American hostility to the idea, and Canada’s fear of falling out of
step with the United States, are why Canada should not adopt mandatory
labelling of genetically modified food, says the federal government.
An Agriculture Canada statement on the labelling issue, tabled in
Parliament in early November without public announcement, insisted that
it is best left to the industry to decide whether to label for GM
content.
The department conceded that markets, including the European Union and
Read Also
Alta. potato farm family relish their time on TV
Chris Perry’s farm at Coaldale, Alta., is featured in a new television commercial emphasizing the Canadian content in FritoLaypotato chips.
Japan, are moving toward demanding mandatory product labels, but
Canada’s biggest customer is not.
“The adoption of mandatory labelling system by Canada could have a
significant impact on its trade relationship with its largest
agricultural trading partner, the United States, which does not support
mandatory labelling of biotechnology-derived foods,” said the
departmental response.
“Not only is the U.S. Canada’s largest agri-food export market but
Canadian agri-food industries and markets are highly integrated with
those of the U.S.
“A disjointed approach with the U.S. on voluntary versus mandatory
labelling could place both trade and investment at risk.”
For Council of Canadians biotech campaigner Nadge Adam, it was the
most blunt government admission yet that the North American Free Trade
Agreement has ended Canada’s ability to develop independent domestic
policy.
“It is an admission that because of free trade, we’re not able to do a
simple domestic policy decision like decide whether and how to label
products,” she said. “Yet all through the free trade debate, the
government insisted we would always be able to make our own domestic
policy. It’s disgusting.”
Some trade officials have warned that a mandatory labelling regime in
Canada likely would be challenged by the U.S. as a new trade barrier
that contravenes NAFTA rules.
In its report, the government said it continues to support voluntary
labelling and will help fund research that continues to assess
long-term health and environmental consequences of GM production.
But Adam argued that it will be impossible to do long-term studies on
the health impacts of sustained GM food consumption because without
labels, it is impossible to tell who is eating GM products and how much.
“How can you do post-market surveys if you can’t identify the product
in the market? It doesn’t make sense.”
Agriculture Canada said decisions about whether to label for customer
demand, whether to segregate products and develop identity-preserved
systems are marketing decisions and not health and nutrition decisions,
since there is no evidence that GM products are different from
conventional products.
“A voluntary labelling system will allow commodity organizations and
companies to do their own analyses, make their own business decisions
and develop their own strategies based on their buyers’, and ultimately
consumers’, requirements.”
The department also said a mandatory system would add costs throughout
the Canadian food system that would put business at a disadvantage when
competing with products from countries that do not require labels.
“On the other hand, as food exporters Canadian agriculture and
agri-food companies must be sensitive to a range of constantly changing
customer preferences,” it said. “There are buyers in international
markets who in response not only to their respective regulatory
environments but to their customers’ demands, want products to be
differentiated based on whether the ingredients are or are not derived
from biotechnology.”
