The Ruminant: Audio Candy for Farmers, Gardeners and Food Lovers - e.53: A Non-Browning GMO Apple Hits the Market

Episode Date: June 12, 2015

This week, organic farmer, advocate, and activist Linda Edwards joins me to talk about the recent approval of the Arctic Apple for production and consumption in North America. The Arctic Apple is a genetically modified crop that will not brown when cut open. There are naturally occurring apples that don't brown quickly, but in this case, a gene that causes browning has been silenced using genetic engineering.  Linda explains why many organic and conventional orchardists are opposed to the Arctic Apple. We also discuss the organic industry's opposition to genetically engineered crops in general. 

My name is Linda Edwards. I live in the Sanokan Valley in Coston, and I've lived here since 1990, farming tree fruits with my partner Brian Mennell. We are now retired, or working at being retired. We lease out our home property and sold our main property, but we're involved also in Coston Cold Storage, which packs most of the fruit that's sold outside of farmers markets. That's Linda Edwards, who's my guest today on the Ruminant Podcast. Linda is an organic orchardist and organic farming advocate and activist who I invited on the show to tell us about the Arctic

apple, which is, to my knowledge, the newest genetically modified organism to be approved for commercial use and for eating in North America. The arctic apple doesn't turn brown like most apples do when cut open, and so its developers believe this is going to create a great niche for this new technology. Linda doesn't think so. She has a lot of concerns about what that apple will mean for a whole bunch of orchardists, both conventional and organic. So we're going to talk about that and we're going to talk about GMOs in general. This is the Ruminant Podcast, a show that wonders what good farming looks like. I'm Jordan Marr. At theruminant.ca you can find past episodes

of this podcast as well as other content. I do photo-based blog posts as well as the occasional essay and book review. I hope you'll check it out, theruminant.ca. You can also contact me via email, editor at theruminant.ca, and I'm on Twitter, at Ruminant Blog. All right, let's get to this episode. Hey everybody, once again I'm coming at you a day late with this week's episode. Once again it's very busy on the farm, and once again I'm going to keep the intro real short. Before I get to this main conversation with Linda, before I get to this interview with Linda, I just want to remind you that I welcome your own submissions to the podcast. What I'm really interested in getting from you are ideas that you'd like to share with other farmers, something that you might tell a group of farmers if you were asked to get up on stage

and share something that's working for you on your farm or in your garden. If you want to do that, you can email me at editor at theruminant.ca. Or you can call a Skype number that I've set up and leave a voicemail. 310-734-8426. I've had some submissions recently, and if you haven't heard from me yet, you'll be hearing from me soon. And I hope to get those submissions up on the podcast in some way, shape or form pretty soon. So I need to get back out on the farm. And that's why we're going to go straight to this interview with Linda. I hope you enjoyed everybody. I'll talk to you briefly at the end. Linda Edwards, it's a pleasure to have you on the

ruminant podcast. Thank you. Linda, I asked you on today because you've had some experience with a new genetically modified organism that has been called the Arctic apple. And interestingly, we're both in British Columbia and in the southern interior of British Columbia. And this apple was developed kind of just down the road from both of us in a town called Summerland, I believe, at a research station. Could you start by talking about the Arctic apple and also correcting me if I've got any... No, it was not developed at the research station. It actually originated from the CRSO research station in Australia many years ago. And they developed it but decided not to use it. And they sold the patent to a grower in Summerland

who was also an agricultural engineer who was in the country on a contract at that time. And he brought the patent back, and he was working with the research station for a while, but then they decided not to be directly involved, and he moved on on his own with his investors and people that he was working with. So it didn't originate at the research station. It originated in Australia. Okay, thank you for the clarification. So Linda, what is the Arctic apple? It's a golden, at this point, it's either a golden or Granny Smith apple, where they have used genetic engineering technology to silence a gene that

causes browning. Now, this is something that occurs naturally in many apples. There are many heritage apples. There's two new apples out of Washington State that will soon be coming on the market, Ambrosia apple. There's lots of apples that already naturally silence that gene. But for Goldens and Grannies, they use GE technology, which involves, and this is on their website too, you can verify it there,

uses the promoters and markers and the general package that goes with changing the genetic makeup. And what the result is, is they have what looks like a granny or golden apple, which if you cut it, will not turn brown, as do a lot of apples naturally occurring. Right. It still goes soft, you know. It doesn't stop the general process, but it does not turn brown, and the claim is that this will be a big advantage in the marketplace.

Okay, well, could you take that last statement a little further? I know this is, I mean, I'm asking you to represent the people advocating for this, but how do they argue that this will be a big advantage in the marketplace? Well, that people would like to buy an apple that they could bite into and then leave it on their dashboard of their car or their kitchen table or whatever and go back to it days later and then it would still not have turned brown. But the real market quite possibly is in that they're looking at is more for processed apples, sliced apples, McDonald's, salads, to be for use in salads, salad bars. Already in British Columbia, there's a company up at Winfield, and I think they use almost exclusively ambrosia,

but they use other apples as well, and they slice them, and they use ascorbic acid, essentially citric acid to make the apples not turn brown, put them in packages, and they're part of the BC school program. So you have these apple slices which are given to children. This is great. The thing is there already is a lot of product and other varieties out there, but they feel that theirs will compete in that market and is part of the reason they feel that because of other properties of the like the granny

smith and the goldens that are otherwise desirable but for their their uh their but for the fact that they tend to brown that's the only well normally then and Goldens would brown very quickly if you cut them. But otherwise, they claim their apples are identical to Grannies and Goldens. And I don't know if you've ever gone shopping for Grannies and Goldens, but they're old varieties. They're wonderful varieties. In fact, this Golden Delicious is still one of the best apples if it's picked at the right time. But, you know, there is, Goldens are probably the mean apple worldwide that's produced the most.

