Media Advisory
May 1-4, 2001

Codex Committee on Food Labelling, 29th Session
Ottawa Congress Centre, Congress Hall, Salon A

Canadians Deserve To Know What They Are Eating:
Food Safety Must Come Before Trade

For further information:
Michael McBane, Canadian Health Coalition (613) 521-3400, ext. 308
Michael Hansen, Consumers International (914) 378-2452

Footnotes:

1. The Royal Society of Canada recently rejected the notion of substantial equivalence as  scientifically unjustifiable (www.rsc.ca)
2. Codex Committee on Food Labelling, Proposed draft recommedations for the labelling of foods obtained through certain techniques of genetic modification / genetic engineering (Proposed draft amendment to the general standard for the labelling of prepackaged foods:  Section 5 - Additional mandatory labelling, Agenda Item No.5 (B), ADD. 1
3. According to a recent Pollara and Earnscliffe Research and Communications poll

COVERAGE

PUBLICATION: GLOBE AND MAIL
DATE:        TUE MAY.01,2001
PAGE:        A7
BYLINE:      MARK MACKINNON
CLASS:       National News
EDITION:     Metro DATELINE: Ottawa ON

Canada accused of delaying pact on genetic alerts

MARK MacKINNON
With a report from Colin Freeze in Toronto

OTTAWA Canada is being accused of holding up an international agreement on the labelling of genetically modified foods as a conference on the subject opens in Ottawa today.

A protocol drafted in February by a UN body would let countries require all genetically modified foods to be labelled. But while Canada and the United States originally agreed to the principle of "process-based" labelling, critics say both have switched their position since the inauguration of George W. Bush as U.S. President. The declaration would not force any country to label GM foods, but would likely be used as a weapon in trade fights by countries wishing to keep GM foods out.

"The U.S. is walking away from this, just like what Bush did with Kyoto," said Michael Hansen of U.S.-based Consumers International. "Canada is just following along." He noted that the term "mandatory labelling" was not in bracketed text in the February draft, meaning it was not considered a contentious point during the negotiations in Rio de Janeiro. However, the Bush administration did not play a role in the talks leading to that text.

If, as expected, Canada and the United States back away from the agreement, the two countries could find themselves alone against a broad international coalition, headed by India and the European Union, that favours mandatory labelling.

"Are the U.S. and Canada trying to say they should be able to dictate what kind of labelling other countries have?"

Bart Bilmer, director of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's office of biotechnology, said Canada currently favours labelling based on health and safety concerns, and not on whether food is genetically modified. Canada has also said voluntary labelling by producers of GM foods can be "useful." A Royal Society of Canada panel of experts found no scientific reason for a mandatory labelling scheme.

Labelling schemes are difficult, Mr. Bilmer said, because 60 to 70 per cent -- by some producers' estimates -- of processed foods contain traces of products developed through biotechnology, such as corn starch or soya protein.

Bill Jeffery, an Ottawa-based consumers association delegate to the UN group, countered that Canada must actively seek higher standards. "International standards should be set high so that governments can protect consumers without fear that their rules will be challenged at the WTO," he said in a statement. "Yet, all too often, companies pressure governments to base international standards on the lowest common denominator."

Food labelling

A recent poll of Canadians shows the vast majority to be in favour of companies identifying genetically modified (GM) food.

94% believe the government should order companies to label GM products. 35% believe current regulations are sufficient to protect people from risks. 69% assume products on store shelves are safe

Source: Pollara and Earnscliffe Research and Communications

The Montreal Gazette

April 30, 2001

Decision time on labeling of biotech foods Whether it should be mandatory or not is under scrutiny by regulatory body

MONIQUE BEAUDIN

The international body that sets food standards is meeting in Ottawa this week to try to hammer out a world-wide policy on labeling genetically modified foods.

But some consumer groups and non-government organizations say the committee is under pressure from Canada and the U.S. to adopt voluntary labeling instead of a mandatory system supported by the European Union and other countries.

"Anyone can voluntarily label now," Michael McBane of the Canadian Health Coalition said yesterday.

"The issue is mandatory labeling - especially when there can be health problems. How are people ever going to know, and get to the bottom of health problems if (genetically modified foods) aren't label ed and aren't traceable?"

The Health Coalition and other groups will be lobbying international delegations to choose mandatory labeling at this week's meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the Rome-based UN agency that co-ordinates global food-safety and trade issues. It began studying the question of genetically modified food two years ago and has yet to reach a consensus on it.

