Food Discussion Day
a consumer's view
The NfCG Food network held a discussion day in London on May 12th, hosted very generously by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF ). Maeve Robertson, a member of the network and also a Member of NfCG's Legislation and Consumer Affairs Committee (and Edinburgh Consumer Group) spoke about both the Network's and her own concerns.
"I want", she said, "to highlight three interconnected, ongoing food issues that I would like NfCG to put to Government on behalf of grassroots consumers, asking that their interests should be paramount and protected (and when I say government I mean perhaps the new Food Standards Agency, MAFF, and whoever or whatever else is appropriate).
"Now, at the end of this century and approaching the millennium, we are at the beginning of what is likely to be the most far reaching and important change in our food supply since we humans gave up being hunter-gatherers and took to settled agriculture.
"Some good may come of it. I hope it will. I am not impressed when people say it is against nature so it must be wrong. Nature can play some dirty tricks, although, when you come to think about it, often with our help - such as dust bowls and DDT. And BSE - remember the MAFF Consumer Panel was told not to be worried by the scaremongers".
No evidence can never mean no risk in genetic engineering
Maeve was a member of the MAFF Consumer Panel for six years during the rise and rise of BSE. "No-one", she said, "could have coped with the situation unfolding with complete certainty; MAFF drew the short straw and, I have no doubt, did its best to contain the growing disaster, but mistakes were made and we were all too easily reassured. There were no scientific reasons to believe that scrapie could, or would, jump species, that vertical transmission could take place between cow and calf and, above all, that there was any possibility of risk to humans. How innocent we were! I learned, I hope we all learned then, that no evidence can never mean no risk.
Fears about genetic engineering
"I would like to believe, but do not see any signs, that government is keeping BSE in mind when, on behalf of another industry, they assure us that there is no scientific evidence to justify our fears about genetic engineering and possible environmental damage.
"Horrible and tragic though it was, and is, BSE is a local difficulty compared to the global problems that could arise if the warning voices turn out to be correct - again. There are some highly qualified scientific doubters out there. I hope that they are being given a fair hearing.
"We are planting genetically modified crops now, in the countryside around us. Genes do jump, viruses do mutate, new allergens are created. Against these risks (which may indeed be very small and yet significant) what are the gains? I have yet to see any signs that the hungry are to be better fed (and I have been asking the questions) or that the generality of processed foods are cheaper because they contain genetically modified soya. So far, the benefits go only to the companies who manipulate the genetics and that, it seems to me, will continue into the foreseeable future. I worry that this manipulation is the use of power by large corporations against ordinary people who cannot influence the outcome.
"Governments, with consumers in mind, might ask more questions and go more slowly, give less weight to the competitive edge and give more serious thought to risk avoidance".
Antibiotic resistance
Maeve suggested that the second area where we need protection is that of antibiotic resistance; and hormones; and hormone-mimicking substances. "All these" she pointed out "are used in the interests of health - and wealth - and growth promotion. The 30 month rule for slaughtering cattle must be reconsidered for certain breeds if it means that healthy animals are fed with antibiotic growth promoters to bring them prematurely ready for slaughter while they are still young enough to enter the food chain.[685]
"The continued use of antibiotics in genetic engineering is extraordinary, For years there have been promises that the use will be phased out and yet, right now, we have in our fields crops that carry antibiotic resistant marker genes. There is no absolute certainty that the resistance will not be passed on.
"We are already awash with antibiotics and hormones. Please do not let us follow the Americans and give the green light to BST, which are hormones to increase milk yield. The European moratorium ends soon and the approval of BST will be discussed again. It brings problems for cows that we can do without, leading incidentally to increased us e of antibiotics, and we do not need that extra milk. Consumers must hope that the UK representatives will argue more strongly against BST this time than they did before. The moratorium was introduced more in spite of, rather than because of, the arguments of UK Ministers".
Labelling
Maeve's third issue was labelling. "Labelling", she said "and what I have always to be consumers' inalienable right to information and choice. If we have insufficient information on labels how can we choose? We may believe that GM food is safe to eat but still would like to be able to choose not to buy it for environmental reasons; to choose try to protect tomorrow's world from unpredictable alien species around us today.
"The ability to make an informed choice is an important consumer right. We have to look to government for protection and assurance that, where there are regulations, these are adequate and are enforced. We heard earlier that there are only two inspectors concerned with releases from Gm crops to cover the whole of the country form the north of Scotland to the most southern part of England. This staffing level cannot justify claims of the closest possible scrutiny.
"I am afraid that this is all to familiar to all of us. There is nothing here which I was not nagging about when I was on the Panel. To sum up, the three things for which consumers should demand effective protection are:-
As a sad footnote the following appeared in the Kentish Times on April 30th 1998.
Vegetarian Dies from CJD.
Clare Tomkins was only 24 when she died at the end of April. She had been a vegetarian since the age of thirteen. She became ill two years ago and was diagnosed as suffering from the new form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in August last year. The unanswered question which her family faces is: how could a young girl, a vegetarian for eleven years, die from a disease related to eating beef? It is a question which we should all like answered. The enquiry into the causes of BSE in cattle continues. [1222 words]
Return to index for this issue Return to main magazine selector