They are old apples, they're in the stores, but because there's, you know, Honeycrisp and Pink Lady and all new varieties, that they tend to be the lower-priced apples in the store. And they claim that their Granny and Golden are exactly the same except they will not turn brown when you cut them so when you go to the store if they were selling these as dessert apples um i don't think they're going to be labeled you know but they're they'd

be being sold at quite a low price if they wanted to compete with what's already there right okay so presumably part of the selling point though is that look uh if they wanted to compete with what's already there. Right. Okay. So presumably part of the selling point, though, is that, look, because this company wants to sell these to orchardists, essentially. I mean, there's probably a tiny market for backyard orchardists, but this is mainly for commercial apple production. One of the selling points, then, presumably, is just that these are your old standby varieties that many, many consumers are familiar with.

And they're claiming these new and improved Goldens and, I guess, Grannies are just like the old standbys, except that they don't brown on the counter once they've been cut open, or they take much longer to do so. cut open or they take much less they take much longer to do so it's just that the there is i do not know of any growers conventional or organic that are going to plant these now there may be some out there but i have all the conventional industry has reaffirmed over and over again that they're not interested in it and certainly organically we're not but one of the main reasons especially for conventional is they won't, anybody who plants an old variety that is well-known and competing with fancy, newer, more exciting varieties, or apples that are going to be used for juice or applesauce or sliced apples,

you will spend 25 cents a pound to grow something, you'll get paid 15 cents a pound in return. And the only way they could get a higher price in the stores is if they labeled it and said, oh, this won't turn brown, which of course then puts the emphasis on the consumer saying, oh, I want a GE apple. And that would be the only way that a grower could make, if there was that

possibility it's not a money maker for growers the reason we're worried about the backyard is we think that's probably a more likely way that it will get in okay so essentially none of us want none of us want to grow it i mean organic have their own reasons to do it but with processing apples um that's that we're talking apple juice and baby sauce and food for kids. Right. So, I mean, it essentially seems like you're suggesting, and I don't think it's unreasonable for you to suggest, that this seems almost like the answer to a problem no one has expressed. Yes.

Yes, it is. Well put. Right. So then what's your take on that like why why this big push i mean is it just a is it a is it an example of um you know an entrepreneur just being steadfast in their belief that this is going to be a game changer or something like where's the incentive to to go through what must have been a lot of rigmarole a lot of um regulatory process to get this thing on the market you'd have to ask mr Carter that, but I'm sure that's probably it.

You know, when he first got the patent, it was a long time ago, and a lot of his friends and people invested, and there became an obligation that developed right there. And, you know, people weren't quite so concerned about the negative parts of genetic engineering at that time. And so it seemed like a good idea at the time. And they're also saying that they're going to do this same process with some of the newer, more exciting varieties. And they may, but it still, every time you put research and money into something like this,

you have to charge a good price to get your money down. So therefore, you have to think of a competition. And with the two apples that are out there right now, they're cheap apples. You're competing with cheap apples. And so go ahead and label them. We wish they would label them and then see if consumers really want to buy this thing.

I would probably settle the question quite quickly. But certainly for processing. And for us, all growers, conventional and organic, processing apples are culls. They're what you have left after the hailstorm, all right? Or after you've sorted the apples and these are the ones that are too big or not red enough and so forth. And we sell those, but just to try to get a little bit of money back because you'll go broke. I take your point. It's not like there's going to be orchards lining

up to grow this apple exclusively to sell into the processing market. No, absolutely not. So you've given us a number of reasons why you think this is going to be kind of dead on arrival. I want to return to that in a moment. But first I think, I just want to ask you...

Oh, sorry, Linda. Well, I'll just say that's my opinion. I'm sure the company would say otherwise. And also, you know, in all fairness, they hung in there and they got bought out for millions of dollars. So they made money on it. Okay, well, I just want to ask you briefly

before we go any further. Could you just summarize, as you understand it the last like the the various uh um milestones achieved or steps taken to bring this thing on the market so it is currently now uh the arctic apple is allowed to be sold in both usa and Canada? Yes, it is. Okay, so that happened recently, correct? Yes, yes. Could you go back a little further? Like any other genetically modified organism, it would have had to go through some regulatory hurdles, correct? Do you know anything about that?

Well, broadly, you know, in both Canada and the US, the CFI in Canada, the ECP in the US, or the USDA, CFI in Canada, ECP in the U.S., or the USDA, anything, they have to be reviewed to see if they are harmful to the environment or humans. There's nothing in there about markets, no concern about organics. Those are not criteria that can be used, all right? And so whatever process that went on, they determined that they were not harmful to humans or the environment. And they eventually got registered first in the U.S. and now in Canada. Once they're registered, that means they can be legally grown and sold.

OK. And that's because there's no labeling rules in either Canada or the U.S. So they can just be grown and sold right so we've got now uh yet another genetically modified food that is now legal to be to be on the market um and like all the rest of them one of the major issues that it there's no requirement for it to be labeled so no so eaters won't necessarily know if if these things end up in stores or in processed foods they won't no one is required to let them know that they're consuming not at this time no right no i could be argued as the company might see this as an advantage to label them but they have to date said they're not going to do that right and presumably that's because of fears over um

blowback over over i know i know that side of the argument argues that they just worry that there's a lot of fear-stoking around GMOs, and so there's a disincentive to label, because I think people will, in their view, overreact, and not buy simply because they misunderstand the risks associated with GMOs. And it's a precautionary principle. If you have apples available that don't turn brown naturally, which we do, and you have a choice between that and one that's been genetically engineered, which one would you pick? Yeah, it's a good point.

