Consumers concerned about genetically altered food
RTw 25.09.97 01:46
Copyright 1997 Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved.
The following news report may not be republished or
redistributed, in whole or in part, without the prior written
consent of Reuters Ltd.
By Gillian Handyside
BRUSSELS, Sept 24 (Reuter) - Consumer and environmental groups
told a food industry conference on Wednesday there was deep
public concern over the potential dangers of genetically modified
foodstuffs and warned of consumers rejecting entire brands.
"Companies are exposing themselves to a significant
commercial risk," Douglas Parr, campaign director for the
environmental organisation Greenpeace, told a conference on the
commercial and regulatory implications of gene-altered foods.
"Genetically modified food has the potential to be a target
(of a consumer boycott)," Parr said, citing a European
Commission survey showing most people were profoundly uneasy
about genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and distrusted
government and industry claims they were safe.
The conference comes only days after the European Commission said
there was no scientific justification for Austria, Italy and
Luxembourg to keep a national ban on import of genetically
altered maize.
Britain's influential Consumer Association (CA) said public
concern about food safety and gene-changed foodstuffs -- such as
soybeans sold by Monsanto (MTC.N), maize sold by Swiss group
Novartis (NOVZN.S) and J. Sainsbury Plc's (SBRY.L) tomato puree
-- had soared as a result of the BSE (mad cow disease) crisis.
"The BSE crisis had produced a fairly significant shift in
attitudes towards food generally," Julie Sheppard, the CA's
senior public affairs officer, told the conference.
CA surveys in 1996 indicated more and more people no longer
wanted to give their children beef, were increasingly worried
about what might be in processed foods and did not believe
official assertions of food safety.
Consumers thought there should be more research into genetically
altered foods before they appeared in the shops, and that they
should be labelled and segregated from conventional foods,
Sheppard said.
The public saw little advantage to consumers from genetically
engineering plants and animals, she added.
Sheppard saw parallels between the introduction of genetically
engineered foods and the crisis caused by mad cow disease, a
fatal brain disorder thought to have been caused by the use of
sheep's brains and other animal proteins in cattle feed.
Like the use of this now notorious animal feed, the development
of genetically engineered foods was strongly producer-driven, she
said.
Official assertions of the safety of beef were "based on
incomplete knowledge," and in the case of genetically
modified foods, the authorities were giving "strong seals of
approval" on the basis of seemingly flimsy evidence from
field trials, Sheppard said.
No-one knew what the impact would be of large, commercially
growing monocultures of genetically altered plants, she said.
Greenpeace's Parr said the unforeseen effects of certain genes on
others made genetic engineering inherently unpredictable, adding
that certain gene changes could trigger allergies or produce
toxins.
Sheppard said the mad cow epidemic had revealed the
"colossal failure" of the risk assessment methods used
by the authorities, and that the public was aware the same
authorities were responsible for assessing the risks of genetic
modifications.
Food safety regulations had also proved inadequate, she said,
citing the European Union's recently adopted rules on the
labelling of novel foods, which are already being modified in the
wake of consumer concerns REUTER