Report on GM food worthy of support - WP editorial

The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee has released a prudent interim report on how Canada should handle the controversial subject of regulating genetically modified organisms.

While not perfect, it is generally worthy of support.

The committee, consisting of federally appointed academic and private sector members, disappointed biotechnology critics by not addressing whether GMOs are good or bad.

But the committee was correct to start from reality. The technology and its early products are among us and the practical question is how to deal with them to ensure a rational degree of safety while not impeding their advancement and potential for public good.

Read Also

Producers face the reality of shifting grain price expectations

Significant price shifts have occurred in various grains as compared to what was expected at the beginning of the calendar year. Crop insurance prices can be used as a base for the changes.

The committee concluded that the regulatory system needs improvement to deliver the safety that the public wants. It started with the issue of integrity.

There is a perceived and perhaps a real conflict of interest in the link between the government’s regulatory responsibilities and its role in promoting new technologies.

An obvious example of this conflict was some Health Canada veterinary scientists complaints about pressure to approve dairy growth hormones despite safety concerns.

Addressing this issue, the advisory committee recommended creation of a chief safety officer for GM foods. Unfortunately, it then describes its role as a co-ordinator of regulatory activities rather than as a champion of integrity and independence.

Its recommendation that the federal auditor general check on the independence of regulatory functions is a disappointing alternative.

Other recommendations address the need for research into the long-term impact of biotechnology on human health and the environment. Critics such as Greenpeace say GM products should not be approved when we do not know long-term implications. But if the same precautionary principle was applied generally, the pace of technological advancement would grind to a halt.

The committee rightly notes the current GM regulatory system provides a reasonable certainty that approved products are safe. But there is a need to keep checking on that assumption.

The recommendation to start long-term monitoring and research is good, but the initiative should not come at the cost of cutting other agricultural research.

Finally, the committee wants the government to provide more information on biotechnology and its regulation to educate citizens and allow them to make informed decisions.

Food labelling is a part of this, but the committee rightly says that labels are effective only when consumers have the knowledge to interpret them.

We hope the committee’s final report due next year, which promises ways to address the social and ethical issues surrounding GM foods will be as helpful as the interim paper.