World Student Community for Sustainable Development

by Aaron Holdway

Despite increasing consumer concerns over their safety, genetically modified (GM) foods have become widespread in the diets of Canadians in recent years. The European Union and some 25 other countries have addressed similar concerns by introducing mandatory labelling of GM foods. The Canadian government, however, has consistently refused calls to implement such labelling, saying that GM foods are “substantially equivalent†to their unmodified counterparts. Currently, Canada has not even completed the process of developing voluntary labelling standards for GM foods. Consumers have a fundamental right to know exactly what they are eating, and the government must recognize this by introducing mandatory labelling of all GM foods.

A wide variety of opinion exists on the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods. Lorne Hepworth, president of CropLife Canada, says, “Of course this technology is safe. . . . It is every bit as safe as conventionally produced food.†[1] Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki counters, “Anyone who says this [GM foods] is safe is either stupid or lying.†[2] Canadian consumers are aware of media stories of “Frankenfoods†such as tomatoes containing frost-resistance genes from the Arctic flounder, [3] and generally have not embraced GM foods. In a recent poll, two-thirds of Canadians said they would be less likely to buy food they know has been genetically modified. [4] In contrast to many other nations, however, Canada has been slow in deciding how to approach the labelling of GM foods. This has been due in large part to the wide variety of opinion on such labelling. Food industry leaders, for example, have found that labels saying a food may contain GM ingredients are seen by consumers as a warning, while labels that say a product does not contain GM foods makes consumers wonder about what is in the rest of the groceries on the shelf. [5] Consumers, however, have a fundamental right to know what they are eating, and the labelling of GM foods must therefore be mandatory in Canada. All foods containing GM ingredients, produced by any form of genetic modification, must be labelled, allowing consumers — not the food industry — to decide what they eat.

GM foods — foods in which genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally — have become widespread in the Canadian diet in the past decade. [6] Health Canada has approved 64 GM food products for human consumption since 1994, including potatoes, tomatoes, squash, corn, canola, and soybeans. [7] The techniques of genetic modification that are used to create these new food products differ from the domestic plant or animal breeding used for centuries to create new varieties. [8] It recombines genetic material in the laboratory between species that do not interbreed in nature. Food industry estimates show that 60-70 per cent of the processed food on Canadian supermarket shelves contains such GM ingredients. [9] In 1990, there were no GM crops in commercial cultivation in North America, while today almost 10 per cent of North American farmland is planted with GM crops. [10] Canada is the worldâ€^TMs third-largest grower of GM crops, after the US and Argentina. [11] As such, GM foods have become increasingly prevalent in the Canadian diet.

The advent of GM foods has sparked a wide debate on the ethics and safety of “tampering with nature.†[12] Promoters of the technology are convinced it will lead to a drop in pesticide and herbicide use (by creating organisms resistant to disease), boost the nutritional content of foods, and result in more efficient and profitable farming. [13] Furthermore, they say it is no more unnatural than traditional selective breeding and see it as simply falling along a continuum of agricultural innovation. [14] Many question the safety of GM foods, however. According to a poll released in March 2000, 75 per cent of Canadians express concern about the safety of foods made with GM ingredients and more than half are not confident that the federal government is able to protect their health and safety with respect to GM products. [15] As Donna Herringer, president of the Canadian Health Food Association, points out, “There has been no long-term testing to determine the impact of (GM foods) on human health and the environment, and no clinical trials have ever been held to prove that there are no health consequences.†[16] The Canadian public, who will bear the risks associated with genetic modification, are clearly being used as unwitting guinea pigs.

Although Health Canada tests GM foods destined for Canadian supermarkets, genetic modification of food ingredients does not currently fall under Health Canadaâ€^TMs labelling requirements. [17] The Canadian government supports manufacturersâ€^TM claim that GM foods are “substantially equivalent†to their unmodified counterparts, and does no testing on the long-term health effects of their consumption. [18] Canadaâ€^TMs position on GM food labelling is similar to that of the US. [19] Both countries insist there is no need to label modified foods unless they differ significantly from existing foods in composition, nutritional value, or intended use — despite polls showing that up to 90 per cent of Canadians and Americans want labelling and safety-testing. [20] On the other hand, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, and Brazil (and some 20 other nations) have adopted mandatory labelling. [21] Despite this precedent, federal health ministers over the past decade have consistently refused calls to implement mandatory labelling in Canada. [22] Liberal Member of Parliament Charles Caccia introduced a private memberâ€^TMs bill in April 2001 calling for mandatory labelling of GM foods, but the bill was ultimately defeated. Instead, the federal government decided a committee should look into the matter and report back to Parliament. [23]

