THERE’S a slow train coming, and it’s loaded with labels for foods
containing genetically modified ingredients.
Last week, the European Union crossed a border that brings it closer to
full GM labelling. Farm ministers finally agreed on the threshold of GM
content beyond which labelling would be required – O.9 percent.
This clears the track for development of tough new labelling rules in
Europe as early as next year.
In the United States, where there had previously been little interest
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?
in GM labelling, a question appeared on Oregon state ballots in early
November that, if passed, would have imposed mandatory labelling on
GM-containing food in the state.
The ballot initiative was soundly defeated by 73 percent of voters. Yet
the mere presence of the question is evidence that awareness of the GM
issue is growing for Canada’s largest trading partner.
Canada officially supports a system of voluntary labelling of foods
containing GM ingredients. That position was affirmed as recently as
early November when Agriculture Canada filed a statement in Parliament
citing fears of international trade action, American hostility to the
idea and potential cost to many links in the food production chain.
Those are reasons compelling enough to convince us that voluntary
labelling is the most prudent course of action at this time.
We do, however, see irony in the government’s fear that a labelling law
would draw a trade challenge from the U.S. After all, the U.S. is
launching country of origin labelling in 2004. Hopefully Canada will be
poised with a trade action when that happens.
In any case, a system of voluntary GM labelling is vastly superior to a
mandatory system because too little is known about its impact on
farmers.
Mandatory labelling brings costs related to segregation, testing,
administration and policing. Estimates for all that range from $700 to
$900 million per year, yet there’s no indication that consumers are
willing to pay more for labelled food. With farm income so precarious,
Canadian farmers are in no position to bear increased input costs.
And if a mandatory labelling program affected trade relations with the
U.S., to whom Canada sells $16.6 billion worth of agri-food products
annually, markets for Canadian products would suffer dramatically and
farmers would again bear the brunt.
A voluntary labelling program offers flexibility to Canadian farmers,
processors and manufacturers.
It will allow change to be implemented gradually, in step with consumer
demand. Segregation and identity preservation systems that are part and
parcel of food labelling can be devised as the market dictates – not as
government policy demands.
The labelling train is coming, but there’s no need to jump aboard until
it arrives in the Canadian station.
