Two resignations and allegations that it has been biased in favour of the GM industry have put the Food Standards Agency (FSA) back in the headlines at a time when a new government could be considering its future. Ben Cooper assesses where the GM furore leaves the oft-troubled UK food body.
With a new government looking to cut costs and possibly reform or disband the Food Standards Agency (FSA) now is not a good time for the organisation to become embroiled in another controversy.
Go deeper with GlobalData
The resignation of two members of the FSA Public Dialogue Steering Committee over allegations that the agency has favoured the GM industry in its approach to the planned consultation has once again brought the organisation into the media spotlight.
Since Helen Wallace, director of campaign group GeneWatch UK, and Professor Brian Wynne, a social science expert specialising in the relationship between science and the public, stepped down from the committee three weeks ago, the furore has died down but the situation remains unresolved.
Critics of the FSA’s approach to the GM issue have made much of the GBP0.5m cost of the consultation and in a time of austerity the Government may decide there are good reasons for cancelling or postponing a process which has at best been compromised and at worst discredited.
The decision whether or not to go ahead now rests with ministers, though no timeframe has been set for that decision. “This is something we were commissioned to do by a Labour government,” an FSA spokesperson told just-food. “The government has since changed so it’s only right and proper that we re-present it to them.” The FSA stressed that the consultation would have been resubmitted even if the row had not erupted.
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataIt is in a way ironic that a public interest pressure group may have brought about the cancellation of a public consultation. However, Wallace believes the consultation in the form envisaged would be a waste of public money. “There really is no point in going ahead with a dialogue that doesn’t have the support from all sides in the debate and is not seen to be an open and fair process,” she says.
Wallace has also suggested that the FSA is not looking to replace her with another campaigner representative on the steering group. The FSA said it was waiting until the new government confirmed the dialogue was going ahead before attempting to do this. “It would seem rather premature to recruit two new members when we don’t know if this is going ahead. If it goes ahead we will have plans to deal with things like that,” the spokesperson said, adding that the organisation had worked “extremely hard” to ensure the steering group was balanced and all groups were represented.
Wallace contends that the dialogue was framed in line with industry positions, such as the idea that it is “inevitable that retailers would have to change their policy on GM within 12 months because there was going to be a shortage of non-GM soya”. She says the view that GM is vital to addressing global food security has defined the dialogue, and also alleges that GM Crops and Foods, a report published last year as a follow-up to the government’s Food Matters report of 2008, also reflects bias to industry.
But the FSA spokesperson pointed out that the report pre-dates and was “totally separate” from the consultation. She added that all stakeholders, including NGOs, had been given the opportunity to comment on that report.
A number of prominent scientists have defended the FSA’s approach and questioned Wallace’s views on GM.
Professor Jonathan Jones of the John Innes Centre told just-food: “The FSA sought advice from all quarters regarding how to deal with the fact that 80% of our animal feed is imported, and most of the soy and maize on world markets is GM. They consulted industry including seed companies as well as others. To conclude that the FSA is biased because of that seems wrong.”
Meanwhile, Professor Maurice Moloney, director and chief executive of Rothamsted Research, says the dialogue is not reflecting a pro-GM stance but is being guided by science. “Science is agnostic. The reality is that over 300 billion meals have now been served with some kind of ingredient from GM products and nobody’s fallen ill, nobody’s become allergic. It’s the largest toxicology trial that’s ever taken place in the world and nothing happened. So it’s hard to persist with the idea that there’s something fundamentally dangerous about GM.”
In fact, he says having someone on the committee who is already decided on the issue is inappropriate, though Wallace says GeneWatch has never taken an “absolutist” position on GM.
“What we have to do is look at the facts and try and decide whether there’s risk, whether there’s unacceptable risk, or whether the technology has been used successfully without detriment,” Professor Moloney continues.
The Government is known to be looking at the FSA closely anyway. The organisation was set up by the last administration as an independent advisory agency for the Government on food issues. As part of a wide brief, it was also charged with ensuring that the public are kept informed on food issues and, along with all stakeholders, consulted on matters of policy.
In this instance, it appears to be that very objective that has caused it problems. Helen Wallace was brought into the steering committee to represent the GM-sceptic view. Her resignation may not have been entirely unexpected therefore, though she stressed that she had resigned because of how the dialogue was being approached rather than because of any personal views on GM.
In addition to the constant challenge of achieving balance, the FSA also has to cope with an extremely wide brief. The term “food safety” is interpreted broadly, covering policy and research on food hygiene and safety, and responding to contaminations and scares, the safety and suitability of food ingredients and additives, nutrition, healthy eating and food labelling, and enviro-agricultural issues such as organic and GM. Its operations are therefore relevant to a number of government departments, notably Defra and the Department of Health, but it has its own budget (GBP160m last year) and does not come under the auspices of any one minister or department. While the FSA operates independently, it is publicly funded, staffed by civil servants and ultimately accountable to the Government.
The incoming coalition government may have other fish to fry at the moment but it seems likely that at some stage it will want to review the role of the FSA and assess whether there could be other ways to manage policy on the wide range of areas the organisation covers.
When that time comes, the FSA’s record over the past ten years will be assessed. Its notable successes, for example its campaign to reduce salt consumption and its general contribution to raising awareness of diet and health issues, will be taken into account. But so will a number of high-profile media storms, over issues such as food labelling and additives and most recently organic and GM, where the FSA’s judgment and its ability to act in the public interest while balancing diverse stakeholder opinions has been called into question.
