According to a report
released by the European Union Commission this past month, genetically modified
plants and crops pose no additional risks to human health and the environment.
In fact, the scientific experts contend, the use of better technology and the
enhanced regulatory scrutiny that GM crops face make them even safer than conventional
plants and food.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agrees: after an extensive, 2-year
review of the available data, the agency expressed confidence that Bt corn does
not pose risks to human health or to the environment, and renewed the U.S. registration
of Bt corn for a period of seven years. And the global adoption of GM varieties
continues to grow, despite ongoing controversy, with global acreage expected to
reach 50 million hectares, or 125 million acres, by the end of 2001.
But as the world’s scientists continue to weigh in with positive assessments
of the safety and benefits of GM crops, and as the world’s farmers increasingly
adopt new technologies to combat ongoing production challenges, Canada’s
politicians remain embroiled in GM debates around the issue of labelling.
When Health Minister Allan Rock announced his support for mandatory labelling
of GM foods on a national news program just before Thanksgiving, he breathed new
life into the campaign to pass Charles Caccia’s Private Member’s Bill
due before the House 10 days later. And although the Bill was ultimately defeated
in a 126-91 vote, with the Cabinet in solid opposition and with Mr. Rock absenting
himself from the proceedings, it is a virtual certainty that the issue will continue.
Our appreciation is extended to those MPs who showed their support for Canada’s
science-based food safety assessment system by voting against the Bill, which
would undermine the principles upon which that system is based.
A letter widely circulated just days before the vote, and jointly signed by Ministers
Tobin, Vanclief, Rock and Pettigrew, requested hearings on mandatory labelling
by the Health Committee. It is expected that such hearings will be initiated in
the near future, perhaps as soon as the House resumes after Christmas break.
This comes despite the fact that two government-appointed expert panels (Royal
Society and Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee) have studied the issue,
and recommended that labelling remain voluntary, as there is no valid scientific
reason for mandatory labelling. And it comes despite the fact that the standards
for voluntary labelling of GM foods that have been in development for almost two
years through the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) are nearing completion.
The question is, what value would mandatory labelling of all GM foods have, especially
when measured against its cost? According to a national survey conducted this
past summer, fewer than 13% of Canadians even know what GMO means. Although most
consumers may indicate they want all GM foods labelled when asked directly, if
asked simply what they would like to see added to food labels, very few request
information about the GM origins of food or food ingredients.
While the benefits of mandatory labelling for all GM foods may be difficult to
measure, the potential risks are much easier to quantify. Conservative estimates
suggest an increase in the costs of all processed foods by at least 10% as a result
of increased production and processing costs. Regulatory costs would also jump
dramatically, as a legion of officials would be required to assume increased inspection
and enforcement burdens. (As well as all the domestically produced food, the more
than 5000 food shipments coming into the country each day would also have to be
verified in order to protect consumers from fraudulent GM claims.)
International trade would be seriously disrupted. All foods imported into Canada
would have to be labelled to meet our standard. Because there is no evidence to
suggest that GM foods present a health and safety risk, this requirement would
undoubtedly be viewed as a barrier to trade, and in violation of Canada’s
obligations under WTO. Canada’s major trading partner – the U.S. –
has not enacted mandatory labelling for GM foods, nor is there any indication
that they are likely to do so.
Nor is there any successful model to emulate: in EVERY country where mandatory
GM food labelling has occurred or is in development, regulators have allowed for
an extensive network of exemptions and loopholes in order to make such labelling
practical and comparatively inexpensive. As a result, many food ingredients that
are obtained from GM crops are exempted, and foods that are classified as ‘non-GM’
may actually contain a significant percentage of ingredients that come from GM
sources. Consumers who buy such foods on the basis of their ‘non-GM’
classification are being seriously misled. The same thing would happen here, because
it’s the only way to achieve mandatory labelling at affordable cost.
The bottom line is that mandatory labelling of all foods based on their production
method is difficult, dangerous and prohibitively expensive. If the CGSB process
is successful, voluntary labelling can provide consumer choice for those who want
it and are willing to pay the increased prices involved in such product differentiation.
1