GM-free Scotland

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) didn't come out of its handling of the recent rice GM contamination scandal too well (see CLEAR RICE CONTAMINATION – News, September 2006). Its action was limited to reassurances to consumers that the rogue rice posed no imminent safety concern and that they could continue to eat it, and reminders to retailers that they had legal responsibilities not to sell such produce.

Friends of Earth were goaded by the weakness of this response to take the Agency to court. The judge ruled that while the FSA did not act illegally, it had made mistakes in:

• failing to issue Food Alerts to the local authorities whose responsibility it is to enforce safety at food outlets

• failing to give the public the vital information about which batches of rice were contaminated

• failing to provide the necessary legal guidance to local authorities when the problem first came to light.

The main outcome of the case was an agreement by the Agency to conduct an internal review of its handling of the contamination.

In its work as safety watchdog, the FSA must work within the framework of the EU. The European Commission (EC), however, has not been setting a good example: it has been slated for operating under a culture of secrecy, behind doors closed to NGOs, and providing a platform for the biotech industry; last year, it was ruled guilty of “maladministration” over the concealment of scientific concerns about the safety of GM foods.

COMMENT The root problem may be that the EU was created to promote industry and commerce; there seems to be a fundamental conflict of interest between this and its role in safety considerations.

Despite the existence of the FSA , the key responsibility for safety continues to lie with the manufacturers. Biotech companies remain free to make known only the 'science' that suits them. As Greenpeace discovered, after spending several years ending in a court hearing to get sight of Monsanto's safety data on MON 863 maize, industry strenuously resists attempts to access its unpublished data. The revelation that BAT shredded sensitive documents while dying smokers tried to claim compensation, should be a wake up call to regulators about the quality of the scientific crumbs industry feeds them.

No doubt, the food industry is aware of weaknesses in the Agency. Indeed, one CEO of a leading UK dairy processing company recently gave the FSA some straight talking. Just after the Agency had been busy installing traffic-light labeling as the answer to promoting a healthy diet while trivialising the on-going GM rice contamination in the food chain, he told it: ”We're not teaching young people to cook. We're not teaching them what actually goes into the foods that they're consuming, and until we do that, all the labeling that we're going to do is just patching up a very nasty wound.”

In the highly competitive world of food supply, there has to be sensitivity to the market, and trying to pacify customer concerns by a pat on the head would seem a likely route to bankruptcy. So, we asked the question: what sort of lessons on responses to illegal GM contamination could the Agency learn from rice-suppliers and supermarkets?

A letter of concern regarding the weaknesses of global GM regulation as evidenced by the illegal GM rice, and the apparently irresponsible reaction to the contamination by the FSA elicited the following:

• Iceland, Marks & Spencers and Masterfoods indicated they were requiring suppliers to test their rice.
• The Co-op and Uncle Ben's indicated they were requiring detailed traceability of their rice sources
• Sainsbury's indicated they were requiring guarantees from their rice suppliers.

So, not too bad a set of examples there. But then ...

• Tesco, whose “policies are led by our customers”, and ASDA, who has been “listening to our customers feedback”, didn't seem to be aware there was a problem with GM-contaminated rice at all, nor that they had been asked a question on how they handled it. Hmmm.

At a recent lecture sponsored by the FSA, Soil Association Director, Peter Melchett, said: “Real changes are taking place in our food culture,and these are increasingly reflected in the marketplace. While people still largely buy on price, they actually value the quality and taste of food above price ... this new phase in our food culture will be informed by public experience, particularly of the mistakes we've made over the last half century. Those mistakes include sudden and unexpected outbreaks of disease, like mad cow disease, as well as the decline in vitamin and nutrient content of our food. Second, this new phase will be informed by the changes in public values ... Third, it will be informed by science ...”

COMMENT All these mistakes are, of course, being continued and expanded by the advent of GM foods.

OUR COMMENT

Since the GM rice contamination, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and FSA have organised a workshop on 'food incident prevention' and 'horizon scanning'. This sounds a bit like carrying binoculars to the chippie in case you're mugged for your fish supper, but seems to be the latest in food safety management jargon.

Let's hope there is more happening in the FSA than jargon-development and that Peter Melchett's prophesy comes true.

If you shop at Tesco or ASDA, think about getting them to replace their obviously empty words with a bit of action.

Also, the FSA Chief Scientist is asking for a debate on food values (see www.food.gov.uk/scienceblog). Give it one.

SOURCES

• FSA notice 16.11.06
• FSA News 64 February 2007
• GM Freeze Press Release 23.02.07
• Friends of the Earth Press Release 20.06.07
• Friends of the Earth Europe Press Release 18.07.06
• Guardian 22.08.06
• letters from quoted companies received 13-20 February 2007