Saturday 26 May 2012
Headlines
Did you find this story interesting? (0) (0)
25/11/2003
Government must protect organic food and consumers
The Soil Association today welcomed the fact that the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) has in its report given the Government clear recommendations about what it needs to do to protect organic food and farming from GM contamination.
"The Commission has put the choices we face clearly in front of the Government," says Peter Melchett, Policy Director of the Soil Association. "The Government can allow GM crops to be grown with no controls at all so that everyone has to eat some GM food whether they like it or not. Or legally enforceable rules can be introduced to protect non-GM food.
"Some members of the Commission recommended that the GM industry or Government must pay in the event of GM contamination. The Soil Association believes the GM industry must pay. The alternative view put forward by some of the commissioners, that organic farmers must bear the cost, would mean that people buying organic food would pay more."
The Soil Association welcomes the AEBC's view that a legally enforceable, statutory set of rules are needed to protect non-GM and organic crops. These rules would cover issues such as ensuring that there are suitable separation distances between GM and non- crops, and insisting that neighbouring farmers must be notified if GM crops are to be grown. However, pro- GM members of the AEBC have said they would only agree if 'making the necessary legal arrangements did not cause significant further delay in GM crops being made available to farmers'.
"Protecting non-GM food means ensuring no GM contamination down to the level of detection - 0.1%," says Peter Melchett.
In 1999, Food Safety Minster, Jeff Rooker said that the Government would not allow public money used to support organic farming 'to be put at risk by a cross-contamination of GM crops'. "The Government should keep their word," says Peter Melchett.
Contamination
The report makes clear that it is not just organic organisations such as the Soil Association that want to keep GM contamination out of food. The Commission says 'British supermarkets are working at or towards a 0.1% threshold for their own brand non-organic products, as well as for organic food': this shows that the EU's current threshold of 0.9% is not acceptable.
But the Commission says 'some of us strongly suspect on the basis of the available evidence that successful co-existence at 0.1% would be unachievable if there were significant areas of GM crop cultivation', and for this reason 0.1% should be rejected.
The report states, 'the opposing view is that organic producers are responding to consumer demand for as little GM material as possible in their food and that 0.1% is a rational and reasonable threshold to set in response to this consumer demand. Organic farming is established and growing and there is little or no appetite for GM products in the UK: the onus should be on GM cropping to take place, if it takes place at all, in a way that respects the 0.1% standard adopted in organic agriculture. The EU coexistence guidelines ought to recognise this'. (paragraph 163)
The report goes on, 'The bottom line is that given market circumstances and consumer attitudes, we should not attempt coexistence without at the very least making compensation available for farmers suffering an economic loss in relation to a 0.1% threshold, for both organic and non-GM crops. Growing GM crops should be constrained as required to achieve that, including if necessary ruling out their cultivation altogether.' (paragraph 164)
Compensation
The Commission is divided on compensation, with some believing that it should be available for economic loss arising from breaches of the 0.1% threshold. The Commission recommend that there should be special arrangements for compensation for farmers suffering financial loss, but add, 'our understanding is that the agricultural biotechnology industry would be unwilling to underwrite a compensation scheme for any losses related to 0.9% and even less willing to do so for breaches of thresholds lower than this'. (paragraph 301)
Peter Melchett says, "Not surprisingly, the Commission was divided, because its GM industry representatives knew that commercialisation of GM crops will lead to contamination of organic food. This report makes clear they won't even agree to compensate non-organic farmers whose non-GM crops are contaminated above EU limits, and have to be labelled as GM. Their arrogant determination that they should get their way whatever the cost to others is breathtaking."
"The Commission has put the choices we face clearly in front of the Government," says Peter Melchett, Policy Director of the Soil Association. "The Government can allow GM crops to be grown with no controls at all so that everyone has to eat some GM food whether they like it or not. Or legally enforceable rules can be introduced to protect non-GM food.
"Some members of the Commission recommended that the GM industry or Government must pay in the event of GM contamination. The Soil Association believes the GM industry must pay. The alternative view put forward by some of the commissioners, that organic farmers must bear the cost, would mean that people buying organic food would pay more."
The Soil Association welcomes the AEBC's view that a legally enforceable, statutory set of rules are needed to protect non-GM and organic crops. These rules would cover issues such as ensuring that there are suitable separation distances between GM and non- crops, and insisting that neighbouring farmers must be notified if GM crops are to be grown. However, pro- GM members of the AEBC have said they would only agree if 'making the necessary legal arrangements did not cause significant further delay in GM crops being made available to farmers'.
"Protecting non-GM food means ensuring no GM contamination down to the level of detection - 0.1%," says Peter Melchett.
