 |
|
Introduction and Strategic Overview
|
|
| Dislaimer: This briefing was correct at the time of publication. Since then the Dalgety Group has sold off its entire animal feed business mainly to Advanced British Nutrition (ABN), which trades as J Bibby Agriculture, a subsidiary of Associated British Foods PLC . Please discard any references to Dalgety within this briefing.
What is this briefing? |
|
| The animal feeds industry Animal feeds companies are currently particularly vulnerable. The industry has been hit both by the crisis in British livestock farming and by the continuing scrutiny of the BSE Inquiry. Their reliance on GM leaves them in an even weaker position. Anticipating increasing consumer opposition to GM in animal feeds, the industry is already investigating options for sourcing ‘identity preserved’ ingredients and has formulated a defensive public relations strategy. The animal feeds manufacturing and distribution industry is dominated by three companies: BOCM Pauls, Dalgety and Associated British Nutrition (ABN) [10]. All of them use GM ingredients in most of their animal feeds. BOCM Pauls and Dalgety are both privately owned, having last year been subject to management buyouts. ABN is a subsidiary of Associated British Foods PLC, whose other subsidiaries include Silver Spoon sugar, Allinson and Kingsmill breads and Twinings teas. The company trades as J Bibby Agriculture, the name by which its products are best known. It also trades as Trident Feeds. It is difficult to gauge how dominant these companies are, but it is safe to say that BOCM Pauls and Dalgety have a combined market share well in excess of 50% of animal feed manufacture [10]. |
|
| UKASTA Offices: 3 Whitehall Court, London, SW1A 2EQ Tel: 0171 930 3611 Contacts: Feed Manager Judith Nelson judith.nelson@ukasta.org.uk or biotech spokesperson (Seed Manager), Paul Rooke paul.rooke@ukasta.org.uk The United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association (UKASTA) represents about 350 companies, co-operatives and agricultural merchants who either manufacture animal feed or sell inputs such as feed, seed, fertilisers, agrochemicals and forage additives to farmers and /or market arable crops on their behalf. The combined turnover of the membership is in excess of £5 billion annually. Its stated aims are to achieve the most favourable economic conditions possible for members through effective lobbying, supplying business information and helping shape public ‘understanding’ of the industry [11]. UKASTA’s statement on the use of GM ingredients in animal feeds begins: "UKASTA believes that technological advances, such as genetic modification of plants, will offer significant future benefits to consumers and play an important part in satisfying rising world demand for efficiently produced food." It goes on to claim that research has shown that the processing breaks down the cellular structure of the crop, so that no intact genes can be passed on to livestock or humans, and that it is unlikely that the consumption of livestock products could lead to specific genes being transferred to humans even if they are intact in feed. The statement also stresses that cross-pollination, the difficulty of achieving total segregation throughout the whole supply chain and the absence of any tolerance levels may make it impossible to guarantee wholly GM-free feed [3]. |
|
| Traceability Since the BSE crisis the animal feed industry has been trying to regain public confidence. One attempt is the ‘UKASTA Feed Assurance Scheme’ (UFAS). According to UKASTA it has been developed to provide a unifying set of principles or minimum standards for the safe handling of animal feed and help restore confidence in the industry. Although limited, the scheme could help manufacturers source GM-free ingredients because it does provide for traceability, and is a service that the big three manufacturers all provide [11]. The UKASTA feed assurance scheme provides complete traceability - meaning a farmer can find out exactly what ingredients are in a feed, where they come from and where they have been at every stage in the supply chain, right back to the farmer who grew the crop. There’s one snag: this information is only available to industrial customers. |
|
| Public relations Both UKASTA and Dalgety Agriculture use the same PR company, Mistral. Their representative there is Mike Evans. He claims that it is impossible to guarantee GM free animal feed, and gives two principal reasons. The first is that segregated or ‘identity preserved’ (IP) crops are not available in sufficient quantities. Less than 1 million tonnes of the 75 million tonnes of the 1998 US soya crop was IP [3]. The second is that many of the micro ingredients used in animal feed, such as vitamin B12, are also genetically engineered [12]. He also claims that the “poor old animal feed companies” (his words) are trapped between raw materials suppliers who don't segregate - or charge a massive premium when they do - and supermarkets, which demand animal products at low prices. Mistral “develop creative communications solutions based on carefully planned, sound marketing strategies”. They are also members of EnviroComm, “an international group of independent agencies specialising in environmental communications”. As well as representing UKASTA and Dalgety, Mistral have done PR work for ICI and Monsanto [13]. Contacts: Mike Evans on 01865 883308, or at Mistral, Jericho Farm Barns, Cassington, Oxford, OX8 1EB |
|
