Research conducted in Britain by the Food Standards Agency has revealed consumers are generally unaware of a number of issues surrounding genetically modified food and feed. The results of research conducted in autumn 2012 were published on Wednesday (9th January).

image expired

Consumers participating in FSA research were found to be under-informed of current labelling requirements, which mean food that directly contains GM ingredients must be labelled, but labelling is not required for products from animals fed on GM or cheeses produced using GM enzymes.

FSA also found that "Participants were generally unaware of the use of GM animal feed by farmers, [but] once made aware of its use they typically considered that products from animals fed GM feed should be labelled, consistent with previous FSA research." Consumers consulted by the agency suggested that, in line with the findings on GM feed use; consumers expected 'GM free' labelling to mean a product was completely free of GM material.

In some EU countries, food is labelled as 'GM free,' though a small amount of 'accidental presence' is tolerated, however, in the UK GM labelling focuses on identifying foods containing GM organisms. Participants were in favour of labelling GM presence, rather than absence, to give consumers "the right to know". The European Commission is considering whether to standardise the labelling scheme across the bloc.

Researchers working on behalf of the FSA interviewed around 1,500 participants from all over the UK. Overall 67-68 percent of respondents thought GM labelling was "very important" for both foods with GM ingredients and foods from animals fed on GM. Only 12 percent said such labelling was not important.

49 percent of those questioned said they would be less likely to buy a product labelled as 'containing GM ingredients.' 41 percent said they would be more likely to buy a food product labelled as 'GM Free'.

Cost not an issue in desire for labelling

FSA researchers also found that "When provided with information outlining likely regulatory cost implications of GM labelling, the sample tended not to alter opinions regarding what was important to label, with the suggestion that GM should be labelled and that consumers should not have to bear any cost involved."

Biotech industry representatives greeted the study's findings with scepticism., suggesting that the outcomes of the study are the result of "scaremongering", which has prevented "rational, fact-based public discussion" of GM. Along with speakers at the Oxford Farming Conference last week, these commentators called for a drive to influence consumer opinion on GM, which remains highly controversial in scientific circles, as well as amongst the general public.  

However, GM Freeze spokesperson Pete Riley said, "The FSA, Government and supermarkets have kept people in the dark about where GM is and how much is used in the UK food chain, so it is not surprising that people are confused. So far the UK Government and FSA have ignored demands for labelling of products from GM-fed animals. Supermarkets and food manufacturers have also failed to respond to their customers' wishes."

He called for the establishment of a "transparent labelling schemes for GM-free products" and said GM Freeze maintains a table showing which lines from which supermarkets come from animals not fed GM feed to facilitate consumer choice in the absence of clear labelling.

In November last year, California's Proposition 37 failed narrowly in the polls after 'big food' companies in the United States pumped $46 million into advertising campaigns to quash the measure. Prop 37 would have introduced mandatory labelling of GM ingredients in most food types. Now, the labelling debate in the United States has move to Washington State, where Initiative 522 could see labelling laws introduced by the end of the year.