Untangling the mess of issues surrounding GMOs

Recently Canadian MPs voted down Bill C-291 (216 nays 67yeas) for mandatory labelling of foods that are genetically modified. While some might say our government is refusing us the right to know what’s in our food, I argue that applying the words genetically modified to foods will not address specific concerns of Canadians.  With 80% Canadians wanting GMO foods labelled, some form of labelling is called for but it has to come with more education. There are valid consumer concerns as well as misunderstandings that are specific to some GMOs but not all and these can be better addressed when not covered by the blanket GMO term.

There are many complicated issues not addressed in Bill C-291, an amendment to the Food and Drugs Act, and I believe the simplicity of the Bill left too many uncertainties.  Disappointingly the NDP party oversimplified the issue with an article on their website titled, “GMO labelling: Government chooses secrecy” and stated, “the Liberal government decided to ignore Canadians’ concerns and side with large agri-food businesses instead.” Let’s stop making this about taking sides with big Ag or organic. The scientific consensus is that foods from genetically engineered crops are no less safe to eat than non-genetically engineered equivalents, but consumer fears persist. The government does need to address Canadians’ concerns about genetically modified foods but in a way that doesn’t feed into unsubstantiated fears. If policy makers are to design meaningful labels for foods that have been modified using biotechnology, they need to first separate out the legitimate issues that worry consumers from the fear and misconceptions.

What did Bill C-291 say?

1 The Food and Drugs Act is amended by adding the following after section 5:

Genetically modified food

5.‍1 No person shall sell any food that is genetically modified unless its label contains the information prescribed under paragraph 30(1)‍(b.‍2).

2 Subsection 30(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b):

(b.‍1) defining the expression “genetically modified”;

(b.‍2) respecting the labelling of genetically modified food, to prevent the purchaser or the consumer of the food from being deceived or misled in respect of its composition;

In other words, genetically modified food would have to say that it is genetically modified, but the definition of genetically modified would still need to be decided. Mr. Pierre-Luc Dusseault (Sherbrooke, NDP) who put forward Bill C-291 further explains,

“The bill recognizes Health Canada's scientific expertise in this area, and so it is up to that department to define what constitutes a genetically modified food and determine when labelling is required. The bill also gives the government the regulatory authority to define the form and manner of labelling, where the label will be placed, and the size and wording of the label.”

This gives a huge amount of latitude in determining what would fall under genetically modified food and the uncertainties of how it might play out seemed to deter MPs from saying yes. For example, Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC) says,

“Canola has been accepted as a healthy and safe food product for Canadians. It is not labelled in any way other than the typical ingredient breakdown we see on all of our food. However, most canola is GMO. When canola is processed into canola oil, the oil is identical whether it was from GMO or non-GMO canola. I will repeat that: the oil is identical. However, the bill would require that canola oil from GMO canola would be labelled differently from non-GMO oil, even though there would be absolutely no difference between the two.”

Block has a point, except that canola oil would not necessarily fall under the new labelling. Labelling rules might to allow things like canola oil and sugar from sugar beets to be exempt and this seems to be the route the U.S. will take. Genetic engineering changes the DNA, which are like instructions the cell uses to make protein. In the US, foods will be labelled as bioengineered in the unrefined state but sugars, oils and corn syrup will be exempt because these things are not bioengineered (no DNA or protein), only the plant that produced them was engineered. Last year President Obama signed a bill into law requiring food labelling for foods containing genetically modified ingredients but specifics have been left for the USDA to solidify by July 2018.  Australia has GMO labelling in effect and their laws also exempt oils, sugars and starches. However genetically modified soy beans engineered to have less trans fat, have increased oleic acid content and these are labelled GMO in Australia because the product is different from conventional soy bean oil.

I’m willing to bet many Canadians concerned about GMOs might be surprised by these exemptions and we need to make sure consumers are up to speed on the reasoning behind foods being excluded and how we should define GMO before they start seeing labels at the grocery store.

Some consumers may be opposed to food products derived from genetically modified crops even if the product itself doesn’t contain any DNA due to objections to farming practises, environmental contamination risks or because they feel it is unnatural. Here it makes sense to let the alternative products voluntarily label as non-GMO or organic and let customers seek them out like they do for free range chicken. The down side to this is that non-GMO labelled products can be deceptively used for marketing. Companies, like Hunts tomatoes have been eager to tout they are GMO-free even when there are no GMO comparable items on the market.

