Every farmer wants to produce the best possible crops at the lowest possible cost. Traditional selective breeding has been one means of developing better crop species, but it is time consuming and unpredictable. In recent decades, advances in microbiology and genetics have improved scientists' ability to work directly with genetic material. By manipulating the actual genes present in a given organism, scientists can now dramatically shorten the process of conventional breeding. Rather than guessing that a particular pair of individuals will yield offspring with a particular characteristic, geneticists are able to transplant the gene responsible for the characteristic directly into an organism. In this way, they are able to select - and transplant - desirable genes while avoiding the risk of undesirable characteristics that can plague conventional breeding.
The potential for this new "biotechnology" is immense. Imagine being able to create "customized" crops that produce their own fertilizer, are naturally pest-resistant, and mature at a convenient time of year. Or imagine designing a strain of "sub-zero" bacteria that can be sprayed on crops to protect them against freezing. Canadian agricultural organizations such as AGCare (Agricultural Groups Concerned About Resources and the Environment) believe that these new technologies will help farmers to further their goal of producing an abundance of wholesome, nutritious food, with the added benefit of reducing fertilizer and pesticide costs and environmental effects.
The testing, use, sale, and consumption of products of biotechnology remains a topic of hot, even acrimonious, debate in Canada and abroad. Consumer concerns relate to health effects and ethical concerns as well as environmental impacts. At present, food produced from biotechnology is regulated in the same manner as that produced by conventional methods. Food producers argue that this rigorous testing and review process should guarantee safety to the consumer - there should be no need for a separate label. Consumers believe that they have the right to know what they are buying, and that labeling will help them make informed choices at the grocery store. Federal departments have yet to make a decision on this issue, although several public consultations have been held and a number of discussion documents produced. On some issues, such as labeling for potential allergens, producers and government have already reached consensus. On others, such as the need for labeling of secondary products such as corn oil, no agreement has been reached.
Genetically engineered crops clearly have the potential to reduce inputs of fertilizer and pesticides. Indeed, this is one of the advantages most often cited by the farming community. Crop species can be engineered to be pest-resistant and to fix nitrogen from the air (thus reducing the need for fertilizer). These changes mean that farmers can spend less on costly chemicals, and at the same time reduce the risk that fertilizers and pesticides will drain from crop lands into groundwater or surface waters.
The Earth's population is steadily increasing, while the proportion of the Earth's surface that is arable land is not. Farmers are under continual pressure to meet the food needs of this growing population in a fixed land area. Biotechnology offers the opportunity to increase the productivity of important food crops. This can be accomplished by genetic engineering to increase the yield from a particular crop, such as soybeans (i.e., more beans produced per plant), or extend a crop's cold- or drought- tolerance (so a crop grows well in conditions that would otherwise have been marginal or impossible).
Many Canadian agriculture and agri-business representatives believe that genetic engineering may be the only way that Canadian farmers can remain competitive in global markets. Relative to some other countries, Canada's high labour costs and short growing season have sometimes put it at a disadvantage in highly competitive markets. Biotechnology may offer a way for Canadians to produce high-yield, high-quality, low-impact crops that are valuable export commodities.
Among the most serious concerns raised by environmental groups about biotechnology is the field-testing and field release of genetically-engineered organisms. Unlike pollutants such as nutrients or heavy metals, genetically engineered organisms have the potential to reproduce and spread in nature. If a genetically-altered crop variety does not behave as intended in the field, it may have serious consequences for other crops and inputs by transmitting, promoting, or carrying disease, expanding beyond its intended niche, proving destructive to or out-competing non-target organisms. Because our knowledge of the new organism and the natural environment is necessarily incomplete, we may have difficulty in predicting the behaviour of the new organism in the environment, for instance its growth and death rates, competitive advantage, and response to climatic and nutrient conditions. Although the probability of unintentional impacts of release is undoubtedly small, if such impacts occur, they could have serious consequences for ecosystem integrity and be almost impossible to reverse.
Once released into the natural environment, the behaviour of genetically-engineered plants and animals is often difficult to predict or control. For example, interbreeding between genetically altered salmon and native salmon is already well demonstrated in Atlantic Canada where cultured trout have escaped into the wild. The new species has genetic characteristics that are only now being mapped. In another example, a major Canadian chemical manufacturer has been working to develop a canola strain that is resistant to one of the manufacturer's main herbicide products. The farmer could then spray the herbicide freely but only weeds, not canola, would be killed. On the surface, this looks like a positive initiative, but if the canola is able to transfer its pesticide resistance to neighbouring plants - like weeds - the net result may be more pesticide use, not less. (Using this crop would, of course, also bind the farmer to also using the particular herbicide, which may or may not be desirable from an environmental point of view.) Finally, genetic engineering to achieve one result, for instance pest-resistance, may have other, unintended impacts on the target or (indirectly) non-target species, such as creating unintended chemical or physical changes.
Some scientists believe that we are already far too reliant on a small number of food varieties, and that we have lost much of the vast diversity once available in crop and animal strains. Encouraging farmers to grow large monocultures of genetically-altered crops contributes to this problem while creating systems that are more vulnerable to insect pests and disease. Other scientists believe that the loss of genetic diversity through natural habitat destruction will limit the potential of biotechnology to provide the benefits farmers hope for.
Three federal departments currently share the responsibility for food safety: Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Health Canada is the lead agency in ensuring food safety, with responsibility for establishing health, safety and quality standards for food processing establishments, food additives, pesticides, animal drugs, chemical residues and microbial pathogens. Health Canada's responsibilities include the development of Novel Food Guidelines, which specify the data requirements for companies wishing to have novel foods approved for safety.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada inspects and monitors the safety of imported food and that produced in registered establishments. Agri-food products include meat and meat products, dairy products, shell and processed eggs, fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, honey and maple products.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans conducts similar activities for fish production, processing and trade as Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada does for agricultural products.
In theory, federal and provincial environmental legislation has the potential to regulate biological organisms as "pollutants." Yet many legal authorities, consumer groups, and environmental non-government organizations believe that stronger laws are necessary, particularly those related to the laboratory- and field-testing of new organisms, the control of genetically-engineered species once in the field, and emergency response to unforeseen consequences.
Finally, legal issues have arisen around the "ownership" of genetic material: who owns the rights (and the royalties) to that flavour-improving gene? It is not, after all, a product of human manufacture, but a naturally-occurring material simply transplanted from one organism to another. Yet many private companies have already patented genetic material and ultimately will profit from those patents.
 |
© Prentice-Hall, Inc. A Simon & Schuster Company Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458 |
