M&S, Co-op and Sainsbury's say chickens will be fed on GM soya. This is the headline the Guardian carried recently. The big surprise here is the decision of Marks & Spencer's to follow the crowd.
In 2007 M&S launched a 5 year plan - dubbed Plan A - to incorporate improved sustainability within the M&S retail model. They recently ehanced the Plan with the aim to become the most sustainable major retailer by 2015: 'Through Plan A we are working with our customers and our suppliers to combat climate change, reduce waste, use sustainable raw materials, trade ethically (my emphasis), and help our customers to lead healthier lifestyles'.
In page 32 of their How We Do Business Report 2012 this is their statement on GM: 'Aim: Maintaining our non-GM M&S food policy. Progress: We’ve maintained our policy of only using non-GM ingredients in M&S food'.
So why has M&S along with other supermarket chains made this perplexing switch? Well this is the reply I got when I commented on the M&S Facebook page: 'GM animal feed is now so common that the vast majority of meat – over 80 per cent – sold in the UK is fed on a GM diet. The supply of non-GM animal feed (maize and soy) has shrunk to a point where it is no longer possible for us to specify non-GM animal feed. There may be pockets of non-GM supply in the market in the short term but not enough for us to guarantee the integrity of supply to maintain our policy'.
However the position in Europe contradicts this statement, which is reflected from the other supermarket chains. This recent article from GM Watch points out that 'supplies of non-GM soy are plentiful. UK retailers only have to express firm demand in advance in order to secure them. It looks increasingly likely that the UK is being used as a captive market and dumping ground for unwanted GM soy coming into Europe. This fits nicely with the pro-GM stance of the UK government, who'd like nothing better than to force the British public to accept GMOs on the false basis that there is no alternative.
'Brazilian conventional soy producers' organisation Abrange was highly critical of the supermarkets' herd mentality last month. In a scathing statement responding to the abandonment of GM-free policies, Abrange pointed out that major retailers in mainland Europe have introduced new GM-free labelling in response to customer concerns, and added that the desire for clearer labelling is shared by the British public. Abrange executives said that last year Brazil alone enjoyed "a record soybean harvest of over 82 million metric tons, bigger than the United States' and definitely large enough to more than provide Europe's entire soy meal demand".'
Its quite clear then that the alternative is available. It therefore appears that the supermarkets haven't done their homework and they seem to taking the word of their suppliers at face value.
But there is also evidence that the UK Government could be influencing the issue. Here the buck finds its final resting place at the door of Environment secretary Owen Paterson. He is on record as saying that concerns over GM are 'complete nonesence' and has described opponents of GM has "humbugs" and said the case for the technology needed to be made "emphatically" in Britain. Apparently he has the backing of George Osborne, who believes GM could provide economic opportunities for British farmers.
But it isn't just the Government that's backing GM. The main noise for the relaxation in GM rules in the UK is coming from Sir Mark Walport, the Government's chief scientist. You can make what you will of the 'official stance' of the UK Government: 'We recognise that GM technology could deliver benefits providing it is used safely and responsibly, in particular as one of a range of tools to address the longer term challenges of global food security, climate change, and the need for more sustainable agricultural production. Developing countries should have fair access to such technology and make their own informed decisions regarding its use'.
Apparently the Government wants a public debate on the issue but given this Governments track record to date, I wouldn't be surprised if the debate becomes somewhat one-sided.
So what is the Greenpeace stance on this issue? Well given that the key debate here revolves around GM soya, Greenpeace made this statement back in 2004, following criticism of loopholes that allowed the availability of GM animal feed: "With half the world's soya, which is widely used in food products and animal feed, now GE, the urgency is clear for all to see," said Dan Hindsgaul from Greenpeace. "At every opportunity, Greenpeace will confront GE soya, be it along export routes or the food chain. In Brazil, we are at the forefront of the battle against GE soya, and in China we are working to protect the homeland of soya from genetic contamination. In Europe, we have launched Operation Trolley Watch, where concerned consumers are joining up to rid supermarket shelves of products containing GMOs."
Update
The March against Monsanto is a Global day of action. Here in Scotland, events will be taking place in Glasgow and Edinburgh. If you live elsewhere, you can find a march near you here.
Comments