Read the fine print on GMO labels

Don't swallow the EU way. Let's push for multilateral rules on how we label what we eat, say PETER PHILLIPS and ROBERT WOLFE

UPDATED AT 7:23 PM EDT Tuesday, Sep. 2, 2003


Labels are political. Some labels tell you that smoking causes cancer; others provide nutritional information in French as well as English; still others tell you in which foreign country a product was made.

How should we label food made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs)? Do we use voluntary negative labels that say that a product "may contain" GMOs? Or do we move to a mandatory positive label saying that a product "does contain" GMOs? The debate over this seemingly small difference will affect the evolution of agri-science, the prosperity of Canadian farmers, and relations with our largest trading partners.

And we'll have to decide soon: The Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB), in collaboration with the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and more than 50 other interested groups, has held extensive consultations with consumers, citizens, industry and scientists, and recently put a proposed standard to a members' vote. The results may not be available for a few months, but if the vote shows an emerging consensus, the result could be a new Canadian labelling standard that could cause conflict with the United States or Europe.

Currently, about 70 per cent of processed foods contain GM ingredients. Their rapid appearance on the scene has precipitated consumer and citizen-group backlash, and increasing regulation by governments around the world. Polls report that most consumers want mandatory labelling -- but some want known food-safety risks identified, while others want all foods that may have been derived from biotechnology identified, even if all the modified genes are removed in processing.

More than 30 governments around the world are adopting GM labelling laws that assess products for human, animal and environmental safety. All have mandatory rules for GM foods that involve nutritional or compositional changes (i.e. added vitamins or reduced fat contents) or that have introduced new allergens into the foods. All exempt highly processed foods like cooking oils, starches and sugars that do not contain any detectable proteins. No country yet requires that products from animals fed with GM feeds be labelled.

There are two points of divergence among governments. First, GM-producing countries such as Canada and the United States allow voluntary labelling, while the EU and China, among others, have mandatory labelling for all goods with detectable GM elements.

Second, Europe is in the processes of adopting requirements for full traceability of products containing more than 0.9 per cent of GMOs. This means that farmers, manufacturers and distributors must collect and retain detailed information on the presence of GMOs in any product making its way through the commercial production chain, including bulk commodities like wheat where products often get mingled for shipment.

One result of these diverging labelling systems has been a reduction of trade between GM producers and countries imposing mandatory labels, with a consequent diversion of trade to other markets.

EU-style mandatory labelling with full traceability will be expensive, but Canada could manage the cost. However, the cost will skyrocket if the EU exports its policies and standards to its trading partners, ultimately driving up costs for consumers by as much as 3 per cent a year. If trade dries up, Canadian producers will be reluctant to plant GM varieties. This is already happening with wheat. Scientists may think further research not worth the effort.

The European approach is based on consumer choice, not food safety. When consumers wish to make their own choices consistent with their philosophical beliefs -- choosing hallal, kosher, or GMO-free -- they should be prepared to absorb the extra costs. Consumers who want "organic" foods pay a premium for the privilege. So should consumers who want GMO-free food.

But EU regulations not only limit our access to the European market, they may spread to other European trading partners, thereby limiting our access to those markets, too.

We have three options. We could simply follow the Europeans -- but that approach would be inconsistent with the Americans, our largest trading partner. Or we could launch a dispute at the World Trade Organization, which might encourage other countries to think twice before adopting EU rules. But a court case never resolves regulatory disputes based on fundamental differences of approach.

Or Canada could renew the push for an international standard for labelling of food products derived from biotechnology through the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the pre-eminent international intergovernmental-standards body for food safety. This process has already been under way (under a Canadian chair) for more than eight years.

This third, multilateral option is best. People who want more choice than a scientific risk assessment requires should pay for it without forcing the costs onto their trading partners or other consumers. A voluntary negative labelling system would meet this test. If Europeans read all labels, and refuse to buy food that does not specify that it is GM-free, then food containing GMOs will cease to be available on the European market for the best of reasons -- because nobody wants it.

Peter Phillips holds the chair in managing knowledge-based agri-food development at the University of Saskatchewan. Robert Wolfe is a professor of policy studies at Queen's University.


© 2003 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.