Image credit: Greenpeace

A blogger recently commented on a post from March, and while I replied to the comment, I don’t think that enough people are going catch my response. To bring this discussion forward, I will respond to Karl from Inoculated Mind here.

Karl: “The sugar that results from the GE sugar beets is identical to the sugar from non-GE beets. You’re giving yourself unnecessary food-fear hurdles.

Do you think that mixing DNA from different species is unnatural? Would it interest you to learn that Sugar Cane is a mixture of two different grass species, a polyploid? A whole host of other crops that we eat are polyploid, and have had their genetics modified drastically.”

Nigel: You have raised the most common misconceptions from the pro-GE community, which makes my response easy. First of all, it is impossible that sugar from GE beets would be identical to sugar from non-GE beets. if that were the case, one would not be able to design a test that would identify GE sugar. GE crops have novel DNA, and novel proteins. No tests are done to identify all of the novel proteins, and adding these types of proteins into people’s diets could cause serious issues if they turn out to be allergic.
Second of all, conventional breeding and even hybrid breeding combine genetic material from plants that are in the same family or at least the same species. Genetic engineering can introduce genetic material from plants/animals/microbes/fungi that are in a different kingdom. It has been demonstrated that a genetic code will produce a different protein if it is in bacteria or in a plant, yet test are not done to determine the effects of this new protein on humans, or even animals. The genes that have been introduced into sugar beets are taken from the only bacteria able to survive in the tailings of a Monsanto herbicide factory.
Finally, it should not be for you to say that I should eat genetically engineered food. That should be my decision. Smoking was not considered unhealthy in the thirties and fourties, but people still had the choice as to whether they would smoke. We now know that smoking is carcinogenic. Furthermore, we now know that second-hand smoke is carcinogenic, so even non-smokers can get smoking related diseases. There is no conclusive evidence that genetically engineered foods are carcinogenic, yet there is also no conclusive evidence that genetically engineered foods are not carcinogenic. I would rather not take the chance. If we find out thirty years from now that GMOs are cancer-causing, I think everyone would rather have stayed away from them.

I always welcome comments from the pro-GE and the anti-GE communities. Please feel free to post a response.

Further reading:

Genetically Engineered Food May Cause Rising Food Allergies

50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Engineered Food

Hazards of Genetically Engineered Food: Why We Need a Global Moratorium

Image credit: Flyzipper on Flickr

While it is great news that Nelson has been declared a GE-Free Zone, it does not mean we are winning the fight against genetically engineered foods. A renewed effort has begun pushing for the widespread cultivation of genetically engineered wheat. I will deal with this issue in three parts. Today I will discuss why GE wheat is such a dangerous technology to be dealing with.

I will not go into great depth, because it has been covered in detail by people who know more than I do, so I will merely summarize. First off, there are the concerns we have with all GE crops. These include contamination and cross polination. For example, GE rice has never been approved for commercial cultivation, yet Greenpeace tested rice in Vancouver supermarkets, and found a bag of illegal GE rice just one kilometer from my house. They calculated that contamination from GE rice test fields has cost $1.285 Billion (USD). Within two years of GE canola being released, super-weeds were found that were resistant to three different brands of herbicide, because three different strains had interbred. Now non-GE canola is extremely rare. Wheat is self-pollinating, and can cross with a number of other grass species. There is a legitimate cause for concern that once released, we will never be able to go back to a world where non-genetically engineered wheat is readily available.

Next we have to consider the Canadian economy. Wheat exports are a vital part of our farm economy, and our major export markets have declared that they will not import any wheat if we approve GE wheat. One estimate puts losses for Canadian farmers at $185 million per year (Michelle Lang. “Price of Growing GM Wheat Too High: Farmers Would Lose Millions.” The Star Phoenix (Saskatoon). 26 February 2002).

Finally we have to consider the dangers to human health. While the major GE crops that are widely cultivated today, soy, corn and canola, are mostly used for animal feed, wheat is almost exclusively used for human food. I am not trying to say that feeding animals non-GE food is not important, because it is. There have been many documented cases where animals refuse to eat GE feed, and it has been found that novel proteins and DNA material works its way up the food chain. However, we eat most wheat with very little processing. grind it up, throw in some yeast and water, bake, and eat.

Sierra Club - GE Wheat

Organic Consumers Association - GE Wheat - includes links to several other great sites

Next week I will discuss the groundwork that has been done to prevent GE wheat, which Monsanto applied to have approved in 2001.

