Readers weigh in on genetically modified foods

The Flatlander’s genetically modified (GM) food issue garnered a lot of reader feedback, comments and questions. 

If you’ve read The Flatlander for a long time, you know I use reader emails to help us learn more about a topic.

When I asked readers, “Would you eat genetically modified food?” I knew some would say no, not realizing they had already eaten GM foods.

One reader thanked me for raising the issue, writing: “I have heard of it (genetically modified food) but never really thought about it.”

While some readers said no, they would not eat GM food and are willing to spend a little more to avoid it by eating organic, others like Paul said “yes,” they would eat genetically modified food. 

Jan noted: “We’ve been consuming GMO for decades.” 

Genetically modified wheat?

Some readers wondered about GM wheat. In my research, I learned that GM wheat exists but is primarily used only in research settings.

GM wheat is not grown commercially, and its acceptance remains debated worldwide.

Despite field trials exploring various GM modifications (such as resistance to herbicides, insects, fungal pathogens, and viruses, as well as tolerance to drought, salinity, and heat), cultural resistance has hindered the widespread adoption of GM wheat.

That said, wheat as we know it is the product of interspecies breeding via human intervention since the dawn of agriculture. 

Over millennia, wheat’s ancestors were hybridized in West Asia, resulting in common wheat and durum wheat. 

Hybridization involves cross-pollinating one female plant type with a different but similar-enough type of male plant, creating heterozygous offspring.

Heterozygous describes having two versions of the same gene (one inherited from the mother and one from the father). 

In a heterozygous genotype, each gene may have a different mutation or one of the genes may be mutated and the other normal. (A gene is made up of DNA that holds specific instructions for an organism’s structure).

One could argue interbreeding different species of plants or animals is a form of genetic modification. Still, others would say this method is more natural than inserting foreign DNA into the genome in a science lab where the cells are grown in a petri dish. 

Some readers wanted me to dive a little deeper into certain aspects of pesticide use.

As noted, GM foods are often pesticide-resistant or, like corn, the plant itself is a biological pesticide.

Bt, a biological pesticide

One Flatlander reader, Lyle, thought it would benefit readers to know more about Bt genetically added to corn.

“Bt in Bt corn is a protein that occurs naturally in the soil and is digestible by humans but not by the target pests. Before the protein was inserted into the corn, it was sprayed onto the plant as a pesticide. By having the Bt in the corn, it doesn’t harm desirable insects such as bees.”

This information is correct. The targeted insect on corn is the European corn borer, a pest that has spread to Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

However, corn does not affect aphids, spider mites, grasshoppers, wildlife, or humans. As Lyle points out, bees are also safe.

The Bt corn seeds cost more than regular corn seeds, so farmers must do a cost-reward analysis when deciding whether to grow GM plants or use chemical pesticides.

In the case of Bt, Lyle is correct in that it is naturally occurring in soil, including here in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Bt produces crystal proteins that poison and kill targeted pests after ingestion, but as noted in the article, it isn’t a pleasant death for the targeted insects.

Bt has been used as a biological control agent for over 50 years, generally as a spray and is also used here on the prairies on several targeted pests like tent caterpillars and mosquitoes.

It should be noted that different subspecies of Bt are used to kill different types of pests. For instance, Bacillus thuringiensis kurstakiv(Btk) is used to kill the corn borer, while Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) is used to kill mosquitos.

Because Bt is a biological pesticide found in nature, it can be used by organic farmers in Canada.

Health Canada keeps an eye on the GM food market

Cam wrote:

“I am a bit concerned about the tone of your recent article on GM crops! There is a bit of fear mongering.”

While that wasn’t my intention, I appreciate the point. As per Health Canada, no evidence suggests that GM food is harmful. Nor does the organization feel there is any reason to investigate further because there is no indication that it needs to do so.  

Health Canada has been assessing GM foods for more than 20 years. Over 200 genetically modified (GM) foods have been permitted for sale in Canada. That number seems large, but there is a long list of different types of corn or soybeans. 

Some are imported fruits and vegetables. 

The complete list of foods, more than 26 pages long, can be found here.

Regarding GM food grown in Canada, many of the plants on this list are easier to think of as four main food types: soybeans, sugar beets, corn, and canola.  

Health Canada says if new information arises concerning the safety of GM foods, it will review the new data and take appropriate actions if risks are identified. 

Internationally, scientists have also concluded that GM foods pose no more risk to human health than non-GM foods. 

GM foods are subject to a far higher level of regulatory oversight and scientific requirements than non-GM foods.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t consumer hesitancy. 

Consumer interest in GM foods

As noted in Delaney’s article about gene editing, some food producers worry that consumer hesitance around GM food may keep them from buying certain foods.

Creating GM barley has been an option for years. Still, the malting industry wants assurances that the public completely accepts GM practices before considering using such plants.

Health Canada does not feel that consumer hesitancy is warranted and does not require food labels to indicate if a GM ingredient is present.

Health Canada only requires labelling when there is a concern over allergies, which is why you see labels warning that some of the products you buy could contain nuts or dairy.  

