While many restaurants and fast food outlets claim to care about sustainability and authenticity in truth it’s the bottom line that more often than not informs sourcing and the selection of ingredients.

As new types of genetically modified foods and ingredients find their their way into the restaurant food chain in the UK the issue of ‘provenance’ becomes more complex.

For this reason, Beyond GM conducted a survey to find out more about UK customers’ attitudes to GMOs in restaurants and the results reveal a sharp message for chefs, caterers and everyone else in the food service industry.

In total 556 people responded, and 82% said they believed that GMOs deserved greater consideration as part of traceability, sustainability and provenance issues in the food chain.

The majority (97%) believed that chefs and caterers should include information about GMO ingredients – including GM fed livestock products – on menus and websites.

This kind of transparency, of course, has consequences.

When asked what they would do if a restaurant menu indicated the presence of GMO ingredients, the majority (56%) said they would find somewhere else to eat. Another large group (34%) said they would consider eating in that restaurant if guaranteed GMO-free options were available.

Similar proportions (5% and 5% respectively) said they would either find somewhere else to eat, or that they had no problem eating GMOs.

Significantly, 84% said they would consider paying more for a meal that was guaranteed GMO-free.

Eating out

Another stand-out fact was that, in spite of a common notion that those who have concerns about GMOs tend to avoid eating out, this was not the case.

Respondents to our survey frequented a wide variety of establishments including: table service restaurants (87%); pubs (56%); coffeehouses (51%); take away restaurants (50%); hotel restaurants (33%); street food outlets (32%); and home delivery services (27%). A smaller proportion of respondents (13% and 7% respectively) frequently ate at workplace or school cafeterias.

This is important information and in line with the findings of much larger surveys. For example, one 2015 survey of US diners, found that those who are concerned about sustainability are, in fact, more likely to dine out than the general population; on average 18 times a month in 6 different restaurant types (compared to others who eat out, on average, 14 times a month).

What is more, as noted in a survey by the Sustainable Restaurant Association, The Discerning Diner, concern for sustainability and provenance are not just the preserve of those with lots of money to spend on food.

When the SRA asked customers what their top concerns about restaurant food were, customer health and nutrition was the joint top concern (along with food waste) of diners (53%). Issues such as local sourcing, animal welfare and seasonality also registered as prominent concerns.

Not using genetically modified food was an expectation of significant numbers of diners in a range of restaurant types: 56% of diners where a meal costs £30 or more, 40% of diners where a meal costs between £10 and £20, and notably, 29% where a meal costs less than £10.

What it all this means is that people who have concerns about the quality and authenticity of their food have a significant stake – both personally but also financially – in wanting the restaurant food chain to be sustainable and free from GMO contamination.

A range of concerns

Respondents expressed a number of reasons why they would not want to eat GMOs. These included the ideas that GMOs:

• Encourage corporate control of the food system (91%)
• Support unsustainable industrial and factory farming (87%)
• Cause environmental damage (85%)
• Carry too many scientific unknowns (82%)
• Raise concerns for animal welfare (74%)
• Conflict with religious or personal beliefs (33%)
• Other issues (27%)

Among the ‘Other’ concerns listed by respondents were issues like the risks it poses to non-GM and organic crops particularly from cross pollination, loss of knowledge of traditional ways of growing food/managing pests, loss of crop diversity and loss of consumer choice.

Concern over the higher use of herbicides and insecticides on GMOs crops also came through as a theme not just for the environmental damage they cause but also for health risks.

Some questioned the social need for GMOs, given that they are not designed to be more nutritious. Several other respondents also felt that the totality of problems associated with GMOs made them a crime against nature or ‘ecocide’ which they felt should be punishable by law.

It was interesting to us that while opponents of agricultural GMOs are often portrayed as having an irrational or moral objection to GMOs – as opposed to an evidence-based one – very few indicated that they objected to GMOs because they conflicted with their one religious or personal beliefs.

Although only about a third of respondents (34%) said that GMOs conflicted with personal or religious beliefs, in a multi-cultural society – and with large number of customers seeking kosher or halal food – this is an issue to watch.

Lack of trust

Our survey findings make a powerful case for food service to take a lead in cleaning up its act.

Customer trust is an extremely valuable commodity for any business. Those in the food service industry should be aware that, apart from concrete concerns about issues like health and safety, surveys on GMOs consistently show that the general public does not trust genetically modified food and that this food technology provokes in them a sense of genuine unease.

Indeed, in our survey 83% of respondent said they did not believe GMOs were safe to eat; 12% said they did not know and only 5% said they thought GMOs were safe to eat.

This is reflective of an unease around GMOs, which has always been there but which is growing steadily as newer and more complex biotechnology looks for a marketplace in the foods we eat every day.

Our findings, again, are in line with those of other surveys, for instance the 2010 Eurobarometer opinion poll.

This most recent large scale independent survey of public attitudes towards genetic engineering technology is now several years old, but its findings remain valid and relevant.

It found that nearly 60% of Europeans believe that GM food is not safe for their health and that of their family or for future generations. An even larger majority (70%) said that genetically modifying foods is “fundamentally unnatural”, and 61% said that GMOs made them “feel uneasy”.

Overall it found that as many as 95% of European respondents rated GMO foods as potentially unsafe and lacking real benefits.

The Eurobarometer survey also revealed equally strong opposition to animal cloning for food, with only 18% of people in favour.

The survey highlighted that there was widespread awareness about GM food (84%).

A key finding related to this was that, contrary to what proponents of GM crops claim, Europeans understand the difference between biotechnology and genetic engineering of food, and strongly reject only the latter.

More recently, in 2013, these sentiments were echoed in the UK, when the Food Standards Agency published the second wave of its Food and You survey.

Asked about awareness of new food technologies used in food production, respondents reported being most aware of genetic modification (80%); 64% of people were aware of animal cloning, 34% of irradiation and 20% of nanotechnology.

A majority of people felt uneasy about the use of these technologies in food: 66% being uneasy about animal cloning, 52% about genetic modification, and 51% about irradiation. 34% of people expressed concern about nanotechnology even though it is relatively new and not widely known.

Almost since the advent of genetic engineering the food industry, the research establishment and parts of the media have been saying that the public is becoming more accepting of the technology.  However, with no credible independent evidence to support this view it remains little more than wishful thinking.

The most recent independent survey was a 2014 YouGov poll which investigated whether people’s attitudes to GMOs were becoming more favourable. Only 6% of the public reported their views towards GM foods becoming “more positive” over the last 12 months, virtually identical to the 5% who said their views had become more negative.

As for those whose views hadn’t changed at all, they remained decisively negative: 41% negative to 17% positive. A large proportion (31%) also responded “don’t know” when asked how their views on GM have evolved.

In addition 40% believed that the government should not be promoting the adoption of GM, while just 22% believed that they should.

Messages to chefs

Respondents to our survey were asked what their personal message about GMOs to chefs, caterers, hoteliers and others in the food service industry was.

Some of these comments include pleas for those in food service to lead:

• Educate yourselves…it’s important to us!
• “I’m shocked that more chefs etc. don’t take the time to understand the issues & stand up for a really sustainable food system.”
• “Think about how our choices now affect the future.”
• “You are at the forefront and should demand the best and purest ingredients.”
• “Try and get a truly balanced view on GMOs. Err on the side of caution. Most people seem to have a natural distrust of them. They are your customers.”
• “You can be leaders and heroes of a culture, of good husbandry and farming, and real love of good food. Or we can all end up not knowing what we are eating, because GM will get everywhere.”

We also saw a desire for clear labelling:

• “Clearly state whether or not you use GM ingredients. I would much prefer to eat animals that have been treated well and organic produce, so am much more likely to patronise restaurants that care about these things too.”
• “Ensure you provide clear choices to your customers so they can make informed choices about what they eat.”
• “Customers have a right to know…and will no doubt prove that, given a choice, they would prefer to avoid GMOs.”
• “I am sick of finding empty GM oil cans outside restaurants & cafes that are not labelling this on their menus – as required by law!”
• “Consider emulating San Carlo in Birmingham whose window message is that their suppliers assure them that their ingredients are GM free.”
• “Let us know what we are eating!”

And of course a desire to simplify everyone’s lives by just keeping GMOs out of the food chain:

• “Leave it out!”
• “Get ahead of the game in supporting non-GMO food before it’s you or the company you work for losing out in the long-term as awareness increases.”
• “Change the way you purchase your food.”
• “Keep that gunk out of my food!!”
• “Don’t! Not enough is known about the effects and food shouldn’t be mucked about with. Stick to fresh, natural and local produce.”
• “Keep GMOs out of the food chain! I don’t want to encourage the cultivation of GM crops by eating dairy and meat products fed GMOs.”
• “I do not want GMOs on my plate. I will gladly pay more for ‘clean’ food.”
• “If you want my business, offer me non-GMO meals.”
• “I will be seeking out places to eat where non GM food is guaranteed. I hope you will be among those who supply it.”

Where are we now?

Although we like to think of the UK as GMO free, this is not really the case. There is a slow creep of GMO products in to our shops and of GMO ingredients into our food and drink – and the landscape is rapidly changing.

Britain does not grow GM crops but it has an open door policy to imports of GM feed and foods and to ingredients that can be used without the need for labelling.

