AGRI Committee Report

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY – STUDY ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED ANIMALS FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION

The New Democratic Party would like to thank all of the witnesses who took the time to share their views on genetically modified animals for human consumption. We are convinced that this exercise was beneficial and informative for all the political parties. The consensus on almost all the recommendations reflects the willingness of all parties to produce a constructive and useful report for decision-makers.

Nonetheless, the NDP considers that the report—especially paragraph 25 and Committee recommendations 1 and 3—does not fully reflect the testimony given.

With respect to paragraph 25, if the Committee had wanted to accurately reflect the testimony of certain witnesses, including Vigilance OGM, it should have elaborated on why witnesses consider that the regulatory approval system lacks transparency. In its testimony, Vigilance OGM made particular mention of a Health Canada official’s testimony to the Committee that all the studies Health Canada had taken into account in its acceptance of genetically modified salmon were available on the department’s website.[1] Vigilance OGM checked the website and found no studies there; in fact, it was not even possible to get these reports by means of an access to information request. Vigilance OGM also pointed out that most of the data used by Health Canada to approve genetically modified salmon came from the industry.[2]

This clarification of paragraph 25 is closely linked to the changes that the NDP would like to propose for Recommendation 1. Based on the testimony it heard, the Committee should have recommended that the Government consider the possibility of giving the public access to the studies and data used to approve new products containing genetically modified organisms.

In our opinion, Recommendation 3 regarding the labelling of genetically modified foods does not reflect the testimony heard by the Committee.

Several witnesses representing a large number of Canadian consumers recommended that the government require mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods.[3] Another witness said that she would support the government's decision if it went ahead, [4] while another said, while he was not opposed to the mandatory labeling of GMOs, he was concerned that it creates a perception among consumers that GMOs are harmful to human health.[5] This perception could be countered by means of government awareness and education campaigns on GMOs. Furthermore, two industry witnesses said they were opposed to the mandatory labeling of GMOs[6] and two others gave no opinion on the subject. Therefore, the evidence was far from unanimous and consensual on maintaining the current GMO labeling system, as recommended by the Committee.

It is important to bear in mind that the mandatory labeling of GMOs exists in 64 countries including Australia, New Zealand, the European Union and the U.S. state of Vermont.[7] A recent study published by Health Canada concluded that nearly 80% of Canadians want to see mandatory labelling of GMOs, and that they did not consider voluntary labelling credible.[8] The NDP believes that, to accurately reflect the evidence, the Committee should have suggested that the government collaborate with Canadian stakeholders and consumers to establish a GMO labeling plan. The Committee's current recommendation totally ignores the recommendations of three witnesses representing many Canadians.