As the House of Commons agriculture committee conducts an extensive study on the potential and problems of Canada’s agricultural biotechnology industry, critics of the technology say the fix is in.
This is the story they tell.
Witnesses heard so far have been overwhelmingly involved in the research or involved in the industry that commercializes the results.
Skeptics of biotech products and in particular genetically modified products have so far not been able to get a seat at the witness table.
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
And during a national tour last week, members of the committee privately visited biotechnology research facilities in Olds, Alta., Saskatoon, Guelph, Quebec City, Truro, N.S., and Charlottetown, P.E. I, to get briefed on the type of research and potential at play.
In Charlottetown, Health Coalition activist Mary Boyd asked if she could accompany MPs on their private visit to an industry site. She was told no.
Lucy Sharratt, co-ordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Committee, asked if the private visits would be recorded and the transcripts made public. She was told no.
It led Sharratt last week to complain about “the lack of transparency” around the committee site visits. Without recordings and transcripts similar to what are made at public committee meetings, how is the public to know if these meetings are simply a way for the industry or researchers to lobby for their sector?
“We initially critiqued the tour as providing a public relations platform for the industry,” she wrote in an e-mail.
The unrecorded site visits add to the impression.
“Are the site visits PR junkets?”
Francis Valeriote, the Liberal MP who worked with Conservative Randy Hoback to launch the biotech study, says the critics should be more patient.
As hearings continue in Ottawa over the next weeks, organic producers and other critics will be invited to have their say.
Valeriote said the hearings will not be a whitewash for the industry and he is no cheerleader.
But biotechnology will be a major factor in future agricultural research and a thorough airing of the potential and problems associated with that must be held.
“This is not rah biotech,” he said. “There is a role for biotech and anyone who thinks we can pass a law to turn it off is misguided.
But the organic people raise very legitimate concerns about contamination, saving seed and so on. We have to decloak the industry so all these issues are debated.”
Valeriote said the committee study is an attempt to address some of the issues that were not addressed when private member’s bill C-474 was defeated by Parliament. It would have required an analysis of potential economic hurt before any new GM variety is approved.
“C-474 raised some very serious issues but it did not provide the solutions,” he said.
“That is what we are looking at. I’m excited about the potential for the biotech industry and what it can do for agriculture far beyond the GMO debate, but I also recognize there are serious concerns that must be looked at.”
The final report will reflect both sides, said Valeriote.
So from his perspective, the fix is far from in.
