Canada’s biotechnology companies shut out criticism from activist groups at their peril, an expert in conflict resolution has warned biotech firms.

Instead, says Casey Chisick, a Harvard-trained specialist in dispute resolution and assistant professor of law at the University of Manitoba, the bioindustry should wade willingly into the debate to allay any public concerns.

“It’s no surprise that companies . . . are taking action to limit the use of (genetically) engineered foods without, as far as I can see, an abundance of hard scientific evidence that suggests any reason to do so,” says Chisick.

Chisick addressed a recent bioindustry conference in Calgary in a speech called The Good, the Bad and the Angry: Communication Strategies for Biotech Actors Under Siege.

“People trying to communicate with the public are fighting an uphill battle,” he says, “not only against the anger generated by this particular issue, but the anger generated by past mistakes of others . . . all the coverups, the subterfuge and the dishonesty of this and other industries, not to mention the government. It’s time for a new approach.”

But how can consumers find the middle ground between the spectre of Frankenfoods and an industry ad which touts the possible benefits of a child receiving an oral vaccine from a banana instead of a needle?

Some industry representatives and environmental groups say it may already be too late — the gap between companies involved in GMO (genetically modified organism) research and anti-GMO forces is growing too big to bridge.

There are more than 50 biotechnology companies in Alberta, with medical biotech firms leading the way and agri-biotech companies showing strong growth. Some industry watchers fear that a prolonged anti-GM campaign could eventually make a huge dent in this province’s biotech research and development.

Suspicion runs deep on both sides.

Angela Rickman, deputy director of the Sierra Club of Canada, says it would be “great” if industry and activists could work together to develop standards for GMOs and decide the level of testing requirements before products are released onto the market.

“The problem is that there is, and probably always will be, distrust between the opposite ends of the argument,” she says.

Activists are also suspicious of the federal government, saying they are too close to the industry to be setting health and safety standards for GMOs.

Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club aren’t adverse to working hand in hand with industry, says Rickman, who points to her group’s involvement with the Mining Association of Canada and the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association to develop proposals for an endangered-species act.

But biotech is different, she argues, especially in the area of food. “There’s a lot of mistrust, and it will take a lot of time and effort to heal it,” she says.

“We’re not telling people not to eat GMOs. We tell them we feel it’s inconclusive, but it’s ultimately up to people to make up their own minds.”

But a spokesman for BIOTECanada, a lobby association which represents Canadian health care, agricultural, food, research and other organizations involved in biotechnology, says the anti-GMO forces do not appear to be interested in co-operation.

“I think industry is very open to debate with them, and we feel we have the science fact on our side. I don’t think activists would be willing to engage in that,” says Eileen Inrig, director of communications for BIOTECanada.

Industry Canada is itself a member of BIOTECanada, a fact which some activists have called “incestuous,” but Industry Minister John Manley said last month that the membership fees don’t support lobbying efforts. “They don’t have any special access to me,” he told reporters.

Chisick still believes that a “mutual gains” approach between both players will go a long way to helping the public better understand the science of genetic engineering and its many applications, both real and potential.

Europe in particular has resisted GM seeds and foods, and other activists from Asia and North America are lobbying for better labelling of GM foods. The fear has been aided in no small measure by anti-GMO Web sites like the one sponsored by Greenpeace which features a pointy-toothed “FrankenTony” the Tiger.

Says Chisick: “Clearly the public is confused and becoming less indulgent about ambiguity. When the public gets confused, they get angry. You have industry saying one thing and activists saying another thing. Somebody has to be lying. The public is caught in the middle, and they feel manipulated and at risk.”

His recommendations for turning confrontation into co-operation include:

* Acknowledging the concerns of the other side;
* Don’t pretend the issues don’t exist, and be prepared to debate them;
* Consider providing feedback facilities, even on company Web sites, to allow other voices to be heard. Even offer links to activist sites;
* Encourage joint fact-finding between both sides;
* Admit mistakes if made, and accept responsibility for them.

Some in Alberta’s active biotech community believe great strides have already been made in the area of public trust.

“They have been candid in recognizing that in the early stages of the debate, they did not do a good job of representing their view, and in particular did not do a good job of listening to what were legitimate questions of what was going on with the food supply,” says Andrew Baum, the president and CEO of SemBioSys Genetics Inc., a Calgary-based biotechnology company which genetically engineers oilseeds to produce “value-added” proteins. In fact, he says, more than half the canola in Canada is now transgenic, “and the average consumer doesn’t seem to be overly concerned.”

“There’s been a whole other year of millions and millions of people eating genetically engineered food products,” he points out. “And there has been no negative effect.”

In the past few months, Canadians have been exposed to several pro-bioindustry media campaigns. A full page colour ad in last month’s Maclean’s Magazine featured a folksy-looking farmer and the message: “Biotechnology is helping him protect the land and preserve his family’s heritage . . . And in the future, it can help farmers grow better quality, more nutritious food.”

But biotech companies can still do a better job of communicating their commitment to social responsibility, says Inrig. “That’s maybe what industry needs to do a better job at, the passion behind the scientific fact.”

Industry Canada has its own Canadian Biotechnology Strategy, which includes an emphasis on communication and public consultation. Canada is also part of an international consortium of countries including Japan, the U.S. and several European nations drafting a statement of ethical principals surrounding GMO production. An agreement should be ready by the end of the year.

Biotechnology seeds and foods, like other products, are regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada and Environment Canada. The Canadian government is also working with food producers and others to craft voluntary labelling standards for biotechnology foods.

The law requires GM foods to be labelled if their composition or nutritional content is significantly different from their conventional counterparts or if they pose any health risk. But groups like Greenpeace say this will make little difference, claiming tests used to approve genetically modified foods are so poorly designed that they virtually ensure no adverse affects will be found. For the time being, it may be best to research the issue yourself. Here are a few sites from both sides of the GMO debate:

* Greenpeace: True Food Network: www.truefoodnow.org/
* The Alliance for Better Foods: www.betterfoods.org/
* BIOTECanada: www.biotech.ca/
* BioAlberta: www.bioalberta.com
* The Guest Choice Network: www.guestchoice.com/links_gmfoods.htm
* The Sierra Club: www.sierraclub.org/biotech/
* The Council of Canadians: www.canadians.org/campaigns/campaigns-main.html

DEFINITIONS:

* Biotechnology: The use of current technologies, such as DNA technologies, for the modification and improvement of biological systems.
* Functional food: Ordinary food that has components or ingredients added to give it a specific medical or physiological benefit, other than a purely nutritional effect. Also known as Nutraceutical.
* Genetic engineering: The process of changing the genetic makeup of one organism by transferring DNA from another organism. Also known as Recombinant DNA technology. This could also include modification of genes.
* Genetically modified organism: An organism whose genetic makeup has been changed by any method including natural processes, genetic engineering, cloning, mutagenesis or others.
* Transgenic: An organism that has been modified by genetic engineering to contain one or more new genes from an external source.
— Source: BIOTECanada