Gambling with your food?
The GM debate
By Katy Peplinskie

OTTAWA — In 1994, a seemingly innocuous fruit – the Flavr Savr tomato – burst on the scene. This genetically engineered organism was designed by Calgene with an extra gene to ensure tomatoes could ripen on the vine, halfway around the world, yet still make it to supermarkets before spoiling.

Genetic modification refers to the manipulation of an organism's genetic make-up through the introduction or elimination of specific genes.

But though the magic of transgenics worked to give the fruit a longer shelf life, it was still a bust. The public loudly voiced its dissent, refusing to buy any sort of “Frankenfood.”

And so genetically modified crops were thrust into the limelight.

Though “genetic modification” simply refers to the manipulation of an organism's genetic make-up through the introduction or elimination of specific genes, critics dubbed modified organisms “genetically mutilated” and “genetically mutated.” Opponents foretold countless health risks and an environmental apocalypse.

Greenpeace even catered to the public’s basest fears by representing modified foods with gigantic three-dimensional corn cobs, equipped with open, dark red lips and aggressively displayed fangs.

But what was the reason for this frenzy? And why does the fear-mongering over genetically modified organisms continue, unabated, today?

As Princeton University biologist, Lee Silver, says, “Many scientists take the Luddite stance that genetic technology can only be harmful, and refuse to see the obvious benefits they bring.”

Silver also makes reference to a non-scientific camp which has been especially vocal in its opposition to modified foods — the left-leaning, spiritually-minded intellectuals. “As the left’s argument goes, to play with nature is to try and play God,” Silver says.

And though such voices used to be relatively subdued in Canada, save for a few ecologists or granola muncher picketing on Parliament Hill, Canadians are becoming increasingly loud in their dissent.

Dr. Brian Ellis, co-author of the Royal Society of Canada’s recommendations to the Canadian government on how to regulate genetically modified products, falls squarely into the first camp. He is a scientist opposed to the sale of genetically modified foods.

“I’m not trying to be paranoid, just safe,” he says. “We simply haven’t done enough long term testing on these foods in Canada or any place else, to make any concrete conclusions about them. They’re simply too new.”

He says researchers must continue studying these foods for biochemical reactions to decide if they might be harmful to human physiology over the long term. “Since no gene controls only one feature of any organism, the introduction of a gene from one living organism into another completely unrelated organism might cause unidentified biochemical reactions in the still-stabilizing DNA that can be harmful to people.”

Health concerns aside, Ellis argues that tampering with the genetic makeup of plants can have unforeseen consequences for plant life, such as the development of “super weeds” that are resistant to pesticides.

Many foods in grocery stores, like Frosted Flakes, contain genetically modified ingredients.

Ellis says it’s also possible that plants “emitting toxins as a result of modification could cause natural pests to mutate into bigger, stronger, more resistant bugs.”

A final scientific concern involves “genetic pollution” or cross-contamination. Opponents of genetic modification worry that pollen from genetically modified fields could eventually find its way to fields of unmodified crops, and even to wild plants, potentially creating untested and unpredictable strains of plant life.

Because of these concerns, critics of genetically modified crops – which include such diverse groups as Greenpeace, the Green Party, the World Wildlife Fund, and the European Union – argue that public policy ought to follow the precautionary principle, better safe than sorry.

However, as scientist Richard Lewontin writes in his essay "Genes in the Food!," many of their fears are unwarranted. “Transgenes are not spread like microbes, entering the body from the outside,” he says.

“Instead, they are transmitted by reproduction of the entire genome of an organism, and if a cross occurs between an engineered plant and a wild relative, the result is an offspring that is hybrid in every respect, including all those characteristics that make cultivated varieties so ill-adapted to survival in nature.”

“And so we find ourselves in a puzzling situation,” says Dr. Mark Winston, a researcher at Simon Fraser University. “We haven’t had a single catastrophe to engender such sweeping public apprehension over genetically modified organisms, and yet so many people remain opposed to them.” Like Silver, Winston wonders why people still haven’t realized the mounting scientific evidence that proves the benefits of these organisms.

According to a United Nations Development report, many genetically modified varieties of rice, soybean, millet and cassava have been shown to have 50 per cent higher yields. “This is important since the more food people are able to grow on an acre of land, the less land that must be cleared for agriculture,” says Winston.

The same UN report states that these same modified plants mature about 30 to 50 days earlier, are substantially richer in protein, are especially disease and drought tolerant, and are more resistant to insect pests than traditional plants. Engineered varieties are also expected to help cut farmers’ costs since they can be grown without fertilizer or herbicides – luxuries which many poor farmers can’t afford.