Foods for human consumption and animal feed can contain up to 0.9% GM ingredients (as long as the GM content is accidental or technically unavoidable) and not require labelling. Similarly, foods made with GM processing agents may not be labelled as such. These can include soy-based ingredients such as lecithin, soy protein, soy sauce and soy flour, corn-based ingredients including modified food starch, corn syrup, maltodextrin, and corn flour, artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and trehalose, and increasingly cane sugar.

You will find these things in products like ready-made salad dressings, marinades and sauces, breads and crackers, vegetarian meat substitutes and deserts.

The most common GMO products in UK restaurants, however, are GMO oils derived from maize, soya, rapeseed and sometimes cottonseed.

Restaurants and other establishments are legally obliged to indicate on the menu – including online menus – if they are using such oils. However, Trading Standards reports show that most don’t.

Nearly all conventionally reared meat in the UK is reared on GM feed. While the feed itself must, according to the law, be labelled, the eventually food products meat, milk and eggs – do not require labelling at point of sale. We know from our contact with the public that this is seen as unacceptable and a restriction of consumer choice.

Wines produced using genetically modified yeasts do not need to be labelled and beers and spirits made using GMO ingredients also do not need to state this on the label as it is considered proprietary.

There is some evidence that beers imported from the US and Mexico do contain GMO ingredients such as high fructose corn syrup (mainly in the US), caramel colouring, and some genetically modified organisms (GMO) like dextrose and corn syrup.

US Distillers Brown Forman – whose brands include Jack Daniels, Canadian Whiskey, Woodford Reserve and Old Forester – announced in 2014 that, due to supply chain issues in the US it spirits would now be made using GM ingredients.

The same is now starting to happen in the UK. Factory style spirit distillers are creating multiple brands – including vodkas, gins, jenevers, liquors, pastis and cream liquors – using cheap imported GMO derived neutral grains and potable alcohols. None of it is labelled.

Importantly, new biotechnology methods and biotech ingredients, such as cocoa, vanilla, stevia, saffron and coconut produced using synthetic biology and ‘fake foods’ such as chicken-less chicken, milk-less milk and egg-less eggs, some of which require GM starter cultures, are being aimed squarely at the food service industry and cynically framed as sustainable and ethical alternatives to conventional foods.

Food service must rise to the challenge of understanding these issues and challenging assumptions around them.

Context and conclusions

The immediate purpose of the survey was to help inform discussion at a Supply Chain Roundtable hosted by TV Chef Cyrus Todiwala and Hospitality and Catering News. However, results will also be used as part of Beyond GM’s Stir the Pot initiative to engage with professionals in food service about the encroachment of GMOs into the food chain.

The survey was conducted online over 6 weeks March and April 2017 and was disseminated through a variety of channels including our own newsletter and social media and via other supportive organisations such as Sustain, The Sustainable Restaurant Association, Sustainable Food Cities and Slow Food. It was also flagged up in an article in Hospitality and Catering News as well as in the Ecologistand Natural Products News.

Our survey does not claim to be comprehensive and does have some limitations. The survey numbers are relatively small and the male female split showed a bias towards women. The demographics of the UK as a whole are 49% men and 51% women. In our survey 37% were men and 63% women.

The distribution of age ranges leans towards a greater number of aged 45+ individuals that would be found in the UK as a whole 72% compared to 34%.

In addition, the population surveyed was taken largely from a population of people who are more aware and potentially better informed about GMOs than the average individual.

However, studies such as the previously mentioned Eurobarometer survey, show that concern about the safety of eating GMOs generally rises in those who are better informed about genetic modification

In spite of these considerations, we are confident that our results are broadly in line with the findings of other public surveys.

For instance, in 2012 BBC Countryfile Magazine launched an open poll which posed the question: Should GM crop trials be allowed to go ahead?. The online surrey returned 7824 responses, 79% (6144) of whom said no and 21% (1680) sad yes.

An open poll in the Guardian newspaper online reported in 2013 that 72% of readers said they do not believe GM food is either safe or beneficial. Six months later the Guardian ran another online open poll – Should restrictions on GM crops be relaxed? In this poll 71% said no.

Moving forward

Beyond GM is very much a people’s campaign. Everything we do gives space and voice to the majority in the UK who have real concerns about GMOs and the direction of travel they represent in food and farming. Our work helps amplify those concerns and represent them to those in power.

By and large the consumer, or more correctly citizen, continues to be missing in the public debate. It is shunned and even derided by media outlets such as the BBC (which has a firm bias towards the promotion of GMOs) our major newspapers, the National Farmers Union, the British Government and even supermarkets.

The food service industry claims to take sustainability seriously as part of a commitment to provenance. It’s clear from our survey, and others, that customers believe that GMOs are absolutely a part of this picture and that the strength of feeling is such that the industry will not get away with ignoring the issue or greenwashing it.

We are ready, able and willing to help the food service industry understand the issues, keep GMOs out of the restaurant food chain and take them out where they already exist.

• You can download GMOs in the Restaurant Food Chain – A Consumer Report

While many restaurants and fast food outlets claim to care about sustainability and authenticity in truth it’s the bottom line that more often than not informs sourcing and the selection of ingredients.

As new types of genetically modified foods and ingredients find their their way into the restaurant food chain in the UK the issue of ‘provenance’ becomes more complex.

For this reason, Beyond GM conducted a survey to find out more about UK customers’ attitudes to GMOs in restaurants and the results reveal a sharp message for chefs, caterers and everyone else in the food service industry.

In total 556 people responded, and 82% said they believed that GMOs deserved greater consideration as part of traceability, sustainability and provenance issues in the food chain.

The majority (97%) believed that chefs and caterers should include information about GMO ingredients – including GM fed livestock products – on menus and websites.

This kind of transparency, of course, has consequences.

When asked what they would do if a restaurant menu indicated the presence of GMO ingredients, the majority (56%) said they would find somewhere else to eat. Another large group (34%) said they would consider eating in that restaurant if guaranteed GMO-free options were available.

Similar proportions (5% and 5% respectively) said they would either find somewhere else to eat, or that they had no problem eating GMOs.

Significantly, 84% said they would consider paying more for a meal that was guaranteed GMO-free.

Eating out

Another stand-out fact was that, in spite of a common notion that those who have concerns about GMOs tend to avoid eating out, this was not the case.

Respondents to our survey frequented a wide variety of establishments including: table service restaurants (87%); pubs (56%); coffeehouses (51%); take away restaurants (50%); hotel restaurants (33%); street food outlets (32%); and home delivery services (27%). A smaller proportion of respondents (13% and 7% respectively) frequently ate at workplace or school cafeterias.

This is important information and in line with the findings of much larger surveys. For example, one 2015 survey of US diners, found that those who are concerned about sustainability are, in fact, more likely to dine out than the general population; on average 18 times a month in 6 different restaurant types (compared to others who eat out, on average, 14 times a month).

What is more, as noted in a survey by the Sustainable Restaurant Association, The Discerning Diner, concern for sustainability and provenance are not just the preserve of those with lots of money to spend on food.

When the SRA asked customers what their top concerns about restaurant food were, customer health and nutrition was the joint top concern (along with food waste) of diners (53%). Issues such as local sourcing, animal welfare and seasonality also registered as prominent concerns.

Not using genetically modified food was an expectation of significant numbers of diners in a range of restaurant types: 56% of diners where a meal costs £30 or more, 40% of diners where a meal costs between £10 and £20, and notably, 29% where a meal costs less than £10.

What it all this means is that people who have concerns about the quality and authenticity of their food have a significant stake – both personally but also financially – in wanting the restaurant food chain to be sustainable and free from GMO contamination.

A range of concerns

Respondents expressed a number of reasons why they would not want to eat GMOs. These included the ideas that GMOs:

• Encourage corporate control of the food system (91%)
• Support unsustainable industrial and factory farming (87%)
• Cause environmental damage (85%)
• Carry too many scientific unknowns (82%)
• Raise concerns for animal welfare (74%)
• Conflict with religious or personal beliefs (33%)
• Other issues (27%)

Among the ‘Other’ concerns listed by respondents were issues like the risks it poses to non-GM and organic crops particularly from cross pollination, loss of knowledge of traditional ways of growing food/managing pests, loss of crop diversity and loss of consumer choice.

Concern over the higher use of herbicides and insecticides on GMOs crops also came through as a theme not just for the environmental damage they cause but also for health risks.

Some questioned the social need for GMOs, given that they are not designed to be more nutritious. Several other respondents also felt that the totality of problems associated with GMOs made them a crime against nature or ‘ecocide’ which they felt should be punishable by law.

It was interesting to us that while opponents of agricultural GMOs are often portrayed as having an irrational or moral objection to GMOs – as opposed to an evidence-based one – very few indicated that they objected to GMOs because they conflicted with their one religious or personal beliefs.

Although only about a third of respondents (34%) said that GMOs conflicted with personal or religious beliefs, in a multi-cultural society – and with large number of customers seeking kosher or halal food – this is an issue to watch.

Lack of trust

Our survey findings make a powerful case for food service to take a lead in cleaning up its act.

Customer trust is an extremely valuable commodity for any business. Those in the food service industry should be aware that, apart from concrete concerns about issues like health and safety, surveys on GMOs consistently show that the general public does not trust genetically modified food and that this food technology provokes in them a sense of genuine unease.

