Author: Aaron Derfel
Publication: Montreal Gazette
Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2001

Should genetically modified food be labeled as such?

That was the question yesterday when the Canadian Biotechnology

Advisory Committee ended its cross-country tour with a hearing in Montreal to consider labeling, among other issues. The committee is to submit its recommendations to Prime Minister Jean Chretien in June.

Consumer-rights groups and environmentalists are calling for mandatory labeling, arguing that the long-term health effects of genetically modified products are not known.

The food and agriculture industry, however, are generally opposed to labeling and will only agree to voluntary measures.

The committee heard presentations from more than a dozen people representing a cross-section of interests on the subject. The consultation was held behind closed doors at the Sheraton Hotel on Rene Levesque Blvd. but the committee allowed those who participated to speak to reporters.

Peter Phillips, professor of agricultural economics at the University of Saskatchewan, who is serving as committee co-chairman, said people on both sides of the debate share similar goals.

``Although there is a wide range of stakeholders in the room, there`s a fairly common agreement on what the end goals should be, which are safe food and sustainable production,`` Phillips said.

``The question is how do you get there, and that`s where the debate is.``

Genetically modified foods are produced using recent advances in gene technology, including cloning, gene splicing and plant transformation. This is usually done to make a food like a tomato resistant to insects or herbicides or to improve ripening.

There`s also a new trend: ``nutriceuticals.`` These are foods that have been genetically modified to improve their nutritional value. For example, scientists in Switzerland are working on a type of rice that would be enhanced with Vitamin A to fight malnutrition in developing nations.

Claude Lapointe, Quebec sales representative for Syngenta Seeds, told the committee that the current regulations on food labeling work just fine. Syngenta produces corn seed that is modified with a transgene that makes the cornstalks resistant to insects.

``I think biotechnology can bring benefits to consumers, and the regulatory system we have in place now is adequate to provide safe food,`` he said.

Under the current system, labels are required to list the contents of a product. Nutritional labels are voluntary, Phillips said.

The United Kingdom and Japan have adopted mandatory labeling for genetically modified foods and a dozen other countries are considering following suit. In Canada, Liberal MP Charles Caccia has tabled a private member`s bill calling for such labeling.

Phillips, however, said he`s not convinced mandatory labeling works.

``The effect of those systems - the way they`re structured in those countries - has been, for the most part, to drive out products that would provide some choice,`` he said, offering his personal opinion and not that of the committee.

``Some people are indifferent to what they eat. Some people have very specific concerns.``

Joseph Caron, an analyst with the consumer-rights group Action Reseau Consommateur, argued that voluntary labels would not give people a clear choice.

``Voluntary labeling simply does not guarantee the choice I think should be given to consumers,`` he said.

He estimated that up to 70 per cent of food products contain ingredients that at some point in processing were genetically modified.

``As our government has accepted these products to be put on the market at this time, I think it`s reasonable that the persons who don`t want to consume them have the choice,`` Caron said. ``The only way to do that is with obligatory labeling.``