It Isn't Health Canada's Job To Put A Positive Spin On GMOs
By Rachel Parent
Last year, Health Canada commissioned a study into consumer perceptions of
foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Health Canada
intends to use the findings to more effectively communicate to the
public how food products derived from biotechnology is regulated.
The
research found that many people still don't know much about genetically
modified foods. Some fail to understand why they are needed and are
confused when it comes to knowing which information to believe. About 61
per cent of the people surveyed said the term "genetic modification" is
negative. Only 26 per cent of respondents said they would be
comfortable eating GMO foods but even fewer (22 per cent) supported
their development and sale in Canada.
(Photo: Danili Vasily via Getty Images)
The
study says almost 50 per cent fail to understand why GMO foods are
necessary in the first place and that consumers don't believe the
argument that GM will produce more affordable, sustainable food or
ensure food supply. Over half believe GMOs are just a way for
corporations to increase their profits. They aren't wrong.
According
to the findings, 78 per cent want their GMO food labelled so they can
choose for themselves: if consumers had a choice, 62 per cent would
choose to buy a non-GM food item.
The report states that
significant efforts to inform and educate Canadians would be required to
shift views in a more positive direction. The message is that
governments, agriculture and academics have not communicated the
technology well. In other words, public concerns about GMOs are based on
ignorance, fuelled by the failure of government, scientists and the
industry to convey a positive message about genetic modification of our
food.
The report stated that the "massive anti-GMO movement" and
accompanying volume of information presents a significant challenge for
Health Canada, as there would be a strong likelihood that any decisions
or announcements would be received through a "conditioned lens."
On a similar note, Monsanto Chief Technology Officer Robb Fraley recently argued that
Monsanto made a mistake in not reaching out to the public about GMOs
when they first appeared on the market over 20 years ago. He said the
crop science industry and academics have been more proactive with genome
editing, which he argues can precisely delete and insert genes in an
organism's DNA. Fraley says the industry and universities currently
involved in rolling out genome editing technology have done a much more
extensive communication to both the public and key regulatory and policy
makers.
The report commissioned by Health Canada and the statements of Fraley seem to rest on the mistaken assertion that
genetic modification is a legitimate tool for improving food production
and consumers are being unduly swayed by an anti-GMO movement which
plays on their fears.
Robb Fraley's approach is more ideological
than scientific. His message is that gene editing is precise and
therefore presents no risks. This might sound impressive to the
layperson, politicians or journalists with no training in the area, but
plant biologist Jonathan Latham argues the
technology is error prone, the effects of editing are not controllable
and there is no simple pathway between gene and trait. What Fraley
really means when he talks about "reaching out" and having a "dialogue"
is to get everyone to buy in to the industry playbook. But the GMO
biotech cartel is getting nervous and glyphosate is on the ropes. The public is not buying in to the "conditioned lens" of the industry.
Most people who have misgivings about GMOs are concerned with regulators
not properly testing the technology, institutions being co-opted by the
industry and science being distorted to suit vested interests (see this about Cornell University too). They are also concerned about being denied choice because of the industry's outright resistance to the mandatory labelling of
GMO food products. So, we need to get something straight: people with
genuine concerns about GM technology are first and foremost
pro-transparency and pro-democracy; they are not "anti-GMO."
GMOs have the potential to irreversibly alter the genetic core of the
food supply. In this respect, it is very worrying that Health Canada
seems more concerned about jumping on the industry bandwagon by trying
to convince the unwilling public about the perceived benefits of GMOs
than actually carrying out its own safety studies.
During an interview with
Global News in 2015, the then Canadian Health Minister Rona Ambrose
stated, "right now there is no scientific evidence that conclusively
says that in any way genetically modified foods are unhealthy for
Canadians." The minister also said that they would gladly label GMOs if
proven unsafe. Therefore, wouldn't this study alone be sufficient proof?
We
should not be relying on industry studies and propaganda to set the
agenda. The onus should not be on those from outside the industry to
prove that GMOs are not safe or necessary. We require proper long-term
independent testing and epidemiological studies on food products that
involve GMOs. And we require Health Canada to hold the industry to
account over its baseless claims.
Instead, we get public
relations exercises aimed at farmers and students and the promotion of
industry science and propaganda on social media to unwilling innocent
consumers. Perhaps that's the reason why after 20 years the public still
reject GMOs.
Instead of acting as product promoters for the industry and finding
out how to put a positive "spin" on GMOs, public officials should be
carrying out or facilitating genuinely independent studies and demanding
conclusive proof that GMOs are necessary as well as immediately
labelling GMOs until proven safe.
The public is already convinced:
we've been asking for GMO labelling for way too long. It is our basic
human right. As Pierre Elliott Trudeau once said,
"Canadians have a right to know what is in their food when they buy it,
not when they take it home and eat it." We can no longer be just
another statistic about citizens who want labelling.
In the study
mentioned at the start, 50 per cent of respondents failed to understand
why GMO foods are necessary, and over half believe GMOs are a way for
chemical corporations to boost profit. Perhaps the public aren't as gullible as some like to think.