1999 Genetics, Law and Society Conference, Saint Paul, Minnesota

Tampering with the Garden of Eden
by Sheila Forsyth PhD 
October 1999

Are we tampering or tempering (in the sense of adapting or combining elements to make something workable and usable) with the Garden of Eden? That is one central question in the raging debate around biotechnology, society and law. The debate is particularly interesting in the agricultural arena. Food is so essential and basic to life and survival. We view food as wholesome , pure and safe. Does the use of the tool called biotechnology change this perception of food?

To find our "daily bread" we have, over the millennia, developed tools, acquired knowledge of the genetics and other properties of the plants and animals around us, and used the potential of chemistry and energy. From the first digging stick to the most advanced tractor and implements, we still rely on the bounty of the soil that is old as the world itself. And from the first selection of one plant or animal from the wild to be cultivated to the most sophisticated breeding program including harnessing the power of genetics; we depend on the sources of nature. With genetics and biotechnology, scientists can use genes as building blocks to make new combinations not before seen by humans or nature. This is the exciting and also the fearsome side of the technology. The question is, are we capable of knowing when and if we should use such developments and inventions?

In the middle of the Garden of Eden, which provided all the raw material for the species to "be fruitful and multiply", and diversify, the Genesis story tells us, was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When humans ate the fruit, they "became as gods ... wise" in the sense of knowing good from evil. From this concept stem law, ethics, decision making and determining right from wrong that create out societal norms. Even with this ability to distinguish good from evil, decisions around science, ethics and society are rarely cut and dry; we struggle to know right from wrong. Biotechnology seems to precipitate a dilemma which is unprecedented. In that, it joins a panoply of other issues which are polarized; abortion, nuclear power, use of chemicals, even sports and politics; but it seems to have its own special set of flames.

The Genesis story also chronicles the origins of the strife with the world around us; setting us up to view the world as a battleground against weeds, insects, and animals for survival. We continually develop innovations and technology to enjoin this battle and to make our lives a little easier. Biotechnology is one of the newer manifestations of our search for innovations which have revolutionized our lifestyles, especially our approach to agriculture, including the internal combustion engine (horses to tractors), chemical revolution (cultivation to herbicides), satellites and telecommunications and computers with information overload at our fingertips.

The purpose of this talk is to highlight the pros and cons of genetics effects on the environment and the farming community. At the moment, in the print media, a "genetic food fight" is rampaging between activists, opposing sets of scientists, producers and industrial interests. I will cover this and other new developments at the conference. Since the debate is literally "hot on the press", I will provide up-to-date analyses of key topics for the agriculture sector at the conference. Topics that I may address include:

Polarization of the Debate

What is the origin, the Genesis, of the debate around biotechnology? Why does it seem to be polarized? The polarization is fuelled by what I call duelling myths or point of view. There are several. I will present some of them at the conference.

As part of this debate, a spin-off topic is, why are people concerned? What is it about biotechnology and its ability to tamper or temper genetics that rings alarm bells in some and in others makes them cheer innovativeness? Why do some view the employ of this technology as "playing God" while others see it as a "gift from God" or a outgrowth of human ingenuity?

Breakdown in Trust and "Sacred Cows"

Biotechnology has called into question issues such as:

• Science as the answer, as king. The public no longer trusts scientists who say, we know best, this is complicated and we are doing our best work on your behalf. As I write this outline, I look a two op-ed pieces in one of Canada's national newspapers, The National Post, from two groups of scientists about genetically engineered food; one is called "Safety assumption is not good enough" and the other "The science is sound."
• Faith in government, in particular in the regulatory system. Safety assurances made about biotechnology products are being doubted and the entire system has been put in jeopardy. People generally have trusted the government to make the best decisions about safety in transportation, drugs, food safety, medical devices and other products; this is no longer the case.
• Innovation is good, progress is good. Biotechnology is generating a set of innovations that have resulted in progress being in doubt. Are we supposed to be here or be doing this, people ask?

International Issues

Several key negotiations, which affect our food supply and the role of biotechnology continue. An update on positions will be provided on for example:

• The Codex Alimentarius, the international body discussing the issue of labelling for genetically modified products
• The Biosafety Protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity, currently in a hiatus in negotiation.
• The markets. Why do the markets seem so different, Europe against GMOs, others sitting on the fence? What are the developing nations saying?

The Agricultural Producers' Points of View

The jury is most definitely still out in the farming community, at least in Canada, about the use of biotechnology products. Choices and change are the perpetual human condition, but especially in farming, where adaptation and improvement over time are commonplace . Many farmers have planted small plots of genetically modified crops and are testing the waters, they will do their calculations and retesting to see if it makes good economic sense. This is the way they treat any new hybrid or crop or other input, they will be accepted or rejected based on performance and the bottom line. For others there is a more fundamental objection to the use of genetically modified crops and they will chose not to grow them. The point is, the choice is theirs. The situation is polarized among those who have embraced the concept wholeheartedly, those who are not sure and are watching what happens from the sidelines and those who reject the use of the products.

