Case made for labelling, but questions abound

To label or not to label: that is the question.

And according to one food biotech critic, we will never know the answer as to whether Canada should legislate mandatory labels for genetically modified ingredients in food unless we try it.

“We can say there’s a discrepancy, but until we put labelling on the products, we actually don’t know. So why don’t we give Canadians the benefit of the doubt that they want that information because they’re going to use it,” said Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

There are numerous studies on both sides of the debate. One side says consumers have a right to the information, while those opposed to mandatory rules says it would unfairly tarnish the image of food containing GMOS because it implies they are of lower quality or somehow harmful.

Sharratt said recent polls show Canadian consumers want GMO labels.

Related stories in this issue:

She said GM food ingredients continue to increase in processed foods and there are GM apples, potatoes and salmon coming to store shelves soon.

AquaBounty salmon is the first genetically modified food animal to be approved for sale in Canada. Health Canada does not require the salmon to be labelled as a GM product because it is not deemed a health risk.

“Now is a great opportunity for the government to establish labelling because these new products are reinforcing the demand that Canadians have for labelling,” she said.

She said without labelling, consumers are confused and burdened with difficult research, unlike in the organic sector where products are labelled certified registered.

“While consumers can seek out organic foods to avoid if they want to, (with) genetically modified foods that’s not always an available choice,” she said.

She also thinks labelling could help traditional food markets.

ADVERTISMENT

“One of the major problems is that some the new GM products when they are introduced actually jeopardize the existing markets for those products,” she said.

“So labelling would go someway to resolving that issue as well. It would assist apple producers, for example, who are concerned about consumer reaction to a GM apple if, in fact, consumers knew where that GM apple was.”

“The only organic products (in retail outlets) are certified organic products.”

Stuart Smyth, who researches biotechnology and innovation at the University of Saskatchewan, said the push for GM labelling is coming predominantly from the organic and natural food industry.

“They believe that consumers will perceive that as a warning sign and try to avoid buying products that are labeled as GM or obtaining GMOs,” he said.

Canada does not have a mandatory labelling policy because of its established science-based regulatory system.

Labels are only required when there are health risks, like a potential food allergy, or significant changes to the nutritional qualities of the food.

“So any label information has to contribute to improved nutrition, or safety, and/or efficacy of food products,” he said.

“The regulatory agencies and predominantly Health Canada have decided that mandatory labelling for GM does not increase the safety of the food products.”

Smyth thinks most consumers would not be any better served if mandatory labelling were implemented.

“Food companies would simply put either ‘contains GMOs, or ‘May Contain GMOs, on every single product they make,” he said.

ADVERTISMENT

“I struggle to see how trust could be increased through the blanket use of a very vague and generic term such as “may contain.” Consumers are still no better informed.”

He said recent studies suggest that about three quarters of Canadians want food products labelled for GM, but analysis suggests almost half of Canadians rarely or never look at labels.

“So about one in three Canadians really want labelling and may look at labels at an infrequent or semi-regular basis,” he said.

“The reality is the vast majority of Canadians pay no attention to labels.”

Sylvain Charlebois, professor of food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University, said labelling would help solve many consumer issues surrounding a lack of trust and transparency toward the biotech industry.

“A lot of constituents believe that mandatory labelling could actually eliminate the mistrust that is out there between many consumers and the biotechnology and the biotech industry,” he said.

Charlebois said he has advocated for about 15 years to embrace the technology of genetically modified crops and for labelling food products.

He said the science-based evidence supports the use of biotechnology in agriculture, but many special interest groups have successfully convinced consumers otherwise without much proof that GMOs pose a risk.

However, opponent’s cases are weakening as more studies show the safety of GM food.

“That’s why I think people are looking for some closure as a result of many years of denial from the biotechs. That’s how I’m assessing the situation,” he said. “At some point, I’m not sure that labelling will be useful for a long period of time because people will get used to it.”

ADVERTISMENT

  • richard

    Its always interesting listening to academic sophistry….. the reductionist worldview that reduces the discourse to “safety of GM food”…… incapable of noticing that its system…. hierarchical, chemical dependent and totally bereft of resilience and biodiversity…..lacks integrity…….Very sound reasons why the public resoundingly seeks labelling……..You cant tell the public that you are reducing the toxic load in agriculture while marketing seeds that are totally dependent on agritoxins….. Is this how “the opponents case is weakening” ? I dont think so.

    • Harold

      Your comment encouraged me to add the following.
      The safety of GM food is based upon absolute fact and truth, if one looks for it.
      Monsanto protection bill’s/Act, Gm hidden in food, no distinction, (FDA) and etc. The Safety of the environment ,(chemical) for the plant-it-self, is well documented. The plant is not dying.(everyone profits) The profit’s from the sales of “GM food are safe”. One cannot expect- the eating GM food is not the same as eating GM food- academic sophists to say otherwise. For me, what they say, is unremarkable. On the other hand, “Safe environment”, and “safe human consumption” separately, are not their departments nor agenda$$.
      Those damn environmentalists and doctors of clinical science!!
      Further, I believe that GMO from the gate, has been an over-reaching and forceful opponent, creating the relentless “war” which is now in the public eye. Acceptance by merit was never in the cards. In essence, the public has resorted to “peace keeping”, and in turn, some have critically examined each evidence for themselves. From “explanation” to examination, and this has earned their (GE) unanticipated result. If I may, facts will aide in un-learning an explanation. Now the public want labels. The survey respondents said that they would read the label, and one man’s opinion (Smyth) says they won’t. (future fiction vs now time fact) Can’t read a label if it’s not there.The arguments within the article (good cop/bad cop) are weak to say the least.
      Opponents are weakening? I don’t think so either. I think a weakening GM dollar, leads to desperate measures, and desperate they are.
      (a rather wordy way of agreeing with you)