By: Stephen Leahy
A Royal Commission in New Zealand is currently investigating whether that country should grow genetically modified crops. Experts from around the world are participating in a full and open public debate about the benefits and risks of GM crops. (www.gmcommission.govt.nz)
And yes, this is before such crops are grown there. We do things a little differently in Canada.
Last year, five long years after Canadians began growing and eating foods with GM ingredients, the Federal government asked the Royal Society of Canada to form an independent panel of scientists to evaluate the regulation and safety of these new food products. This was the first-ever independent assessment. Nearly a year later this Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology slammed government regulators at Health Canada and Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) who allowed GM crops to be grown.
 |
|
Secrecy about biotechnology is "a truly profound issue of democracy" |
"We have run the experiment for five years", said Brian Ellis of the University of British Columbia, a molecular biologist and one of the 14 scientists on the panel. "The fact that these foods haven't hurt us may be due to careful scrutiny, but may also be plain luck," Ellis has been reported as saying.
The panel found that GM crops were not scientifically assessed for their safety, results of studies kept secret, and none have been evaluated independently. Reactions to the report were swift - and predictable.
Health Canada rejected the Panel's findings saying that the panelists didn't understand how biotechnology is regulated. In the pages of the National Post, researchers Douglas Powell and Shane Morris of the University of Guelph - which receives substantial funding from the biotech industry - declared that panel members were biased against biotech. Some of Powell's and Morris' work at Guelph's Centre for Food Safety is directly funded by industry giants like Novartis and Monsanto.
"The panel's report was very fair and balanced," says Mark Winston, a professor at Simon Fraser University and one of Canada's preeminent biologists. He is currently writing a book about biotechnology for Harvard University Press. "The charge of bias is completely inappropriate," Winston says, because the panel members are some of Canada's top scientists and represent the first and only independent assessment of how biotechnology is regulated.
Trust us - the bees are ok
Winston is not opposed to biotechnology nor particularly worried about the safety of GM foods we're eating today. However, there are real problems with the way Canada, and the US for that matter, regulate the industry, he says. Secrecy is one of them. Winston recently asked the CFIA if GM pollen has had any effect on the behavior and survival of bees. Regulators there told him studies had been done by biotech companies but were confidential including the results. But not to worry, the bees are ok, he was told.
Winston finds this reluctance to answer legitimate scientific questions about health and safety alarming. Without free access to the data he wonders how decisions can be made independently about the safety of this new technology. "This is a truly profound issue of democracy."
And why, when GM foods are a contentious issue, would regulators use a low standard of safety assurance called "substantial equivalence", Winston asks. The Panel also found fault with the science behind this concept that assumes once a GM food is considered substantially equivalent to unmodified food no further testing is required. "Why not use a more solid scientific testing standard?" he asks. "The companies selling these products can certainly afford to pay for independent testing on each."
Independent, unbiased testing that is fully open to the public would calm people's fears about the technology, he says. "Canadians are not being well served under the current regulatory system."
|
|
Canada is the third largest grower of genetically modified crops in the world. Hundreds of millions of tax dollars have been invested in the industry. |
Role conflict between inspecting and cheerleading
That may not be surprising given the federal government's conflicting role as biotech regulator and as the industry's biggest booster.
Canada is the third largest grower of genetically modified crops in the world. The Federal government has aggressively pursued and promoted the biotechnology industry since 1983 with the formation of the National Biotechnology Strategy (NBS). Unbeknownst to Canadians, hundreds of millions of tax dollars have been invested in the industry. "Currently, 50% of Canadian biotechnology companies on the stock market were IRAP-NBS (biotech funding programs) funded in their beginnings," a government website notes. www.nrcan.gc.ca/cfs/proj/sci-tech/biotechnology/canadi_e.html
Part of Federal government's biotech booster role includes "streamlining biotechnology product approvals so that regulatory systems are competitive with our major trading partners," according to a report commissioned by the federally-funded Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC). http://www.cbac-cccb.ca
The CBAC report also notes that risk assessment experts observe that when supposedly neutral governments are promoters of a technology, it results in "a direct interest in exaggerating benefits and underestimating risk." And so it has been both here and in the US.
The current levels of exaggeration, misinformation and even personal attacks by both proponents and opponents of biotechnology will only increase as more complex genetically modified products are developed. It's too late to have an informed public debate in Canada on the risks and benefits of GM crops as New Zealand is currently doing. Now, however, is a good time to act on the panel's recommendations and stop introducing new products, says Winston. A layer of independent testing and oversight should be added, including federal funding for independent research on the current GM crops he says.
"All this should have been done first... Canada should have been a little slower in jumping on the biotech bandwagon."
Stephen Leahy is a freelance journalist covering biotechnology, science and environmental issues.
Do more/ get more:
Council of Canadians - Professor Clarke's findings are posted here www.canadians.org
Dangers of Eating GMO - www.purefood.org/gelink.html
Genetic Engineering News Reports www.natural-law.ca/genetic/GENewsIn
Canadian Food Inspection Agency Plant Biotechnology office www.cfia-acia.agr.ca/english/ppc/biotec
The Food Biotechnology Communications Network - the view from industry and government www.foodbiotech.org/news.cfm
Copyright 2001 Stephen Leahy. Any reproduction of this work, in whole or part, in any media is prohibited unless expressly granted by the author.
Posted: March 05, 2001
[ Front Page ]
