The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutThe Citizen, 2000-03-22, Page 10PAGE 10. THE CITIZEN, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2000. Genetic modifications,benefit or risk By Janice Becker Citizen staff It is a topic which often results in heated discussions, strong debate over the pros and cons and has an industry caught in the middle of an issue which has been touted as both a saving grace or demon seed. Genetically modified organisms (GMO) have recently come to the forefront as a hot topic in the agri cultural field as well as on the gro cery store shelves. While genetic modifications have taken place in plant breeding for years, the current round of interna tional talks has supporters, detractors and those who are cautiously opti mistic. Many will have seen media reports with protesters speaking against “frankenfood” as they question the impact of modifications on the con sumer as well as the environment in which the product is grown. Many European nations have refused to purchase GMO soybeans and Bt com is getting a lot of atten tion. While information gathered by the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario indicates that 70 per cent of com growers will use Bt com and 20 per cent will go with Roundup Ready beans, farmers have many factors to consider before choosing seed. In a release from the CFFO, the organization said they were cau tiously optimistic about the possibil ities for GMO crops. However, they strongly support the labeling of all GMO foods. “Labeling is about the future,” says Elbert van Donkersgoed, execu tive director with CFFO. “We don’t look back at the past, but anything that is clearly transgenic needs to be labeled.” van Donkersgoed says he is not as concerned about going back to a time when genes were turned off, but to look at when genes are actually moved. “When genes are taken from various sources and make a signifi cant difference, labeling should be started sooner than later.” When dealing with who will pay the price of the increased cost to label foods, van Donkersgoed was unsure where that would go. “It is hard to predict who will pay. If the (GMO) product allows farmers to produce more, the prices may be lower. It will have to be part of the cost structure.” In the end, says van Donkersgoed, “the consumer will pay more for some products if they see a benefit, but they need to have choice.” “Consumers will not be well- informed to make a decision until there is labeling. Then consumers can become accepting.” They will be the “key decision makers”, he says, as it is their acceptance or rejection which will determine the future of GMO foods. There will be some interesting and worthwhile benefits, says van Donkersgoed, “but the consumer has to be comfortable with the revolu tion.” In reality, technology has the abil ity to improve quality, increase pro duction and benefit the environ ment.” he says. “However, the entre preneur has to examine the matter carefully for a net benefit." van Donkersgoed believes tech nology will always be controversial and leave questions, particularly when the method of food production is changing. “We are beginning a dramatic revolution.” Noting that this is about food, about people’s enjoyment and feel ing good when eating, he says method is important. He would like to see a new regula tory system. The current system was designed for a different time, he says. “It is good for one (GMO) trait at a time. The future is two, three, five or 10 traits across species (lines). The system is not designed to manage the revolutionary change.” The CFFO supports the mandatory separation of GMOs through the food chain and is calling for national legislation for the creation of a self- financing certification process run be an association of suppliers, produc ers and processors. There was also a concern about the lack of scientific independence in the testing of GMOs. Trans-national food companies are paying for the research in some cases. From the industry From the standpoint of those involved in the industry, Novartis employee Steve Johns of the Vanastra area, says it is unfortunate they have found themselves in this (controversial) position. “Technologically only the simplest things have been done to date, such as genetic resistance to insects,” he says. “Those input traits have no value to the ultimate consumer. They don’t see the benefits.” Johns agrees with van Donkersgoed that a tremendous amount of education is needed. Many don’t understand what is being done, he says, and they fear new technology. Products in the stores, particularly processed foods, could be genetical ly enhanced crops. There is no (obvi ous) benefit but others say there are risks. From the science perspective, zero risk cannot be proven, says Johns. “The risk-benefit equation doesn’t work. There needs to be the develop ment of something the consumer is willing to pay for, then there will be no problem.” Johns suggested a potato which wouldn’t suck up oil when fried. Consumers would see the benefit of low fat. Johns sees an uphill battle to bring GMO foods to the market. “There have to be output traits they are will ing to pay for.” From the farmers’ perspective, Johns says they are good business people and are “not duped” into accepting GMO. “They look at what makes sense for them, what brings a profit.” Conversely, the development of GMOs has the potential to create a premium market for those opting out of the system. Several sectors are beginning to offer higher prices for both crop and livestock which can be authenticated as GMO free. There are so many interesting opportunities with technology, Johns sees a potential significant benefit to the environment. He suggests com which could fix its own nitrogen, a “cybcrpig” where the phosphorous would be a benefit or drought and salinity-resistant £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ JOHN McKERCHER CONSTRUCTION LTD. • Backhoeing • Bulldozing • Loader & Truck Rental • Sand • Gravel • Drainage Stone • Topsoil • Screened Topsoil • Bark Mulch • Licensed Septic Installations 887-9061 FAX 887-9999 crops. “It is too bad (the controversy) is slowing us down and limiting what technology could give us.” Johns sees potential for specialty crops, produced for a specific indus try such as pharmaceuticals. There is little concern about biotechnology in this field because people see the ben efits. “Petroleum prices are good for the ethanol industry and this renewable fuel could have a huge market in North America,” he adds. When asked where the concern for GMOs began, Johns says it started in the United Kingdom after the BSE scare in the beef industry. “After consumers had been told this could n’t