1.People want independent information on GM foods, finds new study
2.Re: GM-free label good for business
Eve Mitchell, Coordinator of GM Freeze

EXTRACT: Shoppers also want a clear labelling system to tell them if the food they buy is genetically modified or *if products like milk and meat were produced from animals given GM feed.* (item 1 - emphasis added)

[The EU's] labelling rules are routinely misunderstood or misrepresented by the media, politicians and companies both here and in the US, usually stating that the EU has a threshold of 0.9% for labelling GM, which is not the case. (item 2)
---
---
1.People want independent information on GM foods, finds new study
Daily Telegraph, 25 Nov 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6652037/People-want-independent-information-on-GM-foods-finds-new-study.html

People want truly independent information to help them make up their minds about genetically modified (GM) foods, according to a new study for the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

Shoppers also want a clear labelling system to tell them if the food they buy is genetically modified or if products like milk and meat were produced from animals given GM feed.

The study, Exploring Attitudes to GM Food, was published by the FSA as a group set up to prompt public discussion on GM food meets for the first time.

The report will be presented to the independent GM Dialogue Steering Group which was set up by the FSA at the Government's request to decide how best the public can be informed and involved in discussions on GM food.

The new research suggests consumers do not trust all the information they receive about GM products and are suspicious of the Government's stance.

The report's conclusions say the FSA is ''well positioned'' to provide the public with information about GM food but only if it can ''provide evidence to the public of its independence from government, from business and from campaigning organisations''.

Shoppers told the National Centre for Social Research, which carried out the study, that they find current labelling ''inconsistent and confusing'' and they want all GM food products to be clearly marked.

Suggestions to improve labelling included clearly marked specialist GM ranges within stores or a traffic light system grading food according to whether it contains no GM material, GM derived ingredients or GM ingredients.

Researchers questioned 30 people who had previously responded to a question about GM food in the annual British Social Attitudes survey.

They were chosen to represent a range of opinions so the study could look at how they formed their views on GM foods.

The study also quizzed those who did not have a strong opinion and came to the conclusion that while some were unlikely to form a firm view in future, others were undecided because they felt uninformed.

Researcher Clarissa Penfold said: ''We found people aren't indifferent but they are undecided or unsure. There are people who don't care but there were others who found it difficult to form an opinion.''

The steering group, which meets for the first time today and tomorrow, aims to find out consumers' views on GM food and will discuss what information people need to make an informed choice about what food they eat.

Its work will inform future Government policy.

In August Environment Secretary Hilary Benn warned that a ''radical rethink'' of the way the UK produces and consumes food is needed,

His remarks came as the Government published an assessment showing that future global food supplies could be threatened by the impacts of climate change, expansion of crops grown for fuels and a growing population eating more.

The new steering group is chaired by John Curtice, a politics professor and director of the Social Statistics Laboratory at the University of Strathclyde.

Other members include Dr Guy Barker, director of the Genomics Resource Centre at Warwick HRI, Warwick University, Professor Ian Crute, chief scientist for the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Dr Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch UK, a not-for-profit organisation that campaigns for genetics to be used in the public interest and Brian Wynne, professor of science studies at Lancaster University, and associate director of the ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics.
---
---
2.Re: GM-free label good for business
Eve Mitchell, Coordinator of GM Freeze

[Eve's responding to the comments here: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11702-voluntary-and-mandatory-labelling ]

For some time we've been trying to knock the idea of a 0.9% threshold. Our line on this has been:

EU regulation 1830/2003 requires that ANY GM content in food and feed carries a GM label, regardless of whether ingredients have been processed and contain no GM protein. In some circumstances, if the level of GM in the product is under 0.9% the product may be exempt from this labelling requirement provided the supplier can demonstrate by means of analysis and paper records that the GM presence is adventitious or technically unavoidable (ie, can prove the GM contents is wholly accidental, but it cannot continue).

The law is intended to require manufacturers a) to know what is in the ingredients they are using and b) to tell their customers. Only under certain circumstances of very low level incidents proved to be accidents might this requirement be waved.

Vegetable oil, starch, or lecithin, which are produced from GM crops but contain no detectable GM protein, have to be labelled. These ingredients must be traceable by means of paper records back to unprocessed crops for which analytical records should be available.

These labelling rules are routinely misunderstood or misrepresented by the media, politicians and companies both here and in the US, usually stating that the EU has a threshold of 0.9% for labelling GM, which is not the case.

This is important to help prevent zero tolerance of unapproved crops changing via some "technical solution" to permit a threshold. If it is routinely believed that the law permits GM to freely circulate under a threshold, there is less ground from which to fight similar moves in other areas, as thresholds would be portrayed as clearly "acceptable".