Speaking at a conference yesterday (November 13) in London organised by the agri-food consultancy European Food and Farming Partnerships (EFFP), Jim Moseley, who is also md of General Mills UK and Ireland, called on the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to take the lead in proving to the public that consumption of GM food posed no threat to health.
Moseley stressed speed of action was essential in ensuring that the UK didn’t fall behind the rest of the world in the adoption of modern production techniques and, as a consequence, lost its all-important export markets.
Food manufacturing
“Despite its great heritage around food manufacturing in the UK and Europe, we could become a food museum as all the markets around us adopt this and other new technologies,” he warned.
However, he argued that it was not the role of manufacturers to promote the use of GM technology. “It is unlikely that manufacturers will put their heads above the parapet on GM,” said Moseley.
Despite widespread use of GM around the world and no evidence that it poses any health risk, anti-GM campaigners, such as the Soil Association, which represents the interests of organic producers, have continually questioned the safety of GM.
“First and foremost we have got to prove that this technology is safe and in my opinion the FSA is the first port of call in that debate,” said Moseley. “From a manufacturing point of view and from a FDF point of view, we will be encouraging the FSA to start an evidence-based debate around the safety of this particular technology.”
BBC’s Food Programme
In a panel session at the EFFP conference titled ‘More with less – driving performance, sustainably’, radio presenter Sheila Dillon from the BBC’s Food Programme, supported Moseley’s call for further research into GM safety, with the FSA taking the lead. She said: “There is virtually no evidence that these technologies are safe.”
In the US it is not necessary to label foods as GM, unlike in the EU, and Dillon argued that recent unsuccessful moves in California to introduce GM labelling in the US showed that “the safety data is lacking”.
However, National Farmers Union President Peter Kendall strongly refuted arguments by those who claimed GM was not safe and not an effective tool in improving agricultural efficiency.
While he supported the call for the FSA to take the lead making the case for GM, unlike Moseley, he felt it was important that all stakeholders in the in the food sector – including farmers and manufacturers – stepped up their game in arguing the case for GM and convinced the UK public of its safety. “Yes, the FSA does have to lead on this, but we have all got to get out there,” he said.
Iglo Group ceo Martin Glenn said that, while some sections of the population would always avoid GM foods as a “lifestyle choice”, demand for technologies such as GM would grow as pressure increased on farmers to become more efficient to feed the growing world population, while minimising their environmental impact.

8 comments (Comments are now closed)
Clear definitions
Living in Canada, there's an argument for and against GMOs like in any other country. Those here who are concerned about GMOs applaud what is happening in Europe and in Japan.
However, to be devil's advocate – a definition on what constitutes GMO should be established. If it mimicked a natural process: that is selecting only the genes that naturally occur in strawberries to make them larger and sweeter, it seems like something that could be accepted. Farmers have been doing that since farming came into practice – grafting stronger plants onto others, cross pollinating the flowers from the sweetest, juiciest peach to other peach trees. I see no harm in that.
I do, however, have a problem with messing around with non-related species genes or adding chemicals to the genetic make up of our food that is not naturally occurring. There hasn't been any testing to prove or disprove that it's safe. How many times do we have to show that we need to see long-term affects of such drastic changes in the genetic structure of natural things?
I suppose I'm on the side of natural evolution, in some part mixed with science but not Frankenfood.
Report abuse
Posted by Erica Tang
26 November 2012 | 18h01
"Dredging the Depths" should take a closer look at own biases
Mr. Dyall,
I can, and I do. And with two research degrees from The University of Chicago and years of biology and biopsychology bench research experience under my belt, I am fully qualified to make educated judgments on the quality and accuracy of the science behind the GMO safety claims. And the scientific evidence is abundantly clear: GMOs pose both known and unknown safety and health risks to the environment and human health.
Aside from the emerging empirical evidence on GMO risks, the reality is, we don't even know HOW to study and predict the effects of genetic modification on either the organisms modified, or those that interact with the modified organisms. For an explanation of why, I refer you to the book Evolution: A View From the 21st Century by Robert Shapiro, Ph.D. Surely a person as well-versed as you has at least heard of it?
Dr. Shapiro lays out a very cogent, empirically-based argument re: the deficiencies in the current paradigms used to understand genetic function. When we know that we don't even understand how the system works, we are, de facto, unable to understand, let alone predict, the effects of our actions on it.
On that basis alone, we are logically unable to argue that genetic engineering is safe. Since we know that we don't know what we're doing, to say that our actions will have no unintended consequences is a malignant lie. For governments to ignore this fact and gamble with the future viability of our planet, at the behest of the agri/pharma industry, is criminal in a way that dwarfs any other types of human rights and environmental crime.
I'm always amazed at the thoughtless, cavalier way that some people treat themselves and others, for the privilege of serving as a toady to those who manipulate and use them for their own gain.
