Northern Gardener
Killer French fries and other GM Wonders
(And we ain't talking cars)

HighGrader Magazine January/February 2000
by Joe Muething
Last summer as I was drawing up a rough schedule of topics for future HighGrader articles, I decided that my first article of the new century would be about the genetic modification of plants. It seemed that as genetic engineering was likely to become one of the most debated issues of the next decade it it would be appropriate to lead off January with a look at this controversial technology.
By late fall, as I was finishing the research for what would be the a two-article series, it became increasingly apparent that that bio-technology was getting more attention than Y2K. The controversy over genetic manipulation was not going to wait until the next century to leap into the spotlight of the mainstream media. Throughout the early winter, bio-technology was in the news nearly every day.
But what does it all have to do with you and your garden? If you think that it's a pretty long leap from biotechnology to gardening in the north, you're in for a surprise.
According to Margaret Kenny of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, there are over 40 approved foods that have been developed through bio-technology and "one of them, corn, is found in over 25% of foods sold in an average grocery store".
Bio-technology is in the north. It is at your local grocery and in your cupboard. It's in local gardens and fields. And there will probably be a lot more of it in the near future.
The time has come to learn more about this "genetic revolution." Let's start with a brief and somewhat simplified look at what genetic engineering is all about. I've heard it said that genetic technology allows scientists to rearrange the basic building blocks of life. But that isn't exactly the case. GM technology goes a step further.
Genetic engineering actually rewrites the blueprint that tells where and how those blocks will be placed. That blueprint is called DNA. Within the DNA of each organism lies the complete plan for what that organism will be its species, its shape, its colour every detail.
In animals and plants, DNA is located in the nucleus of each cell. If you think of DNA as a sheet of instructions, then genes, which are found within DNA, are the individual sentences that make up the instructions.
Changing one or more of those sentences (genes) will alter the directions.
And this is where it gets interesting. All of the genes in all of the life forms on this planet are made up of the same basic materials in different combinations. This means that, given the right conditions, a gene from one species can be inserted into a different species.
In nature there are natural barriers that prevent such situations from happening. Biotechnology, however, removes those barriers. A genetic engineer, for example, can identify the gene within a bacterium that makes the bacterium toxic to certain insects. That gene can be removed and inserted into the cell of a plant. The new plants produced from this process are then toxic to the insects.
This is what was done to create the Monsanto company's Russet Burbank New Leaf potato, one of 42 genetically modified (GM) foods now approved for use in Canada and the only one currently available to home gardeners. The bug-killing gene came from a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, commonly referred to as BT.
Since its introduction about 30 years ago, BT has been a mainstay in the arsenal of organic growers. BT is a selective insecticide (meaning that it only kills certain species of insects). It is considered harmless to mammals. All parts of the Russet Burbank New Leaf potato, leaves, stems and roots produce the insecticide. This makes the entire plant poisonous to the Colorado potato beetle, as well as other insects.
Since the plant itself controls the beetle, the need for spraying the potatoes with insecticides is reduced or eliminated. And because of the selective nature of the toxin, officials at Health Canada say that the New Leaf potatoes are as safe to eat as any other potatoes on the market.
In their approval document for the new potato variety, Health Canada found that the insecticide present in the plant material "is not judged to have any potential for human toxicity".
Death to bugs, harmless to people. End of story? Well, not quite. Anyone who has been gardening for a reasonable length of time knows that bugs are resilient and that nature loves to surprise those who think they have it all figured out. What sort of surprises might be in store for us from genetically modified plants?
First let's look at the approval process. Regulation and approval of GM foods is the responsibility of the Federal government. Two government agencies, The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada, share that responsibility in a division of labour that is often confusing and at times defies logic. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), in spite of its name, does not handle the approval of new foods. The CFIA, rather, evaluates the environmental safety of GM plants. It is up to Health Canada to carry out safety assessments of new foods, including GM foods. Issues arising from the importation of GM foods, though, are handed back to the CFIA.
And the labeling of GM foods? Well that's a joint duty of both agencies. Health Canada's evaluation of a new GM food is based on the concept of "substantial equivalence". Using information supplied by the company that has developed the new food, staff at Health Canada compare the characteristics of the new food "to that of its traditional counterpart, its nutritional quality, the potential for the presence of any toxicants or anti-nutrients, and the potential allergenicity of any proteins introduced into the food."
Health Canada feels that "This assessment provides assurance that the safety of a novel food is equivalent to similar foods already available" and that "once reviewed, these foods can enter the market place in the same manner as traditional foods."
No special labels required.
A growing segment of the general public, as well as many members of the scientific community, do not share this confidence.
Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus of Genetics at the University of Western Ontario, is highly critical of the present approval system. In addition to teaching advanced genetics, Cummins has also conducted extensive research into microbial genetics, environmental gene damage and causes of cancer. He describes the application of the principal of "substantial equivalence" to the testing of GM food as "crude".
"The main issues surrounding GM food", says Cummins, "are mandatory labeling, and testing GM crops to the level employed in testing pharmaceutical drugs and pesticides."
In a telephone interview in December 1999, Cummins described the non-labeling of GM foods as a "cold-blooded strategy". Labeling, he pointed out, is the only way that injury from GM crops can be identified. He sited a study from York University, England where scientists found that soy allergy had increased dramatically after GM soy was marketed. Without labeling though, it was impossible to scientifically associate the allergy to GM soy.
Labeling, of course, would also give consumers the option of avoiding GM foods.
Opponents of mandatory labeling claim that such labeling might be confusing to consumers and is unnecessary because it has not been proved that GM foods are different from traditional foods.
Canadians do not appear, however, to share this opinion. In a poll conducted by the Toronto Star in 1998, 98% of respondents felt that all genetically engineered foods should be labeled.
A Prairie Research Associates poll conducted in Manitoba this past spring found that 92% of Manitobans believe genetically altered food should be labeled. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is presently working on guidelines for the voluntary labeling of GM foods but consumer groups and safe food advocates who continue to call for mandatory labelling are less than impressed.
An increasing number of people are taking their concerns directly to the supermarket chains and the food processors. And it's having an effect. In late November, McCain Foods announced that it will no longer accept any GM potatoes for processing. Chairman Harrison McCain cited intense consumer pressure as the reason. Several other large food processors are expected to follow suit.
In the meantime, many biotech firms have launched campaigns of their own, promoting bio-technology not just as a safe industry, but as the only answer to the increased food production that we'll need to feed the world's swelling population.
If only it were that simple.

Next issue: The secret ingredients in GM food. Will super plants create super pests?

This article may be downloaded but reprints require permission from HighGrader Magazine.

To read part two in this series: Strip Mining the Life System

Back