Royal Society of Canada report on GM food regulation sparks allegations of political bias

Members of the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) expert panel that produced a groundbreaking report on the regulation of genetically modified (GM) foods were unprepared for the storm of controversy generated by the document’s observations and recommendations when they were publicly unveiled last month. Despite the volatility of the subject of genetically modified foods, the severity of the criticism from its inevitable detractors and the magnitude of praise from supporters threatened to bury the scientific details contained within the massive list of 53 recommendations (www.rsc.ca).

Commissioned by Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) , the report is a consensus document intended to provide long-term advice to government on the regulatory system and scientific capacity required to better ensure safety. Entitled Elements of Precaution: Recommendations For the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada, it breaks its recommendations down into four areas (see box) and devotes specific chapters to two controversial and opposing concepts for assessing the risk of GM foods — substantial equivalence and the precautionary principle.

SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE

It is the panel’s rejection of the use of substantial equivalence that has generated the most criticism of the report. In essence, the report deems the use of substantial equivalence as a decision threshold to exempt GM foods from scientific assessment to be “scientific unjustifiable and inconsistent with precautionary regulation of the technology”. It goes on to argue that the precautionary principle has “both scientific and regulatory validity” and recommends its use as “an axiom of Canadian regulatory policy”. The report ends by examining what it considers to be issues that threaten to undermine the scientific basis for risk regulation in Canada, and establishes guidelines for mandatory and voluntary labelling of GM foods based on health risks.

Not surprisingly, such an approach appeared as a red flag to the supporters of unfettered marketplace capitalism, with the most vicious attacks coming from The National Post. In that paper, it was stated that the report is “a universal catalogue of regulatory overkill” intended to drown GM foods “in a bathtub of regulation” by embracing “the full perversity of the precautionary principle”.

Others who have generally praised the report’s insights and call for a strong regulatory approach to GM foods also question the authors’ comments on substantial equivalence, alleging that the panel didn’t properly understand its use.

“It’s only used as a basis of comparison and not used to exempt products from regulatory oversight,” says BIOTECanada president Joyce Groote. “Some (of the report’s recommendations) would require some pretty fundamental changes in the regulatory and policy areas and could subject us to differences under international agreements.”

For its part, the expert panel rejects allegations that the report said substantial equivalence was being used to exempt products. Dr Conrad Brunk is the expert panel’s co-chair and academic dean and philosophy professor at the Univ of Waterloo’s Conrad Grebel College.

“We did not say it was used to exempt products, but if you look at CFIA documents, you can read them two different ways,” says Brunk. “If you look at the decision tree, it looks like it can be used to exempt products from regulation and this is not acceptable. The point is to substantiate with evidence that a new (GM) plant does not pose any more risk than a normal plant. In our mandate we were not asked to assess the economic or political implications of these risks, and I’m taken aback by a lot of this criticism coming from industry.”

Charges of political bias have also been leveled at the report’s request that the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC) initiate a review “related to the increasing domination of the public research agenda by private commercial interests”. The report says CBAC should make recommendations for public policy that promotes and protects independent research on the environmental and health risks of agbiotech.

PRIVATE RESEARCH AGENDA

Brunk defends the recommendation as a scientific question of how to maintain the credibility of science in public institutions. “Science must have objectivity and be arm’s length to preserve public confidence and regulators do not have the resources to do these risk assessments. They must rely on science in the public domain and that is often done by the applicant,” he says. “ The agenda of scientific research is inevitably moved in the direction of the advancement of technology if those that are advancing it are also funding the research… Who’s going to pay for research that regulators need to do their work? It’s not going to be done by university researchers who partner with those who fund the research.”

Brunk says the move towards using public research to advance the private research agenda appears to be gathering steam. He says that momentum is being encouraged by many factors, including the Advisory Council on Science and Technology’s expert panel report on the commercialization of university research.

Groote says that CBAC’s examination of the issue isn’t necessary and suggests that increased government funding would take the burden off industry to support research.

Brunk says that the extreme nature of the debate surrounding the report has now subsided somewhat and is slowly converging towards the middle ground. Preparations are underway to meet with the report’s sponsors to discuss its conclusions, recommendations and their possible implementation.

“The first reaction was surprising to us, including the government’s reaction. Health Canada held a press conference right after use where they made some very critical statements, but they have since moderated their comments,” says Brunk. “Press comments made the report appear much more radical and critical than it really is. This was embarrassing for government and for industry. The National Post was very critical and very personal in their attacks. They were unwarranted and unlearned in their comments.”

R$