Non-GMO product labels are taking over our grocery stores

In the absence of GMO labelling the non-GMO project has stepped in and other non-GMO labels are popping up on all sorts of products. Rather than clearing up misconceptions about where biotechnology is used in our food chain, the indiscriminate proliferation of these seals of approval only muddy the waters.

The more non-GMO seals you see the more it gives the impression that GMOs must be lurking everywhere. In fact the only fresh vegetables and fruits you can find in the grocery store in Canada that are genetically engineered are Sweet Corn (more on this later), papaya and squash (the later two are imported from the US). I’ve seen single ingredient items like clamshell packaged tomatoes and frozen carrots with the non-GMO seal. Does this mean the other tomatoes and carrots sitting next to them are GMO?  No GMO tomatoes or carrots are even on the market. A little misleading, don’t you think? Well so does Canada’s labelling laws which says,

“6.1.4 Claims that a single-ingredient food is not a product of genetic engineering shall not be made for a single ingredient food of which no genetically engineered strains have been offered for sale, unless accompanied by an explanatory statement, for example, like all other oranges, these oranges are not a product of genetic engineering.”

Maybe since for a brief period of time (1994-1997) genetically engineered tomatoes were on the market (more on this later), they can get around this. But I think if no alternative exists at present, it becomes a marketing ploy and shouldn’t be allowed.

The Non-GMO Project has even labelled products, like sea salt, alkaline water and baking soda which aren’t derived from or don’t contain any organisms at all, meaning it would be impossible to genetically modify these things. The fact that the non-GMO project is willing to label items like this tells me they are not really interested in educating consumers.

Fear and Misconceptions

A major barrier to a fair public perception of a GMO label is the sense they are unnatural or abominations even. GMOs depicted as Frankenfoods combining different fruits or even fish and tomato, which is obviously meant to appeal to emotions and make people feel disgusted. These images unfairly represent what happens when biotechnologists add a DNA sequence to a plant, which gives the plant cells instructions to make one extra protein among the tens of thousands they normally make.

There are no half fish-half tomatoes in any grocery store but there was research on the potential to use a fish antifreeze gene, a gene that gives the Arctic flounder the ability to survive in freezing waters without its blood freezing, might help prevent tomatoes from freezing so that the onset of early frost wouldn’t destroy a tomato harvest. The antifreeze protein didn’t work in plants to prevent ice crystals and although project was dropped, people still believe the fishy tomato exists. Joe Schwarcz, Director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society recalls in his blogpost, getting this comment from the audience in a public lecture, “I have a fish allergy,” he said, “and I have no way of knowing which tomatoes have been modified with fish genes, so I just don’t eat any tomato products.” If it did exist, it would have been tested to make sure it was safe to eat and that it had little chance of causing an allergic reaction in people. This man gave up tomatoes altogether because he didn't want to risk it. If we had a system in place where genetically engineered products were labelled he would have felt safer to eat tomatoes.

Rachel Parent of Kids Right To Know recently tried to warn people practising the Sikh religion that GMOs are not vegetarian.

There are no foods on the market that have an animal gene in a plant. Even if there were, vegetarians are never going to accidently eat meat by choosing a GMO fruit or vegetable. There are vegans who are pro-GMO and think biotechnology could lead to better meat alternatives and make a vegan diet more attainable for more people.

The tomato I just mentioned would certainly not have been part fish or unacceptable for vegetarians to eat. The antifreeze gene wouldn’t have been sliced out of the fish and stitched into the tomato. Rather a copy of the DNA sequence for the antifreeze gene would have been put into tomatoes, adding one more gene, to the 31760 other genes tomatoes already have. Some consumers might have still thought it was icky, but should we label something genetically modified because consumers think it’s icky?

