The Canadian system for regulating genetically modified seed varieties is outdated and badly needs fixing, critics and supporters of GMO technology told MPs last week.
They criticized the way new products are assessed, the lack of transparency in the process and for at least one critic, the fact that regulators are not allowed to consider economic repercussions when they are considering whether to approve a new GM variety.
These issues hand ammunition to the critics and lead to consumer unease, MPs heard during two days of hearings by the House of Commons agriculture committee.
Read Also
Bird repellent gets emergency approval for sunflowers
Bird repellent gets emergency approval for sunflowers
Rickey Yada of Ontario’s University of Guelph food science department and a supporter of GMO technology, summed up the problem.
Canada has one of the safest food systems in the world, he argued Dec. 1, but that is not enough to ease worries.
“I’ll be absolutely candid about the consumer issues. I myself as a consumer, I fear some of the unknowns in the future,” he said.
“The current science would say there is an adequate safety net for those products right now, but will my future health be impacted? I don’t know.”
Brian Ellis, a University of British Columbia professor and chair of a 2001 Royal Society of Canada study of GMO regulation, said regulators should update their scientific tools and modernize their system.
“I think it is a good regulatory process,” he said.
“However, it is still founded on a general concept of safety that is decades old. From my perspective, I think there are better tools that could be used.”
As well, the next generation of GM varieties is likely to give regulators more headaches because the science is becoming more complex.
“When you’re pushing the plant to become more cold resistant or to enhance its resistance to a fungal pathogen, you’re really stretching the internal machinery,” Ellis said.
“And I don’t think the tools that we’ve been using up until now to assess those plants are going to be as informative as they should be.”
Carleton University professor and GMO researcher Peter Andrée said one flaw in the system is a lack of economic impact assessment when determining whether to approve a new variety.
He said the potential for genetically modified wheat to disrupt Canadian export markets is real and yet if a variety is put forward for assessment, regulators will be able to assess it only on agronomic issues, efficacy and health and not potential economic impact.
He endorsed a private member’s bill that would require a market impact analysis to be added to the assessment and approval system.
Debate is expected to start in February.
“The bill you are bringing forward is important for Canadian farmers,” he told Atamanenko Dec. 3.
“There needs to be some mechanism in place for evaluating that kind of harm before a product gets out because it spreads in unexpected ways.”
Academics were at first reluctant to respond when Ontario Liberal Francis Valeriote asked if part of the perception problem faced by GMO creators and promoters flows from the fact it usually comes from powerful corporations.
Why the reluctance? the MP said.
“It’s a political question,” Ellis said.
Taking on Monsanto is tough.
“They have more lawyers than they have scientists.”
However, he then conceded the corporate connection is a problem.
“There are countries in the world that do not want to touch this technology because they see the corporate lock on the technology and they don’t want to get tied up in that, so yes, it is an issue.”
