MEDIA RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 11, 2000

(OTTAWA) In its response to a petition filed through the Auditor General's Act last May, the federal government acknowledges weaknesses in its regulation of genetically altered foods.

The petition was submitted by the Sierra Legal Defense Fund on behalf of the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy (CIELAP), the Council of Canadians and Drs. Ann Clark and Bert Christie.

"This report confirms many of the concerns we have about the gross inadequacy of the existing rules," said Jennifer Story, Health Protection Campaigner for the Council of Canadians. "The government refuses to ask and answer the hard questions about the safety of genetic engineering."

The government does not adequately address the question of sustainable development," said Anne Mitchell, Executive Director of CIELAP. "They remain silent on the crucial question: Do GMOs contribute to an environmentally and socially sustainable agriculture and food system? Their risk assessment is narrow and does not adequately assess any potential long-term risks involved."

According to its written response, the federal government:

• acknowledges the lack of regulations for research on GE fish, research that is being currently conducted with government funds, and in government facilities (p. 17)
• admits the complete reliance on data provided by proponents to understand the potential impacts of GMOs (p. 22)
• admits it does not require long-term safety studies (p. 28), and
• acknowledges that they are doing no post-release monitoring, relying instead on the biotech companies to report any problems (p. 23).

At the same time, the government firmly denies other criticisms contained in the petition. They provide a very robust claim that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) isn't in a conflict of interest and that it doesn't participate in promotional activities. A quick visit to the CFIA Web site, however, provides access to documents with titles like "The benefits of food biotechnology."

"Instead of soliciting the input of the citizens they claim to serve, government continues to deny the public the opportunity - any opportunity - to contribute to the approval process," says Dr. E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor, University of Guelph. "It is not difficult to see who benefits, and who is disenfranchised, by the systematical refusal to allow citizens to access the data that forms the basis of the approval - even after the approval has been granted."

-30-