![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Français | ![]() |
Government of Canada BioPortal | ||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
Home | ![]() |
Site Map | ![]() |
News Room | ![]() |
FAQ | ![]() |
Search | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]()
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Highlights of Toronto Roundtable on GM FoodApril 6, 2001 Prepared by: Consultation ParticipantsStakeholders Stephen Allen – Presbyterian Church in Canada Technical Resources Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat Media Relations Facilitation Team Stakeholder Workshop ObjectivesThe current series of stakeholder workshops on Genetically Modified (GM) food has two main objectives:
Themes/Issue AreasIn order to effectively address the various themes and issues and identify and discuss potential ways ahead, stakeholders were divided into four break-out groups. Each group was invited to focus on one theme (i.e., theme A, B, C or D) during the first break-out group session. Theme E was discussed by each group during a second set of break-out groups. Each discussion group was created using a “stakeholder mix” approach, meaning each group ought to have a mix of the perspectives represented (e.g., NGO/Consumer Group, Government, Industry, Academia and Health Industry). Theme A: Good Governance
Theme B: Information provision
Theme C: Risk and Benefit Considerations
Theme D: Regulatory System
Theme E: Social and Ethical Considerations
For background information on these issues, please refer to the consultation document entitled “Regulation of Genetically Modified Food” available on the CBAC web site at www.cbaccccb. ca. For each of these themes and issues, the text below summarizes the preferences and other views expressed by participants in the session. The information should not be considered to represent consensus positions of the participants. Theme A - Good GovernanceTransparency and opportunities for public involvementThe group put forward the idea that a new regulatory process should be developed in order to improve governance in general. Below are listed some of the activities that should be included in the new process:
Possible implications of new process
The underlying values which could assist in developing policy in this area are as follows:
Theme B - Information ProvisionInformation provision and labellingIn addition to the issues presented by CBAC in its consultation document, additional issues raised by participants included the concern that labelling was being offered as a solution, but the problem it is answering is not clear. More research is required as to what consumers need in terms of labelling and information, and what costs they are willing to pay for more information. Another concern is the “deafening” silence of government officials in explaining how the system works. One way forward suggested was doing much better risk and benefit communication for the public by both government and industry. If we don’t have a well informed public, policy will be shaped by a misinformed public. Information in circulation should not just focus on GM foods, but on the system we have in Canada for ensuring food safety. One problem of this approach is that there is a current disconnect in terms of trust between the public and government, so there might not be a high level of confidence in information coming from government. Given the substantial downsizing in key government organizations, it is critical to ensure that there is enough high quality staff and direction to be able to be credible in the provision of public information. A second way forward in terms of information has to do with a need for reliable access to information about GM foods. Some countries, such as Britain, have appointed a specific organization to be in charge. The suggestion from this workshop group is that we need multiple points of access to good information; including each government department describing clearly its own operations, the Food Biotechnology Communications Network could be a key player, food companies have a role, etc. We need to recognize that there is an important translation task to move knowledge from the scientists to the consumer, and probably along a several point scale. The same issue will be described differently to health professionals, educated consumers, etc. With respect to labelling, the group felt that the Canadian General Standards Board should be left alone to do its work, and encouraged to “take it slow and get it right”. Some countries have had to retract their labelling standards, as they couldn’t function in reality (i.e., they were not practical). The general consensus is that labelling practices should be voluntary. That said, there is a big concern that labelling not be assumed to be the answer to the need for information on the part of consumers. If there is increased consumer confidence in the system, labelling becomes less critical. There is no consensus yet on what should be labelled (GE and GM foods? GE foods only? Positive labelling? Negative labelling?). The group felt that there was definitely some support in society for mandatory labelling, but that it came mostly from a position that wants to see the complete elimination of biotechnology. It was agreed that the consequences of mandatory labelling could indeed be to undermine the sector. Canada should continue to participate in the development of international standards and guidelines, and should push the CODEX process to work towards a product within a shorter time frame than 7-8 years. The underlying values which could assist in developing policy in this area are as follows:
