Altering the
genetic code of living beings to create exceptional characteristics
is an almost entirely anthropocentric activity. It is also rather crude.
In one common practice, genes responsible for a certain trait are "fired"
into the nucleus of a living cell. In another, known means by which
certain viruses attack a host cell are applied to altering a genetic
sequence. Whatever the method, genetic engineering is a process of trial
and error, and most attempts to create a viable result are unsuccessful.
When it works, the effects can be quite bizarre: a fish gene in a tomato,
so it can withstand colder temperatures and not spoil as quickly. There
can be sinister purposes for it, such as a plan to add spider genes
to Angora goat genes so the animal will produce fibre for stronger and
lighter bullet proof vests.
One
of the most contentious applications of GE technology is Monsanto's
canola seed. It is resistant to Monsanto's pesticide, Roundup. Farmers
can spray fields with Roundup, killing everything except the canola.
The genetically modified canola is patented and distribution strictly
controlled, and critics say this amounts to the unacceptable surrender
of food production to private corporate control.
An
ethical perspective
To understand the
intense interest in GMO research -- shown by the agri-business, medical
and industrial sectors -- we need only be reminded of humanity's checkered
history of manipulating the environment. Those who support genetic engineering
say they are looking for ways to feed a hungry world, prevent disease,
or create beneficial new technologies.
While
worthy in themselves, such purposes are routinely distorted by modern
social values and negative forces can be set in motion to achieve them.
For example, western culture prizes physical comfort, power and convenience
-- conditions which nature doesn't necessarily or willingly provide.
In the process of creating such conditions, we in effect isolate ourselves
from natural events and processes. Collectively carrying such behavior
to extremes, we become blind to the feedback nature gives to our environmental
impact.
This
situation is commonplace and is supported and reinforced by the modern
"word view" which interprets reality in very specialized and imperical
terms. Areas of special interest, such as genetic engineering, are examined
in isolation. Science, the rigorous application of this world view,
often does not deal with events outside a given discipline, nor does
it deal with ethical abstractions such the dignity of living things,
human identification with nature, and so on.
The
ideology of commerce has a similar limiting influence on our perception.
Like science, it is specialized, and only focuses on issues that are
relevant to its success, such as profit making, competition, uniformity,
predictability and standards of performance.
Regarding
the control of nature in general, and genetic engineering in particular,
it is not surprising that society struggles to distinguish between what
is possible and what is appropriate.
Problems
with GE technology
The human introduction
of foreign species has often resulted in widespread ecological disruption,
and extinction of localized flora and fauna. Well-known and recent examples
include the the proliferation of rabbits in Australia and of zebra mussels
in the Great Lakes. The introduction of genetically engineered species
has similar, and perhaps more troublesome, implications.
Dr.
Norman Ellstrand, Professor of Genetics at the University of California,
is a leading authority on genetic engineering. "We see this as a multi-million
dollar problem. In Europe, there is already a big problem with gene
flow between wild beet and cultivated beet. Rape seed oil (canola) also
has close relatives and is going to cause problems in the future. One
would expect that the kind of genes that are now being engineered are
going to be the ones that have a higher potentiality for causing trouble."
According
to Ellstrand, the trouble is that pollen blowing in the wind or carried
by pollinator species can transfer genetically engineered traits, such
as herbicide resistance and pest resistance, to wild plants. This outward
gene flow into nature has the potential to significantly alter ecosystems
and create scenarios that would pose enormous dilemmas for farmers.
Bees
and other pollinator species can be harmed with disastrous consequences
to the food supply. The killing of Monarch butterfly larvae by corn
pollen genetically engineered to express a bacterial toxin was discovered
after millions of acres were planted. This is a dramatic example of
adverse secondary effects from a technology that is not well understood.
Advocates
of genetic engineering claim it will increase yields, ensure security
of supply and enhance nutritional content. They cite the example of
GE soybeans that contain higher protein levels. Health experts and environmentalists
aren't so sure. If quantity is what is needed, it can be achieved through
sound traditional agricultural practices and the avoidance of waste
in the shipment and storage of food. In terms of safety, the Sierra
Club and Greenpeace point to the lack of long-term health studies on
GM products. A 1998 British study indicated that animals fed on GM potatoes
suffered organ damage. Questions have arisen about the implications
of making a plant repellant -- that is, poisonous -- to pests. But there
are few studies addressing such questions.
There
are also ecosystem risks. As plants are modified to repel insect pests,
other insects with higher resistance fill the vacated ecological niche.
The result is that farmers have to resort to even stronger pesticides.
Another concern is that transgenic seeds will pollinate with other species
and cause valuable insect and plant species to become extinct. Meanwhile,
research into the impact of GE foods isn't matching the phenomenal growth
of the industry.
Worldwide
Opposition
Following the mad
cow debacle in Britain (an issue related to agriculture management,
and apropos to the potential hazards of genetic engineering), opposition
to GM foods exploded in Britain and spread to the European continent.
European public pressure has forced grocery chains to phase out GE products
or implement labeling. A de facto moratorium on new GM organisms currently
exists in the EU and is expected to last until at least 2002.
