Access to variety information Canadian’s comment period ends as the U.S. one begins for the non-browning apple developed in B.C.
The Canadian comment period for introduction of a non-browning genetically modified apple closed earlier this month as the U.S. Department of Agriculture comment period just began.
And as the U.S. comment period begins, groups opposed to the GM apple say it shows the lack of transparency in Canada’s system.
Lucy Sharratt, co-ordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, said the U.S. comment period means Canadians finally have access to information about the apple by reading the United States Department of Agriculture on-line data. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency posted two pages of bullet points during the Canadian comment period.
Read Also
Interest in biological crop inputs continues to grow
It was only a few years ago that interest in alternative methods such as biologicals to boost a crop’s nutrient…
“The CFIA comment period was a false comment period and this just exposed how deeply untransparent the process in Canada is,” said Sharratt.
The Arctic apple was developed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits, the B.C. company that has now submitted it for approval, or “non-regulated status,” in both 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 but he is not privy to 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,” Carter said.
Carter agreed the U.S. consultation process now underway makes more information available to the public but added 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.
Sharratt said her group considers the GM apple to be unnecessary and the approval process for such products to be inadequate.
The CFIA process is still underway and the U.S. process appears unlikely to conclude until at least next July, given the time allotted for comment and resulting analysis.
There is no deadline by which a decision must be rendered, though Sharratt said it appears the U.S. will render its decision before Canada does.
In Canada, acceptance can come at various different levels. Health Canada could approve the GM apple as a food but the CFIA could restrict it from being grown here.
Carter said Canada solicits public input earlier in its process compared to the U.S.
“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 about the application.
“Okanagan Specialty Fruits has dismissed and ignored some major issues relating to gene flow, most notably the role of wild native bees in pollination,” said Sharratt.
