International Initiatives Respecting Scientific Assessment of Safety of Genetically Modified Crops and Food

July 12, 2000

Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee Advisory Memorandum

International Initiatives Respecting Scientific Assessment of Safety of Genetically Modified Crops and Food

1. In May of this year, Sir Robert May (Chief Scientific Adviser and Head of Office of Science and Technology UK), in discussion with the Chair of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC), noted that a proposal to establish an “International Panel of Scientists to Assess GM Food and Crop Safety” was contained in a background paper intended for submission to the Carnegie Meeting of G8 Science Ministers in Bordeaux, June 23-25, 2000.

2. The proposal was discussed at CBAC’s June 22, 2000 meeting in the context of CBAC’s major project: Regulation of GM Food in Canada. The project includes a review of multilateral efforts relating to GM food regulation, the identification of relevant international “best-practices” and standards, and the provision of advice to the Biotechnology Ministerial Co-ordinating Committee (BMCC) in relation to Canada’s position in multilateral initiatives involving GM foods. A representative from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) provided a detailed briefing in regard to the aforementioned United Kingdom proposal as well as other related multilateral initiatives.

3. At its June 26-27 meeting, the OECD Council of Ministers invited the OECD to consider holding an international conference to address the environmental impacts of genetically modified organisms. The meeting’s final communiqué also indicated that the OECD would “...continue to undertake analytical work and to play an effective role in international policy dialogue on food safety, maintaining its engagement with civil society and to share its work in this area with countries outside the Organization’s membership.”

4. Although international initiatives in relation to safety of GM foods is among the topics to receive further examination by CBAC, the following observations are offered as preliminary advice to the BMCC in view of the forthcoming multilateral intergovernmental discussions to take place in the next few weeks.

The UK Proposal

5. Sir Robert May’s background paper notes that the Chair of the OECD Edinburgh Conference, Sir John Krebs, put the proposal for an international panel forward. It is conceived as bringing scientists together “to discuss and evaluate the best available scientific evidence. It should clarify areas of scientific fact or certainty and, where it exists, the lack of certainty on the key issues. In doing this it should reflect the majority scientific view, but crucially, also include the views of dissenters. This, together with independence from government, would help demonstrate to the public the full and open discussion of the risks and benefits of GM products, by an authoritative but all inclusive group, in a rigorous and transparent way.” The proposed panel is conceived of as being analogous to the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, the context of the GM food debate is different from that which existed when discussion of the IPPC was first enjoined. This relates both to the level of consensus on science issues and the fact that numerous inter-governmental bodies already exist to examine issues related to GM foods and crops. It is therefore desirable to evaluate the applicability and acceptability of the IPCC model in depth before adopting it in the case of GM foods and crops.

6. The driving force behind the UK proposal is the fact that public confidence in the integrity and efficacy of the food regulatory system in the UK and in several other European countries has been seriously eroded. The same situation does not currently exist in Canada: a majority of Canadians continue to express confidence in our domestic regulatory instruments. Given the many social and ethical issues to which GM foods give rise and the role of these concerns in contributing to the corrosiveness of the debate over GM foods in some countries, it is not clear what added value the creation of a new expert scientific panel would provide in reconciling entrenched positions arising from these non-scientific issues.

7. Canada is at the forefront of research into food biotechnology and is an important exporter of GMOs. Accordingly, Canada has a compelling interest in ensuring that the regime governing multilateral trade provides clear rules, consistently applied and enforced, that enable potential disputes to be resolved quickly and effectively. It is not clear how the advice or recommendations emanating from the proposed Panel might be reconciled with initiatives emerging through the multilateral trading system, or what legal or moral status may eventually be ascribed to its recommendations.

Given the several matters requiring clarification with respect to the UK proposal for a standing international panel of scientists to assess GM food and crop safety, CBAC’s advice is to seek such clarification before considering whether or not Canada’s interests would be advanced through support for, or participation in such an initiative.

The OECD and Related Initiatives

8. In regard to the OECD proposal and related multilateral initiatives, CBAC notes that there are several multilateral agencies and advisory mechanisms tasked with monitoring, examining or regulating one or another discrete aspect of GM foods (e.g. the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the FAO and the WHO). We are therefore heartened that the OECD proposal stated, “...the work of the OECD will effectively complement, without duplication, the activities of other international organizations, in particular the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization.”

9. CBAC notes that while there is a need to clarify the mandates of some multilateral agencies in relation to GM Foods, and to strengthen the capacities of others, there is currently no acknowledged focal point within the multilateral system to facilitate policy exchanges or to address (and to the extent possible reconcile) the full range of issues to which food biotechnology gives rise.

Accordingly, CBAC is supportive in principle of the establishment of an over-arching multilateral mechanism that will serve to clarify and address the full range of scientific and non-scientific issues associated with GM foods.

It is desirable that the following attributes be incorporated in such a mechanism:

Status

• It should be under the aegis of a body representative of both developed and developing countries. For example, under the UN system, it could be part of an existing UN agency or forum, or a new UN entity.
  
  
• It should complement the activities of existing multilateral mechanisms and forums (including any international scientific panel(s) that may be established) and, to the extent possible, promote harmonization of their activities in relation to GM foods.

Mandate

• It should operate in an exclusively advisory capacity.
  
  
• It should seek to address the full range of issues- both scientific and nonscientific-associated with GM foods simultaneously, rather than discretely and should focus on clarifying issues and identifying areas of consensus and disagreement.
  
  
• It should establish a research agenda to bridge knowledge gaps in relation to the science of GM foods, their safety and potential long-term and cumulative health and environmental effects.

Membership

• Its membership should be inclusive in terms of developed and developing countries.
  
  
• Its members should be selected from lists provided by member countries developed pursuant to an open, domestic public nomination process.
  
  
• Its members should be autonomous, and appointed for fixed, non-renewable terms, solely on the basis of their technical knowledge or expertise.

Operation & Activities

• It should be funded entirely by developed countries to a level sufficient to fulfill its mandate.
  
  
• It should convene an annual meeting of the heads of existing national and international advisory bodies on GM foods.
  
  
• It should work collaboratively, on an as-requested basis, with domestic government departments or agencies in supporting broad citizen awareness and engagement activities in relation to the development, use and regulation of GM foods.