Regulating genetically modified crops and foods in Canada and the United Kingdom: Democratizing risk regulation

Canadian Public Administration

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 305-327

  Hartley, Sarah ^a,b   Skogstad, Grace ^c  

^a Genome British Columbia ^*  (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 29844458035     PISSN: 00084840     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-7121.2005.tb00228.x     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. What is described here as "functional democracy" is often referred to as "associative democracy." See Joshua Cohen and Joel Rogers, Associations and Democracy (London: Verso, 1995). The term functional democracy is preferred because it directs attention to the rationale for non-state actor participation and because individuals, and not only associations, can be parties to functional democracy. Corporatist forms of decision-making are a good example of functional democracy.
2. The term "participatory democracy" is preferred to "direct democracy" to capture the notion that citizens are given participation opportunities that fall short of exercising the authority that "direct democracy" implies.
3. The issue of corporate control arises because of vertical integration of the GM seed and herbicide/pesticide industries, and intellectual property laws which give biotechnology developers patent rights over GM crops and plants and prohibit farmers from retaining GM crops for replanting as seed for subsequent crops.
4. This prospect is held out by theories of discursive or deliberative democracy, of which the work of J. Habermas is viewed as pioneering. See his Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, transl. W. Rehg (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996).
5. For a good overview of the deliberative democracy literature, see Simone Chambers, "Deliberative democratic theory," Annual Review of Political Science 6 (June 2003), pp. 307-26.
6. The CFIA is responsible for field trials of crop plants and approval of any GM animal feed. Health Canada is responsible for food safety assessment and for labelling rules pertaining to food safety. Determinations of substantial equivalence are based on similarities and differences in composition of the novel and conventional food, including nutritional value and toxicity.
7. New regulations, the 1993 Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology, were developed under the existing Seeds Act. For a detailed examination of the origins and substance of the Canadian biotechnology framework, see Elizabeth Moore, "Science, Internationalization, and Policy Networks: Regulating Genetically-Engineered Food Crops in Canada and the United States, 1973-1998" (Unpublished Ph.D diss., the University of Toronto, 2000).
8. Canada, Parliament, House of Commons, Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, Proceedings (Ottawa: Government Services and Public Works Canada, 1996).
9. Besides Charles Caccia, Bloc Québécois MP Helene Alaire, and NDP MP Judy Wasylcia-Leis introduced legislation to require GM foods to be labelled.
10. The House of Commons health committee soon abandoned the labelling issue when the minister of health referred another issue to it for consideration.
11. Bloc Québécois and NDP members of the committee issued a minority report recommending mandatory labelling of GM foods.
12. Canada, Parliament, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Agriculture and AgriFood, Capturing the Advantage: Agricultural Biotechnology in the New Millennium (Ottawa: Government Services and Public Works Canada, 1998).
13. Moore, "Science, Internationization," p. 115 reports that a private sector task force on biotechnology was established in 1980 to advise the government of Canada. Another advisory committee is composed of public and private technical experts who recommend whether new grain varieties (including GM grains) should be registered for sale in Canada.
14. Moore, "Science, Internationization," Ibid., p. 307.
15. Moore, "Science, Internationization," Ibid., p. 130, reports that draft regulations for plant biotechnology were sent in 1994 "to more than 2,000 organizations and individuals, and revised regulatory amendments in 1996 to 1,500 organizations and individuals, allowing for a sixty-day comment period." Further, "At the 1993 workshop, AAFC [Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada] acknowledged that its consultations had focused initially on gathering technical input from the scientific community and that it recognized the importance of consulting other interested individuals and organizations."
16. Moore, "Science, Internationization," Ibid., p. 275, n. 33 reports that an agriculture department official stated that the 1993 consultations were to focus on the scientific data requirements to assess the safety of GM products. As part of these consultations, a special session was held on "non-regulatory issues." On the latter