But now, Linda, I'd like to ask you, okay, I mean, maybe you can start to explain to my listeners why you are so knowledgeable about this. I mean, you've been actually active to some degree in resisting this. So other than me prefacing this by saying you are very involved in the organic community, the organic farming community in British Columbia, can you explain what your role has been as this Arctic apple became approved for sale? Well, mainly as an organic grower. Brian and I have been organic growers, and we live in Similkameen, which has more organic apples than anywhere else in Canada. And ever since

the beginning, when it was first introduced many, many years ago, we were all concerned that if these trees were planted in our area, because of bee pollination, that our trees could be... I don't know, with apples, most of them benefit and some absolutely require cross-pollination from another variety. So every spring we all get bees and move them into our areas to make sure that we get a crop set and often, you know, the results, if you took an apple and planted all the seeds in an apple, they probably would all turn out to be a bit different because of open pollination. And, you know, in fact, ambrosia apple we think is probably a cross

between a red delicious and a golden, you know, because it has characteristics of both. And many, many seedling varieties are just a mix of pollen. Well, if we were next door to an Arctic apple orchard or a backyard tree within three kilometers, conceivably the pollen from those trees could be moved to my trees. And the flesh of the apple would not be GMO of that tree. It would still be whatever it was. But the seeds would contain the...

It has nothing to do with the silenced gene. It has the mechanisms, the coliform mosaic virus and the two bacteria that are used to make the process work. The seeds would test positive for that. And so it could always be tested for. And already people are saying at farmers markets, people are saying, oh, is this the GMO apple? You know, people are aware of this.

And if somebody decided to find out if my apples really were certified, of course it's prohibited under certified organic rules to have such a thing. I work on standards and stuff all the time too, so it's my background as well. But if my apples, they tested the seeds and found that they tested positive, those apples would have to be sold at best at best conventionally okay so let me let me just summarize that so it's clear absolutely clear for listeners not all my listeners may realize that if to be a certified organic farmer in north america um is to is to be uh uh forbidden from from introducing gmo uh genetics into what you are producing. Yeah, into our food crops.

That's right. That's right. So as you've pointed out, it's not that your apples, let's say you're growing ambrosia. If some pollen, your ambrosia trees need to be crossed with other trees. And so bees do that frequently. Yeah. If that cross happened with pollen from one of these Arctic apple trees, it's not that the apple flesh itself would change. You're still only going to get ambrosias.

It's just that the seeds of those apples could contain some of these GMO genetics, and that is not allowed in organic farmers. So this represents a threat to organic farmers' livelihoods, potentially. And it doesn't matter that it's not fault it is what it is if somebody accidentally sprays roundup on your crop it's not your fault but it still you know means for three years you cannot you know say anything on that property is certified organic now the other thing and this goes back to the processing too too, is that, you know, for juice and things like that, when they crush, when we, you know, like hailstorms are a good example, that people who make baby food, organic, well, and conventional as well, who make juice and baby food and stuff, they love hailstorms because that really, we've got all this fruit that has to go to processing because it can't be sold in the stores.

They just crush it. It would be the conventional juice people as much as us that would have to worry. It would only be if somebody tested, but if they did test and found that indeed that it tested positive,

it won't be testing positive for this gene. It'll be testing positive for the viruses and the bacterium. Right. And that's a very well-known, easy technology. And it can just be random. Do you know about flax in Saskatchewan? Well, I don't know specifically what you're referring to, so why don't you explain?

Okay, quite a few years ago, the university there developed a Roundup Ready flax. And when the flax growers in Saskatchewan found that out, they said, no, no, don't do this. This is a health food. We're not the least bit interested. And this is conventional grass, okay, not just organic. And so the university said,

oh, I guess we should have asked you first and dropped it. They never bothered to register it. Anyway, the scientist who worked on that was very upset that this happened, and he put little bags of black seed, which he called triffid, which if you read science fiction, you'll realize the irony of that. Triffid is this old science fiction story about plants that got mutated and ended up eating people.

Anyway, and it somehow got out to garden shows, farm shows, stuff got planted. Nobody even knew this was happening. Until about three, four years ago, Europe, which does random testing for GMOs, tested some conventional plaques from Saskatchewan and picked up the markers. And now they don't buy flax from Saskatchewan, although Saskatchewan's done a big program to try to eradicate it. But it was a really big problem. And this is the backyard thing. This is people who just grew a pretty blue flower, you know.

Right. And they didn't know what they were doing, you know, and that's why we're saying we see that if somebody went and bought one of these trees, they might not even realize the implications of it. So we're hoping to do an educational program on that level as well, because when bees fly three kilometers, one tree could contaminate a very wide area. Right. Well, thank you for the example, Linda. Now, one thing I wanted, probably the main thing I've wanted to talk to you about today is to broaden it out a little bit because this is something that I've taken some interest in.

Here's my concern. All of the reasons you've given in terms of the practical implications of this Arctic apple I think are really sound, right? But I'm an organic farmer, you're an organic farmer. We're both really involved in, in, uh, in our industry, like just in, in, in, you know, in volunteering at different levels and that sort of thing. My concern is this, um, that arguing that we need that, that arguing need, that arguing the, arguing for the, for stopping the introduction of this apple because it's not allowed in organics

is not, it seems at best to me like a weak argument. Well, it's not a legal argument, that's for sure. If it was, they wouldn't have got it registered. Right, right. So, I mean, that goes without saying.

