In May, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency dropped safety audit requirements for gene-edited plants, a step announced in the government’s updated seed regulations.
The food inspection agency determined gene-editing is safe and achieves the same outcomes as conventional plant breeding techniques. As a result, gene-edited seeds can be put on the market without government checks or mandatory labelling requirements.
But organic farmers worry the lax requirements will affect their own crop production. Some say the new regulations were developed with undue industry influence, and that insufficient research has been conducted to understand the effect of gene-edited seeds on the environment or food.
Seeds are edited to enhance their features
Gene-edited seeds are developed by altering a plant’s genes to enhance its features, such as making a seed more heat resistant, improving its taste or decreasing its carbon footprint.
“Plant breeding has always been one of the key elements that helps us have a more resilient agricultural system that deals with climate change,” says Ian Affleck, vice-president of plant biotechnology at CropLife, an association that represents Canadian manufacturers, developers and distributors of pest control and modern plant breeding products.
Plants can be edited to have drought and heat-resistant traits, making them capable of enduring extreme weather, said Affleck.
While gene-edited seeds have yet to enter Canada’s agricultural market, they are available in the United States. Gene-editing company Pairwise, for example, offers gene-edited mustard greens that taste less spicy and strong.
Gene-edited seeds are different from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that incorporate DNA from another source and which continue to be regulated by the federal government.
‘Past is a good predictor of the future’
Organic farmers worry that lax controls on gene-edited seeds will harm Canada’s $8.1-billion organic food market, says Jennifer Pfenning, president of the National Farmers Union.
To be able to sell their produce, organic producers are required to grow their crops a certain distance away from fields with gene-edited products and abide by strict certification requirements.
A 2021 letter by the Canada Organic Trade Association to Health Canada said if gene-edited products saturate the market, there is a high risk of gene-edited seeds contaminating organic farms. The saturation of GMO seeds in the canola industry “virtually wiped out the entire organic canola industry in Canada,” the letter says.
If contamination does occur and farmers unknowingly grow patent-protected, gene-edited crops on their fields, farmers could potentially be sued by biotech companies that develop the seeds, says Pfenning.
In 1998, Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser was sued by Monsanto for growing Monsanto’s patented canola seed without a license. Schmeiser claimed seeds had blown into his field and taken root without his knowledge. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2004 that Schmeiser had infringed on the patent, but he did not have to pay the fines Monsanto sought to have imposed.
“The past is a good predictor of the future,” said Pfenning. “Certainly the legal ramifications for farmers are demonstrably real.”
Lax requirements could threaten organic industry
Organic farmers also worry that, if biotech companies are not mandated to label their products as gene-edited, companies are unlikely to do so.
“If there isn’t mandatory disclosure, how can we be assured that we will be told whether a seed was produced using gene editing?” said Pfenning.
Organic farmers could buy the gene-edited seeds unknowingly and plant crops that would result in their organic status — and eligibility to sell internationally — being revoked, says Pfenning. This could threaten Canadian organic exports, which totaled $607 million in 2020 according to Canada Organic Trade Association.
“Canadian organic production is at risk. Because Canadian organic production is no longer going to be viewed as trustworthy on the global market,” said Pfenning.
The database for gene-edited seed banks is also voluntary, and Marla Carlson, executive director of SaskOrganics, is sceptical companies will thoroughly fill the database without robust government oversight.
“If this isn’t mandatory, and there is no direct government oversight of this database, how do we know it’s complete?” said Carlson. “How do we come up with our contamination risk management strategies?”
But Affleck, of CropLife, says companies have always voluntarily labelled gene-edited and GMO seeds and will continue to do so. “We’re part of that value chain and continue to [be] committed to provide that information,” he said.
Pfenning isn’t convinced. “Forgive me if I’m not going to be comfortable relying on private business whose monetary interests are tied to the control of the information. That’s not an effective way to manage regulation or transparency.”
Revolving door between government and agro-industry
The government has fallen short in being transparent about research regarding the safety of gene-edited seeds, says Thibault Rehn, a coordinator at Vigilance OGM, a nonprofit that represents stakeholders concerned about the effects of genetically altered foods.
Thibault has studied the revolving door of officials switching between positions in government and agri-chemical companies for the past decade. He says agro-lobbyist have increasingly had a larger say in government policy.
The government and agrochemical companies should make any scientific research on the safety of their products publicly available and subject to peer-review, Thibault says. Additionally, gene-edited seeds and other biotech developments should be subject to independent scientific research in order to verify the safety of these products, he says.
“If there is no transparency on the science you base your regulations on, it’s not science-based,” said Thibault.
