Are We Being Genetically Modified?

Schmeiser/Monsanto case shows extent of GM foods threat

JUDY KENNEDY / CCPA Monitor Apr02

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

So why do the French hate McDonald's?

The answer involves France's lifestyles and culinary practices, agri-biz, and the feistiness of its family farmers. And its resistance to the forced homogenization that McDo stands for around the world.

For we are being homogenized, standardized, and squared like genetically modified tomatoes that taste like wood but have a shelf life of 10 years and come with their own built-in toxins to ward off bugs.

Genetically modified (GM) or engineered (GE) products are those whose genes have been altered, usually by the addition of genetic material from another species. The product may be developed to resist, for example, a specific herbicide or pesticide.

Widespread use of such seed and herbicide combinations increases the practice of monoculture and of the monopoly of food production through the control of the seed supply. Such practices are given a giant boost by patent rights which compliant governments have legislated.

Genetics Professor Joe Cummins of the University of Western Ontario believes that the GM seed industry is aiming at nothing short of total control--i.e., that certified seeds will be required for all plantings, and that these seeds will have to contain a herbicide-resistant gene.

Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser would agree with this prediction. The case of Monsanto vs Schmeiser is known worldwide. In March of last year, the Federal Court of Canada found that Schmeiser had infringed Monsanto's patent rights because some of its GM canola was growing on his land. That Schmeiser had neither planted it nor authorized its planting was deemed by the court to be "not significant."

The implications for farmers everywhere are awesome. Dr. Ralph Martin, Director of the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada, says, "This throws the onus the wrong way--onto the farmer, not Monsanto."

Canola pollen can be carried over great distances by wind or insects, leading to outcrossing. Agriculturalists estimate that a buffer zone of at least 800 metres is needed to protect a field of non-GM hybrid canola from infestation by the GM variety. The GM variety was developed to resist the most widely used herbicide, Monsanto's Roundup.

These factors mean that most of Saskatchewan's canola fields may now be contaminated and that savers and developers of heritage and other canola strains, like Schmeiser, cannot plant their seed. The contaminating "volunteer" plants bear proprietary genes, as the court has indicated, and are tolerant to Roundup or other common herbicides.

Round One clearly goes to Monsanto.

In addition to the monopoly of a major food crop by one transnational corporation, a second public policy issue arises with GM products: that of food safety. Health Canada holds that genetically modified foods need not be tested nor labelled because they are identical in essential detail to the crop from which they originated, or "substantially equivalent."

Dr. Ann Clark, professor of plant agriculture at the University of Guelph, has long criticized Health Canada's assessment process in relation to food safety; some see it as a mere bookkeeping device. She charges the Department's Food Inspection Agency with having followed a seriously flawed protocol prior to its approval of some 50 GM foods--one that failed to consider their potential for genetic flow to wild relatives or to become weeds--and also failed to evaluate their impact on non-target organisms or on biodiversity.

Recently the Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel on Genetic Modification recommended that more research be done on such novel food products, and over a longer time period; that a government body conduct this research; and that it be funded independently. Open records are essential to this process, they added.

These recommendations contrast with current government practice, which protects the confidentiality of research results as "business information." Retired Agriculture Canada crop scientist Dr. Bert Christie sees government in a conflict of interest position in its dual role of promoter and regulator of biotechnology. He confirms that the CFIA conducts no tests on its own and does not submit the industry's findings to peer review.

What can be so dangerous about GM food crops? Some scientists see more danger in multiple sprayings of crops with herbicides and pesticides than with genetic modification. Dr. Gefu Wang-Pruski, Research Professor, Plant Molecular Biology, Nova Scotia Agricultural College, points to some non-GM apples which, "even if peeled, have 25% more (chemicals) than what is allowed--inside the apple." GM crops, she claims, have been tested now for over 10 years, and have shown no allergenic reaction.

The Internet, however, provides lots of counter-arguments. Dr. Joe Cummins's concerns run like this: "Probably the greatest threat from genetically altered crops is the insertion of modified virus and insect virus genes into crops. It has been shown in the laboratory that genetic recombination will create highly virulent new viruses from such constructions. Certainly the widely used cauliflower mosaic virus is a potentially dangerous gene. It is a pararetrovirus, meaning that it multiplies by making DNA from RNA messages. It is very similar to the Hepatitis B virus and related to HIV. Modified viruses could cause famine by destroying crops or cause human and animal diseases of tremendous power."

Dr. Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics at Guy's Hospital, London, warns: "This procedure results in disruption of the genetic blueprint of the organism, with totally unpredictable consequences. The unexpected production of toxic substances has now been observed in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals, with the problem remaining undetected until a major health hazard has arisen. Moreover, genetically engineered food or enzymatic food processing agents may produce an immediate effect or it could take years for full toxicity to come to light."

Other concerns have been raised by Agnes Sinai of Paris's Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences sociales: "Consumers would ingest much (sic) more pesticides if genetically modified plants were to spread because they contain so much of them. Like dioxins, pesticides, including glyphosphate, are not broken down in the human body; they are a form of invisible pollution. Their molecules have allergenic, neurotoxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, and hormonal effects, and are harmful to male fertility. They have similar properties to female hormones, oestrogens; overall, these hormonal effects could be responsible for a 50% decline in sperm counts over the last 50 years. If that decline were to continue, the human race would have to resort to cloning by about 2060."

Scary stuff. But the list of GM food crops includes more than canola. Most of the corn and soy products we eat may now be of the genetically modified varieties and therefore most of the processed foods that appear on supermarket shelves. No wonder consumers clamor for the labelling of GM foods as a minimum response to the apparent risk this presents.

The precautionary principle--which Canada accepted in signing the Biosafety Protocol in Montreal in 2000--requires nothing less. Yet last October, then Health Minister Alan Rock and his cabinet colleagues scuttled a bill presented by Liberal MP Charles Caccia, a bill that would have made the labelling of GM foods mandatory and which had the support of 93% of Canadians.

Round Two to Monsanto.

Consumers in Europe are rallying, demanding the labelling of GM foods, and even their withdrawal from the market. Governments are moving to ban the cultivation of GM crops. Boycotts of corn, soy and canola from the United States and Canada are being organized by retailers, as well as by consumers abroad.

Organic foods are much sought after. One California food chain, Trader Joe's, recently announced that it would work with its private label vendors to have GM-free products reformulated if necessary and certified within a year. Now there's competitve advantage!

Canadian farmers have taken notice and have instructed the board of directors of the country's largest grain company, Agricore United, to work towards segregating GM and non-GM varieties of grain and oil seeds and urging government not to licence varieties of GM wheat. Their market-share is at stake.

For Canadian consumers, it is not too late to get off the shelf, join with our European and American counterparts, and win Round Three.

We should push hard for effective regulation of GM crops and products; for extensive and long-term research on their effects by independent researchers; and for a ban on their presence in the food market until they have been proven safe.

In the meantime, Percy Schmeiser has appealed the Federal Court's ruling, and the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate has launched a class action suit against Monsanto on behalf of those farmers who have had their fields contaminated by GM seeds without their authorization.

Stay tuned.

Judy Kennedy-- persan@auracom.com --is a retired lawyer and environmental activist living in Nova Scotia's Annapolis Valley. She is a member of CCPA-Nova Scotia and Sierra Atlantic. For more information, see www.percyschmeiser.com - www.plant.uoguelph.ca/faculty/eclark  - www.natural-law.ca/genetic.