Pharming: the food industry says genetically modified food is perfectly safe; consumers, environmentalists, and many others aren't so sure. (Food - GM Food).

Traditional plant genetics swaps genes between similar species, so the process is more like natural selection. Genetic engineering allows genes from any plant or organism to be inserted into any other plant or organism, by-passing natural reproductive barriers between species. For example, fish genes have been inserted into a tomato to make the tomato more durable, and resistant to cold. Similarly, genetic engineering is being used to make plants and animals more resistant to disease and insects, and chemicals. This means that farmers can douse their crops with stronger and more effective pesticides and herbicides.

The first generation GM crops focussed on increasing production and lowering costs. In the mid-1990s, the cultivation of virus-, insect-, and herbicide-resistant GM crops accounted for 5% to 10% increases in yield, and a saving of up to 40% on herbicides and insecticides.

By 1999, Canadian regulators had approved 42 genetically modified foods, most of which are strains of canola, soy, potatoes, and corn. Because Canadian producers don't separate conventional commodities from genetically modified ones, it's hard to say how much GM food Canadians are eating. But, at least one of the four main genetically modified products are found in most processed foods.

In Ontario alone, the major corn-growing area of the country, 37% of the crop contains genetically modified material.

Some food-monitoring agencies estimate that some GM component is present in 70% of store-bought processed foods in Canada. According to one estimate, Canada now grows more than 10% of the world's total GM crops.

In fact, there were so many GM crops by 1999 that seed companies were concerned over the availability of conventional seeds, as consumers became wary of GM varieties. The companies said a switch back to conventional seeds would lead to shortages and food supply problems. (Few farmers in the developed world still save seeds from current crops for future plantings, so they depend on seed companies, particularly for the high-yielding, hybrid varieties that produce the biggest financial returns.)

More than 12 million hectares -- an area the size of the three maritime provinces - of genetically modified crops were planted in the United States in 1997, more than three times the acreage planted in 1996 and 10 times the acreage of 1995. In 1999, 72% of all land planted with GM crops worldwide was in the United States, while Argentina had 17%, and Canada 10%. The nine other countries that were openly growing some GM crops - China, Australia, South Africa, Mexico, Spain, France, Portugal, Romania, and Ukraine - split the remaining one percent. The six giant U.S.-based agro-chemical corporations that produce the GM seed claim that the new technologies are environmentally friendly and will lead to health benefits, an end to world hunger, and reduced use of pesticides. Supporters believe it will allow us to better feed the world with fewer hectares of land and fewer insecticides and other chemicals.

On the other hand, GM food has been blamed for allergic reactions, the decreased effectiveness of antibiotics, sick livestock, depletion of nutritional elements, and fake freshness.

According to some GM supporters, the problem is not the farm products but lack of public education on the subject. They argue that biotechnology is developing new medicines, more productive livestock, and new ways to clean up the environment, as well as better food.

European consumers, in particular, don't buy it. They've become distrustful of expert assurances since the Mad Cow disease scare in 1996. That was when U. K. experts said there was no danger in eating beef from diseased animals. At best the experts were mistaken, at worst they lied, because dozens of people have died of the human form of Mad Cow disease. That set the stage for a very cautious, if not anxious, mood among consumers about food safety.

The movement against GM foods has some high-profile adherents, including Prince Charles in Britain (who is an organic farmer as well as heir to the British throne), and ex-Beatle Paul McCartney. As an article in Foreign Affairs magazine in May/June 2000 pointed out, "A broad coalition of farmers, labour unions, environmentalists, and communities in France launched attacks against not only GM food but also McDonald's, imported beef grown with hormones, Coca-Cola, and various other threats to what they called French `culinary sovereignty.'"

The call for GM-free products has been loud enough for some governments and large corporations to listen. In 1998, the European Union banned the use and importation of GM crops, and required that packaged foods with GM corn and soy be labelled. In 1999, two large U.S.-based baby-food companies, Gerber and H.J. Heinz, announced that they would switch to non-GM ingredients. The companies said the change was not because of any new evidence they were unsafe, but for fear of a Greenpeace-led boycott. And the country's major snack-food provider, Frito-Lay, did the same, saying it would no longer use GM corn.

In February 2001, American consumer advocate Ralph Nader said the technology of genetically engineered food is galloping far ahead of the science that should be regulating it. He said government regulators are putting the interests of the biotechnology industry ahead of the public good, and that's a recipe for disaster. And, unlike academic science, Mr. Nader says "corporate science" goes on behind closed doors, under the cover of corporate confidentiality and trade secrets protections.

