CBAC issues final report on regulation of genetically modified foods

The issue of voluntary labeling has dominated reaction a major report on the regulation of genetically modified (GM) foods in spite of the inclusion of 43 other recommendations. The final report by the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC) includes input to CBAC’s interim report released last fall (R$, September 24/01). It is the second and more moderate of two key reports on the issue, and has been crafted as a complementary document to the more controversial report by the Royal Society of Canada (R$, March 5/01).

In an attempt to make the staggering number of recommendations more digestible, they are broken into four themes: good governance, precaution, information and consumer choice, and social and ethical considerations. Each theme contains a number of overriding recommendations, which are further sub-divided. While unwieldy, the scope of the report is comprehensive and provides government with detailed advice on how to ensure the growth of the biotechnology sector.

In the area of good governance, CBAC calls for Ottawa to “further systemize and coordinate” its regulatory bodies for GM food, ensuring a clear separation between the government’s regulatory role from its promotion of the biotech industry. It recommends that Ottawa consider three models – a coordinating office, a committee of assistant DMs, or a new agency responsible for all regulatory activity.

New research figures prominently in the recommendations on the use of the precautionary principle when making regulatory assessments of GM foods and plants. It urges the introduction of a long-term research program into GM foods and other novel organisms that are part of the food chain. This would result in new analytical methods for assessing environmental and health safety, expand the knowledge base of GM foods, and ensure that new knowledge is available to regulatory agencies and private and public sector developers.

Another “major, long-term program of research” would focus on testing specific hypotheses about the long-term effects related to the consumption of specific foods and food groups.

It also argues that the precautionary approach should apply to all stages of development and commercialization, from laboratory research and confined field trials to pre-market risk assessment and post-market surveillance.

To deal with the social and ethical issues relating to GM foods, CBAC calls for further study and support, whether it’s conducted by government, advisory bodies,or non-governmental stakeholder groups. It also suggests the government examine a pilot project CBAC has initiated to develop a policy dialogue tool it dubs “the Acceptability Spectrum”.

DISSENTING VOICE

CBAC did not garner unanimous support from its members for two areas of the report — precautionary elements and labelling. Anne Mitchell, executive director of the Toronto-based Canadian Institute for Environmental Law & Policy, contends that GM plants and foods should be afforded a separate category when conducting regulatory assessment. The majority of the Committee supported the current practices of non-distinction between GM plants and foods or any other food and plant group. The second area of disagreement is labelling.

CBAC opts for a voluntary labelling system for GM foods, which is widely promoted and reviewed after five years. If it is determined that the voluntary route has not provided Canadians with sufficient choice over the foods they eat, “other approaches, including mandatory labelling, will be considered.”

Mitchell opposes such a process. The report notes that she is “strongly in favour of proceeding directly to mandatory labelling”, noting that the majority of respondents to the interim report supported such a move.

The report has now been delivered to the Biotechnology Ministerial Coordinating Committee, comprised of the ministers of the relevant federal departments and headed by Industry minister Alan Rock. The Coordinating Committee will consider the recommendations of the report and formulate an official government response.

R$