GM, it’s fair to say, remains one of the food industry’s hottest political potatoes.
Whether it’s stunts against GM wheat, outrage against supposedly GM broccoli> or controversy over feed requirements, there are few food-related issues that elicit passionate outbursts as predictably as genetic modification.
Given this unique ability to exercise the public imagination, there is rising concern about what strategy the industry should pursue. This was clear to see at the Lloyds TSB forum on sustainability and security in the food supply chain, which I attended on Friday.
Our host for the day, farmer and Countryfile presenter Adam Henson, made no bones about the fact that, for many consumers, GM continues to be synonymous with ‘Frankenstein food’. Indeed, when Countryfile tackled GM in one of its programmes, he received numerous emails from concerned viewers, Henson told the assembled farmers, retailers and foodservice operators.
Yet many farmers and producers believe GM to be a vital tool in ensuring the UK can produce food competitively in the future.
Frustration about this dichotomy was certainly running high among farmers at the forum.
“Europe is being left behind because of a technophobic European Parliament that is influenced more by public opinion than by scientific fact,” one of the delegates said, while a second complained the UK “can ship everything in, but we can’t use it here”.
So how did forum members think the food industry should approach GM? Both those in favour of GM and those against agreed much would be gained if the debate could be moved to less emotional grounds. To achieve this, education was key, Henson argued.
“There are lots of passionate people out there who don’t know what’s what,” he said, adding the industry could do with putting together a 10-point crib sheet, setting out exactly what GM and other bio technologies involve. “Even I’m still not 100% sure exactly what GM is,” he said.
For Milk Link farmer director David Christensen, part of the answer was spelling out how the use of GM could benefit consumers.
“It’s no good telling them about how it would make a difference to farmers,” he said. “We need to stress the GM wins for consumers.”
Meanwhile, Steve McLean, head of agriculture at Marks & Spencer, stressed the need to create a “whole supply chain strategy” when dealing with GM. But he also made clear such a strategy did not mean all parts of the supply chain would necessarily move in the same direction.
Asked about M&S’s stance on GM feed, McLean was unequivocal that a non-GM feed policy would remain part and parcel of the M&S proposition. “That doesn’t mean we’re anti-biotech,” he said, “but consumer perceptions of GM don’t allow us to move away from that.”
McLean did have a clear message for Westminster, though. It was very “frustrating” the government seemed to think it was the supermarkets’ job to spearhead the debate on GM, he said.
“The supermarkets can’t lead that. Instead, it would be helpful if the government stood up and said ‘it’s safe; there are no issues’,” he said.
For the time being, this seems one hot potato everyone is intent on passing on as quickly as possible.
No comments yet