open i

The recent decision by UK supermarket chains to begin to abandon their use of the genetically modified (GM) food issue for promotional purposes was longer coming than might have been expected. The reality is they had something of a "tiger by the tail" and timing was all important in terms of disengaging. (550 words)

It is now almost 15 years since UK supermarket chains first started using the GM issue in product promotion, particularly for store brand meat and meat products. UK livestock production was generally dependent on the feeding of imported, often from the US, soybean meal which was processed from GM soybeans. Even then virtually all US soybean production was from GM seed.

The super markets probably claimed this was a consumer demand related move. But their perception on this issue, as there was no GM labeling at the time to allow for any sort of objective test, was undoubtedly influenced more by anti-GM demonstrations at the entrance to their parking lots. One chain for a while continued to buck the trend but was eventually “brought into line” as it became the specific target of protesters.

Since then livestock and poultry producers supplying supermarket own brand and other GM-free products - meaning livestock not fed GM derived feed, have had to source such feed. This generally meant Brazilian soybeans as the other two major global soybean producers, the US and Argentina, almost universally used GM varieties.

Over the years this has become an increasing challenge. The supermarkets extended their ban on feeding GM feed to all poultry in 2001, thereby increasing demand for non GM soya meal. Further Brazil legalized the planting GM soybean in 2005. While an undetermined area was seeded to smuggled GM seed prior to this, current estimates place non-GM production at not much more than ten percent, a much reduced supply.

The premium for non-GM soybean meal has risen substantially but seems to have done little to increase the supply. At the same time it has added to the cost of production of GM-free livestock and poultry and presumably to the retail price of the same. Of very recent concern has been the challenge of delays at Brazilian ports in the shipping of new crop soybeans.

No doubt, the issue of sustaining GM-free policies has been on the agenda of supermarkets for some time. The objective, nutritional, justification for reversing the GM-free decisions has never been in doubt. Meat contains no GM material regardless of what is fed. And further there is no scientific evidence to suggest adverse nutritional implications if it did.

The challenge for the supermarkets is to get the decision behind them with the least amount of damage in terms of anti-GM propaganda. And the recent horse meat scandal may have helped in that respect. Perhaps the public feels that it has more serious food concerns than GM-fed poultry meat. Further there is an issue with provenance of GM feed which, of course, has a parallel with horse meat and must be a concern to retailers.

The cynic might also suggest that it was not a coincidence that almost all the major supermarket chains chose to announce their decision on the same Friday when the press and media were gearing down for the weekend and, immediately prior to the anti-capitalist activists’ planned parties to celebrate the death Baroness Thatcher.

David Walker
April 15, 2013