The report also says that in China, where more than four million small farmers are growing genetically modified cotton on about 30 per cent of the country’s total cotton area, yields for insect-resistant cotton were about 20 per cent higher than for conventional varieties.

Pesticide costs were also around 70 per cent lower. In fact, pesticide use was reduced by an estimated 78,000 tons in 2001, an amount equal to about one-quarter of the total quantity of chemical pesticides used in China. As a result, cotton farmers experienced fewer pesticide poisonings than those growing conventional varieties.

There are many other innovations that have also been made possible through genetic engineering. A 1999 study published in the journal Nature Biotechnology found that 96.2 per cent of genetically modified plants could survive freezing experiments, versus just 9.5 per cent of unaltered plants. When subjected to drought conditions, three quarters of the modified plants survived, compared with just two percent of the traditional plants.

“It’s easy to understand the benefits for foods being able to withstand such low temperatures,” says Winston. “The hardier the plant, the less food will be lost to the elements.”

In addition to these environmental gains, genetically modified foods have also been proven to have enormous potential for improving human health. One example is the creation of Golden Rice, which contains added Vitam A as carotene, and which will eventually be available for commercial planting. This type of rice is produced by splicing three foreign genes – two from the daffodil and one from a bacterium – into japonica rice, a variety adapted for temperate climates. Thus, genetically engineered foods may help increase our vitamin consumption, and contribute to improved human health.

But though the first camp may skirt these benefits, Silver says the second camp – the “spiritualists” – generally accept that modified foods do provide a multitude of benefits.

However, they call genetically engineered food an assault on the sovereignty of God. As Prince Charles said in an interview with The Times of London, “This kind of genetic modification takes mankind into realms that belong to God, and to God alone.”

One would think by listening to the dissidents, that everything in this world other than engineered foods was natural. Silver says: “Critics seem to think that valleys of well tended meadows, neat farms and grazing cows represent a natural order that must be conserved – though every component of this picture is the result of human intervention into a previous natural order that disappeared long ago.”

He adds that opponents of genetic modification seem to seek a return to an idyllic life never even experienced by this generation.

Lewontin agrees, writing, “People seem to yearn for the independent family farmer, tilling the soil, in touch with nature, making decisions about what and when to plant and harvest from his craft knowledge, sitting down at dinner to a groaning board of home-grown victuals prepared by his aproned wife.” He points out, however, it is far too late in the game to realize such a reality.

Indeed, even before genetic engineering became popular in the nineties, agriculture was one of the most unnatural human endeavors ever conceived, says Silver.

In fact, mankind has been tinkering with Mother Nature for thousands of years, encouraging certain breeds and strains that had obvious advantages over less promising varieties.

According to Lewontin, “the results of many ancient modifications have been organisms that are not only very different from their wild ancestors, but are in many characteristics, the very opposite of the organisms from which they were derived.”

Lewontin uses the example of the compact ear of maize with large kernels adhering tightly to the cob to make this point. “It is very useful in a grain that needs to be gathered and to be stored for long periods, but a plant with such a seed head would soon disappear in nature because it could not disperse its seed.”

But though Canadians are generally thought of as being liberal and open-minded, Rod Phillips, a professor of food history at Carleton University, says they increasingly seem to be buying into the concerns over genetically modified crops.

“Canadians just seem to be hitting their stride when it comes to the genetically modified foods debate,” he says.

Phillips says this explains the current hearings being held in Prince Edward Island which may lead to a province-wide ban on modified crops. He also says the push for labeling of modified foods is getting stronger, adding that the government may soon come around and smack all genetically altered foods with labels.

But where does the impetus for these changes stem from?

“Canadians have probably always harboured concerns over genetic modification, but felt they had their hands tied,” reasons Phillips.

“Canadians recognize that much of our food supply comes from the United States where they are doing nothing to stop the production of modified foods. Because of our close relationship and open border policy with them, it’s hard for us to do much.” But, like Silver, Phillips also says it’s ironic that so much opposition to genetically modified foods exists. “People say they want a return to nature. They say they want things to be wholesome and less processed. They want less chemicals, additives and preservatives.”

“But then they go and buy fast food. And do they buy the salads at McDonalds? No, the core sales are highly processed foods we know are not good.”

“It’s a strange situation,” says Phillips. “People say they want to make the right choices, but this desire is questionable.”

So, why all the opposition to genetically modified foods, then?

“There are a lot of confused people out there,” Phillips concludes.