 |
Saturday, March 11, 2000
National Post
Why you can't tell GM foods by the label
Terry Daynard, who farms genetically modified crops near Guelph, Ont.
and is
executive vice-president of the 21,000-member Ontario Corn Producers'
Association and a former professor of crop science at the University of
Guelph, writes in this opinion piece that the pressure continues to label
genetically modified (GM) foods in the name of "consumer choice,"
and polls
say many Canadians agree.
The Canadian General Standards Board is developing guidelines for voluntary
labelling, while activist groups demand mandatory labelling. Other countries
are also implementing or considering GM food labels. The new
Biosafety Protocol will mean labels for some exported commodities.
However, key questions remain unanswered:
What is genetically modified food? And what, exactly, should be labelled?
The European model, according to European food suppliers, is full of flaws
and inconsistencies. It has not led to increased consumer choice. Retailers,
fearing a backlash, often avoid selling GM-labelled foods, even when the
retail cost would be lower or the quality better. More significantly,
the
European labelling regime has not resulted in the labelling of all, or
even
most, foods using GM ingredients.
Although European food retailers, especially those in the U.K., proclaim
their foods "GM-free," they really mean their foods are free
of detectable
GM ingredients. It is virtually impossible to measure genetically modified
DNA or protein molecules in most foods made from present GM crops. For
example, there is no detectable GM DNA or protein in starches, sugars
or
vegetable oils extracted from GM corn, soybeans and canola, or in animal
products produced with GM feeds.
Current European and Japanese labelling rules are based on ability to
measure. If GM ingredients can't be measured at some minimal level (1%
in
Europe, 5% in Japan), producers can call their food GM-free. And while
some
U.K. retailers are claiming to go beyond this, such claims are not
verifiable, and some are downright suspicious: For example, some U.K.
processors and retailers claim to avoid GM soybeans by purchasing in bulk
from Brazil, but Brazilian soybeans are about 20% GM -- the same as in
Canada. Milled corn products from some U.S. regions are labelled "non-GM"
simply because the percentage of GM corn grown is lower in those vicinities.
Although some auditing of North American supply sources has occurred,
auditing entails monitoring of "due diligence" rather than obtaining
positive verification that all GM-free foods are made from non-GM crops.
Other food ingredients are also made from GM sources. Many enzymes and
food
additives come from genetically modified micro-organisms. Chymosin, used
to
make cheese, is one. Aspartame is another. So are many organic acids and
other flavour-enhancers and preservatives. Many antibiotics used in animal
agriculture are made by GM micro-organisms -- just like human antibiotics.
(Diabetics use GM insulin.) But most of these seem to be included, readily,
in food products touted as "GM-free."
And finally, there's the basic issue of defining genetic modification.
The
Europeans have deliberately chosen to restrict the definition to specific
"biotech" gene transfers between species, plus some types of
gene
manipulation within a species, while excluding other forms of non-natural
gene modification. "Flavr-Savr" tomatoes and "Roundup-Ready"
corn -- two
commercial products -- are based on modification of existing genes within
these plants, rather than gene transfers. Most notably, European rules
ignore mutagenesis (gene changes created by deliberate exposure to intense
nuclear radiation or chemical mutagens) even though scientific literature
contains ample warnings about the non-natural and unpredictable nature
of
genetic changes created this way.
European GM labelling requirements exclude genetically altered, "nuked"
European barley and wheat varieties grown widely throughout Europe, but
include North American corn products containing a single gene from the
natural soil organism or the organic pesticide Bt -- a most convenient
distinction for European agricultural interests
seeking new methods of avoiding North American competition.
Clearly, European labelling standards, superficial and biased in favour
of
EU
agriculture, do not present a viable role model for Canadians. Indeed,
in
Canada, new crop varieties containing "novel traits" undergo
the same
regulatory review whether created by gene transfers between species or
by
mutagenesis.
Activist groups are demanding higher standards than in Europe. At a late
1999 news conference, a consortium of Canadian activist groups called
for
complete labelling of all products made from GM ingredients, including
those
containing no measurable GM DNA or protein. Unsatisfied with EU and Japanese
standards, the consortium demanded GM labelling even for products from
animals injected with GM antibiotics.
But how does the general public define genetic modification? According
to a
poll commissioned by Ontario Agri-Food Technologies in 1999, most people
define the term much more broadly than the EU version. For example, more
than 70% of those surveyed consider genetic engineering to include products
made by artificial mutagenesis and by non-natural crosses between unrelated
species. (The latter is commonly used to introduce genes for disease
resistance into wheat and other crops.)
The poll also indicated that public concern about GM foods actually
increases when GM ingredients are used but cannot be measured in the
resulting food product, or when genetic modification is created by
artificial mutagenesis rather than through single gene transfers between
species.
A viable Canadian labelling system must satisfy advocacy groups and
consumers in general. It must, therefore, include all forms of genetic
modification, even when altered genes or proteins are not present in the
final product.
Scientists have used genetic modification, in various forms, as a means
of
improving crop yields, quality and pest resistance for many years. If
we
include in a definition of GM foods all products made in part or in whole
from GM sources -- food crops, enzymes, additives, preservatives and
antibiotics -- at least 75% of foods Canadians consume will fall under
the
GM umbrella.
Canada's approach to labelling GM food products can take one of two forms.
We can adopt the slipshod and devious European system, which targets North
American GM food crops while excluding its own. Or we can be honest in
including all foods from genetically modified origins, which means almost
everything will be labelled. Such an approach could at least thwart the
growing temptation for quick-buck charlatans to label their foods as
GM-free, when, in fact, they're not.
|