Indeed, in our survey 83% of respondent said they did not believe GMOs were safe to eat; 12% said they did not know and only 5% said they thought GMOs were safe to eat.

This is reflective of an unease around GMOs, which has always been there but which is growing steadily as newer and more complex biotechnology looks for a marketplace in the foods we eat every day.

Our findings, again, are in line with those of other surveys, for instance the 2010 Eurobarometer opinion poll.

This most recent large scale independent survey of public attitudes towards genetic engineering technology is now several years old, but its findings remain valid and relevant.

It found that nearly 60% of Europeans believe that GM food is not safe for their health and that of their family or for future generations. An even larger majority (70%) said that genetically modifying foods is “fundamentally unnatural”, and 61% said that GMOs made them “feel uneasy”.

Overall it found that as many as 95% of European respondents rated GMO foods as potentially unsafe and lacking real benefits.

The Eurobarometer survey also revealed equally strong opposition to animal cloning for food, with only 18% of people in favour.

The survey highlighted that there was widespread awareness about GM food (84%).

A key finding related to this was that, contrary to what proponents of GM crops claim, Europeans understand the difference between biotechnology and genetic engineering of food, and strongly reject only the latter.

More recently, in 2013, these sentiments were echoed in the UK, when the Food Standards Agency published the second wave of its Food and You survey.

Asked about awareness of new food technologies used in food production, respondents reported being most aware of genetic modification (80%); 64% of people were aware of animal cloning, 34% of irradiation and 20% of nanotechnology.

A majority of people felt uneasy about the use of these technologies in food: 66% being uneasy about animal cloning, 52% about genetic modification, and 51% about irradiation. 34% of people expressed concern about nanotechnology even though it is relatively new and not widely known.

Almost since the advent of genetic engineering the food industry, the research establishment and parts of the media have been saying that the public is becoming more accepting of the technology.  However, with no credible independent evidence to support this view it remains little more than wishful thinking.

The most recent independent survey was a 2014 YouGov poll which investigated whether people’s attitudes to GMOs were becoming more favourable. Only 6% of the public reported their views towards GM foods becoming “more positive” over the last 12 months, virtually identical to the 5% who said their views had become more negative.

As for those whose views hadn’t changed at all, they remained decisively negative: 41% negative to 17% positive. A large proportion (31%) also responded “don’t know” when asked how their views on GM have evolved.

In addition 40% believed that the government should not be promoting the adoption of GM, while just 22% believed that they should.

Messages to chefs

Respondents to our survey were asked what their personal message about GMOs to chefs, caterers, hoteliers and others in the food service industry was.

Some of these comments include pleas for those in food service to lead:

• Educate yourselves…it’s important to us!
• “I’m shocked that more chefs etc. don’t take the time to understand the issues & stand up for a really sustainable food system.”
• “Think about how our choices now affect the future.”
• “You are at the forefront and should demand the best and purest ingredients.”
• “Try and get a truly balanced view on GMOs. Err on the side of caution. Most people seem to have a natural distrust of them. They are your customers.”
• “You can be leaders and heroes of a culture, of good husbandry and farming, and real love of good food. Or we can all end up not knowing what we are eating, because GM will get everywhere.”

We also saw a desire for clear labelling:

• “Clearly state whether or not you use GM ingredients. I would much prefer to eat animals that have been treated well and organic produce, so am much more likely to patronise restaurants that care about these things too.”
• “Ensure you provide clear choices to your customers so they can make informed choices about what they eat.”
• “Customers have a right to know…and will no doubt prove that, given a choice, they would prefer to avoid GMOs.”
• “I am sick of finding empty GM oil cans outside restaurants & cafes that are not labelling this on their menus – as required by law!”
• “Consider emulating San Carlo in Birmingham whose window message is that their suppliers assure them that their ingredients are GM free.”
• “Let us know what we are eating!”

And of course a desire to simplify everyone’s lives by just keeping GMOs out of the food chain:

• “Leave it out!”
• “Get ahead of the game in supporting non-GMO food before it’s you or the company you work for losing out in the long-term as awareness increases.”
• “Change the way you purchase your food.”
• “Keep that gunk out of my food!!”
• “Don’t! Not enough is known about the effects and food shouldn’t be mucked about with. Stick to fresh, natural and local produce.”
• “Keep GMOs out of the food chain! I don’t want to encourage the cultivation of GM crops by eating dairy and meat products fed GMOs.”
• “I do not want GMOs on my plate. I will gladly pay more for ‘clean’ food.”
• “If you want my business, offer me non-GMO meals.”
• “I will be seeking out places to eat where non GM food is guaranteed. I hope you will be among those who supply it.”

Where are we now?

Although we like to think of the UK as GMO free, this is not really the case. There is a slow creep of GMO products in to our shops and of GMO ingredients into our food and drink – and the landscape is rapidly changing.

Britain does not grow GM crops but it has an open door policy to imports of GM feed and foods and to ingredients that can be used without the need for labelling.

Foods for human consumption and animal feed can contain up to 0.9% GM ingredients (as long as the GM content is accidental or technically unavoidable) and not require labelling. Similarly, foods made with GM processing agents may not be labelled as such. These can include soy-based ingredients such as lecithin, soy protein, soy sauce and soy flour, corn-based ingredients including modified food starch, corn syrup, maltodextrin, and corn flour, artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and trehalose, and increasingly cane sugar.

You will find these things in products like ready-made salad dressings, marinades and sauces, breads and crackers, vegetarian meat substitutes and deserts.

The most common GMO products in UK restaurants, however, are GMO oils derived from maize, soya, rapeseed and sometimes cottonseed.

Restaurants and other establishments are legally obliged to indicate on the menu – including online menus – if they are using such oils. However, Trading Standards reports show that most don’t.

Nearly all conventionally reared meat in the UK is reared on GM feed. While the feed itself must, according to the law, be labelled, the eventually food products meat, milk and eggs – do not require labelling at point of sale. We know from our contact with the public that this is seen as unacceptable and a restriction of consumer choice.

Wines produced using genetically modified yeasts do not need to be labelled and beers and spirits made using GMO ingredients also do not need to state this on the label as it is considered proprietary.

There is some evidence that beers imported from the US and Mexico do contain GMO ingredients such as high fructose corn syrup (mainly in the US), caramel colouring, and some genetically modified organisms (GMO) like dextrose and corn syrup.

US Distillers Brown Forman – whose brands include Jack Daniels, Canadian Whiskey, Woodford Reserve and Old Forester – announced in 2014 that, due to supply chain issues in the US it spirits would now be made using GM ingredients.

The same is now starting to happen in the UK. Factory style spirit distillers are creating multiple brands – including vodkas, gins, jenevers, liquors, pastis and cream liquors – using cheap imported GMO derived neutral grains and potable alcohols. None of it is labelled.

Importantly, new biotechnology methods and biotech ingredients, such as cocoa, vanilla, stevia, saffron and coconut produced using synthetic biology and ‘fake foods’ such as chicken-less chicken, milk-less milk and egg-less eggs, some of which require GM starter cultures, are being aimed squarely at the food service industry and cynically framed as sustainable and ethical alternatives to conventional foods.

Food service must rise to the challenge of understanding these issues and challenging assumptions around them.

Context and conclusions

The immediate purpose of the survey was to help inform discussion at a Supply Chain Roundtable hosted by TV Chef Cyrus Todiwala and Hospitality and Catering News. However, results will also be used as part of Beyond GM’s Stir the Pot initiative to engage with professionals in food service about the encroachment of GMOs into the food chain.

The survey was conducted online over 6 weeks March and April 2017 and was disseminated through a variety of channels including our own newsletter and social media and via other supportive organisations such as Sustain, The Sustainable Restaurant Association, Sustainable Food Cities and Slow Food. It was also flagged up in an article in Hospitality and Catering News as well as in the Ecologistand Natural Products News.

Our survey does not claim to be comprehensive and does have some limitations. The survey numbers are relatively small and the male female split showed a bias towards women. The demographics of the UK as a whole are 49% men and 51% women. In our survey 37% were men and 63% women.

The distribution of age ranges leans towards a greater number of aged 45+ individuals that would be found in the UK as a whole 72% compared to 34%.

In addition, the population surveyed was taken largely from a population of people who are more aware and potentially better informed about GMOs than the average individual.

However, studies such as the previously mentioned Eurobarometer survey, show that concern about the safety of eating GMOs generally rises in those who are better informed about genetic modification

In spite of these considerations, we are confident that our results are broadly in line with the findings of other public surveys.

For instance, in 2012 BBC Countryfile Magazine launched an open poll which posed the question: Should GM crop trials be allowed to go ahead?. The online surrey returned 7824 responses, 79% (6144) of whom said no and 21% (1680) sad yes.

An open poll in the Guardian newspaper online reported in 2013 that 72% of readers said they do not believe GM food is either safe or beneficial. Six months later the Guardian ran another online open poll – Should restrictions on GM crops be relaxed? In this poll 71% said no.

Moving forward

Beyond GM is very much a people’s campaign. Everything we do gives space and voice to the majority in the UK who have real concerns about GMOs and the direction of travel they represent in food and farming. Our work helps amplify those concerns and represent them to those in power.

