ONCE again, the explosive question is being asked: is there conflict of interest, real or perceived, when the same government minister and ministry that inspects food also are considered part of the team that promotes the food industry?
This time, the question comes from Ontario judge Roland Haines who, after a six-month investigation of Ontario’s provincial meat inspection system, saw a potential for conflict between an inspector’s job to assess meat quality and the understanding that the meat industry is an important “client” for the department.
“I do not contend that there is any policy of OMAF (Ontario ministry of agriculture and food) or any intention on the part of anyone at OMAF to make the safety of the public anything but its first priority but there is evidence of a reluctance to act decisively when the issues of public safety and client welfare collide,” he said in a report that recommended creation of a separate food inspection agency.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
“This only fuels the perception that public safety is sometimes taking a back seat to the agricultural industry.”
Later, Justice Haines wrote: “The director, food inspection branch, should not be in the position of having to promote and police the meat industry.”
The comment brought a testy response from Laurie Nicol, executive director of the Ontario Independent Meat Processors, representing most provincially licensed abattoirs.
“That comment is more emotional than factual and we don’t think should have been made,” she said.
“We do not believe at all the inspectors are there to promote us.”
It was far from the first time independent investigators, food sector critics and political activists have alleged governments are too close to industries they regulate.
The federal auditor general has expressed concern about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s reporting responsibility to the federal agriculture minister who also oversees investment in research and promotion for the industry.
CFIA officials have been involved in international trade missions to get BSE borders open – a role the agency says is simply certifying meat safety but critics see as promotion.
And of course, the CFIA’s role in insisting that marketed genetically modified foods are safe while Agriculture Canada uses that assurance to help industry market the products brings accusations of conflict-of-interest from GMO critics and skeptical consumers.
To all these conflict-of-interest allegations, industry and government officials consistently insist the critics have it wrong. There is no conflict. Regulators would never approve unproven product just to please industry.
They are indignant at the mere mention.
All of which turns on its head the traditional maxim that the customer is always right, that if the customer wants more testing or more transparently independent regulators, that’s what they’ll get.
Instead, the new industry-government principle seems to be that if the customer wants something that science doesn’t require and industry doesn’t think logical, the answer is to re-educate the customer, to speak loudly and slowly until they accept that they are wrong.
It is an interesting, if rather arrogant, marketing strategy that clearly is a high-risk gamble in a competitive world.
