The promotional right hand doesn’t know what the regulatory left hand is doing.
Effectively, that was the explanation offered by the Canadian government to a complaint from Greenpeace Canada that Ottawa is in a conflict of interest by investing in the development of genetically engineered wheat while also being responsible for approving its use in Canada.
“How does the Canadian government defend the triple conflict of interest created by its roles as the promoter, developer and regulator of GE wheat?” asked the environmental lobby in a petition filed in July.
Read Also
Alberta farm lives up to corn capital reputation
Farm to Table Tour highlighting to consumers where their food comes from features Molnar Farms which grows a large variety of market fruits and vegetables including corn, with Taber being known as the Corn Capital of Canada.
In December, the government replied that there is no problem.
“The government of Canada be-lieves that it is important to keep regulatory and industrial promotional functions separate,” said the response, published by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, a regulator that reports to the federal agriculture minister whose department invests in genetically modified research and promotes the benefits of biotechnology in the industry.
“These functions are kept independent of one another by the assignment of different distinct mandates to separate departments and agencies. These mandates are established by legislation and all departments and agencies are accountable to Parliament for their performance in fulfilling assigned duties.”
The government response to the Greenpeace environmental petition was required under law.
It did not offer any concession on the Greenpeace theme that GM wheat would be a disaster for Canadian wheat growers and that the government should listen to consumers and producers to hold back on approvals.
The government insisted it follows all health, safety and precautionary requirements. It did not address directly the Greenpeace point that consumer and customer reaction to GM food is largely negative.
The government also reported the CFIA is commissioning three research projects to study the environmental impact of herbicide tolerant wheat. Two will look at wheat pollen movement and the third will study the evidence of volunteer wheat emergence on the Prairies.
In its petition, Greenpeace accused government regulators of veering away from rigorous science by using the controversial concept of “substantial equivalence” which assumes that if novel plant products show the same results and exhibit the same characteristics as conventionally bred plants, then there is “substantial equivalence” that allows the safety seal of approval to apply to both.
The government said substantial equivalence is an aid in assessing the safety of GM food by determining if there are any differences between GM products and “traditional food with a history of safe use.”
It is a tool used internationally.