By and large the consumer, or more correctly citizen, continues to be missing in the public debate. It is shunned and even derided by media outlets such as the BBC (which has a firm bias towards the promotion of GMOs) our major newspapers, the National Farmers Union, the British Government and even supermarkets.

The food service industry claims to take sustainability seriously as part of a commitment to provenance. It’s clear from our survey, and others, that customers believe that GMOs are absolutely a part of this picture and that the strength of feeling is such that the industry will not get away with ignoring the issue or greenwashing it.

We are ready, able and willing to help the food service industry understand the issues, keep GMOs out of the restaurant food chain and take them out where they already exist.

• You can download GMOs in the Restaurant Food Chain – A Consumer Report

While many restaurants and fast food outlets claim to care about sustainability and authenticity in truth it’s the bottom line that more often than not informs sourcing and the selection of ingredients.

As new types of genetically modified foods and ingredients find their their way into the restaurant food chain in the UK the issue of ‘provenance’ becomes more complex.

For this reason, Beyond GM conducted a survey to find out more about UK customers’ attitudes to GMOs in restaurants and the results reveal a sharp message for chefs, caterers and everyone else in the food service industry.

In total 556 people responded, and 82% said they believed that GMOs deserved greater consideration as part of traceability, sustainability and provenance issues in the food chain.

The majority (97%) believed that chefs and caterers should include information about GMO ingredients – including GM fed livestock products – on menus and websites.

This kind of transparency, of course, has consequences.

When asked what they would do if a restaurant menu indicated the presence of GMO ingredients, the majority (56%) said they would find somewhere else to eat. Another large group (34%) said they would consider eating in that restaurant if guaranteed GMO-free options were available.

Similar proportions (5% and 5% respectively) said they would either find somewhere else to eat, or that they had no problem eating GMOs.

Significantly, 84% said they would consider paying more for a meal that was guaranteed GMO-free.

Eating out

Another stand-out fact was that, in spite of a common notion that those who have concerns about GMOs tend to avoid eating out, this was not the case.

Respondents to our survey frequented a wide variety of establishments including: table service restaurants (87%); pubs (56%); coffeehouses (51%); take away restaurants (50%); hotel restaurants (33%); street food outlets (32%); and home delivery services (27%). A smaller proportion of respondents (13% and 7% respectively) frequently ate at workplace or school cafeterias.

This is important information and in line with the findings of much larger surveys. For example, one 2015 survey of US diners, found that those who are concerned about sustainability are, in fact, more likely to dine out than the general population; on average 18 times a month in 6 different restaurant types (compared to others who eat out, on average, 14 times a month).

What is more, as noted in a survey by the Sustainable Restaurant Association, The Discerning Diner, concern for sustainability and provenance are not just the preserve of those with lots of money to spend on food.

When the SRA asked customers what their top concerns about restaurant food were, customer health and nutrition was the joint top concern (along with food waste) of diners (53%). Issues such as local sourcing, animal welfare and seasonality also registered as prominent concerns.

Not using genetically modified food was an expectation of significant numbers of diners in a range of restaurant types: 56% of diners where a meal costs £30 or more, 40% of diners where a meal costs between £10 and £20, and notably, 29% where a meal costs less than £10.

What it all this means is that people who have concerns about the quality and authenticity of their food have a significant stake – both personally but also financially – in wanting the restaurant food chain to be sustainable and free from GMO contamination.

A range of concerns

Respondents expressed a number of reasons why they would not want to eat GMOs. These included the ideas that GMOs:

• Encourage corporate control of the food system (91%)
• Support unsustainable industrial and factory farming (87%)
• Cause environmental damage (85%)
• Carry too many scientific unknowns (82%)
• Raise concerns for animal welfare (74%)
• Conflict with religious or personal beliefs (33%)
• Other issues (27%)

Among the ‘Other’ concerns listed by respondents were issues like the risks it poses to non-GM and organic crops particularly from cross pollination, loss of knowledge of traditional ways of growing food/managing pests, loss of crop diversity and loss of consumer choice.

Concern over the higher use of herbicides and insecticides on GMOs crops also came through as a theme not just for the environmental damage they cause but also for health risks.

Some questioned the social need for GMOs, given that they are not designed to be more nutritious. Several other respondents also felt that the totality of problems associated with GMOs made them a crime against nature or ‘ecocide’ which they felt should be punishable by law.

It was interesting to us that while opponents of agricultural GMOs are often portrayed as having an irrational or moral objection to GMOs – as opposed to an evidence-based one – very few indicated that they objected to GMOs because they conflicted with their one religious or personal beliefs.

Although only about a third of respondents (34%) said that GMOs conflicted with personal or religious beliefs, in a multi-cultural society – and with large number of customers seeking kosher or halal food – this is an issue to watch.

Lack of trust

Our survey findings make a powerful case for food service to take a lead in cleaning up its act.

Customer trust is an extremely valuable commodity for any business. Those in the food service industry should be aware that, apart from concrete concerns about issues like health and safety, surveys on GMOs consistently show that the general public does not trust genetically modified food and that this food technology provokes in them a sense of genuine unease.

Indeed, in our survey 83% of respondent said they did not believe GMOs were safe to eat; 12% said they did not know and only 5% said they thought GMOs were safe to eat.

This is reflective of an unease around GMOs, which has always been there but which is growing steadily as newer and more complex biotechnology looks for a marketplace in the foods we eat every day.

Our findings, again, are in line with those of other surveys, for instance the 2010 Eurobarometer opinion poll.

This most recent large scale independent survey of public attitudes towards genetic engineering technology is now several years old, but its findings remain valid and relevant.

It found that nearly 60% of Europeans believe that GM food is not safe for their health and that of their family or for future generations. An even larger majority (70%) said that genetically modifying foods is “fundamentally unnatural”, and 61% said that GMOs made them “feel uneasy”.

Overall it found that as many as 95% of European respondents rated GMO foods as potentially unsafe and lacking real benefits.

The Eurobarometer survey also revealed equally strong opposition to animal cloning for food, with only 18% of people in favour.

The survey highlighted that there was widespread awareness about GM food (84%).

A key finding related to this was that, contrary to what proponents of GM crops claim, Europeans understand the difference between biotechnology and genetic engineering of food, and strongly reject only the latter.

More recently, in 2013, these sentiments were echoed in the UK, when the Food Standards Agency published the second wave of its Food and You survey.

Asked about awareness of new food technologies used in food production, respondents reported being most aware of genetic modification (80%); 64% of people were aware of animal cloning, 34% of irradiation and 20% of nanotechnology.

A majority of people felt uneasy about the use of these technologies in food: 66% being uneasy about animal cloning, 52% about genetic modification, and 51% about irradiation. 34% of people expressed concern about nanotechnology even though it is relatively new and not widely known.

Almost since the advent of genetic engineering the food industry, the research establishment and parts of the media have been saying that the public is becoming more accepting of the technology.  However, with no credible independent evidence to support this view it remains little more than wishful thinking.

The most recent independent survey was a 2014 YouGov poll which investigated whether people’s attitudes to GMOs were becoming more favourable. Only 6% of the public reported their views towards GM foods becoming “more positive” over the last 12 months, virtually identical to the 5% who said their views had become more negative.

As for those whose views hadn’t changed at all, they remained decisively negative: 41% negative to 17% positive. A large proportion (31%) also responded “don’t know” when asked how their views on GM have evolved.

In addition 40% believed that the government should not be promoting the adoption of GM, while just 22% believed that they should.

Messages to chefs

Respondents to our survey were asked what their personal message about GMOs to chefs, caterers, hoteliers and others in the food service industry was.

Some of these comments include pleas for those in food service to lead:

• Educate yourselves…it’s important to us!
• “I’m shocked that more chefs etc. don’t take the time to understand the issues & stand up for a really sustainable food system.”
• “Think about how our choices now affect the future.”
• “You are at the forefront and should demand the best and purest ingredients.”
• “Try and get a truly balanced view on GMOs. Err on the side of caution. Most people seem to have a natural distrust of them. They are your customers.”
• “You can be leaders and heroes of a culture, of good husbandry and farming, and real love of good food. Or we can all end up not knowing what we are eating, because GM will get everywhere.”

We also saw a desire for clear labelling:

• “Clearly state whether or not you use GM ingredients. I would much prefer to eat animals that have been treated well and organic produce, so am much more likely to patronise restaurants that care about these things too.”
• “Ensure you provide clear choices to your customers so they can make informed choices about what they eat.”
• “Customers have a right to know…and will no doubt prove that, given a choice, they would prefer to avoid GMOs.”
• “I am sick of finding empty GM oil cans outside restaurants & cafes that are not labelling this on their menus – as required by law!”
• “Consider emulating San Carlo in Birmingham whose window message is that their suppliers assure them that their ingredients are GM free.”
• “Let us know what we are eating!”

And of course a desire to simplify everyone’s lives by just keeping GMOs out of the food chain:

• “Leave it out!”
• “Get ahead of the game in supporting non-GMO food before it’s you or the company you work for losing out in the long-term as awareness increases.”
• “Change the way you purchase your food.”
• “Keep that gunk out of my food!!”
• “Don’t! Not enough is known about the effects and food shouldn’t be mucked about with. Stick to fresh, natural and local produce.”
• “Keep GMOs out of the food chain! I don’t want to encourage the cultivation of GM crops by eating dairy and meat products fed GMOs.”
• “I do not want GMOs on my plate. I will gladly pay more for ‘clean’ food.”
• “If you want my business, offer me non-GMO meals.”
• “I will be seeking out places to eat where non GM food is guaranteed. I hope you will be among those who supply it.”

