OTTAWA – A parliamentary committee has recommended the government establish a permanent commission to study and advise on biotechnology.
And the environment committee last week suggested the environment department have more power to monitor government biotech rules.
A spokesperson for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said both recommendations are unnecessary.
Sally Rutherford said Agriculture Canada’s role of regulating and judging products by traditional standards of health, safety and efficacy should be maintained, whether products are created through biotech or conventional methods.
“My immediate and gut reaction is that we’re confident in the regulatory system as it stands,” she said.
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
In a report presented to the House of Commons after four months of meet-ings and public hearings, the Commons committee suggested the Canadian Environmental Protection Act be the “safety net” in the system, making sure biotech regulations issued by other departments are equivalent to environment department rules.
Committee chair Charles Caccia told a Nov. 8 news conference the public remains skeptical about biotechnology.
He said the proposed national advisory commission would have a permanent mandate to consider ethical issues, proposals for changes to the regulatory regime, public concerns and the question of whether Ottawa should pass a gene law to deal with products created by mixing genes of different species.
“Biotechnology and genetic engineering is a field about which the public, including ourselves, is very nervous, perhaps because we know so little about it,” Caccia said.
The proposal for a permanent advisory commission to study biotech received a cool reception from Rutherford.
Won’t calm concerns
“We recognize there are ethical questions and unease among members of the public, including some farmers,” she said. “But a permanent commission does not sound like a reasonable way to tackle this. It would be like having a permanent royal commission.”
CFA members were among those who went before the committee to argue against moving biotechnology regulation to the environment department from existing responsible departments, including Agriculture Canada.
They opposed suggestions from some environmentalists and bio-tech critics that food affected by biotechnology techniques be labeled.
“We support the regulatory system as it stands,” Rutherford said. “And labeling would be meaningless because virtually everything would have to be labeled.”
Caccia told the news conference he believes biotech-affected food should be labeled, but it was not a committee recommendation.
He also said the proposed commission would look at public concerns over departments like agriculture which both regulate and promote biotechnology.
