The Rural Voice, 2000-04, Page 26As the debate over
genetically
enhanced crops and
food products continues,
more people — consumers
or producers — want more
information on the science.
They want it balanced,
understand-able and just as
important, they want it from
a source they can trust.
Despite assurances from the
scientific community of the
safety of genetic
enhancements, those
opposed to their
applications question and
counter those statements,
often using questionable
methods of their own.
But the underlying issue
in all of this is perception; a
very powerful ally or an
almost unscalable wall of
opposition. Passing from
the 1900s into 2000, the
truth contained in the phrase
"perception is reality" is
simply too hard to ignore.
It's as if the safety of
genetic enhancements is no
longer the issue, it's a
matter of working within a
consumer's "comfort zone"
and learning specifically
what it is they want.
Such was the setting for
The Future of Food, a
conference dealing with
biotechnology, held
Saturday, March 4th in
Stratford. Organized
primarily by the Mitchell
and Area Environment
Group, the conference
sought to provide a forum
for discussion, primarily among those
in the anti-GE camp, asking for more
research performed by third party
facilities/agents. That the scientific
community states "biotechnology is
safe (according to the best science
available)" is not sufficient.
And since the customer is always
right...
Dr. Neal Stoskopf, a geneticist
with the University of Guelph was
the lead speaker and offered some
keen insight into issues surrounding
genetic enhancements. He conceded
the fears of the activists and others
who are leery of science tinkering
JUGGLING THE
GMO FOOD ISSUES
How
much
testing?
Yield
gains
The debate over the role of
genetically altered crops and the
food industry continues among
farmers, geneticists, and food
professionals at Stratford conference
By Ralph Pearce
22 THE RURAL VOICE
with plants' genetic coding. Stoskopf
repeatedly referred to concerns over a
lack of long-term research into the
effects of genetically altered crops,
commenting specifically on the
findings of Pusztai's tests on lab rats
fed genetically altered potatoes.
Why has there been no other
research to confirm or deny those
findings, asked Stoskopf (N.B. At the
Ontario Pork annual meeting in
Toronto, ,Phyllis Tanaka of the
Canadian Food Information Council
asserted that Pusztai's tests had been
flawed — that rats were fed a low
protein diet and the method of
assessing the cancer rates
was incorrect)? .
Stoskopf continued with
the concerns over endotoxins
released into the soil from
the roots of Bt corn and the
existence of the gene in
every cell of the plant. He
was also cautious over the
use of Roundup Ready
pesticide and its potential
year-round presence in the
soil, and questioned why the
farm community was slow to
object to the use of
terminator genes that
promote sterility in seeds
after 16 to 18 months.
On the plus side however,
Stoskopf praised the science
for its potential in the field
of human transplants as well
as the ability to incorporate
all 27 nutrients and minerals
into foods.
What's missing, he
concluded, is a social
conscience, replaced by the
drive for money and power.
Much the same sentiment
came from Dr. Peter Kevan,
of University of Guelph's
Department of Environ-
mental Biology. Like
Stoskopf, he agreed that
biotechnology can be of
tremendous benefit to
producers and the agri-food
industry. But he chastised
the lack of recognition of the
risks, however acceptable
they may be. For instance,
there is documented proof
that genetically enhanced
crops lead to lower yields,
since some of the plant's
nutrients are used to manufacture
pesticides.
How large is the crop
reduction? Kevan stated there
is little evidence to show that
it's substantial for all crops but
indicated it is detectable in some
varieties.
But, he countered, that lack of
evidence should not encourage
people to discount its validity.
Instead, it should coax further
research, including studies into
increased resistance, adverse effects
of genetic enhancements on non -
target and beneficial species,