There are a number of inter-related agricultural considerations developing in both the UK and EU contexts.

One derives from differences in attitude to labelling of GM content in food products. EU regulations require a label if any food, or any ingredient in a food product exceeds a content of 0.9% material derived from a GM source. That applied to all products, including those produced by “organic” procedures.

Parts of the organic lobby, however, have been arguing for a content threshold of no more than 0.1%. They tried recently to make that a legal requirement in the EU: some people take the view that the attempt was made so that “organic” farming, which prohibits the use of gene technology or its products, would become more difficult and more expensive, so buttressing the claim of the lobby that GM cultivation would destroy their own activities and that GM should be banned or further disadvantaged as a consequence.

Opponents of that view pointed out that the pursuit of “organic” practices is totally independent of whether or not the plants involved have been genetically modified and that all our crops plants, “organic” or not, have been so modified in various ways for ten millennia. The prohibition of the use of gene technology is thus a political and marketing ploy intended to maintain “organic” market share and promote the “organic” brand.

Alex Smith of Alara, Chair of the Food and Drink Federation's Organic Group, said that “There is overwhelming evidence that one of the main reasons that consumers buy organic is to avoid eating food containing any GM.” Bearing in mind that there are rather few GM-containing products on sale in the UK and most EU countries, and that concern for GM appears low down on the list of consumers concerns about food, that is an odd remark. Does it mean that consumers actually see no benefit in the “organic” products themselves and that without their fear of GM they would not buy them? Perhaps so but it sounds unlikely.

In the event, the lobby lost their fight and the threshold for all foods remains at 0.9%. The hard liners, however, are pledging to keep their own criteria at 0.1%. The Soil Association, one of the main lobby groups, said that maintaining this standard could incur extra costs to farmers and growers which in turn would push up prices. It could indeed and it would not be difficult to see who was responsible. Meanwhile, more and more experts are challenging the claim that “organic food” is any better for health than standard food, with increasing numbers of consumers wary about paying a premium for such produce.

A DEFRA spokesman commented: “The 0.9% threshold was supported by this Government and was agreed at EU level.

“The association are quite within their rights to set their own level if they wish as long as it is under 0.9%. However we think it is unrealistic to think in terms of a zero (or 0.1%) threshold - it would not work in practice.

“If producers had to declare any level of GM presence, no matter how small, they would be forced to label everything as ‘may contain GM’, which would not offer an informed choice.”

Sources:

1. Harry Wallop (21.6.07). GM labelling 'may push up organic food prices'. Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/21/ngm121.xml)

2. Philippa Jones (21.6.07). Organic companies lobby Miliband on GM “contamination” – IFBN. Food and Drink Europe (http://www.foodanddrinkeurope.com/news/ng.asp?n=77522-food-and-drink-federation-organic-gm-labelled)

<<<back