by SUSAN MANN
The person behind the latest federal private member’s bill on GMO labelling says it’s something most Canadians want, but a representative of Canada’s plant biotech industry is skeptical the bill’s terms would meet Health Canada’s requirements.
New Democratic Party MP Pierre-Luc Dusseault has high hopes Canada’s parliament will pass his private member’s bill calling for mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods sometime next year.
The bill was introduced and passed first reading in the House of Commons June 14. Although private members’ bill are almost never passed, The Sherbrooke, Quebec MP says traditionally members are permitted a free vote on such proposals. That means members aren’t required to vote along party lines.
Even though the Liberals have the majority of members in the House of Commons, the bill could still be approved, as the members don’t have to follow their party’s instructions on how they must vote, he says.
When the Conservatives were in power for the past nine years, “free votes were more rare,” Dusseault says. However, “with the recent (private members’ bill) votes we have had in the House of Commons with the new government, the votes are more free.”
The bill is fairly simple, Dusseault explains, and calls for all genetically modified (GM) foods to be mandatorily labelled. The details of the regulation, the precise definition of genetically modified foods and what information would be required on labels “would be up to the government itself.”
Dusseault says he proposed the bill because he wants increased transparency on GM food labelling. “I have heard a lot of concern from various groups, and mostly from citizens asking for mandatory labelling” on GM foods.
Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are jointly responsible for food labelling policies under the Food and Drugs Act, according to an online information sheet on the CFIA website.
A spokesman for one industry group says mandatory labelling of GM food is unnecessary.
Ian Affleck, CropLife Canada managing director of science and regulatory affairs for plant biotechnology, says they’re not in favour of the mandatory labelling.
CropLife Canada is the association representing the plant biotechnology and crop protection industries.
Canada requires labels for food safety reasons and to specify nutritional information, he notes.
Since Dusseault’s bill doesn’t focus on whether GM foods are safe or not, Affleck says,
“it doesn’t fit with why we label foods in Canada.”
Canadians looking for foods that are non-GM already have a number of options, including buying organic and products with a voluntary non-GM label.
“There’s nothing limiting companies from voluntarily labelling their products as non-GM. The ability for consumers to find something that fits their preference already exists,” he notes.
Since Canada’s mandatory labelling regime is about nutrition and safety, “to mandatorily label something gives the impression to the public that it is a nutrition or safety concern so it would lead to potentially misinformation rather than additional information.”
GM foods have been deemed to be safe, he notes. Both Health Canada and the CFIA complete regulatory reviews for every GM food approved in Canada.
“Those same foods are typically approved in 28 other countries for cultivation, and about 40 countries have approved them for consumption for human food and about 70 countries either trade them or feed them as animal feed, ” he notes.
“There’s a consensus among the scientific community that these foods are safe,” Affleck adds.
Dusseault says he plans to hold discussions with his fellow MPs “to try to convince my colleagues to support the bill. I tabled my bill just a week before parliament was adjourned so I haven’t had a lot of occasion to talk about it yet.”
If members of parliament from all sides “just look at the opinion surveys done in Canada in the last few years, the vast majority of Canadians want mandatory labelling of GM foods. I would be surprised if a vast majority of members of parliament wouldn’t vote in favour of that same policy.”
There’s a long road ahead for the bill. And if it comes up for debate, it will be the first time a bill calling for mandatory labelling of GM foods will be debated and voted on in parliament, he says.
There have been previous bills calling for mandatory GM food labels in other parliamentary sessions, however they were “never debated. There was also a motion in the last parliament from one of my (NDP) colleagues, but it was never debated.”
The first hour of debate on Dusseault’s bill will occur at second reading sometime in November or December. The second hour of debate at second reading will likely be in March or April 2017, he says.
If the bill passes second reading, it then goes to a parliamentary committee for a clause-by-clause review and then back to the MPs for the third reading and vote. It then heads to the Senate for review. BF
Comments
Some information on labels has no nutrition, health or safety value - 'from concentrate' and 'not from concentrate' on juices does not denote a superior or inferior product (the nutritional DV% is substantially the same and both are pasteurized) A simple consumer preference that is required information.