Where are we now?

Although we like to think of the UK as GMO free, this is not really the case. There is a slow creep of GMO products in to our shops and of GMO ingredients into our food and drink – and the landscape is rapidly changing.

Britain does not grow GM crops but it has an open door policy to imports of GM feed and foods and to ingredients that can be used without the need for labelling.

Foods for human consumption and animal feed can contain up to 0.9% GM ingredients (as long as the GM content is accidental or technically unavoidable) and not require labelling. Similarly, foods made with GM processing agents may not be labelled as such. These can include soy-based ingredients such as lecithin, soy protein, soy sauce and soy flour, corn-based ingredients including modified food starch, corn syrup, maltodextrin, and corn flour, artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and trehalose, and increasingly cane sugar.

You will find these things in products like ready-made salad dressings, marinades and sauces, breads and crackers, vegetarian meat substitutes and deserts.

The most common GMO products in UK restaurants, however, are GMO oils derived from maize, soya, rapeseed and sometimes cottonseed.

Restaurants and other establishments are legally obliged to indicate on the menu – including online menus – if they are using such oils. However, Trading Standards reports show that most don’t.

Nearly all conventionally reared meat in the UK is reared on GM feed. While the feed itself must, according to the law, be labelled, the eventually food products meat, milk and eggs – do not require labelling at point of sale. We know from our contact with the public that this is seen as unacceptable and a restriction of consumer choice.

Wines produced using genetically modified yeasts do not need to be labelled and beers and spirits made using GMO ingredients also do not need to state this on the label as it is considered proprietary.

There is some evidence that beers imported from the US and Mexico do contain GMO ingredients such as high fructose corn syrup (mainly in the US), caramel colouring, and some genetically modified organisms (GMO) like dextrose and corn syrup.

US Distillers Brown Forman – whose brands include Jack Daniels, Canadian Whiskey, Woodford Reserve and Old Forester – announced in 2014 that, due to supply chain issues in the US it spirits would now be made using GM ingredients.

The same is now starting to happen in the UK. Factory style spirit distillers are creating multiple brands – including vodkas, gins, jenevers, liquors, pastis and cream liquors – using cheap imported GMO derived neutral grains and potable alcohols. None of it is labelled.

Importantly, new biotechnology methods and biotech ingredients, such as cocoa, vanilla, stevia, saffron and coconut produced using synthetic biology and ‘fake foods’ such as chicken-less chicken, milk-less milk and egg-less eggs, some of which require GM starter cultures, are being aimed squarely at the food service industry and cynically framed as sustainable and ethical alternatives to conventional foods.

Food service must rise to the challenge of understanding these issues and challenging assumptions around them.

Context and conclusions

The immediate purpose of the survey was to help inform discussion at a Supply Chain Roundtable hosted by TV Chef Cyrus Todiwala and Hospitality and Catering News. However, results will also be used as part of Beyond GM’s Stir the Pot initiative to engage with professionals in food service about the encroachment of GMOs into the food chain.

The survey was conducted online over 6 weeks March and April 2017 and was disseminated through a variety of channels including our own newsletter and social media and via other supportive organisations such as Sustain, The Sustainable Restaurant Association, Sustainable Food Cities and Slow Food. It was also flagged up in an article in Hospitality and Catering News as well as in the Ecologistand Natural Products News.

Our survey does not claim to be comprehensive and does have some limitations. The survey numbers are relatively small and the male female split showed a bias towards women. The demographics of the UK as a whole are 49% men and 51% women. In our survey 37% were men and 63% women.

The distribution of age ranges leans towards a greater number of aged 45+ individuals that would be found in the UK as a whole 72% compared to 34%.

In addition, the population surveyed was taken largely from a population of people who are more aware and potentially better informed about GMOs than the average individual.

However, studies such as the previously mentioned Eurobarometer survey, show that concern about the safety of eating GMOs generally rises in those who are better informed about genetic modification

In spite of these considerations, we are confident that our results are broadly in line with the findings of other public surveys.

For instance, in 2012 BBC Countryfile Magazine launched an open poll which posed the question: Should GM crop trials be allowed to go ahead?. The online surrey returned 7824 responses, 79% (6144) of whom said no and 21% (1680) sad yes.

An open poll in the Guardian newspaper online reported in 2013 that 72% of readers said they do not believe GM food is either safe or beneficial. Six months later the Guardian ran another online open poll – Should restrictions on GM crops be relaxed? In this poll 71% said no.

Moving forward

Beyond GM is very much a people’s campaign. Everything we do gives space and voice to the majority in the UK who have real concerns about GMOs and the direction of travel they represent in food and farming. Our work helps amplify those concerns and represent them to those in power.

By and large the consumer, or more correctly citizen, continues to be missing in the public debate. It is shunned and even derided by media outlets such as the BBC (which has a firm bias towards the promotion of GMOs) our major newspapers, the National Farmers Union, the British Government and even supermarkets.

The food service industry claims to take sustainability seriously as part of a commitment to provenance. It’s clear from our survey, and others, that customers believe that GMOs are absolutely a part of this picture and that the strength of feeling is such that the industry will not get away with ignoring the issue or greenwashing it.

We are ready, able and willing to help the food service industry understand the issues, keep GMOs out of the restaurant food chain and take them out where they already exist.

• You can download GMOs in the Restaurant Food Chain – A Consumer Report

The UK political situation on nuclear power is pretty uninspiring, apart from the Greens. Few political supporters of nuclear power appear to be aware that nuclear power is in free-fall around the world – especially in Western Europe and in the US, where many reactors are being closed without replacement.

Few seem aware of the legal, technical, regulatory, and economic difficulties faced by utilities in building the handful of new reactors and of the crippling costs of shutting down the many old ones. None appears aware of nuclear’s financial meltdown across the globe.

In a perceptive new article published by a prestigious US Ivy League University, Is Nuclear Power Coming To An End? Fred Pearce, a distinguished UK science writer, wrote: “Now come the bankruptcies. In an astonishing hammer blow to a global industry in late March 2017, Westinghouse – the original developer of the workhorse of the global nuclear industry, the pressurized-water reactor (PWR), and for many decades the world’s largest provider of nuclear technology -filed for bankruptcy after hitting big problems with its latest reactor design, the AP1000.

“Largely as a result, its parent company, the Japanese nuclear engineering giant Toshiba, is also in dire financial straits and admits there is ‘substantial doubt’ about its ability to continue as a going concern.

“Meanwhile, France’s state-owned Électricité de France (EDF), Europe’s biggest builder and operator of nuclear power plants, is deep in debt thanks to its own technical missteps and could become a victim of the economic and energy policies of incoming President Emmanuel Macron.

“This is no short-term trend. While gas and renewables get cheaper, the price of nuclear power only rises. This is in large part to meet safety concerns linked to past reactor disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima and to post-9/11 security worries, and also a result of utilities factoring in the costs of decommissioning their aging reactors.”

Pearce concludes by stating “…the industry is in crisis. It looks ever more like a 20th-Century industrial dinosaur, unloved by investors, the public, and policymakers alike. The crisis could prove terminal.”

Most British politicians sail along blissfully innocent of nuclear’s impending denouement, not only in the rest of the world but in the UK too. The Government’s nuclear plans at Hinkley, Wylfa and Moorside are doubtful at best and moribund at worst.

First Anti-Nuclear Conference in 30 Years

We might shake our heads at the ignorance and irrationality of some of our senior politicians. However we should perhaps not despair too much, because on 17^th June, CND is convening a one-day National Conference in London with a stellar array of speakers. No Need For Nuclear Conference

The Conference will explicitly discuss the incoherence and irrationality of the nuclear policies adopted by the main parties. Apart from Chernobyl or Fukushima anniversaries, this is the first anti-nuclear conference in the UK in about 30 years. As such, it marks the long overdue re-emergence of an important issue.

The UK anti-nuclear groups are relatively weak, under-resourced and fragmented, which means there has been little recent opposition to the Government’s irrational energy policies.

Perhaps this conference will help change that.

No Need for Nuclear Conference booking:

• Buy your ticket on online
• Saturday 17 June 2017
• Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square
• London WC1R 4RL

This Author

Dr Ian Fairlie is an independent consultant on environmental radioactivity. He was formerly a senior scientist in the Civil Service and worked for the TUC as a researcher between 1975 and 1990

The world surely is approaching a danger point when the abrogation of an inadequate agreement is cursed as a disaster.

The Paris Climate Summit goals can’t be characterized as anything significantly better than feel-good window dressing, but the argument that the world has to start somewhere is difficult to challenge.

Better to take a baby step forward than a giant leap backward!

As always, we must ask: Who profits? The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord is due to factors beyond Donald Trump’s astounding ignorance and his contempt for science or reality. There is a long history of energy company denial of global warming, a well-funded campaign.

Never mind that a widely cited 2015 study by the Stockholm Resilience Center, prepared by 18 scientists, found that the Earth is crossing several “planetary boundaries” that together will render the planet much less hospitable.