Report abuse
Posted by Jennifer Christiano
21 November 2012 | 19h41
He is just a mouth for Monsanto
Too bad hope he eats this stuff, I don't. Avoid the corn and soy beans, this stuff is not fit for animals – hell the bugs won't eat it, why should you?
Report abuse
Posted by bob
21 November 2012 | 16h25
Not against progress but pro food safety
First of all, with economic evaluations there must be the right of future generations to have a better quality of life – that is, ability to access the right quantity and quality of food in an suitable environment. As of today there is no such guarantee by GM to these rights, and the right to continue nourishing with natural foods.
Report abuse
Posted by SG
21 November 2012 | 14h05
Blatant disregard for proper scientific process and scrutiny
Mr Mosely is pushing for government to endorse GM foods calling for it to lead in ''proving to the public that consumption of GM food poses no threat to health'' and to do it quickly.
First, it is not the place of government to be the propaganda unit of an industry representative body that wants something done right away, or to prove to its citizens a technology is safe. It is for the owners of the technology and the scientific community at large to seek independent science, free from bias and vested interest, which demonstrates it poses no harm.
Then there must be rigorous academic interpretation and debate at the meta-analysis level world-wide. This hasn't been the case if you read widely around this subject.
Perhaps, it is utterly impossible to say there is no harm to 'health' because, like it or not, we are all linked to the environment and health isn't limited to physical conditions of the body. The consequences of the environmental impact of GM and the chemicals it uses are far from certain.
Would one choose to grow crops in soil that had GM chemicals in it that were so strong that nothing but the GM crop intended for it could survive?
Who would want to eat from an earth so polluted with chemicals that nothing grows but a patented seed crop anyway?
The soil is alive and needs to be nurtured.
Granted the food industry does a fantastic job in bringing food to me in convenient and attractive culinary ways. I love it. Thank you food industry.
But I believe my trust is being eroded.
Clearly, the investors in this GM technology are becoming impatient and want to see their returns quickly. I want to see good health for all.
Belief is a powerful contributor to health. If I don't believe in the concept of GM food production, because I believe it damages the health of the environment and has ethical issues that are far being resolved, that is my choice. I should be able to purchase accordingly.
When I believe that good food, produced in the way it always has been (from those 'food museums' you might call traditional farms) is good for my health and the health of others and the environment, I feel better already. And I have greater confidence in the world around me. Is that a marker of health?
Would GM technology damage that belief and thus on some level my health - think of the stress?
Report abuse
Posted by David Kay
16 November 2012 | 13h44
GMO Labelling
As long as foods containing GMOs are labelled as such, I don't see the UK consumers buying them.
That fact seems to be recognised by Monsanto and some of the larger US food producers in their opposition to GMO labelling in California.
A museum we may well be, but at least it will be of our own choosing
Report abuse
Posted by Richard Poulson
15 November 2012 | 17h26
Dredging the depths
All Roger Pelizzari's comments are dredged up from the depths of the anti-GM brigades' output and the propaganda of the organic lobby.
There's not a dollop of genuine science in any of them. Nothing from any science journals.
If you can't read and understand the science Roger, at least listen to those who can and do.
Report abuse
Posted by Valentine Dyall
14 November 2012 | 17h36
Better to be a museum than a graveyard...
Genetically modified organisms pose the most serious threat to the UK.
The Food and Drink Federation needs to do some serious reading:
Why genetically engineered food is dangerous: New report by genetic engineers
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/60-why-genetically-engineered-food-is-dangerous-new-report-by-genetic-engineers
http://truth-out.org/news/item/12715-monsanto-and-genetically-engineered-food-playing-roulette-with-our-health
19 Studies Link GMOs to Organ Disruption —
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/?p=1340
GMOs Failing Worldwide
http://www.foei.org/en/media/archive/2011/cracks-widen-in-biotech-industry-myths
Can biotechnology help fight world hunger?
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/washington2.php
Why Genetically Altered Food Won't Conquer Hunger
http://www.biotech-info.net/GE_hunger.html
Monsanto's herbicide causing Sudden Death Syndrome in plants
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22488.cfm
Doctors Warn - Avoid Genetically Modified Food
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/03/25/doctors-warn-avoid-genetically-modified-food.aspx
GM Crops Decimating Monarch Butterflies Habitats
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/july2011/GMcropsmonarchbutterflieshabitat.php
Austrian Government Study Confirms Genetically Modified (GM) Crops Threaten Human Fertility and Health
http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/11/22/austrian-government-study-confirms-genetically-modified-gm-crops-threaten-human-fertility-and-health/
GMOs failing across America - Farmer to Farmer film reveals disastrous failure
http://www.naturalnews.com/z033264_farmers_GMOs.html
Syngenta corporation faces criminal charges for covering up livestock deaths from GM corn
http://www.naturalnews.com/036315_Syngenta_GM_corn_livestock_deaths.html
Report abuse
Posted by Roger Pelizzari
14 November 2012 | 16h23
Read all comments (8)