Theme C - Risk and Benefits ConsiderationsThis section encompasses two subject areas and their real/perceived challenges:
In this theme area, the way forward involved a series of proposed activities to address the challenges. The following discussion outlines the “story line” that was followed in the group’s discussion, that is to say, the group discussed the risks and relative benefits of each activity. Environmental stewardshipThis was not seen to be a GM-specific issue. For example, traditional farming/agrarian practices have been challenged, as have many practices that have proven to affect the environment. As a result there is an ongoing need to develop new and acceptable alternatives in order to respond to a need for better environmental stewardship. The biased nature of knowledge was discussed, i.e., that is to say, the source of knowledge brings different perspectives. Nonetheless, there is a need for a relevant knowledge base of intersecting fields of science. This knowledge needs to be better integrated. In order to strengthen the knowledge base, there may be a requirement to review the environmental legislation. With respect to the life cycle approach, would this imply a different approach to the assessment of GM foods i.e., different from the current product based approach? If so, there will be a need to clearly define what a “Life Cycle Approach” will include. If the process is significantly different, there will be definite capacity issues. In addition, there will be a need to create incentives to encourage stakeholders to participate in the process. Some participants felt that underlying international principles are fundamentally weak (e.g., elements of the Biosafety Protocol). In addition, there is division amongst the scientific communities on these issues. A broad framework will be feasible, but countries will need to develop their own guidelines specific to their own environments. Canada may have much at stake in this area, given that a significant portion of our GNP is derived from export products. With respect to GM food assessments and scientific research, there was general agreement that these activities were desirable. Significant GM food assessment procedures will risk causing product delays. With respect to scientific research and expertise, our regulators must be on par or better than product developers. In both cases (i.e., GM food assessments and scientific research), there were questions with respect to accountability, funding and resourcing. Post-market monitoring of risks and benefitsSome detection methods for GM foods/transgenes exist, but we need more and better methods. Traceability and detection are not mutually exclusive methods, but traceability is more consistent with an audit trail methodology in which the process by which a product was produced (or its origin) is known. Both will be needed because of international agreements being developed. Industry is currently responsible for auditing for any special requirements applied by regulators as a condition for approval of a GM product. In 80% of the cases, farmers are compliant. Concern was expressed regarding the non-compliance of the remaining 20%. These farmers may not be informed or may have a perception that the audit is not entirely necessary. Canada requires baseline data regarding general food consumption, not just data for GM foods. All categories of food should be part of this programs, including GM foods. To some this is seen as a costly exercise with limited relative benefit. A proposal for consumption data for GM food only is also based on an assumption that these foods are inherently different from other foods. In fact, some felt that GM foods (or the process by which they are developed) are fundamentally different. Data regarding sales/usage/export/imports is being developed in certain communities (relationship to traceability was noted). However, there will be a need to provide incentives to share the data. Some issues of parochialism and proprietary information will come to the fore. The majority of the regulators reassessment processes are ad hoc. However, the Bt Corn reassessment could be a model for other formalized reassessment processes (e.g. soybean). Formalizing the reassessment process will not automatically create the new information needed to re-evaluate the product. How will we ensure that new knowledge regarding GM products is amassed and is used properly? As with other issues, there are capacity issues that must be addressed. The underlying values which could assist in developing policy in this area are as follows:Group C felt that some of these items were “values”, while others were “principles. A compromise position was reached. This list is to be considered “things that are valued”, be they values or principles.
