Labelling of Genetically Engineered Food Products

A Report by the National Farmers Union
To the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture

Jan 29, 2002
Ottawa

Preface

________________________________________________________________________

The National Farmers Union (NFU) thanks the Standing Committee for this opportunity to present the NFU's views on the labelling of genetically engineered food products.

The NFU is the only voluntary, direct-membership national farm organization in Canada.

Founded in 1969 and chartered by an Act of Parliament in 1970, the NFU works on the development of economic and social policies that will maintain the family farm as the basic food-producing unit in Canada.

________________________________________________________________________

A Note on Terminology

For the purposes of our policy and this brief, the NFU uses the terms "Genetic Engineering", "Genetic Modification", and "Biotechnology" as fully synonymous terms, referring exclusively to the direct transfer or modification of genetic material using recombinant DNA techniques. Any references to non-RDNA techniques are referred to as "traditional animal/plant breeding". These definitions are consistent with those used by the Royal Society of Canada Report entitled Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada, which was released in January of 2001.

NFU Policy

The Policy of the NFU that has been distributed is very clear on the issue of labelling. Under the heading Markets and Consumer Acceptance are the following points:

(11) Products that contain Genetically Modified components must be clearly and consistently labelled. Voluntary labelling is unacceptable.

(12) Consumers must have access to non-genetically modified product alternatives. Labelling, information, and ready access to alternatives are the three essential elements of consumers' right to choose.

Objectives of the NFU policy

The NFU policy of mandatory labelling is based on the following considerations:

1. For the benefit of farmers and everyone involved, we must maintain consumer confidence in the Canadian food supply. Consumer confidence takes years to build, but can be weakened very quickly.

In Europe consumer confidence has been undermined by multiple events, but none as evident as the situation around Mad Cow disease. In hindsight, the scientific community was overly optimistic about its abilities to identify, predict, and control the outbreak and consequences. Hence, consumer confidence in the entire food system was severely undermined by an inappropriate reliance on scientific authorities by government and corporations. The degradation of consumer confidence in England, and Europe in general, will play a role in shaping their food policies for decades to come.

Moving closer to home, on the North American continent, consumer confidence has already been undermined to a degree. In some cases, in the United States and Canada, consumers were unaware that they had been eating food only licensed for animal consumption. It very well could bethat some or all of us in this room have eaten this animal food. I am talking of course about a corn variety called StarLink. With no independent food stream testing or monitoring in place, consumers were surprised and shocked to find that they had been eating genetically engineered animal food, and when the authorities were made aware, these products were immediately pulled from store shelves across North America.

Given this example, we need to ask ourselves, "What would have happened to consumer confidence if one person in North America would have died as a result of eating StarLink corn?" (Of course we cannot be sure that StarLink did not create any problems because it was not labelled and could not be tracked through the medical system. In fact, without mandatory labelling, our medical establishment will never have accurate data on which to draw long term conclusions, as there will be no traceability of genetically engineered food within our food system.)

How would mandatory labelling of food products in Canada have helped in the StarLink case? By their own actions of pulling the products off of store shelves, it is clear that governments would not have allowed the sale of StarLink corn products if the food had been tested for the labelling procedures. Therefore, it is safe to say that a policy of mandatory labelling would have prevented Canadian consumers from unknowingly eating genetically engineered animal food.

In the words of the Royal Society of Canada Report, "The absence of justification for the need for GM food, combined with a perception of lack of transparency from regulatory agencies, and the absence of balanced risk/benefit analyses have all undermined the acceptance of these products." In plain English, the Royal Society Expert Panel is saying "Consumers don't see a need, they don't trust the regulators, and they don't think that the benefits outweigh the costs, so therefore the consumers' acceptance is undermined."

2. In the current Canadian context, mandatory labelling is necessary because our registration process is using "substantial equivalence" as a key determining factor as to whether or not a genetically engineered food product needs rigorous testing. The flaw in the use of "substantial equivalence" is that it is not a science-based concept.

Substantial equivalence does not have a clear definition. As one paper (Millstone et al. 1999) explained, it seems to have been introduced because "the biotechnology companies wanted government regulators to help persuade consumers that their products were safe, yet they also wanted the regulatory hurdles to be set as low as possible."

According to the Royal Society Report, "In practice, the designation of a candidate GM crop variety as "substantially equivalent" to other, non-GM, varieties, essentially pre-empts any requirement in Canada to assess further the new variety for unanticipated characteristics." The Royal Society concluded that what often occurs in practice is that the improper use of the term "substantial equivalence" leads the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to base decisions about food products on unsubstantiated assumptions about the equivalence of the organisms. The Expert Panel went on to say "We have grave reservations about its (substantial equivalency) validity when employed in the "decision threshold" interpretation."

So what does any of this have to do with mandatory labelling? As long as our regulators have the option to forego testing of genetically modified food products on the basis of unsubstantiated assumptions through the use of "substantial equivalence", it is imperative that consumers have the choice to accept or reject the increased risk that may come with the purchase of a new genetically modified product. In short, the Canadian government cannot refuse to test a product, and then also refuse to label it.

