VANCOUVER—Canadians believe genetically modified food products should have mandatory labelling on all packages, according to a new study aiming to understand how we cope with the biotechnology on our dinner plates.

Despite the overwhelming consensus — roughly 90 per cent surveyed — there’s also a swirl of confusion over the health and safety risks of engineered food. Partipants were split almost evenly on whether health and safety effects are understood.

And most of us don’t know if we’ve consumed GMs or not.

“Almost half of all Canadians believe they haven’t eaten a GM ingredient when in actuality they have,” explained Sylvain Charlebois, lead author and professor of food policy at Dalhousie University. “The confusion is that people don’t understand the technology or how prominent it is in agriculture.”

It is estimated that more than three-quarters of all food products sold in Canada contain at least one GM ingredient. And most of the research, largely funded by food producers, concluded the biotechnology is not linked to health or safety risks, Charlebois said.

Though the GMO debate has been raging since the 90s, Canadians are no longer worried about the food being GMO-free. Growing numbers see this as a socio-economic problem: Price topped the list of concerns, followed by nutritional content and location of production, Charlebois said.

If consumers were given a clear choice, they would better understand the economic benefits of the technology, and products would become cheaper, he argued. These findings could be “good news” for producers if Canadians begin to embrace engineered food.

“Consumers are wondering what’s in it for them,” Charlebois said. “The one thing missing is how we convey risk to the public.”

Unlike Europe, Canada’s labelling policy is voluntary which is why GMs remain a mystery, Charlebois said. A lack of transparency leads to an information void and because of this, “we have a highly polarized debate,” he added.

But it’s not the consumer who is confused: The confusion is because there’s been no clarity from government and industry by refusing to label, said Lucy Sharratt, co-ordinator of Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

“When consumers walk into the grocery store the burden is placed on them,” she explained. “There’s not even transparency at the end point of regulation which is no labelling. The system needs to be opened up for public scrutiny and participation.”

Though Health Canada assesses the safety of every food item on the market, the science behind those decisions is not made public, she explained, noting there are few long-term or independent studies on GMOs.

Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency carry joint responsibility for federal food labelling policies in Canada under the Food and Drugs Act. A spokesperson from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency confirmed labelling standards for GMOs are voluntary, provided the label is not “false or misleading.” But the government is conducting consultations with the goal of modernizing labelling laws, they added.

But the basic question of which foods are modified cannot be answered by our own government, according to Sharratt.

“The federal government knows what is approved for human consumption but don’t actually know what’s for sale,” she said, noting what’s on the market is not tracked. “It can cause a lot of chaos not just for consumers, but all along the food chain.”

Read more:

Cattle industry fighting back against ‘fake meat’ companies

No crying with new onions; some say no taste, either

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Researchers surveyed 1,046 people to measure attitudes and assess trust toward the regulatory system and defined GMs as organisms that have been genetically altered in a way that would not occur naturally before testing.

Findings noted 44 per cent of respondents were unlikely or very unlikely to purchase GMO seafood, followed by notable concern for purchasing engineered livestock.

But, they are much less worried about fruits and vegetables.

Sharratt said that concern is to be expected since the first-ever GM animal — salmon — was sold to Canadians last year when U.S.-based AquaBounty Technologies which has a facility on P.E.I. brought in their first shipment from Panama, creating “a new scandal.”

“The public found out after the sale happened when the company made its financial report,” she explained. “In the meantime, some consumers are avoiding salmon or farmed salmon altogether.”

Findings point to the need for the public and private sector to do a better job of educating consumers, insisted Simon Somogyi, the study’s co-author. In order to address the challenge of feeding more than nine billion people by 2050, biotechnologies will be necessary to produce more food more efficiently.

“I think much of the fear and hysteria associated with GM food has to do with the term ‘modified.’ The word gives a negative impression as opposed to the term ‘engineered’,” he said.

But different terms only points to a lack of labelling, which if it existed, would determine an agreed-upon name for the tech, Sharratt said.

“It’s unfair to talk about confusion when products in the store are not labelled,” she explained. “Consumers deserve clear information about how food is produced. In the case of genetic modification, that information is hidden.”

The results of the survey were considered accurate within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Correction - May 25, 2018: This article was edited from a previous version that misstated Lucy Sharratt’s surname.

Read more about: