Consumers at home and abroad could lose “confidence in the integrity of the Canadian food system” if the government and the food industry do not find a better way to manaGM introduction of genetically modified crops, officials at Agriculture Canada have been warned.
In an internal briefing paper prepared by departmental staff for a March 5, 2003, meeting, the department was warned that the result could be a further loss of export markets and problems in Canada.
It said the regulatory system “has not evolved to reflect the new degree of public scrutiny that GE (GM) products and technologies are facing.”
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
The author of the briefing paper was not identified. It was released under access to information laws.
“Producers are becoming worried about losing markets and losing choice over what they produce,” said the briefing paper.
“Consumers are becoming more worried that they can’t distinguish between GM and non-GM products. These concerns could precipitate a loss of confidence in the integrity of the Canadian food system, which could be very disruptive to the domestic system as well as to Canada’s ability to export to demanding markets.”
Since then, the national consumers’ lobby has announced opposition to the government stance on GM labelling and the Canadian Wheat Board has warned against introduction of a GM wheat variety now being reviewed by regulators.
It was a private warning that is in stark contrast to the government’s public pronouncements of confidence in the safety and prospects for the biotechnology sector.
Ottawa insists new varieties will help farmers and consumers, create biotechnology industry jobs and give Canadian food exporters an edge in world markets. The food biotech industry is a billion dollar concern.
Agriculture Canada supports and promotes the industry, helps fund research and insists that a system of voluntary labeling on GM products will enable consumers to make informed choices about the food they eat.
Privately, department officials were told at the briefing that there is a domestic and international debate over how to regulate introduction of new products that is not yet reflected in Canadian law and regulations.
Export markets for canola have been lost because much of the crop is GM. And concerns about public acceptance of molecular farming – growing GM crops to create medicinal or industrial products from the foreign genes added – has led the government to be cautious about supporting or approving molecular farming research.
“The cumulative research area since 1994 is less than 30 hectares (75 acres),” said the briefing notes.
“Concerns over public acceptance prompted the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to proceed cautiously in approving molecular farming field trials.”
The brief noted that so far, Canada lags behind some other countries in GM labelling, in part because it does not have good segregation systems for bulk commodities or strong regulations.
“For crops, Canada’s bulk handling system does not easily lend itself to segregation and identity preservation to distinguish products,” said the briefing notes.
“For animals, adequate systems for identification, tracking and tracing are still being developed.”
There is no indication what recommendations, if any, were prepared for cabinet as a result of the briefing.
The agriculture department still officially supports development of a voluntary system of GM labelling now nearing completion within a Canadian General Standards Board committee.
