OTTAWA - A national advisory committee is inching toward agreeing on a voluntary standard for labelling genetically engineered food in the face of renewed demands for a mandatory system. (ref. 2654)

Optimists say the 53-member committee could move closer to a consensus on the draft voluntary standard at a meeting this week in Ottawa, clearing the way for a final vote within weeks.

Jeanne Cruikshank, a committee leader and vice-president of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, says she is hopeful the three days of talks beginning Wednesday will eliminate many of the qualms and disagreements over the latest draft standard.

It garnered only a 51% approval rating from committee members in a recent vote, nowhere near enough support to proceed. If the committee can agree on a proposal, it would be sent to the Standards Council of Canada, which would decide if it will be adopted as national standard.

"It`s a consensus system," she said. "There is no magic number. We don`t want to close this off until we think it`s as good as it can be." She maintained progress has been significant. She said there is consensus the voluntary labels must contain credible, verifiable and truthful information that is not misleading about whether the product contains genetically modified material.

The committee has also agreed the labels should point consumers to a Website and a toll-free telephone number for more information. Ms. Cruikshank says it`s important to communicate to consumers why the product was genetically engineered.

But there are signs a committee consensus is still a ways off after more than 2 1/2 years of negotiation. Disagreements remain over everything from the basic definition of genetic modification to the threshold percentage for determining what would constitute a genetically engineered food.

The Canadian General Standards Committee on voluntary labelling is made up of members from a variety of agriculture, biotechnology, consumer, manufacturing and retail groups, plus representatives from federal and provincial governments.

Several environmental groups, including Greenpeace, refused to participate on grounds the committee was "stacked" in favour of the biotechnology industry and because they oppose anything short of mandatory labels.

Parallel hearings by the Commons health and agriculture committees on the labelling issue have landed the subject on the political agenda. Proponents of mandatory labelling see the hearings, especially before the label-friendly health committee, as a chance to push the issue. The committee is seen as less friendly turf for them, although it too has heard strong pitches for a mandatory system.

The National Farmers Union, in a submission that surprised some MPs, said food products containing genetically modified ingredients must be subject to clear, consistent, mandatory labelling.

The NFU`s was the lone dissenting voice among witnesses from other farm and industry groups who warned that mandatory labelling would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and undermine faith in the Canadian food system.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **