 |
January 03, 2000
The Ottawa Citizen (Canada)
Genetically Modified Foods: The Battle Comes
to Canada
It's supposed to be, according to this story, quick and easy: a simple
litmus test that tells Stan Vanden Bosch whether he has any genetically
modified soybeans in his silos. He crushes a single bean in a thumb-sized
tube, adds a spot of clear solution, and stirs in a strip of white paper.
Within minutes, two red stripes appear on the paper Chesterville farmer's
soybean has been genetically engineered to resist a brand-name herbicide.
Mr. Vanden Bosch, whose Eastern Ontario granaries take in more than 30,000
tonnes of corn and soybeans from the region's growers, is demonstrating
a new crop-detection kit made by a Delaware-based company called Strategic
Diagnostics Inc. The market for such tests is growing because consumers
around the world are, the story says, demanding that food makers know
whether genetically modified staples are in their products. That means
farmers like Mr. Vanden Bosch are staring at a future in which separating
genetically modified crops from conventional varieties, along with routine
crop testing, seems inevitable.
Vanden Bosch was quoted as saying, "I think it's going to be a nightmare.
It's such a complicated process that nobody knows how this is going to
happen." There are any number of uncertainties surrounding genetically
modified foods, and segregating crops is just one of them. Consumer fears
are being passed along the supply chain to retailers, distributors,
processors and farmers. As a result, growers who are fans of genetically
modified seeds are wondering what they should plant next spring. Farmers
across Canada are key suppliers of genetically altered foodstuffs to foreign
markets. While Mr. Vanden Bosch doesn't grow genetically modified soybean,
he accepts shipments from farmers who do. He also grows genetically modified
corn. But because of the uncertainties over what the market will bear,
he is
planning for half of this spring's crop to be conventionally bred corn.
For
the other half, he's planting a variety that has been genetically tailored
to contain a built-in pesticide. "We have to do what the market tells
us,"
he says. "
At the same time, if North America decided to grow just non-GM (genetically
modified) corn this year, there wouldn't be enough seed to go around."
The story says that the quandary over genetically modified foods has
spread
from farm kitchens to the halls of power. Countries, including Canada
and
the U.S., that export these staples wonder whether there will be foreign
markets for their genetically altered goods. The biotech companies behind
these products are worried about the long-term business prospects for
their
technology. The investors backing these companies wonder about the short-
and long-term wisdom of putting tens of millions of dollars behind products
that consumers overwhelmingly dislike. And despite efforts to phase out
genetically modified ingredients from processed foods, the world's
processing giants and grocery chains can't be sure what they're selling
their customers these days. But at the core of the debate over genetically
modified foods is what this story calls the biggest uncertainty of all:
the
effects of transferring useful genes from microbes and other organisms
into
the plants we eat. For now, these proprietary gene-splicing techniques
create crops that can repel all sorts of blights and insects. Some can
also
withstand the herbicides that zap the weeds around them.
Hundreds more are in the pipeline, among them plants that will make
industrial chemicals and drugs for medicine. In the future, the technology
promises to boost a crop's nutritional value, speed up its growing time
or
simply produce foods that taste better and last longer. Biotech companies
say genetic modification is progress because it gives farmers greater
control over the range of crops that can be grown cost-effectively. It
could
also reduce the amount of weed-killing chemicals used and increase yields.
That, the industry argues, could benefit not only consumers in
industrialized countries who want cheap, high-quality food, but also people
in impoverished nations who are desperate for a cure to malnutrition.
But critics believe GM crops may have unknown health and environmental
dangers that should be investigated before the food is sold to the public.
Maude Barlow, chairwoman of the Council of Canadians, a nationalist lobby
group was quoted as saying, "There's been no long-term testing on
what this
does to human health and animal health."
The Ottawa-based organization is part of a coalition of health and
environmental activists that is calling for the Canadian government to
stop
approving new kinds of genetically modified foods, at least until, this
story says, they are properly tested. Critics say that in the case of
human
health, the risks include potential allergic reactions to genetic changes
that are not completely understood. On the issue of environmental impacts,
the story says that a number of scientists believe that, in some cases,
foreign genes in plants can pass into their wild, garden-variety relatives
and spontaneously breed unkillable "superweeds." They could
also harm some
beneficial insects while stimulating pesticide resistance in others. As
for
the claim that biotechnology can help alleviate world hunger, activists
point out that distribution Indeed, the genes and methods behind genetic
modification are tangled in a web of patent protection that affects the
ability of researchers in developing countries to deliver the technology
to poor farmers. Caught between these two extremes are the scientists
attempting to understand the implications of the new technology. But even
academic researchers are
finding their work attacked amid a knot of social, religious, environmental
and food safety concerns. Last February, when British researcher Arpad
Pusztai presented the first evidence that genetically engineered food
had
potential health hazards by damaging the immune systems of rats, fellow
researchers at Britain's Royal Society denounced his findings as flawed
and
inconclusive. Other studies from Cornell University, Iowa State University
and Switzerland, pointing to unexpected effects of genetically modified
crops on insects that benefit the ecosystem, were similarly discredited
as
being dubious science.
Lucy Sharratt of the Sierra Club of Canada was cited as saying that despite
flaws in these early experiments, the questions behind them are still
valid,
adding, "Studies like this are just the beginning. They should point
us
towards asking more questions and furthering these studies."
Meanwhile, biotech companies have formed a number of industry alliances
and
set aside tens of millions of dollars to fight what they view as a nasty
and
hysterical campaign that has misrepresented their products. The companies
are funding scientific research, organizing educational forums and lobbying
legislators, regulators and farm groups.
Delaware-based DuPont Co. has announced it will form an advisory panel
of
environmental and biotech leaders to guide the company's business decisions.
Officials at Monsanto Co. of St. Louis and Switzerland's Novartis AG have
also pledged to do a better job of communicating with the public.
The story goes on to say that the story is different in Canada and the
U.S.,
where objections have so far not reached the fevered pitch seen in Europe,
and where governments continue to fund and champion biotech research.
Consumers, at least until now, have eaten genetically modified foods without
much fuss, though nothing is labelled, nor is it required to be. The issue
could eventually reach the highest levels of international trade, namely
the
World Trade Organization. The U.S. and Canada want Europe and other key
export markets to ease what they say are technical trade barriers on certain
types of genetically altered crops. They also resist demands for mandatory
labelling for fear that, if given a choice, consumers will discriminate
against foods made from genetically modified ingredients. It would also
add
prohibitive costs to the food industry if everything must be tested and
labelled at every stage of production, the countries argue.
Karl Mielke, an agricultural economist at the University of Guelph was
quoted as saying, "Genetically modified foods is not a trade issue
per se,
but it has huge implications for trade."
The story says the issue also tests the credibility of Canada's food-safety
system, which has traditionally enjoyed a reputation for sound and rigorous
inspection. But when it comes to genetically engineered foods, Canadian
food
regulators are facing the same questions that have confronted their European
counterparts. How can these new crops be known to be safe when no long-term
testing has been done? How can governments claim that genetically modified
foods are safe when they rely on studies provided by multinational companies
who want their products approved quickly for market? Skeptics also ask
why
the federal government simply assumes that a seed whose genetic makeup
has
been directly reprogrammed is considered to be substantially the same
as its
unmodified cousin. Indeed, if genetically engineered products are so similar
to conventionally bred varieties, critics argue, why do biotech companies
fight so aggressively to protect their products with patents?
Consumer advocates want the regulatory system to be more open so the
public
doesn't believe such products are being foisted on them by authorities
who
are seen to be cosier with industry than with shoppers. In Canada, those
who
speak for the biotech companies also argue that giving the public a better
idea of how their food is vetted and approved would be a good start towards
boosting consumer confidence in genetically modified products.
Joyce Groote, executive director for the industry association, BIOTECanada
was quoted as saying, "I don't believe it's the government's responsibility
to sell products or to stand behind products. That's our job. But I do
think
it's their job to at least talk about what they do. And what they do is
regulate those products to ensure they're safe before they can be sold."
The
issue is expected to heat up in the coming months as Canadian activists
pressure the government to introduce, the story says, long-term testing
and
mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.
|