European food safety still open to political influences
A blueprint for improving food safety in the European Union released this week is disappointing because it does not recommend creation of a strong and effective safety watchdog.
The core function of the EU-wide authority proposed in the blueprint would be to provide scientific advice, but real power would remain with the European Commission and national parliaments, according to Reuters News Agency, which obtained a copy of the report before its release.
“A transfer of regulatory powers to an independent (authority) could lead to an unwarranted dilution of democratic accountability,” the 30-page policy paper says.
Read Also
Russian pulse trouble reports denied
Russia’s pulse crop will be larger than last year, which won’t help prices rally from their doldrums.
While democratic accountability is good, in this context it seems to open the door to food safety decisions based on public attitude and politics rather than sound science.
This issue is important to Canadian farmers because it is EU consumers’ fears over food safety that are at the heart of their suspicions about genetically altered foods.
In most cases, when people are quizzed about their opposition to GM foods, the example of mad cow disease comes up, even though that food fiasco had nothing to do with biotechnology.
Citizens doubt their interests are protected when they know that at least 48 people died from a brain-wasting disease because the British government allowed animal feed manufacturers to use ground-up sheep carcasses (some with scrapie) in beef cattle rations, causing some of the cattle to get bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
Public outrage over the BSE mess has caused European governments to err on the other side of caution.
For example, the European Commission has agreed British beef is now safe and wants to lift the ban on imports, but France says it still has its doubts and won’t lift its ban.
The proposed EU food safety advisory authority is also unlikely to build consumer confidence if national governments can ignore it.
One explanation offered for why American consumers have been less suspicious of GM food than Europeans is that they have faith in the United States Department of Agriculture.
The multi-department Canadian Food Inspection Agency carries out the role here.
While some anti-GMO groups question the effectiveness of these North American bodies to assess the safety of gene-altered food, generally, their track record has been enviable in ensuring consumers get safe food.
Europe would do well to see that its citizens enjoy the same protection.
