Genetically Modified Corn and Ontario
By Terry Daynard, Executive Vice-President, OCPA
The May/June
editorial of the Ontario Corn Producer on agricultural biotechnology
was a harbinger of events to follow. Biotech concerns have dominated the OCPA
agenda most days since that editorial was written. Here are some of the issues:
1999 Crop Production/Marketing Considerations
European distrust of “transgenic” (i.e., containing genes from other species transferred using biotechnological
manipulation) agricultural crops exists for several reasons, including distrust of the regulatory system and cultural
differences about the nature of food (greater willingness to pay more for food, fewer purchases from large supermarkets,
etc.). Despite this, the European Union has generally honoured its commitments under the World Trade Organization
agreement, permitting imports of genetically modified crops and products made therefrom, provided the genes are
approved by the EU and constitute no known (or negligible) risk to health or environment.
The EU has approved the importation of corn containing several genes, including at least two versions of “Bt” resistance
to European corn borer (ECB) and one “Liberty-Link” (glufosinate resistance) gene. To our knowledge, however, none
of these genes have been approved for field production in any European country except on an experimental basis.
And the EU has been slow to approve importation of agricultural and food products containing other genes such as
Roundup resistance in corn and canola, and newer genes for glufosinate and ECB resistance in corn. Some European
food retailers (notably in the United Kingdom and Spain) have chosen not to market any foods containing biotech
genes, and food manufacturers have attempted to follow suit. Details are still evolving on issues such as tolerances.
(What does “GMO free” mean?)
This hit home to North American corn growers when the Corn Refiners Association recommended in mid-April that its
members not purchase or process corn unapproved for importation into Europe. ADM, Staley, and Cargill, the three
largest U.S. corn wet millers, were first off the mark, and Corn Products International (CPI, owner of CASCO’s
three Ontario plants) and National Starch Company (owner of the Nacan plant at Collingwood) followed in late April.
While it was unfortunate these decisions were made so close to planting time, the millers were simply following
the demands of their customers – food manufacturers and European importers and users of feed byproducts from corn
processing.
OCPA learned of the impending CPI/CASCO decision on April 23 and issued an immediate alert to the industry and
farmers via various media outlets and the OCPA web site. This was followed on April 28 with a listing of affected
hybrids and further advice on production and marketing of corn grown in 1999 from these hybrids. These can be found
on the OCPA web site (www.ontariocorn.org).
The list of affected hybrids (to the best of our knowledge) is as follows:
DeKalb - DK364BtX, DK468BtX, DK493BtX, DK566BtX, DK325GR, DK345GR, DK385GR, DK417GR, DK493GR, DK335RR, DK359RR,
DK387RR, DK448RR, DK493RR, DK520RR, DK545RR, DK545RR/BtY
Pioneer - 34T14, 38B22
Zeneca-Garst - 8756RR
OCPA appreciates the excellent job done by seed companies in informing customers immediately of potential marketing
problems with affected hybrids and in offering to supply alternative hybrid seed, quickly.
Indeed, the cooperation among all affected parties – seed companies, grain dealers and elevator operators, buyers
for CASCO and Nacan, and farmers – has been excellent in attempting to ensure that the needs of these customers
are met, while still being positive about the benefits of biotechnology for Ontario corn producers and users.
This cooperation was apparent at a key meeting, chaired by Larry Cowan (OCPA director for Middlesex and chair of
the Ontario Corn Industry Advisory Committee), held in London on May 18. A release issued after the meeting included
the following information and advice.
Although about one-third of the 1999 Ontario corn crop contains transgenic genes, only about two per cent contains
genes not yet approved for European sale. Special steps are needed to ensure the percentage of EU-non-approved
corn in grain delivered to these processors this fall be as low as possible, ideally well below one per cent on
average.
These measures include separating country elevators into those which will accept all corn, and those accepting
only EU-approved corn. This elevator-designation process is ongoing, with a complete listing to be available before
harvest begins. CASCO will not accept corn from elevator locations which receive EU-non-approved corn, beginning
with the 1999 harvest.
CASCO and Nacan have stated that similar requirements will apply to all imported corn.
