GM crops: Food for thought

1 Q THE CASCADE

FEBRUARY 16, 2001

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

By Sarom Bahk The Peak

In North America and Europe, genetically modified (GM) foods have become a hot-button issue. They've been dubbed "Frankenfoods" by their detractors, and their creators have been accused of "playing god." Environmental organisations, organic farmers and members of the general public are concerned about the rel• atively unknown impacts of agricultural biotechnology on human health, local biodiversity and ecological stability. Such groups are calling for the mandatory labeling of all GM foods, and promoting boycotts of products that are known to contain genetically engineered Ingredients.

These discussions, led by well-fed citizens of the world's richest nations, have eclipsed the deeper implications of GM crops for poorer countries, whose liveli• hoods are based primarily on agriculture and for whom food security is of the utmost concern.

Ideals versus reality

Proponents of biotechnology argue that genetic engineering could expand crop productivity In the Third World by as much as 25 per cent, thus allowing us to feed the burgeoning world population. The United Nations esti• mates that the world population surpassed six billion In October 1999, while the UN Food and Agriculture Organization states that 790 million people can be clas• sified as malnourished. Clearly, the situation is dire today for members of less developed countries (LDCs) and this need for food will continue to escalate. Biotech advocates are confident that the "gene revolution" can provide a solution to the hunger epidemic, helping to produce crops that will increase yield, provide better nutrition and be environmentally sustainable. Ismail Serageldln, chairman of the World Bank's Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, claims that biotechnology "could contribute to food security by helping to promote sustainable agri• culture cantered on smallholder farmers in developing countries."

However, according to Zamir Punja, an SFU professor and Director of the Centre for Environmental Biology, this optimistic vision of the large-scale benefits of GM crops Is far from being realised in poorer countries. "The actual needs and wants of developing countries aren't necessarily being addressed at this point, because all the work is being done by multinational corporations that are in the developed world. [The corporations] are going to meet their own needs first," he says. Firms In the biotech industry have spent billions of dollars modifying crops to evade pests, prevent diseases and improve food quality, but the majority of such research Is geared toward commercial crops In the West. Tomatoes are being reengineered to have longer shelf lives, but no large corn· pany Is scrambling to create a bug-proof plantain.

In their book Against the Grain, biotechnology critics Lappi: and Balley further maintain that "To date, biotechnology has been applied to a number of innovations that have made agricultural products more 'consumer friendly,' but few have genuinely Increased pro· ductivity." So what are the implications of this focus on Westerngrown commercial crops for developing nations? What forces are preventing the "biotechnology revolution" from having a greater impact on the living standards of Third World farmers?

Potential benefits for the poor

Transgenics refers to the Insertion of an alien gene (a gene from another organism) into a plant in order to give It new traits, such as the ability to tolerate herbicides or to kill insects that feed on it. Genes that express specific traits are directly transferred into the modified plant's genetic material. The genes of inter• est can come from an organism very different from the plant, such as a virus, animal, another plant or a bacterium.

Transgenic plants that have been broadly commercialised thus far are designed to resolve specific problems. For example, "insect-protected crops" have been produced containing a gene from the bacterium Baccillus thurlngiensis (Bt) that codes tor a protein that Is lethal to various insects. Transgenic varieties of Bt corn and Bt cotton produce a toxin that kills the European corn borer and other Insect species. Whereas the protection given by spraying insecticides Is short-lived, a plant containing the BI gene produces the toxin continuously. At SFU, Dr. Punja Is currently developing genetically modified carrots, cucumbers and ginseng for growth in the Okanagan Valley. The vegetables are being designed to withstand the attack of insects and diseases "so they can be pro· duced with reduced application of chemical pesticides." Researchers like Punja can develop a wide range of traits, such as higher yields and resistance to drought, which could potentially be beneficial to farm· ers in developing countries. The challenge of improving agricultural techniques on a global scale lies in producing technology that Is applicable under highly diverse conditions and that will also be environmentally sustainable. According to one scientist, "yield ceilings [could] be raised, excessive pesticide use reduced, the nutrient value of basic foods increased, and farmers on less favored lands provided with varieties better able to tolerate drought, salinity, and lack of soil nutrients."

An illustration of this is the work performed at the West Africa Rice Development Association, where scientists funded by the Rockefeller Foundation are manipulating tissue cultures to improve species of rice. One rice variety resulting from tissue culture techniques is providing farmers in the Shanghai region with 5 to 15 per cent increases In yield.

