After more than three years of work, a government-supported effort to devise rules for voluntary labelling of foods containing genetically modified material has reached a stalemate.
It is a setback for the federal government as well as for food and agriculture industry officials hoping that a voluntary labelling scheme would undermine a push for mandatory labels.
Last week, a coalition of several dozen environmental and organic groups, as well as activist David Suzuki, asked prime minister Jean Chrétien to bring in mandatory labelling.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
They said the attempt at voluntary standards has failed and that “the tactics being used by some parties involved in the process are designed to terminally delay any action on labelling.”
Proponents of voluntary labels denied the charge and called for the process to continue.
“I suppose this is a political problem for us,” said Jeanne Cruikshank, Atlantic region vice-president of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, a strong supporter of voluntary labelling. “It would be better if we could be united on this. But I strongly believe that we have to move ahead with this, try it. I believe it would meet consumer acceptance.”
Bob Friesen, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and an opponent of mandatory labelling, said it is important that the search for acceptable rules continues so the mandatory label lobby does not win the upper hand. The CFA is a member of the committee.
“We’re getting far too close to allowing consumers to be the judge and jury on standards, moving away from science,” he said.
Since 1999, the committee of 53 representatives has been trying to make labels true, verifiable, factual and understandable. The committee includes governments, many parts of the food and agriculture industry and the Consumers Association of Canada.
Environmentalists have refused to take part, considering it biased toward the industry.
Critical divisive issues include whether positive as well as negative labelling should be allowed (“contains” as well as “does not contain”), the level of GM content that triggers the need for a label and whether refined oil made from GM canola or soybean should require a label.
Early this year, the committee sent a revised proposal for labelling standards to members.
On Feb. 28, the chair of the Canadian General Standards Board committee told members that the latest vote indicated deep divisions remain. The latest version had 53 percent support.
“My general concern is that we have less consensus now than a year ago,” wrote Doryne Peace. “Moreover, the number of abstentions has increased. I feel we have a duty to realistically assess whether progress can be made or whether in good conscience the committee should declare a lack of consensus and dissolve.”
Laurie Curry, vice-president of the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada, said committee work should continue even though she voted against the latest proposal.
Cruikshank said while another meeting or two might be useful, the latest version of the proposal has the support of most on the committee and should be implemented.
