I’ll preface this post as per Part 1.
I’m not pro-GM. I’m
not anti-GM.
I’m pro unique food systems.
There aren’t many left.
Preserving uniqueness means challenges, compromises and consequences.
South Australia is already unique. We are the driest State on the driest
continent in the world.
Producing food under those conditions is unique. So I’m also into preserving markets.
Against that backdrop, is preserving our uniqueness worth
considering? Is it the correct decision?
That is THE question all participants and stakeholders in
South Australia’s local food system need to answer.
It is therefore appropriate for the Government to intervene
while we remove disadvantages from the decision making process.
Should we allow grower
choice at the expense of consumer choice?
It’s interesting that the current debate to approve GM grain
production in South Australia is focused on the science of safety.
In Australia we have generally kept consumers in the dark
about GM. Consequently, the average
shopper in the supermarket on a Saturday morning is not making buying decisions
based on science. Their decisions are influenced
by other norms.
Nor are they intimidated by the power of science. They now it achieves great things such as
curing their family and friends from disease.
At the point-of-purchase, whether or not GM is safe scores
quite low because people are actually indifferent on the topic.
Who let the activists in?
Ignorance creates indifference. Indifference creates a vacuum. This vacuum is the breeding ground for
activists that purport to be the voice of consumers. Activists can only operate where there are
vacuums. Activists don’t benefit consumers. They only confuse, frustrate and misrepresent
them.
It’s up to the food industry to fill the information void
and remove indifference.
Are Australian consumers
genuinely interested to hear from us?
Of course - they want to know the value of eating GM foods
and the value of GM production systems.
It’s never been explained to them.
Be clear - tell consumers precisely what the value of eating
GM is and what the value in growing GM is.
There needs to be increased effort in this area.
Consumers will benefit from greater awareness of the
important trends occurring in food production.
But with more transparency comes more scrutiny. If eating GM foods is not experientially
sound and the production system is not ecologically sound, consumers will not
approve.
They simply see no value in
changing our food system, which is a vote to preserve uniqueness.
So what do consumers value
these days? What will they choose?
Consumers have stated preferences and revealed
preferences. At the point-of-purchase
consumers look for salient messages about origin, quality and authenticity.
Is this healthy or unhealthy? Is this natural or artificial? What’s the price? Done.
The food industry is told to give messages about provenance,
sustainability, organic, fresh, ethically produced, ecologically sound and so
and so on.
It’s really about allowing consumers to make guilt-free
choices with very little thinking.
In the new era of guilt-free food, is there a value
proposition for GM grain?
Is GM grain more nutritious?
Is GM grain a more natural production system meaning fewer chemicals?
If GM grain production can’t score highly in the area of
guilt-free, then preserving uniqueness may be the correct decision.
The current moratorium on GM grain production in South
Australia should not be about safety.
It’s about deliberately targeting and scoring highly on points-of-value
with global consumers.
It may not achieve a premium. But it may just preserve our markets.
Remember: we are a
remote outpost of the globalised food system.
We are the driest State on the driest continent located at the bottom of
the planet. Why would anyone want to
rely on us to feed them?
If South Australia wants to grow GM grain, then we need to
become THE WORLD’S BEST at convincing people the value in growing and eating
them.
Otherwise we teach them to rely on us because of our
uniqueness.
That’s a guilt-free story the world will buy.
