The intensity of the anti-agri-food biotechnology campaign being waged by
environmental groups, media and some farm groups, continues to grow.
Examination of the arguments by those vocally opposed to the new technology shows most of them to be shallow. Reasonable
responses, based on quality science, are available for most or all of the expressed concerns. The technology used
to date involves the transfer of only a few specific genes from sources highly unlikely to have any effect on health
or environment.
For example, the Bt gene comes from a common soil organism and widely used organic pesticide, Bacillus thuringiensis.
It’s activated in plants by another gene coming from a common cauliflower plant virus. Both will have been consumed
by humans inadvertently (less inadvertently for the organic pesticide) for many years, with no known health effects.
With Roundup-Ready crops, the active gene comes from another soil organism in the case of soybeans, and from a
modified corn gene in the case of corn (i.e., it’s not even “transgenic”). Similar explanations are possible for
other gene insertions.
Even Bt corn and Monarch butterfly interactions, while meriting further research, are unlikely to represent any
significant threat to the survival of this insect species.
Each hint of a problem, even when based on very preliminary results published in the public media – or, at best,
as a research note in a popularized journal such as Nature – has been reported globally, instantly. Hundreds of
millions of people knew about Scotland’s Dr. Pusztai and his dubious data on rats fed biotech potatoes, and about
the Cornell Bt corn-Monarch butterfly story, within hours of the initial public release. Subsequent reports of
weaknesses in the initial stories have been largely ignored.
In response, individuals and groups supportive of biotechnology have attempted to address the individual concerns,
using science, experience, and common sense as their communication arsenal. But they’re not able to provide the
dramatics, emotion or unqualified statements found in anti-biotech statements. Nor can they give absolute guarantees
since nothing can be guaranteed as 100 per cent safe.
They’re also facing pressures from activists, media and some farm groups to have foods made from genetically enhanced
crops labeled so “consumers can be informed.” They want this even though consumer research shows that simplistic
contains genetically modified ingredients labels provide no information, and tend to confuse more than inform.
Does the transferred gene come from common soil organisms – or even corn itself (as noted earlier)? And what about
labeling of foods containing tetraploid rye and many “doubled haploid” barley varieties which have been in commercial
use for many decades?
Science and common sense say one thing. Activists and many media columnists say the opposite. And the latter are
gaining ground in the battle to sway public opinion.
Perhaps the best explanation is that the real issue is not really safety of the technology at all. Some activist
groups, notably Greenpeace, have been open on this account. They don’t seem to care whether the technology is safe
or not, and steps to minimize risks while increasing benefits are considered irrelevant. They just want it eliminated.
Period.
To them, the real issue is corporate dominance of the food system, especially by multinational companies. Food
labeling is part of a strategy for elimination. Get the food labeled, and build up strong consumer distrust – and,
ergo, biotech products are gone. The goal is not to “inform” but to “eliminate” and – most importantly – to beat
the multinational chemical and drug companies.
The corporate control issue also best explains the involvement of groups such as the Council of Canadians and the
National Farmers’ Union, with virtually no track records on food quality or environmental issues, but strong histories
of distrust of large multinational companies and big-business approach to global economy.
In truth, this distrust and fear of corporate dominance are shared by many others (including farmers) as well.
The activists’ message has appeal.
Consumers aren’t consistent. They drive past locally owned stores to shop at Wal Mart, they buy automobiles and
gasoline from a small club of largely multinational companies, they watch and read media controlled by a few large
companies, and buy health products from a handful of chemical or pharmaceutical corporations. Why? Because of low
prices or for convenience. The purchases represent perceived value for money. But they don’t like such corporate
control, and generally distrust large companies.
And they see agri-food biotechnology – increased corporate control of food and agriculture – as more of the same,
and without obvious immediate benefits to them.
If control – and not the technology itself – is the real public issue, then maybe that’s where future efforts at
public acceptance should be focused. How do we (farmers? Canadians? governments?) ensure reasonable opportunities
for commercial companies to realize profits on private research, while preventing excessive control of the agri-food
system? In fact, the U.S. Congress and Department of Justice have begun to address this concern. Most other countries,
including Canada, aren’t sure where to start.
But they (and we) may have no choice than to address this issue directly. It’s crucial the many benefits to society
from agri-food biotechnology not be lost because of anti-big-company phobia. Let’s not throw the baby out with
the bath water.
1