open i

An air of desperation was evident in the November 2007 news release from the Soils Association, the manager of the organic food brand in the United Kingdom. This news release promoted its recently published study titled "Silent Invasion - the hidden use of GM crops in livestock feed." The association's motivation was not so well hidden. (610 words)

It is rather natural that the association become more involved in the genetically modified(GM) crops issue as it is the one tangible thing that sets organic food apart in a real sense from conventional food. The Advertizing Standards Agency recognised this in 2000 and since that time the organic movement has been rather restricted on what it can claim of organic food. But its GM free status is unassailable.

As to the study, the temptation is to get into a debate as to whether the inclusion of feed material derived from GM crops is a positive or negative development. Or the implication of the GM material being so well "hidden" in the meat and milk that it is impossible to detect. But to do so is to fail to see the wood for the trees. The organic movement is more about perceptions than reality.

The salient feature of the study is the recommendations and particularly the first one - that the industry and public require supermarkets, other food retailers and food manufacturers "to use only certified non-GM feeds by the middle of next year." This is an astute recommendation, even if some may find the connect with the study itself less than direct.

And both the "if" and the "when" of it are important.

The "if" might appear to be a rather large one. But the Soils Association has no doubt learned from the more strident element of the anti GM movement to exploit the strengths and weaknesses of the supermarkets. These are undoubtedly know to the association's policy director, Lord Melchett, as he was so involved with more strident elements of the anti GM movement prior to his move to the association in 2002. The report is very specific about the practices of the supermarket chains and catalogues them. This is no doubt a significant first step in getting them to toe the line more diligently.

The supermarkets are, of course, unabashedly beholden to whims of public perception. In the case of GM foods the supermarkets appeared very willing to fall in line and re enforce, once the popular press had created the perception that GM crops were dangerous to either human health and/or the environment. The "if," therefore, may not seem impossible to the association.

The challenge of the "when" is that it is surely tricky for supermarkets to verify something that cannot be detected. It raises the spectre of the supermarkets having to monitor the production process, as opposed to the product. This is, of course, feasible but costly. It is obligatory where conventional health considerations are an issue.

Some may consider the GM issue as one of hygiene and hence monitoring of production processes as essential. But until conventional scientific opinion concurs with this, or more possibly this is a majority public opinion, GM-free certification will need to be something provided by the marketplace.

There is, however, a short cut. Just as consumers know that Nike runners are swifter and Co-cola is more refreshing, organic produce is known to be free of genetically modified content. And so the Soils Association is in a unique position to deliver on, and benefit from, its own recommendation.

It may be a long shot. But there is no crime in asking, one would suppose.

David Walker
December 7, 2007