Where are your GMO labels Mr. Charest?

During the last provincial election, the three main parties did all they could to dodge the GMO labelling issue, and obviously they did not clearly commit themselves to labelling. Yet in no way does it mean that the problems GMOs create suddenly vanished from our radar screens. The new Liberal minority government will have to give an answer to the overwhelming majority of Quebeckers who are willing to know if what they eat contains GE food.

In 2003 the Quebec Liberal Party and its leader, Premier Jean Charest, promised to enact GMOs mandatory labelling. It is now known that the costs of such a measure would not be that high. As a matter of fact, the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPAQ) was given in October 2006 an economic report stating that the costs involved would not be as high as one might have expected, and that they were lower in fact than what the industry proclaimed. Greenpeace and other groups analysed this report, and then put forward concrete solutions in order to finance such costs in case they materialised. As for Parti Québécois, its leader André Boisclair promised to “implement a management system that will enable us to trace our food from farm to fork”. ( Letter from André Boisclair to Greenpeace, August 4 2006 Internet address site). Consequently, the PQ’s caucus and its leader should be able to support a motion in favour of the labelling of GM food in Quebec since such a measure would represent “the first prerequisite to inform the population more efficiently.” Eight PQ MNAs already signed Greenpeace’s statement requiring that all GE foods be labelled. They should be able to support a similar Liberal bill or regulation. Greenpeace demands that a precise timeline be set to fulfil that promise. We demand that a GE food mandatory labelling draft regulation be submitted at the Commission on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (CAFF) and adopted by the National Assembly by the end of 2007 at the latest. Furthermore, in the light of the report submitted to MAPAQ in which it was confirmed that the labelling costs were not as high as what the agri-food processing industry pretended, we demand that the new Liberal minority government legislate GE food labelling.

As for Action démocratique du Québec, now the official opposition, it refused to answer Greenpeace’s questionaire during the electoral campaign. Submitting a mandatory GE labelling draft regulation would force those MNAs to state their opinion publicly on a measure that between 80 and 95% of the people of Quebec support.

To this day about forty countries have already implemented the mandatory labelling of GE food, or they are on their way to do so. (See map on Greenpeace International website, pdf)  If they can do it, so can we. The obstacles are not technical in nature, they are actually political. ‘voluntary’ labelling (left to the discretion of the agri-food industry) as was adopted by the federal government in April 2004 has until now not produced a single “with GMO” label. In addition, the federal standard that sets a very high threshold of 5% actually allows the industry to hide the majority of food containing GMOs or produced from GM ingredients. Since the Canadian Government is dragging its feet on this issue, the Quebec government should immediately implement a mandatory labelling system. Greenpeace strongly condemns the fact that no bill has been filed and adopted yet.

GMOs traceability
In order to ensure the food we find on our groceries’ shelves do not contain GMOs, the most economical, practical and rigorous strategy would be to make sure that none of the basic ingredients used in processed food are GMO free.  Consequently, we must implement a traceability system in our food chain. Such a system would be mainly based on every supplier’s formal guarantees. Independent laboratories would regularly test their claims. There would be no need to check every product on the market since you don’t necessarily find traces of GMOs in it (e.g. canola oil). Quebec could start by adopting labelling standards similar to those found in Europe, with a traceability threshold of 0.9% above which the labelling of GE food would be mandatory. Notice that this 0.9% threshold applies to each ingredient taken individually and that the GMO occurrence should be accidental and non-permanent.

Costs of labelling
The European experience showed that consumer retail prices did not increase following mandatory labelling. Large European grocery chains such as Safeway, Marks & Spencer and CWS Retail simply reorganised their supplies in order to provide food free of GMOs and as the same price as before, just as the vast majority of their customers wanted it. The European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, Mr David Byrne, confirmed it when he stated: “Some pretend that costs will have to increase significantly because of labelling. We do not think it will be the case. The current labelling system (based on DNA and protein) that was proposed in 1997 did not push up costs despite the horrendous forecasts put forward by some interest groups.” Nevertheless, in case a mandatory labelling system carried additional costs, one should make sure that the farmers who farm without GMOs and the consumers who don’t want to find it on their plate are not the ones footing the bill! Those who produce or use GMOs should be the ones paying for it.  Since the Monsanto Corporation is 90% responsible for GE crops across the world, there is no reason why we should indirectly subsidise this company by paying more for our food in order to mop the costs of labelling. Greenpeace and other groups have already made public a report made for Quebec’s MAPAQ about GE food labelling costs. If you study this report closely, you will find that the labelling would not be as expensive as what the industry claims.

Beyond the labelling issue    
However, one should not be content to deal only with mandatory labelling. The whole GE food issue must be debated by society. This is why Greenpeace invites every citizen of Quebec to be present at the hearings of the Commission on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.