CLEAN & GREEN?

Consumer motivations for organic food centre around the concept of food integrity. Integrity is part of a basket of brand ethics gaining greater currency by the day amoungst 21^st century consumers. Other closely related ethics in the basket include “authenticity” – identified in the strategy behind 100% Pure New Zealand.

Simply, this means people want to know that what they are putting in their stomachs is the real thing. There is less and less interest in scientific assurances that there is no discernable difference between the synthetic and the original. At least amoungst those better off consumers in the world who are happy to pay more for the latter.

An interesting analogy perhaps is the luxury branded fashion goods industry. Some Asian countries make hay out of producing fake luxury branded goods in volume. But there is a group of consumers globally who are happy to pay prices hundreds of times more for the real McCoy. It’s part of their identity and social status validation. They could not live with a fake product, no matter how cheap and closely resembling the original.

Thinking about food – New Zealand could take the route of an “Asia” – with mass production of high quality fakes that can be sold cheap, or the route of an “Italy” – small, almost hand-made, volumes of the real thing at high value. Being caught between the two, a bit like caught in mid-court in tennis, is seldom a good business strategy. But, by definition, not everyone can be an Italy. Only those that are prepared to commit to being the best, and make the sacrifices that involves (like letting go of a volume production mentality).

Perhaps we can thank the cigarette industry for its founding role in promoting the rise of the ethics basket around food integrity. Those former decades of claims that “there is no scientific evidence that smoking is bad for your health” have helped to discredit the scientific camp’s influence over the modern consumer. People are not as trusting as they might once have been of so called expert opinion. Thank you for smoking.

For example, in April 2009, Germany banned a strain of genetically modified corn made by Monsanto, citing “a danger to the environment”. Austria and Hungary made similar moves. The European Commission, the European Union’s regulatory arm, has argued bans are unjustified because scientists have determined the products are safe for consumption and the environment. But these EU beaurocrats are urinating into the wind because the customer will prevail. They always do.

In it’s submission to New Zealand’s Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, ZESPRI urged much caution. It noted that consumers are not necessarily rational and are increasingly risk adverse when it comes to food. ZESPRI was concerned that a green light to produce GM food in New Zealand could taint the image all food produced here. That is, even non-GM ZESPRI could be treated with suspicion by consumers, particularly in Europe. When launching ZESPRI Gold, for example, the company had had to demonstrate that the new variety had been produced through conventional and traditional breeding techniques and was not a GM child.

ZESPRI noted Sainsburys, Tesco, Safeway, Dairyfarm, and McDonalds as examples of retailers, manufacturers and food service companies that had rejected purchase of GM foods or food ingredients. Other sources note that Europe’s top 30 food retailers and top 30 food and beverage manufacturers have GM free policies and commitments.

A majority of Europeans do not support GM foods. These are judged not to be useful and to be risky for society.

Then ZESPRI Chief Executive Tony Mark’s witness brief noted

a decision to allow commercial GM food production in New Zealand, in the present consumer climate, could destroy the European market for New Zealand kiwifruit… During the process of consumer acceptance New Zealand should maintain its current GE free status for commercial food production. New Zealand GM food production, if and when it occurs, should not be to the detriment of what is already being successfully earned.

And it’s not limited to Europe. Major food importer Japan has also taken a hard line against the GM camp. Large United States food manufacturers, and those downunder who source seeds from places even only near US GM sources, could soon find themselves eliminated from the Japanese market forever because of the difficulty of proving non-contamination.

In many parts of the world consumer concerns are growing about the safety of biotech foods, which have led key market countries to implement or consider regulations that may restrict U.S. biotech exports.

The sensitivity was highlighted when a Japanese pizza manufacturer identified 0.05% trace GM contamination in New Zealand grown corn.

I was interested to note whilst marketing food in Japan, the clever PR campaign by local producers there against imported foods. Local Japanese producers are at a huge cost of production disadvantage versus many international suppliers due to a combination of factors.  So they quietly but effectively encourage fears that imported food uses much higher levels of chemicals in production and cast aspersions about safety and integrity of the foreign products at every opportunity. Some of this PR was based on valid analysis of cropping systems in some northern hemisphere countries. But the veil was cleverly and subtly extended to the point of “you can’t trust any imported food products”, without actually quite saying that. This “us and them” approach, feeding off natural patriotism and xenophobia found everywhere, created a nice price margin for domestic Japanese agricultural production to survive in.