Country of origin labeling does not imply that product from certain countries is preferable to product from other countries, it is primarily an ideological accommodation. Consumers may choose to support domestic business for many reasons unrelated to nutrition or safety - perhaps they are concerned about the carbon footprint of transporting foodstuffs great distances, they might not wish to support certain political systems or maybe they feel buying Canadian is better for the economy. There are international considerations as well - a consumer may choose to purchase almonds from Europe instead of California to avoid irradiation despite the irradiation of foodstuffs being considered safe by regulatory agencies. Not nutritional or safety concerns but still required to be clearly noted on the label.
Much of the information currently provided on labels is neutral, enabling consumers to choose according to their individual concerns. For example I use DV% of iron in order to accommodate an iron overload concern, other consumers may wish to purchase iron-rich products.
Why do the biotech companies and food manufacturers assume a disclosure of GM content will be construed as a warning? For proponents of the technology it is an opportunity to support what they perceive as a progressive, more sustainable form of agriculture; for opponents of the technology, it allows them to avoid what they may feel are negative socio-economic impacts of the technology, potentially harmful chemical inputs or a perceived corporatization of seed. Labeling can accommodate both ideologies and leave judgement up to the consumer. In a free market the customer is always right even if YOU think they are wrong.
It is not surprising that industry opposes labeling, it is surprising that the article presents their view uncritically. Health Canada and the CFIA conduct PAPER reviews of the studies that industry submits - they do not conduct their own. The statement that they conduct "complete regulatory reviews" is misleading. It may concern consumers that the research used to approve GM products comes solely from the very companies seeking that approval.
Also, "Those same foods are typically approved in 28 other countries for cultivation, about 40 have approved them for consumption and about 70 either trade them or feed them as animal feed" does not inform the reader that 38 countries BAN cultivation (with more implementing bans regularly); many ban cultivation AND importation (Russia, Peru, Venezuela, Madagascar...) and 64 other countries already have labeling with no increase in cost or confusion. Further, there is no scientific consensus as even a cursory examination of the peer-reviewed literature shows. There are 193 countries that are member states of the UN; 28, 40 or even 70 countries arguably amenable to GM does not constitute a majority consensus of GM safety. The U.S is proposing mandatory GM labeling and several state initiatives have already passed. This situation will leave Canada as the ONLY industrialized nation with no labeling requirements or precautionary policies regarding the technology. Expect a big biotech/food manufacturer stand against a Canadian labeling bill but consumers have the right to expect media to present a balanced picture of this complex issue.
It would appear the objection from industry over GM disclosure is rooted solely in fear that the info will affect consumer purchasing patterns and, therefore, profits. These companies have enormous advertising budgets - perhaps these budgets should have better addressed consumer concerns, shown consumers WHY the product is superior instead of fostering distrust by waging costly battles to avoid disclosure. Which other industries believe their products are SO fantastic that they don't want anyone to know about them?
Patricia Krumpek
Why wait to see what happens? Is it not about time the agri food industry went on an advertising campaign explaining food safety? It may cost less in the long run trying to shape the opinions of the public now, than attempting to turn the momentum it gathers because the uninformed 'heard from concerned citizens' and vote in something they know little about.
Of course this must be done!! Just because the food companies do not want people to know of their deceitful GMO input to our food, does NOT mean that the government should not protect our health by giving people the information they have a right to know!!!
why don't farmers label their produce with pride if they think that GMO is so positive.....label the GMO Sweet Corn at Farmers Markets
Label the GMO Corn and Soybeans that go into Animal Feed
Label the GMO Corn used as sweeteners
etc etc
just label it so people know
Stan Holmes
The best labels come from Health Canada and the CFIA, who have deemed the GMO products safe.
There will always be the perspective from a certain crowd of consumers that "safe" is not good enough and that is where the organic choice should kick in, however maybe the price of organic doesn't appeal to them.
The people who support GMO are not clamouring for labels. It is only the Luddites opposed to GMO that are complaining. Why not label the GMO-free food only to satisfy them?
Labelling GMO containing foodstuff would needlessly add regulatory burdens and drive up the costs without helping the anti-GMO crowd make lifestyle choices.
Its a given that the costs will rise with these non-GMO labeled foods.I believe that to be the whole point,whether its gluten free,organic, hormone free, steroid free or humanly raised, every time a label is applied the price goes up and we live in a Country that doesn't seem to mind paying that price.
Post new comment