Plant breeders must consider the ultimate customer
There was a chill in the air in plant research labs last week as the world of science bumped into the realities of global markets. The implications should have scientists and farmers reexamining the research and development path of their crops.
That’s because the method of plant development can have as much influence on where and how a grain or oilseed is marketed, as does its nutritional value.
The most recent issue is over CDC Triffid, a genetically modified, herbicide-resistant flax variety developed by Crop Development Centre scientist Alan McHughen.
Read Also
USDA’s August corn yield estimates are bearish
The yield estimates for wheat and soybeans were neutral to bullish, but these were largely a sideshow when compared with corn.
Triffid was registered a few years ago when getting European approval for GM crops was slow but still possible. Since then, the rules have tightened into a de facto European ban.
The Canadian flax industry monitored these developments, even though almost all flax is used to make products such as linoleum, not food. Eventually, given that most Canadian flax is sold to Europe, the industry agreed not to commercially grow Triffid.
It was a good decision. European attitudes against GM crops have steadily worsened.
The most recent example was the furore over production in Europe of Canadian canola seed with minute quantities of GM contamination.
So, when flax growers here found out that McHughen was giving away small samples of Triffid seed, they wanted him to stop.
They recognized that while there is no proven health or environmental risk, in marketing, perception is reality. Even the hint of possible genetic contamination could close the European market.
But a question naturally follows: Should any genetic research be conducted on crops that have a big market in Europe?
Taken to the extreme, as the critics of GM foods usually do, even small research plots of gene-altered experimental crops are a “danger” to the environment.
On the other hand, genetic research might hold the key to providing flax farmers with disease and stress-resistant varieties that would lessen their production risk. Also, gene manipulation might create varieties that produce desirable new oils and even pharmaceutical products.
There is no easy answer. But so far, the flax industry has shown it can control what it produces to meet the needs of its most important customer.
It should feel confident enough to encourage scientists to push into unexplored regions, but allow only that which is consumer-acceptable to make its way to the commercial system.