3. Consumers are our customers, and they need to be able to make informed choices.

It is clear that consumers are willing to take some risk, but mandatory labelling helps them feel that they are in control of the choice and degree of risk. For instance, many consumers smoke even though the increased health risks are widely known. In this case though, the consumer is able to make a clear choice to either smoke or not smoke, and in most cases that person is willing to accept the negative consequences.

Mandatory labelling of genetically engineering food is a key component to consumer risk management, wherein the consumer is willing to accept some responsibility for his/her eating habits.

In a Canada-wide poll conducted by Decima Research Inc. (poll results released by Greenpeace in September 2001) in August of 2001, when asked "Do you believe you should have the right to know whether your food has been genetically engineered?", just over 95% of respondents said "Yes". At the moment Canadians do not have that right--I refer again to the StarLink corn example--but the desire of Canadians to know what they are eating is clear.

4. There is at least one precedent for this type of labelling.

Some opponents of mandatory labelling argue that labelling should be restricted to cases where a specific health risk or nutritional issue is of concern. This is referred to as "product based" labelling.

There is a second category of labelling used in Canada which is called process based labelling. For instance, any foods that have been subjected to the process of irradiation have to be labelled according to standards in the Food and Drug Regulations.

So genetically engineered food could fall under either category, and part of the discussion would again revolve around the definition and abuse of the term "substantial equivalence". The NFU agrees with the Royal Society Report when it says ""it could be argued that the case for labelling of GM food products is stronger than for irradiated ones, because genetic engineering may produce "material changes" in the product itself. Indeed, for many genetically engineered products, this is the whole point of the exercise."

5. Mandatory labelling is easy to do and very inexpensive.

The example that we have here is from a product sold in England. In the listing of ingredients, one ingredient--the dried soy--has an asterisk beside it, and at the bottom of the list the asterisk appears again just in front of the words "genetically modified". It is not accurate for anyone to say that this labelling has cost huge sums of money (it is probable that the labelling change you see in front of you cost just a fraction of a penny per package). Given that overwhelming numbers of consumers are in favour of mandatory labelling, and given that the cost of labelling itself is extremely small, consumers would most likely agree to pay for this information. In other words, the small cost would be built into the cost of the product on the store shelf, but like the farmers' share of the cost component, it would be a tiny fraction of the sticker price and probably be unnoticed.

Dealing with any extra costs associated with the identification, identity preservation, and segregation of the genetically engineered components in the food supply system is a separate question. Any extra costs here should be attached to the proponents and the varietal registration system. In an indirect and unsatisfactory way, these costs are already being paid by consumers and farmers, and that is through the premium prices that non-gm and organic products are extracting from the markets. If non-gm and organic products are sold at a premium, it is equally true to say that the gm food products are being sold at a discounted price. Most Canadian farmers are selling into this discounted market.

With the registration and release of genetically engineered food with no consideration of the market impact or potential supply chain problems, the CFIA food registration process has already caused many expensive problems for Canadian farmers and consumers. This is an example of reductionist thinking at its worst, where people fall into the trap of pretending that their own area of concern can operate in a vacuum isolated from the rest of the world.

In short, if biotech companies are creating problems within our food supply system, they should pay the costs out of their intended profits. Currently we are operating in a system where biotech companies are able to privatize the profits by means of patent protection, and on the other hand socialize the costs by having government or the public pay the increased costs associated with genetically engineered food products.

6. The independent scientific community is very concerned about potential problems.

In an advisory paper prepared by the Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Environment Canada, their expert panel made many recommendations about Canada's faulty risk assessment and risk management procedures involving genetically engineered organisms. On page 225 of their report, the Royal Society says that if their recommendations for changes to risk assessment and management are not fully implemented, mandatory labelling for GE food products is required. Their report was released in January 2001, exactly one year ago. What action has the Canadian government taken to implement their recommendations, two of which are reprinted here:

"7.1 The Panel recommends that approval of new transgenic organisms for environmental release, and for use as food or feed, should be based on rigorous scientific assessment of their potential for causing harm to the environment or to human health. Such testing should replace the current regulatory reliance on "substantial equivalence" as a decision threshold."

OR

"7.3 The Panel recommends that analysis of the outcomes of all tests on new transgenic organisms should be monitored by an appropriately configured panel of "arms-length" experts from all sectors, who report their decisions and rationale in a public forum."?

Also, Barry Commoner is senior scientist at the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems at Queens College, City University of New York, where he directs the Critical Genetics Project. In an article in the February 2002 edition of Harper's magazine, he writes "By any reasonable measure, the finding [of the Human Genome Project] (published last February) signaled the downfall of the central dogma; it also destroyed the scientific foundation of genetic engineering and the validity of the biotechnology industry's widely advertised claim that its methods of genetically modifying food crops are "specific, precise, and predictable", and therefore safe."

Conclusion

As Canadian farmers, we need to be able to supply our markets with the non-gm and organic food products. Consumers want the peace of mind that comes with having the information on which to base informed choice. Given the concerns about consumer confidence, regulatory inadequacy, consumer right to informed choice, and proper assignment of costing, the NFU believes that there are real advantages to farmers and consumers from the adoption of mandatory labelling for genetically engineered food products.