Are we cultivating Dr. Faust’s garden?

Kristine Berey

March 2009

Elizabeth Johnston is fascinated by the potato. Photo: Nicole Ferrero

A rose may be a rose, but a potato can be so much more. In No Small Potatoes: A Journey, Elizabeth Johnston transforms the much-loved but seemingly insignificant spud into a prism that reflects the social, political and medical concerns surrounding the biotechnological manipulation of the world’s food supply.

In her introduction she states that she will explore the potentially irrevocable changes creeping up on us, initiated by agriculture and business practices driven by corporate interests.“Global corporations are changing the face of the potato through monocrops, factory farms, patents and genetically modified organisms (GMOs),” she writes. “These issues may seem far away from the concerns of most people today, especially in the Western world, where the gap between rural and urban communities, and their respective lifestyles, continues to widen. But what is invisible to the naked eye can have the profoundest effect on our daily lives.”

Johnston takes the reader on a journey to PEI, Saskatchewan, Ireland, Scotland and Peru, introducing us to “heroes and whistleblowers” who are touched by issues she raises. These people demonstrate that it is possible to take a stand in the face of big business and reclaim one’s voice and dignity. Genetic modification differs from traditional cross-breeding practices in that it is done across different species, producing an organism that has never existed in nature. Plants are manipulated to resist herbicides (often made by the seed company), allowing the farmer to kill weeds without damaging his crop. They can also be engineered to produce a toxin in order to fight pests.

The biotechnology industry’s claims are compelling, especially with the promise of new medicines on the horizon. An ad by the Council for Biotechnology Information in Canadian Gardening magazine read: “Would it surprise you to know that saving a crop from a virus helped save a community from disaster?” The industry claims that genetic engineering can reduce the need for pesticides and obtain greater yields in areas where crops are difficult to grow, potentially alleviating world hunger. On the other hand, Greenpeace, organic farmers and public interest groups are concerned that the safety of the technology has not been proven in the long term and may pose an environmental threat by accidentally contaminating non-GM crops. Some examples of this, cited by Johnston, who footnotes her statements scrupulously, have already happened.

Though proponents say GM foods have been safely consumed for years, some scientists would take things slower. “Genetic manipulation of food ignores millions of years of evolutionary context,” David Suzuki notes on his website. “It is bad science to assume rules of heredity acquired after thousands of years of agriculture are equally applicable in the infant field of transgenic strains.”

Richard Béliveau, a UQAM biochemist and author of Foods that Fight Cancer, is not worried about the safety of GM foods since “no study has succeeded in establishing any carcinogenic character in these foods.” But he says in his book that the technology is potentially devastating to the environment. “In our opinion, it is imperative that the efforts now deployed in the production of genetically modified organisms be limited to a strict minimum in order to avoid a potential ecological catastrophe.” The UN estimates that 75 per cent of food crops have already been lost over the past several decades.

For many the main issue is one of personal choice. To date, over 70 genetically modified and other novel foods have been approved for sale in Canada. Consumers have consistently asked that GM products be labelled here, as they are in the UK and in 45 other countries. The majority of those polled say they would not eat such products if they could avoid doing so. Yet in Canada genetically modified soy, corn, grapeseed or canola and cotton are grown and may be present in up to 70 per cent of the processed foods in supermarkets, including infant formula, breakfast cereals marketed to children and the old standby, Kraft Dinner. These crops may be used in animal feed as well.

Johnston became intrigued with the potato 20 years ago when she viewed it through the lens of her camera while taking a dark-room photography course. For years she learned all she could about what the potato stands for in our collective consciousness. But it was at an “amazingly informative” conference organized by the Council of Canadians on “Science and the Public Good” that the book took shape. At the conference she would also meet some of the people who inspired her to broaden the scope of her research.

“It became less of an aesthetic inquiry and more focused on health and safety,” Johnston said. “I felt I had to pass on the information I found, realizing that something can be done, that it’s not too late to have a say in how our food is grown.” The potato, supreme comfort food with associations to nourishment, folklore and history, has the capacity to elicit strong imagery and emotions. As a point of departure in a work that explores the human costs of a relatively young but revolutionary technology, it is a stroke of genius, a metaphor that reveals the writer’s literary orientation. For any food shopper who has read the book, the humble potato will serve as a daily reminder to remain informed and vigilant.