Asia
is proceeding on much the same track as the EU. Japan's Agriculture
Ministry imposed mandatory labeling on GM food products effective April
2001. South Korea has already passed laws requiring the labeling of
genetically modified foods.
In August
1999, the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Council announced
that they would "require mandatory labeling of all food which is known
to, or may contain, genetically modified organisms". The U.S. government
publicly opposed these labeling laws and has privately lobbied hard
against them. But this didn't stop Grupo Maseca, Mexico's leading producer
of corn flour, from stopping purchases of GM corn following public reaction.
What's
happening Now?
Only those who grow
food in their own backyards know what they are putting into their bodies.
Those who shop in a supermarket have no way of knowing if the food they
are buying has been modified with a plant, insect, animal or bacterial
gene. Crops such as canola, flax, potatoes, tomatoes and corn are now
the focus of a growing biotech industry that has few regulatory controls.
Ten
years ago, there were no GE commercial crops. Today Canada, the U.S.
and Argentina grow over 90 percent of the world's GE crops. In Canada
60 percent of canola seed production is now genetically modified. Canola
finds its way into dozens of products including breakfast cereals, cooking
oils, fast foods, candy, chocolate and many prepared commodities.
Two
years ago GE soybeans made up less than two percent of output. Today
they account for 25 percent. U.S. chemical giant Monsanto Corp., which
created the defoliant Agent Orange, has modified soybeans to be resistant
to the pesticide Roundup, which Monsanto also makes. A soil bacteria
gene was inserted into the soybean plant so it wouldn't be affected
by Roundup. Farmers can spray Roundup on soybean fields and kill only
weeds. The theory looks good, say ecologists, but there is no way of
ensuring that the practice won't produce super weeds that need yet stronger
pesticides. Industry spokespeople, however, say the benefits of higher
food production outweigh potential risks. Genetically engineered soybeans,
meanwhile, are widely marketed. They are used as an alternative to animal
and dairy protein, and used as a milk substitute.
Other
genetically engineered foods include corn, potatoes, tomatoes, squash
and wheat. California-grown tomatoes are engineered to retard the ripening
process. This allows them to be stored for longer periods. Potatoes
and wheat strains are being developed to resist bug infestations.
Labelling
in Canada and Elsewhere
Despite the great
strides made by proponents of genetic engineering, a backlash is beginning
to occur. In Canada, Gerber baby foods and H.J. Heinz Co. announced
they will rid baby food of GE content. At least one high-end pet food
maker is following suit. Meanwhile environmental activists have launched
new initiatives. An alliance of 80 organizations is lobbying for compulsory
GE labelling. Polls show that up to 90 per cent of Canadians want to
know what is in the food they eat.
As yet,
there are no Canadian labeling requirements for GE foods. The federal
government has in fact decided that labeling GE foods is not necessary
-- regarding foods containing GMOs as virtually identical to those that
do not. Agriculture Canada even distributes brochures explaining "the
nutritional quality" of GM foods.
In contrast,
labelling of genetically engineered products is mandatory in more progressive
countries such as Britain. There, retailers post signs indicating which
products contain GM ingredients and restaurants indicate the same on
menus. France, Germany and Austria, which already have labeling regulations,
recently rejected imports of GE corn. New Zealand and Australia are
introducing labeling requirements, as is Japan.
In North
America however, agri-business is resistant to labeling which they see
as a potential marketing threat. Tracing GMOs to their root crops is
seen as costly, and an regulatory nightmare. The Canadian Food Inspection
Agency (CFIA) is responsible protecting consumers from misrepresentation
and fraud with respect to food labeling, packaging and advertising.
When it comes to GM foods, however, the CFIA says "the costs and difficulties
associated with labeling may outweigh the benefits for Canadian consumers
and according to the government there is no way of distinguishing a
genetically engineered product from another". Furthermore, say CFIA
officials, it is hard to track foods or know whether they come from
a GE crop or contain any ingredients that have been genetically engineered.
The CFIA claims labeling could promote fear in consumers and prefers
voluntary labeling by companies.
In British
Columbia, many of the large supermarket chains including IGA, Safeway,
Save On Foods and Overwaitea have been unwilling to disclose information
about GE content in their products. With no government labeling standards,
local food industry spokespeople say it isn't an issue that can be fairly
addressed by retailers. Meanwhile, the only choice for consumers is
to either grow their own food or thoroughly research their food sources
-- a difficult and time consuming task. Given that few people have the
resources to match Agriculture Canada or the CFIA, it would seem reasonable
that taxpayer-funded agencies do the work and come up with suitable
labeling.
Until
then, consumers must put pressure on elected politicians and government
decision-makers. They can also try and avoid prepared foods that are
likely to contain GM ingredients. These are products that list soy lecithin,
vegetable oil, corn starch, corn meal, canola oil, corn syrup, vegetable
protein, glucose syrup, soy protein, maltodextrin, xanthan gum, cryptoaxanthin,
emulsifying agents and monosodium glutamate.
SPEC
supports long-term independent safety testing and labeling of genetically
engineered foods and a moratorium on the creation of genetically modified
organisms.
back
to Genetic Engineering Index
