The Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada is outraged about comments made by a former organic inspector.
The centre recently received $8 million from the federal government to fund the Organic Science Cluster II, an industry-supported research and development initiative.
That drew the ire of Mischa Popoff, a former organic inspector, policy adviser for The Heartland Institute and a research associate with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
“The lion’s share of this ($8) million subsidy will be funneled into political activism against the science of genetic engineering,” Popoff said in a news release.
Read Also
Alberta crop diversification centres receive funding
$5.2 million of provincial funding pumped into crop diversity research centres
OACC director Andy Hammermeister said that accusation is false and a disservice to the researchers who will receive the funds.
“It’s an absolutely ridiculous statement from someone who is completely out of touch with what this whole science program is all about,” he said.
“There is absolutely no activism that is part of this science cluster.”
The 37 approved projects involve 170 collaborating researchers at 36 Canadian institutions. Most of them are working on programs that are not exclusive to organic agriculture.
It is not a club of “organic idealists,” said Hammermeister.
None of the approved projects have anything to do with anti-GM0 activism, he added.
Popoff acknowledged that he has no direct proof the government money will be used to fund anti-GMO propaganda, but he believes it will free up other funding that will be spent on that cause.
“Just to be clear, I don’t know exactly how they spend their money. I am comfortable in the fact I don’t need to know how they spend their money,” he said.
“If they are anti-GMO in any way, even if it is just in passing on their website, they shouldn’t be getting this public money.”
Hammermeister said that is not the case for the OACC, which is spearheading the Organic Science Cluster II initiative.
“I would challenge him to find any statement that our centre has produced and any statement that I have produced that takes an advocacy or activism position against GMOs,” he said. We’ve never engaged in that debate,” he said.
Hammermeister said Popoff has had nothing good to say about the organic sector for a decade. He said it stems back to the organic community’s reluctance to embrace testing, which is a business Popoff attempted to launch in Canada.
“He has got a bone to pick and he’s not letting it go. In this case, his comments are completely irrelevant.”
Popoff said it is sad that none of the government money will be spent on testing organic crops to see if they are genuine, which is what is done in the United States.
He believes the money directed toward research will be misspent because the organic community re-jects biotechnology.
“What organic farming has become because of an ideological, political agenda is like a throwback, a time machine in terms of agricultural research,” said Popoff.
“There’s nothing to research. It would be like researching a better form of the coal oil lamp or a better form of the crosscut saw.”
Hammermeister said there are numerous examples of leading-edge research within the 37 approved proposals. He believes it is wrong to rely on one technology, especially when there are market risks associated with that technology.
“Why would you not try and pursue more ecologically efficient and safer pesticides and production systems? And why would you not pursue a diversity of production systems?” he said.
Popoff said organic agriculture is too focused on attacking conventional agriculture.
“They’re all about trying to get you to abandon perfectly safe and nutritious foods for allegedly more nutritious, more safe foods, and there’s just no basis to it at all,” he said.
