Food safety, security concerns evergreen

Readers are always quick to respond with comments, questions and even the occasional correction when I write about the tools of modern agriculture, such as GMOs and pesticides.

Last week’s column contained an error.

The column highlighted the risk to Canada’s mustard industry from a new variety called InVigor Gold.

I mistakenly stated the variety is a herbicide-tolerant canola built from borrowed genes from its mustard cousin.

In fact, InVigor Gold is a genetically modified mustard variety that has been bred to have herbicide tolerance and similar processing quality as canola while retaining the qualities of mustard that make it more suitable for the hotter, drier southern Prairies.

However, the column’s premise is accurate.

There is a high risk of cross- pollination and GMO contamination of Canada’s mustard crop, which would be unpalatable to key export customers. Mustard sells at a sizeable premium to canola, so the affected farmers couldn’t easily replace the lost income by simply growing the new canola-quality mustard.

Readers often raise concerns about how farmers’ use of herbicides and genetically modified crops affects food safety. Modern farming involves complex systems, and as I demonstrated, it can get confusing.

“I have been trying to find out how persistent glyphosate, for example, is in our food products. I have been trying to eat more grains and lentils in my diet, but I am wondering if I am creating a chemical exposure that I did not anticipate,” wrote one reader.

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in crop production, and it is frequently applied multiple times during the growing season.

Is there glyphosate in food?

Yes. It is possible to find trace amounts in the food supply, even in organic food that is grown without pesticides. However, the bigger question is whether it is present at levels that affect human health.

Most scientists and regulators say no.

That’s not by chance. Farmers are coached by commodity organizations such as the “Keep it Clean” campaign on practices that ensure the crops they sell meet the maximum residue limits (MRLs) to ensure food safety and customer requirements.

Keep it Clean publishes annual updates on how choices on the farm could affect the marketability of commodities. For example, many buyers will refuse to accept crops that have received pre-harvest glyphosate applications.

Maximum residue limits are set by Health Canada to be consistent with international standards. While there is no such thing as zero, these limits are set well below what is considered safe.

The MRLs for all pesticides are publicly available on the Health Canada website.

Meanwhile, the Canadian Grain Commission monitors export grain shipments for a multitude of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides to ensure residues are below MRLs. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency monitors foods. Samples tested between 2015 and 2017 found 99.4 per cent had glyphosate levels below the maximum allowed.

For some consumers, it’s enough to know that standards are in place and enforced. Others will say any such presence is unacceptable.

Another reader wrote: “I am one that is worried about what I am eating. I refuse as much as I can the GMOs which are becoming more difficult for the body to digest … It is next to impossible to find food that has not been tainted … The majority of our food is not safe to eat anymore.”

Consumer anxiety over specific products or technology has reached outsized proportions in an era of concerted efforts to culture mistrust in a lot of things, including our food. “Free-from” labels on food products only matter if the so-called contaminant poses a hazard in the first place.

I’m not advocating for blind trust.

Consumers have the right to question how their food is produced. However, it’s also important to recognize that the systems in place to protect food safety are generally trustworthy.

They can always be improved, but when they fail, it’s the exception, not the rule.

While historically speaking, our food has never been safer or more secure, it’s not — never has been and never will be — categorically risk-free.

Nothing is.

Laura Rance-Unger is editor emeritus for Glacier FarmMedia. She can be reached at lrance@farmmedia.com