Basic HTML Version
“The conversation has been raised
to a national level, and needs a national
solution,” she explained.
Stephen Yarrow is vice-president for
plant biotechnology at CropLife Canada,
an industry association representing the
biotechnology sector. Canada currently
does not require GMO labelling, and
Yarrow said that implementing such a
system could be very costly given the
pace of technological change.
A black-and-white, GMO-versus-non-
GMO labelling requirement would be
too simplistic, he said.
Many processed foods contain
canola oil and fructose from corn,
Yarrow said, and these crops are
almost uniformly GMO. Therefore,
any mandatory label would appear on
virtually all processed foods.
“The vast majority of processed
foods will have to be labelled as
containing GMO, so it becomes almost
meaningless.”
In addition, Yarrow said, it’s unclear
how such a label would keep pace with
new ingredients that will be produced
with next-generation techniques, such as
DNA editing.
“You can imagine in five to 10 years
a lot of varieties of today’s crops will be
improved by these new techniques,”
he said. “In terms of what should be
labelled, it’s a moving target.”
In the face of strict government
regulations on labels, some sectors
aremoving toward industry standards
expressed in the formof brands.
John Masswohl, director of
government and international
relations for the Canadian Cattlemen’s
Association, said the beef industry knows
all too well the negative effects heavy
government regulations can have. Herds
of cattle frequently move back-and-
forth across the Canada–U.S. border,
he explained, and therefore sometimes
the beef produced from those animals
might not meet the strict criteria to qualify
for a voluntary “Product of Canada”
label. According to CFIA guidelines for
a “Product of Canada” claim to be valid,
beef must be produced from cattle that
have been fed at least 60 days in Canada,
so beef from cattle that have been
exported and re-imported into Canada
might not be eligible for the label.
Canadian beef producers have also
been devastated by the introduction of
mandatory Country of Origin Labelling
(COOL) in the United States, Masswohl
said, which acts as a de-facto trade
barrier. Because a USA label can only
be used when the beef comes from
cattle born, raised and processed in the
U.S., COOL forces U.S. companies to
sort, label and store meat from Canada
differently than meat from domestic
sources. This special treatment is
expensive, and some companies have
stopped buying cattle from Canadian
feedlots as a result.
In response to these regulatory
hurdles, the industry in Canada took
another route and developed the
“Canadian Beef” brand.
“The words ‘Canadian Beef’ are
a brand—it’s not a government
regulation—and is subject to the brand
promise we control,” he said. “And if
anyone wanted to look at what it means,
they can look at our website and see
what the brand promise is.”
Masswohl said consumers have come to
trust the Canadian Beef brand, featuring a
maple leaf, as a signifier of quality.
Similar action is being taken in the
poultry sector.
Grocery chain Sobeys, for example,
recently launched a branding program
called “Better Food For All” under which
all its poultry must be humanely raised.
As a result, consumers have seen the
“Certified Humane” brand on poultry
product labels.
In 2003, Adele Douglass launched
Humane Farm Animal Care, which runs
the Certified Humane voluntary labelling
program. To use this label, producers
must meet strict treatment standards—
including a mandatory six-hour dark
period for poultry—and abide by strict
slaughter standards.
When it comes to food labels,
Douglass said, “natural” and “free range”
are among the most misunderstood. She
added that when consumers see a new
label, they need to do a lot of research
before they really understand how
legitimate it is.
“Make sure you know what that
standard means,” she explained.
With new regulations coming down
the line, Wilkes said the government
should not be too cavalier or heavy-
handed when introducing changes
to labelling requirements, and should
phase them in gradually so changes can
be incorporated into new batches as
they are made.
“Labelling changes can be very
expensive for industry and these
costs are ultimately passed on to
consumers,” he said. “Especially for
poorer families where price is more
important than accuracy in labelling,
this is not helpful.”
The Food Issue
2014
Grains
West
20