OTTAWA – To some obviously skeptical MPs last week, farm leaders insisted too much labeling of biotechnology-affected food would be a bad thing.
Representatives for the National Agriculture Environment Committee said May 29 that food labeling should be required only for health or safety reasons.
“Where a product has been declared safe for use, there should be no need to label,” said committee spokesperson Jeff Wilson.
Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Jack Wilkinson said a label identifying the product as having had some connection to a biotech process would tell consumers nothing and merely feed their fears.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
He said the issue is not the nature of the products but a consumer concern that the regulatory system does not work well.
“Biotech has taken on for some consumers a very scary concept that requires something different,” he told MPs.
He said an education process is necessary to convince consumers the regulation system is working well, even for new products.
Ron Kehrig of Ag-West Biotech Inc. of Saskatoon insisted there is no great consumer concern.
“The surveys show that a majority of consumers do not have a concern about biotechnology products,” he told some clearly unconvinced MPs.
“I think people are concerned,” Ontario Liberal MP Peter Adams had told the witnesses earlier. “I think this is ticking away out there and you should be aware of it.”
Consider regulations
The farm and food industry representatives were appearing before the Commons environment committee that has been studying the issue of how to regulate what is expected to be a flood of food products produced or enhanced through genetic engineering techniques.
MPs have heard pleas from consumer and environmental interests that any product affected by biotechnology be labeled.
The farm group representatives were not impressed by the criticisms.
They said Agriculture Canada, in co-operation with the health and environment department, has been regulating the food industry for years and can continue to do so.
They argued the biotech industry should be governed by guidelines rather than specific regulations. They complained if Canada sets rules that are too stringent, they could be challenged as trade restrictive.
And they suggested too much is being made of how radical a departure biotechnology really is.
“I see biotechnology as evolutionary, not revolutionary,” said Lorne Babiuk, director of the veterinary disease organization at the University of Saskatchewan. “A lot of people see it as revolutionary.”
He said that makes them see the uncertainties and implications of biotech as greater than they are.