A further example of a GM crop designed to benefit LDCs is the introduction of genes in rice plants that produce beta-carotene in their grain. This "golden rice" grain contains sufficient beta-carotene to meet human vita• min A requirements. The rice could help to prevent the thousands of cases of blindness caused by vitamin A deficiency, which also causes one million childhood deaths each year. However, critics of biotechnology argue that markets are also to blame for the developing world's lack of agricultural diversity and ensuing nutritional shortcomings.

"The reason why all these people aren't getting enough vitamin A in the first place Is that the local indigenous crops have been pushed aside for more marketable ones. If developing nations were already sustaining themselves there would be a much simpler answer than giving them golden rice," says Jeff Nield of FarmFolk/CityFolk. Like many environmental groups, this B.C. organisation, which advocates "a just and sustainable food system," is calling for a moratorium on GM foods.

The PfOblem of a contro hng onvate sec or

An initiative to donate golden rice free of charge to the developing world is underway, led by the Rockefeller Foundation and the biotech firm Zeneca Agrochemicals. Although the management board of this project Is optimistic about its outcome, it still requires the consent of 30 biotech companies for the free use of approximately 70 technologies needed to produce the golden rice seed.

Property rights problems of this sort are typical in agri• cultural biotechnology, where over 75 per cent of global investment is in the private sector and involves only six large corporations. This has vital implications for the focus of agricultural research, the methods by which new varieties are brought to market, and the access of developing countries to the crops. It is in the best interests of firms to protect their research

FEBRUARY 161 2001

THE CASCADE 11

investments by excluding others from using their innovations without a fee. By patenting their technologies, they can withhold biotechnology research as private property rather than making ii freely available to the public.

The profit-maximising goals of private sector organisations are undeniably different from those of public institutions. Businesses have little incentive to develop crop varieties that would be useful to developing countries, as these projects do not usually entail immediate payoffs due to the relative inability of small-scale Third World farmers to invest in new technologies. Poorer countries are thus placed at a disadvantage, as the benefits being developed by multinationals target the rich Western markets and largely ignore the agricultural problems of the developing world.

"Local universities and industries in those countries are being left to do their own research. It's not a bad thing, as long as they get their funding," says Punja. His own work Is financed by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), an agency of the federal government.

Technological development in poorer countries has been mainly funded by public sector institutions such as the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), which sponsors a network of 16 International research cen• ters. While yearly research expenditures on biotechnology by each private firm was $1 billion or more in 1998, total spending in the entire CGIAR system in 1998 was a mere $345 million.

This dominance of agricultural research by the private sector Is caused by several factors. Due to high costs, many publicly owned agricultural companies are now being privatised, while funding levels are falling for public sector research systems in developing countries.

Moreover, Intellectual property rights are Increasingly recognised within the international trading system, cre• ating access to a larger market in which spending on private research can earn substantial returns. As a result, many fear the emergence of a "scientific apartheid," or the monopolisation of knowledge by companies, which would lead to a larger gap between the developed and developing worlds.

Disregarding the Developing World's Needs

To date, the private sector has concentrated its research on four principal transgenic food crops: canola, soybeans, corn and potatoes. Of these crops, only corn and potatoes are Important in the diets of most LDCs, and poorer countries that rely on these vegetables can benefit from the existing biotechnology only if their agricultural problems are similar to those of North Americans. On the other hand, there exists a group of plants known as "orphan crops," thus named because they are sorely neglected by the private sector, even though their Improvement might bring great social benefits in the developing world. Plantain, cassava, cowpeas, lentil, millet, and sweet potato are examples of crops that form an essential part of people's diets in different areas of the developing world, but the research performed on them Is generally performed by the public sector and is usually under-funded.

The cassava is a key example of an "orphan crop" whose development has been stymied by lack of funding. A tropical vegetable that tolerates acidic and infertile social benefits.

