from Stephen Smith, chairman, Agricultural Biotechnology Council
Sir; While I was interested to read Pete Riley's perceptions of your opinion poll on GM foods (The Grocer, September 21, pages 4 and 44, and Letters, September 28), I thought I might put some of the points made into a wider context.
First and foremost, recent opinion polls show a steady decline in the proportion of people saying they would avoid GM foods. This may well be because people are increasingly aware there is little substance to the numerous stories previously perpetrated about the harmful effects associated with GM products.
People also react in different ways when asked certain questions. For example, other polls show even larger numbers of people who wish to avoid food produced using pesticides or artificial ingredients, despite their safe use in the production of a large proportion of foods.
True consumer values come from polls which do not lead or precondition the interviewee, like the recent IGD and FSA polls which show that price, taste and convenience are far more important to people than whether it has GM ingredients or not. It is also interesting to note that recent polls have also indicated that a very large proportion of consumers avoid buying organic food, yet nobody would suggest this provides grounds for limiting its availability.
Over and above these points, which refer to the context in which opinion polls should be read, it is also important to note that Riley wrongly states that the biotech industry is lobbying for labelling to be removed.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Europe has the strictest labelling regulations in the world and companies in the biotechnology industry readily fulfil all their obligations under these regulations. The industry strongly backs consumer choice and believes that practical, full and accurate labelling is an important part of it.
{{COMMENT & LETTERS }}
Sir; While I was interested to read Pete Riley's perceptions of your opinion poll on GM foods (The Grocer, September 21, pages 4 and 44, and Letters, September 28), I thought I might put some of the points made into a wider context.
First and foremost, recent opinion polls show a steady decline in the proportion of people saying they would avoid GM foods. This may well be because people are increasingly aware there is little substance to the numerous stories previously perpetrated about the harmful effects associated with GM products.
People also react in different ways when asked certain questions. For example, other polls show even larger numbers of people who wish to avoid food produced using pesticides or artificial ingredients, despite their safe use in the production of a large proportion of foods.
True consumer values come from polls which do not lead or precondition the interviewee, like the recent IGD and FSA polls which show that price, taste and convenience are far more important to people than whether it has GM ingredients or not. It is also interesting to note that recent polls have also indicated that a very large proportion of consumers avoid buying organic food, yet nobody would suggest this provides grounds for limiting its availability.
Over and above these points, which refer to the context in which opinion polls should be read, it is also important to note that Riley wrongly states that the biotech industry is lobbying for labelling to be removed.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Europe has the strictest labelling regulations in the world and companies in the biotechnology industry readily fulfil all their obligations under these regulations. The industry strongly backs consumer choice and believes that practical, full and accurate labelling is an important part of it.
{{COMMENT & LETTERS }}
No comments yet