Canada’s largest farm lobby organization is warning that the recently negotiated biosafety protocol may lead to hidden costs and added bureaucracy for Canada’s grain and oilseeds exports.
The protocol worked out at the end of January in Montreal is designed to set environmental rules for trade in living modified organisms that can cross-breed with other plants.
More than 130 nations agreed that while it will be permissible to buy and sell living modified organisms, exporters can be required to segregate and label, and importing countries can reject imports if they have concerns about environmental contamination.
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
In practical terms, the protocol affects only seed, and not the broader category of genetically modified food.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture says the federal government shouldn’t sign the United Nations protocol until it thoroughly examines its potential impact on farm exports. There are concerns about unseen segregation costs in the collection system and concerns that exporters could be required to label bulk exports as “may contain” genetically altered material if segregation is not assured.
Read between the lines
“I think this protocol needs a very thorough assessment before we sign on,” said CFA executive secretary Sally Rutherford.
“I think it sets some precedents. I think it moves us into some new dimensions. We want to be sure we are not buying a pig in a poke.”
The Canada Grains Council also cautioned that grain industry officials will have to ensure that importing countries do not use the protocol as a way to create new trade barriers.
Former council president Doug Mutch was a member of the Canadian delegation in Montreal.
He said the agreement was an “acceptable compromise” because it recognizes the “legitimacy” of trade in genetically altered plants.
However, negotiators from exporting countries did not win their point that importers must offer scientific proof of danger before blocking trade.
“We did not get agreement on a purely scientific risk assessment and that was a disappointment,” Mutch said. “If countries want to be obstructionist, they can continue to do things that they have seen the European Union do.”
But he said the biodiversity protocol also should be judged for what it prevented.
A number of countries went to Montreal determined to find a way to stop trade in living modified organisms.
“I see a major benefit of this agreement in what it stopped, the potential end of that trade,” he said.
“At least there was compromise to agree that transboundary movement of genetically modified material is legitimate.”
