FSA GM Dialogue Must Put Citizens First - New Survey raises concerns
Immediate release 25 November 2009
FSA GM
Dialogue Must Put Citizens First
New Survey
raises concerns about political nature of latest research and new public “dialogue”
GM Freeze has expressed deep concern as to why the
FSA should ask the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) [1] to “explore the circumstances in which people change
their views” on GM crops.
This was one of the
objectives of research published today by the FSA ahead of the first meeting of
the Steering Committee for the FSA’s GM public dialogue.
Commenting Pete Riley of
GM Freeze said:
“The FSA is supposed to be at arm’s length from government and act in
the interest of food safety on behalf of UK citizens. Exploring “the
circumstances in which people change their views” on GM is a step too far - the
FSA appears to be doing the work of the Government, which does not always coincide
with the wishes of UK citizens.
“The results to the NatCen research highlighted that the
public is skeptical about GM food for a variety of reasons and want clear
labels so they can choose whether to buy products made using GM technology,
including meat, dairy products and eggs, which are currently not labelled in
the UK. If Government and political parties want to know how to change public
opinion, they should pay for the research themselves and not involve the public’s
food safety watch dog. They have made an serious error in judgment in asking
NatCen to explore this area, and the FSA should now not be part of the new
public dialogue.
“The GM Dialogue will look at a very small part of the
food chain - GM - which has already been done several times, most recently by
NatCen’s research. So why bother
again? And why not look at other vital issues such as food security? The GM
Public Dialogue is about the wrong issue, organised by the wrong body, and we
see no justification for more public money being spent on this. If it goes
ahead, the Steering Committee must be allowed to conduct it free of government
influence and interference.”