Green Living

Partly Sunny with Showers 9° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

Big stores counting the cost of ban on GM food

Supermarkets in talks on how to educate public about benefits of science

By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspodent

An anti-GM protester is arrested in Dorset. Britain’s biggest supermarkets are considering reversing their ban onGMfood as the price of non-GM ingredients soars

RICHARD LAPPAS/PA

An anti-GM protester is arrested in Dorset. Britain's biggest supermarkets are considering reversing their ban on GM food as the price of non-GM ingredients soars

Britain's food giants have privately warned that they are struggling to maintain their decade-long ban on genetic modification and called for the public to be educated about the increasing cost of avoiding GM, The Independent reveals today.

As major producers such as the US and Brazil switch to GM, supermarkets are now paying 10 to 20 per cent more for the dwindling supplies of conventional soya and maize, according to a report by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

Tesco, Sainsbury's, Morrisons, Marks & Spencer, Somerfield, Aldi and Co-op met civil servants to explain their problems in finding non-GM supplies.

Warning of the price hikes, the report – quietly published online last month – said: "Retailers were concerned that they may not be able to maintain their current non-GM sources of supply as producers increasingly adopt GM technology around the world."

Despite legislation requiring GM food to be labelled in the UK's cafes, restaurants and takeaways, customers were already eating food saturated with GM fat without knowing, added the report.

Although fierce public opposition to so-called "Frankenstein foods" has fallen from its peak at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s, when retailers vowed not to stock anything with GM ingredients, changing genes in human food remains highly controversial.

Campaigners such as Friends of the Earth fear GM crops could damage human health and the environment and place control of the food supply in the hands of a few multinational chemical companies, warning of a "corporate takeover of agriculture".

Despite the potential public backlash, ministers believe it may now be the right time to consider its introduction as a way of meeting a UN target to raise global food production by 2050. Asked whether GM was the answer to his call last month for a new green revolution, Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, whose new food security strategy this autumn is expected to move closer to backing GM, praised "science".

Supermarkets and manufacturers can sell food made from GM ingredients grown elsewhere, but must state that products contain GM ingredients.

After meeting industry stakeholders, the joint FSA and Defra document – GM Crops and Foods: Follow-up to the Food Matters Report – reported that there "is some use of GM food ingredients in the UK, particularly in the catering sector where oil from GM crops is often supplied to customers who are working to lower prices, and bulk packs are suitably labelled. It was considered unlikely that relevant information regarding food produced using such oils is provided to the final consumer, as required in EC legislation."

The FSA noted that spontaneous concern about GM voiced by consumers had fallen steadily from a peak in December 2003, when 20 per cent of shoppers were worried, to 6 per cent last September.

Supermarket bosses are rethinking their approach. After delivering the City Food Lecture in February, Sir Terry Leahy, chief executive of Tesco, said that giving in to concern about GM could have been a mistake: "It may have been a failure of us all to stand by the science.

"Maybe there is an opportunity to discuss again these issues and a growing appreciation by people that GM could play a vital role in feeding the world's growing population."

At the time, International Supermarket News quoted an industry source as saying: "I am pretty certain that several parties involved are actively looking for the way out of their Canute-like positions. Maybe the reality of the costs of GM-avoidance is finally striking home."

The FSA/Defra document reported that many stakeholders noted "it may be timely to inform consumers of the issues surrounding GM and non-GM supply chains so that they have a clear understanding of current science, the status of non-GM market being reliant on only a few exporting countries, and the steady increase in GM production".

Tesco was unavailable for comment yesterday, but the British Retail Consortium, which speaks for the major grocery retailers, denied British shops would change their approach. "Retailers are not stocking GM products and there are no plans to change that – it's a response to customers' views," said spokesman Richard Dodd.

Pete Riley, director of GM Freeze, the anti-GM campaign, accused the Government of being "desperate" to back GM, adding that it had pressurised Defra and the FSA into producing a "scaremongering" report. Supermarkets could work with growers to produce a long-term, non-GM supply, he said, adding any store that broke ranks by introducing GM would be "brave".

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

The issue is this...
[info]visiona4thought wrote:
Monday, 31 August 2009 at 11:41 pm (UTC)
...the world needs a strictly ethics and science driven governance to monitor such matters and ensure that the well being of humanity is taken into consideration above the pockets of investors and non consuming stake holders. Like the UN, but devoid of politics and religion.
GM food OK?
[info]colinscarr wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 02:39 am (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the idea of genetically modifying a food crop, IF the resulting foodstock is rigourously and comprehensively tested by an independent body - not just for safety, but also for long term resistance to pests, independence from expensive fertilisers made by the same conglomerates as the GM food, and anything else that the anti GM lobby fears.