Most Canadians already eat genetically modified foods. The Canadian food industry estimates that 70 per cent of processed food sold here contains some genetically modified ingredients. More than 40 genetically modified foods, including corn, soy, canola and potatoes, have been approved in Canada. Few if any products are labeled as genetically modified.

The Codex commission has reached consensus on some of the issues related to labeling but it hasn't reached agreement on how widespread

labeling should be - whether it should apply to all foods derived from biotechnology, or only in cases where the food product is substantially different from its conventional counterpart.

Canada has outlined its position against mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods in documents prepared for this week's meeting, which begins tomorrow.

"Canada supports labeling that provides consumers with clear, meaningful and credible information," the Canadian delegation wrote, adding that work is being done here to develop a voluntary labeling system for genetically modified food in Canada.

Canada wants labels only on genetically modified foods whose nutrition, safety or composition has been changed through biotechnology.

Canada prefers to use the term "derived from modern biotechnology" rather than "genetically modified." McBane of the Health Coalition says that's to get around consumer fears about genetically modified food.

"The Canadian government's goal is the promotion of biotechnology," McBane said. "There are no objectives around safety or protecting the environment, whereas the real job of Codex is food safety."

- Monique Beaudin can be reached at mbeaudin@thegazette.southam.ca

GLOBE AND MAIL 
MAY 3,2001
PAGE: A8
By MARK MACKINNON

Nigeria pleads for labels on GM foods

MARK MacKINNON

OTTAWA Third World countries pleaded yesterday with Canada and the United States to label the genetically modified foods they export, saying they won't be able to cope if the foods prove dangerous. Noting that many scientists are worried that the human food supply could be contaminated by the proliferation of genetically modified crops, Nigeria asked a United Nations body meeting in Ottawa yesterday to introduce strict labelling rules quickly.

If it ever turns out that GM foods do present a health hazard, African nations will be hardest hit, Nigerian delegate Tseaa Shambe told the UN Codex Alimentarius (Latin for food labelling) conference.

"We in Africa have got poor hospitals," he said. "We plead with the Codex committee to take this issue [GM food-labelling] seriously."

Other developing nations, particularly India, echoed Nigeria's impassioned push for comprehensive, mandatory labelling of all GM foods. However, nations that produce such foods -- notably Canada, the United States and Argentina -- stalled progress toward an international labelling agreement during yesterday's meetings.

Canada, which has chaired the meetings annually since the mid-1990s, cut off the labelling debate early in the afternoon, promising a longer debate at the next meeting, a year from now in Halifax. This year's conference began on Tuesday and runs until tomorrow, but yesterday was the only opportunity to debate the labelling of GM foods.

Progress on the issue has been incremental since the mid-1990s.

Canada, the United States and Argentina, who produce the vast majority of the world's genetically modified commercial crops, disagree with the idea that foods should be labelled simply because they were genetically modified, arguing that labels are necessary only if the foods pose a proven risk. Canada has a voluntary labelling scheme, allowing companies to decide for themselves whether to tell consumers the product has been altered. However, a recent poll by Pollara Inc. and Earnscliffe Research and Communications found that 94 per cent of Canadians believe the government should order companies to label GM products.

Yesterday, Canada and the United States successfully pushed to add the term "modern biotechnology" to the list of possible labels under a future international agreement. Greenpeace Canada campaigner Holly Penfound slammed the move as an attempt to confuse consumers who are wary of foods that have been genetically modified. "It's just another attempt to water down labels so they won't be meaningful to the consumer."

Canada and the United States were also successful in adding the words "fairer practices in food trade" to the list of objectives, a move that some fear will ensure that the World Trade Organization becomes final arbiter of disputes regarding labelling of GM foods.

Just before debate was cut off, the Dutch delegation slammed the slow-moving Codex process, saying the body should be "more ambitious," and focus not on trade considerations, but consumer needs.

Labelling of genetically modified foods spurs confusion and debate

April 30, 2001

CP Wire/Gazette (Montreal)

OTTAWA - Officials trying to agree on labelling of genetically modified foods at a United Nations conference this week might, according to these stories, find food for thought in the promotional flyers of one supermarket chain.

Codex Alimentarius, the UN body which sets food labelling standards, has failed to reach consensus on labelling of genetically modified foods despite nine years of debate.

And, the stories say, this week's meetings in Ottawa on Tuesday and Wednesday aren't expected to result in a breakthrough.

While Asian and European countries are moving or have moved to require mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods, Canada and the United States have resisted.

