Press release - for immediate publication
Appeal by biggest Dutch retail chain in GE soybean case fails on all points
In february the Natuurwetpartij (Dutch Natural Law Party) filed a complaint with the Advertisement Code Commission against false and misleading advertising by Albert Heijn, the biggest Dutch retail chain. Albert Heijn is part of the Netherlands based multinational Ahold, which has retail chains in different parts of the world. Albert Heijn had published an artcle in its free monthly magazine (1.8 million copies) in which it advertised genetically manipualted soybeans as having the same quality as natural soybeans. The Natural Law Party argued that this and other statements by Aholdıs supermarket chain were untrue and misleading to the consumers. The Advertisement Code Commissiion confirmed three out of four charges made by the Natural Law Party and recommended Albert Heijn to not make such misleading advertising any more.
Contrary to the claims made by Albert Heijn, genetically manipulated soya has not the same quality as natural soya. The article also suggested that the Dutch government, the Consumers Union and the European authorities performed extensive testing of the soybeans. They did however not test the soybeans directly, but evaluated summaries of research performed by Monsanto, the US-based multinational which manipulated the soya beans.
Aholdıs retail chain did not accept the decision of the Advertisement Code Commission. They sought assistance from an external law firm and filed an appeal. The Appeal Commission now has decided that the appeal fails on all points and maintains the decision by the Advertisement Code Commission.
Dutch food retailers give in to American pressure
After several years of negotiation, Dutch food retailers, the food industry, consumer organisations and the government had reached an agreement that products containing genetically manipulated products would be labeled as such. In this gathering Albert Heijn was a strong proponent of labeling and free choice for the consumer.
With the first introduction of a major genetically manipulated crop, Monsanto, the US- based multinational who manipulated the soybeans, upset the agreement. A big amount of the manipulated soybeans is being mixed in with the natural ones to force through the manipulated beans against the will of the consumers. The American secreatry of state for agriculture has declared publicly that pressure should be put on the European consumers to trade the culture of food for what he calls 'good science'.
This puts the food retailers in a very unpleasant position. The vast majority of the consumers does not want to buy genetically manipulated food. Albert Heijn then had the choice: either demand the freedom of the choice for the consumers (their original standpoint) or make their customers buy the genetically manipulated soya.
The attempt of Albert Heijn to advertise the genetically manipulated soya in its free magazine is obviously a serious mistake. The verdicts of the Advertisement Code Commission confirm clearly the misleading character of the advertisement. To commend the manipulated soybeans to the customers may have seemed to be an easier strategy than a powerful stance to protect the freedom of choice of the consumer.
Propaganda for genetic manipulation is not correct and is misleading
The attempts to convince the public with untruths and half-truths does not foster trust in genetically manipulated products. If they are as good as it is claimed, is not sufficient then to tell the truth? After all it is not just the dimes and nickles from selling foodstuffs that are important, truth also matters.
Albert Heijn states in its yearly report that genetic manipulation 'can mean a lot to society in the future'. However, it has become apparent to the representatives of the Natural Law Party who were involved in the hearings before the Advertisement Code Commission that Albert Heijn has very little knowledge about the serious and unpredictable risks of genetically manipulated foods.
The article by Albert Heijn merely repeats the propaganda of the genetic manipulation industry. The situation with the other supermarket chains is not much better. In contrast with the food retailers in some other countries the Dutch branch forms a closed front, which in fact is against the interests of its customers. It is really incredible.
Unpredictable risks
Monsanto has manipulated into the soybeans genetic material from a flower, a bacteria and a virus. The investigation into risks is directed at just a few percent of the substances that are present in the bean. The declaration of safety and permission given by the government are for a large part based on speculative expectations brought forward by the producer himself.
The scientific advisers of the Natural Law Party confirm that the researches of genetically manipulated foods do not even make a start with the investigation of risks that are brought about by the process of genetic manipulation itself. These are experimental foods of which little is known. The Natural Law Party holds the standpoint that consumers should have the right to avoid those risks. General labeling of genetically manipulated products and separation of the manipulated crops are necessary to achieve this. If the retailers want it, they certainly can demand this and bring it about.
Next week the Advertisement Code Commission will hold a hearing concerning a second complaint brought by the Natuurwetpartij against Albert Heijn. The countryıs biggest grocer claims that lecithin and oil derived from genetically manipulated soybeans are exactly the same as those from natural soy. That also is not true.
for information call:
Natuurwetpartij
Rivierenlaan 166,
8226 LH Lelystad
tel. +31-320-258181, fax +31-320-258155
eMail <info@natuurwetpartij.nl>
World Wide Web: <http://www.natuurwetpartij.nl>