The discovery and subsequent fallout from genetically modified flax entering Canada’s flax supply and export markets has raised concerns on several fronts.
First, grain companies are considering a policy under which they would buy only flax grown from certified seed.
It is a bad idea.
Three-quarters of Canada’s flax supply is grown from farm-saved seed. Depending on the source, the cost of switching those acres to certified seed ranges from $3.5 million to $15 million.
Farmers have the right to grow a crop from their own seed, provided it is not a patent protected variety. This right must be preserved.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Farm-saved seed is an important tool in controlling growers’ costs. Forcing them to purchase and plant only certified seed adds unnecessarily to their cost of production.
There are ways to test seed for presence of GM content without demanding certified seed use.
The tests enable farmers to have their seed checked before planting. It also enables grain companies to check flax upon delivery to elevators and enables others in the supply chain to ensure the purity of shipments.
A “certified seed only” policy raises questions about optics and conflict of interest. The grain companies that would insist on farmers using certified seed would also be among the biggest beneficiaries of increased certified seed sales.
There are broader implications. If grain companies are allowed to dictate a certified-only policy for flax, what about other crops? It appears to be a slippery slope.
On another front, the problems with GM flax create a cautionary tale for GM wheat.
Breeders proceeded with GM flax without a clear understanding of market acceptance.
It is folly to release a new GM crop and later determine whether the largest markets want it. The flax experience shows it is nearly impossible to eliminate a variety once it is released.
While wheat growers want what genetic modification can bring to wheat – higher yields, better weed and disease control, varieties suited to new uses – GM varieties should be introduced only if there is a guaranteed market.
The development of GM wheat must involve end users and there must be a parallel market development program.
While North American millers might accept GM wheat, it is likely that many important markets will not.
Canada will want to serve as many markets as possible so there must be a foolproof plan to keep GM and non-GM crops segregated.
Low levels of GM contamination have destroyed 80 percent of Canada’s flax market. It shows how failure to fully anticipate crop behaviour, farmers’ actions and trade reactions can have devastating implications.
Many consider the European decision to ban Canadian flax as overkill, given that the GM variety in question has passed all requirements for Canadian registration.
Nevertheless, the rules of trading partners must be followed. The EU has an extremely low tolerance level for GM material in flax at .01 percent, while the Canadian tolerance level is .1 percent. It may seem unreasonable but that is the standard to be met. However, there are indications of EU willingness to relax tolerance levels, which is encouraging for Canadian producers and marketers.
When it comes to flax, the proverbial GM genie is out of the bottle. It points the way toward the need for proper safeguards lest similar problems befall wheat and other GM crops.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
