Annual Meeting

ManDak Zero-Till Association

January 29, 2003

2:30 - 3:00 PM

Biotechnology is the use of living organisms to change plants, animals and food products. It is cross breeding of livestock, grafting of plants, adding rennet to make cheese, using yeast to make wine and bread, and producing insulin from bacteria. These are all products of biotechnology and there has been little concern about these practices.

It is the "new" biotechnology that causes concern for consumers. It is genetic engineering - the taking of a gene from one organism and putting it into the DNA of another organism that is disturbing. The science is not well understood by the public but the technology is being developed and implemented at an accelerated pace in countries around the world. In fact, in 2001 there were 130 million acres planted by 5.5 million farmers in 13 countries around the world.

It is commonly assumed that a large majority of the foods now sold on supermarket shelves contain at least some genetically engineered (GE) material. Well, this depends on the definition that is being used. For example, a bushel of genetically engineered corn yields:

Sweetener for 325 cans pop

Oil for 1 kg margarine

Animal feed to produce 2.5 kg beef, 6 kg pork, and 9 kg chicken

but no measurable genetically engineered material or GMO's.

However, consumers want to know if the ingredients came from a plant that was genetically engineered so both the margarine and the pop would be GE foods.

What about the lunch we ate today. Were there any GE foods in our lunch?

Currently, there are 47 plants with novel traits that have received food safety approval in Canada. This involves nine commodities (canola, corn, cotton, flax, potato, soybean, squash, tomato and sugar beets). In the U.S. there are 48 traits in 13 commodities (the list that is approved in Canada plus papaya, rice, cantaloupe and radicchio) that have been approved. The traits are all linked to production issues such as pesticide use.

From this list, what are the benefits to consumers? More nutritious? No. Less expensive? No. Reduced tillage? Reduced fuel use? Reduced pesticide use? Better for farmers? Yes. Good for big business? Yes. Is it surprising then that consumers are not welcoming this change to their food? The next wave of biotechnology must focus on traits and products with clearly defined consumer benefits.

The Ontario Public Health Association Food Biotech workgroup has described consumers who are for and against food biotechnology as to belonging to two groups:

1. those who believe GM foods are safe, subject to rigorous scientific scrutiny and regulation, will yield more productive agriculture, reduce pesticide use, improve nutrition and alleviate hunger.
2. those who believe that GM foods are not needed, destructive to the environment, poorly regulated, and potentially harmful to health. They are linked with corporate concentration and globalization of food trade, which will exacerbate the imbalance of power structures and increase world food insecurity everywhere.

Let’s examine this list of concerns more closely.

1. Food safety: Consumers have expressed concern about the safety of these foods. They worry that there have been no long term tests, that the companies do the tests rather than Health Canada and that increased allergies, antibiotic resistance and other health complications will follow.

Health Canada determines the safety of the products that are permitted for sale in Canada whether they are domestic or imported. They determine the tests and techniques that must be used and then they evaluate the results. The tests compare the new product to the existing product in nutritional value, composition, potential allergens and possible toxicants. This includes feeding trials. Health Canada considers how widely the new food will be used and how close it is to existing foods. Differences outside the normal range of product variation are flagged for further investigation. The more it differs, the more detailed the safety assessment. Foods that are viewed as generally safe for human consumption are monitored after they reach the marketplace. Food labelling is required if there is an identified health and safety risk for certain individuals such as allergies, or population segments such as infants.

All new products are assessed for potential allergenicity based on the history of both the host and donor organisms and the modification that has been undertaken. Comparisons consider the resistance to digestion and heat as well as other conditions encountered during food processing, the amount present in the final food and amino acid sequence of the new protein. This approach to predict allergy potential is internationally recognized and endorsed.

5. Environmental concerns: Consumer groups have expressed concern about the potential for outcrossing, hazards to non-target species, the development of weed resistance, as well as insects developing resistance to pesticides. It could also narrow the gene pool leaving them vulnerable to rare diseases or uncommon pests, which could exert pressure on food prices worldwide.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for conducting safety evaluations on fertilizers, seeds, plants, animals, vaccines and feeds in respect to these environmental consequences. Before a plant with a new trait can be approved, CFIA must be satisfied that it will not harm the environment. CFIA assesses the application for a new plant by comparing it to traditional plants for weed potential, outcrossing, negative effects and unintended effects on non-target organisms.

