Times Colonist (Victoria) | November 3, 1999
Columnist Susan Riley writes that you can see the outlines of a new moral and political struggle - the next generation's tobacco wars, perhaps - in simmering public unease over the use of genetically modified foods.
The lines have already been drawn. Celebrity geneticist David Suzuki, the federal government's own scientists and an array of environmental and consumer groups are calling on government to put public health first, while biotech and agribusiness interests attribute concerns about genetically altered crops to superstition and public ignorance.
Caught in the middle is the Chretien cabinet, which tilts naturally towards the business agenda, but, in this case, seems uncertain of the extent and ferocity of public opposition to manipulated foods. Last month that uncertainty led Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief to hold back a bill (C-80) that would, Riley says, place the issue largely under the control of the Agriculture, rather than the Health, Department.
But Vanclief does not appear to be contemplating any major rethinking of the bill, or the issue. The problem, he patiently explained, is that the public is misinformed. Until there has been some education - that is, until everyone is convinced of the marvels of GM foods and the government's keen interest in public health - the bill will be delayed.
One of his colleagues was much blunter a few weeks earlier.
At a science and technology symposium, the federal secretary of state for science, Gilbert Normand, called opposition to GM foods "hysteria." The backlash even threatens the health of Canadians, he said, because some of the new crops are so-called "nutraceuticals" - foods engineered to have extra nutritional content.
A Quebec MP, medical doctor and former secretary of state for agriculture and agrifood, Normand called on all scientists working in biotechnology to "spread the word and explain it to ordinary people in a pragmatic fashion."
Normand's warning is a classic example of something that may be part of the Canadian character, or a relic from a more paternalistic era: the tendency of ministers and their senior bureaucrats to become apologists for the industries they represent. Agribusiness clearly has friends at the cabinet table, but who defends the public interest?
Not Health Minister Allan Rock. When it comes to tobacco, he tinkers with sponsorship regulations and experiments with tough advertising because his government refuses to raise Canada's embarrassingly low cigarette taxes - the single most significant way of discouraging teen smoking.
When the issue is designer-gene foods, and Bill C-80, Rock's message is don't worry, my scientists won't let you be poisoned.
In the same way that the blood system was protected, say, and new drugs are screened.
In fact, Rock's scientists are nowhere near as sanguine as he is.
In a display of courage worthy of a governor general's citation, many Health Canada employees, says Riley, recently signed a petition urging Rock to insist that control of GM foods remain the purview of the Health Department. Asking Agriculture to monitor these products, says the petition, creates a conflict of interest - since Agriculture is in the business of promoting new food products - that could risk public health.
What may be more persuasive to this cabinet, however, is growing concern among farmers over GM foods. Growers have seen what happened in Europe, where mad-cow disease and other incidents alarmed consumers (and prominent organic farmer Charles, Prince of Wales) and led major grocery stores to refuse to carry GM foods.
Last week, Ontario's largest corn buyer, Casco Inc., warned farmers to plant conventional crops as well as genetically modified strains, to maintain access to European markets in the face of a growing backlash.
It is also in the interests of farmers, and consumers, that GM products be clearly labelled - a minimal requirement that would at least offer buyers a choice. If cabinet refuses this straightforward demand, it is fair to ask whose side they are on.
And what do producers have to hide? As for "education," Canadians aren't stupid. They know the difference between food that contains nutritional supplements and Roundup Ready, grain crops containing a gene that helps resist weed killer.
Suzuki believes the battle against genetically modified crops is lost - partly because they promise farmers higher yields. But that doesn't mean Canadian children should be the unwitting subjects of a long experiment on the health impact of GM foods.
This debate will be another moral test for a cabinet that has failed others, especially in the area of environment and tobacco - a cabinet, dominated by Jean Chretien, that is once again on the wrong side of history.
