Wanted: Pattern for a boy and girl doll lawn ornament, covered by using plastic tablecloths, shower curtains, etc. and the assembly. Will pay for pattern. – Norma Staniec, Box 307, Humboldt, Sask. S0K 2A0, 306-365-4741.
Wanted: Short comical plays for concerts. Please send to: Mr. Holfeld, Box 8, Main Centre, Sask. S0H 2V0.
CWB obligated to speak on GMOs: Arason
By Adrian Ewins
Saskatoon newsroom
news
The Canadian Wheat Board has a duty to speak out on the issue of genetically modified wheat, says the board’s chief executive officer.
Read Also
Ag in Motion speaker highlights need for biosecurity on cattle operations
Ag in Motion highlights need for biosecurity on cattle farms. Government of Saskatchewan provides checklist on what you can do to make your cattle operation more biosecure.
“It would be irresponsible for us not to pass on strong concerns we hear from customers,” Greg Arason said in an interview.
Arason was responding to criticism from the Western Barley Growers Association, which says the board should keep its opinions about GM wheat to itself.
“As long as the CWB holds a monopoly in the selling of prairie farmers’ wheat and barely, it has a responsibility to remain above the debate,” said association president Albert Wagner.
Wagner made the comment in a letter to Arason and CWB chair Ken Ritter in which the barley growers declined an invitation to attend an industry meeting on GM wheat sponsored by the board.
The Sept. 24 meeting brought together representatives from 21 farm and grain industry groups to talk about how the industry should deal with the potential introduction of GM wheat into the marketplace.
In turning down the board’s invitation, Wagner said the selling agency must remain neutral to prevent uncertainty in the marketplace about Canada’s ability to deliver the type and quality of grain that customers have purchased.
Arason said the barley growers’ position makes no sense.
“That a marketer should not raise concerns about market acceptance? I find that astounding,” he said.
The barley growers are also unhappy that the board joined a coalition of farm, consumer and environmental groups in July to urge the federal government not to approve GM wheat.
Wagner said it’s contradictory for the board to participate in that effort, and then organize a meeting to talk about how to introduce GM wheat into the marketplace.
However Arason said the meeting is totally consistent with everything the board has said and done on the GM issue.
“We’ve never said no to GMO,” he said.
The wheat board’s position is that genetically modified wheat or barley should not be grown unless it is broadly accepted by customers, or until a system is devised to segregate it throughout the production, handling and transportation system so customers who don’t want it can be assured they won’t get it.
Arason said the Sept. 24 meeting was intended to talk about developing a “managed approach” to genetic modification that respects customer demands.
He defended the board’s role in the July coalition, saying the agency brought a marketers’ perspective to the group, and only participated after consulting with a number of farm groups.
Meanwhile, a number of developments last week highlighted the problems faced by exporters selling genetically modified foods into world markets.
Zimbabwe warned food importers against bringing GM food into the country without permission of the state biosafety board. And the Japanese ministry of health and welfare asked for more government funds to improve its monitoring of unapproved GM traits in food imports.
Patty Rosher, who is co-ordinating the board’s policies on GM wheat, said the Sept. 24 meeting was designed to assess suggestions on how to handle the introduction of genetically modified varieties. Those suggestions include:
- No new variety would be released for production until it is clear there is customer acceptance, as defined by the marketer, of the crop in question. That raises the potentially difficult questioner of who is the marketer.
- If stakeholders in a particular industry decided they didn’t want a genetically modified variety to be released, they should try to convince the developer of the variety to withhold it from the market. Critics say that only works if the developer wants to co-operate.
- Let individual farmers decide whether to grow genetically modified crops based on market signals. Proponents of this approach say if customers don’t want to buy it, that will be reflected in the price and farmers won’t grow it. Critics say that wouldn’t provide enough assurance to customers, many of whom are demanding zero tolerance for GM traits.
- An industry committee would conduct a formal cost-benefit analysis, taking into account customer acceptance and salability. The federal government would use that, along with agronomic and quality data, to decide whether to release the new variety.
