Debate surrounding the impacts and benefits of genetically modified crops has intensified in recent months.No one knows that more than Alex Atamanenko, MP and New Democrat agriculture critic whose controversial private member’s bill, Bill C- 474, has galvanized many agricultural stakeholders into two distinct camps – those who support the commercialization of GM crops and those who oppose it.Beginning next week, Atamanenko’s bill will be before the House of Commons agriculture committee, giving supporters and detractors a chance to weigh in on the topic.If the committee passes it, the bill will go back to Parliament for a vote on whether it should become law.Atamanenko acknowledges his bill has generated anxiety among bioscience companies and supporters of GM crops.But he claims the bill was not intended to stifle biotechnology, hinder research and development, dissuade investment by life science companies or protect the world from transgenic crops.Atamanenko said the simple intent is to protect Canadian farmers from unnecessary economic losses and to ensure that export markets for Canadian grown commodities are not disrupted.”If there are no markets for the crops that Canada’s farmers produce, then there’s no use (in farmers) going into that production,” said Atamanenko.”Not long ago, we found out with flax what can happen when an unapproved GM flax variety, Triffid, shows up in flax shipments that are destined for overseas markets.”The effects were devastating on farmers.”We have to take the steps we can to protect our farmers and I think this (bill) is a major step in that direction,” he said.Whether they support the bill or not, few people in Canadian agriculture would deny that it has spurred an impassioned and complex debate over the pros and cons of transgenic crops.The introduction of GM crops in Canada has never been without controversy but recent events, including the contamination of Canadian flax exports and an ongoing legal battle in the United States over the commercialization of GM alfalfa, have added fuel to the fire.To Atamanenko, passing a law that protects Canadian farmers from potential market harm seems like a logical step.In a nutshell, his bill proposes that no GM crop variety would be registered for commercial production in Canada until its potential market impact has been analyzed and deemed acceptable.But while some view Bill C-474 as necessary and overdue, others say its passage would have a devastating effect on farm incomes, research and development budgets and the direction of Canadian agriculture.Dave Sippell, president of the Canadian Seed Trade Association, said protecting domestic and foreign markets is a laudable goal.However, a new law that could thwart investment by biotechnology companies is not the best way to protect markets.Sippell believes a better approach is to encourage industry self-regulation and adoption of international standards that permit the accidental presence of low levels of genetically modified material in bulk exports.In the case of Triffid flax, for example, a tolerance of 0.1 percent GM contamination would have precluded trade disruptions.Instead, European authorities adhered to a tolerance of 0.01 percent that could not be met and the Canadian flax industry, including farmers, lost tens of millions of dollars.Sippell said industry groups that support transgenic crop development have already implemented voluntary programs that assess market impact and ensure that GM products will be accepted in key foreign markets.He pointed to Crop Life Canada’s market analysis principle and the Canola Council of Canada’s export ready program as successful examples of self regulation.”All of these programs relate to industry self monitoring and working together to ensure we get the appropriate sign offs before (we sell GM products) into these marketplaces,” he said.The CSTA has also lobbied aggressively for international standards that establish realistic and acceptable tolerance thresholds for the unintended presence of GM material.”We do see this (low level presence of GM material) as a big issue for the industry,” Sippell said.”But we don’t see this issue as being related to Bill C- 474. We don’t need a bill like C- 474…. What we need, in fact, is low level presence regulations.”To Sippell and the CSTA, the passage of C -474 would be a pivotal event that could have costly and lasting consequences for Canadian agriculture.It would also signal Canada’s willingness to submit to the political whims of other countries. Given that Canada’s market generally welcomes GM crops, foreign restrictions would present market challenges for new Canadian varieties.”Why should we, as one of the world’s innovators in agriculture, put our future in the hands of other countries’ politicians?” Sippell asked.Agricultural innovation and biotechnology give Canadian farmers a competitive edge, he said.”We don’t have a lot of subsidies on our products. We don’t have a farm bill and we don’t have the European subsidy program.”What we have had are innovations from biotechnology. And one of the reasons we’ve been able to stay productive and competitive is because we’ve been innovative and because we’ve had increased profits at the farm level, especially in crops like soybeans, corn and canola.”From Atamanenko’s perspective, developers of GM crops are putting the cart before the horse.”Why develop a GM strain of a crop if there’s no market for it,” he said.”Why not channel those efforts into doing more traditional breeding where there is a market?”
Read Also
Farming Smarter receives financial boost from Alberta government for potato research
Farming Smarter near Lethbridge got a boost to its research equipment, thanks to the Alberta government’s increase in funding for research associations.