Once upon a time when GMOs were not feared

Back in the 1990s the first genetically modified whole food came out on the market, the Flavr Savr tomato. Belinda Martineau, a scientist on the Calgene team told KQED Science Quest that the release of Jurrassic Park, with the unintended consequences of messing with nature, made the team worry about how the public would see this new bioengineered food. Instead of avoiding a label, they explained their invention with pride in a brochure that came with the tomatoes. There was no public fear. The tomatoes flew off the shelves. Unfortunately they were hard to transport and didn’t taste better than regular tomatoes.

I think companies like Monsanto and Syngenta and the government could have done a better job of educating consumers and keeping them informed a long time ago when genetically engineered products first came to market. I think it left a wide open gap for organizations that oppose genetically engineered food to associate GMOs with an unwanted contaminant in our food system, rather then a method for making targeted improvements to food crops that might help farmers feed more people. Of course it’s not surprising that after GMOs have been demonized, companies haven’t been rushing to voluntarily label their products with these scarlet letters.

GMOs and the other scary G - glyphosate

Image by Brian Robert Marshall

[CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)],

via Wikimedia Commons

Sugar beets, canola, soy, alfalfa and corn are engineered to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (aka Roundup), allowing farmers can use this herbicide to kill weeds, while their crop stays healthy. They contain a genetic sequence that was found in agrobacterium, a bacteria that causes tumour in plants (insert picture), which gives agrobacterium, and transgenic plants containing this form of the gene, resistance to glyphosate. Glyphosate normally binds to and inhibits an important metabolic enzyme but DNA sequence or recipe for making this enzyme is slightly different in the strain of agrobacterium, and results in the enzyme having a slightly different structure so that glyphosate cannot inhibit its function.

The two main controversies are whether glyphosate has a negative impact on the environment and whether glyphosate is toxic and causes cancer. For the later, the evidence and consensus seems to be that it does not. As for toxicity, Alison Bernstein (A.K.A. Mommy PhD) gives some perspective by comparing glyphosate to caffeine and goes through the calculations to show "we don’t give a second thought to consuming caffeine at levels hundreds of times higher than the oral RfD, but are simultaneously worried about exposures to glyphosate that are 100 times lower than the RfD." ("RfD (Reference Dose): an estimate of the daily exposure to humans that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects throughout the entire lifetime.")  

Because so many GMO crops are herbicide resistant people are looking for GMO and non-GMO labels as a way to avoid herbicide residues on their food. The problem is there are foods with genetic modifications that have nothing to do with glyphosate such as papaya, whose industry was saved by genetically engineered to resistance to Papaya Ring Spot Virus. Many non-GMO crops use glyphosate as well. Glyphosate is less toxic than other herbicides it has replaced.

Health Canada says glyphosate is not a health risk when used as directed. The maximum residue limit (MRL) is the amount expected to be on food if it is indeed used as directed by food producers. When the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) tested for glyphosate, it found some foods such as wheat had higher then MRL levels. CFIA states that this information was sent to Health Canada who said no human health concerns were identified.  I can find no more than a simple statement anywhere from Health Canada. Really, that’s all you’re going to say about it Health Canada?  

From a global warming perspective, some argue that applying glyphosate to kill weeds is better because it reduces carbon emissions from farm equipment since the tilling step can be skipped and also reduces the release of nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas. Another noted advantages to not tilling and leaving more plant matter in the ground, is there is less need to use fertilizers and water is better retained. Overuse of this one herbicide leads to herbicide resistant weeds, making weed management more difficult and in some cases requires the application of even more herbicide.

Bt-Corn for less pesticides

For nearly a hundred years farmers have been spraying bacterial spores from the parasitic soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in formulations containing the crystal proteins isolated from B. thuringiensis that are selectively toxic to certain insects. These formulations are considered natural, so organic farming uses them too. B. thuringiensis kills certain insects as part of its life cycle. It forms spores when in stressful environments devoid of nutrients, and these spores contain crystal proteins that only become toxic inside the insect gut due to pH and receptors inside the guts of certain insects that can bind the crystal proteins.

In the genetically engineered Bt corn, a copy of the DNA sequence containing the instructions for making Bt toxin have been inserted into corn so that Bt-corn produces this very specific insect toxin in all of its tissues, rather than having to repeatedly spray Bt formulations on the field. While it may seem scary that a Bt toxin is inside the plant tissue it is not toxic to humans and other mammals which lack the receptors in their gut. Bt crops have allowed farmers to use less of broad-spectrum insecticides. 

