Fear Of Change

Posted May 27, 2016

Activists have opposed improved food production from genetically modified (GM) species in spite of the substantial benefits they provide, and the lack of credible evidence that they represent a risk to health. Nevertheless, their energetic advocacy has had some success—most recently, in Nova Scotia.

Columnist Doug Saunders, in the May 21st Globe and Mail, sharply rebuked those who seek to prevent the use of any food grown using GM seeds. He gives an example in Kenya where an ill-informed but now reversed choice to ban GM seeds resulted in preventable crop losses during a drought. He concludes:

“This week, the National Academy of Sciences released a mammoth study, by a large team of respected scientists who have no agribusiness involvement, which studied 20 years of Western cultivation and consumption of GM crops. It found absolutely zero health or nutritional differences between conventional and genetically altered crops in any form of food, or any possibility of health hazards in GM-developed hybrids.”

GM seeds can provide greater yields while reducing the need for fertilizers and pesticides. Some GM foods—such as soybeans—have been part of our diets for as long as two decades, with no evidence of ill effects.

On the same day as Saunders’ article appeared, the Herald reported that: “The Canadian Food Inspection Agency on Thursday gave the green light to supermarkets to sell a type of fast-growing genetically modified salmon…” In doing so, Canada was joining the USA in confirming that the GM salmon poses no health risk to people.

Nor should it pose any threat to wild salmon populations. AquaBounty, the company that developed the salmon, plans to provide farmers with fish rather than eggs, and has proposed that they only be raised in land-based facilities. The eggs are produced in PEI.

Salmon are already much more efficient than animals or poultry in converting feed into protein, and the company claims that its fish are even more so.

In response, the Ecology Action Centre (EAC) wants supermarkets to boycott the fish. Beyond that, they and others want labelling on all products that include GM inputs. That seems illogical for a safe product.

Should growers of food not deemed to qualify as organic have to put that on their labels? Let the organic growers tell their own story. Likewise if farmers of non-GM salmon think that is important to their customers they should tell that story themselves.

The EAC and others have argued that all salmon aquaculture should be in land-based pens. The development of a faster growing fish might serve that goal by making those more cost-competitive with marine-based aquaculture.

Somewhat more surprising is the strident response of Fisheries and Aquaculture Minister Colwell: “We really don’t want any connection with the GMO salmon.” Does the Minister distrust the assurance of Justin Trudeau’s Health Canada? The department advises that “we could never say that there’s a zero risk of escape from a land-based site.” Really?

He continues “We have a system that works in the province now and that works very well, and we don’t want to interfere with something that works very well.”

Well, actually, the system does not work very well at the moment. Five years after a moratorium on new finfish operations was begun—and 16 months after the release of the final Doelle-Lahey report recommending a new regulatory regime—we still do not have a framework for the establishment of new operations.

The aquaculture industry seems to be indifferent, saying that there has not been much take-up since the GM salmon were legalized for sale in the United States.

Perhaps they are right. Or maybe this is just one of those things that takes time to become established. If experience confirms that the GM fish grow faster and at lower cost to producers, sooner or later competition from places using the technology will cause the economic imperatives to prevail.

Then Nova Scotian producers will be faced with the choice of adopting the new technology or gradually losing their market share in what should be one of our most promising industries.

Meanwhile, the Minister will have a hard time taking back his knee-jerk dismissal of the whole idea.

Share

Related Articles

Chasing the Jobs + Show all articles

Reference Material

Chasing the Jobs + Show all reference material

Post a Comment

Most Recent Comments

  • I agree with the recent comment that we must weigh risks vs rewards in coming to any conclusions re the merits of GM foods. Ultimately, consumers will decide. But I have a different perspective otherwise. I believe that human intelligence, industry, innovation and “intervention” are responsible for our vastly improved standard of living. I question the supposed superiority of “natural processes”. If we relied solely on these vs human intervention, we would not be able to feed the world’s current population. I also disagree that nothing in science is conclusive. Knowledge is contextual and humans are not omniscient. Conclusions must be reached based on what we know. On the specific topic of GM labeling,why do non-GM users not simply insist on “GM Free” on these products?

    Steve Chipman | May 31, 2016

  • Bill, I concede the case may already be lost regarding human intervention in our food supply. I also concede that in many cases genetic modification may be of less risk to humans than current methods of intervention. For instance, GM of seed to resist drought may be less risky that the application of chemicals to the soil to retain moisture.
    I tend to evaluate these things in terms of why are we intervening??? If the genetic modification of the seeds is being undertaken to prevent starvation in Kenya then substituting one significant risk for another may be acceptable. There is a risk , and there is a reward for that society.
    In the case of the example in your article, I ask what is the significant risk that we are eliminating to our society and what is the reward to our society. When the reward is “cost reduction”/ “economic” and the proposal is being pushed by industry I become very skeptical of the proposal. Unfortunately it is very difficult to get reassurance from the scientific community.
    I do try to buy organic, and I am enabled to do that by labelling. If there is no labelling on GM products how do I make my decisions? But you are correct, I know very little about the fertilizers, pesticides, hormones, and drugs that were applied to most of the products I eat. All I can say is two wrongs do not make a right.

    barry h | May 29, 2016

  • Barry thanks for this. The study that Saunders cites was done by a clearly impartial group. That said, I agree that no science should be viewed as definitive. But how should that translate to labelling? There are lots of things not included in our product labelling today–what species of oats was used for your Cheerios, whether or not the cows who contributed to your ice cream received antibiotics. People who want to feel sure about those questions buy organic and are willing to pay the extra cost of them.

    Bill | May 28, 2016

View all comments