17. see Elisabeth Abergel and Katherine Barrett, "Putting the cart before the horse: A review of biotechnology policy in Canada," Journal of Canadian Studies 37, no. 3 (Fall 2002), pp. 135-61.
18. In May 2002, the CFIA invited sixty-five organizations and individuals as "experts or direct stakeholders" to solicit their input on proposed revisions.
19. The CBAC office is located in a government department, Industry Canada. It is a paid member of BIOTECanada, an advocacy group for biotechnology companies. See James Baxter, "Government paying to lobby itself: Industry Canada is a member - and a client - of group organized to influence biotech policy," Ottawa Citizen, 10 April 2000, p. A1.
20. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, Improving the Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods and other Novel Foods in Canada. Report to the Government of Canada Biotechnology Ministerial Coordinating Committee, 2002. Government of Canada BioPortal (website). Available at: http://cbac-ccab.ca/epic/internet/incbac-cccb.nsf/vwGeneratedInterE/ah00186e. html.
21. As reported by Sarah Staples, "Public wants GM food labelled: Poll finds majority willing to pay more to clearly identify modified products," Ottawa Citizen, 12 June 2002, p. A1.
22. Expert Panel, Royal Society of Canada, Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada (Ottawa: Royal Society of Canada, 2001), p. 214.
23. This conclusion was based on the expert panel's observation that regulators used the concept of substantial equivalence to exempt GM products from rigorous scientific assessment. See chapter 7 of Elements of Precaution.
24. Such an independent forum would be a way to avoid what the expert panel saw as a conflict of interest created by regulatory agencies having a dual mandate: to regulate and promote the biotechnology industry. The expert panel's recommendations for greater involvement of outside experts in risk assessments and public disclosure of the data on which safety assessments are made were subsequently supported by the CBAC in its 2002 report entitled Improving the Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods and Other Novel Foods in Canada.
25. United Kingdom, Parliament, Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, News Release, New Millennium Needs New Approach to Making Environmental Policies, 7 October 1998 (London: RCEP, 1998).
26. United Kingdom, Parliament, House of Commons Select Committee on Environmental Audit, Genetically Modified Organisms and the Environment: Coordination of Government Policy. Fifth Report (London: HMSO, 1999), para 36.
27. Genetically Modified Organisms and the Environment: Coordination of Government Policy, Ibid., para. 38.
28. United Kingdom, Parliament, House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, Science and Society. Third Report (London: HMSO, 2000), p. 17.
29. Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment, Annual Report No. 6 (London: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 1999). Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/annrep6/index.htm.
30. Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, Crops on Trial (London: AEBC, 2001), p. 16.
31. Crops on Trial, Ibid. p. 12.
32. GM Science Review Panel, Full Review of GM Science Published Today. Press Release, 21 July 2003 (London: GM Science Review, 2003).
33. Besides the GM science review noted above, the GM public debate also included an economic cost-benefit study that was conducted within the government but was open to public comment.
34. Tom Horlick-Jones, John Walls, Gene Rowe, Nick Pidgeon, Wouter Poortinga and Tim O'Riordan, "A Deliberative Future? An independent evaluation of the GM nation? public debate about the possible commercialisation of transgenic crops in Britain, 2003," Understanding Risk Working Paper 04-02 (Norwich: University of East Anglia, 2004).
35. United Kingdom, Parliament, House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, GM Foods - Evaluating the Farm Scale Trials. Second Report of Session 2003-04 (London: The Stationery Office, 2004), p. 3.
36. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, News Release: Margaret Beckett Outlines Precautionary Approach To GM Crops, 9 March 2004 (London: DEFRA, 2004).
37. Alan McHughen, "The regulation of GM foods: who represents the public interest?," International Journal 55, no. 4 (Autumn 2000), pp. 624-32 observes that governments no longer have sufficient experts or financial resources to conduct scientific risk assessments. However, a CFIA official testified to the House of Commons standing committee on agriculture and agrifood on 12 June 2003 that government regulators in Canada are doing more in-house work to confirm independently the scientific data submitted by developers.