Ontario Farmer | October 5, 1999 | SUSAN MANN
Consumer confidence is, according to this story, the prize in a public opinion battle fought over food safety.
AGCare chairman Jim Fischer was quoted as saying, "I guess the reality is that it's a very confusing time for the consumer."
That's because, the story says, they're being given conflicting information on the safety of genetically engineered foods. On the one side are organizations like Greenpeace and the Council of Canadians, which last week launched a campaign to pressure food retailers to take genetically engineered foods off retail shelves.
As part of that campaign, these groups are telling Canadians that genetically engineered foods have not been proven safe for human health and the environment.
But AGCare, a coalition of 16 farm groups that represents Ontario's 45,000 field and horticultural crop growers on crop biotechnology, crop protection and related environmental issues, is telling consumers a different story.
It's saying that all new genetically enhanced foods undergo several years of rigorous testing to ensure their safety for human and animal health and for the environment. Only after such testing is completed are they approved by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada for use or sale in Canada.
Fischer was further quoted as saying, "The reality is we deal with the science. We're dealing with input derived from research, after research, after research over several years."
In an opinion piece Fischer wrote recently, he said he too had questions about biotechnology when he first heard about it.
"What I've learned has convinced me that biotechnology is a safe, essential tool that will bring benefits not just for me as a farmer, but for you as a consumer and for the environment as well."
Greenpeace campaigner Michael Khoo was cited as saying AGCare is out there promoting biotechnology, adding, "They're one side of the picture and I'm just trying to show you there are other scientists who argue quite definitively that it's not safe for the environment and there are concerns that groups, like the British Medical Association, have on whether it's safe for human consumption."
In response to AGCare's contention that genetically engineered crops will help the environment because farmers can reduce their pesticide use when they plant such crops, Khoo pointed out that a 1998 University of Wisconsin study reviewed by Dr. Charles Benbrook of more than 8,000 genetically engineered soybean field trials showed that pesticide use increased two to five times above the normal amount and that there was a five per cent yield drag.
But Fischer was quoted as saying, "These are the facts - we know we can reduce pesticide use. Depending on the crop, it may be significant, it may be less significant. But there is a reduction. We know that in some cases we can use a safer pest-control product when we can use a genetically-enhanced crop."
In addition, AGCare said it believes the food is safe because of what the regulatory authorities have said and because of the research that has been done repeatedly by many scientists.
About the Benbrook study, Fischer said he's not familiar with that specific study but he's also not surprised by the tactic that's being used in this campaign. "Someone can pull out one study or a study over the whole world and maybe find something, who knows what. But how about talking about the thousands of other studies that clearly indicate what we're saying."
Another issue that AGCare finds troublesome is that farmers are said to be victims of the companies and dupes. "The reality is that we farmers have to be astute managers of the businesses that we run," he explained. "No we're not dupes or victims. We have choice and we can make decisions for ourselves."
Fischer added that farmers are smart enough to know whether this technology is appropriate for them or not.
Although Greenpeace and the Council of Canadians said genetically enhanced foods should be taken off store shelves and "they're talking about choice, well who's making the decision?" he asked. "Is this Greenpeace's decision to remove it from the store shelves on behalf of the consumer?"
