Would you like rice on your plate from a crop that can withstand long droughts? With the climate warming up, it’s a good idea to think about it. A baguette made from gluten-free wheat, otherwise? There are intolerant people who would be happy to do so. These are some of the wonders of genome editing, to which the Trudeau government has opened the door. His reform on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), however, finds itself on the grill as we discover that officials and lobbyists worked in symbiosis behind closed doors to put it on track.
Called “Tiger Team,” the group brought together officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada with representatives of three lobbies with direct interests in publishing. genomics: CropLife, Canadian Grains Council and Seeds Canada. Unveiled by Thomas Gerbet, this behind-the-scenes work, without being illegal, raises important questions of trust and ethics.
The Canadian radio reporter went through the correspondence of these beautiful people through nearly 700 pages of emails obtained through the Access to Information Act. We discover that the working sessions and extensive discussions of the Tiger Team were notably used to define the concepts and communication strategies retained in anticipation of the public consultation on GMOs. However, “the conclusion of this consultation was exactly what the industry wanted,” writes Mr. Gerbet.
We know, moreover, that the choice to put an end to the obligation for the industry to declare certain genetically modified plants and replace it with “voluntary transparency” has caused discontent and concern. And not only in environmental, food and agricultural circles, which had defended the need to keep it compulsory. The Quebec government has also expressed reservations. This is a far from trivial paradigm shift, in fact.
Among the most disturbing passages of the Tiger Team correspondence, we read that CropLife submitted its own definitions on genome editing, inviting officials to integrate and share them as is in their document, but taking care to do not mention their origin. This fool’s game can only shake public confidence.
The unfortunate thing is that this was also blunted by the resounding resignation of the co-chair of the new Scientific Advisory Committee responsible for advising the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) within Health Canada. Bruce Lanphear then placed two bombs in the public square: that of the lack of transparency of public organizations and that of their submission to the influence of the industry, in this case, that of pesticides.
Similar complaints had been heard a few months earlier from the director general of the Canadian drug price regulator, who also left by slamming the door. Although the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada have reaffirmed their complete independence with each of these outbreaks of fever, the doubt persists and grows.
Wrongly, says CropLife, which praises the probity of the co-development approach that served as the driving force behind the Tiger Team. Often described as a learning accelerator, this method, which benefits from collective intelligence, has the merit of saving time for all parties by preventing them from getting lost in sterile paths or useless procedures.
That ministries and agencies are using it to promote knowledge sharing and deepen their thinking is in itself excellent news. Genomic science is complex, it progresses with difficulty if the voice of those who think about it and develop it is sidelined or stifled. Our governments have been criticized for deciding behind closed doors, should we blame them for wanting to think outside their ivory tower?
The answer is yes. Because the Tiger Team, under the guise of openness and outstretched hands for innovation, has, in fact, reproduced exactly the same flawed framework, the same reprehensible ruts. Worse, since it allowed the industry’s only voice to be amplified at the expense of all others.
Today we are entitled to wonder if the dice have not been loaded. Organizations like Vigilance OGM think so and are asking Ottawa to cancel its regulatory update. Without going that far, it is clear that the entire process must be subject to independent expert review.
There is no smoke without fire, they say. Above all, there is no trust without perfect transparency. Whether there is a conflict of interest or only the appearance of a conflict of interest does not matter, the result is the same. The Trudeau government seems to have difficulty grasping the nuance. It is time for it to return to the basics: the quest for a common good whose terms cannot primarily belong to the industry.