Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, given the level of consumer anxiety, Canada should have a great interest in formally adopting the precautionary principle. The widespread use of GMOs, including a significant portion entering the food chain, greatly increases the risk factor for this technology.
The adoption of the precautionary principle must be implemented through a strong operational approach. It must translate into a scientific approach characterized by a risk analysis in three stages: assessment, management and risk communication. Therefore, we encourage the consideration and implementation of all recommendations of the Committee on Ethics, Science and Technology of Quebec in its 2003 report entitled “The ethical management of GMOs“. The second recommendation addressed to the Government of Canada states that the approval of GMOs should be subject to a scientific assessment that takes into account the potential impacts of these organisms on human or animal health and the environment and that it not be limited to an evaluation of foreseeable risks.
It is impossible today to talk about food safety without mentioning food traceability. For example, the listeriosis crisis and the mad cow disease crisis have raised many questions about the ability of the food chain to track animals and foodstuffs throughout the production chain.
When a government chooses to label genetically modified foods and implements a system of traceability and identification of those foods, it reinforces the allegations and, thereby, increases consumer confidence in this information and also in the entire food system. Traceability, however, must be controlled. And it must rely on a rigorous, consistent and reliable regime that is harmonized with international developments in the field.
Moreover, in light of our research, we can say that consumers want to exercise their fundamental rights to be well informed and to make informed choices through accurate labelling.
In April 2004, after three years of discussion within the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB), the Government of Canada created its own voluntary code on the labelling and advertising of foods that are and are not products of genetic engineering. The code is an effort to explore ways to identify those foods through labelling to help consumers make informed choices. Five years later, the CGSB was to conduct a mandated revision of the standards. We have observed that the code, unfortunately, has been highly inefficient. On the one hand, to our knowledge, no products appear voluntarily as genetically engineered. On the other hand, to our knowledge, only a few products were displayed without GMOs, and those that we have examined did not meet the voluntary code.
In 2004, Option Consommateurs had voted against this standard code because we believed it was inadequate. We were clearly right. In fact, the standard has not even fulfilled the intention of the code which was to better inform consumers.
The Canadian regulatory process for food crops and genetically engineered crops can be improved in terms of transparency, information and public participation.
In 2004, we conducted research that indicated that Canadians were concerned not only about GMOs, but the registration process. Five years later, nothing leads us to believe that the situation has changed. Instead, in a recent report published by the Government of Quebec, it is noted that, and I quote:The lack of transparency and information regarding biotechnology in general can have an impact on the ability to choose knowingly or, alternatively, the ability for consumers to enter freely and intelligently in contract. This limitation may affect the credibility of economic agents, regulators and affect the very functioning of the economic performance of the sector.
We believe that many steps can be taken to improve transparency regarding GMOs. In our 2004 research, we made 21 recommendations and, although some time has passed, we believe that a majority of them are relevant to this day.
In conclusion, we take this opportunity to invite the government to fund independent research on GMOs. We have noted that, since 2004, the Office of Consumer Affairs has not funded a single research project on this still-relevant subject.