There is the possibility of transgenes escaping from cultivated crops into wild relatives and other crops, including organic varieties. It is uncertain whether the genes will remain in the relatives and whether this will create adverse ecological effects, such as the production of ''superweeds." According to Nield, escaped genes due to cross-pollination present a serious problem for nonGM crop farmers. "There's cases in Saskatchewan where Roundup Ready canola [a brand of genetically engineered canola created by the biotech firm Monsanto] cross-pollinated with a neighbouring canola farm, which ended up becoming contaminated with genetically modified seeds." Further, plants are being developed containing genes from viral pathogens that confer resistance to these same pathogens-these genes, however, could be exchanged with other viral pathogens, possibly creating entirely new virus strains with unknown properties. A third risk is the possibility that the widespread use of Bt crops could lead to the prevalence of insects that are resistant to the toxin. This would eradicate the benefits of the product and could also undermine the efficiency of natural Bt used by organic farmers. Moreover, the BI gene could harm other insects, including those that prey on the targeted pests.

Finally, there Is the chance that genetically modified crops carrying antibiotic genes may generate antibiotic resistance In livestock or humans. Questions have also been raised regarding the possibility that transgenes may increase allergies through the introduction of new proteins to foods.

1 soil, the cassava's leaves and starchy roots make up the world's third largest source of calories after rice and corn. This staple food of many developing countries is highly susceptible to pests and diseases and often costs farmers up to 80 per cent of their crop. It is estimated that biotechnology could multiply the yield of cassava tenfold, to 80 to 100 tons per hectare. Transgenic cassava plants, which produce genes resistant to the African cassava mosaic virus and the cassava common mosaic virus, have been developed in the labs of public institutions such as the International Center of Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and the Cassava Biotechnology Network (CBN).

Ill-:

However, these transgenic crops have yet to be Introduced into the fields due to funding problems. Financial support has expired for the CBN, which has dwindled into small regional networks that are partly subsidised by the local private sector and developing country governments. By 1998, only $3 million will have been invested in cassava biotechnology since 1988, a minlscule amount for a crop that is so vital to farmers In developing countries. Since the cassava Is not marketable in industrialised nations, large biotech firms will not undertake research on the crop, so its development continues to be Inadequate.

Possible repercussions of GM crops

Despite the urgent need to establish food security In the developing world, the yet unproven hazards of GM crops cannot be ignored. Agricultural biotechnology could also entail several environ• mental and health risks that may outweigh its An ongoing debate

These and other health and environmental concerns have made genetic engineering, and especially transgenlcs an extremely contentious issue in Europe and North America. Nonetheless, advocates of biotechnology who are anxious to apply new crop engineering to farming practices in LDCs insist that members of the Third World largely dismiss the issue of environmental safety. Many scientists are contemptuous about the hypothetical risks posed by biotech• nology, maintaining that the greatest concern that developing countries have about GM crops is not about safety, but access. By contrast, biotechnology critics point out that developing countries would not be equipped to handle any health or environmental problems that may arise, and thereby should not be subjected to these potentially risky Innovations.

"The whole debate has become really polarised," says Punja. "Not all new technology is bad, but one of the concerns has been that technologies move forward too fast, so consumers haven't been alerted to what's going on. Now I think we're seeing a backlash from companies literally trying to force things down con• sumers' throats."

Punja observes that the controversies surrounding GM foods could well have an affect on his work, and GM research In general.

"Public protest will affect the rate at which research goes to the marketplace. I think I'd have a hell of a harder time now getting my materials onto the market than I would have two years ago. The research will probably go on, but if we actually try to take it into another country, it'll be harder." Punja emphasises that concerned citizens should try to obtain as much information as possible on the issue. "Many people approach me [about my work] and say, "This is awful," but when you actually talk to them they have absolutely no clue about what's involved. I think Informed decision and debate are definitely the best way to go." With the exception of the interviews with Dr. Punja and FarmFolk/CityFolk, research for this feature was obtained from nine articles published In jour• nals ranging from Foreign Policy to Science.

12 THE CASCADE

FEBRUARY 161 2001

Interview with Robin Mathews

by Andrew Bingham

On a sunny Saturday last week I walked into La Vieille France, a petite cafe In Vancouver, ready to eat and ask questions. With me walked Professor Robin Mathews, an important Individual In recent Canadian cultural and educational history, but as of yet relatively unknown. Why is this poet, professor, socialist, writer of over 20 books and 100 articles, public thinker and political activist unknown? The reason is this: almost all of his protestations, all of his efforts have been against those who write our history and media right now. I had It In mind to change that fact.

Robin Mathews was born in Smithers, British Columbia, and was educated at UBC, Ohio State University, and the University of Toronto In English and American literature. He grew up with Immigrant parents, and so in his youth was surrounded by the cultures of other countries. This effect did not last for long. As a young writer, he began to be interested in and read Canadian writers. He explains how "one begins to be a part of the culture even though the larger part of the society denies the culture exists. There is a culture and you begin to be a piece of it."