My biggest concern is that the push for GM crops is driven not by a well meaning desire to produce more food for a growing world population, but by an avaricious desire by a few multinational companies to increase their profits regardless of any collateral damage they may cause to either people or the environment.
Ah Hah! The Old Canard!
[info]faunus8852 wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 02:40 am (UTC)
What is it with people and GM foods `feeding the world`?

The World already produces enough food to feed us all - almost ten times over - but 80% of it is basically thrown away as animal feed.

Food shortages, starving people and hungry children are everyday concious and political choices that we deliberately make. Yes you, me - everyone of us - deliberately choose to allow others to starve.

GM foods are all about profit, power and control, and very little else. Please spare us all your appeals to our wallets... your emperor wears no clothes.

Re: Ah Hah! The Old Canard!
[info]corporeal_v001 wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 02:52 am (UTC)

GM is big business, rich lobby groups with influence to force onto 3rd world consumers.
Its all wrong to put profits before all - greedy and evil people...
Truth about food
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 06:03 pm (UTC)
Only 10% of food grow is used as animal feed. The 10% used is the lowest quality food which cannot be sold as human food or used as pet food. Try using science rather than guessing numbers.

Also the countries that grow the least food tend to have the most starving children because they have less food per person. Trying to make others feel guilty does not make you right.
about time to
[info]jeanshaw wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 06:06 am (UTC)
It is about time we recognised that GM foods are with us to stay and nothing the Luddites can do to stop their spread.
GM foods provide cheap food , better quality and greater output per hectare
Re: about time to
[info]paulafarrell wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 06:35 am (UTC)
No they don't. Most GM foods are engineered to be resistant to glyphosate (e.g. Roundup-Ready), meaning they can be sprayed with this, in theory allowing more crops per acre as less competitition with weeds. However, glyphosate resistant weeds are now showing up all over the place, for example:

http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/php/news/waterhemp/
From the article:

"Researchers say the culprit in glyphosate resistance and weed shifts is continuous use of glyphosate in Roundup Ready cropping systems."

For other GM crops it is pest-resistance through having a BT gene inserted which should lower pesticide use - but same story, within 10 years or so pests are back bigger and better than ever, or else new pests have filled the niche. Meaning that in some places pesticide use now exceeds the amount that was being applied pre-GM.

Incidentally, all this was predicted by environmentalists, so maybe you should start listening to them rather than the GM companies and politicians who are being supported by them.

As for better quality, I don't know where you get that, even GM companies don't claim the food is nicer, altough there was a type of tomato developed that had extnded shelf life. It is no longer grown in the US as apparently it didn't taste very nice so no one would buy it. Occasionally stories are printed about this or that "wonder food" which is being engineered which never seem to actually make it to the market. IN any case, we have plenty of real food to keep us healthy, so no need for the fake stuff.
GM Foods
[info]juliandbsmith wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 08:20 am (UTC)
It's one thing being mis-sold a pension that turns out to be rubbish or buying junk clothes that donn't last but another eating junk food that could affect you for the rest of your life. Although most people maybe could tolerate it, some may have reactions, also GM is about mass use of pesticides for profit, cash for fat cats and summers without birds, bees or butterflies.

Do we really want a world where nature is dominated by government and mega-corporations, where plants and animals have disappeared, and the climate is rubbished, all to feed ever increasing numbers of poorly educated and indoctrinated wage and dole slaves?
Re: GM Foods
[info]celticwelshman wrote:
Sunday, 6 September 2009 at 10:26 pm (UTC)
Quite frankly, I find it simple to sort it out in my mind, for me, having accessed as much info as I can find on the subject, the answer for me is no, you please yourself. Personally, I don't like the thought of eating artificially inspired foods. Already we eat meat that is soaked in chemicals in the name of easier rearing, bigger yields and more profits.
I say NO and personally will stick with that. What my wife and adult children, friends and acquaintances do is up to them, the info is there, it's up to them to access and use it if they think it's relevant. Not my place to force my opinion and activities onto others.
Cuba
[info]sozbobnot wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 08:39 am (UTC)
I read recently about Cuba's sudden end of subsidised oil because of the fall of the Iron Curtain. They switched to organic farming (no oil == no pesticides) and using oxen instead of tractors. They certainly didn't switch to GM to feed their population!
[info]jamie129 wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 08:45 am (UTC)
It's funny how these paragons of capitalism turn to the state as soon as consumer choice doesn't go the way they want.