Even at home we can feel the concern over unintentional GM contamination at local Government level. Auckland and Northland Regional Councils are researching the possibility of taking action on themselves. Dr Kerry Grundy, of the Whangarei District Council, said

there was a lot of concern over who would foot the bill if genetically engineered field trials went wrong and contaminated the produce of other farmers, or tarnished a region’s clean, green image.

50% of New Zealand farmers do not believe that controls can prevent contamination of conventional crops by GM crops.

The Ministry for Environment notes

The GM rules are designed to allow New Zealanders to enjoy the opportunities of organic and conventional agriculture, while at the same time not closing the door to the contribution that GM may make to our way of life.

Decisions to release GM organisms for trial research in New Zealand sit with the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA). But

there are major economic, strategic, marketing and branding issues to be addressed and they apply to all potential GM food releases just the same. These are fundamental national policy calls, not issues for “case-by-case” consideration. Relying on case-by-case decision-making would leave the food industry unable to build a market reputation for GM Free food as from one month to the next, the nation’s producer status could change.

A 2005 poll by Sustainability Council of New Zealand showed that three quarters of New Zealanders would support the nation’s food production remaining GM free. This was up slightly from 70% in an earlier poll around the time of the Royal Commission. Lack of confidence in ERMA’s ability to properly regulate genetically modified organisms is quoted as a factor behind the survey results.

Recent UK headlines on a New Zealand Federated Farmers invitation to former Sex Pistols Johnny Rotten to come and look at our farms zoomed in on the “GM-Free Grass” claim. What a shame if we were to lose the power of that little phrase through a local mix up. The invite was part of a PR scuffle between UK and New Zealand butter producers because Johnny Lydon had being doing some promoting for the British famers. Therefore, what temptation are we creating for industrial espionage if we continue to allow genetic modification work within our national borders? On this occasion it was all light hearted, but who’s to say our global competitors will always play good cricket?

Crunch time is fast approaching on the GM debate. Recent news that genetically modified grazing plants may help reduce livestock greenhouse emissions is pitching environment against environment. With commitments to reduce greenhouse emissions intensifying, and agriculture contributing 48% of New Zealand’s emissions, pressure is mounting.

This will be a delicate debate indeed. But the point to focus on is purity. Just one genetically modified organism roaming around New Zealand openly will eliminate our GM free status for ever. It’s not worth it for some marginal reduction in CO2, when we have so many other options available to us for that, including a million hectares of erosion-prone land for afforestation. It’s a bit like introducing wasps for biological control of caterpillars, to remove the need for use of sprays. The wasps can become as much of a problem in their own right as the caterpillars.

Plant and Food Research recently admitted serious failures in a vegetable trial at Lincoln, after plants that should have been destroyed were instead left to flower. This exposed the environment to their GM pollen. At the time, a Plant and Food spokesman said the breach was

an embarrassing lapse by the institute

But of course, if a lapse can happen once, it can happen again. And who knows where and when. It might be just “embarrassing” for Plant and Food, but is potentially fatal to New Zealand’s chances of climbing up the global GDP per capita rankings.

Given the results of the economic modelling, it is clear that the economic consequences of a release of a GM organism could be potentially significant for New Zealand’s future well-being.

What right do these scientists have to expose us all to such a huge risk?

Supporters of the breached Lincoln trial said it promised “important benefits in food production and would keep New Zealand up with the world in science”.  And here we see the battle lines clearly drawn. For too long now, our scientists have hoodwinked our politicians with this “science at all costs” mentality. The cost could now be the loss of our single most valuable asset – our brand.

The balance of risk against benefit, in practice, has been subjugated by a process-driven style that is perceived to weigh science inputs more heavily … than other considerations.

