Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | A | Alternatives Journal

Food Fights: Canadian regulators are under pressure to face the uncertainties of genetically modified food. (Children & Health).

Article Excerpt
IN THE FALL OF 2000, US newspapers reported that genetically modified (GM) corn not approved for human consumption had been found in taco shells, corn chips and other corn products. (1) The corn, called "Starlink", was engineered with a toxin from bacteria that allows the plant to withstand attacks by insect pests. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had previously assessed Starlink for its potential to cause allergic reactions. They concluded that the GM protein involved was "tougher" than similar proteins already in the human food chain, that it did not readily break down in the gut, and therefore that it may pose a greater risk of allergic response. Consequently, US government regulators approved Starlink for animal feed but not for human use, a so-called "split" approval. (2)

Despite this regulatory restriction, Starlink corn found its way to grocery store shelves and restaurant tables. Dozens of people reported allergic or other adverse reactions. Distributors began recalling over 300 corn products, but the enormous difficulty of extracting Starlink from seed stocks, grain elevators, shipping routes, food processing plants and supermarkets soon became apparent.

The amount of Starlink corn in Canada's food supply is not known. In March 2001, Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief admitted that although Starlink has not been approved in Canada "some of it did get into the animal feed system" and there was a "slim chance" it had entered the human food chain. (3)

The Starlink case is a wake-up call for those who believe the risks of GM food can be easily predicted and controlled. The complexity of tracing and testing Starlink corn highlights key questions in the ongoing debate over GM food: does genetic modifications pose increased risks of toxic and allergic reactions? Are particular populations, such as children, more susceptible? What are the potential environmental effects of GM organisms? How can we test for potential harms, and what standards should be used to determine adequate safety?

As the world's third largest producer of GM crops, Canada has huge stakes in answers to such questions. Serious doubts about the adequacy of our current approach to food biotechnology regulation have been raised, most notably in the recent report of an independent expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada. (4) Until these doubts are addressed, Canada is unlikely to build confidence in the safety of GM foods, or our ability to identify, test and prevent potentially negative health and environmental effects from food biotechnology.

PROMOTION WITHOUT PRECAUTION

Genetically modified food has been marketed in Canada since 1996. In 2000, over three million hectares -- nearly five percent of Canadian farmlands -- were planted with transgenic canola, soy, corn, flax and potatoes. Engineered tomatoes and squash have also been approved for import and human consumption, but are not yet grown in Canada. Additional varieties of GM crops, including sugar beet, grape vine, mustard, wheat tobacco and alfalfa are currently under development and field testing. (5)

The rapid expansion of Canadian agricultural bio-technology is due in large part to concerted efforts of industry and the federal government over the past 20 years. The first National Biotechnology Strategy, launched in 1983, aimed to provide program and policy support to encourage the commercial growth of biotechnology. Financial incentives for business and funding initiatives for research fostered a globally competitive biotechnology sector in Canada. In 1998, this strategy was renewed and renamed the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy.

Whereas strategis for promoting biotechnology were devised in 1983, procedures for evaluating associated health and environmental hazards were not established until the early 1990s. The first regulatory framework, announced in 1993, set ground rules for the "science-based" assessment of GM organisms. Rather than create new legislation specific to GM organisms, polices would build on laws already in place for conventional agricultural practices. This reflects a broader philosophy of the federal government "that genetically engineered organisms are not fundamentally different from traditionally derived...