(OTTAWA) The Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy (CIELAP), Council of Canadians, Professor E. Ann Clark of the University of Guelph and Professor Bert Christie of the University of Prince Edward Island, represented by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, today filed a petition under the Auditor General Act against the federal government for failing to protect public health and the environment in regulating genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Under the Act, the government is required to respond to the challenge within 120 days.

The petition requests a review of all federal laws and regulations governing genetically modified foods, animals, fish, trees, insects and animal feed. The petitioners charge that the current regime is inadequate to protect public health and the environment, fails to meet Canada's international environmental obligations to protect biological diversity, and is inconsistent with the principles of sustainable development.

"The current regime is constructed on a foundation of inadequate legislation and regulations, deficient science, and institutionalized conflict of interest. It is simply not good enough to protect the health and environment of Canadians. Fundamental reform is required" said Dr. Mark Winfield, Director of Research with the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy.

"The existing framework was not created to deal with the multitude of human health, environmental, social and ethical problems cropping up, because these issues are new and unique to GMOs, said Melanie Steiner, project lawyer with Sierra Legal Defence Fund. We are asking the federal government to address these issues and to promulgate laws that are more protective and comprehensive."

Under the Auditor General Act, a petition can be filed about environmental matters. The Auditor General is obliged to forward the petition to the responsible federal department within fifteen days of the date on which it is received. After considering the petition, the appropriate Ministers (including Health Canada and Environment Canada) are under a duty to respond.

"It is unbelievable that common food additives such as sweeteners have to be labelled, but foods that are being tampered with at the genetic level do not," said Jennifer Story, Health Protection Campaigner for the Council of Canadians. "Consumers are paying the price by being denied the right to choose what they want to eat."

But it is not just the lack of labelling that is problematic; the entire risk assessment process for GMOs is flawed. "The government has chosen to rush products to market prematurely without ensuring their safety," said Dr. E. Ann Clark. "There is no way that the government in good conscience can say that it is protecting the health of its citizens and the environment." Furthermore, "the federal risk assessment process is based entirely on data provided by industry, like big seed companies. This lack of independent government testing is a serious abdication of public responsibility," added Dr. Bert Christie.

The citizens' petition requests that the relevant federal departments: enact new legislation specifically to deal with GMOs; remove all institutional conflicts of interest; undertake rigorous, thorough, independent and transparent assessments of GMOs before they are allowed to enter the marketplace; and provide mandatory labelling of foods derived from GMOs. The government must respond to the Petition by September 4, 2000.