Farmers growing any EU-non-approved corn hybrids on their farms in 1999 and who have traditionally sold to CASCO,
or who have any questions about delivery policies, are encouraged to contact the company directly. Farmers seeking
alternative market opportunities for their corn should contact their local elevators and grain dealers, corn seed
companies, OCPA, the Ontario Grain and Feed Association, or CASCO, to obtain further assistance. The goal of industry
participants is to ensure that all corn growers are able to market their 1999 corn crops at competitive prices.
While industrial corn processors represent a large share of the Ontario corn market, alternative markets use about
two-thirds of Ontario-grown corn.
Despite precautions to be taken by corn growers, handlers and marketers to avoid the presence of EU-non-approved
corn in shipments to CASCO and Nacan, there exists some potential for mixing, especially by cross-pollination with
corn pollen from neighbouring fields. However, given the small acreage of EU-non-approved hybrids being grown in
Ontario in 1999, and other precautions to be used to reduce mixing – plus the fact that corn from several sources
is normally blended before milling – the result should be corn products at well below European tolerances.
The current technology available for testing for presence of EU-non-approved genes is slow and expensive, a situation
which may not improve substantially before the 1999 harvest begins. This will mean that testing will occur on a
spot basis only, this autumn. Rigid adherence to procedures to limit opportunities for mixing will be the best
compliance measure. However, this situation is expected to change within a year or less as testing procedures improve
and become less costly.
The guidelines agreed upon at the May 18 meeting apply to the 1999/2000 season only. New means must be implemented
to ensure that the needs of individual customers are met, but which will also permit farmers to grow other types
of corn – including all Canadian-approved genetically enhanced corn – for other customers, and which will permit
elevator locations to handle different types of identity-preserved corn tailored to meet the purchase specifications
of individual buyers.
Nacan also processes waxy corn, which has a special type of starch used in some processed foods, including some
marketed into the United Kingdom. Buyers there want to purchase waxy corn starch containing no biotechnology genes;
this need extends to purchased corn. Waxy corn for Nacan is grown under contracts at premium prices, with these
contracts stating specific procedures, including isolation requirements, to minimize contamination with regular
“dent” corn pollen. These procedures should be sufficient to ensure compliance with Nacan’s criteria.
The goal is to adopt new and superior technology for improving crop quality and yield, and environmental integrity,
while ensuring that the needs of customers are met.
Since May 18, King Milling has also announced that it will only be buying corn approved for EU importation. The
CASCO purchase requirements also apply to the Commercial Alcohols plant in Chatham for which CASCO supervises purchasing.
To our knowledge no other Ontario corn user to date, has adopted similar plans (though this could change, especially
for those exporting products to Europe).
The group will meet again in late summer to review plans for the 1999 harvest and to consider options for the following
year. The National Corn Growers Association is holding a similar – though much larger – industry-wide meeting on
June 30 - July 1 in Kansas City. OCPA will be represented and conclusions from that meeting will be reported widely.
OCPA expresses appreciation for the excellent cooperation shown by all industry members. A special thanks goes
to Brian Doidge, Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, and Greg Stewart and Albert Tenuta of the Ontario Ministry
of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for their support.
Monarch Butterflies
The GMO corn situation became more complicated in late May with the release from Cornell University of preliminary
research results suggesting that Bt corn pollen on milkweed leaves, at a level equivalent to what might be found
on plants within corn fields at pollination time, was harmful to Monarch butterfly larvae. The Cornell results
received immediate worldwide attention. Comparable results have been reported from Iowa State University. A Swiss
study found similar results for another related butterfly species.
Although much remains uncertain about the true threat to Monarch butterflies – for example, what are pollen levels
likely to be on milkweed plants growing in natural areas (in contrast to within corn fields where milkweed is a
noxious weed which farmers attempt to control), and what level of Bt pollen ingestion is needed before larvae are
adversely affected – there is no doubt that this finding will negatively affect the image of Bt corn and, indeed,
of agricultural biotechnology in general.
The Ontario Bt Coalition, chaired by Prof. Mark Sears, Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph,
met on June 7 to plan needed research for this summer. There will be lots of related research in and near U.S.
corn fields this summer, as well. OCPA thanks Sears, Dr. Doug Powell, Department of Plant Agriculture, University
of Guelph, and Dr. Art Schaafsma, Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, for their help in ensuring that media
releases from OCPA, AGCare, and others, on this issue, have reflected both scientific facts, and uncertainties.
