GMO labelling
Re: “Labelling Definitions Cause Delay”, August 9.
Like the Consumers’ Association of Canada, many farmers believe that the definition of genetic modification (GM) already in place through Canada’s Novel Foods Regulations provides a sound basis for labelling standards for genetically modified (GM) foods.
Whenever a food crop is modified to exhibit new traits, and however that modification is accomplished – whether through recombinant DNA technologies, accelerated mutagenesis, wide crosses, or other techniques – Canadian law requires that it must undergo assessments to ensure its safety for human and animal health and for the environment before it can be grown in Canada or used in foods marketed here. Although many other countries have less rigorous rules, Canada’s approach is strongly endorsed by such groups as the U.S. National Research Council, the American Medical Association, FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization of the United Nations and OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). Scientific evidence supports the belief that it is not the technique through which a plant is genetically modified, but rather the nature of the modification itself that poses potential risk, and hence triggers the need for assessment.
Read Also
Kochia has become a significant problem for Prairie farmers
As you travel through southern Saskatchewan and Alberta, particularly in areas challenged by dry growing conditions, the magnitude of the kochia problem is easy to see.
It is difficult to understand why some groups would favour a partial labelling regime, wherein foods genetically modified through some techniques would be considered GM, while foods genetically modified through other techniques would be considered non-GM. Such an approach is not only at odds with Canada’s current regulatory process, it also ignores consumer preference. In surveys conducted both by Ontario Agri-Food Technologies and by the Consumers’ Association of Canada, consumers who expressed concerns about genetically modified foods were just as concerned about changes to food crops altered through other techniques as they were with those made through the application of r-DNA technologies.
Since the purpose of the voluntary labelling standard is to provide clear and meaningful information to enhance consumer choice in the marketplace, the goal of the labelling committee should be to develop a standard that meets consumer information needs.
– Jim Fischer, Chair,
AGCare (Agricultural Groups Concerned about Resources and the Environment),
Walkerton, Ont.
Why problems?
In response to the article titled “City folk down on farm”, printed in the July 30 edition of the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, I am not surprised at the negative outcome of survey results that were conducted for Federal Ag Minister Lyle Vanclief’s department earlier this year when farmers were blocking railways with straw bails, burning effigies of Vanclief and creating roadblocks. Perhaps the survey should be revisited now that the public has seen the drought conditions on many farms, which has created even more hardship without adequate compensation. How can farmers continue to supply food to consumers and spin-off jobs in cities, while remaining the only sector not profiting from its activities?
Vanclief quoted important safety nets as being crop insurance and Net Income Stabilization (Accounts). If he means Saskatchewan crop insurance, which is absolutely inadequate, or the CFIF (aka AIDA) program, which assists farmers a whole year after a major decline in income occurs, then we’re in trouble. If farmers could see real value in crop insurance, enrolment would be higher than 63 percent. It is interesting that the government always makes a point of telling reporters about the millions they are spending on the Canadian farmers, but neglects to mention the complexities and shortcomings of the safety net programs. These are the details that are being missed by urbanites. Farmers are being placed in the middle of the government and the city population.
Why do we only see this problem with grain and not other commodities? The potash industry, forestry and mining do not appear to be suffering the same fate as farmers. Perhaps it is because they have less government regulation. One of the areas where this is plainly evident is in transportation. In fact, the Canadian Transportation Act Review Panel recently concluded “The current crisis in the grain industry results in part from failure to move quickly enough to a system where commercial forces are allowed to work.” To correct this problem, it recommended that grain be treated like any other commodity, and for “the grain system to move to a more commercial basis”.
Farmers do not want to rely on government programs and taxpayers. It has been shown that moving to a commercial system, like those that work for other commodities, will generate $200 to $300 million in savings. This would be one way of putting more money into farmer’s pockets without any additional cost to the government or the taxpayer.
– Rob McGregor,
Foam Lake, Sask.
Help others
It is fortunate for some to have a decent crop in the field this year with rising prices but unfortunately at the expense of others be it Canada or farther afield. In our area, we have had considerable moisture, a little late perhaps but hopeful now that we can fill our bins with a marketable product. If the farmers that get a good harvest could give into a fund to help others struggling in other areas on a voluntary basis perhaps – just perhaps we could ease the apathy and despair and we could ALL at least stay in business with government props. But perhaps I am looking at too perfect a world.
What does hurt for me is that some of the businesses that supported and put their sales decal on my combine have since ceased operation and a couple of farmers I know of who climbed aboard and shook my hand have since taken their lives. When you have witnessed first-hand, you understand.
