 |
The Edmonton Journal (Canada)
14 Jul 1999Gourmet Genetics: `Frankenfood' horror or
just a pea under the mattress?
As the '90s wind down, Canadian consumers are asking questions
they've never asked before. Questions like how much trust should
we place in our food system and in the people responsible for it?
Consumer trust is fragile, as the food industry in the European
Union is finding out. In the wake of the recent Belgian scandal
involving dioxin-contaminated animal feeds, health ministers
throughout the EU jointly expressed their ``grave concern about
the loss of trust among citizens.''
Canadians have traditionally been more trusting than either
Europeans or Asians, but there are signs that blind trust is no
longer a given -- especially when it comes to the food that
contains genetically modified ingredients.
The development and classification of foods containing genetically
modified ingredients -- such as canola, corn and soybeans -- have
raised a caution flag among concerned consumers.
The process of genetic modification involves removing a desirable
gene from one source, either plant or animal, and transferring it
to a plant that would benefit from the modification. While the
transplanted genes instruct the plant to manufacture a modified
protein, it is the protein itself that gives the plant the
desirable new trait, whether it's a higher yield, a resistance to
herbicides or a different type of oil.
In Europe, several supermarket chains have banned any product that
might contain ingredients from genetically modified sources.
Canadian supermarkets have not, to this point, reacted to the
possibility of genetically modified products being on their
shelves. But that position may not last much longer.
Last week, the Sierra Club of Canada held a day of action,
establishing information pickets outside selected grocery stores
across Canada and asking consumers to write to the president of
Loblaws, demanding the removal of ``all genetically engineered
products ... or, at the very least, label all genetically
engineered foods.''
``We want the grocery chains to take some responsibility for what
they sell. Industry argues that there's been no public response
(to genetically modified products) in Canada,'' says Lucy
Sharratt, co-ordinator of the club's Safe Foods, Sustainable
Agriculture Campaign.
``But they don't tell us which products they are, do they?''
She is concerned about soy, canola, corn and potato products being
most likely to contain genetically modified ingredients.
Indeed there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of such products on
the market already, involving everything from baby food to
spaghetti sauce to the genetically modified potato now being used
by some french fry companies.
The Right To Choose?
In Canada, where many of the genetically modified crops are
actually grown, consumers aren't told which products contain the
altered ingredients. Nobody knows exactly how many genetically
modified products are on our grocery shelves.
Why? Because we lose track of the seeds before they get to the
factory.
When genetically modified canola or other oilseeds arrive at the
mills, they're dumped into the same hopper as traditional seeds.
The process is known in the industry as co-mingling. Industry
officials insist that segregating genetically engineered seeds
from traditional crops would be unnecessarily complicated and that
the cost of segregating and labelling products containing them
would be passed on to the consumer.
Winnipeg author and broadcaster Ingeborg Boyens doesn't buy that
argument.
``It's absolute arrogance on the part of the industry to say they
can't segregate,'' says Boyens, author of Unnatural Harvest: How
Corporate Science is Secretly Altering Our Food.
In 1996, the first Canadian genetically modified crop was
harvested. It happened to be canola, an oilseed crop that ends up
in hundreds of prepared foods. Because of concern about how the
modified canola would be accepted in Japan and Europe, and the
possibility that consumers there might object to it, the seed was
segregated that year. Consumers might wonder, for example, about
long-term side effects, about toxicology studies -- none of which
have been done in human beings.
In 1997, Japan agreed to accept genetically modified canola, but
European markets were not so easily persuaded. With a history of
having been let down by their governments and their food
industries, disgruntled European consumers resorted to
name-calling (genetically modified products were dubbed
``Frankenfoods''), boycotts and even vandalism.
It had an effect in the North American market. Archer Daniels
Midland, the largest export handling agent for cereal grains and
oilseeds in North America, no longer accepts varieties of
genetically modified corn not approved by their European
customers.
They are also actively contracting farmers who grow ``identity
preserved'' or traditional soybeans for the European market.
To Label, Or Not To Label
In Canada, genetically modified products fall under Health
Canada's novel foods umbrella, so labelling is mandatory only if
the product is not ``substantially equivalent.''
These so-called `novel foods' containing genetically modified
ingredients, are handled the same way as normal foods, ``so they
aren't subjected to the same rigorous testing that a new drug
would undergo,'' Boyens said in an interview. ``Nor are they
labelled for genetically modified content.''
Substantial equivalence refers to the likeness the modified
product bears to the traditional food item, when measured for
nutrition, allergens and toxins.
So unless a known allergen such as peanut oil has been introduced,
Canadian consumers are none the wiser.
But shouldn't we be told?
Scientists and industry officials do admit there's a
hair-splitting difference between substantial equivalence and
exact equivalence, but it's apparently close enough for Health
Canada. (When contacted with questions about the issue, Health
Canada officials referred me to their Web site.)
Boyens's concern is that not enough research has been done on the
potential impact and potential toxicology of genetically
engineered foods.
``Canadian consumers have the right to know what's in their food.
I can't figure out why we aren't being given the choice,'' Boyens
says. ``So is it OK in the eyes of government and industry to use
consumers as guinea pigs?''
