Food Standards Agency response
Recommendation
We would value an explanation from the Food Standards
Agency of its decision to undertake a 'public debate' of its own
about GM food, why it chose to do so at the time that it did,
what was the cost to public funds of its initiative, and how its
work relates to other strands of the public debate. We would also
be keen to learn of future plans for the Agency to study public
opinion about GM Food. (paragraph 38)
The Food Standards Agency undertook its 'public debate'
activities in line with its independent remit to protect consumer
interests in relation to food and its commitment to consumer choice,
openness and transparency. These activities were different from
the activities taken forward by the GM Nation? public
debate as the FSA specifically wanted to hear the views of hard
to reach groups including young and low-income consumers whose
voices are not normally heard. Twenty different groups contributed
to the FSA's qualitative and deliberative activities, which included
focus groups, a citizen's jury, schools' debate and school video.
These activities were viewed by the FSA as complementing those
of the Government's GM debate. They also formed part of the on-going
programme of consumer attitudes work by the FSA, which play an
important role in FSA Board policy making. They cost £112,935.
The work was scheduled to enable the Government to
receive the advice of the FSA Board on the outcome of the Agency's
debate activities in time for it to be considered alongside the
results of the GM Nation? public debate. In the event,
the latter debate was delayed so that the FSA's advice reached
the Government first in July 2003.
The FSA has no specific plans to study public opinion
on GM further, but will continue to conduct public opinion polls
on food issues, which may include questions on GM.
| 
