Mixed messages from the federal government have been part of the
problem as Canadian governments, industry and consumers struggle with
how to regulate genetically modified food, says the co-chair of an
expert committee that studied the issue and recommended government
changes.
“It is a perennial problem,” University of Saskatchewan agriculture
professor Peter Phillips said Aug. 28.
“I think the government has confounded the problem through its
inability to focus its message. One day it’s the agriculture minister,
Read Also
Stock dogs show off herding skills at Ag in Motion
Stock dogs draw a crowd at Ag in Motion. Border collies and other herding breeds are well known for the work they do on the farm.
the next day fisheries, the next day food inspection or trade. It’s no
wonder people are uncertain.”
As co-chair of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee’s GM food
steering committee, Phillips helped draft a recommendation that the
government create an office responsible for communicating and
co-ordinating the government message on GM food regulation.
The committee, in a report presented to industry minister Allan Rock
Aug. 26, also called on government to consider a bureaucratic
reorganization to make the regulation of GM food more “transparent” and
to end any perception of “mandate conflict” between regulating and
promoting.
However, its recommendations on safety and labelling drew most of the
attention and the two sides in the debate remained as polarized as ever.
The committee, created in 1998 as a government advisory expert panel of
scientists, researchers, nutritionists, and food safety and
environmental law specialists, said in its final report to government
that GM products now on the market are as safe as any.
But it recommended more testing and study to make sure long-term
consumption does not produce unexpected side effects.
And it said that while consumers have a right to information about what
they are eating, voluntary GM labelling is the best approach. Mandatory
labelling could be considered after five years if consumers still are
unhappy.
Committee member Anne Mitchell from the Canadian Institute for
Environmental Law and Policy disagreed with the proposal and called for
mandatory labelling.
Nadge Adam, biotechnology specialist with the Council of Canadians and
one of the most vocal critics of GM food, said the report is biased
toward the industry and is deeply contradictory.
Adam noted that the committee says it has consulted the public.
“Well, 90 percent of Canadians want mandatory labelling, but did they
listen?”
She also wanted to know how scientists can conduct long-term
consumption studies without labels indicating if people have eaten GM
food.
“And what is this ‘it is safe but we need long-term studies to confirm
it is safe’ line?”
Food manufacturers, like most farm groups, saw the labelling advice as
sensible. Health and safety issues should require mandatory labelling,
but information about the production process should be voluntary.
“Canadian consumers deserve a labelling standard that is informative,
understandable, not false, not misleading and verifiable so that they
can make informed food choices,” Laurie Curry, vice-president of the
Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada, said in a statement.
“We believe this (voluntary labelling) is the right approach.”
Phillips said that while he understands GM skeptics will not be content
with the proposal, most committee members concluded that mandatory
labels would be costly for the industry and would not convey meaningful
information to consumers.
“There is no significant demonstrable benefit,” he said. “And the cost
burden on the industry would be significant.”
He dismissed as irrelevant to the committee the public polling evidence
that 85-90 percent of Canadians want mandatory labelling.
The committee was not established to gauge public opinion, but to study
the science and safety, he said.
“If the government wanted to make policy by polling, they would not
need us, they could do their own polls.”
At the core of the committee recommendation was a conviction that if GM
food is allowed onto the market, it has been judged safe.
“We found no evidence that GM foods, approved under the current
regulatory system pose any greater health or environmental risk than
any other foods in the marketplace,” committee chair Arnold Naimark
said in a letter to industry minister Rock. “However, we have
identified important opportunities to improve the management and
co-ordination of the system.”
Those will be key as new and more complex GM products emerge, said
Naimark of the University of Manitoba.