The situation is perfectly fine right now. The GM ban is entirely of the making of the supermarkets. Supermarkets can sell GM foodstuffs as long as they are labelled. The consumer is then free to buy them or not. I expect many people would buy the cheaper GM product, while many others would pay more for the non-GM product. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.

What they want, though, is to remove the need for labelling to make their lives easier. To justify this there will be some spurious appeal to rationality - essentially "there's no evidence that it makes a difference so you shouldn't be able to make the choice". But being free to choose only what someone else deems rational is no choice at all. Without this principle, which they are so ready to sacrifice for a quick profit, they wouldn't be in business at all since many of the choices they offer the consumer are either neutral (homeopathy, most anti-aging products) or harmful (booze, cigarettes, premium added value ready meals).


Cheap GM food? Since when?
[info]plasingli wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 08:45 am (UTC)
Paula is right -- GM food is not more nutritious, tastier, more popular or cheaper than non-GM food. The market is being distorted in all sorts of ways, and what we see today is a sort of economic blackmail involving the GM corporations and the government. There is no shortage of cheap non-GM soy on the world market -- but the big importers hate having to keep it separate from GM products. Let's face facts here -- the American food industry cannot bear to have its ambitions blocked by Europe, and it wants total freedom to contaminate the world's food supplies as it sees fit. Shame on the Indy, which used to be capable of independent thought. Now it seems to take the line "The rest of the world is using GM products in the food chain, and so we should do the same." So pragmatism has replaced idealism and ethics. The trouble is that the rest of the world isn't actually using GM crops and foods, and that European populations are still deeply sceptical about GM, and insist on very tight regulation. Have you ever heard anybody actually ask for a GM food product? I haven't.........
Benefits of science is 1 thing, but GM is NOT
[info]globalnomad73 wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 10:30 am (UTC)
How about the costs to the environment, our lives (it's proven to have negative health effects, e.g. study from Austrian Gov't), farmers' lives (becoming dependent on seed buying) and putting start of food chain in hands of commercial behemoths? Compared to that, let supermarkets 'suffer' the cost of not being able to use GM.
I'm all fo science, but not using science to overrule morals, ethics and commercial benefit for one type of stakeholder (supermarkets).
In peace.
Assault from all sides
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 11:23 am (UTC)
Government takes its bribes "Public are fuckwits when it comes to GM food". Supermarkets "Its GM food or nothing". Press runs the crappy stories "Public are idiots, let them eat cake".

Now is the time to stand our ground and not have GM foods foisted upon us.

Personally I do not have any objections to the ecological aspects which seem to worry a lot of people, but the economic aspect is what worries me. Particularly, as the seeds remain the property of the big businesses foisting a continuing cost onto producers .

Also, we fail to use all the agricultural land available - there is plenty of options available to increase food supply without playing into the hands of big businesses.
Re: Assault from all sides
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 06:12 pm (UTC)
If you seriously believe that supermarkets can simply replace all food with GM food you need your head examined. GM is no more capable of replacing regular food than organic. It's just another choice for people to choose.

Care to name three ways to increase food supply without "playing into the hands of big businesses" as I don't believe you have any real solutions.
Unavailability of truth
[info]bobbellinhell wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 11:29 am (UTC)
The problem is that, even if GM foods did pose no threat to the consumer and environment, any assertion by New Labour to that effect would not be believed.
evidence
[info]panic2009 wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 12:15 pm (UTC)
do some research. there is evidence to suggest that GM food has long term negative effects on our health. there are also small farmers being sued to bankruptcy by big pharma because their land has been invaded by GM crops seeding themselves. its totally corrupt and totally against human nature. this could turn into the most disastrous situation we have ever faced. already in the USA, legislation has been passed to possibly stop organic food being grown in the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and home gardens!!!

i am happy to say that with the help of my kids my family grows most of its own veg. we freeze a lot of it and preserve it in many ways. we live in the city, of course, we need to buy things too but i refuse to buy anything any more or trade with any companies that are part of this NWO "do as we say" agenda.

