MURRAY Calder, chair of the Liberal rural caucus in Parliament, had it
right. The complicated and charged political debate about whether and
how to label genetically modified foods is largely irrelevant.
The government and the food industry favour giving companies the choice
of whether or not to label.
However, once some products are labelled, consumers will be skeptical
of any that are not labelled, says Calder. Whatever the law says, it
will be de facto mandatory labelling.
Read Also
Trump’s trade policies take their toll on Canadian producers
U.S. trade policy as dictated by president Donald Trump is hurting Canadian farmers in a multitude of ways.
So why is this issue consuming so much time and energy on Parliament
Hill?
Blame it on government confusion, a lack of clear leadership on one of
the most politically charged food issues of the day, and a public mood
that has moved faster than political momentum.
It is a political mess.
Consider what has been happening:
Public opinion polls consistently show an overwhelming majority of
consumers want to know if their food has been genetically altered or
not. It may be an ill-informed consumer reaction but it is real.
Meanwhile, close to a majority of MPs agree with them.
The food industry is in a panic. It sees costs, negative messages about
genetically engineered foods and consumer skepticism about the safety
of Canadian food.
Worst of all, it sees environmentalists and anti-corporate ideologues
winning a political battle.
That explains the tantrum thrown by Canadian Alliance MP Howard
Hilstrom last week after he endured a presentation from National
Farmers Union president Stewart Wells favouring mandatory labelling.
Hilstrom said it had ruined his day. He all but told Wells he was
unworthy of being called a farmer.
Meanwhile, former Saskatchewan Wheat Pool vice-president Marvin Shauf
was warning the House of Commons agriculture committee that mandatory
labelling would bring the end of the world as we know it, making the
food sector uncompetitive, driving farmers off the land, destroying an
important scientific technology and disrupting trade with the United
States.
Can an outbreak of acne be far behind?
In the face of all this, the federal government seems to be adrift and
divided.
Agriculture Canada agrees with the panic-stricken food industry and its
supporters on the agriculture committee.
Health Canada seems inclined to support the idea of a consumer right to
know. Environment and Industry departments have their own turf to
defend.
On Parliament Hill, rival committees are holding parallel hearings.
Agriculture will conclude voluntary labels are the ticket while the
health committee and probably the environment committee will lean to
mandatory.
The government seems to think that if people are given a chance to
express their conflicting views long enough, the issue will go away.
Dream on. It seems inconceivable that consumers will be content to make
genetically modified products a guessing game. Whether or not their
concerns are justified, it is a tough assignment to overturn the adage
that the customer is always right.
For the government and food industry, that noise is the sound of a
public opinion horse leaving the barn before the door is closed.