Several alternatives in the labelling debate have been proffered. The biotechnology industry has been largely calling for no labelling, [24] while the Canadian government and some in the food industry have supported voluntary labelling [25] (if any labelling at all). Environmentalists and consumer groups, on the other hand, have demanded mandatory labelling. [26] Finally, some in the food industry, recognizing the vast array of products already containing GM ingredients, have suggested labelling only food that is not genetically modified. [27] Farmers and scientists appear to be split on the issue of labelling. [28]

Those who call for no labelling (i.e., the status quo in Canada) stress that GM foods should be treated no differently than other foods. [29] They say their products have met Canadian health and safety standards, so why label GM foods if they are not significantly different from other foods? Opponents of labelling also fear labels could make GM foods appear unsafe and therefore result in rejection by consumers [30]: “There is no reason to put information on a label that could easily be misconstrued,†said Michael Phillips of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a US trade group. [31] Health Canada requires labels on foods that could pose health concerns, such as warnings about peanuts, so any labels about GM ingredients could be interpreted by consumers as warnings. [32] Another fear, they say, is that labelling could act as a de facto ban because stores might stop carrying GM foods. In 1998 in the UK, for instance, the number one selling tomato paste was labelled as derived from GM tomatoes. But when a media frenzy arose in the UK in the fall of 1998, stores rushed to remove GM products, including the tomato paste that consumers had preferred. [33]

Supporters of voluntary labelling include the Canadian government. The Canadian General Standards Board has been working on developing voluntary labelling standards since 1999, though these have not yet been finalized. [34] A report released by the government-appointed Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee in August 2001 said GM labelling standards should be implemented on a voluntary basis to test their adequacy and effectiveness. [35] Supporters of voluntary labelling point to the added production costs that would accompany the labels and the need to keep non-GM foods separate. [36] Labelling should be optional for food producers, they say, because consumers may not be willing to bear the extra cost of labelling. Those who favour voluntary labelling also point out that labelling is just one alternative. [37] Toll-free numbers, for example, could also give consumers information on which to make informed choices. Although proponents of voluntary labelling say labelling should not be forced upon the food industry, since nearly everything we eat contains something in which the DNA has been modified, [38] they point out that some companies might want to label their GM foods if the food has been altered in a way that makes it more nutritious or provides other health benefits such as antibiotics or removing allergens. [39]

Greenpeace Canada, the Council of Canadians, and many other groups want GM foods to be pulled from stores shelves, but at the very least are demanding mandatory labelling of GM foods. [40] Citizens will be the consumers of products derived by genetic modification, after all, and they should have the right to decide which products they want to consume. GM foods have not been on the market long enough to be proven safe, these groups say, [41] so consumers deserve information on which to base a choice. Proponents of mandatory labelling point to a number of reasons why consumers deserve choice. Unlabelled GM foods could be unsafe for people with allergies, for example. [42] Normally, people with a nut allergy could simply avoid nuts by reading mandatory labels warning of nut content, but tracing adverse reactions to foods could be virtually impossible if people do not know how the foods they are eating have been produced. Many consumers also want to make buying choices based on religious, cultural, or ethical reasons. Proponents argue that unlabelled GM foods may make such distinctions impossible and intrude on the right of consumers to choose what they eat. [43] Finally, supporters of mandatory labelling wonder why the food industry is so reluctant to label their GM foods. As Jennifer Story of the Council of Canadians says, “If theyâ€^TMre not hiding anything, whatâ€^TMs the problem with labelling?†[44]

Consumers deserve to know what they are eating and should therefore lobby for mandatory labelling. Consumers must be given sufficient information to make choices about which products they purchase. If mandatory labelling is to be effective, however, it must be accompanied by access to complete information on how a product is produced. This could be accomplished through consumer information lines, web sites, and point-of-sale materials. [45] Furthermore, the food industry must overcome its difficulties in separating GM and non-GM foods. [46] Until this can be done, labelling foods containing GM ingredients when all crops are stored and shipped together will be meaningless. Canada must also do independent, long-term research on GM foods, instead of relying on data supplied by biotechnology companies. [47] Consumers should lobby Members of Parliament to introduce another bill on the labelling of GM foods, if only to foster further public debate on the subject. Until the federal government unveils labelling standards, however, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors should be prevented from forcing retailers to put stickers over references to GM-free products on their shelves. Consumers have a right to know what is in the foods they buy.

