Roy Button figures canola producers would have little to gain and much to lose if Canada adopted a mandatory labeling system for all genetically modified foods.
As executive director of the Saskatchewan Canola Development Commission, Button said there are too many unanswered questions surrounding the issue.
And until those questions are answered, there is no way to ensure that Western Canada’s canola producers won’t be hurt.
“There is no way to predict what impact it would have if we went to mandatory labels,” said Button.
Read Also
Ag in Motion speaker highlights need for biosecurity on cattle operations
Ag in Motion highlights need for biosecurity on cattle farms. Government of Saskatchewan provides checklist on what you can do to make your cattle operation more biosecure.
“We know there’s going to be an added cost but is that added cost going to be absorbed by the consumer or by the producer?
No one has answered that question.”
The SCDC supports Canada’s voluntary approach to labeling GM food products.
It eliminates uncertainty for Western Canada’s canola growers, said Button, even though genetically modified materials are destroyed during processing.
Farmers in Western Canada grew GM canola on about 12.1 million acres last year, roughly 55 percent of the region’s canola acreage.
Button said producers are concerned about many aspects of mandatory labeling.
For starters, it is unclear who would bear the costs of segregating, sampling and testing crops for GM content.
Testing procedures are in their infancy and tolerance levels established by foreign countries are often set at unrealistically low levels, he said.
Trace-back needed
The issue of liability is another concern.
A mandatory labeling system would require a guarantee of purity at all stages of production, delivery and processing. As a result, farmers who produce and sell non-GM canola would be forced to keep close tabs on their crops, ensuring against contamination during seeding, harvesting, storage and delivery.
In Australia, where a mandatory labeling policy has been approved, a trace-back system is being developed to detect contamination. Details of the system have not been finalized but food industry analysts said it will include farmgate testing and certification.
A similar system in Canada could result in more record keeping for farmers, higher production costs and unnecessary liabilities.
“It all depends on what the consumer wants,” said Button. “If you come in with a voluntary labeling system, consumers that want (GM labels) get what they want and the marketplace determines the price.”
Stewart Wells, Saskatchewan board member with the National Farmers Union, sees things differently. He believes mandatory labels benefit consumers and farmers.
Wells is critical of Canada’s voluntary GM labeling policy and sees it as a waste of time and taxpayers’ money. He says a strategy that hinders the flow of information to Canadian consumers is destined for failure.
Last year, the NFU published a position paper on GM food labeling, calling for an immediate moratorium on the production, importation, distribution and sale of GM foods in Canada.
The NFU also called for an end to GM exports to countries where regulation and inspection services are lax, a “strict” set of rules for segregating and handling GM products in Canada and mandatory labeling for products containing GM material.
“The consumer is not protected and neither are farmers by a voluntary (labeling) system,”
said Wells.
“As public awareness increases, then the pressure from consumers (for mandatory labels) also increases.”
He said the issue is the integrity of the system.
“If we can’t come together to satisfy consumers and ensure that our products are safe and of the highest quality, then the whole market will just disintegrate.”
