LFP does not permit in its programme seed, plants and feed containing or derived from genetically engineered constructs. LFP has taken this position for two principle reasons: a) many markets that are interested in local food are not interested in purchasing food containing or derived from genetically engineered constructs; b) there are significant questions about the compatibility of current GE applications with environmental sustainability.

Details

The dispute between opponents and proponents of GE technology in agriculture rests primarily with cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Opponents believe that the process by which a product is developed is as important to examine as the end product, and see unique problems with rDNA and related technologies. This is not to say that they are not also critical of crops that result from mutagenesis or “traditional” plant breeding, but believe GE technologies represent a significant departure from other approaches. The major difference between traditional and modern biotechnology lies with the ability to transfer genes between hugely different species. Given this, LFP does not use the novel food and crops conception employed by the Canadian government. Note also that LFP does not consider the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture in its definition of modern biotechnology.

The widespread release of organisms derived from rDNA technology in the environment unavoidably alters dynamics in ecosystems. It is the shifts in such dynamics that most concern ecologists. Equally significant is how the use of GE plants in farming can perpetuate unsustainable farm designs that generate ecosystem problems (e.g., limited crop rotations). Closed system genetic engineering applications, barring accidents, do not usually present the same environmental concerns.

Practical Implications

Not permitted:

Given the nature of the environmental debate, and the current state of the market, farmers or processors using the following practices would not be eligible for LFP certification, even if they met all point requirements in other areas:

Farmers:
- planting GE seeds or transplants on lands designed for LFP certification, or on fields sufficiently adjacent to those lands that significant contamination is unavoidable
- feeding animals with feed of GE plants or derived from GE plants (for meat production, LFP does not normally require that mothers be fed GMO-free fed and usually focuses on the animal designed for slaughter, post-weaning)
- rearing GE animals (though none are currently permitted for commercialization)

Processors:
- processing GE crops and animal products

Permitted:

Farmers:
- GE-derived veterinary biologicals from industrial processes, provided they are applied in a manner consistent with LFP minimum standards
- GE-derived pheromones from industrial processes for insect monitoring, provided they are used in a manner consistent with LFP minimum standards
- Exceptional circumstances related to animal feed (e.g., inadvertent contamination in the mill)

Processors:
- GE-derived processing aids developed in closed industrial systems

Inspection processes related to GMOs

Inspectors examine records to determine whether the GMO policy is being followed. In some cases, affidavits are required, attesting to compliance with the policy. LFP does not normally require testing for the absence of GMOs, unless unusual circumstances so require.