Viewing cable 03OTTAWA915, Biotech and labels in Canada, Update 2003

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

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