Prince Charles warns us about the possible health and environmental risks of scientifically "doctored" foods. But what do we really know about the contents of our food, and is genetic engineering the whole story? Jim Greenhalf reports.

Bread, chocolate, baby foods, beer, tomatoes, tomato pure, prepared meals and frozen food may contain ingredients which have been genetically modified. We cannot be sure because food labelling law is ambiguous.

It seems to be more concerned with misrepresentation, either by omission of information or similarity of product name and design.

Prince Charles, who grows chemical-free food at his home in Gloucestershire, wants all food manufacturers, retailers and regulators to inform consumers whether they are buying foodstuffs which have been genetically changed to make them pest resistant or to stay fresh for longer.

West Yorkshire Trading Standards officer Graham Hebblethwaite said: "If you have got two identical products on the shelf and one is made with genetically-modified tomatoes the label ought to say so, so the customer can make the choice.

"But are there sufficient tests available on a big scale to tell whether genetically-engineered products have been used?" he added.

Spokesmen for both Asda and Morrisons told the T&A that improved labelling of products in their respective organisations was in the pipeline.

Chris Blundell, for Morrisons, said: "The law doesn't require us to identify genetically-modified ingredients; but we feel clear-labelling is necessary for consumer confidence."

And for Asda, Phil Reed said: "We are moving towards a policy to make clear to customers that produce may contain genetically-modified material. We do not stock genetically-produced tomatoes or tomato pure because there's been no demand."

Bradford-based food scientist Dr Richard North says the real issue is not about health but corporate power and the devastation of British farming. He thinks the Prince has used the wrong tactics.

"We are talking about complex issues which do not lend themselves to media sound-bites, so it's easier to play the health card to grab attention; but it's easy for the companies concerned to fight these arguments because they are not well-founded."

The Prince's newspaper article, calling for greater regulation of products containing scientifically-changed food warned that the long-term consequences for health were unknown.

But Dr North said: "There's absolutely no evidence there's any harm from these. The real issue is that big agri-chemical companies like Monsanto in the USA are quietly buying up seed companies. They are dictating to farmers what kind of seeds they can grow - seeds which also have a high dependency on fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides."

Monsanto recently launched a £1 million advertising campaign aimed at persuading British consumers that genetically-modified crops will help them and the environment.

Bill Bradley, chairman of the West Riding branch of the National Farmers' Union said: "Genetic engineering per se is only a variation of plant breeding and animal breeding that's been going on for centuries. We have been playing God in that respect.

"Take wheat, for example. It used to be much taller than it is now. Plant breeders have bred a shorter straw so that the crop doesn't collapse from being top-heavy at harvest time.

"There is worry, however, that too much control of the new variations and chemicals is getting into the hands of big Corporations. As far as the actual science goes I don't think there are any worries."

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.