Farm groups want food labels to remain focused on risks to health.Ottawa—New U.S. rules for labelling genetically-modified foods has stirred up anti-GM groups in Canada to call for warning labels on domestic products although Parliament voted strongly against the idea two years ago.The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) said the new U.S. rules are inadequate and the Canadian government should instead “adopt full, transparent mandatory labelling instead.“We urge our government to establish mandatory GM food labelling without using this confusing U.S. example as a model,” said CBAN's Lucy Sharratt. “We completely reject these rules as an example for Canada.”However Jeff Nielsen, Chairman of Grain Grower of Canada, said Canada's current approach of using food labels to convey real food safety concerns rather than spreading misinformation or fear remains the best approach.“Canadian grain farmers have been successfully planting biotech and genetically modified crops for over two decades with a proven track record of safety and increased sustainability. Bioengineered products have gone through some of the most rigorous government safety testing available which provides farmers and consumers with the confidence that the food they feed their families is safe, sustainable, and nutritionally equal to conventional or organic crops.“As biotech crops have been demonstrated not to pose a risk to human or environmental health, mandatory labelling would simply add confusion and cost while doing nothing to protect consumers,” he said.The Canadian Federation of Agriculture supports voluntary rules that allow for do or don't contain GM ingredients. Labels should be “be truthful and verifiable, consistent with domestic regulations and consistent with international standards and the requirements of our international customers. Any claims related to health, safety, nutrition and/or environment are covered by existing mandatory labelling regulations.”The labels “apply only to products which contain a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection.”Domestic and imported products should be treated the same, it said.The USDA released in late December new rules to implement a 2016 law that blocked Vermont's mandatory labelling law for genetically engineered foods which CBAN claimed had clearer and more complete requirements.It said the rules use the term bioengineered instead of genetically modified or genetically engineered and don't require labels if the GM content is too low to detect. It also objected to the rules excluding highly processed foods such as sugar from GM sugar beet and oils from GM corn and GM canola from being labeled. They also doesn't require on-package labels if companies provide the information through a web site or telephone link, CBAN said. It disapproved of allowing a graphic symbol can be used that includes “a bucolic country scene” as part of the GM label.CBAN also objected to the provision that only requires a label “when there is more than 5 per cent GM content versus the 0.9 per cent threshold used in the European Union.”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.