The organic sector has a bone to pick with Canadian regulators on their treatment of gene-edited crops.
From the perspective of Lucy Sharratt, a speaker at the Organic Connections Conference in Saskatoon in early November, the government is dancing to the biotechnology industry’s tune as it makes policy.
“It’s obvious that companies would prefer not to have government as a gatekeeper, and now they can release their products without the federal government in the way,” said the co-ordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.
Why it matters: Some farm groups are pleased with a more open gene-editing policy in Canada, citing better variety development, but the organic sector worries about potential contamination and impacts to their trade.
Read Also
Farmer-friendly nematodes: Tiny worms for big canola pest control
Not all nematodes are equal in farm fields. Beneficial species of the tiny soil-dwelling worms could one day help beat back damaging canola insect pests like diamondback moth on the Canadian Prairies.
Changes to Canada’s stance on gene editing draw a sharp line between the Canadian organics sector and other, largely conventional farm associations.
This spring, new Canadian guidance deemed that products developed through gene editing, which involves switching existing genes on or off, were not the same as genetically modified organisms, in which foreign DNA is introduced.
Gene-edited products would then operate under the same regulatory landscape as conventionally bred products rather than the stricter rules that GMOs face before being approved for commercial release.
That decision was welcomed by Cereals Canada and the Canadian Grains Council.
“Plant breeding innovation allows researchers to prioritize on sustainable agriculture,” says a statement on the Cereals Canada website. “The adoption of gene editing helps to accelerate solutions for crop concerns from disease resistance to reducing the need for crop inputs such as fertilizer and even improving the nutritious qualities on grains.”
At this year’s World Seed Congress in the Netherlands, Krista Thomas, Canadian Grains Council vice-president of trade policy and seed innovation, said she thinks “Canada’s regulatory approach for gene editing is the best in the world because it’s pragmatic and it’s science-based and it maintains a product-based approach.”
Also this year, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency ruled that gene-edited plants were safe for livestock feed. Again, the conventional grain sector celebrated.
“Cereals Canada views the final piece of updated Canadian policy clarifying the regulatory pathway for gene edited plants as a positive advancement in plant breeding innovation,” said Krista Zuzak, director of crop protection and production. She cited the ability to develop plants better able to cope with stresses like drought, pest or disease.
The organic sector disagrees.
In 2018, the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements stated that “new genetic engineering technologies … are not compatible with organic farming and must not be used in organic breeding or organic production.”
It is worried about organic markets. Those buying organic are often also skeptical about GMOs. Contamination with gene-edited crops could damage the perceived credibility of products, and thus the relationships with customers, organic groups say.
Canadian organic certification doesn’t allow gene-edited or genetically modified crops.
When Canada’s gene editing policy came out, the Canadian Organic Trade Association stated concerns about the lack of mandatory traceability measures. Without those, it said gene-edited grain could make it into the system unbeknownst to organic producers and make it almost impossible to assure lack of contamination.
Although the government has vowed to expand Seed Canada’s variety transparency database, the organic sector is pushing for more rigorous requirements to note how varieties were developed and, if new genomic technology was used, in what way.
Without a mandatory registry and regulation, producers will rely on companies to be transparent, conference attendees heard.
Such a requirement would inform organic producers about what seed to avoid or if a neighbour’s seed could potentially cause an issue. It could also be used to detect contamination, Sharratt said.
“You can detect the presence of contamination only if you have access to how that organism was genetically engineered in the first place, and that’s already an obstacle for detection. But you can detect … that edit and there are projects underway to refine that detection and make sure that detection is possible.”
Cathy Holtslander, director of research and policy with the National Farmers Union, also identified gene editing as a potential problem. In the beginning, she said, companies believed gene editing would be undetectable and would thus be a way to avoid regulation and consumer pushback.
There is ample consumer demand for better, mandatory food labelling requirements of genetically engineered foods, both from gene editing and genetic modification, Sharratt said, adding that “the hope of the industry is that, over time, the market is so flooded with GMOs that there’s nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender.”
She said perceived acceptance of gene editing is based on lack of public information and transparency. As well she disagreed that gene editing is different from genetic modification, although it is “a very prominent public relations ploy at this time.”
“They’re genetically engineered, but they don’t have foreign DNA left in them, and the Canadian government has concluded, which we would say is a massive assumption, that these products are safe for the environment.”
Genetic ownership
Critics of gene editing have also raised concerns related to food sovereignty and farmers’ reliance on corporately owned genetics that preclude the ability to save their own seed.
Sharratt said the issue of genetic engineering is evolving into an issue of corporate control of seed and chemical within the ag industry. She identified it as one of the defining characteristics of the issue. — With files from Robert Arnason, John Greig and Geralyn Wichers
