When health and environmental activists began planning an autumn public relations assault against food containing genetically modified material, farm lobbyist Sally Rutherford was hardly surprised.
She was apprehensive and a bit frustrated, but not surprised.
“This was inevitable and predictable,” said the executive secretary of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. “Given what has happened in Europe, you could see this coming. But I’m not sure the other side is really ready for it.”
Doug Powell agrees. He is a specialist in food industry risk and crisis communication at the University of Guelph.
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
“They have been way too slow responding, both industry and government, and there is no excuse for it,” he said in a Sept. 13 interview. “The CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) still haven’t been able to come up with a strategy on voluntary labeling and the debate is moving beyond that. They are playing catch-up.”
In late summer, activists met to discuss an autumn public relations campaign, possibly targeting grocery shoppers around Thanksgiving.
Greenpeace Canada, which helped organize an effective anti-GM campaign in Europe, is one of the key groups.
“We will be trying to alert consumers to the dangers and implications of genetic modification which has been introduced here without adequate debate,” said Steve Shallhorn, who will co-ordinate the Greenpeace campaign from its Toronto office. “Our basic issue is environmental pollution from these products.”
Shallhorn said Canadian consumers will respond: “We are on the cusp of the debate which should have happened here years ago. I think it will be one of the hot political items this fall.”
Added Jennifer Story of the Council of Canadians in Ottawa: “Our main message is that these foods with GM material have not been subjected to the long-term health and environmental safety tests they should have been. We want these products taken off store shelves until the testing is done.”
Talk like that makes Jim Fischer uneasy.
As chair of the Ontario agriculture and environment group AGCare, the southern Ontario farmer advocates retention of biotech products in the market as long as they pass muster with Health Canada and the CFIA.
“We want the option of being able to see if these products work for us,” he said. “What causes me unease is these multinational private interest groups using emotion rather than science to discredit products.”
Rutherford said defenders of genetic engineering will be on the defensive, farmers who grow the GM crops could get a black eye and consumers could become skeptical about a food regulatory system they should trust.
Yet some industry leaders insist there is no need for a special effort to counter the campaign. Already, there are brochures in supermarkets and a telephone information line operated by the Biotechnology Communications Network.
“In the food industry, we’re in the business of providing information to consumers and we’ll continue to do that,” said Laurie Curry, vice-president for public policy and scientific affairs at the Toronto-based Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada.
But she also conceded consumers sometimes are skeptical of industry. “That’s why we’d like a third party like government to get more actively involved.”
At the food inspection agency, Bart Bilmer said the CFIA biotechnology office is always ready to respond to consumer questions: “We’ll continue to do what we have been doing.
