-by Tarrah Young
I don't spend too much time engaging in debate on Facebook but last week, someone posted something which I see every few months- a picture of an apple with sticker on it showing a code. The code is apparently able to tell you if a fruit or vegetable has been genetically modified. I can never resist responding to these posts because they are very misleading. Firstly, the labeling of foods as genetically modified is voluntary, so even if this code were accurate, absolutely no one is coming forth and volunteering the information that their product is genetically modified. Second, the long supply chain between producer and retailer means that after the product has left the farm, no one actually knows if it was GM or not. Certain items are over 90% GM, such as corn and soy. But there are actually almost no fruit or vegetables which are available in stores that are genetically modified anyways, the one exception that comes to mind is  papaya. So it is a post that is misleading in a few ways.

In this recent instance however, the exchange of opinions that ensued was focused on whether or not genetically modified foods were in fact something potentially dangerous to be avoided, or if they were benign, or possibly even good for you. A couple of people with very strong opinions on the subject declared that GMO foods are healthy and delicious and that organic food was the dangerous stuff. In times like these, I have trouble keeping my mouth shut. (Of course, GM foods are not more or less delicious- nothing has ever been genetically modified to be tastier, crops are usually genetically modified to be able to withstand applications of pesticides without dying, or perhaps, to actually contain the pesticide itself. )
Anyhow, during this 'conversation', one allegation was that GMOs have been scientifically proven to be safe, (whereas by some logic, those organic foods were dangerous!). Those that approved of GMOs were on the side of science, and those that opposed were anti-science. And this touched a chord in me. I actually studied the science behind the making of genetically modified organisms in university. My classmates went on to design their own GMOs. I felt rather confident that in this particular conversation I knew much more about the science behind GMOs than anyone else. And I feel confident making the statement that there has not been enough rigorous scientific testing to assure the safety of each of these crops- to humans and the rest of the environment. The science itself is actually rather inexact, and although we can decode DNA, that does not mean we fully understand how genes fully work together.
All the same, the lust for scientific progress is so powerful in the university community that the question is always 'How' can we do it, rather than 'Should' we do it? All my classmates, after learning how GMOs are made, began dreaming about Masters degrees, and what kind of organism they could build. Science is fun! It's exciting to make new discoveries, which could bring you reknown, financial gain, and maybe even help the world in some way. But something was missing in our university education. We were not required to take a single course in the ethics of science, the politics of science or the philosophy of science. So scientific minds are being trained to ask only one question – How.
Many people claim that GMOs are safe because, of course, for a GMO food to be released on the market, it must have been tested, right? And how come there aren't very many studies proving that GMOs are dangerous? This is where the politics of science come in, and it's at least as important as understanding the science. The companies that own the genetically modified crops, and the pesticides designed to complement them, have strong governmental lobbies. Universities (such as Guelph) depend heavily on them for funding. And these companies do not allow their products to be studied freely. When you buy genetically modified seeds from a company such as Monsanto, you need to sign an agreement saying that you will not use the seeds for research. And on the rare occasion that they do grant an independent researcher the opportunity to research their product, a contract must be signed where the researcher must share the results with Monsanto, who will not allow the publication of the results if they are not favorable. That narrows down the pool of scientists interested in conducting unbiased research significantly. Dr. Arpad Pusztai was one of the first scientists to raise concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods. In the late 1990s, Pusztai, a respected molecular biologist, conducted research on GM potatoes for the Rowett Institute in Scotland. The potatoes were genetically altered to produce lectins, natural insecticides, to protect them against aphids. Pusztai conducted feeding studies on rats and found that the potatoes damaged the animals' gut, other organs, and immune system. In 1998, Pusztai expressed his concerns about GM foods publicly and was promptly suspended and forced to retire from his position. He is one of many scientists who lost their jobs by finding the wrong answers.
Thus the only entities doing research on GMOs are the companies that make them, and the government. But not only do companies like Monsanto have very strong lobbies in the government, they practically ARE the government . This is a US example, but you can imagine that it is the same in Canada. It shows the roles that government officials held before and after holding office.

Source: www.globalresearch.ca
Now, Health Canada is responsible for assessing the safety of GMO products before they enter the marketplace. However, they do not conduct their own research. They rely mostly on the assessment provided by the company that makes them! And in 2009 Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences announced that they had received approval to introduce their new eight-trait GE corn 'SmartStax' into Canada and the U.S. Health Canada did not even assess 'SmartStax' for human health safety and didn't even authorize it. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) officially approved the environmental release of 'SmartStax' even though they didn't conduct an environmental risk assessment. The rationale was that the 8 traits that were introduced into the corn had all been approved individually, so it was assumed that combining them would pose no further risk.
This is the kind of "science" being used.
It is because politics are so tightly intertwined with science that, even if we did fully understand the innerworkings of all genomes and the way in which GMOs interact with the practically infinite number of microbes in our soil and our gut, that it would still be next to impossible to restrict usage of a GMO if a problem was found.
For these reasons, I have trouble with the claim that "Science" is on the side of genetically modified organisms. It also concerns me that we are grooming scientists with a passion for exploration and discovery, but without the prudence to ask the right questions, and the understanding of the politics that affect the answers.
It's up to you if you want to consume GMO crops knowing that we don't have all the information. In fact, they are nearly impossible to avoid. But if you do want to steer clear, just know that the label on your fruit and veggies is not going to help you.

Tarrah is going in to her 10th year on Green Being Farm near Neustadt, Grey County. This is re-printed with permission from the newsletter provided to members of their CSA.