LABELING OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
It Means Labeling Almost Everything
By Terry Daynard, OCPA Executive Vice President

In a November 16 Ottawa news conference, a consortium including Greenpeace, the Council of Canadians and Sierra Club called for more complete labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods here than anywhere in the world. This event preceded by one day the initial session of a special task force on voluntary food labeling created by the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB). Though invited to the CGSB meeting, members of the consortium didn’t participate – supposedly because of the voluntary labeling mandate – but perhaps because this was a process which they were unlikely to control.

Their non-attendance was unfortunate. Potentially useful input was provided at the news conference – the most important being recognition that genetically modified (or genetically engineered) food means much more than the narrow, self-serving definition used in the European Union. And their advice that the EU model should not be mimicked here has wide-spread support.

The group has called for the labeling of foods containing high-profile, measurable GM ingredients from corn, soybeans and canola. As well, it wants labels on products produced using GM organisms. These include food products from animals fed GM crops (even though no trace of the GM ingredient persists after digestion), foods made from GM microorganisms including many food additives and enzymes (as used, for example, in producing cheese, the non-caloric sweetener aspartame, and many other ingredients), and even animals treated with medicines made from GM organisms (penicillin is one). A spokesperson for the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors (CCGD) said that this would cover 60 per cent of foods in a typical grocery store.

The CCGD estimate is way too low.

The activists attempted to cast a wide net, but they missed many GM products. If genetic modification is interpreted as meaning the creation of organisms (plants, animals, micro-organisms) containing new genes which don’t exist naturally – and the transfer of genes between organisms in ways which are virtually impossible naturally – the catch is much larger.

The high-profile GM candidates, of course, are crops and other organisms where specific genes have been transferred in a controlled manner from other species. Examples are the transfer of a gene from the garden soil organism and organic pesticide, Bacillus thuringiensis, to produce ‘Bt’ corn with fewer insects and moulds – and the transfer of a gene from another garden soil bacteria, Agrobacterium, into soybeans and canola to permit usage of the low-cost, safe herbicide, Roundup. Enzymes, food additives and medicines made from so-called ‘transgenic’ microorganisms fit the same mold.

But ‘transgenic’ genetic modification means much more.

Consider wheat. In a never-ending struggle to maintain disease resistance in plants, wheat breeders have had to go further and further afield, in a genetic sense, to find new genes for resistance. (Each gene is only good for a few years until the wheat-disease organisms change sufficiently to overcome the ‘new’ resistance mechanism.) Initially, the approach involved using wild species closely related genetically to the wheat. But now, the source is commonly unrelated grass plants for which crossing via conventional breeding methods is impossible. The fertilized embryos must be removed from mother wheat plants soon after pollination and raised in ‘nutrient culture’ (in petri dishes or test tubes) with plant nutrients, vitamins and hormones provided artificially to permit the growth of seeds and plants. Sometimes the resulting plants have ‘haploid’ embryos (half the normal number of chromosomes) which are then treated chemically to double the chromosome number. This is genetic engineering requiring a high level of sophistication and lab skill. It’s one major reason why farm wheat yields continue to grow – and food prices decline – despite ever - changing plant diseases. The wheat example is not unique.

By far the most extensive use of genetic modification is mutagenesis. Mutation occurs naturally – that’s called evolution – but the rate is very slow, and living cells have mechanisms to repair most ‘damage’ done by natural mutation. Canadian Nobel Laureate Michael Smith notes, for example, that the average human produces 200,000 kilometres of new DNA every minute just to correct mutations! But the normal cell repair mechanism is overwhelmed if cells are exposed to Chernobyl-like nuclear radiation or high exposure to chemical mutagens like mustard gas causing very rapid rates of mutation. And if the mutation occurs in reproductive cells, the genetic changes can be passed on to the next generation.

Artificially induced mutagenesis as a form of genetic modification has been used with fervor by agricultural researchers in Europe to improve many crop species including wheat and barley, Europe’s main grain crops. But it is also used routinely elsewhere, including in Canada. Though the DNA in many artificially induced mutants is often so altered that the resulting plants cannot survive, some mutants have desirable features like better nutritional properties and resistance to certain diseases and pesticides. Newly introduced soybean varieties in the U.S. have a more desirable fatty acid composition thanks to mutagenesis. Soybean, wheat and canola varieties with new herbicide-tolerant characteristics have been developed this way. Unlike transgenic transformation, mutagenesis generally creates new genes which do not exist anywhere in nature. It’s a powerful form of genetic engineering.

If Canadian foods are then to be labeled if they contain or are produced using genetically modified organisms, the list of food ingredients will be very long, indeed. It will include most grain and oilseed crops, and foods – including livestock products – produced from them. It will include many horticultural products. And it will include almost all manufactured foods, with the GM components being products from GM crops, animals and micro-organisms.

The portion of foods which are products of genetic modification is probably in the range of 95- to 99 per cent. The exceptions are foods like native blueberries, non-farmed fish and game animals raised in the wild.

Public exposure to the truth about the extent of genetic engineering may trigger outrage from some. “How dare you feed me with genetically modified foods?” Or, “I want natural foods” – not realizing that ‘natural’ usually means wormy, diseased, and little food production per acre.

Others will recognize that genetic modification is a dominant reason why the food supply is so abundant – despite a global population of six billion – and basic food ingredients are so cheap. It’s also a key reason why food quality – as judged in a number of ways including nutritional composition, freedom from microbial and natural toxin contamination, and visual attractiveness – is probably at an all-time high.

What about the mandatory labeling of ALL genetically modified foods, including foods made from GM organisms? If this is to be done in an honest, complete manner, then it’s relatively simple: Label everything.

Doing so means the chances of mislabeling will be very minute. And those who want all GM foods eliminated could find many empty grocery shelves.

1