Bt-corn is used for animal feed and biofuel, but in the grocery store we encounter Bt-corn derived products like corn syrup or tortilla chips. Studies in animals and humans show no health concern. If GMO labelling were mandated in Canada, Bt-corn  and some corn products would need to be labelled because they contain a protein not present in regular corn, but how can it be done without it looking like a warning label?

Bt-sweet corn seems to have quietly slipped into Canadian grocery stores, creating more consumer mistrust. This bothers me because it hurts the chances of any new biotechnology being trusted and accepted by consumers. An upfront approach, like some pamphlets with education and perhaps quotes from a farmers as to why they choose to use Bt-Sweet corn could help consumers understand the product.

More acceptable forms of genetically engineered foods?

The persistence of the tomato-fish and frankenfood imagery shows that the public is squeamish about the transfer of genes across different organisms in a way that wouldn’t likely happen in nature. New technologies like gene editing that don’t introduce foreign genetic material into an organism but only make a small edit in the DNA, are hoping to win over consumer approval. How should these be labelled? We may soon see SU canola which has a gene edited to make it tolerant of sulfonylurea herbicides, from Cibus Global, which they claim is not genetically modified but is genetically engineered. That doesn't make sense except scientifically speaking. They have edited the canola DNA and this is a genetic modification, albeit a small one, which could happen in nature. Why not advertise the fact that it is a type of genetic modification that doesn’t introduce any foreign DNA into the crop? The US Department of Agriculture and the German safety officials are classifying it as non-GMO, where GMO means it includes introduction of foreign genetic material or is transgenic.

Arctic Apple and Simplot’s Innate Potato are examples where an apple genes are inserted into an apple and potato genes are inserted into a potatos in order to silence the production of a protein product. The introduced genes instruct the cells to make RNA molecules that trigger the plant tissues to turn off production of proteins that cause browning in the apples and potatoes. The Innate Potato also has reduced amounts of the carcinogen acrylamide and changes starch quality. There are additional DNA sequences in Arctic Apple that are not a health concern, but they are off-putting to some people. There is DNA from cauliflower mosaic virus and bacteria that provide molecular controls so the introduced genes function well and a marker that allows scientists to tell if their bioengineering was successful. No new proteins are present in the apple or potato. Canada will see bagged sliced Arctic Apples this Fall it is unclear if customers will accept them. The Innate Potato’s introduction into Canada has been postponed. It seems they are nervous about taking the plunge to be the only visibly branded bio-tech item in the produce area of grocery stores. Maybe they'll let Arctic Apple go first.

The scientific consensus is that in principal the process of genetic engineering does not make food more dangerous or unhealthy than their non-GMO counterparts but society still has a right to continue the discussion and make their own choices at the grocery store. For that we cannot just label it with a catch-all label like genetically modified or GMO because those won’t let customers see that different genetic engineering strategies solve different problems and affect farming practises differently and may or may not change the quality of the end food product. It won’t be easy but I hope policy makers and food producers that use biotechnology seize the opportunity to use labels to let customers know why each food has been genetically engineered.

References and recommended reading:

Alfalfa

GM alfalfa a threat to exports: NFU. Owen Sound Sun Times. April 12, 2017

Arctic Apple

The Hard Science Behind The Non-Browning Arctic Apple. Science 2.0. February 7, 2017

From tree to table: The Arctic Apple is ready to blossom. Ottawa Citizen. January 22, 2016

GM non-browning apple has stigma to overcome. The Western Producer. May 11, 2017

Bt-Corn

Bacillus thuringiensis. History of Bt. University of California San Diego. http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_history.html

Bacillus thuringiensis Is an Environmental Pathogen and Host-Specificity Has Developed as an Adaptation to Human-Generated Ecological Niches. Ronaldo Argôlo-Filho-Leandro Loguercio -  Insects 2014 Mar; 5(1): 62–91. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4592628/

What the heck is Bt? The Agricultural and Ecological Credentials of a Bacterial Bug Beater. Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada.

