Eating Food, Taking Risks

by Tracey McCowen

(Reprinted from the December 2005 Canadian Friend)

Canadians, like Europeans, have been vocal about their skepticism toward genetically modified food (GMF). This is somewhat curious because Canadians on the whole have similar eating habits to their American counterparts, who seem far less concerned about GMF—perhaps because they have ready access to organic food if they choose. On the other hand, Europeans largely hold very strong traditions with regard to their food, and these traditions have developed over hundreds of years, only changing with the introduction and absorption of colonial influences.

This begs the question, “What are Canadians afraid of if we don’t have a traditional standard of food that is culturally important to us?” Furthermore, given Friends’ testimony for truth, as opposed to fear, how should we react to the emergence of genetically engineered food?

It is true that many of the arguments against GMF have revolved around safety. However, if we compare the risk of GMFs to the risky behaviour we take part in every day, what does this mean? When we talk about risk, generally, we compare it to something that is familiar to us, such as driving a car, flying in an airplane, or smoking. Compared with all these, consuming GMF is relatively risk-free, but is this the same thing as saying GMF is safe? No, it is not.

Risk analysis is about comparing choices and risks: It is acceptable to take part in all sorts of risky behaviour if one does so as a choice, especially if it is an informed choice. As long as the risk is a choice that does not endanger anyone else, society is inclined to view it as a freedom and therefore part of the right to self-determination.

GMF is complicated by the fact that society has unwittingly accepted the risks associated with agricultural chemicals on their food over forty years. As a result, compared with crops sprayed with chemicals, GMF comes out pretty safe in the risk category. When Health Canada does a risk assessment, it compares existing technology. The problem is that it is always easier to determine a known risk compared to an unknown one, and new technologies tend to present new and unknown risks.

So is GMF safe? Compared to food sprayed with chemicals, it is most certainly safer. However, both Health Canada and the United States Food & Drug Administration have avoided addressing the likelihood of GMF contributing to antibiotic resistance. * Because antibiotic resistance is a pervasive problem that renders some of our most effective drugs useless, and because it tends to affect vulnerable populations such as the elderly and children, there is a compounded ethic to ensure that the government address the potential risk of antibiotic resistance.

Because antibiotic resistance is above the average individual’s experience, it is easy for Health Canada to avoid addressing it. In the meantime, may I suggest that you buy “organic” food. It may not necessarily be significantly safer, but it is certainly better for the environment. And if you don’t think you can afford to buy organic food, try reading Rod McRae’s Real Food for a Change.”

It is beyond the scope of this article to explain antibiotic resistance. However, if Friends are interested in the details of how GMF raises the risk of antibiotic resistance, I will be happy to explain it if someone poses the question on the QEAN e-mail discussion list.

Tracey McCowen is an attender of Toronto Monthly Meeting and a member of Quaker International Affairs Programme (QIAP), the Quaker Ecology Action Network (QEAN), and Quaker Earthcare Witness.