Or that two scientific studies issued in 2015 suggest that so much carbon dioxide already has been thrown into the air that humanity may have already committed itself to a six-meter rise in sea level.

Or that the oceans can’t continue to act as shock absorbers – heat accumulated in them is not permanently stored, but can be released back into the atmosphere, potentially providing significant feedback that would accelerate global warming.

Even Big Oil prefers Paris framework to climate anarchy

So strongly has public opinion swung on global warming that even Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell joined a vast array of multi-national corporations decrying the Trump withdrawal, leaving the United States as one of only three countries outside the Paris Accord.

Exxon Mobil claims to support the agreement and is “well positioned to compete” under its terms. A measure of skepticism over this recent conversion is forgivable. Exxon has spent more than $33 million on denying global warming from 1997 to 2015, according to DeSmog, a total believed to be an underestimate. DeSmog summarized these findings this way:

“Despite its advanced knowledge of the climate disruption fueled in large part by oil, gas and coal pollution, ExxonMobil turned its back on crafting responsible solutions and instead funded a sophisticated campaign to sow doubt and delay action to curb carbon emissions – honing the tobacco industry’s playbook with even more advanced public relations, advertising and lobbying muscle.”

A separate DeSmog report says that Exxon corporate documents from the late 1970s unequivocally declare “there is no doubt” that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels was a growing problem well understood within the company.

Inside Climate News reports that Exxon confirmed the science on global warming by the early 1980s while publicly mocking those models for decades beyond.

Tobacco is good for you and so is a warming planet

Such denialism is alive and well. A leading global warming denialist lobbying outfit, the Heartland Institute, had this to say about the withdrawal from the Paris Accord:

“Angela Merkel and what is left of the E.U. are not happy (itself a victory), but fake science and globalism would take a big hit with this move.”

So childish it could have been written by Donald Trump himself! Lavishly funded by Exxon, the Heartland Institute originally was a propaganda outfit for the tobacco industry, going so far as to deny the health effects of second-hand smoke.

Then there is NERA Consulting, which the Trump administration cited in its announcement of the Paris withdrawal. The White House statement claimed that “meeting the Obama Administration’s requirements in the Paris Accord would cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion over the next several decades” and has already cost six million industrial jobs.

Among other problems with this phantasmagoria is that none of the commitments of the Paris Accord have actually been implemented. Thus it is difficult to determine how those jobs supposedly disappeared.

What is NERA Consulting? It describes itself as “firm of experts” that provides economic analysis to corporate clients. DeSmog reports that NERA has repeatedly, sometimes anonymously, issued reports on behalf of coal, liquified natural gas and other energy corporations that claim wildly inflated job and/or economic costs.

Media Matters for America reports that a NERA report attacking the US Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon pollution standards “has been thoroughly debunked by multiple experts” on multiple grounds, including failure to acknowledge any economic benefits. The NERA report was explicitly prepared for several energy-industry lobbying groups.

Earlier, NERA was involved in lobbying for the tobacco industry; a vice president said the tobacco industry should aim to explain the health “benefits” of smoking.

The Koch brothers, Charles and David, are also active funders of global warming denialism, and the two stand to profit enormously from the Alberta tar sands. The Koch brothers own close to two million acres that, should that land be fully exploited, would throw another 19 billion tonnes of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

The International Forum on Globalization estimates that the Kochs stand to make more than one million times more than the average Keystone XL pipeline worker over the life of the pipeline, based on potential profits of $100 billion.

Polar warming outpaces warming elsewhere

It is not a long distance from the Alberta tar sands to the Arctic, where global warming is particularly pronounced. Consistent with predictions that the polar regions would experience the sharpest rise in temperatures, the Arctic is 3.5C warmer than it was at the beginning of the 20th century with the region’s sea surface temperatures up to 5C higher than the 1982 to 2010 average.

Much worse could be on the way, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warns in its 2016 Arctic Report Card:

“Warming air temperatures in the Arctic are causing normally frozen ground (permafrost) to thaw. The permafrost is carbon rich and, when it thaws, is a source of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. Northern permafrost zone soils contain 1330-1580 billion tons [of] organic carbon, about twice as much as currently contained in the atmosphere.

“Tundra ecosystems are taking up increasingly more carbon during the growing season over the past several decades, but this has been offset by increasing carbon loss during the winter. Overall, tundra appears to be releasing net carbon to the atmosphere.”

Long before the release of such quantities of carbon throw the climate out of control, permafrost melting has begun to alter the Canadian Arctic’s environment in worrisome ways. In an article for Inside Climate News, Bob Berwyn writes:

“Huge slabs of Arctic permafrost in northwest Canada are slumping and disintegrating, sending large amounts of carbon-rich mud and silt into streams and rivers. A new study that analyzed nearly a half-million square miles in northwest Canada found that this permafrost decay is affecting 52,000 square miles of that vast stretch of earth – an expanse the size of Alabama.

“According to researchers with the Northwest Territories Geological Survey, the permafrost collapse is intensifying and causing landslides into rivers and lakes that can choke off life downstream, all the way to where the rivers discharge into the Arctic Ocean.”

At the other end of the Earth, Antarctic temperatures are up to 3C higher since the 1950s and they could increase an additional 5C by the end of the century.

So what happens if the increase in greenhouse gases continues indefinitely? Possibly, global warming unprecedented for more than 400 million years.

A study by researchers at Britain’s University of Southampton and University of Bristol, and Wesleyan University in the US reports that if all readily available fossil fuel is burned, by the mid-23rd century atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would be around 2,000 parts per million – levels not seen since 200 million years ago. Lead author Gavin Foster said:

“However, because the Sun was dimmer back then, the net climate forcing 200 million years ago was lower than we would experience in such a high CO2 future. So not only will the resultant climate change be faster than anything Earth has seen for millions of years, the climate that will exist is likely to have no natural counterpart, as far as we can tell, in at least the last 420 million years.”

If all the Earth’s ices melted (which they would at such levels of warming and carbon dioxide release), sea level would rise more than 60 meters (more than 200 feet).

Paris commitments well short of Paris goals

At the conclusion of the Paris Climate Summit, the world’s governments say they agreed to hold the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, but in actuality committed to nearly double that.

Nor is there any enforcement mechanism; all goals are voluntary. The summit, officially known as the 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP 21, anticipates peer pressure will encourage signatories “to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible” and then “undertake rapid reductions thereafter.”

The Paris goals are based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report issued in 2014, which foresees a rise in greenhouse-gas emissions for years to come, to above 450 parts per million, before falling to 450 ppm by 2100, which the report says is necessary to hold the global temperature rise to 2 degrees.

Unfortunately, the IPCC report relies on several technological breakthroughs, including capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide, which are not yet close to being feasible.

The now discarded US goal had been to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 26% to 28% in 2025, relative to 2005 levels. The European Union, Brazil, Canada, Japan, India and Australia have committed to cutting their greenhouse-gas emissions by anywhere from 26% (Japan) to 40% (EU) by 2030. China didn’t commit to a specific cut but said it would reach a peak in its greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030.

The EU goals have an additional barrier, however – the British government under Theresa May has been working hard to significantly weaken draft EU climate and energy rules, including efficiency standards, even though the rules wouldn’t take effect until after Brexit.

The doomed paradigm of infinite economic growth

A critical weakness of the assumptions underlying these goals is that the IPCC panel is asserting is that the cost of bringing global warming under control will be negligible, less than 0.1% annually during the course of the 21st century. No more than a blip noticed only by statisticians. There need be no fundamental change to the world’s economic structures – we can remain on the path of endless growth.

The Earth, alas, does not possess infinite resources. Certainly there should be a continued push toward the use of renewable energy sources in place of fossil fuels. But the idea that ‘green capitalism‘ will magically solve the problems of capitalism is a chimera. There is no way around the need to consume less and align production to human need rather than private profit.

Capitalism won’t offer people displaced from dirty industries new jobs, and if the only option someone has to feed their family is take a job in the oil sands or in a coal mine, it is pointless to blame those workers. Then there is the ‘grow or die’ dynamic imposed on capitalists through relentless competitive pressures.

As Fred Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster, in their book What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism, write:

” ‘Green capitalism’, even if products are produced using the utmost environmental care and designed for easy reuse, offers no way out of a system that must expand exponentially and thus continue to ratchet up its use of natural resources, its chemical pollution, its contaminated sewage sludge, its garbage, and its many other toxic substances. Some of these ‘fixes’ will probably slow down the rate of environmental destruction, but the magnitude of the needed changes dwarfs these approaches.” [Page 120.]

There are no free lunches. Doing what is necessary to keep the climate from going out of control, with catastrophic consequences, will require more economic disruption than the IPCC acknowledges. But the price of continuing business as usual will be much higher.

Our descendants are not likely to see short-term corporate profits a fair exchange for a less livable world.

Pete Dolack is an activist, writer, poet and photographer, and writes on Systemic Disorder. His book ‘It’s Not Over: Lessons from the Socialist Experiment‘, a study of attempts to create societies on a basis other than capitalism, was recently published by Zero Books.

This article was originally published on Systemic Disorder.

There has been a significant increase in the number of indigenous people and environmental activists killed over land disputes in Brazil, as human rights experts warn of a dangerous political mood in the nation.

