Modified messages
FINAL responses to the Government's proposals for labelling genetically modified food ended on 7 September. Yet some school meal caterers remain blissfully unaware of the impending bombshell that is about to hit their businesses.
Picture the scene: a group of giggling eight-year-olds jostle in the dinner queue. But when confronted with a notice stating the meal could contain genetically modified organisms, bewilderment mounts to a crescendo of "I'm not going to eat that".
Chairman elect of the Local Authority Caterers Association, Ian Wasson, says it's entirely possible and the outcome is depressingly predictable. "Children will get hysterical, parents will be up in arms and head teachers will be demanding it is removed from the menus," he says.
The fact is that if, as is likely, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's proposal goes ahead, then within weeks all foods containing ingredients produced from genetically modified (GM) soya and maize must be labelled. Prepacked food such as sandwiches will be included in the regulation as well, following an EU directive. Despite lobbying from the Joint Hospitality Industry Congress (JHIC) and other organisations, school meal providers - and all catering establishments - will be expected to comply.
JHIC's assistant technical service manager Phil Phillips says the proposals are a "bombshell". Customers could be put off and the practical difficulties of complying with the regulation, including reprinting or changing menus, are extensive and expensive.
He argues that as there is no requirement for the USA to label or separate GM crops from other crops, it makes it impossible for food manufacturers, let alone caterers, to label food accurately. There is also confusion over the threshold at which a dish containing traces of GM food (GMF) must be labelled.
Phillips says that the UK government is opting for stringent "gold standard" regulations, but he does not think this is appropriate. "The EU directive recognises the difficulties caterers face in labelling products and allows catering establishments to be exempt - which is what the UK Government should do," he says.
School meal caterers are particularly concerned as the long shadow of the BSE scare, which led to a plummet in school meals numbers, is all too fresh in their memories.
Wasson says that a lack of information could easily turn the issue into a full-blown media scare, leading to a loss of customers.
East Riding of Yorkshire Councils' principal catering officer Roger Denton agrees: "At the moment we do not have enough information on the subject and the possible risks. We could end up a victim of the media."
Even the Institute of Food Science and Technology, in a position statement on GMF, admits there is considerable room for confusion. It advises that children, the elderly and those as risk ethically should be treated sympathetically.
Denton, as the national chairman of the Advisory Body for Social Services Catering, adds: "Because we are dealing with vulnerable groups - the elderly, those with learning difficulties - we are making decisions on their behalf, and it is important to get it right."
Choice of dishes
Wasson argues that providing food five days a week to children and the elderly makes their task particularly difficult.
"When customers go to a restaurant, which is not usually a daily event, there is usually a wide choice of dishes. But we will be particularly affected as children eat school meals every day and it is impossible to provide a large number of alternatives," he says.
Once the confidence of customers is lost, that business is hard to get back. Wasson points to the BSE disaster and says there are lessons to be learnt with concerns over GMF.
During the crisis, authorities reacted in different ways. "In Devon we did not ban it but allowed individual schools to decide. Some stopped using it, others continued. But it did mean that, overall, school meal numbers were unaffected," he explains.
"I do not see any point in worrying children unnecessarily. And this is just taking legislation one step too far."
An obvious step that would avoid more labelling, reprinting of menus and possible hysteria is to ensure that suppliers source non-GMF, an option many county councils have already taken. They avoid GMF and food dyes because they have been linked with hyperactivity in children.
Head of commercial services at Surrey Council, Beverley Baker, says their current policy bans the use of GMF. But she says the proposed labelling regulation is a real problem for all concerned, if original foods are not labelled. "My reaction is that if our clients are concerned and there does not seem enough information about it, exclude it. We would like to continue to say the food does not contain GM organisms (GMOs). But if we don't know if foodstuffs contain GMOs, what is the purpose of being told to list them on the menu?" she says.
Initial Catering Services quality assurance and training director Claire Oliver says they are only too aware that because of overseas production methods it is impossible to state "categorically" that all their products do not contain genetically modified soya or maize.
"If the Government places a specific requirement on caterers to identify genetically modified products contained within their menus, it would clearly have significant impact on the industry as a whole and on the school meals service in particular." More time and consultation is needed to address these concerns, she adds.
Advocates of GMOs point to advantages over traditional selective crop breeding, including improved yields, and better food quality in terms of flavour, texture and shelf-life.
Chartwells managing director Mike Sparrow agrees that it could help to meet global food needs and reduce pesticides usage. "But there are issues about crop segregation, and having genetically reared products next to organically reared crops," he says.
The use of antibodies to "tag" marker genes in GMF has also raised fears that people could become resistant to therapeutic antibiotics.
"I do not think there is sufficiently robust research looking into the long-term effects. Think of BSE - at the time, people thought nothing of feeding offal to cattle, but just look what happened 20 years later," adds Sparrow.
"It seems the fundamental point has not been addressed - if there are no concerns, then why do we have to label the products? n
