guest author
New technology in agriculture:
pushing for consumer choice
IN 2003, nearly 70 million hectares
(170 million acres) – an area more
than twice the size of the UK – was
planted with genetically modified
(GM) crops around the world. This
represents a 15% increase in the
As the UK figures from 2002 (see Figure 1).
Approximately seven million farmers
government
grow GM crops, most of whom live in
prepares its the resource-poor areas of the
policy developing world.
statement Clearly then, from a global
on perspective (See box), the use of
genetically biotechnology in agriculture is a huge
success. However, pick up a newspaper
modified in the UK and you will probably get
crops, the impression that GM crops are an
Sarah unmitigated disaster. Why does this
Harvey dichotomy exist and what is the
industry doing about it?
Speck and
There is no denying that public
Julian
trust in food and how it is produced
Little has been dented by several highly
believe publicised serious food and farming
consumers scares, such as salmonella, listeria,
should be BSE and foot and mouth disease.
Concerns about the environment,
allowed to
food safety and questions about
make their agricultural practices have become
own increasingly important to some
decisions consumers.
Despite some early success stories
with the introduction of GM food to
Britain a combination of high profile
media stories and a feeling that
consumers had become distanced from
agriculture, together with a general
lack of understanding of risk analysis,
led to supermarket removal of GM
foodstuffs from their shelves.
the industry’s response
In January 2002, the Agricultural
Biotechnology Council (ABC) was
Figure 1: Global planting of GM crops
24 tce march 2004 don’t want to wait a month for tce? see www.tcetoday.com
launched by some of the key industry
players: BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow
AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto and
Syngenta – six companies involved in
agricultural biotechnology and GM
food in the UK.
Clearly all of the companies
involved in ABC share a commercial
interest in the success of this
technology. However, agricultural
biotechnology will only be successful
in the UK if there is broad public
acceptance and if the public,
government and regulators are
convinced of the benefits.
Global statistics for GM crops
• Since 1995, 300 million
hectares of GM crops have
been grown
• An extra 9 million
hectares of GM crops were
grown in 2003, compared
to 2002
• Seven million farmers in
18 countries grew GM crops
in 2003
• One in two Soybean plants
and one in five cotton
plants grown commercially
are GM
ABC thus represents a single,
transparent and accountable voice for
the biotechnology industry and was
formed in response to public demand
for more open and accessible
information on GM crops. The industry
recognised that people wanted to
know more about the science behind
biotechnology, they wanted to know
that the industry was effectively
regulated, and they wanted to be able
to choose whether or not to buy
clearly labelled GM products. An
immediate aim of ABC was therefore
clear – there was a need to address
this knowledge gap by supporting and
encouraging fair debate.
Nearly two years later, significant
progress has been made to address
these issues using the following:
• the UK has held a nationwide
public debate, with an extensive
review of both the science and
economics of GM crops and food;
• the results of four years of
independent GM field trials in the
UK were announced;
• a new regulatory framework
governing the development and
marketing of GM products has been
put into place in Europe and
enshrined in UK law; and
• a recent European Directive ensures
extensive labelling of GM products
and derivatives from January 2004
thus allowing consumer choice.
public opinion
Gauging the true public attitudes on
any subject is always a difficult
process. However a ‘survey of surveys’
suggests that UK consumers are less
antagonistic to the introduction of GM
foods than some elements of the UK
media might suggest.
A MORI poll for Greenpeace in 2002
suggested that more than 40% of
consumers “didn’t mind whether or
not they ate GM food.”
The annual Food Standard Agency
survey for 2003 showed that
unprompted, only one in 20 people
cites GM as a food issue, and this rose
to only one in five when prompted.
The EC Eurobarometer survey of
2003 clearly expressed what
consumers expected of new GM
products if they were to support them
(see Figure 2).
The IGD Consumer Watch survey
from last year looked at how
consumers would use the new
labelling requirements when it came
to their shopping habits.
Interestingly, whilst 13% of people
would actively avoid GM ingredients, a
similar number of people would
welcome GM products in the
supermarket. Also, 47% stated that
they never looked at product
ingredients on labels.
food safety
Many of the perceived consumer
concerns regarding food safety and

the environment have been played out
by sections of the media, despite an
increasing wealth of information.
