It's time to reopen the GM debate: as food price inflation bites and fears over global food security mount, experts are asking whether GM could be the answer. But the silence of the food industry has been deafening

Grocer, Sept 13, 2008 by Nick Hughes

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

It's almost a decade since the last can of genetically modified tomato paste was pulled from UK supermarket shelves. The paste retailed at three quarters of the price of its non-GM substitute and outsold its rival by 150% in Sainsbury's and Safeway. There was no element of subterfuge in its marketing--the words 'made from genetically modified tomatoes' were clearly labelled on the tin.

But it wasn't long before the media latched on to the 'Frankenstein Foods' tag espoused by eco-activists and NGOs. Sales of GM products in the UK fell off a cliff and by February 1999 all the major retailers had proclaimed themselves GM-free.

Ten years on and GM remains the great unmentionable. If the food industry's silence in the wake of Prince Charles' anti-GM rant proved anything, it was that very little has changed. Except it has. Food price inflation is running at to%. Organic food sales have slumped 20% this year. The UK economy is on its backside. So why is GM not back on the UK industry's agenda?

Globally, GM production is big business. GM plants are commercially employed in 23 countries, 12 of which are developing nations, including India and a number of South American countries. In 2007, the cultivation of genetically modified plants rose by 12 million hectares to reach a total of 114 million hectares, according to the Agro-Biotechnology Agency. The greatest increase was in maize, which added 10 million hectares to its area.

The main GM-food importers are the US and the Far East. But in the UK, manufacturers and retailers continue to shun GM. "Supermarkets don't want to take the hit," says Chris Leaver, professor of plant science at Oxford University and a leading proponent of GM. "I don't think anybody wants to take the lead. Behind the scenes, CEOs want to do it. But as long as they're still making money, they've no reason to take the risk."

Supermarkets are anxious to avoid a repeat of the 90s media frenzy. "My guess is that they all want to go but none of them want to be the first," agrees Vivian Moses, professor of nutritional sciences at

King's College London and chairman of lobby group CropGen. "It needs to be a case of them getting their act together and all going at once."

The line from retailers has always been that consumers have no appetite for GM. This theory will be tested again next month when a Europe-wide study by the EU Framework 6 Programme will reveal current consumer attitudes towards GM.

If, as the Soil Association claims, 85% of UK consumers are anti-GM, the supermarkets will be vindicated, but only to a certain degree. The survey dates back to 2002 when the economy was booming and the organic revolution was in full swing. Times have changed. With money scarce, price has once again come to the fore. "The credit crunch changes things," says Leaver. "It's all very well for Prince Charles and the chattering classes to demand more organic, but the majority of people just want cheap food."

When the GM debate first reared its head in the early 90s, the suspicion was that its goal was to line the pockets of multinationals. The NGOs drummed up resistance and when 'genes giants' Monsanto and Syngenta pulled out of Europe in 2003 and 2004, it looked as though they had won.

But the science has evolved and new products, including tomatoes and potatoes, now boast benefits such as enhanced nutrition and drought resistance. Experts argue that the parameters of the debate need to change to reflect this. "Merely bringing the issue to people's attention doesn't work because there's a huge difference between what people say they do and what they actually do," says Moses. "It all depends how you frame it. If you frame GM as cheaper food, the response might be very different."

It's true there have been some noises from the industry on the wider issues associated with GM. In a radio interview last year, Waitrose chief Mark Price said supply constraints meant it was unlikely Waitrose would be able to continue to offer only GM-free own-label goods. The caveat, however, was that the Government must first prove to consumers that GM foods were safe.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In these pages in April, Tate & Lyle chief executive Iain Ferguson wrote: "As a nation, we have to confront the issue of genetic modification by having a fair and scientific debate on an issue typically clouded by suspicion and lack of trust. The economic climate, combined with rising food prices and concern over long-term availability of commodities, may help create conditions for such a debate."

There's plenty to debate. On the one hand, retailers don't want to raise a controversial issue with customers and farmers remain scared of cross-contamination. On the other, manufacturers are pushing to integrate production world wide for greater efficiencies and farmers want to provide for a world market. Too often it remains a case of do as I say not as I do.

Sainsbury's, once trailblazers in the GM field, have retreated. "We are aware some customers have concerns about GM food, so Sainsbury's does not permit the use of GM crops, ingredients, additives or derivatives from GM crops in Sainsbury's-brand food," shouts a statement.