Store assures customers on GM foods

Independent scientific evidence suggests there is no risk from genetically-modified (GM) food above conventional foods, the supermarket group, Superquinn, has told its customers. The information is contained in a leaflet being distributed at all its stores.

The move coincides with attempts by the European Commission to finalise new labelling rules on GM foods, which come into force on September 1st. These will supersede a controversial labelling scheme introduced by the business group, IBEC, and adopted by most Irish supermarkets.

The Superquinn group said it was "not acting as judge and jury" on the GM foods issue, but was taking on board the view of appropriate regulatory agencies. It is in the process of introducing a more extensive labelling scheme for such foods than operates in most Irish food retail outlets.

In response to customers' concerns, Superquinn pointed out: "The authorities assure us that safety and risk assessment for GM foods is as stringent as that for conventional foods, and independent scientists say there is no evidence to suggest these foods are unsafe."

Superquinn's marketing director, Mr Eamonn Quinn, said they envisaged customers having a choice, much in the way people like to buy organic foods. He accepted that many do not want to buy GM foods. "We will be working with suppliers, tracing ingredients, to ensure the fullest possible information."

The group's nutrition adviser, Ms Paula Mee, said the leaflet was not an endorsement of GM food, nor was it associated with any particular lobby group. "We are not saying there's no need for concern. There's a need for a rational debate contributed to by scientific experts."

She added: "In general, I may have grave concerns about some processed foods. But there is a correct, rational way of going about and addressing these."

Genetic Concern, Ms Mee said, had recently been handing out leaflets to customers which in her view amounted to "causing a lot of people to be hyped up about the issue in the wrong manner". They referred to fish genes in tomatoes, which were not labelled accordingly, yet the only GM foods on Superquinn shelves were soya-based or maize-based, she said.

Superquinn labels, it was intended, would reflect documented tracing "showing exactly where maize or soya is coming from".

Gene-modification resulted in the production of new proteins. "For the information to be meaningful, we have been advised to base labelling on the presence of these new proteins, because this is the main detectable difference between conventional and GM soya/maize."

If Superquinn was not in a position to certify for the presence or absence of the protein, as for example with soya products from the US, where GM and traditional soya was not segregated, labels would suggest they were produced as a result of genetic engineering - in line with IBEC's labelling system, which has been criticised by Genetic Concern for being misleading.

In line with the new EU regulations, oils and other soya/maize derivatives that were from modified crops would not be labelled, as they did not contain modified protein. The oils, Superquinn said, were identical to the oils from the non-modified seeds and did not contain genetic material.

Superquinn underlined that all GM foods "undergo the most exhaustive safety assessments" and stated that genetic modification could give desired characteristics "more quickly and accurately than was previously achieved by other methods". It allowed for less herbicide and pesticide use, it noted, and enabled production of disease-resistant crops; longer-lasting fruits and vegetables capable of surviving extreme weather; and foods with higher vitamin, mineral and protein, and less fat content.

Meanwhile, IBEC has accused Genetic Concern of increasing confusion with its recent "information awareness" campaign. "To make an informed choice when purchasing food products, the consumer should be made aware of all accurate facts on the subject," according to Ms Kathryn Raleigh, of IBEC.

She said Genetic Concern had failed to point out that GM products had to undergo more stringent safety and risk assessment tests than conventional foods.