Nevertheless, in May 2001 it was reported that 56 research sites across the Prairie provinces would grow genetically modified wheat from biotech giant Monsanto Canada.

(In 1996 Monsanto, the U.S.'s largest chemical and biotechnology finn, moved its Round-up Ready Soybeans (RRS) into European markets, despite stormy protests. The beans are genetically altered to resist Monsanto's Round-up herbicide, glyphsate, so farmers can spray Round-up on their fields, killing everything except the beans. Soybeans are the second largest agricultural crop in the United States. About 2% of the total crop was planted with RRS in 1996; this may have been as much as 25% in 1997.)

The controlled field tests for wheat in Canada were being carried out in the hope that the altered grain would have higher yields and profits. Never mind that two-thirds of Canada's export markets, from Europe to Japan to North America, don't want genetically altered wheat.

(Canada and other countries grow, sell, and eat GM canola, soy, and corn but no one has approved genetically altered wheat. And, many who were previously unaware they were eating GM products are now concerned about possible harmful long-term effects. They're also concerned about the possibility of allergens being transplanted with genes. This happened when scientists transferred DNA from a Brazil nut to a soybean, making the genetically tweaked soybeans potentially fatal to people with a severe allergy to nuts. And, they're worried that altered genes could run wild in the environment, escaping through cross-pollination, and creating super-weeds or contaminated food.) The altered Round-up Ready wheat, which, like RRS, resists Monsanto's Round-up herbicide, is not scheduled to hit the market until 2003-2005, when Monsanto thinks public fears will have died down.

Agriculture Canada labs and scientists are helping Monsanto develop the wheat. This is done through a program that matches corporate dollars with taxpayer money and promises to protect corporate trade secrets.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Environmental Law Association says there is a coalition of 220 organizations, including wheat growers, the Canadian Wheat Board, environmental groups, and the Council of Canadians that wants Ottawa to prohibit GM wheat in Canada. In a letter to the Prime Minister in July 2001, they listed concerns ranging from the trade losses to health and safety worries. And, while GM supporters say Mother Nature has been genetically modifying foods through the ages, the Council of Canadians points out that nature doesn't mix plants and animals, and "we just don't know whether these foods are safe."

At the very least, a lot of people want GM food to be labelled, as it is in Europe. But, a private-member's bill to that effect was defeated in the House of Commons in October 2001. The food industry strongly opposes labelling because it knows that when consumers have a choice they tend to reject GM food. A poll of Canadians in 2001 shows that most (94%) are in favour of companies identifying genetically modified food. Only 35% believe current regulations are sufficient to protect people from risks, and 69% assume products on store shelves are safe. Another poll found that 63% of Canadians would be less likely to buy a food product that is genetically modified or contains genetically modified ingredients.

In April 2001, British Columbia introduced the first legislation in North America to make labelling genetically engineered food the law. Failure to comply with the law could bring penalties of up to $100,000 in fines and two years in jail.

But, two months later, Loblaws, Canada's largest grocery retailer, ordered its suppliers to remove or cover any labels that identify food as being free of genetically modified ingredients. This upset the small community of organic-food processors who feel their products are what many concerned consumers want. Only about one and a half percent of the country's cropland is cultivated organically, but it has grown by 20% a year in the past decade to meet consumer demand.

There are about 1,500 registered organic producers and hundreds more who are not registered. Growers who want their produce to be certified as organic apply to one of 46 privately run, third-party certification agencies across Canada. It costs a few hundred dollars, and they have to show their soil-management techniques, proving, for example, that they have not used a prohibited fertilizer or pesticide for at least three years. That's not to say that all food that is grown organically is chemical free or free of GM material because there is no way of completely controlling what airborne particles might land in an organic field.

In November 2001, DNA from GM corn turned up in Native corn plants in a remote corner of southern Mexico. Some scientists fear that the accidental spread of laboratory-inserted genes could give some plants an advantage that would allow them to crowd out other varieties, reducing the world's biological diversity. The surprise here was that Mexico stopped using genetically engineered corn in 1998. Before that, the closest government-approved plantings of such corn were at least 100 kilometres from the sample sites. That could seriously endanger the world's food supply by cutting out varieties that are naturally resistant to certain diseases, pests, and climate change.

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. GM food supporters say the technology could save and improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, fir example. In developing countries poor soil, extreme weather conditions, as well as pests and diseases that attack animals and crops all contribute to dismal food production. The answer they say is to use GM seeds engineered to withstand such disadvantages.