But I just mean in trying to convince others why they, like, for example, I'll just mention, we may talk about this some more in a few minutes, but one of the things you've been working on here in British Columbia is to try and get all of the nurseries on board with just not carrying this tree. Well, we've just started doing that, and we've got some positive feedback, but that's something more, I wouldn't make've just started doing that and we've got some positive feedback but that that that's something more i wouldn't make a big deal of that at this point because a lot of that work hasn't been done yet okay and and look i also want to say linda just before we go forward here

i think the arctic apple is a stupid idea that's probably the best way to describe the whole thing right so we're on the same page there i also for the most part think most of the examples of of gmos that have made it to market are not a good idea for agriculture okay like i'm i'm all right however i still have concerns that in trying to prevent the spread of them we're using arguments like well we shouldn't have it because it's not allowed in organics it's circular logic that's not the reason to hold it that's only one of the reasons the conventional growers don't want it either they don't they don't the same as us they don't need it they don't want it and they're worried about the market just as much as we are so it's not just organic okay and that's totally fair but i think my argument still applies i'm not saying we shouldn't be fighting it as i've said i think it's a dumb idea um i just don't see the efficacy

and i actually see some risk in in trying to educate everybody the people who might buy it for their backyard the nurseries and whatnot in relying on the argument look this is going to be this is going to hurt me it's going to hurt organic growers because it's not allowed in organics because that in and of itself isn't isn't to me a sound argument it's just to give you an example i'm not a very religious person linda so if someone comes up to me and says you shouldn't do this because and i say because why and they say because the bible says you shouldn't do it that's not a compelling argument to me and and so you've mentioned some some other specific reasons

why we shouldn't have it but to me the most powerful is that this thing is just it just makes no practical sense why we should have it. Right? Well, I agree. And I would say that too, right? It's right across the board. Washington State, which for every acre of tree fruits in BC, there's about, you know, I don't know. We used to have 20,000 acres of tree fruits in BC. And the last time I checked, they had 200,000.

They don't want it. Okay? There's a magazine called The Good Fruit Grower, which is sort of, speaking of Bibles, the Bible of the industry comes out of Wenatchee. And we all read it and subscribe to it. Every tree fruit grower in North America and probably a lot in Europe reads The Good Fruit Grower.

One of their main editorials two issues ago was what a dumb idea this is. You know, why would we shoot ourselves in the foot? And this is conventional growers, okay? It's Washington. It's B.C. You know, one of the main arguments against it is that it will hurt how some people make their living, which is whether they're organic or conventional.

With us, it's just a little more clear-cut and faster. But a conventional juice maker could lose all their markets as quickly as an organic juice maker over this apple. And consequently, the growers and all the infrastructure and agriculture that's based on that are grievously hurt. And you're not supposed to be able to go and hurt people's livelihood unless there's a very good reason. But Linda, I think you then have to ask the question,

why is it going to hurt the organic grower's livelihood? Well, the answer is because it's not allowed. But then couldn't you just as easily say, well, then why doesn't organics allow it? You could still prevent organic farmers from physically buying the trees, but the rules could conceivably be changed to allow for those genetics to be there. Why would we do that?

You know, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I don't agree with the point I think you're trying to make. I think it's sort of like saying somebody with a special health condition shouldn't be able to make any claim for something, or somebody who is a small girl versus a big girl. You know, I don't see where your argument's going in this case. Okay, well, I'll try and explain it a little bit better. I don't think it's the same, your example about the person with a special health condition.

If they can demonstrate that they actually have a condition, then i think most reasonable people reasonable people want to make accommodations for them but i guess what this gets back to is is the reasons why maybe we should maybe we should talk about this a bit why gmos are not allowed in our in organic agriculture um because i just don't think it's enough to say well because they're not allowed where they're not allowed because we consider under the precautionary principle and being supported by a fair amount of research out there that's increasing all the time, that these are not, it's like pesticides. It's exactly the same thing as pesticides in many, many ways. Although now we know more about pesticides and we can argue even more vehemently

why we don't use organophosphates, all right? But when organophosphates, I'm old enough to remember when organophosphates first came out, and in fact I am. I can remember when DDT was used, all right? And it was so much better than lead arsenic and the other things that had preceded it

that my father and all these people started using it, and it didn't make you sick. You know, you could go and apply it for grasshoppers, and you didn't throw up afterwards. And it was like, oh, this is just so amazing. This is great. Well, right, history moves on. Organophosphates and carbonates replaced DDT

when the dangers of those things were known. And now we've got other things replacing organophosphates and carbonates replaced DDT when the dangers of those things were known. And now we've got other things replacing organophosphates and carbonates as their health risks to human health and to the environment and biodiversity. And, you know, the list goes on and on. That kind of evidence is starting to, you know, and organics has led the way in using the precautionary principle and saying, look, we're pretty sure there are no silver bullets out there. All right?

And so we're not going to use these pesticides. We're not using the nicotine. There's the ones they're worried about now. They were brought out and still are touted as being absolutely no harm to human health and stuff. Next time you buy corn from the Fraser Valley, ask them if they use the systemic nicotine on that corn. Because you may want to, you know, as an organic grower, I'm sensitized to that.

I'm growing my own corn. I don't think I'm going to want to. It may not hurt humans, but we don't know. We know it sure does a lot of harm to bees, right? Right. Okay, looking at that scope of things, comparing it with pesticides, that because of the precautionary principle and because we know there's no silver bullets,

organic growers take the slightly earlier step. Not always. Lots of conventional growers use that principle as well, and I applaud them, but we take that step, and unfortunately, we often turn out to be right on that one. We certainly have about all the wonderful pesticides we've seen come and go, and it's starting to come out now about many of the things about, you know, what we do know, there have been real problems

with genetic engineering. Some of it has, you know, some of it's killed people, you know, what we do know, there have been real problems with genetic engineering. Some of it has, you know, some of it's killed people, you know. Well, I don't, I'm going to stop you there. What can you, I don't think there's any scientifically legitimized evidence that it's killed people. Oh, there's some of the early ones. We don't know about the other ones, but there was, what was it, tryptophan? I think that was the big one that scared everybody. It came out very early on.

