Mr. Speaker, as the public who is watching this debate may know, the issue is a private member's bill which would mandate that there be a label placed on all foods that are genetically modified. It would say either “This food is genetically modified” or “This food contains an ingredient that is genetically modified”. The fact is that there are pros and cons to this move, as there are to most moves.
First I would like to tell the public what this bill means by genetically modified. It states:
“Genetically modified food” means a food that is derived from a plant, animal, microorganism or other biological entity capable of transferring or replicating genetic material including sterile organisms, viruses and viroids when such entity possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology.
It is biotechnology producing a novel trait in a particular food or food product.
I would like to also quote to the public from an article by Peter McCourt who is a professor in the botany department at the University of Toronto and holds an NSERC chair in plant genetics. He is an expert.The reason I am quoting Mr. McCourt is to shed a bit more light for the public on the whole matter of genetic modification of foods and crops.
He states:
The argument is that the insertion of genes often combined with novel DNA sequences that regulate their expression in the plant could result in unpredictable effects. Although this could be true, it is just as likely to occur in nature or by any other traditional breeding process. The food we eat has been continuously genetically engineered by natural phenomena in ways that do not differ from the way we carry out GM technology now. For example, up to 20 percent of some plant genomes contain genetic elements that destabilize genes and genomes, move the genes around, mutate and rearrange themselves randomly. Furthermore, the hybridization of genomes of various species that occurs in traditional breeding programs also leads to new and untested combinations of genes. The mistakable safety argument is that the problem is the process of crop production. The concern should be on the product--not how it was made. No food product, whether traditional or modified by recombinant DNA, is without risk; this is why government agencies test these products.
What I understand Mr. McCourt to say is that the genetic modification of food can and does occur naturally as well as by design, and that the issue is not how the genetic modification occurs but whether the food is safe.
The questions for the public are these. First, is genetically modified food safe for me? Second, if I am in doubt about that, should I have a label on the food that at least lets me know that what I am eating may have been or was genetically modified, bearing in mind that genetic modification can be by design and also can occur naturally, according to a genetics expert?
I would like to place before the public and before the House some of the pros and cons that I have gathered in discussing and reading about this issue. I would like to thank my colleagues who have been very helpful to me in understanding this, the member for Selkirk--Interlake and my colleague from Nanaimo--Alberni, who is also with me as health critic.
I will list the pros of labelling food as genetically modified. This is not an exhaustive list but it is the best I have been able to compile.
First, there is inadequate scientific testing at the present time to ensure that genetically modified foods are safe. There is just not enough science, many argue, to prove there is safety in this kind of food.
Second, warning bells have been sounded in the case of some genetically modified foods.
Third, there may be unknown health risks.
Fourth, safety should be the first and foremost consideration.
Fifth, even existing science on the subject has been influenced by the industry that depends on foods and food processing for jobs and income.
Sixth, labelling gives people a choice because if they know a food is genetically modified and they are concerned, they can eat something else.
Seventh, the Royal Society of Canada's expert panel says that there is currently no systematic scientific evaluation process to establish the safety of GM foods for human consumption.
Those are some of the main reasons I have heard to support mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods. However, I can also provide an equal number of arguments against it.
First, the European Union recently released a study which found no significant problems with genetically modified foods.
Second, we should not make public policy on maybes. If there is no scientific evidence, then we should not legislate.
Third, there is already mandatory labelling when particular foods or products have been demonstrated to be a health risk or concern. For example, foods containing genetically modified products that lead to the same result as maybe peanuts or other nuts, to which some people are allergic, are already labelled.
Fourth, there would be massive costs to mandating a label for all foods that are genetically modified or contain genetically modified elements. This massive cost would really hurt the agriculture and food processing industries.
Fifth, the science to date shows no unacceptable risk.
Sixth, labelling would suggest there is a problem. In other words, people would ask why the government is putting a label on something if there is no good reason to do so. They could conclude that there must be a problem if there is a label. That would cause concerns where there ought not be any or where there is no evidence that there are any real concerns.
The last argument is that our largest trading partner, the U.S., with which we conduct 80% of trade, would likely refuse to send us food if it had to label it because that would be a huge cost, especially when there are no food safety risks yet shown.
Like anything else, there are arguments for and against mandatory labelling. I think my colleagues in the House who have suggested that this matter is serious enough and uncertain enough that it needs further study are correct.
I would support a vote in the House to send the bill to the committee so that these pros and cons could be further explored and weighed by members and we could come to a proper conclusion.
We have a duty to Canadians. We want to do our best for them. We want to make sure that we protect their safety to the greatest reasonable degree and I think only further study by members of the House in committee will allow us to do this.