In the past few years, in North America as all over the world, there has been a significant increase in the use of biotechnologies in agriculture. One of the explanations for their popularity is the possibility they afford for increasing production and productivity. However, these amazing technological and scientific advances have led Québec farmers to ponder this question and its impacts on the developments of their sector.

In order to develop a better understanding of the complex issues involved in biotechnologies, the UPA believes that the solution will involve, among other things, the dissemination of dependable and objective information based on facts.

The issue of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the term most commonly used, should be addressed with caution. The UPA has decided, as others did,to adopt a prudent attitude, which will evolve with new knowledge and discoveries. Each case is different. Thus, in the past, the UPA was opposed to the registration, sale and distribution of the recombinant somatotrophin (STbr) as well as the registration of the terminator gene X. However, GMOs give undeniable advantages for agriculture, and we would be wrong to reject them all.

At its General Congress of 2004, the UPA presented a reassessed position on the GMOs, concerning their mandatory labelling in particular. In the context where it acknowledges the consumers’ fundamental right to have access to information on the nature of the products that they buy, the UPA is in favour of compulsory labelling, as long as farmers have the assurance that they will not have to bear the brunt of it and that the principle of reciprocity between our products and those imported into Canada will be applied..

On this subject, it is however important to note that the federal regulation already ensures mandatory labelling where the risks for the health and safety of consumers (in the case of allergenic substances, for example) are known and scientifically proven. However, labelling remains a complex task since it still raises significant difficulties of application (acceptability limits, capacity of detection, traceability, etc). Thus, the UPA requires that the governments document, through an exhaustive study, the social, technical and economic aspects of GMOs mandatory labelling and, if this option is selected, the governments provide for support mechanisms (technical and financial) to help agricultural producers complying these new obligations.

The regulation, registration and control of GMOs initially lie within the federal government. The UPA recognizes the jurisdiction and neutrality of the organizations mandated to achieve these tasks. The UPA however expects more investments in research from the federal government to provide a counter-evaluation to the data submitted by the private sector, and that an independent peer-review process be implemented (involving Canadian and foreign scientists). Moreover, the federal government must increase its efforts to implement the recommendations made by the various expert groups he created to provide advice on GMOs. Finally, the UPA requires that patents do not apply to whole plants or animals that are genetically modified and used in agriculture.

Ultimately, for the UPA, the decision to use or not genetically modified products should be made on a case-by-case basis, based upon scientific data that are recognized nationally and internationally. In this context, the GMOs represent an additional tool that agricultural producers can use in order to meet the needs of consumers.