Food Policy in the UK - Term Paper Example

Running Head: Food Policy Food Policy of Food Policy Not many of the s learned in history lessons at school remain in mind as the years roll by. However, in the U.K. the year 1066 has always been one of the most remembered dates. It was the year of the Battle of Hastings which heralded the arrival of William, the Conqueror from Normandy. Perhaps that date is recalled not because of the battle, and the arrow that pierced King Harold's eye, but because it signaled the beginning of the Norman period which so drastically changed the British way of life. Now another date is threatening to be one that must be remembered--it certainly will be if the media have their say! I refer to the year 1992 when the "Single European Market" (SEM, one supposes!) is due to take effect as most trade barriers within Western Europe, or at least in the Common Market, are to be dismantled. The UK government is currently investing over ten million pounds in television campaign to promote all businessmen to be ready to take benefits of these great news sales opportunities. With respect of this, all EEC countries crave to increase their exports into a static consumer market. Certainly, in some sections in the UK business industry there will be winner or looser. Confederation of British (CBI) industry, are already crying foul because to some extent they think that Western Europeans countries will try to buy the UK base corporations. If it happens, simultaneously the British mergers legislations will deter domestic companies in hope to get competitive advantages over international based organizations. This explains the fact, why so many British organizations have setup their business in the USA. But how will SEM affect the quick frozen food industry within the Common Market Maybe not nearly as much as it will some other markets partly because of the strong share of the total market held by Unilever and Nestle. Easily the largest slice of that total is Unilever's with their Birds Eye brand in the U.K., the Findus brand in Italy and Igloo just about everywhere else. Nestle, the Switzerland-based Corporation, use the Findus brand in the U.K. and in some of the other Common Market countries. Nestle use the Stouffer brand in the U.S.A. It has been proved that there is a big difference between brand name and corporate name. This is further evidenced by the variety of brand names used by the United Biscuits frozen food subsidiary, UB-Ross-Youngs, who apart from the brands Ross and Youngs use McVities and Mama Mia--and one or two others--in the U.K. Similarly another U.K.-based enterprise, Rank Hovis McDougal, use the brands Sharwoods (Indian specialties), Tiffany's (pies), Heinzel (cakes) and have now begun to use Mr. Kipling, a brand they have made renowned in the ambient cake sector, for a new variety of frozen hot puddings.' One does marvel what strategy these two major food groups will follow in preparation for the SEM. In contrast the Campbell Soup Company has given some sign as to their intention because having bought the U.K.-based Fresh bake Foods, one of the top three or four domestic frozen food companies; they have renamed themselves in Europe: Campbell's Foods. Campbell's were already using the brands Ungers in the U.K. and Groko on the Continent, but this writer imagines it is going to be Campbell's on everything from now on. At least Sara Lee and McCain's have a one brand strategy for Europe. Heinz has, more recently, entered the European QFF scene with a heavily supported launch of their Weight Watchers brand--of course they use the Ore-Ida brand on potato products in the States. Then there remains the mystery as to what the frozen food marketing future holds for the Pillsbury and Kraft companies under new managements. Pillsbury had just given up using the Fiesta brand in the U.K. to concentrate on Green Giant, and may continue to do so in Europe. Meanwhile, Kraft's new owners, the Philip Morris Group, also own General Foods but the Birds Eye brand cannot be used by them within the Common Market -- it's Unilever's! As for Kraft -- they have, for the past two or three years, been using the Kraft brand on their limited frozen food entry, instead of "Brains," the company they bought and whose leading product was "faggots" -- a very English product! Furthermore, it is not one brand name that seems to get on a "merry go round". In today's business world executives frequently take over other's position. For example, Phil Smith an executive was heir at top post in General Foods when Philip Morris bought that company. He moved on, after a short while, to become chairman of Pillsbury. Now, at the time of this writing, it looks as if Grand Metropolitan is going to buy Pillsbury. And just before Smith accepted the Pillsbury chairmanship he had turned down the presidency of the Campbell Soup Company. So making a choice of company can be just as difficult as making a choice of brand! Or, "does the man make the brand or the brand make the man" So far the focus has been on the likely future strategies of U.K. companies, or U.S.A. companies with European interests, but there are some well established Continental frozen food concerns who will not wish to be left behind when the trade barriers come down. It may be recalled that a special market report in this magazine's July edition referred to the "obvious confidence and optimism for the future and to the preparations being made for 1992." In West Germany Unilever's Igloo brand has seen some stern competition from the Frosta label, but this writer knows that his old colleagues, Werner Kook and Leo Lakke, the respective chairman and marketing director of Langnese - Iglo, are very experienced professionals who will be tough competition for all comers. Furthermore, the distribution network in that country is not one that will make it easy for newcomers. The French frozen food industry association recently claimed that in 1987 its national per capita consumption at last rivaled the West German figure. It certainly has been very remarkable the way the French industry has progressed despite all the negative predictions only a few years