North America, with its rapidly growing biotech industry, is concerned that such labelling would turn off consumers.

The stories say that some food manufacturers now want to define their products as ``gm-free.'' But food retailers say it's difficult to define "genetically modified'' or "gm-free,'' and such claims would be worthless without precise rules and definitions.

Still, at least one grocery chain has decided to start the ball rolling. The stories say that advertising flyers from Loblaws promoting the new President's Choice Organics product line say products in the organic category must be free of genetically modified ingredients - as defined by an organization that represents organic food producers.

However, due to the lack of a recognized scientific standard, Loblaws won't guarantee that it's products are free of all genetically modified ingredients.

Geoff Wilson, vice-president for industry and investor relation, was quoted as saying, "We're not directly promoting these products as gm-free, we're promoting them as organic. Until such time as there is a recognized standard on what is gm-free we're not selling products that claim to gm-free. We're trying to meet the needs of our consumers. We're merely bringing products that are meeting our current consumers' demands.''

The stories explain that the Canadian General Standards Board has set up a consultation, which has been under way for months, to come up with standards on genetically modified food labelling.

Some say the discussion is bogged down while others insist it is progressing as well as could be expected given the number of players and the complexity of the issues.

Bart Bilmer, a spokesman for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, was cited as denying that regulators are falling behind industry trends, adding, "What I understand from talking to grocery distributors is that they would like manufacturers to wait until the Canadian General Standards Board completes its work. What manufacturers want to see, and what I presume consumers want to see, is consistency.''

Bilmer was further cited as saying that Canada will propose this week that labels be required to state nutritional changes resulting from genetic modification.

But Michael Khoo of Greenpeace was cited as saying this will not tell consumers which foods have been genetically modified, which is what many of them want to know.

Wilson was further quoted as saying, "Organics tend to be more expensive because of the agriculture and the process involved. But we will be - vs. other organic products - very competitively priced."

A common complaint about organic foods is that they are so expensive that most people can't afford them. That's where Loblaw says it will be different.

The organic products are part of the company's President's Choice line, and that means they will be high quality at competitive prices, Wilson said.

DATE:     2001.05.06
EDITION:  FINAL
SECTION:  News
PAGE:     A3
BYLINE:   Kate Jaimet
SOURCE:   The Ottawa Citizen

Label GM foods: Liberal MP: Member's bill to force labelling defies official party policy

Canada must resist the pressure of large agri-food companies and alert consumers when they are eating genetically modified food, says environmentalist Liberal MP Charles Caccia.

A private member's bill introduced by Mr. Caccia, which would force food producers to label genetically modified food will be debated in the House of Commons beginning tomorrow. The bill runs counter to the policy of his own Liberal government, which favours voluntary labelling only. At present, there is no labelling of genetically modified foods in Canada.

``It's about the right to know what is in the food you eat,'' Mr. Caccia said in an interview. ``There is no need to create scares or invoke catastrophes. It's a question of letting the public make an informed decision.''

Scientists have been able to insert genes from one plant or animal into a completely different species. These genes can increase the resistance of crops to insects or disease. But critics -- including some scientists -- say there is no way of knowing the long-term health effects of eating genetically modified foods.

At an international conference on food labelling held recently in Ottawa, countries such as India argued that all genetically modified foods should be labelled.

But Canada took the position that companies should not be forced to label such foods except when the modification causes proven changes, for example in nutritional value or food safety.

Canada doesn't support mandatory labelling because it would be difficult to enforce, said Bart Bilmer, director of the Office of Biotechnology at the Canada Food Inspection Agency. He said it is almost impossible to know, for example, if a single corn kernel in a can of niblets had been genetically modified.

``Anyone can slap a label on a product, and no one knows if it's true,'' Mr. Bilmer said. ``At present, there are no tests that would work on a consistent basis for all foods.''

But Mr. Caccia said he believes the real reason Canada opposes mandatory labelling is because of pressure from large agri-food corporations that produce genetically modified crops. Labelling would mean an extra cost and could stop some consumers from buying their products.

``Governments are coming under increasing well-organized pressure from the corporate sector,'' Mr. Caccia said. ``Governments have to make a choice between serving the corporate sector and serving the public.''

Mr. Caccia's bill, which he said strikes a balance between consumers' rights and corporate interests, would require simple mandatory labels stating: ``This food is genetically modified,'' or ``This food contains an ingredient that is genetically modified.''

The bill would prevent Canada's food products from being shut out of foreign markets if Europe and other regions move to mandatory labelling, Mr. Caccia said.