Even before he became well known as a political activist, Mathews knew where he stood on Canadian issues, especially where the United States was concerned. As an M.A. graduate at Ohio State University - where he had been studying American literature "Henry James. He's the only American writer worth anything. The rest are trash." - he was one of the people who was asked to give a three minute speech on his experience there. "The others said that they had a wonderful time in the United States, had learned about democracy, and would take back the great message to the country from which they had come, and they were eternally grateful. So they came to me, and I said that I had not learned a sin· gle thing about democracy In this country, my country is significantly more democratic that the United States, but I had found it very interesting to be here, and I realised what an enormous imperial power the United States was."

From that time forward Mathews was intensely inter· ested In the promotion of Canada as a country that did not need foreign influence In order to be great, did not need to think of itself as having a second-rate culture, but that needed to realise that what we have here could be lost if action was not taken in the opposite direction.

From Ohio Stale he went on to take a degree at the University of Toronto, and then worked at Carleton University, the University of Alberta, and numerous other educational institutions In Canada. While at Carleton as the manager of the then Institute of Canadian Studies, which Is the oldest centre of Canadian Studies in North America, he began to question why Canadian culture, literature, and history were not being taught as a major programme in most universities and colleges. This, he discovered, was in part due to the enormous amount of foreign professors that taught In Canadian universities. Action was soon taken:

In 1968 RobinMathews and his co-worker Professor James Steele approached the Carleton University Academic Staff Association (C.U.A.S.A) with their concerns considering the state of Carleton and other Canadian universities. They had discovered that between 1961 and 1968 the percentage of Canadian professors teaching in Canadian universities had dropped from 75% to 49%. They found that the majority of professors were Americans who were not taking Canadian citizenship and were teaching American, not Canadian, history, literature, social sciences, and culture. Mathews and Steele found this issue alarming and felt that the American pro• lessor were producing Canadian graduate students that did not know the Canadian social, historical, and cultural experience. Mathews and Steele questioned why the number of Canadian professors was decreasing, and as they discovered, it was not for a lack of availability of Canadian professors, but because advertising for Canadian universities was mostly being done In outside of Canada. Al they required was an Investigation Into this matter, and a policy Implemented that saw a certain percentage of professors and university administrations be Canadian citizens. Because they took this stance, they experienced ridicule and backlash from the majority of their colleagues over this Issue. However, they had a massive, positive reaction from the Canadian students, who felt that their past and future as Canadians was being erased by the Imperial US. This was something new and because he was fin· ghting against many of the established teadchers who were supported by the corporate elite, "they began to loathe me." This struggle continues on to this very day, and Mathews has not once stepped down or been sidetracked away from the issue.

An event in Canadian history helped him in his struggles, an event that a lot of people in our day seem to forget about. In 1967, our Centennial Year, a Canadian cultural "Renaissance" In life and literature began. Because the federal government could not deny that it was Canada's 100th anniversary, they decided to put on a show In a nationalist spirit. This turned out to be the Expo celebration in Montreal. Mathews feels that they did this with some trepidation: "The federal government ... Is always afraid of nationalism in Canada, because the federal government bows to the bidding mostly of the United States, and If Canadians seize hold of themselves, then they will begin to demand that less of our wealth be pumped into the United States, they will demand various things for Canadians that we don't have. The federal government is very afraid of that, and so it always tries to downplay the national responses of Canadians." This perception, both on Mathews' part and the federal government's, turned out to be true. Canadians loved 1967, and began to ask questions. Why do we not have this? Why do we not have that? During the first five years after Expo, many Canadian Institutions were started: the Writer's Union of Canada, the League of Canadian Poets, and the National Farmer's Union, the Council of Canadian Unions - these were all Canadian organizations.