But haven’t we had a Royal Commission into Genetic Modification? Over fourteen months the Commission heard from over 400 experts and analysed more than 10,000 submissions. Shouldn’t we just sit back and relax, safe in the knowledge that the experts have carefully and thoroughly examined all the available evidence and come up with the best course of action?

No. Because, simply put, most consumers don’t read Royal Commission of Enquiry reports. They read labels occasionally, watch advertisements decreasingly, and catch snippets of information from all kinds of sources. Information from conversations with friends and family (either face to face or online) is not to be underestimated. Such second hand information is sometimes nowhere near accurate or balanced either.

From this ad-hoc information mix global consumers make judgments about what they put in their shopping basket. These are split-second decisions, which are usually based on a trade-off between fear and cost. New Zealand needs to think harder about how we can improve our chances of getting into the basket, even if we are not the cheapest option on the shelf.

We note the influence of New Zealand’s geographic isolation on our clean and green record. Our biosphere has evolved independently from northern hemisphere species which now, having been introduced here, are applying enormous ecological pressure. We were arguably the last country on earth to have been colonised by homo sapiens, meaning we’ve had less time to generate a large population and degrade our environment. Our distance from major world industrial centres means we suffer less than most from imported pollution. The effectiveness of our agricultural officials in keeping out unwanted foreign pests has enabled us to achieve competitive advantage in the farming of many crops (including trees) and animals. Less pests and diseases mean less need to apply agricultural chemicals in production, seen as plus by modern consumers concerned about food safety.

An increasingly genetically modified world gives us an opportunity to add another feature to this list. Europeans and Japanese are vigorously opposing introduction of GM material to their turf. But given the geographical interconnectivity of the northern hemisphere, how long can they keep contamination out? New Zealand has developed world class systems in border control bio-security. MAF officials checking our luggage for food, plants and animals are keeping out GM contamination at the same time as unwanted pests and diseases. Those systems can help keep New Zealand GM free. That would be a competitive advantage hard to match.

But only if we are also GM free on the inside. We can’t have genetically modified organisms wandering around a 100% Pure New Zealand. The two propositions are incompatible. Kiwis – make your choice, make it well, and make it quick.

We note place brand guru Simon Anholt’s advice that it is a country’s behaviour that is most important in building its brand. We note Futurebrand Australia’s Tim Riches’ praise for significant historical environmental gestures made by New Zealand which have given us a reputational jump on our Tasman neighbour in the minds of global green consumers. He was referring particularly to New Zealand’s radical nuclear-free status adopted in the 1980s. We note brand guru Adam Morgan’s urge for “sacrifice” to establish a world-class challenger brand. Get rid of anything that is not absolutely core to your unique selling proposition. To stand out in a cluttered communications world, stand for something. Be bold, be brave, and above all else be different.

For a country dependent on food and beverage for its economic survival, now is the hour to make another big branding gesture, of the scale and impact of Nuclear Free New Zealand. We need to stand out in a crowded food branding world by boldly adopting a national GM-free stance. The future dividends to us in terms of value added to our conventional food products, in increasingly green global markets, will be handsome compensation for any loss in potential production increases. A Green Brand New Zealand strategy is necessary to establish these priorities.

• Related posts on 100% Pure New Zealand
• haroldgoodwin.info :: Controversy around 100% Pure New Zealand Brand
• Your Big Break: 100% Pure New Zealand
• 100% pure New Zealand!

• Related posts on AgResearch
• Science and the race barrier: a GM research is deemed okay, but …
• Wakahuia » cryptogon.com » New Zealand: Scientists Given …
• Switchgrass proves viable as nursery container – EurekAlert (Www …

• Related posts on clean & green
• New Hybrid Vehicle | Go Green with Clean Green Earth | Hybrid Auto …
• First ServiceMaster Clean ‘Extra Mile Award’ Will Be Presented …

Tags: 100% Pure New Zealand, AgResearch, clean & green, clean & green NZ, clean and green New Zealand, ERMA, human DNA, Kaitiakitanga

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 17th, 2010 at 4:45 pm and is filed under 100% Pure New Zealand, Clean & Green, Food & Beverage, Kaitiakitanga. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.