Theme D - Regulatory SystemSeparation and independence of regulatory functionsThe current separation of the promoter and regulator functions in the regulatory system is considered adequate as there are strict controls on the role and independence of the regulatory function. The main challenge remains communication to the Canadian public in order to maintain public trust, addressing the adequacy of the regulatory process, the specifics of the safety regime and the separation of regulatory functions from promotion. Additionally, an opportunity for public input into the regulatory framework is required (2 way communication). Related concerns:
Capability and capacity in the regulatory systemThe regulatory system more than likely will need additional resources given current and increased demands projected, as well as the expanding regulatory scope expected to cover the entire food chain including the R&D through producer to the product at the consumer level. The regulatory function will need enhanced scientific expertise as well as broader multidisciplinary expertise. We should draw on expertise outside the regulatory system both inside and outside the country to augment the capacity. As well, there is a requirement on a global level to develop a shared strategy to ensure that the approaches and standards that ensure food safety, production and sustainability are consistent internationally – this would help reduce the burden of regulatory requirements across products and countries . We should not lose sight of the fact that Canada is currently a world leader in terms of food safety, and we should be proud of it, and be careful to not reduce our own standards as a result of international developments and relationships. It should be noted that the public in general no longer understands the food system. This represents a significant education challenge - one that actually goes beyond GM foods. Ensuring safety during research and development activitiesCurrent regulations and voluntary guidelines covering R&D (before regulatory assessment) are seen as adequate. What would be helpful is the consolidation of these regulations and guidelines to bring clarity and focus and to identify if there are any gaps. However, the degree to which the guidelines are being followed should be examined more closely. As well, we have taken a reactionary approach to communicating the actual rigour and effectiveness associated with the R&D practices and guidelines, and as a result left the system open to potential concern and fear. What remains unclear are the levels or stages of research that are regulated. Do current regulations adequately cover industry research, knowing the incredible speed at which new developments are being made? Regulations should not be the only way common standards are being identified and followed in R&D (and in biotech processes in general), which suggests the need for a balance between regulations, guidelines, and best practices. The underlying values which could assist in developing policy in this area are as follows:
Theme E - Social and Ethical ConsiderationsDuring the afternoon break-out sessions participants began by discussing broader social and ethical questions as they related to GM foods. Following this, the groups were asked to react, discuss and provide feedback on a GMF acceptability/non-acceptability spectrum framework that has been introduced and that has evolved over the course of these stakeholder workshops on GM food. Under this framework, GM products would be analysed and placed on a spectrum ranging from acceptable to unacceptable (i.e. banned). GM products would be characterised either as: acceptable; acceptable with conditions; unacceptable at the present time (i.e. moratorium - unacceptable until more is known or a given standard is met); or, not acceptable under any circumstances. Products or groups/classes of products could be analysed against criteria (that could be developed) and placed in an appropriate location on the spectrum. Products could move on the spectrum as more is known/validated or threshold standards are met. The approach would be developed outside of the existing regulatory process - which is science and risk based. The various possible mechanisms for implementing this framework would need to be explored, including the relationship and complementarity of this activity with the regulatory system and with the broader governance structure. Group AChallenges
Potential Ways Ahead
Group BChallenges
Potential Ways Ahead
Group COverview discussion – Broad social/ethical considerations
Reactions to the GMF Acceptability/Non-acceptability Spectrum Framework
Group DChallenges
Potential Ways Ahead
Reactions to the GMF Acceptability/Non-acceptability Spectrum Framework Likes (the aspects the group found attractive)
Dislikes/Concerns (the aspects the group was concerned about)
Summary of key valuesParticipants discussed values and principles related to governance and the regulatory system. The following were raised and most widely supported: Values for shaping the regulatory systemTop five:
Other values discussed in groups and supported by some, but not selected as most important include:
Values for shaping policy choicesTop five:
Other values discussed in groups and supported by some, but not selected as most important include:
Closing ideas and guidance to CBACThis section outlines the final three or four suggestions made by participants as final thoughts/advice for future consideration by CBAC. These suggestions should not be considered to be consensus views of any of the groups. General
Please note that similar reports from each of the five CBAC stakeholder workshops on The Regulation of GM Foods, conducted across Canada from April 2nd to April 10th 2001, will be posted on the CBAC web site. As well, results from all five workshops will be integrated into a single roll-up report that will also be available on the CBAC web site by the end of the month. Please visit the CBAC web site at www.cbac-cccb.ca or call the CBAC toll-free number at 1-866-748-2222 for additional information or documentation related to this or other CBAC projects. |
![]() |
![]() |
http://cbac-cccb.ca | ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
Created: 2005-07-13 Updated: 2006-07-10 ![]() |
![]() Top of Page ![]() |
Important Notices![]() |