I can send you some papers on this if you're really that interested in it. But, you know, there are things that have happened that weren't very good. And allergies and changes in the plants, you know, they don't even, you know, know until something like, for instance, with soybeans, that it turns out that in drought conditions that those that are genetically engineered, the stems shatter more. Well, when they put in the Roundup Ready gene, it must have fallen on the thing that built strong stems.

But nobody knows that, you know. on the thing that built strong stems, but nobody knows that. You're into a field now where there's, you know, the recombinant gene, bovine growth hormone was a big one. The tryptophan was in, that was way back in 1990s.

It was a dietary supplement that really did kill people because it was given to people with a blood disorder and it turned out that it wasn't what they thought it was. So now they're just thinking more allergies. I know that research is going on in France. It's not pretty. I just want to, just to bring it back to our conversation then.

So are you in general, like certified organic grower or just citizen of British Columbia, Linda Edwards, are you personally, I mean, do you avoid eating any and all GMOs for these reasons? Yeah, I do. I do. Okay. Yep. And so, I mean, your central argument then is just that you just personally,

you haven't seen, we haven't had them around long enough and enough evidence to suggest they're safe. And for that reason, we should take the precautionary principle, which in taking that approach would apply then to all. And the other thing, and the thing is that, you know, we've always heard about all the wonderful benefits that are going to flow from them. I mean, how many years have we heard about golden rice and drought resistant varieties and all that stuff? But mostly 99% of all the research, let alone the results, are things that sell Roundup or can help farmers avoid some pesticides, although, you know,

the pesticide thing is, well, you know, BT. They put BT in cotton and various other things, and it just, sooner or later, they just become resistant, and then you can't even use the original BT anymore. And also, they're starting to look at the results of many of these things and what that does to the soil. It does change the biology of the soil. It's just there are no silver bullets. There's always a downside.

Now, if they really truly came up with something that was wonderful and could stand the test of time and researching that really made the world a better place for biodiversity human beings i would consider it but you know and i follow the literature and i'm still waiting okay well anyway i i um i guess we can we can close off this this debate that that i wish would be had a little more often in the organic community. I'll go back to my main point. I just worry. I worry for the movement down the line when we start to rely too much on, well, it's not allowed in organics and that's why we shouldn't have GMOs. Wait a minute.

Nobody just says that, okay? You just said it, but it's, you know, it's never intended to just be, we just don't allow it and therefore we don't do it. There are reasons we don't allow it. Right, I agree, I agree with you and you've just outlined some of, some of the arguments. I don't think those arguments are explained enough. I personally feel like this stuff gets dumbed down a lot for the general public, that there's a real emphasis on the fear mongering. And look, one difference we have between us is I am much less concerned about the health

effects of consuming this stuff. I think mainstream science has been fairly consistent so far in rejecting the notion that the ones on the market are dangerous for us. Now, I know we're not going to agree on that, Linda, and that's fine. Well, we don't know. I. Well, we don't know. I would mostly say we don't know. Except there have been with, you know, the recombinant DNA. Actually, some of our scientists pointed that out for us.

We didn't register that for cattle. There have been these other things in the past that have shown up. We don't, the main thing is we don't know, and there's not a lot, you know, it's just beginning, more and more research is going on, but we were just sold all the benefits without looking at any of the side effects. You know, if you have children, there's a whole, you know, do you really want to take a chance on something showing up years later because you weren't concerned about something like this?

Right, but we could get down a crazy rabbit hole debating just what it means to how far to take the precautionary principle. And again, Linda, my intention in this conversation is not to convince you of my point of view at all. You only do it if there's a really good reason to do it. All right? Yeah, right. Arguably, there have been.

You're not going to hear me making fervent or passionate arguments for Roundup Ready crops for BT corn. The very first GMO on the market, to my knowledge, was the one for the virus with papayas in Hawaii. And I think arguably on the whole, that's been very beneficial for that industry without any of the environmental effects of some of these more modern Monsanto-driven technologies. I don't know about that one. Oh, okay. And it wasn't the first. The first was canola and soybeans and all those crops. Okay, I'm not sure about that.

I think papaya is frequently held up as one of the first ones to get going. But anyway, again, I just wish we could keep the discourse up focused on some of the specific reasons um it sounds like you're suggesting you think i'm setting up a straw man argument that that's not actually happening but you know you and i sit on a on a board in which we were discussing the possibility of approaching you know as the organic um community as a whole as a voice approaching some of the nurseries and explaining to them that we would rather not see them carry this Arctic apple, it sounded to me like the suggestion was we were going to really try

and emphasize the fact that that's really bad for the livelihoods of organic growers because it's not allowed in organic agriculture. No, I have told you this three or four times, and I'm starting to get a little bit upset about it. Okay. It is not just for organic growers. Yeah. It's for consumers, having the right to know what they're consuming.

And if they would label this thing, that would make such a big difference. It's for conventional growers as well. There are way more conventional growers out there than organic. It's for all of those things. I never make the argument just for organic growers. Fortunately for organics, we're in a position where we're a little more organic. But talk to the BCFGA, BC Fruit Growers Association. They make formal motions at meetings against this.

Talk to Glenn Lucas. You know, I'm not just saying it's organics and i'm not setting it up just to be something for again for consumers and you know knowing what's in their apple juice knowing what's in their apples when they go to mcdonald's in fact somebody told me i don't you might want to verify that but mcdonald's is saying they're not going to buy you know antibiotic gmo stuff and things like that. And it's for my conventional neighbors who will be just as upset if somebody plants a backyard tree next to them as I will be.

