As the debate rages as to whether or not genetically modified food should be labeled for consumer choice or not, some groups still question whether or not tampering with Mother Nature is a wise practice.
Are we opening Pandora’s box by dabbling in DNA and introducing bio-engineered species to the ecosystem? Or is genetic modification a panacea for all agriculture’s ills?
Despite being a relatively new technology, genetically modified crops are beginning to pervade Ontario’s agricultural land; Agriculture Groups Concerned About the Environment (AGCare) reports that in 1999, 35 per cent of Ontario’s corn, 20 per cent of its soy beans and 60 per cent of its canola crops were genetically modified.
What exactly is genetic modification, and do we actually eat anything that isn’t modified in some way or another?
According to the President of Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, Gordon Surgeoner, distinguishing GMOs has become increasingly difficult.
"Soy beans are from Asia, corn is from South America, pigs are from Asia, other than turkeys and squash, there isn’t a lot of food grown in North America that hasn’t been introduced," he says.
Foods such as strawberries, corn, apples, chicken and cattle are quite unlike their wild ancestors, he says. In fact, a lot of today’s crops and animals did not even exist in nature; since humans ceased to be hunter-gatherers, plants and animals have been cross-bred to enhance traits like productivity, disease/pest resistance, taste, and nutrition.
"When you say what’s GMO free, what does that mean?" he asks. "People say ‘just label it’, but it’s not that simple."
Surgeoner uses a hypothetical trip to a fast food restaurant to explain his point. "Consider chicken and beef burgers. Like people, chickens and cows need regular vaccinations to prevent diseases. These injections contain recombinant DNA, which is genetically modified material. Does that make them GMOs? Also, these animals were probably raised on corn and soybeans that increasingly are produced through crop biotechnology," he says. "Does that make them GMOs?"
He says that Canada has a food regulatory system that ranks with the best in the world and is emulated by many. He says that GMOs have been on the market since the early 1990s, and that since then, there have been no examples of human or livestock illness from any of the crops approved in Canada.
Nonetheless, it’s not so much as what is known about this emerging technology that scares its opponents, so much as what is not known.
"Our broader concern is we don’t know enough about it," says Tom Manley, who is the president of Homestead Organics in Berwick and chair of the Ottawa chapter of the Canadian Organic Growers association. He says organic farmers don’t agree with GM crops because they jeopardize the integrity of organic crops: The propensity for GM plants to cross-pollinate with conventional plants in neighbouring fields is a proven fact, he says. Manley also worries that bio-technology will not only contaminate the natural, genetic make-up of organically grown plants, but also that the reliance on GMOs will make weeds hardier, and pests more resistant to pesticides.
"Time will tell us that this is a bad thing, just as time has told us that smoking is bad, that DDT is bad, and that 2-4-D is bad ... the list goes on," he says. He says that until the environmental and health effects of these foods are further tested, GMOs should remain separate from the environment.
Manley also questions whether or not the use of biotechnology is actually increasing or decreasing a crop’s resistance to pests and weeds. Perhaps in the short term they are, he explains, but insects will eventually develop resistance to the practices designed to keep them under control. "It becomes an endless race," he says.
"In the meantime, we’re developing super bugs. ...So we are saying, ‘don’t go down that slippery road’."
Manley admits that some GM crops, such as Bt corn that has a pest resistant gene inserted within the plant, reduces the need for pesticides. But GM soy beans are modified to resist a branded herbicide so that it becomes almost a requirement to use herbicide to grow the crop.
He says that the practice by certain companies that sell both seed and the necessary pesticide to farmers is far from ethical.
"Round-up Ready is nothing about giving farmers more options... it’s called consumer control - you get them coming, you get them going. It’s all about corporate control and profit, it’s not about helping farmers."
He argues that if the companies really were interested in helping farmers, they would create weed resistant crops instead of making herbicide resistant crops.
He says organic practices combat pests and weeds by a combination of crop rotation, and increasing diversity in the farm.
The organic philosophy improves the situation by reducing weed and pests, not by wiping them out. "We never say eliminate," he said, adding the goal is to reduce insect levels to acceptable levels.
So how can a farmer who grows conventionally bred crops compete with the farmer up the road who is growing GM crops?
"Humans are greedy, if we see a guy down the road doing well by GM crops, we’ll want to do the same thing. Sooner or later, we are all doing it," he says.
"Let’s keep playing on a level playing field," he says.
If every farmer maximizes their yields, he argues, crop prices will go down. If prices go down, then farmers have to do more work and clear more land to make the same amount of money.
By collectively reducing production, he thinks crop prices would go up. "Less work, better prices - does that sound interesting?"
Instead, modern practices lead to more chemicals being used, more land being cleared, and more capital expenditures for farmers in order to make money.
But ultimately, he thinks the choice should be up to the consumer, not the producers.
"Label it all," he says. "If they buy it, fine. If they don’t, it’s their choice."
He’s confident that if GMOs are labelled, consumers won’t buy them and genetic engineering in food crops will cease.
"Do we really need this stuff? No," he says.
In a perfect world, Manley may be right. The risks of introducing man-made genetics into the environment may be astronomical. History has shown us time and time again how the introduction of foreign species (with there own set of genes), accidental or not, can cause unpredicted havoc. Purple loose strife, Zebra mussels, even the European corn borer.
But is it realistic to throw away science and technology at this point in time? Can we compete in a global economy without bio-technology? And what if GM crops actually do reduce the amount of harmful chemicals released into the environment?
The Chairman of AGCare, Jim Fischer, agrees with genetic engineering and uses GM crops himself. He says if the use of GM crops doesn’t eliminate the need for pesticide use entirely, they at least reduce the concentration of the active ingredients in the chemicals "across the board."
He says that together with integrated pest management, the use of GMOs has helped reduce pesticide use in Ontario by 40 per cent over the last 17 years.
"Those two key areas in particular have allowed a total reduction in pesticides."
Fischer runs a 60-head dairy farm and grows crops to feed his cows. Of the 80-odd acres of corn he grew last summer, he grew roughly 20 acres of Bt corn.
"We wanted to try the Bt corn mainly for a reduction in mold," he says, this was mainly to reduce health problems in his cattle caused by micro toxins in moldy corn caused by the European corn borer.
"In essence, we look at it as a farm management tool," he said, adding that farmers may choose GM crops for a variety of reasons and parameters.
"As a farmer, I have very high confidence in it," he said, adding that all GMOs have been vigorously tested, to the same degree as pharmaceuticals.
He says fear-mongering by a few select groups is spreading inaccurate information, or taking advantage of ignorance to scare people into rejecting something that can legitimately help farmers.
"That’s were AgCare comes in, to provide pertinent information."
He says that presently, bio-technology benefits food producers more than it does the consumer. "As time goes on, as we see food with more direct consumer benefits, then this debate will be off the radar screen."