BIOTECH FOOD LABELING: NEED TO KNOW OR RIGHT TO KNOW?
By Charles W. Moore
© 1998 Charles W. Moore
The federal government wants to keep Canadian consumers in the dark about whether
or not they're eating genetically engineered foods. At a conference of the United
Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission in Ottawa last week, Canadian and U.S. government bureaucrats squared off against their European counterparts
on mandatory labelling for biotech foodstuffs. The Codex sets legally binding standards
for international food trade.
Compared with European consumers, Canadians have been remarkably passive on the genetically
engineered foods issue. There have been near-riots in Europe over the import of U.S.-grown
genetically-engineered corn and soybeans.
A small number of demonstrators did protest the Chretien government's position outside
the Ottawa conference. "The concern is these genetically engineered foods are coming
on the market unlabeled, indiscriminately mixed with other foods even though the
long-term effects of these foods are not known," said Richard Wolfson, of the Ottawa-based
Consumer Right to Know Campaign told a news conference.
Rather than "right to know," the government and the biotech/agribiz industries prefer
to keep food labeling on a "need to know" basis, and guess who decides what we need
to know? "If we thought there was a health and safety concern with these foods, then
they would not be getting into the marketplace," said Margaret Kenny of the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency told the Canadian Press.
"It really comes down to whether it's giving the consumers meaningful information,"
added Joyce Groote, president of BIOTECanada. "The food has been assessed as safe
by Health Canada and we don't believe it needs to be differentiated in any way because
it's virtually identical to any other product that's out there." Perhaps some people
find that level of certitude from interest-conflicted bureaucrats and industry spin-doctors
reassuring. I prefer to make informed choices and decide for myself what information
about my food is "meaningful."
Ottawa lets manufacturers to decide whether they want to label their genetically altered
products once Health Canada supposedly determines they are safe. The government argues that unless there is an "identified
health and or safety risk," (emphasis mine) to consumers, labeling is "unnecessary."
Three years ago, genetically engineered Newleaf potatoes hit the market in Eastern
Canada. There are now about 40 distinct genetically engineered food products sold
in Canada, but biotech critics estimate that about 70 per cent of foods on store
shelves contain genetically altered material.
Newleaf potatoes, for instance, were genetically altered by introducing two foreign
genes--one from the insecticidal protein Bacillus thuringenses (Bt), and the other
an enzyme functioning as a biological marker. The objective is a potato with artificial
insect resistance. The question is: are genetically altered potatoes and other "novel
foods" developed through gene splicing safe and healthy?
Consumer advocates question both the government's capability and will to adequately
assess the safety of genetically altered foods. Theoretically, any time a food manufacturer
becomes aware of any new information regarding risk to the environment, or risk to
animal or human health, it must immediately notify Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Thus, the government depends on manufacturers for testing and safety data. Critics
say that constitutes a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse.
Soybeans engineered for resistance to herbicides were quietly approved for sale in
Canada two years ago, with barely a whisper of protest from Canadian consumer advocates,
because most didn't hear about it. These beans are dumped in with stocks of normally-grown
beans, which end up as animal feed and in human food products like cooking oil, chocolate
bars, ice cream, and countless other items. There is no way consumers can identify
whether the foods they buy contain genetically altered materials or not. Genetically
altered Canola oilseed, corn, tomatoes, and cucumbers are also sold unlabeled.
The government argues that consumers should "trust us" to protect their interests
in this matter. Unfortunately, it appears that protecting other interests is the
government's paramount concern in refusing to label genetically-altered foods. The
chemical and agri-food industries have lobbied strenuously on the labeling issue,
including pressure to prohibit producers of non-genetically engineered foods from
saying so on their labels.
American geneticist Wes Jackson suggests that the primary motive behind most genetic
engineering of food crops is to splice in resistance to weed-killing herbicides so
that their manufacturers can sell more chemicals to farmers.
Biochemist John Fagan of Cornell University says genetically engineered foods are
"very risky because these genes have never been part of the food supply before. We
don't know if they are allergenic or toxic... they should test them as vigourously
as they test a new drug. They aren't doing that."
The point is, nobody, neither scientists nor government bureaucracies like Health
Canada, really knows whether these foods are safe or not. As some European anti-biotech
protesters put it: "We are not your guinea pigs!"
In light of the government's too-cozy relationship with corporate vested interests
that stand to make a lot of money (and create jobs) by promoting genetically altered
foods, "don't worry, be happy" assurances that these products are safe fail to convince.
Return To Main Page
This page hosted by
Get your own Free Homepage