FFWD Weekly
Copyright © 1999. All Rights Reserved

City by FFWD Staff The democratization of technology took a step forward at a conference on food biotechnology March 5 to 7 at the University of Calgary, where citizens had a chance to question the experts on the effects of altering food genetically. The conference, "Designer Genes at the Dinner Table," brought together two panels – one of citizens and one of experts – and created a report that included 17 recommendations in the area of public interaction, ethics, legislation, environment, economic and social impacts, and consumer health and safety. The report will be sent to provincial and federal government agencies. The citizen’s conference was an opportunity for members of the public to learn about and have input into issues surrounding food biotechnology and to potentially have an effect on Canadian policy. In addition, this type of forum, modeled on consensus conferences that have taken place in several European countries, could serve as a model for creating a bottom-up approach to other technological issues. The lay panel was composed of 15 people from across Western Canada, including farmers, a university student, a high school student, school teachers, and a heavy equipment mechanic. Panel members researched the issues, then formulated a set of questions for a panel of experts that included government officials, industry representatives, ethicists, a farmer and an environmentalist. In recent decades, scientific expertise has often been undermined by the perception that scientists themselves can’t seem to agree on important issues, including the risks and benefits of new technologies. In addition, ethical positions often stand opposed to scientific views. One of the major challenges the lay panel faced at the conference was deciding how much weight to give the conflicting views. Even when scientists and ethicists try to bridge polarized positions, the public has to decide which positions they support and what they define as a risk. Experience has shown that the risks of some technologies can be misunderstood or minimized. For example, nuclear technology was characterized as a blessing in the ’50s – protecting the American public and providing potential energy sources. However, years of studies revealed that the effects of radiation can be deadly. As the public became more worried about risks, public relations strategies shifted to focus more on how to get them to accept those risks. Given the potential risks associated with biotechnology, critics have argued that foods produced using these technologies should be clearly labelled. Although existing legislation allows voluntary labelling, the lay panel report said that the proposed National Biotechnology Advisory Committee (NBAC) must implement an effective labelling policy. Everyone is consuming genetically modified foods – many processed foods contain soy, a plant which has being genetically modified. Critics of agricultural biotechnology argue that the health effects of genetically modified products are largely unknown. The potential risks cited are varied and complex, such as the reduction of ecological biodiversity, the creation of super weeds, serious allergenic reactions, and the spread of the antibiotic resistant genes which are used as markers in certain processes of genetic manipulation. However, experts assured the citizens that risk assessment procedures are in place. "The food is as safe as its conventional counterpart," said Paul Mayer of Health Canada. Dr. Margaret Gadsby, from Agrevo Canada Inc., supported this position. "Tests exist, otherwise we wouldn’t understand the safety." These scientifically based procedures work hand in hand with the type of communication techniques used to increase the acceptability of technologies that may contain an element of risk for the public. An important recommendation included in the report is to incorporate peer reviewed research into the risk assessment process." One of the the most interesting recommendations in the report was to develop a code of ethics and make it an integral part of the regulatory process for food biotechnology products. This mirrors a trend towards the formation of ethical bodies to discuss these issues that has taken place in several countries – for example, the Group of Advisors on the Ethical Implications of Biotechnology to the European Commission, which was formed in 1991, and our own Royal Commission on Reproductive Technologies, which produced the Proceed with Care report in 1993 and included several ethicists. Two ethicists took part in the weekend conference as part of the expert panel. Brewster Keen, author of Farmageddon, argued that the use of biotechnology is not a radical change from the basic assumption behind other agricultural practices in the 20th century – that the purpose of science and technology is to dominate and control natural processes. In his view, government policy has supported this assumption. "Policy is in place so we can make sure that industry rules," he said. The solution, according to Keen, is to recognize that the model was wrong to start with. Burleigh Trevor-Deutsch of the BIOTECanada Bioethics Committee, took a different perspective on the ethical implications of biotechnology, which was reflected in the general spirit of the report written by the lay panel. He suggested that it is important to clarify the values involved in these issues and to balance them on a case by case basis. Throughout the conference, the potential benefits of genetically modified plants were also pointed out, such as reduced use of pesticides, improvement of nutritional content, and increased food production providing a possible solution to world hunger. Several varieties of plants with novel food traits have received food safety approval in Canada, such as canola, corn, tomato, potato soybean, wheat and flax. New uses for the technology are constantly being researched – for example, increasing tolerance in plants to climate change. However, in its conclusion, the lay panel’s report indicated that they want to make sure the technology is used wisely and that all of the stakeholders’ interests are at the heart of its development. "Our recommendations are intended to ensure that biotechnology belongs to us all." This position seemed to be in stark contrast to the critical questions that the lay panel asked throughout the process. When asked if her views had changed, Carole Parks of Calgary, a member of the lay panel, said she felt more comfortable the more she learned." Yet, she also later said, "There are people watching... and people expect answers." Another important result of this conference is that it served as a model for democratization. The citizen’s panel recommended that an independent system be put in place to allow for public interaction with the other stakeholders in these new technologies. The report clearly states that the new NBAC should incorporate equal representation from all stakeholders – including the public.

| Back To This Issue Table of Contents | Back To Main Index |