The Commons agriculture committee has issued a timely reminder about the purpose of labels on food products in a recent report on the information to consumers on genetically modified foods.Current Health Canada rules only require warnings on labels “when a risk to health has been established or there is a change in nutritional quality,” the report notes. That alerts consumers to allergens and other potentially risky contents. The same standard should apply to GM foods.“Given that no risks to health have been identified for GM foods approved in Canada, there are no particular labelling requirements,” the report states. Rules for voluntary labeling of GM foods were set by the CanadianGeneral Standards Board in 2004 after several years of discussions among agriculture, food and consumer groups after a 2001 Royal Society of Canada report found no health issues with them.The agriculture committee report also recommends “the government provide greater transparency in the regulatory system that evaluates genetically modified animals intended for human consumption.” So far the only approved product is AquaBounty Atlantic salmon. No others are contemplated in the near future.The committee also wants the government “to provide support for independent research into the health, environmental and other effects of new genetic modification technologies.” It also called on the government “to establish tools to provide traceability for genetically modified animals.” That would enable interested consumers to find out if any of their foods have ingredients from GM animals.Earlier this year, The Strategic Counsel released a report on a survey it conducted that showed that 61% of Canadians have mostly negative thoughts about GM foods while 26% are extremely negative. Meanwhile only 26% of respondents said they were comfortable eating GM foods and “just 22% support the development and sale of GM foods in Canada.“However in the grocery store, price comes first ahead of concerns about pesticides and antibiotics and growth hormones, which outweigh worries about GM foods,” it concluded.Farm and food industry groups oppose a labeling regime that would leave the impression that GM foods are unsafe when there is no scientific evidence of it. GM crops first started to be grown in Canada in the mid- 1990s and no illnesses have been traced to them.The New Democrat committee members issued a minority report, which was expected as the party has a private member's bill calling for mandatory GM food labeling. They said the government has to provide more information about its studies and approvals of GM foods.Agriculture groups told the committee “there is no basic difference in nutritional value between GM animals and their conventional counterparts.” The Canadian Cattlemen's Association said studies show that consumption of “GM feed by farm animals does not change the food such as meat and milk that the animals produce. Therefore, if they pose no health problems, there would be no need to label them differently from their conventional counterparts.”The committee report noted that the U.S. requires companies labeling products as GM free be able to back up the claim. Congress passed legislation this year requiring companies to indicate the presence of GM ingredients through their website or by telephone. Canadian firms selling in the U.S. could be required to meet those requirements.While the AquaBounty salmon was developed in Canada, for now it will only be produced in Panama.While the federal government has a number of approval steps for novel food products, the committee noted that even biotech organizations support a review of the process. It should examine the regulatory system “given the speed of innovation. The sector stresses the need to increase the resources in the departments responsible for regulation so that their scientific staff is current with the technology, and with the need to develop an evaluation process according to a scale of risks that would allow resources to be assigned according to those risks.“Witnesses indicated that most consumers accept considered scientific opinions and that improving the transparency of the regulatory system would bolster public trust and provide better acceptance of approved products,” the report added.“Among the suggested solutions, witnesses proposed an increase in independent research funding on the effects of GM agricultural products on health and on the environment or that Health Canada be able to conduct its own studies.”Alex Binkley is a freelance journalist and writes for domestic and international publications about agriculture, food and transportation issues. He's also the author of two science fiction novels with more in the works.