1. A food safety officer, as proposed in the report, will not address the problem of conflict of interest within the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The CFIA's dual mandate to promote Canadian agriculture and protect the safety of Canadians cannot be corrected simply by the appointment of a figurehead. The department needs to be restructured and the regulations need to be re-written.

2. The call for long-term testing is only meaningful when it is accompanied by a moratorium. Clearly, if we are lacking long-term safety data, GE crops should not be in our food supply.

3. Voluntary labelling with a 5% threshold of GE contamination is meaningless to those who want to know what's in their food. Voluntary labelling has historically meant the identification of niche products that are GE free. Canadians want to know the content of all the foods on the grocery shelves, not just a few boutique products. A 5% threshold is misleading: if consumers buy a product labelled GE-free, shouldn't it actually be GE-free?

In contrast, the Royal Society of Canada's report of last year made several substantive recommendations intended to address environmental and public safety concerns. The government so far has ignored these recommendations, and now appears to be using the CBAC report to undermine the credibility of the Royal Society's recommendations.

"Enough closed door discussions and bogus consultations - this debate should move to the House of Commons where it belongs," says Adam. "It's time for the government to take its head out of the sand and start working for the 90% of Canadians that want mandatory labelling of GMO's."

This fall the House of Commons will be considering Bill C-287, a private members bill on the mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.