Biotech and labels in Canada, Update 2003

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 000915 SIPDIS DEPARTMENT EB FOR PDAS DONNELLY, EB/TPP/ABT (KLEMM, MALAC),WHA/CAN (NORMAN & RUNNING),WHA/MEX, WHA/NAFTA (DERHAM) WHITE HOUSE FOR NSC/NEC (CLOUD) DEPARTMENT PASS USTR (WHITE) USDA FOR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (HEGWOOD) USDA FOR FAS (SLUTSKY) USDA FOR APHIS (MCCAMMON, ENRIGHT, DUNAHAY) HHS FOR FDA/CFSAN (MARYANSKI AND LAKE) E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EAGR ETRD SENV TBIO CA SUBJECT: Biotech and labels in Canada, Update 2003 Ref (A) 2002 OTTAWA 1115 (Biotech Labels Update 2002) (B) 2001 OTTAWA 3297 (Mandatory Labels Defeated) (C) 2002 OTTAWA 1707 (Committee Rejects Labels) -------------- Summary -------------- ¶1. There remains considerable political support for a mandatory labeling scheme by many Liberal party backbench Members of Parliament. This fact, coupled with the news that the effort to produce a voluntary biotech labeling standard is moribund may lead to a recrudescence of the issue and new pressure for government mandated action. But an about face in Canadian government policy is unlikely since the PM and his cabinet continue to support voluntary, rather than mandatory, labeling. End summary. -------------- Government and Parliamentary Activity -------------- ¶2. Prime Minister Chrtien, his senior advisors and the members of the Cabinet (in particular the ministers of Health, Agriculture and Industry) support voluntary labeling. They remain engaged on this file and are aware of USG concerns and implications of divergent labeling policies. Despite the Cabinet agreement on this issue, there remains significant support for mandatory labeling among the rank and file members of the Liberal caucus. (Ref A) ¶3. Indeed, another mandatory labeling bill (Bill C-220) was introduced in the House of Commons in October 2002. A reincarnation of Charles Caccia's Bill C-287, which caused so much concern in autumn 2001 (Ref B),the bill was spiked when it passed through a government- controlled committee in parliament who decided it did not meet the criteria to be eligible for a vote in parliament (among other things, it would have had to have been a revenue neutral proposition and not disruptive to reigning government policy). This bill cannot be resubmitted for the rest of this parliamentary session (which will conclude only at the next election probably about 24 months from now). ¶4. With respect to parliamentary committee action, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food released its report examining the impact of mandatory and/or voluntary labeling of transgenic foods on farmers and the agri-food industry in June 2002. The brief report's four recommendations support the maintenance of a voluntary labeling approach toward biotech foods (Ref C). ¶5. The Standing Committee on Health, however, which had the initial ministerial mandate to study this issue, had suspended its investigation into this matter in mid- April 2002 due to other more pressing commitments. The Committee recommenced its study on March 26, 2003. The Health committee has been less receptive to the voluntary approach. Its final report (due possibly before the Codex Committee on Food Labeling in Ottawa in May) will likely be less consistent with the USG position than the Agriculture Committee report. -------------- Voluntary labeling standard appears moribund -------------- ¶6. The government has from the start hoped that a voluntary standard developed by a broad array of stakeholders will serve to diffuse the pressure for mandatory labeling found among many the rank and file Liberal members of parliament. The voluntary labeling initiative has, however, been a slow and unsteady process. And things continue to unravel in the three and a half year old process, which was anticipated to require only 18 months to conclude (it began in September 1999). ¶7. Doryne Peace, chairwoman of the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) committee on voluntary labeling has warned that her committee may have to throw in the towel for lack of progress. Consensus on the proposed standard has not been achieved and no party is willing to budge from their entrenched positions to accommodate a successful resolution to the impasse. ¶8. Observers agree that a failure of the voluntary standard effort will likely reinvigorate the effort within the backbench ranks of the Liberal caucus to establish a mandatory labeling law, nevertheless every indication is that the government will continue to oppose a mandatory labeling policy. Cellucci