read this and weep http://www.prisonplanet.com/bill-to-ban-organic-farming.html
And it seems the Indy is joining the chorus
[info]sdchamp wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 01:19 pm (UTC)
Is it just me, or has there been a slow and insidious change creeping over the Indy's coverage of the GM 'debate'? Is there perhaps pressure from advertisers for the press to help win-over the 'increasingly-confused' public that we ought to stop whining and just buy GM like ther rest of the world? Every little helps, after all. With the rushing-out by New-Brown-Labour of the ITM's 'report' (really just a statistical review of old reports dating back decades) saying that there are 'no nutritional benefits to Organic foods' to try to pre-empt its own FSA report based on current research due out soon, the strangle-hold by mega-corporates on our supposedly deomcratic system is becoming steadily clearer. The only avenue left for them now is to start progressively contaminating the remaining areas of organic production with 'GM trials' , in secret, and by force if necessary. They can then say ' no food can claim to be completely GM free, so we have won', as if that's going to make people change their minds. I wonder if the Indy will start telling us it's all for our own good, just for the sake of balance, of course. Perhaps the editor ought to go back to writing lads mags, if that's the best he can do.

SDchamp.
in talks on how to educate....
[info]hiragani wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 02:00 pm (UTC)
Educate? I think the word is brainwash.
No facts, please
[info]had_it wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 05:09 pm (UTC)
Our minds are already made up, so don't try to confuse us with science or truth. Just stick to scaremongering and sensationalism as usual.
Time for a change
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 06:19 pm (UTC)
About time supermarkets stopped pandering to fanatics and started basing their decisions on real science.
die die die
[info]nwoohhh wrote:
Tuesday, 1 September 2009 at 10:44 pm (UTC)
They are going to kill you all...........while making loads a money hhaha hahah die sheep.
when you consider..
[info]tommytcg wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 09:29 am (UTC)
that generally the UK population is abyssmal health already, much from misinformation, ie the unscientific food pyramid, the cholesterol hoax, the promoted toxic foods such as unfermented soy and raperseed oil, the cooking with microwaves, the use of Teflon, and the medications with their side effects, designed to treat, but not cure. I believe that the eating of GM foods by these already compromised and sickly people, with weakend immune systems, organs filled with heavy metals, dyes, polonium-seeping amalgams, parasites etc. will have no further ill effects from GM. For the five-ten percent who may be up to date with the science, (R.Akins MD, Hulda Clark PhD ND etc.), they will be avoiding all GM, despite attempts to conveert them to GM, and wlll to maintain their superb drug-free health.
[info]christoph9 wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 01:30 pm (UTC)
say no to gmo
[info]christoph9 wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 01:38 pm (UTC)
Sorry but had to send this link. We are being pressured to accept unproven foods. I know from years ago, the USDA and FDA approved GM food because of legal reasons, not scientific.

These people want to own all food. GM has shown its failure time and time again. The US and Canada have been taken over by these lying companies, and just like vaccines, there have been no long term studies done on these foods. When you own the regulators , these things happen.The propaganda is that you are a "luddite" or not "scientific" if you wont accept the crap the promote.

How hese people can look at hemselves in he mirror amazes me.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14570
gm foods
[info]boredofbaloney wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 02:25 pm (UTC)
hmmm. lets see...

FACT - monsanto has falsified reports about the safety of these products for years. any scientist who has spoken out about them has lost their job.

FACT - countries have been deliberately contaminated with gm crops.

FACT - many farmers and their families have been literally "run off their land" by monsanto as the outrageous price hikes of their patented seeds once farmers become dependent on them.

FACT - monsanto's gm seeds need lots and lots of pesticides and fertilizers that go hand in hand with the seeds produced by monsanto. convenient, i must say.

FACT - a study is conducted every year in switzerland as to the nutritional content of "conventionally" (i have no idea what is conventional about pumping chemicals into and on to land to make things grow from it) grown produce, organically grown produce and bio dynamically grown produce. the bio dynamic is always head and shoulders over the organic and the organic is head and shoulders over the "conventional".

FACT - it has been proven numerous times that organically grown products are better for our health and our environment.

FACT - a farmer needs to obtain an expensive certification to grow orgainic produce but any one is allowed to spray chemicals willy-nilly over the land. go figure!

why is our government and media so intent on forcing us to eat food that is not only bad for our health but bad for our home? why is our government and media hell bent and handing all food production over to a megalomaniac of a company that wants to control all the food crops of the world and therefore who eats? a company that has been proven time and time again to have falsified reports as to the safety of these products.

