CANADIAN GE FOOD LABELING
September 13, 2003
Food Safety Network Commentary
Brenda Cassidy
www.foodsafetynetwork.ca
No one said it would be easy - and it wasn't. But after almost four years of
effort, multiple ballots and subsequent revisions, a committee representing
the interests of Canadian consumers, food producers, the food industry and
government has come to consensus on proposed voluntary standards for the
labeling and advertising of foods obtained, or not obtained, through genetic
engineering (GE).
The objective of the standard, developed under the oversight of the Canadian
General Standards Board (CGSB), is to ensure that food labels provide
consumers with meaningful consistent, verifiable information that will
provide enhanced choice in the marketplace.
Laudable goals indeed.
Major grocery retailers across the country have agreed to delay the
marketing of foods designated as 'GE' or 'non-GE' until a consistent
national standard was achieved.
Now that consensus has been reached by the more than 50 groups represented
on the committee, the draft standard will be reviewed by CGSB, then referred
to the Standards Council of Canada for consideration as a National Standard
of Canada.
The standard is restricted to food and food ingredients developed through
genetic engineering: new foods that are genetically modified through other
processes, while included as 'novel foods' under Canada's food safety
regulatory process and subjected to the same assessment and approval regime
as GE foods, are excluded.
Under the standard, foods or food ingredients obtained from GE sources are
considered as GE whether or not they contain modified proteins or DNA: as a
result, highly purified products such as oils and sugars obtained from
genetically engineered corn, soybeans or canola cannot be labeled as non-GE.
The standard also includes a 5% allowance for 'adventitious' material
resulting from unintentional mixing through cross-pollination and/or mixing
during harvest, handling, transportation and processing. As soon as news
that the committee had achieved consensus was released, groups opposed to
the use of genetic engineering in food production stepped forward to
announce their opposition to the standard and to repeat their assertion that
labeling of GE foods in Canada should be mandatory rather than voluntary.
Although representatives of these groups were invited to participate as
members of the CGSB committee from the outset, they refused, choosing
instead to remain outside the process and thereby free of any potential
responsibility for the results.
But despite the opposition of anti-GE groups, voluntary - rather than
mandatory - labeling of foods to indicate the use or non-use of GE
production technologies makes sense for Canada, and is consistent with
current food labeling practices.
Under Canada's Food and Drugs Act, mandatory food labeling is used to
provide information related to health and safety, such as ingredients and
nutritional content. Genetically engineered foods that differ from their
conventionally produced counterparts in either composition or nutrition must
already be labeled under Canadian law. To date, however, no such products
have been approved by federal regulators for use or sale in Canada.
Labeling foods to indicate the process by which they are produced has
traditionally been voluntary for food manufacturers and retailers, and is
done to provide consumers with additional food choices. As well as
GE/non-GE, examples of such labeling include organic, kosher, halal and
others. Health Canada requires that such labels provide information that is
true, verifiable and not misleading.
These labels tell potential buyers more about how a food is produced, and
there are no doubt many Canadians who want access to such information. It
comes at a cost, because honest process-based labeling requires the
segregation and traceability of food ingredients all along the production
chain to ensure the origins of food ingredients. Under a voluntary labeling
system, the costs are borne by those who want the information to help
clarify their food choices; under a mandatory labeling regime, all food
buyers would pay more, including those for whom price, not production
process, is the primary determinant of purchasing decisions.
Production standards are distinct from food safety standards. All new foods,
however they are produced, must be demonstrated to be safe for consumption
and safe for the environment before they are approved for use by the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada.
A growing number of farmers in Canada and throughout the world choose GE
crops as part of their management regime, citing such advantages as improved
food safety and quality, reduced pesticide use, better yields and enhanced
production efficiencies.
Choice is a fundamental value for consumers as well as for farmers. A
voluntary labeling system for GE foods that is clear and verifiable, and
that can facilitate choice without imposing undue burden on the populace as
a whole through inflated food costs, provides a step in the right direction.
Brenda Cassidy is a research assistant with the Food Safety Network at the
University of Guelph.