GRAIN GROWERS OF CANADA | |
|
ABUSE
OF THE PRINCIPLE |
 |
| by Cam Dahl, Executive Director Grain Growers of Canada | Les Producers De Grains
Du Canada |
On November 8 the Commission for Environmental
Co-operation (the Commission was formed under the North American Free Trade
Agreement or NAFTA) released a report entitled "Maize and Biodiversity: The
Effects of Transgenic Maize in Mexico." The report, which was widely leaked
by the activist group Greenpeace, threatens the scientific foundation of international
regulations and raises questions about the application of the principle of
precaution. This could prove to be harmful to Canadian grains and oilseed
farmers, including Ontario corn producers.
Undermining Science Based Regulation
While the Grain Growers of Canada (GGC) have concerns with many of the recommendations
in the report, two are particularly problematic because they are not based
on scientific proof. The report recommends:
"A requirement that the imported maize from the United States and Canada is
labeled, indicating any possible GM maize content or "GM-free"
certification."
Canada has put significant effort into the "labeling" question. We have developed
a voluntary labeling system through the Canadian General Standards Board that
gives consumers choice, while preserving our rigorous science-based regulatory
system.
The Commission's recommendation undermines Canada's science-based approach.
A NAFTA body should not be weakening Canada's regulatory system.
The report also recommends:
"A requirement that all imported maize to Mexico from Canada and the United
States that is not "GM-free" certified is directly sent, without exception,
to mills for processing."
If adopted, this recommendation will only serve as a non-tariff barrier to
trade and would be an overt violation of the World Trade Organization's rules
if implemented.
These recommendations, which are not based on science, cannot be allowed to
harm the international trading environment that is the foundation of Canadian
agriculture.
Abuse of Precautionary Principle
The authors of the report cite the "precautionary principle" as the reason
behind many of their recommendations. This is the same justification many
in Canada give when they call for a ban on the products of modern biotechnology,
or a ban on the use of pesticides, despite the fact that these products have
already passed through Canada's rigorous science-based regulatory system.
The principle of precaution is not difficult to understand. Simply, the principle
says that if there is a significant risk of doing damage to the environment,
we should proceed slowly, even if we do not have full scientific proof that
a new approach or product will cause harm.
This is not an unreasonable approach.
It is essentially the same risk benefit analysis that farmers undertake every
year. If the risks are very high, it is best to proceed cautiously.
There
are a number of more formal definitions of the precautionary principle. The
definition adopted by an environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 is
a good place to start.
The Rio declaration states:
"In order to protect the
environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States
according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."
There are significant aspects of this definition that have become abused or ignored by activists. This is turning the precautionary
principle into a tool for activists who oppose technology and the adoption of new agriculture practices, rather than a common
sense approach to responsible introduction and use.
Nowhere in the precautionary principle does it state that all progress must be stopped. Yet, that is exactly what the activists are
asking of our government - full bans on technology.
The application of the precautionary principle must take into account potential benefits as well as potential risks. For example, rice,
genetically enhanced to have elevated levels of Vitamin A (called Golden Rice) could help prevent blindness in children. Vitamin A
deficiency causes 500,000 children to go blind every year. Yet, the activists oppose the introduction of Golden Rice. They cite
the precautionary principle, despite the fact that there are no known risks involved in growing the variety.
This is an abuse of the principle. Quite simply, the precautionary principle cannot be used as an excuse to do nothing when a
cting will benefit society.
Of course the other phrase in the definition that has been completely ignored by the activists is "cost-effective measures."
There is a danger that the misuse of
the precautionary principle is creeping into international treaties and regulations. This is what I see in the recommendations
coming from the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. This is a problem that could seriously impede our ability to compete in
the world of tomorrow.
What Are the Grain Growers Doing?
We support the efforts by Mexico, Canada and the United States that have resulted
in an agreement that will both facilitate trade between the parties as well
as protect the environment. Protecting the biodiversity of our respective
countries and trade liberalization are not mutually exclusive goals. Unfortunately,
the recommendations in the report will undermine these efforts and have an
adverse impact in all three countries.
The Grain Growers of Canada have joined
with our U.S. counterparts (the American Soybean Association, the National
Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association and the Wheat
Export Trade Education Committee) in urging our respective governments not
to accept the recommendations in the report. We have jointly written the Commission
for Environmental Co-operation asking it to reassess the report to ensure
sound scientific foundations for all recommendations.
We will continue to
call on our Government to maintain a scientific base for domestic and international
regulations and treaties.
What Can you Do?
The debate around issues arising
from modern biotechnology and new farming practices is not going to go away.
Indeed, Canada's new minority Parliament will almost certainly see a recurrence
of the debate on these issues - including pesticide bans and mandatory labeling
for genetically modified crops.
Our Parliamentarians need to know that Canada's
farmers overwhelmingly support the continuation of our science-based regulatory
system. They need to be made aware of the benefits individual producers see
from modern farming practices. They need to be reminded of the societal and
environmental benefits arising from modern biotechnology.
Members of Parliament
also need to be made aware of the improper use some are making of the principle
of precaution. This principle is not an excuse to stop all progress. Rather
it is a way of asking for the assurance that the risks and benefits have been
weighed before a new product or technology is introduced. This is the reasonable
approach.