Aisles of Plenty

No subject may be counted upon to get people worked up into a good righteous lather more than supermarkets.  Supermarkets have transformed our lives in the past forty years like few other modern institutions.  But to many people they are the epitome of evil.  Campaigners the length and breadth of the country fight to keep these commercial behemoths out of their communities.  They are charged with causing or enabling every kind of social and environmental problem we face.

Supermarkets, it is claimed, destroy our towns by using their scale to drive small businesses out of the market, leading to decimated high streets which then fill up with estate agents, betting shops and charity shops.  They damage our rural environment by using their buying power to squeeze producers to the point that they have to focus entirely on price without regard to the damage such practices may have on ecology. They add food miles to our daily grocery basket. They create an economic model where it profits unscrupulous producers to substitute horsemeat for the er… ‘prime beef’ people thought went in to their economy burgers. They manipulate world prices and bully third world countries.  They force shop workers to work nights and on weekends, breaking down age old religious and social traditions such as the day of rest.  They promote cheap alcohol sales which cause social problems, particularly among the young, and so on and on.

All of these claims have more than a grain of truth behind them, but despite the fact that nobody admits to liking them, we all shop in them.  Almost every family in Britain must hold a loyalty card for one or more of the big four chains.  (Big 4?  There’s another problem, they eliminate competition from the market!)

Of course they wouldn’t be popular if they weren’t doing something right.  There are flip sides to most of these arguments. Supermarkets have largely been responsible for the era of low food prices enjoyed by consumers for decades.  Like their advertisements say, they do scour the world for interesting and unusual products.  This alone has driven the food revolution in modern Britain transforming our national cuisine from a standing joke to a showcase of the world’s finest fare.  And many hard pressed consumers are glad to be able to do their shopping at night or on Sundays.  For one thing, I know from my own experience, it allows fathers to play a more complete part in family life.

The point is that supermarkets by themselves are neither good nor bad.  They do, as a function of their size, wield great power.  That power can be used for good or for ill, as I alluded to some weeks ago at the height of the horse meat scandal.

Today, my eye was caught by two stories which illustrate this point exactly.

First Tesco has announced that they will drop an eleven year old restriction on chickens and eggs from birds fed on GM soya.  They claim that it is simply becoming too hard to source non-GM chicken feed.  Equally significantly, they do not plan to label chickens or eggs as GM products.  The Soil Association dispute Tesco’s arguments about sourcing feed and say in effect that the supermarket is being pressured by big, multinational, industrial farm corporations.

I have avoided blogging about genetic modification because it’s a huge and complicated subject.  Frankly I don’t think we yet know all the facts.  Personally I am not particularly worried about eating GM produce, but I am concerned about the possible effects on wildlife and natural flora, and I don’t like the idea of farmers being locked in to particular agrochemicals suppliers.  Stories of Frankenstein foods don’t help, but then neither do real world examples of Monsanto trying to patent common fruit and vegetables.

Faced with such uncertainty my natural response is to rely upon the precautionary principle and do nothing irrevocable. GM foods exist.  Let them be properly labeled and allow the consumer to decide.  All the evidence shows that the public is not happy about eating GM produce.  By their actions Tesco is taking the decision and the choice away from the consumer.

.

On a more positive note, Waitrose has today instituted a ban on neonicotinoid pesticides because of concerns over the harm done to bees, butterflies and other pollinators.  I blogged about these systemic insecticides three weeks ago, and how Germany and the UK, homes respectively to the two biggest manufacturers, Bayer and Syngenta, blocked EU wide restrictions on their use.

Under Waitrose’s Seven Point Plan for Pollinators, suppliers of fruit, vegetables, flowers and commodity crops such as oilseed rape have until the end of next year to stop using the three most popular neonicotinoids: imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam.

In parallel with this ban, the supermarket will fund a three year research programme at the University of Exeter to establish the facts about these chemicals, which are naturally disputed by the manufacturers.

Perhaps like me you feel it should have been the chemicals companies themselves or even DEFRA which sponsored this research, but nevertheless I welcome Waitrose‘s unilateral action.

Examples such as these demonstrate how supermarkets can use their power in the interest of the consumers or against them in the narrow pursuit of profit at all costs.  They also remind us that there is always a choice, even if we have to drive a little further to get it.

* Morrisons and Asda had both previously dropped their own bans on GM feed.  Marks & Spencer, The Co-Op and Sainsbury’s  all followed Tesco's lead within hours of my writing this blog.