back. The existence of strong multiple grocery chains, with a great number of really large stores, have given France a very different distribution pattern than that of other Continental countries and may attract importers. (Kemp, n.p., 1989) Belgium may offer a similar attraction but what will matter most in that country and in neighboring Holland is just how well their QFF processors manage to sell into the rest of the Common Market. They have performed well up to now, especially with French fries. What happens in Italy is anyone's guess, and presumably the same comment could be applied to Spain, the other large population grouping. Whatever happens it will be a fact that Western Europe will at last rival the U.S.A. as a major frozen food market, but the differences will remain, especially in respect of the very varied eating habits of the diverse nations in Western Europe. The present trends--on both sides of the Atlantic--towards superior product quality, more convenient packaging and the rapid development of microwave opportunities, will continue. But at present in Europe very few frozen food items have universal appeal: frozen potato chips and what else For instance, green peas are the leading frozen green vegetable item in some countries such as the U.K., France and Italy, whereas spinach is the favorite in Austria and West Germany. Readers in the U.S.A. will readily appreciate the need to understand regional tastes in food even in a country speaking more or less the same language from coast to coast! On this side of the Atlantic there is no common language, and not likely to be one. Such rules out any common advertising campaigns -- from space or anywhere else! (Kemp, 1989) Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has been criticized in many quarters for stating that there will never be a United States of Europe to the point where national traditions, or ties, are unimportant. Certainly within any democratically organized "bloc" there has to be room for real commercial competition and this is the way the Common Market frozen food business will prosper. This is not to suggest that there will not be many wise reasons for harmony within the industry to ensure the most effective communication to consumers of the advantage of frozen foods compared with ambient, chilled or even some fresh foods. One final thought about 1992. It just happens to be also the year when the next Olympic Games are held, in Barcelona, and a President will be elected in the U.S.A. So maybe the interest in the "Single European Market" is greater now than it will be then! (Webb, 1990) Hanly reviews the evidence of risk, but repeatedly downplays the problem. "For example, people who are allergic to nuts might have an extremely allergic reaction to a GM food that contains a gene from nuts. The solution to this problem is proper labeling, warnings, and caution." Labeling, however, is not an adequate solution. People with life-threatening nut allergies should not have to worry about eating genetically engineered soy derivatives in an enormous range of processed foods. There is no justification for insertion of foreign genetic elements into food that may be, or in this case, are proven to be dangerous to a minority of the population. Hanly does not mention more alarming hazards of consuming genetically engineered foods and food additives that are being discussed in the scientific literature. He does not discuss evidence of abnormal liver, brain, and heart development and weakened immune systems in rats fed genetically engineered potatoes. He does not mention the 27 people who died and the several thousand left with chronic illness and painful disabilities after injesting a genetically engineered food supplement, L-tryptophan, in 1989. The British Medical Association in May 1999 released a statement calling for more caution and testing because "information about the effect of genetic modification on the chemical composition of food, and in particular its safety, is needed urgently." (Omaha World-Herald, 2003) In April, 2000, the National Research Council of the U.S. Academy of Sciences issued a report calling for more rigorous testing of GM foods because of health and environmental risks. However, it is urged that Hanly and his readers to go to the websites of the many civil-society organizations working on this issue where there are plenty of references to scientific studies. On the specific question raised by Hanly as to whether there are inherent risks of insertion of foreign DNA, he suggest readers look at a collaborative report by a team of British, Canadian, and Norwegian scientists for the Third World Network. It is entitled "Unregulated Hazards: 'Naked' and 'Free' Nucleic Acids" and attempts to explain the hazards in accessible language for non-scientists. "The authors point out that genetic engineering involves artificial constructs of DNA typically containing a heterogeneous collection of genes from pathogenic bacteria, viruses and other genetic parasites belonging to practically every kingdom of living organisms... They are, by definition, xenobiotics -- substances foreign to nature -- with the potential to cause harm. Some, such as gene therapy vectors and vaccines, have already been shown to elicit toxic and other harmful reactions in pre-clinical trials." (Philipp, n.p., 2002) So there is growing scientific evidence of harmful effects, but it is important to remember that it took 60 years before we realized that DDT was a hormone disruptor with muragenic effects in birds and mammals. It is also important to remember the massive effort by the chemical companies to discredit Rachel Carson. Something similar is occurring today when scientists speak out about the potential hazards of genetically engineered food and crops. The story of Dr. Arpad pusztai, who first discovered the health effects of feeding generically modified potatoes to rats, reveals the considerable risks faced by those scientists who dare to speak out about the potential risks of releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment and ingesting them in our foods and medicines. Dr. Arpad's results have not been dis-proven, yet