GM foods: the way forward?

As the GM debate takes to the road​ in the UK this week with promises of consumer feedback via conferences and meetings, here below we have selected an article by Lyndsey Greig of market analysts Frost & Sullivan that takes a closer look at the debate, and questions whether it may just be too late for consumer acceptance.

In October 1998, the EU imposed a moratorium on new genetically modified foods. This was fuelled by concerns that not enough was known about their possible effect on human health, and also that the risk of contaminating native crops with GM crops was too great.

This latter contention, at least, appears to be justified, with evidence of contamination of Mexican maize crops by GM varieties. Other accidents have also been reported.

For example, in one case, a food crop was contaminated after cross-pollination with the remains of a crop genetically modified to produce pharmaceutical products. The main reason that the mistake was spotted was that the two crops were different - one was soy and the other was corn. If both had been corn, perhaps the mistake would not have been spotted so early, raising the question of what would happen when crops containing drugs make it as far as the kitchen table.

Nevertheless, worldwide, there are now an estimated 5.5 million farmers growing GM crops. These crops cover an area of around 50 million hectares, and are mainly in the US, Argentina, Canada and China and Mexico. With this level of commercial growing it is clear that steps need to be taken to clarify the position in Europe.

European Labelling Laws​ If the European Parliament passes current laws proposed by the European Union's agriculture ministers, then all products containing more than 0.9 per cent EU-approved GM material will have to be labelled. This is despite the fact that current tests do not allow identification of GM protein or DNA at this level. In order to allow for contamination in transit, only foods containing greater than 0.5 percent unauthorised GM material will actually be banned. Animal feed will also have to be labelled if it contains GMO's.

Whether these rules turn out to be enforceable or not, they are certain to create more tension with the US. In Europe, these new rules are to enable consumers to make a choice, and with current consumer reaction to GM foods the way it is, it seems clear that any product labelled as containing GMO's would be on a fast track to declining sales. The US, meanwhile, is poised to file a case with the World Trade Organisation (WTO), arguing that the policy is 'anti-scientific'.

One of the key issues cited by the US opposing Europe's anti-GM stance is that poorer nations may follow their lead, when GM foods could offer a chance to defeat famine. For example, Zambia has refused to accept any GM food, describing it as 'poison', although the country is suffering severe food shortages. Meanwhile the WHO believes that eating GM food poses far less of a threat than the obvious danger of starvation. Developing countries are also expected to suffer as they do not have the technology for keeping the acceptable in transit contamination below 0.5 per cent, potentially affecting their exports to the EU.

Too little, too late?​ While press coverage of GM crops and anti-GM protests has lessened in Europe recently, there is little doubt that consumer opinion remains firmly set against GM foods. It is felt that there is simply not enough information or understanding of the concepts to allow consumers to make an informed decision. And anyway, arguably the damage has already been done, and that the situation may never be salvaged in the UK.

If you would like to air your views on the GM issue, please send your comments to lindsey.partos@foodnavigator.com.​