Right. And for the same reasons, you know, the same reasons. Right, but those reasons seem to dance around this potential backlash from the public because of rejection of GMOs. Is that fair to say? Like both organic and conventional. You're talking about backlash because we're against it or backlash against it? No, no, no. It seems like both the potential effect on the livelihood of organic growers but also just the conventional orchardists who also don't want this, I think that isn't the common threadardists who also don't want this i think that isn't the common thread that that the the reason they don't want it is because they're they they fear uh putting

themselves out of the market if if it if if the public decides they just don't want this stuff could you i'm not quite sure what you're sure sure sure i'm i'm what i'm suggesting is the the um let's just focus on those commercial orchardists, right? You're saying they're also in line with the organic orchardists saying we don't want this, right? Yeah. Okay, so if I understood you earlier, you were explaining the commercial orchardists are against this for the same types of reasons. If the genetics end up in their crop through drift, they would be prone to the same kind of... Market forces. they they they would be prone to the same kind of um market forces market forces that they're that that ultimately eaters either through not wanting to buy them in the store or not wanting to buy

the processed foods that contain these genetics um would would reject this and that could be really bad if if we if you've got a bunch of commercial orchardists conventional or organic who who who are demonstrated that the genetics are now in their apples. And it comes back to the consumer. I mean, organics is all about everybody. We're not talking hobby farmers. We're talking how people make their living, right? Yeah.

And it's the same with you. You have to make a living. Otherwise, you have to go and grow your vegetables. Otherwise, you've got to go and get a job somewhere else, right? Yeah. Then you're not a farmer. And what we're talking about, the right've got to go and get a job somewhere else, right? Yeah. Then you're not a farmer. And what we're talking about, the right for people to make a living and not have random things like this derail it through no fault of their own. If they would label it, if they had to label,

tell us where these orchards are and label this product when it goes to the marketplace, fine. But that isn't going to happen. And it's not going to happen in apple slices in kids' school programs and it's not going to happen in apple juice at Sunrise. And therefore consumers, and that's what certified organic is all about and that's what ethics in farming is all about. The consumer has the choice of what they want, and you give them these rules, and they make the choice, and if they pick yours, good on you, right?

Yeah, yeah, but it sounds like you're saying if only that were happening, then you wouldn't be so concerned. No, I would be concerned from a scientific point of view and a lot of others about the health things. It's the same reason I don't let my grandchildren eat conventional beef or chicken because of the antibiotics and growth hormones, all that kind of stuff. See, the more and more we're finding these things out, and we can make choices. And certified organic ensures that my grandchildren aren't going to consume these things, which definitely would negatively affect their lives. And as more and more research is done on some of these other things, maybe some of them won't be harmful, but maybe some of them will.

What kind of lottery do you want to play in, you know? Right. And certified organic takes the one extra step, which says, okay, we realize there may be a problem here, and this is what we're doing to maybe not 100% avoid, but as much as we possibly can to avoid giving the consumer something that if they knew what they were getting, they wouldn't want it. And that's how you stay in business. And to have somebody come in with something that has no real perceived benefit,

I mean, we all agree there's lots of non-browning apples, and they still go slimy. And to endanger both conventional and organic income and lifestyle, so you can go get a job in the oil fields instead, right? That's not right yeah or maybe you think it's okay i don't know no i just struggle with it linda i struggle with it because the whole reason it's not right is the potential for backlash from the public but what if the public's wrong what if they're wrong to to take the precautionary principle or to to

outright reject those gmos. You know what? It doesn't matter whether they're wrong or right. It's their choice. It's about choice. It's me deciding that I like this kind of car instead of that kind of car. I have the right to make that choice. And the backlash from the public, I think, is more because they aren't going to be able to know and make the choice and interestingly enough an awful lot of them make the choice for organics

when they know right that i i just like i like thinking about theoretical stuff like like this in order to decide to me if this whole approach to fighting this stuff is sound i like to think well what if like let's create a hypothetical i I don't know. What if somehow the tide turned against organic products and the public, by and large, started believing wrongly that organic food was always dirty and that the, you know, full of soil organisms that are going to harm them, and therefore, as a whole, they're outright against it,

and you and I believe fervently that they're wrong. I would you would you accept this argument that well it should be banned because we should let the public decide i mean sometimes the public's wrong i'm not saying they're wrong i'm not i'm not secretly no no no but that's that's why you have food safe i mean every organic grower has to have food safe just like every conventional where there is doubt about things like that you find an answer and with that you know you've come up with i think you're trying to use that as an example but that is a good example and there have been concerns in the past and it's been addressed by i have to do faith food safe the same as my conventional neighbor and show that that's not you know that i'm not

going to give somebody listeria or or. coli at 57 and stuff like that. Yeah. I guess I just wish we could focus almost all our efforts on the labeling. It makes me uncomfortable when... Well, I've told you, if they'd label that, it would make this much simpler. It would make it simpler, but it wouldn't solve your problem. You'd still be making the argument that the public's still probably going to have a negative reaction, that you don't want the genetics in your product. No, I'm not saying, I'm just saying, I'm not saying telling the public what they're going to do or not do.

They will make that decision. But the fact that a lot of people, not all, but some choose to go out and buy organic food, those people are making that decision. And they're making it based on, you know, the pesticides and the biodiversity and GMOs and all the rest of it. If they don't want, if they don't care about that, they go and buy conventional, you know? Right. So the public's already doing that. And I don't think, you know, if they suddenly, and it did happen with the organic apple juice

that ended up people using windfalls to make apple juice many years ago, and a lot of people got sick because of that because it had E. coli on it, apple juice that ended up people using windfalls to make apple juice many years ago. And a lot of people got sick because of that because it had E. coli on it. And there was a huge backlash. But then everybody tightened up and did the right thing. And hopefully, you know, the rules are now in place. And if somebody violates those, then it's on them. It's not on the industry.

Right. And to me, that's the best you can do. You know, you can't control everybody. But if you see a problem, you find a solution for it. And for many people, they're concerned probably mostly about pesticides that are harmful.

