It does not figure on any lists of significant agricultural issues arising in Parliament this autumn, but a likely October vote on labelling genetically modified food will be an important bellwether for the industry.
Supporters of the potential of genetic modification, including the industry lobby group BioteCanada, are convinced they will win the vote but are working the political corridors just to be sure.
GM opponents, including Greenpeace Canada, are in those same corridors to remind politicians that public opinion polls show as many as 90 percent of Canadians support the idea of knowing whether the food they are buying is genetically modified.
Read Also
European wheat production makes big recovery
EU crop prospects are vastly improved, which could mean fewer canola and durum imports from Canada.
The catalyst for the debate is veteran Liberal MP Charles Caccia, a former federal environment minister and now chair of the Commons environment committee.
He is a longtime GM skeptic and has proposed that all products containing GM material be labelled.
His private members’ bill will receive its final hour of debate and then a vote in October.
Like similar proposals in the past, the bill likely will be defeated. The Liberal government, supported by the opposition Canadian Alliance, endorses voluntary labels and will be pressuring its MPs to vote down Caccia’s bill.
But with such a strong and sustained public reaction, the vote in Parliament may be closer than it has been in the past. New Democrats, Bloc Québecois and more than a smattering of Liberals say they favour the right of consumers to know if they are eating GM material.
More importantly, in the forum of public opinion, the issue appears to be gaining profile and represents a hardening of consumer attitudes against corporate science and its political defenders.
So consider the October vote another political advance for proponents of mandatory labelling, rather than a defeat.
This week in Niagara Falls, Ont., representatives of the agricultural chemical industry and “life sciences” companies struggled to understand the public skepticism and to find a communications strategy to combat it.
During the annual Crop Protection Institute of Canada meeting, there was much focus on media reporting of the issue and what the industry considers the spread of misinformation.
Sharon Zadorozny, of DuPont Canada, lamented that the debate has become so polarized there is little middle ground. People in her business are being portrayed by opponents as willing to foist untested and possibly dangerous science onto the public in the name of profit.
Featured speaker Rex Murphy of CBC quickly suggested the industry had better get used to it.
The debate about chemicals and GMOs is not a debate about scientific fact but about ideology and the power of science to move the world away from what some see as a more pure, natural state.
It is a debate, he said, that is cluttered with competing scientific claims and studies, exaggerated arguments on both sides and claims of good or evil.
If Murphy’s analysis is correct, it is a battle of theologies and for the moment, growing numbers seem to be opting for the church of caution and unease.
