The Food Industry has survived the worst economic downturn that many can remember in much better shape than most other business sectors. A combination of tight management control, product innovations, entrepreneurship and smart marketing has helped it to successfully ride out the storm.
But more difficult times could lie ahead, ignited by the Government’s recent proposal to review the viability of the Foods Standards Agency (FSA) and fuelled by GM food and nanotechnology as they clamber up the agenda.
The FSA grew to be seen as a champion of consumer rights following its fight with the food industry over the traffic light labelling proposals. Abolishing this organisation now will only help agitate the growing and vociferous bands of food campaigners, ably assisted by certain media.
Just look at these comments from this Guardian article under this heading: “Food Standards Agency to be abolished by health secretary Victory for food manufacturers as health groups accuse Andrew Lansley of caving in to big business”
Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum, said it was "crazy" to dismember the FSA. "It had a hugely important role in improving the quality of foodstuffs in
Tom MacMillan of the Food Ethics Council, said: "The agency was set up to earn public trust after a succession of food scares. Its wobbles, like the latest row over GM foods, have come when that commitment has wavered. Any departments absorbing the FSA's role should heed that lesson carefully, doing even more to invite scrutiny and banish the slightest whiff of secrecy, or the new government could face another BSE."
Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, the organic food standard-bearer, which had several run-ins with the first FSA chair Lord Krebs on the issue, said: "Many NGOs campaigning on food thought for a long time the food industry has an unhealthy degree of influence over the Department of Health so the great risk is the corporate vested interests of the food industry will have too strong an influence on future policy."
Consumer perceptions
Ignoring consumer groups is a dangerous precedent in the internet age. And the amount of blame that is laid at the door of the food industry for the nation’s weight and health problems during the HFSS (High Fat, Salt, Sugar) debate highlights how effective these groups can be when they get the bit between their teeth.
It’s an issue that’s difficult to combat collectively as a business sector because of the diversity of food companies involved, with their individual ethics and credos leading to a wide range of opposing opinions and views on issues affecting the industry. While the success of some food companies is built on low-fat, reduced salt and no sugar products; others, like Kelloggs, are battling consumer groups over their HFSS content.
Many flourishing, modern, food businesses have developed innovative products that bypass the major problems afflicting the older, more traditional, food conglomerates by focusing on more indulgent, niche and less cost-conscious markets; therefore avoiding the lower-cost, mass production processes. However, the whole industry has been dragged in by the media and tainted in many people’s eyes by the negativity surrounding the FSA and food labelling. Winning back these disaffected consumers may be costly.
There are important lessons to be learnt from the HFSS situation which could be used to benefit the whole food industry when the debate over GM foods and nanotechnology really hots up.
Where are we going with GM and nanofoods?
If Professor John Beddington, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser and Head of the Government Office for Science, is right we only have twenty years to avert a global catastrophic food problem and that we must urgently embrace GM and nanotechnology to avoid it. His ‘Perfect Storm’ speech last year painted a gloomy picture for the future.
There is plenty of support for his viewpoint (here’s one example) and just as much opposing it. According to many, GM products will grow in hostile environments, require less water, need less herbicides and insecticides and produce bigger yields – wow, a real panacea for a growing global population. However, you don’t have to look far to find a totally different perspective. As this line from an article by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho highlights, “It is the Day of the Triffids - not the genetically modified plants themselves as alluded to in John Wyndham’s novel - but “super weeds that can’t be killed”, created by the planting of genetically modified HT crops”.
Nanotechnology is just as controversial, only with more secrecy involved. You only need to check out this blog, which details a few of the more interesting New Scientist nanofood stories and some of the issues involved with it, to grasp the dilemma. With such a huge variety of opinions being peddled (from well-researched to complete twaddle), it’s no wonder consumers can’t gain a clear perspective on these important and growing issues.
In the years ahead it may not be possible to have food production without some reliance on either GM produce or nanotechnology. It’s therefore important that these subjects, involving novel food development, are rationally debated now. There needs to be a way to channel, manage, organise and categorise a free flow of ideas, opinions, facts and figures so people can more easily gain a more rationale insight on the developments and their possible implications.
Replacing the FSA?
This is where the food industry can really make an impact. By working together they can create and fund an independent agency whose remit to do exacting as stated previously (…to channel, manage, organise and categorise a free flow of ideas, opinions, facts and figures so people can more easily gain a more rationale insight on the developments…). To encourage open debate and objectivity on GM foods, nanotechnology and the other key issues facing the sector should be its prime objective. Rather than letting the consumer groups and others expound their viewpoint alone, the food industry (through this independent agency) can help ensure that all the facts and statistics are brought to the fore, that questions are answered accurately and that there is a fair voice for all.
This agency would need to be a totally separate body to guarantee impartiality and allay consumer fears and media scepticism – which means being run completely autonomously with no input from the organisations that provide the funding.
Its directive would be to become a hub for information, knowledge and advice as well as providing a forum for open debate - offering consumers, journalists etc., valuable and unbiased assistance. Therefore allowing them to research and reach their own conclusions on their topics of interest without being directed one way or another.
By paying only a small annual fee each to support this resource, the food companies collectively gain excellent opportunities to garner positive media coverage and an avenue to build and develop consumer trust though honestly acknowledging all the opinions, positions and problems associated with novel food development and by allowing all independent voices to express their views.
A major plus point of this approach is that individual companies do not have to declare their stance on any topic, such as GM foods – alleviating a major concern for many in the industry.
To ensure independence this resource cannot afford to be linked to an association like the FDF, which has to serve the needs of the food industry and has to take a very standard industry position on the subject of GM food.
The food industry could take a leaf out of the FSA’s book, who even webcast live their management meetings, in their bid to be totally open in their dealings with the public. This independent agency, funded by the food industry, could provide a valuable service to consumers, by offering clarity and impartiality on controversial industry topics. In this way the food industry would benefit from improved consumer trust and a more positive media profile.
Keith Rouse
0 comments:
Post a Comment