As the United States prepares to launch a trade war over European plans to label all GM food, a new MORI poll reveals that British consumers want European leaders like Tony Blair to stand up to George Bush and defend their right to know what they're eating.
The Bush Administration is angry about a proposal to amend an EU Directive, which would make it compulsory to label all food containing GM ingredients or derivatives. The EU has already applied an informal moratorium on approvals for GM crops. Now the United States is preparing to demand that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) overturns the proposed amendment. Washington is threatening a trade war if Brussels doesn't back down.
In March of this year Peter Kurz, trade official at the US embassy in London, told a House of Lords Select Committee that his government would be making it clear to the WTO that the EU proposals are "not workable and could unduly impair trade." He argued they would "set a precedent that could also be applied to non-agricultural industries," before adding, "We do not see any ground for compromise in these proposals."
A new MORI poll released today demonstrates that the British public strongly supports the EU initiative. 76% said the labelling of all food with GM ingredients should be made compulsory. But if the US action succeeds, consumers will have no idea if they are eating GM food.
Greenpeace campaigner Charlie Kronick said: "Tony Blair has a choice. He can defend US corporations or he can defend British people. George Bush is determined to help America's GM industry dominate Europe's food supply, but Mr Blair is better placed than anybody to stop him. The Prime Minister should stand up to Bush and protect the rights of British consumers and our environment."
The poll also reveals that public resistance to GM food is still widespread, despite claims by the industry that opposition to the technology is fading. MORI found that the number of people who believe the risks of GM food outweigh the benefits, outnumber supporters of the technology by two to one (39% vs 18% - with the remainder either undecided or feeling the risks / benefits are about the same).
Countries including China, Croatia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and New Zealand have sought to implement restrictions on GM imports or introduce compulsory labelling. In each case they backed down after the US threatened action at the WTO. Now the Bush administration is employing a similar tactic against the EU. In February this year US trade representative Robert Zoellick told the House of Representatives that the EU stance was "totally unacceptable I'm strongly considering bringing a WTO action." He added, "I want to put a real focus on this this year."
Greenpeace has written to Tony Blair asking him to clarify the position of the UK government on this issue and urging him to stand up to bush. To date no reply had been received.
Notes to editors:
Existing EU regulations require the labelling of certain GM food products. This means that at present if a product contains more than 1% of GM material it must be labelled. The EU proposes to amend the regulations, extending the labelling scheme to include animal feed and all products containing and derived from GM ingredients. As such, for example, oil from GM soya beans would have to be labelled. If the US action succeeds, both the existing regulations and the proposed amendment could be threatened.
Between 18-22 April 2002 MORI interviewed 1,004 adults aged 15+ face-to-face in their homes. In total, 193 sampling points were covered by the nationally representative quota sample, and final results are weighted to the adult population.
MORI asked: "From what you know or have heard about GM food, on balance, which of these statements, if any, most closely reflects your opinion?" 18% said the benefits outweigh the risks to some degree, 39% said the risks outweigh the benefits. The remainder thought the risks and benefits were about the same (24%) or did not know (18%).
MORI also asked: "Thinking now about the labelling of GM food products (that is the identification and explanation of the ingredients on the product's packaging), which, if any, of these statements comes closest to your own opinion?" 76% said it should be compulsory to identify all products with GM ingredients, 11% said it should only be compulsory to identify products with GM ingredients above a certain level, but not all GM products, 6% said it should not be compulsory to identify products with GM ingredients at all and 7% didn't know.
Kurz comments to House of Lords Select Committee, from Lords hear conflicting views on EU proposals on GM food labelling, ENDS Reports, Issue No 326, March 2002.
Zoellick comments, from US moots GM action, The Grocer, February 16th 2002.
Further information:
Contact:
Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255
