captured for regulatory scrutiny) and those foods producedwithGMOs (which, like the
cheeses, are curiously exempt). Considering the public anxiety in Europe surrounding
GMOs, it seems odd that the general public would appreciate the distinction between
fromandwithto the extent that a food madefromGMOs faces a heavy regulatory
burden while a similar one, posing similar (insignificant) risk, madewithGMOs gets a
free pass without so much as a label.
Unfortunately, although the EU documents all claim to stem for a concern to protect
health and the environment from risks associated with GMOs, nowhere are such risks docu-
mented and ascribed to GMOs specifically. Nevertheless, the EU strictly regulates almost
all aspects of agricultural biotechnology and resulting products, making EU-approved
products the most scrutinized and likely safest products ever to reach the commercial
marketplace.
Interestingly, the United States, Canada, and Argentina brought suit against the EU in
the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming that these regulatory measures were
illegal because they appeared to discriminate against “foreign” products of biotechnology
and served as an illegal trade barrier. The WTO agreed, but the final resolution, if there
is one, will probably take several years. A major issue is the focus on the assumed risks
posed by biotechnology and its products. With scientific studies worldwide unable to docu-
ment any health or environmental risks unique to GMOs, the EU was hard-pressed to justify
their position in establishing regulations to protect against health and environment against
“the risks inherent in GMOs.” Indeed, European scientists have been actively busy search-
ing for such risks for several years. According to Kessler and Economidis (2001), the
European Commission itself spent 70 million euros to fund 81 research projects employing
400 teams of scientists between 1984 and 2000 to characterize risks associated with GMOs.
Not one risk unique to GMOs was documented.
12.3.3 Canada
Canada remains unique worldwide for recognizing that risk is posed by potentially
hazardous products, not by the process by which the products are made, and captures for
regulatory oversight “novel” products, even some not developed using rDNA or other
forms of biotechnology. Currently, all other jurisdictions use a process-based trigger for
regulatory capture, and that process is rDNA (although the legal definitions of “rDNA”
and “biotechnology” do vary considerably). To date, Canada remains the only country
where the conclusions of the scientific community (viz., that breeding process is unrelated
to risk) have been adopted into the regulatory practice. Once regulatory action is triggered,
however, differing jurisdictions are remarkably consistent in their scientific risk
assessments.
Canada assigns regulatory responsibility to three main federal agencies: the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Health Canada, and the Canadian Environmental
Protection Agency (CEPA). Health Canada is responsible for food safety exclusively,
while offices within CFIA are concerned with environmental issues and threats to animal
feed. CEPA provides an insurance “catchall,” capturing anything that appears to “fall
through the cracks” or find “loopholes” to avoid regulatory scrutiny altogether. The
“novel plant” approvals by CFIA in Canada can be found at http://www.inspection.gc.
ca/english/plaveg/bio/dde.shtml.
300 REGULATIONS AND BIOSAFETY