A few weeks ago, the interesting and edgy Calgary-based CBC Radio program The 180 hosted a debate about genetically modified foods.
It was predictable.
The springboard was plans to market, perhaps as early as 2014, the Arctic apple, a GM non-browning variety. Greenpeace and other GM opponents were up in arms, holding public meetings in Western Canada to fuel the opposition.
On the program, Greenpeace activist Éric Darier argued that the world does not need GM. It is good for multinational companies but not for people, and scientists are divided on its safety.
Read Also
Crop profitability looks grim in new outlook
With grain prices depressed, returns per acre are looking dismal on all the major crops with some significantly worse than others.
Local small-scale farmers can feed the world with more nutritious real food.
Monsanto Canada’s Trish Jordan was there to say GM is good for farmers, necessary to feed a growing world and it is safe. The overwhelming majority of scientists say so.
There was no middle ground, as there almost never is in this political, emotional and high-stakes debate.
The fundamental differences remain the same whether the battleground is safety, corporate control of seed, GM labelling or whether the world’s peasant and small-scale farmers can feed nine billion people without access to modern technology, including biotechnology.
It is one of the more fascinating modern agricultural/food sector debates, even if it is maddeningly circular.
A new beachhead for the debate looms just over the horizon — international and Canadian efforts to develop international rules that would allow some inadvertent presence of GM traces in food imports even in countries opposed to GM.
Few countries have labelling laws that would require a “may contain GM” label and even if they did, what would it mean?
An international push is on, with Canada among the leaders, to have the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Trade Organization get member countries involved in the debate.
Agriculture minister Gerry Ritz is convinced it will happen. “I’m optimistic that the world is coming to the realization that if you are going to have food security and sustainability you are going to have to look at biotechnology and that means a good low-level presence policy,” he has said.
For the International Grain Trade Coalition and Canadian secretary Dennis Stephens, it is all about not disrupting trade.
With hundreds of GM products being shipped around the world in vessels, it is almost impossible to avoid some minor cross-contamination and under current rules that can stop a vessel from unloading.
So far in the broader GM discourse, the low level presence issue generally is under the political radar.
But if the debate gains legs and progress is made, expect the critics to jump on the idea that consumers could be subjected to GM “contaminated” imported food without their knowledge, just so exporters don’t lose markets and money.
Currently, it largely is a debate between countries and traders.
In 10 years, it could be the next non-browning apple debate on a much broader scale.
And average consumers still will gravitate to organic shelves in the stores while picking up some GM-based canola, corn or soybean products on the way home.
