Author: Douglas Powell
Publication: The National Post
Date: Friday, June 22, 2001

Last year, one of my farmer colleagues grew some genetically engineered sweet corn and table potatoes. Neither the Bt sweet corn nor the potatoes required any insecticides to manage pests. After harvest, the two crops were sold in his farm market in Hillsburgh, Ont., fully labelled, alongside their conventional counterparts.

The genetically engineered Bt sweet corn outsold the conventional by a margin of 3-2. Same for the potatoes. The two products were sold for the same price, and while many consumers were more interested in taste, for others, the primary selling point was the reduction in pesticide sprays and worm damage.

So why not just label all GMOs (genetically modified organisms), as such foods are routinely, though mistakenly, called?

When several small suppliers of organic foods were asked by Loblaws to remove the GMO-free claims from labels -- in some cases using a black felt pen -- the latest round of simplistic declarations about consumer choice was underway. But as the Canadian General Standards Board has discovered in its belaboured attempt to devise meaningful standards for GMO labelling -- and as several countries attempting to implement GMO labelling have learned -- the task is complicated by definitions, trace amounts and, primarily, politics.

Canada already has mandatory labelling for any novel food that differs in nutritional, chemical or toxicological characteristics from its conventional counterpart, and for any food that involves the transfer of genes from known allergens. But should other GMOs be labelled? The answer is no, for the following five reasons:

1. Whole foods are not trace ingredients. Sweet corn and table potatoes are the only whole, genetically engineered foods available to be grown in Canada. It is in the commodities -- field corn, soy and canola -- that genetic engineering is more common. Field corn products such as high fructose corn syrup and sorbitol, for example, are ubiquitous in soft drinks and toothpaste, respectively.

What of the potato, now engineered to resist the Colorado potato beetle, the scourge of North American potato growers, with the Bt-toxin from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis? Should the French fries sold at the local ballpark -- possibly derived from Bt-containing potatoes and cooked in oil derived from genetically engineered canola -- carry a sticker proclaiming the involvement of biotechnology? If there is no health risk, as Health Canada has decided in the case of both of these products, the answer is no. Should consumers be able to determine the origins of the fries? Absolutely. But that can be accomplished through 1-800 numbers, point-of-sale information and other vehicles. Mandatory labelling of all food ingredients is expensive and, in a society that values convenience over cooking skills, impractical.

2. Surveys lie. But don`t some 90% of consumers want GMO ingredients labelled? Sure, but that is largely because of the way survey questions are asked. When Americans were asked what information they would like to see added to food labels, without reading a list of current triggers such as genetic engineering, over 80% failed to suggest anything.

3. GMO-free often isn`t. As reported in the Wall Street Journal in April, supposedly GMO-free Yves Veggie Cuisine from Canada, along with dozens of other such products, was found to contain significant quantities of genetically engineered corn and soy. Of the 20 so-called GMO-free organic products tested for the Journal, 11 were found to contain ingredients from genetically engineered crops. So Loblaws is justified in demanding a verifiable standard for GMO-free from its suppliers who want to make that claim.

4. GMO cannot be defined. The vast majority of foods are genetically modified. (GMO-free proponents are likely referring to genetically engineered foods). But that won`t stop hucksters from trying to make a buck at the grocery store, or the beer store. Millions of health-conscious Canadians were undoubtedly relieved to learn earlier this month that Quebec`s Unibroue beers contained no GMOs, joining GMO-free Canadian Club whiskey and McCain French fries in a breakfast of champions.

But the April newsletter of the Association Générale des Producteurs de Maïs, which represents France`s corn growers, states that biotech genes are found widely in French-grown corn. And Unibroue says nothing about usage of European malt made from European barley varieties -- almost all of which contain mutated genes created by deliberate exposure to high levels of nuclear radiation technology, which is termed genetic modification under Canada`s Food and Drugs Act.

The GMO-free scam is also hugely susceptible to fraud and to use as a non-tariff trade barrier. Some commentators have already suggested that Loblaws enforced the no-GMO-free labelling policy to bolster the prospects of its own organic line. China`s new rules on such labelling are already being interpreted as a pre-emptive trade barrier to protect its grain farmers after it enters into the World Trade Organization.

5. Labelling is not about choice. Greenpeace and other activist groups state plainly in their literature that the products of genetic engineering may cause some unknown, theoretical health or environmental harm and should therefore be banned. However, in the absence of a ban, everything should be labelled to provide consumer choice -- and that will produce a de facto ban.

The number one selling tomato paste in the U.K. in 1998 was made by Zeneca, sold in supermarkets at a slightly lower price, and labelled as derived from genetically modified tomatoes. But when a media frenzy arose in the U.K. in the fall of 1998, stores rushed to remove genetically engineered products, including the tomato paste. So the previous number one seller was no longer available. And still isn`t.

Couldn`t happen here? When two local Zehrs supermarkets asked us to provide genetically engineered sweet corn to their stores last fall, they were overruled by corporate headquarters in Toronto.

Why? Too much controversy. Yet we had shown that consumers preferred the genetically engineered product. For some, pesticide reduction is intrinsically valuable, but to most, it becomes valuable when it is linked to an increase in quality. Labelling a whole food like sweet corn is vastly different from labelling an ingredient in a processed food, especially when the label is designed to alarm rather than inform. The biotechnology debate to date has involved superficial stereotypes, caricatures and the mindless banter of pro versus anti. It misses the point that providing food consumers are actually interested in buying involves a series of trade-offs and considerations that are specific to individual farms and locales.