The co-chairs of a prestigious scientific panel on genetically modified
food say GM products should be labelled until better health and safety
tests and long-term results are available.
“I am comfortable in saying there should be mandatory labelling until
there are better controls in place,” University of British Columbia
scientist Brian Ellis said March 26 after an appearance before the
House of Commons health committee studying GM labelling.
Social scientist Conrad Brunk from the University of Waterloo, co-chair
Read Also
University of Saskatchewan experts helping ‘herders’ in Mongolia
The Canadian government and the University of Saskatchewan are part of a $10 million project trying to help Mongolian farmers modernize their practices.
of a Royal Society study of GM food published a year ago, offered the
same view to the committee.
“The continued opposition of government and industry to the labelling
of GM foods merely serves to generate and reinforce public uneasiness
about this technology,” he said.
“Consumers can easily see the contradiction in claiming both that the
market, not regulators, should decide whether genetically modified
foods are acceptable, and that the products containing GM ingredients
ought not to be identified with labels so that consumers have a choice.”
The testimony of the two Royal Society scientists in favour of
mandatory labels is a setback for industry and political opponents of
the concept.
When the Royal Society report was published in January 2001, it
recommended improvements to the way GM food is assessed and evaluated
before approval. Once those improvements are made, a voluntary
labelling system would be adequate, said the scientists.
Opponents of mandatory labels jumped on the conclusion and have argued
since that the expert panel supported a voluntary labelling system.
An example came March 20 when Chicken Farmers of Canada issued a report
that said mandatory GM labeling had been defeated in the House of
Commons and both the Royal Society and the Canadian Biotechnology
Advisory Committee had recommended otherwise.
Ellis said that is a misreading of the Royal Society report. It
promoted voluntary labelling if the system is strengthened, but it has
not been.
“We were not clear in our recommendation and it has been
misinterpreted,” said Ellis. “That is unfortunate.”
At an earlier meeting, the health committee heard from University of
Guelph food safety specialist Doug Powell that voluntary labels are the
only logical option.
GM food faces more rigorous testing than most food. It is safe if
approved for the market, Powell argued, and mandatory GM labels would
be a costly requirement that would lead food companies to withdraw
products for fear of consumer reaction.
“Mandatory labelling is not about choice but about limiting choice,” he
said. “Mandatory labelling in most respects is designed to alarm
rather than inform.”
New Democrat Judy Wasylycia-Leis, a proponent of mandatory GM
labelling, later described Powell as “a walking advertisement for the
industry rather than an independent scientist.”
