|
This is the first item which has cottoned on the obvious fact that once we start seeing GE specialised or medicinal plants, contamination of the food supply by them will become a significant issue. Starlink shows the possibilites - non-food crops getting into the food supply, and supposedly unknown cross contamination of seed supplies. What about when we have the various food crops engineered to supply vaccines, or producing non-edible products? We may see the rise from the 'dead' of terminator an equivalent proposals as a way, supposedly, of dealing with such problems. The human food supply is in danger of being contaminated by crops genetically modified to create better drugs and industrial chemicals, a group of veteran scientists and academics is warning. The warning is in a strongly worded letter by four PhDs -- among them the former dean of science at McMaster University in Hamilton -- who advocate mandatory food labelling and better testing of genetically modified foods. The letter, obtained by The Globe and Mail, says there is a "high probability" the food we eat could be contaminated as a result of sloppy farming practices and the "arrogance" of biotechnology researchers and regulators. Genetically modified foods have sneaked up on Canadian consumers, many of whom don't know plants that engineered with foreign genes to be resistant to pesticides or herbicides have been researched, grown and consumed here for years. The letter specifically warns that the pollen of modified plants can transfer engineered genes to unmodified plants growing in nearby fields and that modified traits can spread by "spillage of seed or dispersion of seed by the wind." Such questions have long been raised about genetically modified conventional crops. Research into molecular farming -- the practice of designing plants that grow proteins used to make plastics or medicines -- has added to the fears. The researchers call Canada's introduction of genetically modified food insidious and argue that the only crops that should be used in molecular-farming experiments are those not consumed by humans or animals. Already, some molecular-farming projects are considered risky enough to be held in mine shafts or under glass covers to protect against the spread of seeds and pollen. The letter -- signed by retired Agriculture Canada scientist Bert Christie, former McMaster University science dean Dennis McCalla, McGill University animal-science professor Dick Beames, and Hugh Lehman, an expert in agricultural ethics at the University of Guelph -- is a submission to the federally appointed Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, which is gathering feedback on genetically modified foods as it prepares to advise federal cabinet ministers. As with all matters pertaining to genetically modified foods, no one disputes that safeguards are needed: The question is whether emerging and existing regulations are adequate, and whether genetically modified crops are inherently more risky than traditional crops. "The reality is the food system has a lot of risk now," Mr. Phillips said. "Some of the new technologies may be less risky than the existing technologies; some may be more."
|
