Then Along Came the GM Salmon

It started as a week of positive news for food, food labelling, and British farming. The MEP's in Brussels voted for clear country of origin labelling, sweeping aside the ambiguity which meant that food can be labelled British even though it was only packed in this country rather than actually born or grown here. Then the Red Tractor celebrated 10 years of existence and here too clarity is emerging with the symbol accompanied by the Union flag meaning that the product really did start life here. Yes there are still niggles and wooliness. The Tractor without the Union flag can be used on foods which come from abroad but adhere to British standards, and on foods where the main ingredient is only 65% of the finished product. Both could mislead, but progress has been made towards the transparency that today's consumers demand.

Then along comes the GM salmon, coinciding with the GM potato trials just starting, and the ruckus at the Food Standards Agency which stands accused of being less neutral than it should be. The salmon, which grows 2 to 3 times faster than normal, was pictured dwarfing its tiny, conventionally farmed sister, and at a stroke reinforced perceptions of Frankenstein foods.

The last piece of research on GM was done by the Institute of Grocery Distribution in September 2008. It showed that 15% of those questioned strongly opposed GM, and 20% tended to oppose. Just 3% strongly supported the technology and 10% tended to support it. The IGD points out that, despite much publicity, the picture had hardly changed since it's 2003 research where 17% were strongly opposed and 3% strongly supportive.

The issue of course is that consumers do not know what to think, as vested interests rush to defend their corner, and no one has come up with a compelling reason why GM is a good thing. The FSA is reportedly about to spend £500,000 of scarce taxpayers money on more research which will probably show yet again that British consumers don't like the idea of GM.

Indeed, however rational you are, and however much you support science, that salmon is just plain creepy, and will do nothing to further a very controversial cause.

At the very least, should by some combination of genuine benefits from GM and overwhelming pressure from lobbyists GM products appear on our supermarket shelves, the products need to be clearly and unambiguously labelled. No weasel words, no vague statements, and no arguments about the need to mention if the amount of GM falls below a certain percentage. As much effort needs to go into this as on pro farming initiatives like the Red Tractor or country of origin labels.

Like growing numbers of the British public, I want to know exactly what I'm eating.