“Keep out of reach of children.” “Caution, contents under pressure.” “Cigarettes can kill you.” “May contain peanuts.”
These labels and others of similar ilk on products are part of our daily existence. They are warnings about harmful effects should we choose to ignore them.
Labelling food that contains genetically modified ingredients is an entirely different scenario. It implies a risk where there is none and can be interpreted as a warning when no warning is warranted.
Hundreds of peer-reviewed, scientific studies show GM food has no harmful effects. The vast majority of scientists familiar with the topic agree on that point. It is safe and contributes to affordable food on a daily basis.
Read Also
Proactive approach best bet with looming catastrophes
The Pan-Canadian Action Plan on African swine fever has been developed to avoid the worst case scenario — a total loss ofmarket access.
Yet pressure on governments and food companies to label foods that contain GM ingredients continues unabated.
Most recently, a bill was defeated in the U.S. Congress that would have enshrined voluntary labelling and nullified a Vermont law that will soon impose mandatory GM labelling.
Several major food companies, faced with the expensive and complicated specter of having to label foods state by state, are instead labelling their product for GM content. Others have banned or plan to ban GM ingredients in their products.
It is a crazy world we live in, when governments and multinational companies are compelled to legislate or label in the guise of a warning so consumers can feel protected against something that has no proven risk.
Concerted and prolonged efforts to educate the public on genetic modification — its purposes, how it is done and the ways it alters food and food production — have failed to satisfy concerns.
That doesn’t mean such efforts can or should stop, however.
Labelling food that contains or may contain GM ingredients seems contrary to all that science has determined about their safety. And given the pervasive existence of GM ingredients in modern foods, “may contain” could well become the fallback labelling position. That would satisfy few.
Let us not forget, either, that those afraid of GM food for whatever reason retain the option of buying organic products.
That said, food companies will do what they deem best for their respective bottom lines.
But what is the Canadian government’s position on this controversial issue?
Asked during the federal election campaign, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he believed in “evidence-based decision making and in the skill and wisdom of Canadian scientists.”
He further acknowledged that “some consumers here in Canada and elsewhere are seeking reassurance about the validity of our science and its products” and this should be “addressed on the basis of sound science and transparency.”
We are at the point now, sadly, where many consumers do not accept the findings of sound science, nor do they view it as transparent.
We urge the federal government to stand upon the weight of scientific opinion if and when it chooses to address GM food labelling.