happen, it destroyed a certain amount of scientific credibility. We need to counter this with good edu cation and decisions need to be based on science.” Johns backs van Donkersgoed’s contention that choice is a vital key in GMO products. While trying to ensure the technology is available, the growers have to have choice. However, he wonders about the labeling aspect, questioning what would be considered GMO foods. “In the flavour-saver tomato, noth ing was added. Bt com destroys the com bore through biotechnology while organic farmers use Bt insecti cide for com.” “What will constitute genetically modified or genetically enhanced? If one gene is taken from a line of com and put into another, (does that qual ify)? Does it have to be from anoth er species? Do the differences have to be measurable?” Johns says government guidelines have been in place for years and labels have been required if there was a significant difference. The labeling task may be daunting, he says, to develop anything that is meaningful. In spite of frequent media reports regarding strong opposition, Johns believes the general public is more ambivalent. “If it’s okay, it’s okay with me.” For the farmer While others debate the risks and benefits of GMO foods, farmers are left with the decision of what to plant this spring. Bt com has become a popular option for growers though Roundup Ready soybeans have met with more opposition. The signing of contracts with seed companies to ensure purchase of the product had given some farmers security their product will be market ed, but it also ties them to one pur chaser. Many elevator operators are also wrestling with the issue of whether to accept GMO goods, aware of the political and emotional heat created by the biotechnology. Comments from those in the seed business suggest the use of geneti cally enhanced crops could benefit the environment, by reducing the use of insecticides, a particular concern in the bee industry. It is reported the improved health I 3 33333 33 3 of the crops increases yields, weights and standability in com. Better weed control can result in lower input costs over other methods of keeping them in check. Environmental activist organiza tion Greenpeace Canada counters the idea of lower herbicide application through U.S. studies which have shown an increase in usage. They also point out that the increased use of Bt in com may eventually make it useless for organ ic operations due to overuse. In spite of the benefits, there were noted disadvantages. There are no premiums paid, herbicide resistance could develop and seed costs are higher. There are, however, premiums paid in some cases for non-GMO crops though strict guidelines must be followed to ensure the product. Equipment must be thoroughly cleaned, field locations reported, field inspections permitted and an agreement to grow no modified grains. Warnings While scientists and proponents advocate the nutritional, medical and environmental benefits, groups such as Greenpeace and the Council of Canadians would like to see a much slower approach to the technology. In response to European studies which question the long-term safety of the products, such groups are looking to the industry to show extreme caution when they proceed. On their website, Greenpeace Canada outlines areas of risk along with some facts and myths regarding GMOs. It lists the risks as antibiotic resist ance, toxins and allergens. Antibiotic resistance is a matter which has resulted in great concern in the medical field in recent years, as the products used to treat human illness are becoming less effective due in part to overuse and adaptation of the bacteria. Use of genetic modification has caused a fear that resistance devel oped in crops and livestock could Auburn Co-op sets records Members of Huron Bay Co-opera tive Inc. recently heard at their annu al meeting that the co-operative’s Auburn branch is setting records. The branch’s sales topped a mil lion dollars last year, exceeding sig nificant sales increases since 1995. Branch Manager Steve Caldwell attributes the branch’s growing suc cess to dedicated staff and the sup port of customers. “I think our cus tomers realize that if they support us, we’ll continue to be here for them.” We have plenty of Debarked Hardwood Maple or Ash Slab Wood ~ Free Delivery within 20 miles ~ x WE’RE NOW BUYING... STANDING TIMBER! Call us for a FREE QUOTE! T ru CRAIG HARDWOODS LTD. Auburn, Ont. 519-526-7220 "Family Business Since 1866" move through the food chain or spread to other organisms. Johns disputes this contention, saying that what you eat does not affect your genetic makeup. With reference to toxins, Greenpeace cites an example of a sleep aid sold in the Japanese market a few years ago as the risks of a pharmaceutical which used geneti cally engineered bacteria in the pro duction. A lack of long-term research with regards to toxicity resulted in 37 deaths and 1,500 people left dis abled. There is also a concern traits will be transferred from known allergens to products users may be unaware of. Opponents to GMOs also disagree with the environmental safety of the products, fearing ecosystem destruc tion if the species are released. The crossing of species’ boundaries could result in new biological forms foreign to any ecosystem. Greenpeace proposes long-term testing on all products and improved regulation through the government. In agreement with Greenpeace, van Donkersgoed refutes the sugges tion that GMOs will help feed the world. v “We are not hungry. We don’t need more food and those that do can’t afford this technology. Sixty per cent of the world’s hungry are women liv ing in subsistence. It was not devel oped or delivered to them.” van Donkersgoed hopes there will be a refocusing in this area, to get the technology to these people. “Technology can only work due to a willingness to give. It cannot be mar ket driven.” Conclusions Whatever the view, most involved in the issue agree that educating the consumer is one of the most impor tant determinants in the success or failure of the products. For those seeking other opinions on GMOs, there are several websites with news reports, scientific studies government standards and com ments from organizations such as Greenpeace. He says the co-operative’s “prod ucts are delivered by knowledgeable staff who have a lot of agricultural experience.” Caldwell has almost two decades of service in the co operative, and he lives on a farm. Beef farmer Ian Caldwell spends his time on the road making deliveries and selling. Sheep farmer Mary Witherspoon is thfe branch’s book keeper. Other Auburn branch employees are part time or seasonal staff mem- Continued on page 11 SAWDUST® for i > SALE! 9 z