldn't they?
But if that same jury had been asked to vote five years ago, there would probably have been an overwhelming vote against any notion of GM foods on store shelves.
At that stage it was virtually impossible to debate genetic modification without the talk being infected with violent rhetoric, personal abuse and Frankenstein-masked protestors tearing up the test crops.
But in recent months I have detected a softening of the rhetoric and more apparent willingness by passionate figures from the opposing camps to listen to scientific advice and then engage in a more rational, intelligent dialogue.
The first real evidence of this trend emerged in December 2001 when The Grocer staged a London debate on the issue between Patrick Holden of the Soil Association and Monsanto agricultural chief Hugh Grant. The debate proved that, while there was still a massive gulf between the two sides, at least those two articulate advocates were prepared to debate the issues in public in an intelligent fashion, without the hysterical asides which had spawned so many scary, ill-informed tabloid headlines.
Of course, there is still a long way to go before the multiples can even consider whether GM could become any sort of norm in the ingredients formulae for our major products. But, to allow consumers to ultimately make a reasoned choice, the debate must continue to be prompted by one of the most important organisations ever to come on to the UK's agri-food scenario the Food Standards Agency.
Given the uniqueness of its role, that organisation was always going to attract its critics. So it is not surprising that a newly formed "gang of eight", consisting of predictable lobby voices such as the National Federation of Women's Institutes, public service union Unison, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, GM Free Cymru and the Soil Association to name but six should dismiss the FSA's efforts as "indistinguishable from those of the pro-GM lobby".
But the FSA, in its strictly independent role, well away from the influencing hand of ministers, has attempted from its inception to display a policy of openness. And it has certainly not, as some of its critics have unfairly alleged, proved to be "anti-consumer and biased in favour of GM technology".
Meanwhile, the Consumers' Association is right to press the FSA, as part of the ongoing debate, to carry out further research into the safety of GM crops production. Sound scientific information is the only way to clear the clouds of confusion, and in some cases fear, in consumers' minds. Trouble is, scientists have traditionally not been good communicators. So that's where the FSA comes in, as a qualified interpreter that must cut through the jargon and hype and restore sanity to the discussions.
Mind you, recent comments suggest that it will be a long time before some lobbyists trust the FSA. Therefore it is only right that they should continue to ask questions of the scientists and the government.
But, hopefully, the crackpot protest fringe has had its day. In many cases, its headline-seeking hysteria is being replaced by a more rational approach, as even some of the tabloids take a calmer stance. Hopefully, this trend will continue.
{{COMMENT - GUEST }}
No comments yet