Faced with consumer unease about mad cow disease, genetically altered food or the dangers of food-borne disease, the Canadian government routinely mishandles attempts to reassure the public that risks are properly assessed and controlled, say two academics who have written a book critical of Ottawa’s record.
Titled Mad Cows and Mother’s Milk: The Perils of Poor Risk Communications, the book to be published in the autumn will take particular aim at the government record on food risk communication issues.
It is written by Doug Powell from the University of Guelph and William Leiss of Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont.
Read Also
Canola oil transloading facility opens
DP World just opened its new canola oil transload facility at the Port of Vancouver. It can ship one million tonnes of the commodity per year.
“There’s a culture of secrecy and a feeling in government that risk communication is not a big deal,” Powell said in an interview last week. “What they don’t seem to understand is that if they don’t communicate properly with the public about the risks, someone else will fill the vacuum. Misinformation can create consumer hysteria.”
Liberally sprinkled through the text are critical assessments of what the authors consider a bureaucratic tendency to operate in secrecy, insisting everything is under control and food products are safe.
The authors argue for creation of a more active risk communication strategy which keeps the public informed about risks, how they are assessed and the basis on which products are judged and approved.
On a number of issues, Powell and Leiss say the government record is inadequate.
Risk denied
On the threat of mad cow disease, they note Agriculture Canada ordered an Alberta cow herd destroyed when one case was discovered, but the main government response has been to assure consumers there is no risk, despite continued unease.
“Leadership by abdication may be the Canadian way but given both the public discussion … and the newest scientific findings, such a strategy must be regarded as irresponsible and archaic,” they write.
Powell and Leiss argue the government is contributing to public skepticism about genetically altered foods by failing to communicate enough information about technology, risks and surveillance plans.
“In general, Agriculture Canada seems reluctant to acknowledge the risks associated with plant biotechnology and therefore does not feel the need to communicate about them or to devise monitoring or management plans for environmental impacts,” they write.
At times, the department expects the food-producing companies to develop and communicate risk management plans. “We submit that such an indirect, haphazard approach to risk communication is insufficient and irresponsible.”
For Margaret Kenny of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the charges about poor communications on genetically altered food are off-base.
She has been involved in years of consultations on regulations for genetically altered food, “one of the most extensive consultations we have ever done.”
She said last week the department and agency have been anything but secretive, publishing “decision documents” and results from thousands of field trials on new varieties.
“I think we have been very open as we have been doing our tests and drawing up our regulations,” said Kenny. “But on the side of communications, can we do better? Always. If they have ideas on how we can do it better, we’re all ears.”