New research shared with Energydesk by Brazilian human rights NGO Comissão Pastoral da Terra (CPT), shows that 37 people have been killed in the first six months of the year in rural land conflicts, eight more than at the same time in 2016.

The data comes as President Temer’s right-wing government has cut funding dramatically for the country’s indigenous rights agency, Funai.

CPT, which has been collecting data on rural violence since 1985, has found that so far the number of people killed in these disputes is set to exceed last year’s figures, when 61 people died.

At the end of April, violence against indigenous people in Brazil made international headlines, as 13 members of the Gamela community in Maranhão state were attacked by farmers wielding machetes in brutal land dispute.

A couple of week’s earlier, nine people were stabbed and shot over a territorial dispute in Mato Grosso state, in the Amazon.

Jeane Bellini, national coordinator of CPT told Energydesk that recent years have a significant increase in the number of people being killed in rural land conflicts.

Bellini believes the current political turmoil in Brazil, the former President Dilma Rousseff was ousted last year while sitting President Michel Temer is embroiled in a corruption scandal, has helped fuel the violence:

“Rural violence has accelerated under President Temer. Actually, it isn’t only the government. I would say that the political instability created by all of those irresponsible people in congress, as well as Temer and his government have added. I mean, they’re doing things that are completely against the needs and the rights of the people.”

Indigenous rights agency cut

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, told Energydesk that there is a close correlation between the government’s moves to cut the agency and the increase in violence. She explained:

“There is increased violence because the offices of Funai at the state levels are not functioning anymore. Funai is the only government agency trusted by Indigenous people. People look up to Funai to protect them. Now there is nobody trying to protect them.”

Tauli-Corpuz visited Brazil at the end of last year and found government agencies unable to function. She told Energydesk in December that she visited Funai regional offices which had no staff:

“We went to the office in Bahia and there was no one there. There have been huge cutbacks, and they have continued since I came back from my trip … I have a sense that the situation in the country is deteriorating.”

Months later, the UNSR said that the recommendations she made to Brazilian officials have not been addressed.

In May, a congressional committee led by a powerful farming lobby moved to replace the indigenous rights agency with a body controlled by the justice ministry – a move which campaigners believe could have terrible consequences.

Impunity

According to Bellini, a culture of impunity around rural killings in Brazil is also to blame for the worsening situation. CPT states that of the 1,800 killings the organisation has recorded since 1985, only 112 ended up in court with very few ending with conviction.

She said: “Given all the political instability in Brazil since last year, those who are looking to accumulate land, in whatever way they can, have found an opportunity to accelerate the process and apparently they feel quite convinced of impunity.”

In response to this story, Amnesty International Brazil – which uses CPT’s data in its own work – sent us the following statement.

“Amnesty International believes, that in the light of the recent attack on the Gamela community in Maranhão state, it is absolutely essential that the Brazilian government makes a strong statement committing to upholding the Constitutional obligations to demarcate and deliver Indigenous Peoples’ ancestral lands.

“Funai must be strengthened, by making available necessary financial resources, and recent appointments to the agency should be reviewed, in order to ensure that those in leadership positions in the agency have the necessary political independence to do their job.

“The Brazilian government must ensure security to human rights defenders and withdraw any initiatives to criminalize or limit their work.” 

Joe Sandler-Clarke is a UK-based journalist specialising in investigative and public interest stories. His writing has been published in the Guardian, Independent, The Sunday Times, VICE and others, and he curently works at Greenpeace UK.

Sam Cowie is a freelance journalist based in São Paulo, Brazil.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.

Read more: Amazon deforestation rises as government moves to weaken Indigenous protections.

Withdrawing from the UN Paris Climate Accord is one of more than a hundred electoral campaign promises that Donald Trump made. By delivering on that promise, the US now joined Nicaragua and Syria, the only countries that did not sign the agreement. Nicaragua did not sign due to indifference or denialism of climate change – it’s reason was the contrary. Nicaragua’s decision was based on its view that it is not enough to address the climate crisis. Syria is in the middle of civil war and under US and European sanctions.

Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement is undeniably wrong, narrow-minded, irresponsible, and destructive. It is right that concerned people all over the world are appalled and world leaders are condemning the normalisation of climate denialism by the current United States administration. But, let us also be reminded of the important facts about the UN Paris Agreement and look at how this affects the status of the US as a world leader.

Climate justice campaigners in the Global South, alongside many in the US, know that the US, even before Trump’s election, is quite far from being a ‘climate leader’. The US is the biggest historical greenhouse gas emitter and source of almost a third of the global carbon emissions. Despite that, it has weakened the Kyoto Protocol and has consistently used its power in the climate negotiation, together with other rich countries, to water-down or reduce the ambitions of the process. The market mechanisms and the overall climate politics of the process favoured climate profiteers or global corporations and the interests of rich countries.

The Paris Agreement is non-binding and falls far short of what must be done to even reach the already-weak target of keeping global average temperature increase to under 2 degrees or even the more ambitious 1.5 degrees in the preamble of the agreement. The international climate regime perpetuates the subordination of the Global South and many solutions that come out of it at best, do not match the scale of the problem or at worst, are false solutions. Telling the rest of the world that the US will no longer do what it intended to as its contribution in the 2015 accord is the height of irresponsibility and arrogance.

The UN climate process has been frustrating for many developing countries which attend it in the hope of pushing for globally-binding and appropriate solutions to climate change. Poor and vulnerable countries that have contributed very little to the current level of greenhouse gasses are already experiencing tremendous climate-related catastrophe. The people of Carteret Islands of Papua New Guinea have already been dislocated and have become the first climate refugees, while farmers in many countries in sub-saharan Africa are already finding it difficult to farm and are losing their livelihoods. Archipelagic countries like the Philippines are increasingly visited by severe storms. Many cities are facing the possibilities of sinking under the increasing sea level rise. Even the US is not spared from flooding.

Trump’s action on the climate front definitely disturbs the climate regime, however, the ecological equilibrium of the planet does not rest on the current process as it is now, nor on the success of the Paris Agreement. The bigger implication of Trump’s action is on how the world should now see the US. For better or worse, the world looks up to America’s leadership in problem solving. It is the cornerstone of current global economic, political, financial, and climate regimes. Trump’s short-sighted and ill-informed reasons for walking away from the climate accord is an aggressive act of shattering the very world order that it has painstakingly built. In its anxiety of losing its status as the world’s richest economic superpower, it is retreating to insularity.

An insecure superpower is a dangerous superpower. Diplomacy is about harmoniously using power and ethical credibility. Under the Trump presidency, the US is fast losing its credibility to lead. Trump’s action reveals his total disregard for the fate of humanity – his refusal to understand facts and accept scientific findings about climate change expose his limitations and weakness.

Theresa May has been strongly criticized for her earlier refusal to join European leaders in a chorus of condemnation of the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change while the leaders of Germany, France and Italy jointly expressed their stronger views.

For social movements and climate justice campaigners, the US abandonment of the agreement is disappointing, but there is also a unity in understanding that the future of humanity on this planet does not rest on leaders alone. In the US, big protests are already happening and the scientific community has already collectively criticised their President’s lack of regard to science. It is expected that massive protests in different countries will continue to express opposition against Trump, as well as the more important efforts to propose alternatives.

*This article has been shared with the Ecologist by www.globaljustice.org.uk

I remember about three years ago, whilst on a run through the Somerset countryside I spotted what I thought was a dog in a field. When it heard me approaching, a lofty creature sprang off into the hedgerow far quicker than I could run; it’s cover was blown. It wasn’t a dog, but in fact a brown hare, and that was my first and likely last sighting of one in the wild.

In the South-West it’s possible that this beautiful creature is now completely extinct, and according to the Hare Preservation Trust the brown hare has declined by more than 80% over the past 100 years.

Hares don’t hibernate and rely entirely on biodiverse landscapes for their food but as a result of the intensity of modern agriculture this biodiversity has been lost in many areas across the countryside, playing a big part in the hare’s demise.

Now researchers from the universities of Cambridge, Hull and the Open University have been looking into how important crop type is to the preservation of these creatures.

Hares feed on wild grasses and herbs, but 150,000 miles of hedgerow has been destroyed over 50 years of farming, cutting off the hare’s source of food and shelter. And with so many farmers planting single crop types, alongside other factors, hares are struggling to find the food they need.

There is hope for this graceful animal, but it relies on a complex understanding of biodiverse planting, a willingness by farmers and landowners to plant a mixture of biomass energy crops, and the subsidies for them to do so.

Dr Silviu Petrovan of the University of Cambridge, has carried out a study showing that the native brown hare may benefit from exotic, non-native crops growing across Britain’s farmland. Published in the European Journal of Wildlife Research the new study, funded by wildlife charity People’s Trust for Endangered Species (PTES), shows that the way crops are planted is just as important as to which crops are grown when it comes to the impact on animals.

The research team, when tasked with investigating what effects biomass energy crops might have on the survival of the hare, discovered that certain crops – one of which is the Asian grass also called ‘elephant grass’ – provide an excellent habitat when interspersed with other typical cereal crops, wild grasses and herbs. When elephant grass is planted as a monoculture across large areas, however, it has the opposite effect and discourages hares, which will avoid elephant grass as a food source, but use it instead for rest and shelter.

