Briefing: Food Standards Agency White Paper

["greenbase" <greenbas@gb.greenpeace.org>]

12 January 1998

PRESS PRE-BRIEFING 

FOOD STANDARDS AGENCY WHITE PAPER

With the White Paper for a Food Standards Agency (FSA) due to be
published this week, Greenpeace today laid out its "snagging
list" of four major genetically modified (GM) food problems
which the paper must address. Should the problems remain
overlooked, the Government could walk into the same pitfalls as
those experienced by its predecessor.

1. How to deal with uncertain and unpredictable risks like GMOs
when science cannot be certain?

The BSE-CJD case provides the model of how NOT to deal with
uncertain and unpredictable risks. Those creating the FSA must
realise that simply transferring the existing advisory committee
structure to a new home in the Department of Health will not in
itself change bad decisions to good ones. GM foods pose risks
which are irreversible, widespread and potentially catastrophic,
yet the evidence may take a long time to come to light. Science
is - inevitably - incomplete and uncertain so it is best to
avoid such risks. Will the White Paper outline how the FSA is to
cope with such scientific uncertainty?

2.  How to answer the Big Picture Questions about genetically
modified foods and gain public trust.

Is genetically modified food necessary?  Is genetically modified
food actually wanted?  Is the wholesale move to genetically
modified food -which is now in prospect - the right direction
for long-term food policy?  These are the sort of questions
posed by the public but they are currently omitted from the
regulatory processes. If, and when, a GM food does create a
problem in the food chain, a backlash is inevitable should such
concerns remain unanswered. If the FSA is to gain the public's
trust, the White Paper must answer, or create a process for
answering, such questions.

3.  How will the FSA tackle problems at the point of production
-including the segregation of GM crops from traditional ones?

Some GM crops can, and will, cross-pollinate their new genes,
"transgenes", with non-GM crops anywhere in their vicinity. 
Organic farmers, for example, will not be able to guarantee that
their crops do not contain these genes, which often originate
from viruses, bacteria and other organisms quite unrelated to
the original crop plant.  

So far, there has been an absolute refusal by the powerful
biotechnology interests to allow segregation of GM foods in the
food chain. Greenpeace advocates the consumer's right to choose
non-GM food. Refusal of segregation is inimical to the
restoration of public trust and confidence in food regulation.
Will the White Paper commit the FSA to tackling and ensuring
crop segregation?

4.  The importance of environmental considerations in food
policy.

Greenpeace believes that the UK should have a Sustainable
Agriculture Policy designed to produce wholesome food whilst
looking after the environment. Genetically modified crops will
not provide such a sustainable approach to agriculture. Crops
which are genetically manipulated to be herbicide resistant lock
farmers into intensive herbicide use. Crops genetically
manipulated to produce toxins to kill predator insects can have
adverse effects on beneficial insects like bees or ladybirds.
They may also have a wider,  unpredictable impact elsewhere.
Will the White Paper address long term food security as part of
sustainable agriculture?

Greenpeace adviser, Dr Ian Taylor says:  "The creation of a Food
Standard Agency is the best chance the UK has had in decades to
make a fresh start to food policy. Yet genetically modified
foods set the Government a major challenge which the White Paper
must tackle head-on. If they do not, they are doomed to
ignominious failure like their predecessors".




ends

Greenpeace on the Internet at http://www.greenpeace.org