The number of European retail food outlets moving to try to eliminate genetically modified foods from their "own brand" labels and to have proper labelling of all foods containing genetically modified ingredients continues to grow. The frozen food store Iceland made such an announcement some time ago and the major UK supermarket chain Asda followed shortly thereafter. Now a larger, international group, including Superquinn in Ireland, Marks & Spencer in both Ireland and the UK, Sainsbury in the UK and supermarkets in Belgium, Switzerland, France and Italy have made similar announcements. It may reasonably safely be presumed that these decisions are primarily commercially motivated: there is, without question, a much greater consumer resistance to GM foods in Europe than in America.
Numerous surveys of public opinion have shown Americans to be much more confident of the benefits, and much less worried by any risks, of GM foods than their European fellow-consumers, especially those in Austria and Germany. It may well be that Americans are more trusting of their major regulatory agencies - particularly the Food and Drug Administration agency in Washington - than are Europeans, and the historical record shows that there is considerable justification for this. One factor is certain: hard scientific evidence of either real or imagined risks from the consumption of these foodstuffs is extraordinarily difficult to come by - just as hard evidence of potential benefits is hard to find. The cases for and against genetic modification remain to be proven.
The problems facing the scientific community are enormous, but it remains true to say that the majority of biochemists and nutritionists continue to support (with varying degrees of qualification) the use of genetic engineering as a means of improving both the quality and quantity of food. Yet they remain unable to prove safety with any certainty because, logically and scientifically, it is impossible to prove a negative. Thus, any person or any lobby group positing a potential risk will never get an absolute refutation from any responsible scientist, and scientists who are expert in this field are variously divided on many relevant issues.
It is, therefore, inevitable that the arguments and controversies and discussion of GM foods will continue for many years to come. The first GM foods to become widely available (tomatoes and tomato puree) arrived and have remained available largely with acceptance rather than with argument. It may have been this initial acceptance which persuaded some of the larger bio-technical industries to proceed with arrogance rather than openness to promote their products and resist either regulation or labelling of those products.
For as long as the disputes and discussions continue, however, the public must be provided with personal choices in how it determines what it eats. That is why it is ethically and democratically important that foodstuffs be properly labelled and why it is important that food that is not genetically modified should be available as a matter of choice. That is why the recent decisions of a growing number of retailers is to be welcomed. The greater the critical mass of potential customers, the more powerful will be the economic weight with which Europe can argue with United States companies to change their ways from power and secrecy to caution and openness.