That's one of the reasons they choose organics. That's how they deal with that. And we can give them some assurance. And it's not just our word for it. We test. You know that. There's testing, random and otherwise, going on all the time. We can give them insurance that we aren't doing that.

And if it turns out it's not even accidental, then we cannot claim that that food is organic. Right. Even if it's not our fault. So, you know, and as long as people are making that decision based on that information that's the way the world is some might not care, some don't

so what's just to close off here Linda, what's your hope for kind of the best case scenario in terms of how this plays out well that everybody will become aware of it I think a lot of people i think it's pretty you know and it will continue and people will make i you know the choice of

whether or not they're going to plant these um whether it's backyards or orchards and that their neighbors and consumers will be informed of this product if it comes on the market that would be the best of all possible things. Well, I guess especially at the planting level, I guess you would really hope that anyone planting this, at the very least, knows of these implications. They know because your concern is they're going to plant them not even realizing, A, that it's GMO, and B, what that might mean for other commercial growers.

Yeah, and so that's our, you know, some of us are taking that on as our responsibility. If they still want to go and do it, fine, but please tell us so that we can take precautionary, you know, I don't know what we would do, but anyway, that we would know that that's a possibility. Okay, there are people all over North America who get their corn organic, or get their corn tested if they're near BT corn or areas, right? It's a precautionary thing you can do so that when your product doesn't go to the market and you get an unpleasant surprise like the flax growers did.

So, you know, knowledge. It's all about knowledge. We want people to be aware of it. And, you know, I would be the first to say I don't think it's going to poison anybody, but we don't know what more things we'll know in the future, the same as we didn't know about DDT or organophosphates and its needs and all the rest, you know. It's all, anything's possible.

I guess so. Here's the one thing I don't think is possible, and you're so much more experienced in the community, in the, you know, in the in the organic community than I am. So maybe you have some insight. I don't believe it's possible. Like you've talked a lot. You've made a very compelling case for why do you employ the precautionary principle and why it's been employed in the case of GMOs with regards to certified organic agriculture. of GMOs with regards to certified organic agriculture. I cannot imagine a time though,

when the community would be satisfied enough. It doesn't matter what science comes out where they, where, where we'd all, where we'd say, Oh, actually it turns out it looks pretty safe. And we're going to, we're going to lift the ban on Linda's apples, having those genetics in them. I just can't, I don't think that's possible just in practical terms um that's where that's where i'm concerned i mean we can talk about precautionary principles is a decent approach to this stuff but but have we had a conversations as a community about the about the point at which we'd say no i think i think the science is sound and we we we can lift that that ban well, we haven't. Lots of people are making those arguments all the time in favor of all the GMO, alpha, it's not going to hurt anybody,

blah, blah, blah, all that kind of stuff. We don't have to do that because there's lots of other people making those arguments all the time. And it comes back to the consumers, whether or not they're going to listen to that or listen to the precautionary thing. Remember I said, if somebody came out with something that saved lives, you know, I think 3D printing, some of the stuff going on 3D printing is absolutely amazing.

Because it's restoring smashed vertebrae and stuff. So I'm not going to argue against that. restoring smashed vertebrae and stuff. So I'm not going to argue against that. But until that happens, until, you know, you don't say black or white. You do it based on best information available in historical context. And knowing there are no silver bullets. You know, I mean, the fact that it not it's you know um it's not the gene that they fool with that's the problem whether it i mean naturally occurring apples have a non-browning

gene a lot of them do and but you know what sometimes it is where they were going to put that fish um yeah like like there's yeah there's there's gmos where they're putting genes from different species in and then there's like the the Arctic apple where it was more like silencing a gene. Yeah, but it's the mechanism. It's the mechanism they use, which... Yeah, fair enough. And that, I mean, it gets really, really tough in this debate because there's very confident people giving scientific evidence on both sides, right?

Like, it makes it very, very difficult. Very difficult. Well, there's way more of them making arguments for GMOs. Well, okay, but Linda, except major institutions like the National Academy of Sciences. I mean, the same institutions that we go to to confirm climate change evidence, we're, as a movement, in the organics, I think it's fair to say, we tend to still say no, they're compromised when it comes to making their pronouncements about GMOs. And it makes it very, very difficult for people to come to an informed decision. I'm not sure about that.

I think people are a lot smarter than we think they are sometimes. And people do tend to... Education, that's what it's all about, getting information out, letting people be aware of the range of information and research there, where there's doubt and where there's surety, which is not much of that in the world. And to know, again, that there are no silver bullets. There's always a price for everything. And you try to anticipate what some of those are.

You know, I grew up watching steroids and antibiotics being put into cattle. It's still done. 80% of all the antibiotics used in North America go to livestock. And nobody says, oh, isn't that wonderful? They can stick them in feedlots, make them eat grain that they're not supposed to eat. They don't get sick or they gain weight faster. Now look at the horrible repercussions that are coming from that. Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Now look at the horrible repercussions that are coming from that.

Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. And look how hard it is to try and make changes, you know, to reduce antibiotic use. Once it's an established practice, it's definitely very difficult. See, I'm old, you see. I've lived too long. I've seen all this stuff. And it's made me really believe in the precautionary principle.

And also, I am also a scientist and so you know you present the details of how something's better or really helps something i'll consider it and i think most people would it's just this weird thing though linda where like if you if you just allow for the possibility simply the possibility that i do no okay i i believe you do i believe you do sorry i meant you i didn't mean you i mean you of us. If we allow for a possibility that one day the science is settled and it comes out in favor of the, that at the very least GMO is safe for human consumption, ones that get approved, okay? that I, that I feel like I'm seeing where on the one hand I can, I can just never, I could see the organic industry persisting in banning it, um, because they're terrified of the backlash against consumers, um, who won't buy their stuff if the, if the, if the genes are allowed in. But then at the same time, those, a lot of those same consumers are terrified of it themselves and

not buying it because they've been told that it's not allowed or that it's not allowed in organics. Like it's just this weird self-reinforcing thing. And so I just, you think consumers aren't smart enough to know why they're don't want, why they're buying organic because there might be, I think you're really, I don't, I don't agree with what you said. Right. And it sounds like what you want to accuse me of is taking the intelligence of the consumer for granted. But the truth is, and I don't do that. I'm not applying that as a blanket statement, Linda.

