|
|
 
|
Canadian farmers fight transgenic wheat (Tuesday, April 15, 2003 -- CropChoice news) -- The Times-Herald via Agnet:
Dick Proctor writes that there is a hot debate regarding genetically
modified wheat on Parliament Hill, and it will have a big impact on
thousands of prairie farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board says that more than
80 per cent of its foreign customers have indicated that they won't buy any
genetically modified variety of wheat. If Canada decides to license and grow
it, those customers may well go elsewhere for their product.
Proctor says that the debate over health and environment will continue, but
for now many of our customers, especially in Europe and Japan, have said
they have no intention of buying flour and other products made from GM
wheat.
Unfortunately, this has not stopped Monsanto from seeking regulatory
approval to
introduce GM wheat in Canada. The company is seeking approval from the
government, and it could come as early as 2004.
Proctor goes on to say that he recently met with Agriculture department
officials and was told that the government's process for licensing GM wheat
is based only on science, and would probably not include any market impact
study on how the product might affect wheat exports.
Proctor concludes that many farmers as well as the people who buy Canadian
wheat don't want it. Canada's wheat markets are of utmost importance, both
to farmers and to the broader economy, and they must be preserved and
protected.
RIFT FORMS OVER MODIFIED WHEAT
Roberts says that sound science has always been a benchmark for approval in
Canada, which has among the world's strictest and most thorough standards.
Canadian approval was a badge for companies who successfully negotiated the
system; they could point to the regulatory process and brag about meeting
its demands. On the flip side, non-acceptance was a pariah. If Canada
rejected it, there must be something not right about it.
But opponents of GM wheat say that if society -- not scientists and
bureaucrats -- says no thanks to the product, that in itself constitutes
something not being right. They say Ottawa shouldn't bend to corporate
interests who promote such technologies just to make big bucks, whether the
public is comfortable with them or not. Survey upon survey shows the public
mainly wants safe food, and that biotechnology is not a major factor with
them. So rightly or wrongly, the acid test usually lies with farmers -- if
they won't use the products of biotechnology, we won't be eating them. They
have a choice; there are many, many varieties of soybeans and corn for sale
that have descended from conventional breeding. But so far, at least when it
comes to genetically modified soybeans and corn, farmers support
biotechnology because it works.
Roberts says that the Grain Growers of Canada issued a news release last
week that was contrary to the wheat board's position. They said it would be
a mistake for Canada to move away from science-based regulation for
genetically modified plants.
"Some organizations have called for new legislation or regulations that
would incorporate non-scientific factors, such as market acceptance, into
Canada's regulatory approval process for the licensing of new plant
varieties that are products of genetic technology," said president Ken Bee.
"Bowing to this pressure would be an error." He acknowledges concerns about
negative market impacts need to addressed, but he believes they should be
dealt with on a voluntary basis by industry, and not through government
regulations or legislation.
Roberts says people trust farmers, and when farmers take matters into their
own hands, the public may be supportive. In fact, it already has been --
domestically, there's some dissension, but not great wails of public protest
against genetically enhanced soybeans or corn. In the case of Roundup Ready
wheat, though, it's corporate interests, not farmers, that are perceived as
driving the technology. And for that, it's much harder to find public
support.
Any company bringing forward new technology needs to engage the public in a
thorough discussion before introducing it, or be prepared for mistrust. | |