Is the Bt Protein Safe for Human Consumption? http://ucbiotech.org/answer.php?question=31

Farming a Toxin to Protect Crops, Pollinators and People. September 3, 2013 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/farming-a-toxin/

Sorry, Corn-on-the Cob Is GMO Too. February 3, 2015 http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1237817-sorry-corn-on-the-cob-is-gmo-too/

Canola

Cibus is on track to launch SU Canola into Canada in 2017. The Western Producer. March 3, 2016

San Diego Biotech Company: Don't Call Our Crop A GMO. KPBS Public Media. June 4, 2015 

Sugar Beets

Myth busting: There is no such thing as GMO sugar https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/12/14/myth-busting-no-thing-gmo-sugar/

Glyophosate

Biotech Blog-Shopping for Honesty: Sorting Out Non-GMO Claims. Real Clear Science. February 10, 2016

Safeguarding with Science: Glyphosate Testing in 2015-2016. Government of Canada,Canadian Food Inspection Agency,Vice President, Communications and Public Affairs (go to website)

1.3% of 3,188 food products tested by CFIA had glyphosate residues above acceptable limit CBC News - http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/cfia-report-glyphosate-1.4070275  April 13, 2017

GMO sustainability advantage? Glyphosate spurs no-till farming, preserving soil carbon https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/05/05/gmo-sustainability-advantage-glyphosate-sparks-no-till-farming-preserving-soil-carbon/

While Unlikely To Be Carcinogenic, The Herbicide Glyphosate Is A Symptom Of A Deep Social Pathology https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2016/11/21/while-unlikely-to-be-carcinogenic-the-herbicide-glyphosate-is-a-symptom-of-a-deep-social-pathology/3/#4f21bc1f2daf

Common Weed Killer is Widespread in the Environment https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/2014-04-23-glyphosate_2014.html

Monsanto Suppressing Evidence of Cancerous Herbicide in Food? http://www.snopes.com/monsanto-suppressing-evidence-of-cancerous-herbicide-in-food/

The WHO's cancer agency left in the dark over glyphosate evidence, June 14, 2017 http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/

Removing Glyphosate from Our Food Won't Make Us Safer June 15, 2017 https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/9k5gn3/removing-glyphosate-from-our-food-wont-make-us-safer 

Glyphosate Vs. Caffeine: Acute and Chronic Toxicity Assessments Explained. Food and Farm Discussion Lab. April 13, 2017

Molecular basis for the herbicide resistance of Roundup Ready crops. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) July 12, 2006. http://www.pnas.org/content/103/35/13010

Glyphosate causes cancer? The IARC did not have all the evidence. 2017/06/19 by The Original Skeptical Raptor

GMO and non-GMO labelling

Bill C-291 https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-291/ 

Open Letter: Non-GMO labelling. Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers.

Food from Genetically Engineered Plants - Labeling of Foods Derived From Genetically Engineered Plants - Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition - https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/geplants/ucm346858.htm

Food for Thought: The Federal GMO Labeling Law Food Safety Magazine. Feb/Mar 2017

Canada won't be following U.S. in labelling GMO food products The Canadian Press. March 30, 2016

What You Need To Know About the New GMO Labeling Law http://modernfarmer.com/2016/08/gmo-labeling-law/

California’s Prop. 37: Are GMO Labels a Scarlet Letter? https://ww2.kqed.org/quest/2012/09/07/californias-prop-37-are-gmo-labels-a-scarlet-letter/

Biotech Blog-Shopping for Honesty: Sorting Out Non-GMO Claims. Center for Science in the Public Interest. April 17, 2017 (get article)

Are you eating genetically modified food? Choice. November 17, 2016 (Australia)

Why Some GMO Foods Don't Have Genetically Modified DNA http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/01/21/378882909/why-some-gmo-foods-don-t-have-genetically-modified-dna 

Potatoes

GM potatoes are going in the ground. Grainews. March 14, 2017

Scientist mom evaluates Simplot’s GMO Innate potato. Genetic Literacy Project. May 27, 2015

General 

There are no fish genes in tomatoes. Office for Science in Society - McGill Blogs. 

This Cornell scientist saved an $11-million industry — and ignited the GMO wars. Business Insider - Science. June 23, 2017.

GMO safety debate is over. Cornell Alliance for Science. May 23, 2016