In 1999, Food Safety Minster, Jeff Rooker said that the Government would not allow public money used to support organic farming 'to be put at risk by a cross-contamination of GM crops'. "The Government should keep their word," says Peter Melchett.
Contamination
The report makes clear that it is not just organic organisations such as the Soil Association that want to keep GM contamination out of food. The Commission says 'British supermarkets are working at or towards a 0.1% threshold for their own brand non-organic products, as well as for organic food': this shows that the EU's current threshold of 0.9% is not acceptable.
But the Commission says 'some of us strongly suspect on the basis of the available evidence that successful co-existence at 0.1% would be unachievable if there were significant areas of GM crop cultivation', and for this reason 0.1% should be rejected.
The report states, 'the opposing view is that organic producers are responding to consumer demand for as little GM material as possible in their food and that 0.1% is a rational and reasonable threshold to set in response to this consumer demand. Organic farming is established and growing and there is little or no appetite for GM products in the UK: the onus should be on GM cropping to take place, if it takes place at all, in a way that respects the 0.1% standard adopted in organic agriculture. The EU coexistence guidelines ought to recognise this'. (paragraph 163)
The report goes on, 'The bottom line is that given market circumstances and consumer attitudes, we should not attempt coexistence without at the very least making compensation available for farmers suffering an economic loss in relation to a 0.1% threshold, for both organic and non-GM crops. Growing GM crops should be constrained as required to achieve that, including if necessary ruling out their cultivation altogether.' (paragraph 164)
Compensation
The Commission is divided on compensation, with some believing that it should be available for economic loss arising from breaches of the 0.1% threshold. The Commission recommend that there should be special arrangements for compensation for farmers suffering financial loss, but add, 'our understanding is that the agricultural biotechnology industry would be unwilling to underwrite a compensation scheme for any losses related to 0.9% and even less willing to do so for breaches of thresholds lower than this'. (paragraph 301)
Peter Melchett says, "Not surprisingly, the Commission was divided, because its GM industry representatives knew that commercialisation of GM crops will lead to contamination of organic food. This report makes clear they won't even agree to compensate non-organic farmers whose non-GM crops are contaminated above EU limits, and have to be labelled as GM. Their arrogant determination that they should get their way whatever the cost to others is breathtaking."
No Comments
Nobody has posted any comments on this story.
|
Farming items for Sale
|
New Holland T6080 PC - Omagh(GBP 55800)
Massey Ferguson 6290-4 Dynashift - Cirencester
(Price on Application)
(Price on Application)
Case cs75 4wd, Chiltern loader - Telford(GBP 15450)
John Deere 6920 - Lancaster
(Price on Application)
(Price on Application)
Case Magnum MX250 - York(GBP 50500)
Related News
UK consumers want Government action to curb food price inflation - 04 Jul 2011Rising food prices are driving a major shift in way UK shoppers buy and think about food. New research finds that in response to inflation-busting ...
Locally produced Organic Food available to Yorkshire Consumers - 01 Aug 2006Something rather strange is happening around the dinner tables of middle England. We are no longer just talking about the weather, or football, or wha...
Call for organic “revolt” by consumers - 22 Dec 2004The Soil Association has called for a consumer revolt over organic stocking rates. As reported in the Ranger the Soil Association is furious at the...
Beef supply shock on way unless government, retailers and consumers anticipate new world market pressures - 30 Jul 2007Government, consumers and retailers must get used to the idea that the days of over-cheap food are over, the National Beef Association has warned. ...
UK Government launches consultation on protecting Scotch Whisky - 31 Dec 2007Jeff Rooker, Minister for Sustainable Food and Farming at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, today launched a UK-wide consultatio...
EU-funded Quality Low Input Food project indicates significant nutritional benefits from organic food - 29 Oct 2007Early results of the £12 million 4-year Quality Low Input Food (QLIF) study indicate organic fruit and vegetables contain 40% more antioxidants (belie...
Cabbage king signs consumers to Red Tractor Food - 30 Nov 2006Hundreds of farmers and growers across the South East are joining forces to encourage consumers to buy more home produced 'Red Tractor' food. ...
Transparancy the key as food producers do their 'level best' for consumers - 17 Jul 2007The South Somerset Food Festival on 29th September part of British Food Fortnight - sees the launch of a brand which will raise the quality-bar for al...
Most consumers are not concerned about buying GM foods, says new EU Study - 15 Oct 2008Most consumers are not concerned about buying GM foods, according to a latest EU study. Euro-MP Robert Sturdy today hosted a press conference with th...
Consumers want clearer food labelling – so let them have it - 23 Nov 2009The NFU is calling on the European Parliament to give UK consumers want they want - clear country of origin food labelling so they can be sure where i...