The Canadian government should consider the examples of nations that have introduced or are reviewing mandatory labelling. Canada could look to the European Unionâ€^TMs experience, for instance, and improve upon its perceived flaws. Current EU labelling rules, for example, are based on the ability to measure GM content. If GM ingredients cannot be measured at a minimum level of one per cent, producers can call their food GM-free. [48] Another problem is the definition of genetic modification. The EU has deliberately chosen to restrict the definition to specific gene transfers between species, plus some types of gene manipulation within a species, while excluding other forms of non-natural gene modification, such as mutagenesis (gene changes created by deliberate exposure to intense nuclear radiation or chemical mutagens). [49] To improve upon the EU model, Canada should label all products made from GM ingredients, including those containing no measurable GM DNA or protein. A viable Canadian labelling system must satisfy advocacy groups and consumers in general. It must, therefore, include all forms of genetic modification, even when altered genes or proteins are not present in the final product.

Consumers have a fundamental right to know exactly what they are eating. Neither the current absence of labels nor the Canadian governmentâ€^TMs work on voluntary labelling is acceptable to the Canadian public, as polls have shown time and again. [50] Mandatory labels should be added to all foods made from GM ingredients, produced by all forms of genetic modification, so consumers can identify these products and decide for themselves. Consumers should not underestimate their ability to bring about change in the labelling debate. Some Canadian farmers have decided, for example, not to plant GM canola in case there is a huge consumer outcry against it. As one Saskatchewan farmer put it, “Consumers are always right, even if theyâ€^TMre dead wrong.†[51]

- Aaron Holdway, Queenâ€^TMs University, Canada

Footnotes

[1] Lorne H. Hepworth, “Biotechnology: The Science and the Fear Mongering,†Canadian Speeches, July/August 2000, p. 4.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Canadian Press, “Agriculture Ministers Call for Clear Regulations on Frankenfoods,†Canadian Press Newswire, 6 July 2000.

[4] Christine Hooper, “What Are We Eating?†Canada and the World Backgrounder, October 2000, p. 17.

[5] Stuart Laidlaw, “Labels for Modified Food Face Obstacles.†Canadian Press Newswire, 24 November 1999.

[6] Canadian Press, “BC Introduces Bill for Mandatory Labelling of Genetically Engineered Foods,†Canadian Press Newswire, 4 April 2001.

[7] Health Canada, “Novel Foods and Ingredients,†http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/food-aliment/mh-dm/ofb-bba/nfi-ani/e_novel_foods_and_ingredient.html.

[8] Edmonds, Scott, “Canadians Asked to Think about Designer Food,†Canadian Press Newswire, 4 October 1998.

[9] Angela Kryhul, “Fighting Food Fears: The Debate on the Safety of Genetically Modified Crops is at a Crucial Stage as Key Stakeholders Such as Retailers, Environmentalists, and Food Processors Compete to Shape Public Opinion,†Marketing Magazine, 28 February 2000, p. 12.

[10] Christine Hooper, “What Are We Eating?†Canada and the World Backgrounder, October 2000, p. 18.

[11] Katharine Partridge, “Splicy Food: Are You Unwittingly Eating Doctored Corn and Patented Tomatoes? The Debate Over Genetically Modified Crops Hits the Kitchen Table,†Todayâ€^TMs Parent, October 2000, p. 74.

[12] Christine Hooper, “What Are We Eating?†Canada and the World Backgrounder, October 2000, p. 15.

[13] Scott Edmonds, “Canadians Asked to Think about Designer Food,†Canadian Press Newswire, 4 October 1998.

[14] Katharine Partridge, “Splicy Food: Are You Unwittingly Eating Doctored Corn and Patented Tomatoes? The Debate Over Genetically Modified Crops Hits the Kitchen Table,†Todayâ€^TMs Parent, October 2000, p. 69.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Canadian Press, “Natural Health-Food Retailers Want the Federal Government to Force Companies to Label Genetically Modified Food,†Canadian Press Newswire, 25 January 2000.

[17] Canadian Press, “Sask Professor Says Labelling Food as Modified Gives Wrong Impression,†Canadian Press Newswire, 15 June 2001.

[18] Christine Hooper, “Lady Bug, Lady Bug: ‘Fly away from GM potatoes.â€^TM†Horizons, Spring 2001, p. 11.

[19] Christine Hooper, “US Says No to Labelling,†Natural Life, March/April 2001, p. 15.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Greenpeace Canada, “Trailing Behind the Pack,†http://www.greenpeace.ca/e/campaign/gmo/documents/Trailing.pdf.