this renowned scientist and author of eight books and 280 scientific papers has been deprived of his research funding, his research team, and basically forced into retirement in disgrace. Dr. Pusztai is not alone. In Canada, we have the examples of Dr. Shiv Chopra and Dr. Margaret Haydon, scientists at Health Canada, who have been forbidden to speak to the public about their concerns about the process whereby genetically modified food is tested in Canada. Scientists based in the university are also coming under fire. Take the case of Dr. Ann Clark, professor of agronomy at Guelph University. Dr. Clark has been speaking publicly about the inadequacy of food-safety testing for genetically modified foods. She has come under attack from the dean of the Agriculture College and from a colleague, Doug Powell, who has been extremely active debating critics and defending generically engineered crops and food. Powell has close links with the biotech industry and was a key mover in setting up, with industry support, the Food Biotechnology Communication Network to sell the technology to the public. (Howard, 2000) Dr. Clark has allied with other scientists and academics to form an independent scientific watchdog, GE-Alert, to examine risk assessment and approval processes at Health Canada. They publish their findings and concerns on the Council of Canadians website. Hanly concludes that, "We need more, not less, science, but science that is socially responsible and serves the needs of society as whole, not capitalist corporations." (Environmental Nutrition, 2001) Pat Howard is Associate Professor of Communication at Simon Fraser University She teaches courses in Risk Communication with a focus on genetic engineering, as well as courses examining the politico economy of technology transfer to the Third World and communication in the computer-mediated workplace. She is a member of the Biotechnology Circle of British Columbia and the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. It is argued that a Marxist perspective should look at both the positive and negative aspects of genetically modified seeds and foods. I also argued that many of the risks associated with genetic modification are a result of capitalism. I did not mean to imply, as John Warnock's response suggests, that there will be no risks under socialism. Judging from the responses by Warnock and Pat Howard, to claim that there are any positive aspects of genetically modified foods is a heresy to be stamped our. (Thomas R and DeGregori,, n.p., 2003) Warnock and Howard are not alone. Vandana Shiva and many other leftists seem to share this blinkered view of the issue. Any positive function of genetic engineering is rejected. Shiva's response to Oxfam's position paper on GM seeds is a good example. Oxfam had the temerity to suggest that plants might be genetically engineered to thrive even under drought conditions and thus help indigenous African farmers who farm in drought-prone areas. Shiva roundly criticized Oxfam's suggestion. Warnock goes even further. He is "strongly opposed" to biotechnology and not just genetic engineering. No doubt he opposes the use of biotechnology to produce drugs such as insulin or to clean up oil spills. Howard and Warnock not only ignore any potential positive benefits of genetic engineering. Their articles also contain some serious weaknesses. Warnock rightly identifies development of herbicide-resistant weeds as a problem. I also dealt with this in my article. I also remarked that socially responsible technology would not alter plants to tolerate a specific herbicide but to compete with weeds, be resistant to diseases, insect pests, and so on. The aim would be to eliminate the use of pesticides as far as possible. Sir Walter Bodmer, a world authority on human genetics, scathingly reproved the Soil Association of Great Britain for disallowing the inclusion of GM crops in its definition of organic farming. He called the decision completely and utterly irrational. Bodmer claims that by transferring the genes for nitrogen fixation, the ability to convert nitrogen in the atmosphere into nitrates, genetic engineering could drastically reduce the need for artificial fertilizer, a key goal of organic farmers. (Feduschak, n.p., 2001) According to papers that Warnock has read, there is no indication that genetically engineered crops produce higher returns, greater yields, or require fewer pesticides. Shiva makes similar claims. But this all depends upon what crop is being considered and under what conditions. GM corn and cotton modified with a Bt gene do not require the same amount of pesticide as those that are not. It is passing strange that farmers continue to pay premium prices, and sign restrictive technological-use agreements to grow grain that does not give them higher returns, greater yields, or require less pesticide use. Conventional farmers must be an exceedingly stupid and gullible lot. Howard's more extensive article makes a stronger case against GM foods and seeds. However, some of her arguments are one-sided and seriously misleading. Howard's discussion of the Pusztai case and L-tryptophan illustrate my point. According to Howard, Pusztai first discovered the health effects of feeding genetically modified potatoes to rats. At least three studies dispute his findings: an audit at the research institute where be worked; a study by the Royal Sociery; a study by Dutch scientists. References Demographic Change, Economic Growth, and Poverty in the Developing World, Oxford University Press paperback. Environmental Nutrition; June, 2001 Frozen Food Digest; February, 1998 Feduschak Natalia, (November, 2001), News Paper Article, The Washington Times Howard Pat, (July, 2000) Canadian Dimension Kemp Graham, (April, 1989) Quick Frozen Foods International Nancy Birdsall (n.d.) Blackwell Professional Population Matters PR Newswire; September, 2005; Quick Frozen Foods International; July, 1990; Thomas R. DeGregori, The Environment, Our Natural Resources and Modern Technology, University Wire; October, 2003; Carlos Aguilar-Diaz; Webb Kenneth J.B, (January 1, 1990), Quick Frozen Foods International Read More