Dr Petrovan says: “As part of a mixed agricultural landscape and planted at the right scale, elephant grass provides many of a hare’s habitat requirements in a very small area. We think that hares use elephant grass for cover and then forage around its edges. They also take advantage of the fact that it isn’t sprayed with herbicides, so in places there will be quite a rich ground cover of other plants, not unlike a small area of young woodland, which hares will then feed on,.”

Scientists point out that planting biomass crops enhances farmland biodiversity and will not further compromise wildlife already facing huge environmental pressures, plus they are positive that it can encourage an increase in brown hare populations.

Dr Phil Wheeler from the Open University, who led the research said: “In some respects, although these biomass crops are alien to the UK, they mimic unfarmed or unintensively cultivated bits of farmland, many of which have been lost as farming has intensified. Our research suggests that for hares, diversifying farmland by planting biomass crops in small chunks might replace something of what has been lost.”

One particular reason for the decline is grazing pressure – particularly that of sheep grazing. Dr Petrovan explains that large areas of intensive sheep pasture prove to be poor habitats for hares, though quite the reverse for rabbits.

The solution? Well managed agri-environment grassy field margins, small blocks of woods and some arable crops. Elephant grass can also provide great opportunities for improving farmland for hares and other species but only if it is well managed.

So the question is, will I see another hare in the fields of the Somerset countryside, or will hare populations continue to decline?

At the moment the hare seems to favour the east of the country – particularly the meadows around East Anglia, but its overall decline remains worryingly steady. That said, the biomass crop – with some well thought out implementation across farmlands of the UK – may hold some hope for Britain’s fastest land mammal.

• PTES supports projects in the UK and all over the world, funding conservation organisations, scientific researchers and wildlife experts. Find out more at https://ptes.org

This Author

Laura Briggs is a regular contributor to the Ecologist. Follow her here @WordsbyBriggs

I remember about three years ago, whilst on a run through the Somerset countryside I spotted what I thought was a dog in a field. When it heard me approaching, a lofty creature sprang off into the hedgerow far quicker than I could run; it’s cover was blown. It wasn’t a dog, but in fact a brown hare, and that was my first and likely last sighting of one in the wild.

In the South-West it’s possible that this beautiful creature is now completely extinct, and according to the Hare Preservation Trust the brown hare has declined by more than 80% over the past 100 years.

Hares don’t hibernate and rely entirely on biodiverse landscapes for their food but as a result of the intensity of modern agriculture this biodiversity has been lost in many areas across the countryside, playing a big part in the hare’s demise.

Now researchers from the universities of Cambridge, Hull and the Open University have been looking into how important crop type is to the preservation of these creatures.

Hares feed on wild grasses and herbs, but 150,000 miles of hedgerow has been destroyed over 50 years of farming, cutting off the hare’s source of food and shelter. And with so many farmers planting single crop types, alongside other factors, hares are struggling to find the food they need.

There is hope for this graceful animal, but it relies on a complex understanding of biodiverse planting, a willingness by farmers and landowners to plant a mixture of biomass energy crops, and the subsidies for them to do so.

Dr Silviu Petrovan of the University of Cambridge, has carried out a study showing that the native brown hare may benefit from exotic, non-native crops growing across Britain’s farmland. Published in the European Journal of Wildlife Research the new study, funded by wildlife charity People’s Trust for Endangered Species (PTES), shows that the way crops are planted is just as important as to which crops are grown when it comes to the impact on animals.

The research team, when tasked with investigating what effects biomass energy crops might have on the survival of the hare, discovered that certain crops – one of which is the Asian grass also called ‘elephant grass’ – provide an excellent habitat when interspersed with other typical cereal crops, wild grasses and herbs. When elephant grass is planted as a monoculture across large areas, however, it has the opposite effect and discourages hares, which will avoid elephant grass as a food source, but use it instead for rest and shelter.

Dr Petrovan says: “As part of a mixed agricultural landscape and planted at the right scale, elephant grass provides many of a hare’s habitat requirements in a very small area. We think that hares use elephant grass for cover and then forage around its edges. They also take advantage of the fact that it isn’t sprayed with herbicides, so in places there will be quite a rich ground cover of other plants, not unlike a small area of young woodland, which hares will then feed on,.”

Scientists point out that planting biomass crops enhances farmland biodiversity and will not further compromise wildlife already facing huge environmental pressures, plus they are positive that it can encourage an increase in brown hare populations.

Dr Phil Wheeler from the Open University, who led the research said: “In some respects, although these biomass crops are alien to the UK, they mimic unfarmed or unintensively cultivated bits of farmland, many of which have been lost as farming has intensified. Our research suggests that for hares, diversifying farmland by planting biomass crops in small chunks might replace something of what has been lost.”

One particular reason for the decline is grazing pressure – particularly that of sheep grazing. Dr Petrovan explains that large areas of intensive sheep pasture prove to be poor habitats for hares, though quite the reverse for rabbits.

The solution? Well managed agri-environment grassy field margins, small blocks of woods and some arable crops. Elephant grass can also provide great opportunities for improving farmland for hares and other species but only if it is well managed.

So the question is, will I see another hare in the fields of the Somerset countryside, or will hare populations continue to decline?

At the moment the hare seems to favour the east of the country – particularly the meadows around East Anglia, but its overall decline remains worryingly steady. That said, the biomass crop – with some well thought out implementation across farmlands of the UK – may hold some hope for Britain’s fastest land mammal.

• PTES supports projects in the UK and all over the world, funding conservation organisations, scientific researchers and wildlife experts. Find out more at https://ptes.org

This Author

Laura Briggs is a regular contributor to the Ecologist. Follow her here @WordsbyBriggs

Under the climate leadership of President Obama there was a (misguided) feeling that with America in the driving seat we could probably all take it a bit easy.  Now the world has woken up from that dangerous fantasy and people are realising that everyone needs to pull their finger out.

Already we’ve seen a thundering response from China and the EU – both reinforcing their commitment to the Paris Agreement and accelerating their coordination to take on the leadership role that America has vacated.  That is a powerful duo, and has been followed by other leaders around the world rallying to the cause. We can expect more of this when the G20 meet at the end of the month.

By pulling out of the Paris Agreement, Trump has initiated a four-year process which will culminate right around the next US Presidential election.  Not only does this open the way for a swifter return to the fold for America under a new President, it also will likely make climate change one of the key issues of the next election campaign.  That is a huge platform to educate and inform the American public about, not only the reality of climate change but also the benefits of international cooperation, the value of ever cheaper, clean, renewable energy and the skilled jobs that it brings.

Trump spoke fondly of the US coal miners in his White House speech last Thursday but if he really wanted to act in the long-term interests of American coal miners he would invest in retraining so these communities can benefit from the jobs of the present and future, rather than watch those of the past dwindle away.  Already there are more jobs in US renewables than in extracting coal, oil and gas combined. Coal is dying, market forces have seen to that. If Trump doesn’t think turning US coal miners into wind farm technicians is feasible then he should take a look in Carbon County, Wyoming, where the Chinese are planning to do exactly that.

Often a politician’s ignorance and hubris on climate change is likened to the story of King Canute demonstrating his inability to command the incoming tide. However the tide Trump cannot avoid is the decarbonisation of the global economy. Technological advancement, increased public awareness, international determination and market forces are arrayed against him. The 20^th century was a century powered by fossil fuels and America dominated it. The 21^st century will be powered by clean energy and in this self-defeating act Trump has rung last orders on American supremacy. The low-carbon industrial revolution is up for grabs.

Trump’s actions have also proved just what a robust and cleverly designed instrument the Paris Agreement is. In the past had America pulled out like this the likes of India and China would have probably followed suit within hours. But by being built from the bottom up, with each country pledging to do it own’s bit and promising to increase this over time, instead of doing a runner, other nations are holding the line and condemning the US as a pariah state. India and China have not only announced their recommitment to the pact, they are also on track to overshoot their own predicted commitments.

Not only has Trump created a shockwave through the international community he has also stirred up a reaction within the US as well.  City mayors, Governors, business leaders, campaigners and civil society groups have reacted with outrage and fury at his attempted environmental sabotage. It even got the CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, to tweet for the first time ever.

Already efforts are under way to meet the US pledges of the Paris Agreement through non-federal means and people are being motivated and mobilised across the country and the world. As the writer Malcolm Gladwell has noted, often the reaction to a social or political event is much more significant than the action. Had Trump remained technically inside the Paris Agreement, deceived the world with mixed messages and idle promises and slowly undermined its potency, then we would have really been in trouble. But by nailing his colours to the mast as an enemy of the planet we know what the stakes are and what we’re up against. 

Christiana Figueres, the former General Secretary of the UNFCCC who oversaw the signing of the Paris Agreement tweeted: “Thank you Trump.  You have provoked an unparalleled wave of support for Paris and determined resolve on climate action. Deeply grateful.”

As Winston Churchill is reported to have said: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”  Trump has created the crisis, we now need to make the most of it.

This Author

Joe Ware is a journalist and writer at Christian Aid and a New Voices contributor to the Ecologist.   Follow him on twitter @wareisjoe. To find out about Christian Aid’s Big Shift campaign to get our banks to shift their investments from fossil fuels to renewables visit www.christian-aid.org.uk/bigshift