IMO the people who champion these crops and all the bovine hormone rubbish and the antibiotics that are pumped into dairy cows (please not that majority of these products come from monsanto, and that monsanto created agent orange and has deliberately, not by accident, but deliberately contaminated parts of the planet and always manages to weasel it's way out of it's responsibility with, it seems, an incalculable amount of help from the FDA and the US government)
should be moved to an island somewhere well away from everyone else - them their families and all the elected officials that go against public desire and force these despicable products on us. then they should be the test for these products, them and all their generations should grow and eat nothing but GM produce and we will do a study for the next 5 - 10 generations (when you appreciate that what we have on this planet by way of flora and fauna is a culmination of 4.5billion years of intelligent design i think a study of products with the possible detrimental effect on our environment such as gm products of any less of a time frame than that would be just stupid and possibly arrogant) and if in 5 - 10 generations time everything is just dandy - people are healthy, life is flourishing then fine, i'll eat my hat. but if it isn't, if it tuns out to be some sort of a lie foisted upon us in order to exert more control over us by making us dependent on multinationals for what our great green earth does for free and makes us and our environment sick then we nuke the whole lot and we don't go down that road again.

but alas i guess we can't expect our elected representatives to think long term.
Re: gm foods
[info]boredofbaloney wrote:
Thursday, 3 September 2009 at 01:47 am (UTC)
i would also like to add that the mass media - including 'trusted' daily newspapers in the uk, are giving very few column inches, airtime to the subject of codex alimentarius. another proposal foisted upon us by the powers that be - who ever they are - and this will put even more control of our food into the hands of the people who seem to want to do nothing more than own and control everything. it makes perfect sense, 1.,pollute the planet 2.,feed everyone unhealthy genetically changed food (which doctors are now beginning to see actually starts to change the genetic make up of the bacteria in our guts) 3., make everyone sick, 4., sell them drugs from partner companies to cover up the symptoms 5., repeat ad nausium - sounds like a great recipe for economic, political and eugenic success to me. please research CODEX ALIMENTARIUS tell every one you know about it and remember THERE IS NO MONEY IN HEALTHY PEOPLE - it serves business interests to keep people sick. my advice - and that of many others - is stay away from doctors and 'conventional' (there is that word again, trying to make us think that putting chemicals in our system is good for us!) medicine, eat balanced, properly cooked meals made from organically produced locally sourced foods and take moderate exercise ie. tai-chi, yoga, walking, laugh and meditate and this should see you well into your old age.
will not buy gm adulterated products
[info]petrovnika wrote:
Wednesday, 2 September 2009 at 08:40 pm (UTC)
As a consumer who always reads the ingredients label before purchasing food products, i for one will not buy anything that is contaminated by genetic debasement, and will avoid those retailers who sell such products. Genetic manipulation of food products has been proved to be harmful in certain cases, yet the FSA and the FDA (in the US), have shown themselves, only to be favourable to the big corporations who are peddling these products. For those who support gm by using the argument that Americans have been consuming them for a while now, forget, that it is the Americans who have the highest rates of cancer, per head of population in the world, along with many other illnesses suffered in greater quantity than the rest of the world, adds to the suspicion that gm is not as safe as the goverment, and the gm companies would have us believe. Much independent research has been carried out on gm products, and in most cases the results have shown gm products to be hazardous.
(no subject) - [info]arcesileus - Friday, 4 September 2009 at 09:49 pm (UTC) Expand
Shortage??? of Non GM
[info]angryaustralian wrote:
Sunday, 6 September 2009 at 01:13 pm (UTC)
Australia IS being targeted by the Gm Goons but right now, our wheat barley and oats are safe! prices are being "managed" to be low in fact, Chicago exchange is using food as the new moneyspinner for the stockmarket.
so if UK manufacturers really want safe food, they could shop with us, and we ARE trying hard to out the soy and Canola before they contaminate our lands too badly to be saved.
Gm has produced Less yield more often, Gm companies allow no one they cannot "control" to do any tests. 42 day trial on chickens is NOT a good test to know that GM Soy is safe for eg..yet our criminally corrupt and insane FSANZ is looking to appro that soon. accepting data from Dow/Mon whoever is plain stupid! they LIE they Falsify, they Mislead, they profit!

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date