If Europe softens its organic regulations to allow low levels of genetically modified contamination, Canada won’t be following suit, says the person co-ordinating the development of a regulation in this country.
The European Commission is contemplating a revision of its organic regulation that includes an allowance for up to 0.9 percent GM material in organic products through accidental or unavoidable contamination.
The proposed change, which the EC hopes to implement by the end of June, has elicited strenuous objections from the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, or
Read Also
Conservation groups enter grazing lease debate
The Municipal District of Taber in southern Alberta remains at a political crossroads, weighing the interests of generating revenue for public services with conserving native grasslands.
IFOAM.
“Organic consumers do not want, and the organic sector does not tolerate, GMO contamination of organic products. This regulation should be supporting that, not undermining it,” said IFOAM’s EU regional group in a letter delivered to the Austrian presidency of the EC.
Canada won’t be entertaining a similar debate about establishing GM tolerance levels.
“We’ve made our decision regarding genetic engineering,” said Paddy Doherty, chair of the Organic Regulatory Committee.
The national standard, which is under revision, states there is zero tolerance for products of genetic engineering and there are no plans to include tolerance levels, which would require the implementation of costly testing procedures.
“This standard stays as far as we could possibly get from requirements for residue testing,” said Doherty.
What the standard does contain is a clause that allows for accidental contamination, but doesn’t place any limits on it. Doherty said the clause is basically an out for producers who face a contamination problem through no fault of their own.
If Europe adopts the proposed new regulation and Canada sticks with the language it has in place, it could present a challenge when it comes to equivalency negotiations. But that will be one of many areas where the two systems differ, said Doherty.
CropLife Canada would like to see the organic industry adopt language similar to what is being proposed in Europe.
“Zero tolerance for one system in relation to commingling or adventitious presence is not feasible in commercial agricultural production and will not facilitate coexistence,” said the agency in a brochure.
Denise Dewar, executive director plant biotechnology with CropLife, said it is possible for both production systems to flourish side by side.
“The reality is that GM production has been increasing in Canada since 1995 at the same time as organic production has been increasing. That indicates to me that in this country anyway we’re coexisting quite well.”
