Much like how genetically modified organisms themselves draw controversy, the review designed to explore potential introduction of a non-browning GM apple is taking flak.
Lucy Sharratt, co-ordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, said the period set aside for Canadians to comment on the apple’s potential approval shows flaws in the Canadian system.
“The CFIA comment period was a false comment period and this just exposed how deeply untransparent the process in Canada is,” she said.
Sharratt said Canadians were able to learn more about the apple by reading the United States Department of Agriculture on-line data than they were able to glean from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which posted two pages of bullet points during the Canadian comment period.
Read Also
Government to invest in biofuel production
The federal government will invest $370 million in a new biofuel production incentive.
The Arctic apple was developed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits, a B.C. company that has submitted it for approval, or “non-regulated status,” in Canada and the U.S. The technology is owned by about 45 shareholders, many of them fruit growers and people in the fruit industry.
Neal Carter, president of Okanagan Specialty Fruits, said more than 3,000 comments were received by the CFIA during the Canadian comment period, which is now closed, but he is unaware of their content.
“All we know is that there were 3,000 plus comments submitted, which I think is less than I would have anticipated given the controversy around it,” he said.
Carter agreed the U.S. consultation process now underway makes more information available to the public, but he said the Canadian process is “as transparent as people want to make it.”
“I don’t think there’s a lack of transparency. They (the CFIA) do the notice of submission and it has materials there, and if people have questions, people can submit those questions and either the CFIA or the applicant will answer them,” Carter said.
The CFIA approval process is still underway and the U.S. process appears likely to continue until at least next July.
There is no deadline for a decision, though Sharratt said the U.S. will likely render its decision before Canada.
In Canada, acceptance can come at various levels. Health Canada could approve the GM apple as a food but the CFIA could restrict it from being grown here, for example
A key difference between the U.S. and Canadian approval systems is that Canada solicits public input earlier in the process, said Carter.
“In the U.S., the science review is complete and they’ve already sent us a letter stating that they feel our document and our materials submitted address all of their science questions.”
Sharratt said her group has more specific concerns about the GM apple now that it has more information.
“Okanagan Specialty Fruits has dismissed and ignored some major issues relating to gene flow, most notably the role of wild native bees in pollination,” she said.
She added that the gene that is “turned off” in the GM apple to prevent browning is the same gene responsible in other species for plant protection against disease and insects. Her group has concerns that this aspect has not been sufficiently addressed.
The first U.S. comment period closes Sept. 11. A second comment period is expected to begin about six months later.
