Canadian government regulators have been slammed by an expert panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology, who says that GM crops should not have been grown in Canada. The criticism comes six years after the Health Canada and Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) gave the OK for GM crops to be grown and used as food ingredients without conducting scientific assessments for their safety.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
Last year, the Royal Society of Canada formed the first independent scientific panel to assess the Canadian approach to GM crops, and its findings have now been attacked by Health Canada, which claimed that the panel did not fully understand the regulation of biotechnology.
Canada is the third largest grower of GM crops in the world, and the 14 scientists on the panel argue that the government is attempting to adopt a conflicting role of simultaneously regulating the biotech industry and promoting its science with huge investments, like the 1983 National Biotechnology Strategy (NBS) and the fully funded Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC).
One scientist Brian Ellis, of the University of British Columbia, commented: “The fact that these foods haven’t hurt us may be due to careful scrutiny, but may also be plain luck.”
Another panel member and important biologist Mark Winston claims that the foremost problem with GM crops is not their safety but with the regulation of the industry and the secrecy that surrounds it. The lack of openness with regard to scientific questions is a “truly profound issue of democracy,” according to Winston.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataWinston also points out that there are problems with the government’s assumption that GM crops are of “substantial equivalence” to non-GM counterparts. This means that testing is not as extensive or as unbiased as it could be. Federal-funding for independent testing is essential, according to Winston, who points out that the government must act quickly on the panel’s recommendations.
