Bio Gene

Wednesday Night #934

January 26, 2000

Over a century and a quarter ago, genetic engineering was born, with the publication of the results of the research of Austrian monk Gregor Johan Mendel on such innocuous species as the common Sweet Pea. The Sciences of Genetics and Eugenics were born with consequences just invading our consciousness as we are propelled into the third millennium. Selective breeding and hybridization have provided us with better fruits and vegetables, superior beef or milk producing cattle. The splicing of apple tree tops to quince tree roots have given us hardier apple trees, judicious hybridization has given us canola, rust-resistant wheat, and superior fruits and vegetables.

So why the current fuss over recent advances in a relatively old technology? Of course there are the ubiquitous Luddites* who oppose any advance in technology, as well as the conservationists who seek to preserve biodiversity, perhaps with reason and the religious leaders who feel that they may be unknowingly consuming genes of a forbidden species. No, the hundred and thirty negotiators from around the world who are meeting in Montreal to hammer out a treaty on "genetically modified" foods cannot agree because the real agenda is not on the table. Canada and the United States who are large exporters of agricultural products will not even negotiate labelling, if indeed labelling is possible, while such agricultural protectionist nations such as France want to be able to continue to favour their own agricultural sector and do not want freer trade in agricultural products. Add to that the sincere fear that side effects from gene exchange may not manifest themselves until the next generation and the probability of a treaty emerging from this conference becomes minute indeed. [So few will read the label: for fear their religion wont allow them to eat the cheaper, better tasting, readily available GM food why put the cost up with a useless label?]

---

The dilemma of education costs continues. While we appear to value an educated electorate, we are reluctant to adequately fund our education system, or to raise fees at the university level. We train graduates at considerable cost, sometimes inappropriately for their working role, only to have them leave the country on graduation and/or default on their student loans. If we really believe in the value of education, it must be funded adequately, perhaps with the incentive of forgiving student loans if the graduates remain here after graduation, or signing a contract requiring them to work in the Québec or Canada for a specified period of time on graduation.

---

Alan Greenspan remains the hero of United States monetary policy. Having been reconfirmed just prior to a presidential election will ensure that he remains in office for his full mandate no matter who is elected to Congress or to the White House. The United States is in a surplus position of between one hundred and fifty and two hundred billion dollars. They can pay off debt reasonably rapidly while reducing taxes. With eight of the ten provinces still in deficit position, Canada is the most heavily indebted country after Italy and Belgium.

---

QUOTES OF THE EVENING

On Education:

• "Access to education based on ability to pay will destroy the nation."
• "You can be overtrained for an economic job, but education is never wasted."
• "We have to stop putting education above competence."

On Genetically Modified Foods

• "Labelling is a way of life. It is not an onus on anyone."
• "Canada and the United States are more interested in promoting trade than biodiversity and safety"

by Herb Bercovitz

---

David Mclauchlin reports for CBC Radio, Kelly Crowe reports for CBC TV [Download Players]

H e a d l i n e s : C a n a d a

• Food fight simmers over genetically modified food
• Delegates polarized over genetically modified food WebPosted Tue Jan 25 08:21:20 2000
• 
• FT story Thanks to our Guy Stanley We are sorry for putting up the whole peice but our 'cable system' is so slow to night that we thought you would not reas this.

  Genetic seeds of discord

  Warren Allmand

  Growing worldwide controversy about the use of biotechnology, particularly in agricultural production, is creating an urgent need to develop globally agreed policies on the issue. Regrettably, this week's UN-sponsored negotiations on a biosafety protocol, aimed at regulating international trade in genetically modified (GM) foods, are shaping up as a case study of how not to do it.

  The talks are the second attempt to agree a proposal to allow countries to identify and reject imports of GM products. The earlier meeting, last February, broke down in disarray. Since then the spread of opposition to GM foods, particularly in Europe, has inflamed the debate and created tensions between the US and many trade partners.

  Warren Allmand

  The UN proposal is ill-conceived. Although ostensibly intended to improve developing countries' access to scientific information about GM foods, it seems more likely to offer a pretext for excluding them without showing good cause. It also appears hard to square with World Trade Organisation rules. The US, backed by other big agricultural exporters, has made much of these arguments to oppose the suggested protocol.

  However, Washington's stance is based more on expediency than on principle. Its stout defence of free trade may please its powerful farm lobby. But it sits oddly with US assurances to "green" campaigners that it will resist encroachment by world trade rules on its own environmental standards in areas other than food and agriculture.

  Other governments' approach is also characterised by opportunism and muddled thinking. Most developing countries support the proposed protocol, even though they condemn as disguised protectionism moves to bring environmental policy into the WTO. Meanwhile, the EU, normally a pious advocate of respect for WTO rules, argues that in this case they should be ignored.

  George Cavadias

  The difficulty of reconciling these positions may condemn this week's talks to failure. But the central issues will not go away. Tensions between environmental and trade policy will grow, as globalisation exposes ever more sensitive cultural differences around the globe. Several lessons need to be learned, if a head-on collision is to be avoided.

  First, confrontational approaches, based on narrow national self-interest, are not the answer. Second, rivalry between international institutions is futile. The way for environmental bodies to tackle trade issues is to co-operate with the WTO, not to try to overrule it.

  Above all, this week's talks underline the need for more coherent government policies. Countries cannot hope to agree while they persist in taking mutually inconsistent positions in different international forums.