The technology could also add needed vitamins and minerals to the crops and improve overall nutrition for people who are currently dying from nutritional deficiencies. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization estimated in 2000 that one in five citizens of the developing world (815 million people) still suffer from chronic undernourishment. Discuss this theory and how it fits in with the corporate profit motive.

2. Check out the Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee Report at http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/ for more details from those who are opposed to genetic modification of our food.

FACT FILE

Canada, the United States, and Argentina produce 95% of the world's genetically modified food.

In 1999, about 110 hectares of New Brunswick farmland grew genetically engineered potatoes, canola, corn, and soybeans, less than 1% of crops produced for consumption in the province, amidst booming biotechnology research.

Third World countries pleaded in May 2001 with Canada and the United States to label the genetically modified foods they export telling a United Nations body meeting in Ottawa they won't be able to cope if the foods prove dangerous.

In November 1999, McCain Foods, one of the world's largest buyers of potatoes, announced its plans to ban all genetically altered spuds from its production lines, saying that GM material was very good science but very bad public relations because of consumer concern.

DEFINITION

The precautionary principle: If you don't know what harm something can do, keep it off the market or otherwise regulate its use until the product is proven safe.

Substantial equivalence: the process that deems genetically modified foods acceptable whereby government researchers compare the GM food to its traditional version. If the two are chemically the same, the new product is approved. But critics argue the process is inadequate because chemical similarities in food do not necessarily mean the altered version is safe to eat.

Websites

Genetically Modified Food UK and World News http://www.connectotel. com/gmfood/

The Royal Society of Canada Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology - http://www. rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/ GMreportEN.pdf

ACCIDENTS DO HAPPEN

In July 2001, it was reported that three genetically modified pigs were turned into sausages after being stolen from a U.S. university. The pigs had been modified to carry a copy of a gene involved in eye function: they had been killed and were meant to be destroyed, but were stolen by an employee at the University of Florida and turned into sausages by an unsuspecting butcher.

A year earlier, a genetically modified corn seed, StarLink, which was approved only as animal feed, contaminated millions of tonnes of corn and wound up in the human food chain in taco shells and other products.

RELATED ARTICLE: More testing, better review needed.

A federally commissioned report thinks Canada needs a chief food-safety officer to monitor the impact of GM foods, created by mixing genes from different species, on health and the environment. In August 2001, the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, said the government needs to improve its communication to consumers about GM foods, particularly in light of the fact that scientists are creating increasingly complex GM products.

The first generation of GM foods, available in Canada since 1995, included products such as corn, soybeans, canola, and cotton that were modified to resist some herbicides, insects, and diseases.

The report says the second generation will probably include products with modified nutritional values, or even vaccines and therapeutic proteins.

The main criticism activists had of the report was its recommendation that a voluntary system of labelling GM products be used, but only when the content is 5% or more for each ingredient. While the committee said the voluntary approach could eventually lead to a mandatory one, one environmental group, the Sierra Club, believes that all foods with more than 1% GM content should carry a warning. In fact, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace boycotted the committee's hearings. The committee was seen by some as a tool of government rather than an independent adviser. Further criticism comes from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, which points out that Ottawa does not independently test GM food. The government accepts company data, and does not abide by the precautionary principle as the European Union does, to make sure consumer goods such as foods can "do no harm' on the basis of safety-and science-based analysis.

The controversy has grown to the point that some countries are banning GM foods or requiring separate production and distribution. That has led to Canada losing its European market for canola because of genetic modification to most of the crop.

Another report by the Royal Society of Canada said Ottawa's food-safety system was plagued by ambiguous testing and a lack of transparency. The Society's report on the Future of Food Biotechnology, released in February 2001, was established at the request of Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Environment Canada. The panel was specifically asked to assess the risks of GM food to human and animal health, and to the environment. Among its 53 recommendations were that GM crops and foods should be more rigorously tested, that the testing should be independently reviewed, and that there should be a moratorium on GM fish grown in farms on Canada's coasts. The panel also criticized the government for not giving enough support to independent research on the safety of food biotechnology in Canada. It said the increasing domination of university research by the commercial interests of the researchers and their industry partners removes incentives for reliable scientific research on the safety of these products.

The Panel included 15 scientists and regulatory experts and was chaired by Conrad Brunk at the University of Waterloo, and Brian Ellis at the University of British Columbia. "When it comes to human and environmental safety there should be clear evidence of the absence of risks; the mere absence of evidence is not enough," said Mr. Brunk. "The onus is clearly on the government to establish testing and approval mechanisms that meet the highest scientific standards."