One question that was asked was "Why do we not have our own theatre?" This query gave rise to the founding of the Great Canadian Theatre Company, in Ottawa, in 1975. Mathews, as one of the founders, was an important player in its inception. The G.C.T.C. hired only Canadians and enacted only Canadian plays. Of course, it fell under enormous criticism. The art critics (one a Yankee Imperialist and one a British citizen) hated It, the TV and newspapers hated It, and everyone said that it would not last. Unfortunately for those people, it did last, and now is one of the major theatres in Ottawa. It survived despite the presence of the National Arts Centre, Mathews describes, " ... which at that time had an incredibly bad director," who was "incredibly highly-paid, who had a huge budget, and put on lemon after lemon after lemon." Because of the G.C.T.C.'s success, smaller companies and then bigger companies began to present more and more Canadian plays. Mathews and his companions began to work at moving Canadian plays off of the second stage and onto the main stage in other venues as well. He now reflects that "(that struggle] has not been completely won but it's much better than before.''

A few years earlier, in 1972, he was again at work for the educational future of Canadian youth. With three colleagues who taught in the French department at Carleton University he drew up "The French Report." Subsequently signed and endorsed by a dozen important Quebec literary figures, It was a move to get French Canadian studies into universities, to get Quebec literature taught in English Canadian French departments. This was also used in Quebec to pro· mote the study of Quebec literature over literature from France. It effected a big change In the university curriculum. Teachers began teaching FrenchCanadian literature, and all of a sudden students could learn about that great portion of Canadian culture.

Alter this our conversation turned to more current issues, about which he had a lot to say. He describes himself as a socialist: "I flt significantly far left of the NOP, I am on anti-capitalist, and I don't think there will be justice in the world until the capitalist system is destroyed. The capitalist system Is rapacious and greedy, its funda· mental ideology is the exploitation of others for the wealth of the few, and since that offends me at every level of my being, I am an anti-capitalist. And I don't see how you can be Christian and capitalist, but since most of the Christians I know are capitalist, I guess you can be." Taking this stance, It is not hard to understand that he Is against US infiltration of Canada, and that he sees a very bleak future for Canada unless Canadians become aware and act against this threat.

Speaking of the FTA, that insidious American beast that gnaws constantly at Canada, he describes our situation today as "suicide • cutting our wrists everyday." He states: "The capitalist class - the corporate system - is absolutely determined to change the social structure on the planet. They are absolutely determined to take leadership - internationally - from the U.S. corporate class, and the U.S. corporate class Is a vicious, vicious, lawless class, and globalization In Canada is not globalization, It's Americanization, and the owners of 90% of the 50 major international corporations, globalization corporations, are U.S. [businessmen] ... " and he goes on to say that " ... globalization Is at one level globalization ... but it's fundamentally U.S. power being spread on the planet ... The world is going to have to deal with U.S. imperialism whether it likes It or not, sooner or later." But we are not told these things, I said. most people think that we are getting better as a country. He replied that this was the case because "the newscasts and everybody are saying 'Go to sleep, go to sleep."'

I then asked him what he thought about the Red Tory Tradition, as it seems that it is a tradition that Is partially popular at UCFV: "I don't belong to it, but I have great respect for it."

He gave me a rundown on certain Canadian thinkers of the past and present. Joe Clark is "a total political opportunist. he hasn't a principled bone In his body. He's a continentalist, he's a sell•out ... he's a nice guy." Harold Innes was ''very important to me. I read a lot of Innes." Stanley Ryerson "is the first serious Marxist historian of Canadian history. And he taught me a few wonderful things ... he was a wonderful, wonderful man .. . A much nicer man than George Grant ever was, who was a snob, and a number of other things, and Stanley was not." I asked him what he thought of Celine, and here our agreement sud• denly broke: "Celine's a very strange guy. I'm very, very nervous of Celine, and very nervous of his world view and his philosophical centre, and very nervous of his collaboration with the Nazis and all that stuff ... I find a lot of self-justification in Celine, a lot of apology for himself ... And I'm not gassed by his style, you know, one is supposed to be swept away by It. I think it's interesting but I don't think it opens up that much more of human experience as a compositional mode." Fortunately, he almost redeemed himself with "Beckett Is whaler cloth for me.'' As we wound down with a last cup of cafe au lait, I couldn't help but think how difficult It is to find someone like Robin Mathews, someone with a firm grasp of reality, someone who is firm in what they believe to be right, who Is not afraid of fighting for his country, someone who willingly pays for lunch.

Professor Mathews will be speaking at the Canadian nationalist conference at All•Saints Monastery in Dewdney, BC on March 3rd. Those involved with the conference Include Prof. Ron Dart, Archbishop Lazar Puhala, and Canadian philosopher David Goa. For details contact Prof. Dart or inquire at the Cascade newspaper office.