AGRI Committee Report

BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS DISSENTING OPINION

on the report entitled:

Labelling of genetically modified food
and its impacts on farmers

On October 17, 2001, the Liberal majority in the House of Commons defeated Bills C-287 (An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (genetically modified food)), which would have required the labelling of genetically modified food products.

To appease public opinion, which is over 90% in favour of the labelling of transgenic foods, four Ministers gave the Standing Committee on Health a mandate to determine the best options for meeting consumers’ information needs with respect to genetically modified foods. The resulting report by the Committee is part of a trend where playing for time seems to be more of a priority than prevention.

By way of this dissenting opinion, the Bloc Québécois wishes to inform the House that it does not support the first three recommendations in the Committee’s report.

The Bloc Québécois believes that only a system of mandatory labelling will make it possible for consumers who do not wish to ingest genetically modified food to identify and choose products on the basis of their contents. Such a system would be the best way to ensure a rapid transition to an environment where consumers can exercise their freedom of choice.

Our position in the debate over this definition reflects the need to find a definition that corresponds as fully as possible to the general public’s understanding of genetically modified food, while avoiding a definition so broad that it would be meaningless.

The Bloc Québécois believes that labelling standards must be based on a restrictive definition of genetic engineering, limited to products resulting from recombinant DNA technology as defined by the Royal Society of Canada’s expert panel in their report entitled Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada (January 2001).

We consider that regulatory bodies such as Health Canada and the CFIA are in a position of conflict of interest, since they are responsible at one and the same time for promoting the development of agricultural biotechnology and for regulating it. Since 1989, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for a structure that would provide information to the public. We note however that the federal government has been unable to establish its credibility in this area because of a lack of political leadership. It is hard for us to believe that the federal government will be able to change its way of doing things.

We believe that a comprehensive monitoring and support structure for GMOs must be based on a rigorous and transparent research program. This would primarily require:

• that the federal government fund testing and research on GMOs by independent groups;

• that field testing be done in clearly identified areas where there is little risk of contaminating neighbouring crops, and that the characteristics of the plants being tested be made public. We believe that the network of experimental farms could play a useful role in this.

The Bloc Québécois objects to the biased formulation of Recommendation 3. The Committee appears to take for granted that there is no cost entailed in a lack of labelling or in the use of GMOs. If contamination occurred, what would be the cost of withdrawing products?

The costs of failure to label must also be evaluated in terms of market loss. What is the point of cultivating more effective genetically modified plants if consumers do not want them or it is impossible for producers to export them?

We deplore the federal government’s lack of leadership and refusal to be held accountable. Once again Ottawa has been unable to live up to the aspirations of the people. This report is just one more in a long list of opportunities missed by this government, which has still not done anything to act seriously on the 53 recommendations in the report by the Royal Society of Canada’s independent experts. The Bloc Québécois believes that it is necessary to keep pressuring the government to live up to its responsibilities: informing and protecting the public.

In this dissenting opinion, the Bloc Québécois is speaking for consumers, who are demanding the right to choose the foods they eat, whether their grounds are health, lifestyle, political conviction, or any other reason. The Bloc Québécois is also speaking for farmers, who more than any other group are concerned about the long-term effects of GMOs on health, the environment and their way of life.