| Animal feed supply chain Animal feed manufacturers buy their bulk raw materials from suppliers such as Archer Daniels Midland and Arkady Feed - the two biggest suppliers to the industry [10]. Some of these, such as wheat, are grown in the UK. However it is the imported raw materials, such as soya and maize, that are GM. They arrive by ship at docks, where they are stored temporarily. Arkady Feed is the primary user of Merlin Stores Ltd's facility at South West 1 Canada Dock in Liverpool [14]. They move in excess of 200,000 tonnes of animal feedstuff through Liverpool each year. From here it is transported to mills where it is processed and mixed with micro ingredients (see below). As well as imports, animal feed contains raw materials that come from both farms and the by-products of the human food industry. From the mill most feed goes direct to farmers, though some is sold through intermediaries. ADM Head Office: ADM International, Church Manorway, Erith, Kent, DA8 1DL. Tel: 01322 443000 Arkady Feed: Congress House, Lyon Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA1 2HY. Tel: 0181 424 9222 / 0181 420 9000 Fax: 0181 424 0694 |
|
| The Feed Mill Animal feed is manufactured in mills. Bulk materials (eg soya, maize, wheat etc) are delivered to the mill in lorries and are transferred to a storage bin or silo. They are then transferred to blending bins where they are mixed, often with micro-ingredients such as vitamins and amino acids (see below). These ususally come in the form of a pre-mix which arrives at the mill in bags. Depending upon the type of feed the mix may be pressed into pellets or cake before going to a finished product bin. Other types of feed go straight into finished product bins. From here the final products are despatched to farms (or occasionally to regional distribution centres) either in bags or in bulk lorries, many of which are part of the company’s own fleet of vehicles. |
|
| What goes into animal feed? As well as dioxin, excrement and their aunts and uncles (all sources of recent food scares), livestock are fed a carefully regulated diet, depending on the kind of animal, breed, age and function. Feed is split broadly into two types, for monogastrics (for animals with one stomach such as pigs and poultry) and ruminants (for animals with more than one stomach such as sheep and cattle). While it is possible to produce ruminant feed without using soya or maize, it is apparently impossible to raise pigs and poultry to the standards demanded by supermarkets and consumers on a soya-free diet [12]. Feed mixtures typically include protein concentrates from fishmeal or soya bean and additives - vitamins, trace minerals, food colourings and antibiotics [10]. |
|
| Micro ingredients This is the collective term used to describe the additives used to enhance the nutritional quality of animal feed. Most of these are produced by genetically engineered micro-organisms like bacteria. A recent Genewatch report revealed that releases of genetically modfied micro-organisms are taking place every day from laboratories and factories across the UK [15]. |
|
| Government reassurance A team at Leeds University led by Professor Mike Forbes is currently conducting MAFF-funded research on the effect of feeding livestock GM material. Oddly, in the tests “the materials used for this research were not GM crops, but the gene used was chosen because its DNA sequence is similar in length to the transgene in GM maize” [16]. An earlier MAFF-commissioned report from the University of Leeds, stated: “Genetically modified crops… [could] exacerbate the problem of resistance to strains of bacteria, already causing significant problems such as the resurgence of tuberculosis. It is unlikely to be proved impossible for transfer of such genes from plant to microbe to be completely excluded.” [17] |
|
| Conclusion Animal feed manufacturers have up until now largely evaded the public spotlight, despite the overwhelming consumer rejection of GM technology in human food. This is because people simply don’t realise that when they buy meat and dairy products they are indirectly consuming GM products. The bottom is falling out of the GM market. Segregation is being re-introduced, even by the industry’s biggest players. Yet millions of tonnes of transgenic soya and maize are continuing to be imported into this country as animal feed ingredients. If animal feed manufacturers can be persuaded to avoid GM ingredients, biotech companies will be starved of one of their most vital sources of income. |
|
| Footnotes 1. Conversations with MAFF and UKASTA, July-September 1999 2. Irish Times 4 September 1999, quoting from American Soyabean Association 3. UKASTA position statement on the use in animal feed of ingredients from GM crops 4. The Millenium Environment Debate - Genetically Modified Animal Feed. June 1999 5. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, and World Watch Institute via Washington Post, 9 October 1999 6. Guardian 9 October 1999 7. International Trade Reporter, vol 6, no. 39, 6 October 1999 8. Los Angeles Times, 5 October 1999 9. BBC Online, 5 October 1999 10. Key Note Report. Animal Feedstuffs. 1999. Key Note Ltd 11. UKASTA website. www.ukasta.org.uk 12. Various industry sources. August/September 1999 13. Public Relations Consultancy Association Yearbook 1997 14. Mersey Docks and Harbour Company website. www.merseydocks.co.uk 15. ‘Leaking from the lab? The ‘contained’ use of genetically modified micro-organisms in the UK’, GeneWatch, June 1999. www.genewatch.org 16. ‘Leeds Team Addresses Fears Over GMOs in Feed’, Farmers Weekly, 11 June 1999 17. MAFF-commissioned report from the University of Leeds (CS0116) |
|
| Corporate Watch is a research and publishing group whose aim is to support activism against large corporations. Copies of these briefings can be obtained by sending an A4 SAE (45p postage) to: Corporate Watch 16b Cherwell Road, Oxford OX4 1BG Tel/Fax +44 (0)1865 791391 mail@corporatewatch.org |
