Flax growers oppose market impact assessment

Manitoba flax grower Eric Fridfinnson anticipates a good start to the 2010 growing season.After a few years of excessive moisture, things are drier in Manitoba’s Interlake region and spring planting is progressing nicely on his farm near Arborg, Man.“We had a few pretty wet years here but things are looking very good this spring,” said Fridfinnson, who grows a variety of crops, in-cluding cereals, flax, alfalfa seed and grass seed.Like many Western Canadian farmers, Fridfinnson is paying close attention to Bill C-474, a private member’s bill proposing that the registration process for new genetically modified crop varieties include an economic review assessing the potential to cause market harm.In a nutshell, a new GM variety could be denied registration if it has the potential to reduce prices or restrict access to domestic or foreign markets.The bill, proposed by the federal New Democratic Party’s agriculture critic Alex Atamanenko, has passed second reading and is set to go to the House of Commons agriculture committee for hearings next week.The proposed law has created a stir among farmers and biotechnology companiesthat develop and commercialize new crop varieties.If the bill emerges from committee and is passed by Parliament, it could present a significant hurdle to corporate and public plant breeders of genetically modified crops.Last year, Fridfinnson and other flax growers learned first hand how registration of GM crops can damage Canada’s export markets.The discovery of the GM flax variety Triffid in commercial flax supplies turned the Canadian flax industry on its ear.Flax exports to the European Union were disrupted and Canadian seed growers were forced to conduct a costly genetic analysis of all pedigreed flax seed supplies in the country. Commercial growers also had to have their flax tested.As an alfalfa seed grower, Fridfinnson would be affected by the possible commercial release of GM Roundup Ready alfalfa, which could affect his markets.He does not support Bill C-474 in its current format.Last week, in his role as president of the Manitoba Flax Growers Association, he issued a news release saying the MFGA could not support Atamanenko’s bill.“We (MFGA members) see a lack of clarity about who would assess and decide on the issue of market harm,” the new release stated.“Manitoba flax growers are (also) concerned that this legislation, in its present form, could be used to offer frivolous challenges that could stall or block the introduction of new technology that is desirable.”In an interview, Fridfinnson said the issue of GM contamination and potential market harm has been difficult to assess, especially given that low level contamination has cost the Canadian flax industry millions of dollars.“We certainly appreciate that MPs are paying close attention to this issue because it is really important to ensure that we have responsible introduction of new technologies,” Fridfinnson said.“Our concern is that … we have to make sure we have access to the modern technology that’s out there and we have to make sure that any bill we put forward doesn’t unnecessarily exclude us.“We would certainly be willing to look at an improved 474 or other legislation that would ensure the responsible introduction of new technology,” he said.“It’s just that we felt 474, as it is now, may create more problems than it solves.”Fridfinnson said drafting an official position on Bill C-474 was a challenge for the MFGA, given what happened to the Canadian flax industry during the past 12 months.“It was really difficult to come up with a position on this … and I’m sure that not all (flax) producers will be completely satisfied with our position,” he said.With the potential commercial release of GM alfalfa looming, the need for industry consultation with all stakeholders has never been more critical, he added.“As an alfalfa seed producer, I’m very concerned about it (the possible commercialization of GM alfalfa),” he said.“I think the way that Monsanto has conducted itself through this alfalfa seed issue … really hasn’t helped producers gain confidence in technology providers. And I think that’s a shame because most technology providers are responsible and want to provide products that the market wants and is ready for.”