GM Canola

Some people were also curious about the existence of organic canola. 

In Canada, a few geographically isolated farms haven’t been contaminated by GM canola, like those on PEI.

A California company called Cibus created an SU canola product, which some online have called a “non-GM” plant because it doesn’t introduce foreign genes into the plant.

Instead, Cibus uses a gene editing technique that works within the plant’s natural processes. 

So, while these people may not consider gene editing to be genetically modifying foods, others would disagree and say it is. Your definition of GM food may expand or narrow depending on your personal views here.

This SU canola is herbicide-tolerant, specifically resistant to Sulfonylurea pesticides, allowing farmers to use specific herbicides without harming the crop.

2,4-D and Dicamba

Cam noted:

“2,4-D and Dicamba has been registered and still is on a wide variety of cereal grains. These crops are not genetically modified, and this chemistry has been used for decades to control broadleaf weeds in grass crops. The difference is that there are now broadleaf crops that have been modified to be sprayed with a broadleaf herbicide and not kill the crop! You can research herbicides in the Guide to Crop protection, which can be sourced online. Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta have annual versions released by the provincial governments.”

That is all true.

By the time pesticides on foods get to us, the consumers, only trace amounts are left.

Health Canada regulates the maximum allowable residue limit of pesticides (MRL) that can remain on or in food when the pesticide is used according to label directions.

These MRLs are legally enforceable limits set for different combinations of pesticides and specific foods or crops in Canada.

Scientists at Health Canada review scientific data and information to determine the MRL.

When we think about pesticides in our foods, we often think of fruits and vegetables, but Health Canada also thinks about them in processed foods, such as juice, and in meat and dairy. Since livestock consume crops treated with pesticides, these can make their way up the food chain to us.

They also monitor the pesticides that enter our drinking water.

But the long and the short of it is that pesticide residues gradually break down, so by the time food reaches our tables, only very small amounts remain.

The residue levels are typically lower than the established MRLs for specific pesticide-food combinations.

Pesticides can only be used in Canada if they meet Health Canada’s stringent health and environmental protection requirements.

To be toxic, one must consume or be exposed to a large dose of pesticides.

2,4-D, for instance, was an ingredient in Agent Orange, and the people who became ill were in direct contact with it.  

Agricultural workers who handle chemicals like 2,4-D risk harmful pesticide side effects if they don’t use the necessary protective gear or follow the manufacturer’s safety instructions. 

But the amounts of pesticide are minimal by the time it reaches us, the consumer.

Becoming pesticide resistant

Weeds and other pests evolve resistance to pesticides, so the question is whether the solution is to use harsher pesticides and genetically modify plants to withstand those herbicides, as we’ve done with soybeans.

Pesticides are necessary to farm at a scale that can feed the world, and as we’ve looked at in the past, Saskatchewan and Manitoba crops feed the world. See The Prairies are responsible for France’s mustard shortage).

The business of food is complicated.

In her article, Delany wrote that genetically edited foods could create more drought-resistant plants or plants that sequester more carbon. As the climate changes, we may see more GM foods, which may or may not be labelled when we pick them up in the grocery stores. However, knowing where our food comes from is important, regardless of whether we favour GM foods.

And some Flatlander readers are vehemently opposed to it.

Terri, who is opposed to GM plants, wrote: 

“I find it disheartening that SCIENCE is still considered a GOD in this country.”

As Wayne wrote from Beausejour, Man. wrote: 

“When I first became aware of genetically engineered seeds some 28 years ago I made a conscious decision to never grow such seeds. The arrival of CRISPR has not changed my position.

“My reasoning is that we are talking about the basic building blocks of life and not an architectural rendering of a house.

“The most obvious point is that science cannot say it’s safe.  

“Science is by definition the understanding of a process, smelting steel as an example.  

“A seed germinating, growing a plant, with roots and a flower that produces a seed is a process. A process which science has some insights into, but cannot explain in its entirety.  

“When we talk about genetic engineering, we are talking about technology, and technology, along with Health Canada, leave out one important consideration, a seed is life. Life which is not only complex, but emotional. We forget that humans are not the only emotional beings on this planet. We fail to appreciate that a seed is the basic building block of all we are that it has its own understanding of what it needs.

“Canada does have one of the safest health systems in the world, but the source of our understanding of a seed’s complexity is no longer provided by our universities. It is supplied by private for-profit corporations whose vested interest is in making a profit for its shareholders, and not in what a seed may desire or need.

“And to add insult, these seeds are owned by private corporations. What was once freely available to all through our universities and ag research centers has been enslaved to meet the needs of private greed . . . Please consider that of the seed as it is a forever kind of thing.

To Wayne’s point, private corporations contribute to research into GM foods, but I’ve also seen provincial grants, like Saskatchewan’s Agriculture Development Fund, support such research. But as he points out, many GM seeds are patented and owned by companies, which has led to legal battles, including here on the prairies in Canada. So it will be worth looking at this topic again in the future.

Thanks, as always, to Flatlander readers for sending in your opinions and comments. This allows us all to learn more about the topic and appreciate the diversity of opinions on the matter.