Canada provides an interesting position around the use of agricultural biotechnology products. I will supply details on the day of the conference, but let me give you a few tantalizing tidbits. They demonstrate the conflicts in policy direction, regulatory decisions and producer attitudes around biotechnology in Canada.

• Canada's regulatory system has not approved the use of BST for dairy cows. This product of course is being used in the United States.
• Canada has a brand new Biotechnology Strategy to promote the industry. A few details will be provided on this initiative.
• Canada's organic farmers have developed their own certification standards for all uses. They have been very clear that GMO products are not to be used. They define GMO broadly as, "all organisms, and products thereof, produced through techniques of genetic engineering and modification including, but not restricted to recombinant DNA, cell fusion, encapsulation, macro and micro injection, gene deletion or magnification, and other techniques for altering the genetic composition of living organisms in ways, or with results, that do not occur in nature through mating or through traditional breeding techniques such as conjugation, hybridization, or transduction". This is quite a different situation from what continues to be debated in the United States.
• Farmers' response to the use of agreements to grow genetically modified crops and their concerns around "being owned" by a multinational is mixed. Some see it as the cost of doing business and accept the process, others are outraged and have concern about control going to big business.
• Farmers are also investigating the Technology Protection System (terminator gene) to determine in their own minds whether this fits with their philosophy of farming. I will report on where that debate is as well.
• Also will give a quick update on some of the unique agricultural research on biotechnology products.

Producers in Canada realized that they were not aware of the scientific background and policy positions behind the products and the decisions making process, especially around environmental factors. Therefore, the farmers commissioned me to prepare a "Farmers' Guide to Biotechnology." This will be briefly described and copies will be available for the audience.

The Public: Where Do They Stand?

Canada also is an interesting case study concerning public response. Canada enters the public debate late compared to Europe and the United States. The Canadian public has been quiet about biotechnology, but that seems to be changing of late. Some environmental groups are beginning to have information pickets and press conferences against genetically modified foods and the academic and corporate world is responding. I will update the conference on the most current state of that debate.

Why have the events in agricultural biotechnology seemed invisible to or have not engaged the public imagination? Why all of a sudden have they realized that many of the products on their shelves contain genetically modified components (corn, soybean and canola are very common ingredients in many prepared foods)? Why now is the cry being heard about why hasn't food been labelled? There are many reasons, and I will chronicle some of them in my talk, here are a few:

• The first wave of products in agriculture has been mostly what we call agronomic. They have little connection with the consumer, especially since many consumers today have been "off the land" for generations and know little about agriculture and how their food is produced. Herbicide tolerance, Bt containing plants, feed additives, pest control products, even higher yields are of little interest. The next wave of products predicted will engender more public interest, the so-called nutriceuticals as an example, where foods may be higher in a particular beneficial compound.
• Some governments have been using draft policies (in lieu of no international agreement) that food labelling would only be based on "safety" issues such as allergenic or other health related issues and not label based on production method (e.g., food produced with genetically modified inputs). The draft policy allows for both positive (e.g., this food contains or is genetically modified) or negative (this food does not contain genetically modified ingredients) labelling. Some governments are now calling for full labelling of genetically modified foods. Opponents to the latter position, including companies and some farm groups claim that to label now would be ludicrous, since most products would bear the logo or statements, due to the fact that corn, soybeans, canola are such common ingredients. They question what the message would be for the public, if most packages were labelled? That all food is unsafe or suspect? That all food is artificial and no longer wholesome? That is likely not a message that anyone wants to send.

Citizen's right to know is key in the issue of genetics. This centres around the discussion that seem to be in an endless loop both internationally and domestically. When must citizens be informed of actions that may affect their security and health? What is the role of information outreach, including labelling?

Environmental Effects of Agricultural Products

Most agriculture products (seeds, feed additives, biofertilizers, pest control agents, some veterinary products and others) are designed, of course, for use in the environment. Studies over the past years have examined the effects, the possible movement of pollen and microorganisms and about the rigorousness of the regulatory system. Science has most certainly proven that microorganisms will move, and that cross fertilization/pollination can occur. Pest resistance through the use of Bt crops is also a likely long-term outcome. Is this acceptable? Not to the organic farming community, for which Bt products are important for insect control. The question is, what does this mean to the environment? Will it ultimately be damaging or is it a manageable risk? These questions continue to be investigated. Concerns over the paucity of long-term testing and concerns around antibiotic markers need to be addressed. I will examine this and more in some detail.

Uncertainty is the normal state of human existence. Daily we face challenges and choices. How do we deal with uncertainty? On the one hand we invoke the precautionary principle that tells us that if there is some potential risk to the environment or health that we do not totally understand, we should take action. What is the other side of this coin? If there is some uncertainty about the use of a product, should that result in the decision not to use the product (a moratorium), or a cautious risk management approach that allows for its use and monitoring of its effects? This is also related to the sins of omission and commission-- that is failing to take action when we should have (e.g., not developing a technology when it should have been taken up) or taking action when we should not have (using a technology that should have been left on the drawing board). This and many more are the decisions facing agricultural producers, consumers and industry!

TOP / BACK