NIAGARA FALLS, Ont. – A leading national consumer advocate has warned that the potential advantages of biotechnology could be lost to the food industry if consumers cannot soon be convinced of its benign benefits.
Government and the biotech industry have been losing the public credibility battle to the critics, Consumers’ Association of Canada vice-president Jenny Hillard told industry leaders Sept. 17. There is growing resistance to genetically modified products in the food system as more nations and corporations get cold feet.
“I don’t think we will lose the technology but we could lose it in the food system,” Hillard told the annual meeting of the Crop Protection Institute of Canada. “We lost irradiation because of public unease. We could lose this.”
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
She said in an interview the consumers’ group takes a product-by-product approach to GM technology but in the past year, general public attitudes have hardened.
“A lot of people in the industry have blinkers on and think they couldn’t possibly lose something as good as this,” she said. “I think they are wrong. Some products already are out of the market. Others like wheat may never make it. The momentum is with the critics.”
Some industry leaders who have invested billions of dollars in food biotechnology development dismissed the warning as alarmist. But they acknowledged their credibility problem and offered a surprising solution.
“I suggest the industry is in favour of increased regulation,” said Lorne Hepworth, president of the Crop Protection Institute of Canada. It could help illustrate to consumers that their health and safety concerns are being guarded by impartial regulators.
Hepworth did not detail the type of rules the industry would accept, but there were suggestions that the regulatory and product approval system become more open and understandable to consumers.
Also suggested were that an independent body be set up to allocate biotech research money and that a strong and visible effort be made to increase research into long-term effects of GM food production and consumption.
The public debate over GM acceptance was the core theme as industry leaders gathered for their annual meeting in this resort city.
From the podium and in the hallways, there was bravado about the benefits of the technology, signs of growing public acceptance and the unreasonable arguments and tactics of the opponents.
But there also was an underlying sense of unease and siege at the meeting.
“The food system is under attack,” former Monsanto Canada president Ray Mowling, now head of an industry council for biotechnology information, told the meeting.
Hepworth said public opinion polls show growing numbers of people are aware of the technology, but many of them remain concerned about the implications and the risks.
He and other speakers signaled that since consumers do not believe industry is a credible promoter of the safety of GM food, the strategy will be to try to convince respected third-party players to carry the ball.
Dietitians, educators, scientists, nutritionists and media leaders are among those who will be targeted as potential “opinion leaders” to be convinced of the safety and advantages of the technology.
Mark Winston, a professor in the department of biological sciences at Simon Fraser University, said a problem is that consumers see companies and government in cahoots to promote the industry and to create a “regulation lite” regime of controls.
Even though there have been no confirmed cases of sickness caused by eating GM food, people are skeptical and see the industry as powerful and secretive, he said. Opposition to mandatory labelling suggests to many the industry has something to hide.
He said the industry should publicly campaign for tougher government regulations and control as a way to show the public it has nothing to hide.
“The solution is paradoxically for your industry to support tougher regulations,” said Winston. “We need confidence in safety issues and the job of the overseers.”
He also suggested the industry promote creation of a council representing itself plus government, consumers, environmentalists and other groups with a stake in the debate to oversee distribution of research money. There should be more obviously independent testing of products, with the results and the process visible to the public.
He said opponents of GM products have been more effective in their public advocacy campaigns, even if they are not always factually based.
“They seem to be having more fun.”
