Should food be genetically modified?

By Greg deGroot-Maggetti | Wednesday, December 1st, 1999

The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) is dead. But the main elements of the proposed agreement will live on in the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s Millennium Round discussions set for 2000-2003. This November, trade ministers will meet in Seattle to shape the agenda for those talks.

There is broad concern that MAI-style investment agreements confer greater rights to corporations and limit the power of governments to shape social, economic and environmental policies. More specifically, the inter-related issues of intellectual property rights and biotechnology are two of the most contentious issues for the WTO.

One of the key applications of biotechnology is in the production and alteration of food. Genes from one plant or substance are introduced into another plant or substance to bring about desired traits that do not occur naturally. Genetically modified foods are touted by proponents as being the answer to the world’s growing food needs. They are also seen as being more environmentally benign, primarily because they potentially reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides.

Critics of genetically modified foods raise three main concerns, the first being the safety of these foods for humans. This is where European and North American governments have clashed in bitter trade disputes. The Canadian and US governments argue that genetically modified foods are perfectly safe, while European governments are not convinced. A growing number of consumers are increasingly wary of the safety of genetically modified foods. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) remarks that on the question of food safety “convincing scientific evidence is in short supply.”

The environmental impact of biotechnology is another concern. Plants are bred with the genes of pesticides that would otherwise be sprayed on the plants. Genes resistant to herbicides are also implanted in crops so that farmers need to make only one application of a herbicide that will kill a wide variety of weeds rather than apply different herbicides to kill specific weeds.

The basic problem with all pesticide and herbicide use is that pests and weeds develop resistance to pesticides and herbicides. The number of pesticide- and herbicide-resistant species has increased dramatically over the past fifty years. This will not change with genetic engineering. Brian Halweil, writing for the Worldwatch Institute, suggests that biotechnology merely perpetuates the current agricultural paradigm which relies on pesticides and herbicides to control pests and weeds.

A third concern is that farmers’ incomes and agricultural choices would be restricted by agricultural suppliers. Traditionally, farmers have saved seeds from one harvest to plant in the next cycle. The major seed companies are seeking to outlaw this practice through the application of intellectual property rights on seeds. The end result is that farmers would be compelled to purchase their seeds from a seed company year after year. For example, Monsanto owns the patent to a “terminator technology” that renders seeds sterile and thus cannot be replanted after one harvest. This development is aimed particularly at markets in poor countries where the legal system might make it hard to enforce patent rights. The move to limit seed saving through intellectual property rights or terminator technology would also undermine the movement to protect agricultural biodiversity.

There is a broader, overarching ethical debate that surrounds genetically modified crops and intellectual property rights. Although humans have been modifying life forms for decades, the discovery of DNA and the ability to combine genes from different species moves us from the realm of modifying existing life forms to creating entirely new life forms. An important question remains as to whether and when the application of these new techniques is justifiable ethically, and whether their use will compromise social and economic justice and responsible stewardship.

Canadians need to be informed about this debate both because of the health, environmental and social concerns, and because Canada has sought to become a world leader in biotechnology. According to the OECD, “proportional to its size, [Canada] had more companies in biotechnology by 1996 than either the US or Europe and, in absolute terms, more companies involved in agro-foods.” Canada, the US and Argentina account for 99 percent of genetically modified crops currently in commercial production worldwide.

Canada’s position on genetically modified foods and intellectual property rights is no doubt influenced heavily by economic interests. The whole field of biotechnology is perceived as a key area of the knowledge economy, a field in which Canadian companies can achieve competitive advantage. The hope of all governments is to have companies that excel in such fields. Therein, it is believed, lies the promise of increased economic productivity and a high and growing standard of living.

Given this bias, it will require sustained effort to get the government to consider not only the potential benefits but also the drawbacks of biotechnology applications as it develops public policy and negotiates international trade agreements.