Canadian conundrum in new committee report

EXCERPTS:

ANN CLARK (University of Guelph): How can you say that no one has ever died from eating a GM food or no one's ever gotten sick? I hear this so often, I think I'm going to vomit if I hear it again. How do you know that if the stuff is not segregated and labelled so that you have a population of eaters and non-eaters? In essence, it's an experiment without a control.

Committee member Anne Mitchell, executive director of the Canadian Institute for Environment Law and Policy was quoted as saying, "How can you do this long-term monitoring (of health impact) if there is not mandatory labelling?" and that the study's recomendations are inconsistent Mitchell acknowledged the committee is dominated by people who earn their income through biotechnology or have a vested interest in it.
---

PANEL CALLS FOR VOLUNTARY LABELLING OF BIOTECH FOOD [via Agweb]
August 23, 2001
Toronto Star/National Post/Globe and Mail/Montreal Gazette/etc

OTTAWA - Lots of media coverage this a.m. of the interim report issued Thursday by the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, which called for long-term monitoring of the health effects of genetically modified foods, but which critics say is impossible without mandatory labelling of GM foods. The report says mandatory labelling of GM foods should be considered only if voluntary standards don't work.

Arnold Naimark of the University of Manitoba, chairman of biotechnology advisory committee, was quoted as saying, "It's a good question," when asked how scientists can monitor the health effects of foods that can't be traced. "Not only do you have to be able to trace a compound but you have to know who's eating it and when and what are they eating in addition to that and how many confounding variables are there. It's a very complicated issue, there's no question about that."

Committee member Anne Mitchell, executive director of the Canadian Institute for Environment Law and Policy was quoted as saying, "How can you do this long-term monitoring (of health impact) if there is not mandatory labelling?" and that the study's recommendations are inconsistent. She said it does not go beyond a report last year by a panel of the Royal Society of Canada.

Both studies call for voluntary labelling of GM foods, although the advisory committee suggests a mandatory system could be considered if the voluntary standards don't work.

Mitchell acknowledged the committee is dominated by people who earn their income through biotechnology or have a vested interest in it. "What do you do? If you're not at the table you've got no influence."

The Post says that the regulatory process needs to be updated before the federal government starts to receive applications for approvals for the next generation of GM foods, the scientific panel concludes in an interim report. Naimark was quoted as saying that, "We need to be aware of what lies ahead when it comes to GM and novel foods. We also need to be sure that the government of Canada is ready and has all the right structures and processes in place that will allow us to reap the benefits and avoid possible harm." Angela Rickman, Sierra Club of Canada director, was cited as saying the interim report was disappointing since it did not insist on mandatory labelling to help consumers and to create the basis for ongoing scientific studies, and that the CBAC proposals for improving regulation fall short, adding, "I don't think what they have proposed ... is a proper fix. The report recognizes there has to be longer term studies on health and environmental impacts, but then they move to [a] voluntary labelling regime which means you can't do long-term studies on a population, isolating a certain thing they are eating, if they don't even know they are eating it."

Greenpeace and the consumer-rights group Action Reseau Consommateur dismissed the report as a whitewash, while the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors lauded the committee for recommending voluntary labels. Peter Phillips, the advisory committee's co-chairman, was cited as defending the recommendation on voluntary labeling as a prudent move, adding, "Quite frankly, there is no effective labeling system in the world right now. There's a fairly substantial cost to implementing a system. If the system isn't going to function, you don't want to implement it and then have to change it once you put it into law."

Nadege Adam, a spokesperson for The Council of Canadians was quoted as saying, "This report is very weak, and tells the government what it wants to hear," calling the report ``revolting'' and said it is part of federal efforts to shore up support for the biotech industry.

Eric Darier of Greenpeace, was cited as saying the impacts of modified foods are unknown, adding, "People want to know what they eat. Let them choose." Ann Clark, from the agricultural college at the University of Guelph, was cited as saying the report assumes modified foods are here to stay, instead of looking at whether Canadians want such products.

Laurie Curry, a vice-president of the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers Council, was cited as giving the report a glowing review, saying it confirmed the view that there are no health and safety concerns about the GM foods currently on the market, adding, "As the science and technology evolves so, too, does the regulatory Framework."
---

GMO FOODS
August 23, 2001
CBC News and Current Affairs

ALISON SMITH: Good evening. It's a food fight that has been going on in this country for years. Today, a federal advisory committee tried to make it all a bit more palatable. Agriculture and health experts issued their report in to genetically modified foods. It includes several recommendations to make sure the food is safe. But critics say some of the recommendations don't go far enough, and people need to be warned to watch what they eat. Ioanna Roumeliotis reports.

IOANNA ROUMELIOTIS (Reporter): It's a sign of controversial times. An organic farm where nature rules, not science.

MICHAEL BERRETTA (Berretta Organic Farms): We've taken a proactive approach and decided we'll grab the bull by the horns and answer customers' questions.

ROUMELIOTIS: Questions swirling around genetically modified organisms. There are so many, this report was commissioned to assess how well Ottawa regulates GMOs.

SUZANNE HENDRICKS (Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee): We think the system could be improved.

ROUMELIOTIS: Among the recommendations, the report wants Ottawa to appoint a Chief Safety Officer to oversee GMOs. It calls for more research into the long-term impact of GMOs on people's health and the environment. The report also says voluntary labelling of genetically modified food is enough for now. That recommendation is the most contentious.

HENDRICKS: Well let's complete the job of developing a standard because labelling, whether it's mandatory or voluntary, is meaningless if it's not truthful.

ROUMELIOTIS: But the truth, critics say, is still out there, and without mandatory labelling, consumers are taking a leap of faith. Greenpeace is one of eighty groups that refuse to take part in the study, convinced it wouldn't go far enough.

ERIC DARIER (Greenpeace): The absence of scientific studies does not mean that there are no risk to GMOs. In fact, the GMOs have not been proven to safe.

ROUMELIOTIS: About sixty percent of grocery items in Canada contain genetically modified material. Usually corn, soy and canola. Health Canada has also approved nearly fifty varieties of GM crops. The assumption by Health Canada is those products are similar enough to their conventional counterparts and, therefore, safe. Some agricultural scientists don't buy it.

ROUMELIOTIS: That's also what a group of leading scientists concluded earlier this year. Brian Ellis was one of them. He says while the new report doesn't break any new ground, it's still effective.

BRIAN ELLIS (University of British Columbia): It would be difficult for the government to ignore this pattern of recommendations when it comes from two very strong committees to be based on science.

ROUMELIOTIS: The government says it is listening.

LYLE VANCLIEF (Minister of Agriculture): Safety has to be number one, but when we get regulations, they have to be regulations that are credible and meaningful and enforceable.

ROUMELIOTIS: The federal government is already drafting an action plan to better regulate the biotech food industry, and the pressure to act sooner rather than later will stay on. Next month, Parliament will debate a private member's bill calling for mandatory labelling of GM foods. Ioanna Roumeliotis, CBC News, Toronto.