London (1.2.09) – For many years, one of the planks of Soil Association policy has been to oppose the introduction of transgenic technology, both in their own “organic” products and for everybody else.

What they do about their own activities is, of course, their own business, inconsistent though it may be. They abjure transgenics, about which a lot is known, but not mutagenesis breeding, untested and much more extensive in its effects (1). Part of their motivation might be philosophical (there is no accounting for other people’s philosophies) but part appears to many people to be clearly commercial: transgenic technology offers to do much of what they crave in reducing chemical inputs without also accepting smaller yields as “organic” practices are forced to do. It is accordingly a potential and perhaps also a commercial threat.

It must have been their philosophical department which prompted objection to air-freighting “organic” products from Africa and elsewhere (2, 3). Important though it is for African and other farmers to sell their products in Europe, the “organic” high priesthood decided that it offended “organic” principles and ought to be banned. They began to take steps in that direction over the objections, naturally enough, of some of those African farmers likely to be seriously affected (4, 5).

But things change and so does the Soil Association; after deep thought and, it seems from The Times (6), pressure from supermarkets to allow air-freighted produce to display the “organic” label, they have decided that perhaps air freight is not so bad after all.

Can we then expect them on their Damascene road also to have a rethink about their attitude to GM? Might they do that voluntarily or will such a decision also come in the form of caving in to external pressures? Could those pressures then also come from supermarkets? The Times noted that Sainsbury’s has argued customers should be free to make their own choices. Would Sainsbury’s, incidentally, like to apply that argument to their customers making up their own minds about whether on not to buy GM products in their stores and not leaving it to Sainsbury’s managers to decide by not putting such products on the shelves? We know that many of those customers are by no means averse to the idea of GM foods (7).

Will Sainsbury’s change their minds about GM before the Soil Association does so – or will it be the other way round?

Sources:

1. Rita Batista, Nelson Saibo, Tiago Lourenço and Maria Margarida Oliveira (4.3.08). Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 105(9), 3640-3645 (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/9/3640.abstract)

2. Soil Association- Organic and air freight, are they compatible? (29.5.07). Natural Choices (http://www.naturalchoices.co.uk/Soil-Association-Organic-and-air?id_mot=7)

3. Air freight (no date). Soil Association (http://www.soilassociation.org/AIRFREIGHT)

4. Soil Association: Air freight consultation Stage Two: Recommendations for Standards. A Response by FlyingMatters and the Kenya High Commission (no date). Flying Matters (http://www.flyingmatters.org.uk/files/FM%20%20Kenya%20High%20Commission%20Response%20to%20SA%20consultation.pdf)

5. ITC, UNCTAD, UNEP Statement on Soil Association Air Freight Consultation (no date). UNCTAD, ITC, UNEP (http://www.unep-unctad.org/cbtf/events/UNCTAD_DITC_TED_MISC_2007_4.pdf)

6. Ben Webster (27.1.09). Organic lobby anger as Soil Association backs food by air. The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5594335.ece)

7. Do European consumers buy GM foods? (14.1.0.08). European Union (http://www.kcl.ac.uk/consumerchoice)

<<<back