The Ottawa Citizen | October 17, 1999 | Norma Greenaway
Public health critics have, according to this story, slammed proposed new food safety legislation as a free ride for genetically engineered food that could endanger both human health and the environment.
Michele Brill-Edwards, a former Health Canada regulator, was cited as accussing the government of turning a blind eye to existing laws governing the treatment of genetically modified foods and said the new legislation must be tougher.
Backed by a coalition of public health activists, she called for an amendment that would ensure no genetically altered food is given federal approval without being tested over the short- and long-term for its impact on human health and the environment, adding, "We want specific recognition that genetic alterations constitute a significant change in the safety profile of the food, and as such require testing."
The story says that the hotbutton issue of genetically modified foods surfaced during a day-long forum sponsored by the Canadian Health Coalition, an umbrella organization of health, environmental and union activists.
The group, which includes federal food-safety inspectors, is trying to mount a major lobby against the legislation which is expected to be re-introduced in the Commons within the next month or so. The proposed bill, introduced during the last parliamentary session, died on the order paper when the Liberals decided to prorogue the session.
Ken Rubin, an organic farmer and expert on the federal Access to Information Act, was cited as saying the legislation makes no distinction between foods that are natural, or altered through things such as additives or genetic changes, adding, "In other words, it's the bill that would legitimize allowing genetically engineered foods to be placed permanently on a wider scale on the market place."
Ms. Brill-Edwards and other members of a roundtable panel argued the new legislation, known as the Canada Food Safety and Inspection Act, is more "industry friendly" than existing legislation and softens key consumer protections.
In particular, they objected to provisions they say call for proof a product is causing harm before it has to be recalled. The current law allows a government-ordered recall if there is reasonable evidence of a problem.