[22] Bill Curry, “Cacciaâ€^TMs GMO Foods Bill Gets the Nod,†Hill Times, 2 April 2001, p. 6.

[23] June Chua, “Genetically Modified Foods: A Primer,†http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/indepth/gmos.

[24] Lorne H. Hepworth, “Biotechnology: The Science and the Fear Mongering,†Canadian Speeches, July/August 2000, p. 9.

[25] Terry Daynard, “Why You Canâ€^TMt Tell GM Foods by the Label,†Financial Post (National Post), 11 March 2000, p. D5.

[26] Angela Kryhul, “Fighting Food Fears: The Debate on the Safety of Genetically Modified Crops is at a Crucial Stage as Key Stakeholders Such as Retailers, Environmentalists, and Food Processors Compete to Shape Public Opinion,†Marketing Magazine, 28 February 2000, p. 15.

[27] Leanne Yohemas-Hayes, “Many Questions Are Still Unanswered When it Comes to Labelling Issues,†Canadian Press Newswire, 30 January 2000.

[28] National Farmers Union, “An Open Letter to the Honourable Lyle Vanclief,†http://www.nfu.ca/Releases/Vanclief_IAPFramework_principles_FIVE.pdf.

[29] Douglas Powell, “Five Reasons Why GMO Food Labels Donâ€^TMt Work,†Financial Post (National Post), 22 June 2001, p. C19.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Canadian Press, “Biotech Industry on the Defensive in Labelling Debate,†Canadian Press Newswire, 9 May 2000.

[32] Canadian Press, “Sask Professor Says Labelling Food as Modified Gives Wrong Impression,†Canadian Press Newswire, 15 June 2001.

[33] Douglas Powell, “Five Reasons Why GMO Food Labels Donâ€^TMt Work,†Financial Post (National Post), 22 June 2001, p. C19.

[34] Reuters, “Canada to Label Some Genetically Modified Food,†http://www.newfarm.org/international/news/090103/091503/ca_gm_label.shtml.

[35] Alan Toulin, “Keep GM Food Labelling Voluntary, Panel Urges: Better Oversight Needed,†Financial Post (National Post), 24 August 2001, p. C5.

[36] Canadian Press, “Sask Professor Says Labelling Food as Modified Gives Wrong Impression,†Canadian Press Newswire, 15 June 2001.

[37] Lorne H. Hepworth, “Biotechnology: The Science and the Fear Mongering,†Canadian Speeches, July/August 2000, p. 9.

[38] Leanne Yohemas-Hayes, “Many Questions Are Still Unanswered When it Comes to Labelling Issues,†Canadian Press Newswire, 30 January 2000.

[39] Stuart Laidlaw, “Labels for Modified Food Face Obstacles,†Canadian Press Newswire, 24 November 1999.

[40] Angela Kryhul, “Fighting Food Fears: The Debate on the Safety of Genetically Modified Crops is at a Crucial Stage as Key Stakeholders Such as Retailers, Environmentalists, and Food Processors Compete to Shape Public Opinion,†Marketing Magazine, 28 February 2000, p. 15.

[41] Canadian Press, “Biotech Industry on the Defensive in Labelling Debate,†Canadian Press Newswire, 9 May 2000.

[42] Burkhard Mausberg, “Patenting Life: Crossing Evolutionary Barriers and Raising a Host of Ethical Dilemmas, Genetic Engineering Will Have Profound Effects on the Global Environment,†Earthkeeper, October/November 1998, p. 15.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Stuart Laidlaw, “Labels for Modified Food Face Obstacles,†Canadian Press Newswire, 24 November 1999.

[45] Douglas Powell, “Five Reasons Why GMO Food Labels Donâ€^TMt Work,†Financial Post (National Post), 22 June 2001, p. C19.

[46] Canadian Press, “UN Conference Seeks Truce in Battle over Genetically Modified Food,†Canadian Press Newswire, 8 May 2000.

[47] Christine Hooper, “What Are We Eating?†Canada and the World Backgrounder, October 2000, p. 17.

[48] Terry Daynard, “Why You Canâ€^TMt Tell GM Foods by the Label,†Financial Post (National Post), 11 March 2000, p. D5.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Canadian Press, “Groups Support Private Memberâ€^TMs Bill on Labelling Genetically Modified Foods,†Canadian Press Newswire, 6 June 2001.

[51] Christine Hooper, “What Are We Eating?†Canada and the World Backgrounder, October 2000, p. 17