– Nick Parsons,
Farmington, B.C.
ILO responsibility
This letter is in response to Alberta Agriculture Minister Shirley McClellan’s announcement the province is taking over the siting of Intensive Livestock Operations (ILO) and removing this from municipal control. She has stated that this is a result of the review done by the committee headed by MLA Albert Klapstein. After reviewing the summary of the presentations made to the committee, it is obvious that the recommendations made were on the most part ignored. Agriculture Minister Shirley McClellan made the comment that under the new system, just because the people of an area do not want an operation built in that area will not be a good enough reason to stop it.
Our fathers and grandfathers fought two world wars to protect our democratic system, which as far as I know means that the majority rules. When the majority makes its feelings known, that is what should be done. It seems that our provincial government has lost sight of this, and appears to be going to dictate to the rural residents and property owners where these unpopular developments will be built.
Ms. McClellan stated that putting ILOs in the hands of the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) would make agriculture as important as other major industries in the province, mainly oil, gas and forestry industries. The major difference, (is that) the agriculture industry is privately owned. The crown owns the oil, gas and forestry on the most part. Oil and gas that are privately owned are controlled by whoever owns the mineral rights and they decide whether they are developed or not and the government has no say. The same holds true for logging on private land.
If the regulation and approval is to be done by the NRCB, hopefully this will be completely separated from Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development (AAFRD). This provincial body has proven itself to be very biased when it comes to ILO developments. Some staff members are unqualified to do a proper technical assessment. So between unqualified and bias these people have not provided municipalities with proper information to make decisions. The bias of AAFRD was raised by many of the presenters to the Klapstein Committee.
Ms. McClellan has stated that there will be one set of standards for the whole province that will replace the “patchwork” of bylaws across the province. This “patchwork” of bylaws is in place because there are different
hings that raise concerns in different areas and something that is of concern in one place will be of no concern somewhere else. So the one shoe fits all approach will not work all across the province.
Our provincial government should open its eyes and see the problems that have happened in other parts of Canada, the United States, and several European countries where large ILOs have been developed. These problems are real, well documented and will happen here if the government continues its push to increase the number of large scale ILOs that are not proven to be sustainable on the long term.
Several European countries have realized that an excess of ILOs is a mistake and are, out of necessity reducing livestock numbers.
Our provincial government is only seeing the dollars and cents of economic development and not giving any thought to environmental costs, social costs and the health costs that will come with the massive increase in ILOs.
– Malcolm McIlroy,
Red Deer, Alta.
Be on par
Just a note to ask why we have an agriculture minister who was not successful in his own farming venture representing agriculture in the federal government … does this not seem to be a bit ridiculous to have someone who failed at farming telling farmers today how to be successful? This move by the government of the day has done nothing but make me believe that voting in this country for a federal government is meaningless and a waste of time when voters in the East elect the government and then the government chooses representatives such as this.
My belief is that western farming interests should quit paying taxes to the federal government and there should be a movement within the western provinces to leave Canada and go it on our own as we have seen first-hand now for years that an eastern-based government has no interest in the welfare of Western Canada except to tax us so that eastern politicians can live in the lifestyle they want and think they deserve more than people in theWest.
The minister was one of the politicians at the trough when they voted themselves a raise stating that they were worth it … does that mean we are not?
We in Western Canada are supposed to rely on programs that are intended to only bring our incomes to an 80 percent level of our average incomes … Why cannot the politicians rely on their own self-made perks that they give themselves or send their wives to work or get second jobs themselves as we farmers have to do because the best we can get from the government is for them to say that we should be satisfied with having only 80 percent of our average income when our prices go in the toilet or our cost of living rises disproportionately from our take-home pay?
I think we in the farming community, as well as all other farm-related entities should demand that we at least should be on a par with the way government looks after themselves and if they will not see that then we should refuse to pay taxes and leave confederation as it is no longer working for us but only against us.
– Gordon McDonald,
Rosetown, Sask.
Move on
I used to be a farmer but I couldn’t make a living so I left the farm. Why is the government – I mean me – responsible for bailing the farmers out all the time? I now am in computers and the U.S. rival is producing their product in Mexico cheaper. I might have to close. Oh wait maybe the government will bail me out. Not!
I farmed in southern Alberta for 15 years and you could not grow anything without irrigation, yet every year the dry land farmers there say it is dry and they need a subsidy. You know what a desert is? Dry. Don’t try and grow anything. Why can’t they get it?
You should look back 20 years in your archives, same argument.
– Kelly Carson,
Calgary, Alta.