A Scientist Answers
Wilf Keller, director of the Plant Biotechnical Research Institute
in Saskatoon, is well aware of consumers' misgivings. He's heard
them all before, but unlike some people in his field, he doesn't
dismiss these people as hysterical alarmists.
As the father of an allergic child, he understands the concerns
regarding labelling and substantial equivalence.
``Think of the difference in the amount of sugar contained in a
pea grown in one field or in another. The food value and the
protein of the pea in the first field is substantially equivalent
to that in the second.''
But if a scientist inserts a peanut gene in the pea -- which
might, for example, pump up its nutrient value -- a new protein is
suddenly involved -- peanut protein. While the pea might be more
nutritious, the added protein would be significant because it
would contain peanut properties. In this example, the peanut
insertion would have to be noted on the label.
In fact, it's not so much the process of gene transplanting that
raises the ire of consumers. Rather, it's the source, and the
possibility of genes from frogs, fish, leaches and even humans
being inserted into plants as science and technology advance into
new areas.
For reasons that involve health, religion or the simple right to
make a personal choice, some people object.
Keller feels that mountains are often made of molehills.
``There are many research projects being done at any one time that
have absolutely no commercial intent. They may provide important
information about disease or possible cures, for example, or for
higher crop yields in countries where people are starving.
``The results of these experiments are published in scientific
journals, but they are experiments. Urban myth to the contrary, no
tomato you can buy will contain a fish gene,'' he says patiently.
``Plants containing animal genes have never been, are not now nor
will they be appearing on anybody's dinner plate.''
Both producers and the scientific community in North America are
somewhat bewildered by a growing resistance among North American
consumers to genetically engineered foods.
Dale Adolphe, president of the Canola Council of Canada,
acknowledges the problem.
Where consumers once might have asked for recipes, they now demand
scientific information.
``North American consumers have traditionally been a trusting
group,'' said Adolphe. ``They've only recently begun asking
questions, especially in the past few weeks.''
He points out that while the mad cow scare and the Belgian food
scandal were totally unrelated to what's happening in the Canadian
canola industry, there's been some fallout from Europe, where
trust in the scientific community has been seriously eroded.
``I think that's why we (North American industries using genetic
engineering technology) have been slow to develop a co-ordinated
communication and educational response. But we are all becoming
concerned and we're trying to address that problem more fully.''
Recognizing a growing lack of public trust in genetic engineering,
his council has recently added a question-and-response feature to
their Web site at www.canola--council.org.
Two organizations, the Canadian Food Information Council and the
Food and Biotechnology Communications Network, have also been
established to educate Canadian consumers about the role of
biotechnology in the food system. The FBCN now has a toll-free
number for consumers. 1-877-FOODBIO (366-3246). The number will be
advertised in supermarkets across the country.
But Boyens wants more. She feels that consumers need to be much
better informed and industry must be prepared to educate them.
``These companies and their related industries will claim that
they already do, with 1-800 numbers and the occasional brochure.
That's simply not enough. Most people would be surprised to
discover the low level of regulations in Canada.''
Boyens points out that only cursory reviews are done, mostly by
the companies who manufacture the product and have a vested
interest in doing field tests. There's no independent monitoring.
Some people would say it's like asking the fox to look after the
chickens.
Meanwhile, no toxicological tests are being done on novel foods --
no pre-market human tests, as there would be with drugs. Questions
of possible long-term risk to human beings remain unanswered.
``Substantial equivalence is an assumption, involving what the
industry admits is `acceptable risk.' But acceptable to whom?''
Boyens asks, reminding us that when DDT first appeared on the
market, nobody thought it would pose a health hazzard.
As an example, she points to the impact that pest-resistant corn
has had in tests with monarch butterflies, which traditionally lay
their eggs on milkweed plants. Through cross-pollination, milkweed
growing near the genetically engineered corn can acquire the
deliberately implanted pest-resistance and the monarch butterflies
suffer the same fate as the insect pests.
``These discoveries are only made when somebody sets out to assess
the risk,'' says Boyens.
``Last year, the Canadian government spent millions on research
and promotion of biotechnology. How much did they spend on
assessing the risks associated with those products? Next to
nothing.''
Boyens is quick to point out that the science is not the problem.
``There's nothing wrong or inherently evil about the science of
biotechnology. The problem is that the ability to move DNA from
one species to another is hastily being handed from scientists to
product-oriented profiteers.''
MODIFIED PLANTS
Some facts and figures on canola and other genetically modified
plants:
- In Canada, where some 14 million acres of canola will be
harvested in 1999, more than half the crop carries genetic
immunity to herbicides.
- By the year 2000, that will rise to an estimated 75 per cent.
- Sixty-nine per cent of all the oil products consumed by
Canadians is canola.
- The refined oil from canola, corn or soybeans shows up in more
than half the oil-containing products available in grocery stores.
- It's an ingredient in pasta sauces, salad dressings, cookies,
pastries, baby foods, pizza sauce, pizza dough, margarines,
cooking sprays, confectionery, potato chips, snack foods -- to
name only a dozen.
Also genetically modified:
- Some varieties of tomatoes, bred for extended shelf life.
- Some varieties of corn, bred to kill insect pests.
- The Nature Mark potato, bred to resist attacks by Colorado
potato beetles. |