Great news for everyone involved in the anti-genetically engineered food movement: Nelson, BC has passed a resolution at council declaring the city to be a GE-Free Zone. Nelson now joins Saltspring Island and Powell River as a place where genetically engineered crops cannot be grown. I am very proud to have worked on this campaign, and that my company, GE-Free Solutions, played a small part in sponsoring Percy Schmeiser to speak in Castlegar, a neighbouring city. As the Kootenay region liaison for Society for a GE-Free BC, I had the opportunity to meet many of the principle individuals who made this happen. I believe that this would not have happened without the two-year long efforts of Jon Steinman, the host of the radio show Deconstructing Dinner on Kootenay Co-op Radio, among so many others who dedicated their time to this cause.

Congratulation to everyone who was involved in this effort, and let this be a shining example of the power of the grass-roots to bring about positive change.

Will asked me to answer a question on his blog. The question was “is organic soymilk guaranteed free of genetically modified soybeans?”

My answer

From left to right: Michael Doane, Monsanto; Maria Wellisch, Natural Resources Canada; McKenna Long and Alderidge rep; Terry McIntyre, Environment Canada. Photo Credit, Nigel Tunnacliffe.

The final session of the conference, called “Sustainable Development of Bioenergy and Biofuels Production Systems”, was the most representative of the relationship between industry and our government when it comes to biotechnology and biofuels. (more…)

I am sitting throught the third session in which the speaker claims to have solved the “food vs. fuel debate”. This particular company produces a biproduct which currently has no industrial use but it can be fed to cows. Therefore, the food vs. fuel problem is solved, right? Well he later mentioned that they are developing a way to turn the biproduct into ethanol.
Nice try. It’s just more PR - Predictable Rhetoric.

Photo credit: Erin Collins

Alfalfa. Tasty sprouts. Hay. Straw. So much goodness. Thankfully, the US court of appeals upheld the ban on GE alfalfa, requiring more studies to be done on the environmental impacts. To celebrate, I’m going to go make myself a sandwich.

full article

Whether you are an American reader or a Canadian, I am certain that by now you have heard of the Listeria outbreak here in Canada. If not, here are the cliffnotes: so far 15 dead, 14 sick, and 31 more cases under investigation. The outbreak was centered around a macro scale animal slaughter and meat production plant owned and operated by Maple Leaf.

Why do I say that industrial agriculture is responsible? Blogger Lovable Liberal claims that meat production plants merely act as a vector, and that bacteria originates from an animal. While I agree, there would be no mass scale outbreak if it were not for the massive scale on which these food products are produced.

If we were still allowed to have micro-scale butchers, slaughtering and cutting up meat in their own shop, with a production capacity of only a few animals per day, this would never be a major issue. In fact, Listeria only affects the elderly, pregnant, and those with comparmized immune systems. Therefore it is likely that a single animal, or even a few animals that get infected in a small-scale facility could even go without harming anyone. It would go completely unnoticed. Is it any surprise that every serious outbreak occurs in macro-scale facilities? Yet government officials argue that production plants have to shoulder more responsibility for inspection (essentially privatizing food inspection). Greater requirements for industry self-regulation means that the costs are not economical for small scale producers.

The result is more of the same. More industrial agriculture, more mass-production of food, and more contamination outbreaks.

(Photo by Pete Carr, licensed under Creative Commons)

In a recent article printed in the Telegraph, Prince Charles had some strong words for big agribusiness. He says that GE crops are the the “biggest disaster environmentally of all time”, and that we should be focusing on food security instead of food production. The Prince of Wales does not normally speak out on such issues, but clearly the GE foods issue is very dear to him. Prince Charles has an organic farm.

According to Greenpeace, consumer rejection has driven biotech giant Monsanto to stop selling its genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Bovine growth hormone, also known as rBGH or rBST, makes cows produce 25% more milk, but it was banned in Canada in 1998 for animal welfare reasons, as well as in Europe. Consumers in the US have been consuming milk produced using rBGH for a decade.

The actions of consumers and businesses are what finally brought this product down. Some large businesses such as Starbucks and Ben and Jerry’s refused to use milk produced using rBGH, and beat Monsanto’s lawsuits claiming that they don’t have the right to label their products as “rBGH-Free”. More recently, Monsanto tried to fight to bring about laws in some US states that would prevent dairies from labeling “rBGH-Free”, but they lost. This is a great victory for our movement.

If we now draw a parallel with genetically engineered (GE) foods, it is easy to see that there is still hope. If more food was labeled, either through mandatory labeling, or through certification efforts like those of GE-Free Solutions, consumers could show that they do not want to eat GE products.

Activists, keep up the good work!