THE federal cabinet split over mandatory versus voluntary labelling of foods with genetically modified ingredients is a serious disappointment for Canadian farmers.
Until recently, the official federal position supported a system of voluntary labelling, the details of which are being developed by the Canadian General Standards Board.
It was one of few federal government positions concerning agriculture that was generally supported by Canadian farmers and farm groups.
The voluntary labelling approach has been endorsed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association and the United States National Academy of Science.
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?
But last week health minister Allan Rock broke ranks and endorsed mandatory labelling. Rock’s press secretary explained the minister doesn’t see it as a food safety issue, but rather as support for consumer choice.
Who indeed would argue against consumer choice? The problem is that mandatory labelling is not likely to give consumers what they seek, and is almost certain to damage Canadian farmers, their livelihoods and their markets.
Leave aside, for the moment, the astronomical costs associated with labelling – things like crop segregation, testing, administration and policing.
Leave aside, for the moment, the fact that the United States, our most important trading partner, doesn’t require labelling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients.
Let’s look strictly at labels themselves. Right now, Canadian law requires that foods be labelled if there’s a possibility they may contain allergens or other health hazards.
As the Canadian Federation of Agriculture correctly points out, many consumers thus see labels as warnings. That means GM labels would likely reduce consumer confidence in Canadian food.
Markets for Canadian farmers’ produce would be reduced, even though, after years of testing in Canada and around the world, there is no concrete scientific evidence indicating foods containing genetically modified ingredients are unsafe.
Consider also that food processors might choose to change their formulations to avoid the threshold that requires use of a label. In that scenario, markets would again be reduced and consumers would still be eating foods with GM content, albeit in smaller amounts.
For the sake of further argument, however, assume Canadian farmers were able and willing to provide GM-free product. The onus would be upon them to prove their products were GM-free. That in turn would add costs to a food production industry that barely supports its farmers under current conditions.
There is no evidence that food processors, manufacturers or consumers would be willing to pay more for food labelled as being free of GM ingredients.
This despite consultants’ estimations that labelling would cost between $700-$950 million per year.
That expense cannot be borne by farmers already on thin margins. And it’s unlikely to be borne by consumers because such labels wouldn’t improve the quality or the safety of food.
The current system of labels refers to content. Content can be verified using available scientific methods. A label involving GM designation is a reference to process, and that means it is subjective. What is genetic modification? The definition varies by country. And at what level of processing would the need for labelling stop?
There is no suggestion that consumer choice is not important. It is vital.
But contrary to popular adage, we do not believe the customer is always right. More accurately, the customer is always the customer, so he must have access to products in which he has confidence.
So consider this: farmers are customers too. They, too, have choices. By all appearances, they have every confidence in the food they are growing for Canadian consumers. They’re eating it too.
Mandatory labelling will not solve the problem of consumer unease with genetic modification. Only research and education will do that.
As that process unfolds, a system of voluntary labelling is the most responsible position to take.
