GM, not Bill C-474, a risk to industry
By Lucy SharrattWestern Producer
April 3, 2010 Bill C-474 would require that “an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.” The bill responds to the fact that if GM crops are commercially released in Canada but are not also approved for safety in our export markets, farmers will lose those markets. I have a bit of trouble with this statement in the article, though…. “Zero tolerance is a scientific decision that would be extremely hard for any country to justify overturning.” Adjustments to zero tolerance policies are necessary in order to ensure trade flows and to service economies with needed product. The current shortage of livestock feed sources in the EU is evidence of that.
Here is a collected of comments/quotes from the April 1, 2010 debate on C-474
http://www.cban.ca/Take-Action/Act-Now/April-1-Debate-on-Bill-C-474
Comments at today’s CGC in Winnipeg suggest that the passing of Bill C-474 is detrimental to industry sustainability and development in Canada. According to one speaker, our current position in terms of production of canola and our role as global leader would not be if the Bill were in place when the crop was originally developed.
Further to this…check out Allen Dawson’s article in the Manitoba Cooperator of May 27,2010 – Will Bill C-474 Kill Research? Biotech companies say it could – http://www.agcanada.com/Article.aspx?ID=23068 “GM developers say they already take market impact into account and including socio-economic considerations, in a “science-based” regulatory system creates uncertainty that will discourage research.“You wouldn’t have canola in Canada if 474 went through,” JoAnne Buth, president of the Canola Council of Canada told the Canada Grains Council’s 41st annual meeting in Winnipeg April 19.“If we moved away from science-based (regulation) and put a socio-economic evaluation in there they (GM developers) would walk away from canola.”