A voluntary labelling system for genetically modified food content is useless because no company would risk driving customers away from their product by labeling it, says a GMO expert.
Brian Ellis of the University of British Columbia, who chaired the 2001 Royal Society of Canada investigation into the GMO regulatory system, told MPs Dec. 1 the public perception of GM products remains toxic, even though there is no evidence they have ever caused a health problem.
“Nobody in their right mind would put a GM label on a product in a marketplace right now if they didn’t have to,” he told MPs on the House of Commons agriculture committee.
Read Also
Farm groups ask feds for export sales reporting
The Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan and SaskCrops asks the federal government to create an Export Sales Reporting program.
“So voluntary labeling will not work. It is so demonized at this point as a technology in the public’s mind, why would anybody do it?”
Ontario Conservative MP and committee chair Larry Miller took umbrage at the idea that public perception should drive policy.
He also took aim at an argument from Quebec consumer advocate Michel Arnold, executive director of Option Consommateurs, that consumer resistance should force governments to use the precautionary principle when dealing with applications for new GM varieties.
“Your last comment is (about) perception and sometimes perception can be deceiving,” Miller said.
“The fear of the unknown shouldn’t stop us from moving ahead.”
However, during two days of hearings on the GMO issue, MPs heard repeatedly that many farmers have embraced genetically modified crops but consumers are uneasy.
Secrecy in the regulatory system makes consumers suspicious, Ellis said, even though the secrecy is often required by regulations guarding trade and industry commercial secrets.
“I don’t think this sets the right tone for the public to be confident of the accuracy and validity of the regulatory system,” he said.
“I’m not faulting the regulators, but I’m saying the way the process has been going, the public has retained a strong undercurrent of suspicion about the suitability of this technology and its acceptability in the marketplace.”
