WHEREAS bioengineered organisms from anthocyanin-rich purple tomatoes to vitamin A-rich golden rice have no universal biochemical traits distinct from products developed through thousands of years of traditional breeding;
WHEREAS peer-reviewed literature over a 20-year timeframe found bioengineered Bt contributing to biodiversity through decreased insecticide usage in northern China (Nature, 2012), with similar findings from a Landes Bioscience review of 155 papers (Carpenter, 2011), and a Nature Biotechnology review of 49 peer-reviewed journals surveying farmers of 12 countries, finding the greatest bioengineering benefits for developing world farmers (Carpenter, 2010);
WHEREAS dissenting papers identifying health harms in animals have methodological errors such as missing hypotheses, testing of specific products like NK603 instead of the engineering process, or retraction like with the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal to the 2012 Seralini study;
scientific organizations that warn of the grave threat of global warming, as well as maintaining the possibility of using genetically engineered innovations for environmental and health purposes. Many scientists equate
the anti-bioengineering movement with the climate denial movement as equally ideological, and so this motion addresses voters who do not wish to choose one anti-science party over another.
Under existing Health Canada regulations it is a seven to ten year process to research, develop, test, and assess the safety of a new bioengineered food. 81 products have been approved to date. Regulations were developed in consultation with the World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. See the following sources:
The policy motion is neutral on the possible merits of other existing policy from G06-p34 of consumer freedom and informed consent to labelled genetically-engineered foods, though the free and informed consumption inherent in mandatory labelling policy is incompatible with ban policies. The motion does not challenge policies for reform of the biotechnology patent system.