Owners of Apple personal computers often receive games with their purchases and one which intrigues tiny tots is of a shoe shop where a creaky door opens and the task is to pick the pair the customer wants; the right colour and the right size. A wrong selection and the computer blares out: "That is not what the customer wants."
Supermarkets failed dismally to appreciate the merits of this simple game when it came to genetically modified (GM) foods. Unwanted produce does not move from shelves. It was only when an element of hysteria arose, fuelled by supermarket panic in Britain, did realisation take hold that European consumers in general do not want them. They see no benefits in GM foods as they exist, are suspicious of products that may have GM ingredients or derivatives, and have little faith in labels, with the current shambles over what has to be labelled and what does not.
Consumers may bask in their power as it is they who forced change. But they should not fall for any line that supermarkets are acting in the interests of public health or the environment. The bottom line is competitive advantage over their rivals - it's better financially to be seen just now to be withdrawing GM foods than attempting to suggest they may have merits, say in terms of cost.
Finding the reasons for the dramatic market shift over the past two months towards removing rather than quietly introducing GM products is easy with hindsight - Tesco, as widely expected, was this week the latest supermarket group to join the ranks of the GMfree (or almost), though its commitment to this is luke-warm, according to the campaign group Genetic Concern.
The complex science of GM food technology was such that it bamboozled most consumers up to late last year. In-house customer groups whose buying preferences are meticulously evaluated were not setting off alarms; so much so that supermarket retailers were lulled into believing their customers were not unduly bothered. But this year, the frequent sight on television of Labour ministers in Britain getting edgy as the controversy flared, and acres of newsprint, particularly in campaigning newspapers, engaged consumers across the board.
The most recent survey of Tesco customers confirmed many are concerned about GM foods and one-in-four want them removed from shelves. So Tesco is to remove GM ingredients from products "wherever it is practical to do so" - not as clearcut a commitment as others, but even that promise will be hard to deliver without systematic segregation of crops.
Tesco gave careful consideration to "going GM-free", as most UK supermarket groups have decided, while Superquinn has joined an alliance of Europe's biggest food retailers in banning GM ingredients in their own products. Dunnes Stores, not surprisingly, is said to be re-assessing its position.
Tesco customers are saying they are "suspicious of GM-free claims made by others, and want the supermarket group to be both open and honest". Tests in Britain, which found GM soya in some prepared (non-Tesco) foods said to be GM-free, did not inspire confidence.
When fallout over GM labelling reached a height last year, Tesco decided to label foods as extensively as possible, even beyond limited EU regulations. It has stood over this way of assuring customers but now says "where we cannot absolutely guarantee that all ingredients are GM-free, we will label".
Tesco Ireland's technical manager, Mr Bill Paterson, said: "Our customers say current GM products offer no new benefits, so it's not surprising that some want them removed and the great majority want a proper choice."
Tesco's latest position is to "remove GM ingredients where we can - and label where we can't". It is, nonetheless, "keeping the door open for GM products if they bring real benefits" - biotech companies like Monsanto dispute this view, claiming they are already leading to less herbicide use and a better environment, while the next generation of GM foods will, they say, bring tangible nutritional benefits.
The dilemma for supermarkets was aptly summed-up by Mr Quentin Gargan of Genetic Concern: "Consumers do not want science-based or any other-based labelling - they want straightforward labelling which tells them whether or not any ingredient was derived from a genetically engineered plant."
For a multiplicity of reasons, that simple demand is not easy to satisfy, not least because of the diktats of free trade once a product is deemed safe. In the meantime, however, segregation of GM and non-GM foods has, in effect, been forced on crop producers because of the decrees of supermarkets responding to customer demand. It has come back-to-front in chaotic fashion, and not at the ordered behest of governments, which campaigners have sought for so long.
The bottom line for the GM food producers and developers of GM technology (who are largely concentrated in the US) is chilling. Spectacular growth predicted for GM foods across the world will not be matched in Europe.