The National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy has reported a reduction of 46 million pounds of pesticides used in the U.S. in 2001. How many non-target insects would have been destroyed by those pesticides if they had been used? Farmers have claimed that prior to being able to plant Bt corn, they sprayed their cornfields 2-6 times per season. Now, they spray less than once/field or not at all. The environmental benefits include improved habitat for birds, cleaner drinking water, a reduction in greenhouse gases and a reduction of 30 million litres of diesel fuel use in Western Canada alone in 2000.

Because there is the potential for insect populations to develop resistance to the Bt. In corn, producers are advised to grow corn only in fields that are at risk from the corn borer and to plant non-Bt corn refuge areas. This increases the chance of genetic mixing of susceptible and resistant borer and decreases the potential for development of fully resistant populations.

1. Ethical issues: Comfort with the concept of moving a gene from a bacterium to a plant, or an animal to a plant, must be determined individually.

Some feel that it is unethical for the President of Zambia to refuse genetically engineered corn as food aid. Others feel that it would be unethical to send it to Zambia where it may outcross with other maize varieties and damage domestic crops. Zambian scientists report that genetically engineered plants can cause resistance to antibiotics and compromise immunity in people with poor health status.

Vegetarians feel that it is unethical to take a gene from an animal and put it in a plant. Scientists would say that the plant has not been tainted by the animal and that animal matter has not been transferred. But science doesn't always rule in religious and ethical issues. These are decisions for individuals to make.

Various church groups are participating in the discussion about biotechnology. The Vatican has released a statement in support. The United Church of Canada is holding regional consultations to help them form a policy on biotechnology in food production. The Church of Scotland also has a project under way. It disagrees with single-issue ethics of pressure groups, arguing that it is just as easy to exaggerate the risks as it is to ignore them or pretend they aren't there. The Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace opposes the patenting of seeds and other forms of life.

4. Choice: Some consumers have indicated that they want to be able to choose whether or not they eat genetically engineered foods. Governments in both Canada and the United States have rejected the concept of mandatory labelling because it may infer that other foods on the shelf were less safe. However, in other parts of the world, mandatory labelling is in place. It is estimated that in Australia, segregation will add 6% to the cost of food.

The European Commission's Food and Agriculture Ministers have recently agreed on a proposal for regulations on labelling of food and feed containing GMO's. Levels> 0.9 percent require a label. Food must be labelled if it is produced from biotechnology whether or not protein is present. Coming from maize, it is not known for certain if the cornstarch or corn syrup or corn oil is genetically engineered because this information is not currently tracked. It leaves the system wide open to fraud. There is no analytical test to say that a product is GE-free. This will increase the paper trail across the food chain.

The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and Canadian General Standard Board in 1999 initiated a 53-member committee of consumer groups, food companies, producers, environmental groups, general interest groups, and government to make recommendations for voluntary labelling of "products of genetic engineering". The final vote was taken last fall and results are expected to be announced soon.

Consumers need labels and claims to be supported by verifiable, accurate data that is available on request. Labelling schemes proposed in other parts of the world have proven unworkable and are serving to keep products out of the market rather than inform consumers. The media, health professionals, point of purchase information, public awareness campaigns, 1-800 numbers and web sites are all ways consumers can become informed.

5. Corporate ownership – There is a widely held position that the multinational corporations that sell genetically engineered seeds are in the business to make money rather than feed the world. These companies may gain control over the world's food supply. And, mergers concentrate that control in few hands.

The first wave of genetically engineered products has benefited the farmer and the multi-nationals. In the future, perhaps the second wave of genetically engineered products will benefit consumers. Products that are being developed include: Vaccines in bananas

Tomatoes with antioxidants to fight cancer

Golden rice with Vitamin A and iron

However, we must remember the consumer in any discussions of new products. Because, even if the consumer is wrong, the customer is always right!

In addition, we need to find more ways to share information with consumers. When they understand the technology, they feel more positively towards it. Consumers who have participated in public forums have shown confidence in the regulatory process in Canada and believe that biotechnology is a safe technology, is beneficial for all of society and can respect the individuality of humankind.