Consumers rightly want to make informed food choices, but there has to be a limit on the amount of information the government can force food producers to provide.

It makes sense to have companies provide information about proven health risks: trans fats, for example, or traces of nuts. There is, however, not enough research to prove that genetically modified foods pose a safety risk. Mandatory labelling for GM could put an undue burden on food producers.

That doesn't mean food producers shouldn't take consumer concerns seriously. Some Canadians are nervous about the effects of genetic engineering on ecosystems, so for political rather than health reasons they might want to avoid GM food. And yes, there will always be technophobes who believe that sooner or later we'll discover that GM food is dangerous, so they've decided to play it safe. That's their prerogative, but the government shouldn't force companies to cater to picky eaters.

Mind you, it makes good business sense for companies to show respect for all consumers and embrace the voluntary use of labels. And it's fair game for anti-GM consumers to exert market pressure on companies to do so. The more specific and understandable the information on those labels, the better.

One problem with mandatory GM labels now is that they would be practically meaningless. The term "genetic modification" encompasses all kinds of procedures, including traditional breeding techniques. Canadians looking for shelves full of labels that say "GM-free" might be disappointed, because that isn't an easy claim to make.

What most worries anti-GM activists is genetic engineering, the manipulation of the genes in an organism, but even here the distinctions, in practice, become blurred. It's possible to grow non-engineered canola but it can be difficult to segregate it from the engineered canola growing in the next field over.

Still, if companies are going to engage in labelling, it's probably better, rather than attempting to identify all genetically modified foods (a dubious task), to identify products that are not the direct result of genetic engineering.

Canada doesn't have a law forcing companies to label genetically engineered food, though we do have laws requiring food labels to be be truthful. Companies can't claim a product is "100-per-cent GM free" if they can't prove it. We also have labelling guidelines that define genetic engineering, and though a company may not be able to say its product is completely GM free, it could say something like: "These chips are made from potatoes that are not a product of genetic engineering."

If Canadians find that kind of information useful, they should tell the food producers, not the government. All industries respond to market forces. Shoppers wanted recycled office paper, and recycled office paper appeared on the shelves. Shoppers wanted organic milk, and organic milk appeared on the shelves.

It is better, on principle and in practice, for private industry to do the right thing because customers demand it, rather than because government mandates it. The government was right to establish definitions and labelling rules. Now it's up to industry to use those definitions and rules for the benefit of consumers.

Source:

Watching what you eat. Ottawa Citizen (May 4th, 2006) (http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/editorials/story.html?id=9ced6740-4b35-4016-93fc-7f57bcaee4d6); reproduced with permission

<<<back