Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Get Stuffed

A blow to the breadbasket?

The debate over genetically engineered foods is just getting started

Sitting on the fence in the middle of the prairies gives you just enough height to detect the curvature of the earth. The prairies of Canada grow the country’s leading agricultural export, wheat. Recent pressure from the biotechnology sector to introduce genetically modified wheat seeds is causing a ripple of concern across the country as well as the international community.

Genetically engineered foods, also called genetically modified foods, have become the subject of an increasingly polarized debate. Are they safe for consumption? Will their production damage the environment? Will they save small, family run farms from the brink of extinction? Will they help to feed the starving millions in the Third World?

Depending on which organization or corporation you refer these questions to, the answers will be distinctly different, most likely using strong language for manipulative leverage. The tug of war between industry, looking towards profit, and environmentalism, with an eye towards sustainability, is stretching the scientific rope that connects them. So what is the average person, sitting on the fence, supposed to decide about the use or ban of GE foods?

Currently, Monsanto Canada is seeking approval for unrestricted environmental release of Roundup Ready wheat. This has started the ringing of global alarm bells. Canada has consistently produced the world’s highest quality wheat, which is sold on the export market to the tune of $3 billion a year. Wheat is, second only to rice, one of the world’s main food staples. The outcry against the release of GE wheat has prompted the Canadian Wheat Board to conduct an independent review of the risks associated with the release of GE wheat into open fields. The independent review is necessary as the regulatory board, comprised of Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, may have conflicting interests – the CFIA is a division of Agri-food and Agriculture Canada which is a co-sponsor of Monsanto’s GE wheat. The results of the study, which can be read at the Wheat Board’s Web site, www. cwb.ca, warned that the unrestricted release of GE wheat "would pose an unacceptable level of environmental risk" by limiting farmers’ ability to conserve natural resources on farms in Western Canada.

GM technology has been around for several decades already. In fact the technology was originally accepted and lauded for its production of pharmaceuticals like insulin, growth hormone and Factor VIII, a blood clotting agent used by haemophiliacs. Not surprisingly, pharmaceutical companies holding the patents governing such technologies are profiting from sales.

When the same technologies are used in large scale agricultural food production, and biotech giants like Monsanto are culling equally large profits, suspicions are aroused. After all, diabetics need insulin for survival but giant corporations forcing consumers to eat "frankenfood" can’t be ethical, can it?

Interestingly, more than 250 million American citizens have been consuming GM foods for several years now. To date, there have been no reports of negative consequences or law suits. Perhaps the knowledge that our grocery shelves secretly harbour GM foods in their ingredients lists – think of all the products that contain soya emulsifiers – has fuelled mistrust of the biotech industry. We were never informed we were guinea pigs, and, if we had been, would we have consented to such an experiment? Currently, labelling legislation regarding GM foods is being reviewed.

The bread basket of Canada, hit hard by drought in the last few years, is now threatened by a market that refuses to purchase GE wheat or any wheat that might be GE contaminated.

GM crops promise to increase yield. Theoretically, they reduce the amount of pesticides and herbicides, which are expensive to the farmer and which would otherwise be introduced into the environment through regular spraying.

Pollen does travel from one plant to another, either by wind or by cross pollinators like bees. Plants will cross pollinate with a closely related plant species that grows in the wild or a neighbouring farm. Most of the agricultural crops in North America have been introduced from elsewhere in the world, so the risk of cross pollination is low. In Europe, where many of the seeds originated, the risk is higher. There is potential for weeds to become resistant to herbicides bred into crops, which in the long run will reduce the effectiveness of the genetic alteration of seeds.

The real issues surrounding genetic modification of food crops has little to do with the biotechnology involved and a lot more to do with the implications of accepting this type of agriculture as the new way of farming. Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada began to hear arguments between Percy Shmeiser, a Saskatchewan farmer, and biotechnology giant, Monsanto. In essence, Monsanto is suing Percy for using their patented Roundup Ready Canola variety without permission (signing a contract is part of the sale of RR seeds) or paying for them. Percy insists his crops were contaminated by seeds blowing over from a neighbouring farm.

The eventual decision, the first of its type in a high court of any nation, has far reaching consequences for farmers the world over. Basically, the results of the argument will determine who owns property rights over seeds.

The age-old tradition of saving seeds from one harvest to the next year’s planting is paramount in Third World countries, where farmers are unable to afford to buy seeds annually. By introducing patented GE seeds, farmers will be forced to purchase annually or suffer prosecution. Farmers become, in the words of Adele, my biologist mother in law, servants of the seed merchant. Even those farmers not wanting to produce GE crops will be forced to buy new seeds each year to be able to certify that their crops are indeed non GE and have not been contaminated during the previous year’s growing season. This amounts to a considerable financial cost to farmers, who are already struggling in this country, and disastrous consequences for those in developing countries who are battling to put food on the table.

By squeezing out smaller, family run farms unable to compete with growing industry that favours GM crops, crop biodiversity will be compromised. Remember the movie Deliverance? If biotech companies force farmers to buy one type of seed, our Canadian bread basket might start duelling banjos.

In addition, the potential for any number of consequent effects to other species, such as birds, insects and small mammals, can not be ignored.

Fortunately, this impending threat has motivated the collection of seeds for heritage seed banks that traditional and organic farmers are working to produce and perpetuate using traditional seed harvesting methods. Heritage seed crops are small, serving only niche markets like artisan bread bakers, which in turn are at the mercy of fickle consumers.

Small scale production has a long way to go towards aiding people in the Third World, something GM crops have been able to do in certain circumstances. Vitamin A deficiency can cause blindness in children, exacerbate respiratory diseases and measles and can be fatal for children in developing countries, especially Asia where rice is the main, or only food consumed.

This led to the development of Golden Rice, rice genetically modified to yield beta carotene and carotene-enriched canola and mustard. In an unprecedented humanitarian move, Monsanto, the owner of the GM components of these crops, offered to provide them royalty-free to developing countries.

Anti-GM activists argue that this is only a band aid solution to the problem of world hunger and malnutrition. Instead, it is argued that we should be supporting biodiversity and educating people in developing countries to eat a balanced diet of fruits and vegetables.

The practical logistics of following through with such a campaign are complex and, in the meantime, millions of people become sick and die from lack of proper food. Is it ethical for the wealthy minority in the western world to squash biotechnologies that might save millions of people from starvation? Also, consider this: many of us contribute funding to biotechnology by buying shares of companies that produce GM seeds when we invest in mutual funds or RRSPs.

The most frightening consequence of adapting an agricultural system that includes GE crops is that food production for millions of consumers will be in the hands of the corporate few. The power to engineer how and what we eat has far more dire outcomes for consumer choices and freedoms. But informed choices can not be made without sound understanding of the facts and issues involved. Public debate and discussion are needed as much as support for unbiased scientific research. Neither passionate, moral or profit driven arguments will provide the necessary clear understanding. Until debate occurs without mud-slinging, many will continue to sit on the fence of what could be the most important decision facing humans and the soil we stand on.

Political pressure could focus on shifting privately-funded breeding facilities back to using pre-1950s, publicly funded, regional field stations. There are over 100 000 plus varieties of wheat. Perhaps by studying these we may discover strains that thrive in particular climate conditions or which offer natural resistance to particular pests.

Mark L. Winston, a professor of Biological Sciences at Simon Fraser University, is the author of Travels in the Genetically Modified Zone, an excellently written, impartial view on the problems facing a new age of farming using biotechnologies.