The recent publication of the report
by the UK GM Science Review has
dismissed claims that there was little
or no evidence to support the premise
that the current GM crops are safe.
Nearly 700 publications were
reviewed in this process, and the report
points out that the UK and Europe have
a very strict science-based regulatory
regime, which ensures that today’s GM
products are at least as safe and
nutritious as other foods, for example:
“...the Panel concludes that the risks
to human health from GM crops
currently on the market are very low.”
developing countries
“If anyone tells you that GM is going to
feed the world, tell them that it is
not,” says Stephen Smith, former
chairman of ABC and head of Syngenta
Seeds. He dismissed the notion that GM
crops could single-handedly solve the
world’s food problems – it might
therefore appear that the agricultural
biotechnology industry has reversed its
belief in the benefits of GM
technology; it has not. However, the
industry does recognise that simple
messages, for or against GM do not
reflect reality.
Smith went on to explain, “To feed
the world takes political and financial
will – it’s not about production and
distribution”.
Again, this view has gained
significant support from a recent report
by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics
into the ethics of GM crops in
developing countries, which concluded
that “GM crops can contribute to
substantial progress in improving
agriculture” and that they “can also be
used to prevent environmental
degradation, and to address specific
ecological and agricultural problems
which have proved less responsive to
don’t want to wait a month for tce? see www.tcetoday.com
Figure 2: What would
make consumers more
likely to purchase
the standard tools of plant breeding
and organic or conventional
agricultural practices”.
co-existence between
different forms of agriculture
With new legislation regarding the
registration and testing of GM crops
and food enshrined in law, together
with stringent regulations on
traceability and labelling, many of the
pressure groups see the ‘co-existence’
issue as being the next battlefield,
painting a gloomy, almost
apocalyptic, scenario where GM crops
dislodge all other forms of agriculture,
including organic farming, from the
UK. Is such a battle really necessary
and is this scenario really likely? The
evidence suggests otherwise.
Field trials of GM crops have been
carried out in the UK since the mid-
1980s, whilst more extensive trials,
under the Farm Scale Evaluation
programme have been running since
1999. During this time, no farmer has
lost accreditation for a crop or farm
due to its proximity to a GM field
trial. In addition, according to one of
the UK organic accreditation bodies,
the Soil Association, there is little or
no organic oilseed rape or maize
grown commercially in the UK.
This is no coincidence but is a
result of a carefully-managed
stewardship programme based on a
set of protocols produced by the
industry body SCIMAC (Supply Chain
Initiative on Modified Agricultural
Crops). Using these protocols, farmers
have successfully reduced the cross-
pollination to well below the
threshold for labelling (currently 1%).
In the case of oilseed rape, for
example, these have included a
separation distance between a GM
crop and a non-GM crop. Such an idea
is not new and is based on the real
experience of farmers who produce
industrial oilseed rape in the UK. In
guest author
the latter case, for example, co- Sarah Harvey
existence is essential since the oilseed Speck and
used as an industrial raw material is Julian Little are
toxic to people. representatives
on the
a question of consumer Agricultural
choice? Biotechnology
Real choice means people being able Council
to make informed decisions between
products produced using different
forms of agriculture.
Currently, UK farmers cannot grow
GM crops commercially and a lack of
GM food on the supermarket shelves
denies consumers the right to choose
foods produced using this technology.
Should consumers have the choice
whether to eat GM food or not?
If a new foodstuff is deemed to be
“at least as safe” as its current
equivalent, if it is produced in a way
that is highly regulated, if it is readily
recognised by endorsable and
enforceable labelling, surely its success
in the marketplace sound be decided
by consumers. Conducting market
research without consumers having the
option to choose GM products is flawed
as this research measures what people
say they will do (as ‘citizens’), rather
than what they actually do in reality
(as ‘consumers’).
On the other hand, to deny
consumers the right to choose whether
to buy a GM product (as millions of
people do around the world today)
despite the food and environmental
safety tests having been carried out,
the experience of 18 other countries
who have been growing GM crops
commercially, and the legislation and
stringent regulation already in place,
cannot be right.
When it comes to decisions
surrounding food, the government
must be led by sound scientific facts.
Decisions made otherwise completely
undermine the work of bodies such as
the Food Standards Agency, and at the
end of the day, undermine the UK’s
position as a science-based economy.
march 2004 tce 25