But I sure meet a lot of people who, at my farmer's market stall, very quickly demonstrate that they are, A, one, they're fervently against GMOs. demonstrate that they are a one they're they're fervently against gmos but as soon as they start to talk about it i can see that the basis of on on which they're they're coming to that judgment is really superficial and it comes from things like marches against monsanto which just frame monsanto as evil and anything monsanto does is evil including gmos are evil and it's just talked about in these black and white terms and i I think that's partly the responsibility of some organic farmers who talk in those terms to their customers. And there's a lot of fear mongering. That's not to say that I'm pro-GMO, because I know it may not sound like it, Linda, but I'm not pro-GMO. I just don't like some of the ways that we as a community are communicating these ideas i think there is fear-mongering going on and that concerns me there is fear-mongering going on about airplanes

and climate change and how fast you should drive on the highway it's the nature of the human race that doesn't mean we can't strive that doesn't mean that doesn't mean i can't talk to you right now just about the the possibility that we could strive a little harder to create a more nuanced debate. I mean, I find, and the thing is, I find the GMO debate gets so much more interesting when you start to talk about some of the unforeseen effects of roundup ready crops, and how that's wiped out every last plant in the field. And now we've got butterfly populations that are going extinct because they have no habitat. That's where, to me, you can connect with people on a better level because those arguments, they're much more sound

than some of the more superficial ways that this is presented. Well, of course it's superficial. And there's some organic growers will do a great job of it and others will do a lousy job. Some conventional growers, same thing. You know, you get down to individuals. some conventional growers, same thing. You know, you get down to individuals.

Some people don't have the time, energy, or the resources to perhaps be as educated as you might wish them to be, but it doesn't mean they won't find out if they have to. And if they do, just sort of take what seems to be a superficial... Everybody likes some things in their life that they feel somebody else is taking care of. Like, I'm that way about airplanes, all right? I'm really hoping those mechanics that check the airplane that I reluctantly get on

in the first place because I shouldn't be flying anywhere. But, you know, I'm going to go see my new grandson sometime this year. So there goes my resolve. But anyway, I'm going to go see my new grandson sometime this year. So there goes my resolve. But anyway, I really just say, yeah, mechanics know what they're doing, right? Yeah.

Otherwise, I'll never fly, you know what I mean? But I have other parts of my life that I'm much more knowledgeable about and have the time and resources to do that. And I think maybe that's what some of those people were just, okay, somebody in the organic industry is keeping an eye on this. Isn't that wonderful? And so I can be against this and, you know, and my instincts, people's instincts are not to be over or underestimated, say that this is better for me. So I'm just going to go that route, you know.

We can't all be experts at everything. No, no, we can't. We can't. But I just, I mean, you know, we're starting to go in circles here and that's fine i just i just see examples of uh organic farmers in the markets like specifically taking advantage of that fear to sell their products and that i just don't think that's right i just think it's problematic and it could hurt the movement in the long run but But anyway. Maybe. Maybe not.

What if it turns out that some of these things are really as bad as some people think they are? Absolutely. Pesticides. You know, as I said, I'm old enough. I'm in my 70s. I've been on a farm all my life. I've seen from DDT right through to what people are currently using. And that's, I take your point, Linda. I realize this ain't your first rodeo.

You've seen the promises of a new technology before, how safe it is, and you've seen it turn out to be bankrupt. And I realize it's very powerful. And so if in doubt, be careful. Right. Precautionary principle. Especially if you have a choice. And people do have the choice between organic and conventional,

and in this particular case, they certainly have a choice between different non-browning apples. It's going to go slimy on you, even though it doesn't turn brown. So, you know, there are so many choices in regard to this non-browning thing. Well, Linda Edwards, thank you so much for the time you've given to having this conversation with me. And I'm I wish you and all

of us luck in trying to limit the spread of this, what appears to be a very silly idea, this Arctic apple. That's a good way to sum it up. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Bye-bye. Well, there you go, everybody. I hope you enjoyed that. I'm sorry about the, uh, little bit of pen tapping or pen play that you heard during some of that

interview. I have to admit, um, at times is if you listen to the whole interview, you probably notice things got a tiny bit tense at times with Linda, uh, just cause we didn't agree about everything. And, um, I didn't know I was doing that with my pen. I think I was kind of nervous. I was also recording that interview in my van. My wife Vanessa has been away. She's back now. And last week or so when I had to record this interview, it just wasn't a good time for her to have to get out of the cabin. So I went into the van to record that. Anyway, that's it. I have nothing else to say to you. I hope you have a good week and I'll do my best to have an episode for next week. If I can't come up with anything, I've still got some old, old episodes that I could rerun for those of you who are new listeners.

Take care, everybody. And take it away, Vanessa. Just not spring water and peaches We'll owe nothing to this world of thieves And live life like it was meant to be guitar solo Because why would we live in a place that don't want us? A place that is trying to bleed us dry We could be happy with life in the country With salt on our skin and the dirt on our hands I've been doing a lot of thinking some real soul searching and here's my final resolve

I don't need a big old house or some fancy car To keep my love going strong So we'll run right out into the wilds and graces We'll keep close quarters with gentle faces And live next door to the birds and the bees And live life like it was meant to be