OCPA believes that the benefits (including environmental benefits) of Bt technology outweigh detriments. These
benefits can be expected to be even larger when the first Bt hybrids designed to provide resistance to corn rootworm
become available sometime after 2002. Hopefully Bt corn rootworm resistance will arrive in Ontario at about the
same time as new “ecotypes” of rootworm which lay eggs in non-corn fields, and which negate the value of crop rotations
as a control mechanism, also reach Ontario from the U.S. Midwest. We don’t want to revert back to the heavy use
of rootworm insecticides which characterized corn production on many Ontario farms during the 1980s.
Other Media Coverage
The North American media have picked up the wave started earlier by their European counterparts and have given
large amounts of coverage to agricultural biotechnology in recent weeks, most of it negative. Indeed, we have not
seen this level of anti-farm-technology media attention since the Alar fiasco of a decade ago.
Just as with Alar and the associated anti-farm-chemical media frenzy of the late 1980s, it can be very frustrating
for farmers and others in mainstream agriculture looking – mostly in vain – for balanced, informed media coverage.
Coverage by CBC Radio has been especially biased and negative, to the point that OCPA has written a letter of complaint.
But CBC has not been alone.
A special thanks goes to the National Post for its early-May features on “junk science,” much of it pertaining
to agricultural biotechnology.
Several groups, led by both industry and government, are considering means by which more balanced media coverage
might be secured. We are especially pleased with an initiative being launched by AGCare in cooperation with Dr.
Doug Powell, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, the Food Biotechnology
Communications Network (all centred in Guelph), and the CanAdapt program of the Agricultural Adaptation Council,
funded by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, with the goal of being more proactive in this area. Surveys suggest
that farmers have a good level of credibility with the general public – more so, for example, than governments
or the corporate sector – and AGCare (which does not accept financing from agribusiness) is an obvious vehicle
for building on this credibility.
OCPA members may have already seen a series of letters to editors from AGCare chair, Jim Fischer (Bruce County
farmer) and vice-chair Mary Lou Garr (Niagara Region farmer) published in recent months. Expect more to come.
At the same time, we recognize that not all farm groups hold the same views. The National Farmers’ Union, largely
a Prairie group but with some presence in other provinces, is attempting to organize an anti-biotechnology lobbying
campaign. This is consistent with the increasing organic agriculture orientation of this group. The Christian Farmers’
Federation of Ontario has also openly questioned, in recent weeks, whether the benefits of agricultural technology
are worth the bother.
Government Plans
Pressure continues to mount in both Washington and Ottawa for governments to play an increasingly strong regulatory
role (read: more bureaucratic intervention) in agricultural biotechnology. Debate continues to rage in the U.S.
over attempts by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate products of biotechnology which confer resistance
to pests and pesticides as if they were pesticides themselves. The question is whether this will extend to pest
resistance conveyed by traditional plant breeding techniques – some of which involves gene transfer between genetically
similar species (e.g., genes from wild wheat and barley species into their cultivated counterparts).
In Ottawa, the pressure is coming from a small group of Liberal backbenchers, including the Hon. Charles Caccia,
MP for Toronto Davenport (and a former federal Minister of Environment), Clifford Lincoln, MP for Montreal-Lac-Saint-Louis
(and a former Quebec Minister of Environment), and Karen Kraft Sloan, MP for York North, and self-proclaimed spokesperson
for “green” interests in Ottawa. Caccia chairs the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
of the House of Commons – Lincoln and Kraft Sloan are also members – and the three have used this committee to
push for more government regulatory control on a wide range of technological development, including pesticide usage
and biotechnology. To this stage, their influence has been countered by others within government who recognize
that larger bureaucracies and slower approvals of new technology do not necessarily equate to environmental improvement.
But the power struggles continue.
One area of special attention involves labeling, with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada now seriously considering
means by which it can satisfy demands for more food label information on the use of biotechnology, while still
respecting international trade obligations and practical limitations for labeling processed foods containing constituents
of many types (including components from corn and soybeans). The advice from OCPA has been that the focus should
be on labeling foods not containing biotechnology constituents – and of the tolerances needed to permit such labels
to be used, recognizing that zero tolerance is largely impossible.
Future Plans
It is clear that biotechnology, and issues related thereto, have become and will remain a dominant part of the
OCPA agenda. Comments and advice are welcomed. Stay tuned.
1