Irresponsible view
Your editorial, “Ag has obligations to explore options” (Oct. 11) unfortunately falls for the perennial promises of the biotech industry, promises that have been repeated ad nauseam since Canada first launched its national biotechnology strategy in 1981.
The ills of the world are pressing indeed. But it would be wise to question the offering of a technological fix as a ‘solution’ to climate change, peak oil or malnutrition.
You make bold claims, but it is hard to see how biotechnology is going to contribute to carbon sequestration or environmentally sound agrofuel production through genetic engineering of crops. There is already scientific evidence that transgenic canola processed into biodiesel is harder on the environment than regular diesel and the promise of carbon sequestration would appear to be little more than a sales campaign.
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?
The only ethanol that appears to be viably produced without massive subsidies is from sugar cane in a geography like that of Brazil, but there its production is dependent on virtual slave labour and is accompanied by the destruction of small farms and the rainforest. Cellulosic agrofuels are years, if not decades, away from actual production, regardless of their promoters’ hype.
While there have been promises and more promises for improved nutrition through genetic engineering, it is now evident that the industrial production of food crops, genetically engineered or not, has led to diminishing nutritional value.
As for feeding the hungry, it is obvious that biotechnology is not the answer. There is enough food produced today to feed everyone. The problem is political and economic, a matter of equitable distribution….
You cite the figures published by International Service for the Acquisition of Agribiotechnology Application (ISAAA), which was established years ago as a lobby for the biotech industry and has never deviated from that function. The ISAAA figures are intended to be “staggering” – that is the job of propaganda – but they are equally misleading. Resistance to genetic engineering is increasing, and the biotech pushers know that. Resistance to the insidious government-backed GE-colonization of Africa is growing rapidly, particularly in West Africa. Resistance to GE is also growing in India.
The advance of GE soy production in Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay is due, not to the eagerness of farmers to plant it, but to the ruthless expansion of massive industrial production and the virtual elimination of small farmers who actually grow food for people, including their own families and communities, not animal and automobile feed.
You ask, “Does agriculture owe it to the world and to future generations to explore responsible use of biotechnology?” Yes indeed. But aggressive promotion of biotechnology, the refusal to label GE foods, the incessant promises of benefits that continually recede over the horizon is not responsible. It is irresponsible, as is your editorial. Both farmers and the public deserve better.
– Brewster Kneen,
Ram’s Horn newsletter
Ottawa, Ont.
Colleen Ross,
National Farmers Union,
Iroquois, Ont.
– Lucy Sharratt,
Canadian Biotechnology Action Network,
Ottawa, Ont.
Stewardship
Mischa Popoff is off base claiming “many organic farmers don’t want GM labelling of regular food,” because it gives their GMO-free organic production a marketing edge (“Market will decide upon GMOs,” Sept. 27.)
Such a narrow, short-sighted rationale for accepting genetically modified organisms in any part of the food supply runs counter to the philosophy of the large number of organic farmers supporting the Saskatchewan organic farmer’s class action lawsuit against Monsanto and Bayer for damages done by GMO contamination of organic crops.
If the tool of mandatory labelling is not available to consumers of conventionally grown food, the resulting increased use of GMOs will lead to even more frequent and widespread GMO contamination events in organic crops. This threatens everyone’s ability to choose what they eat.
Mr. Popoff also appears to have swallowed the discredited biotech industry propaganda that without GMO crops “we’ll eventually clear all the earth’s forests to create enough farmland to feed everyone.”
On the contrary, a recent United Nations study, Organic Agriculture and Food Security, indicates organic agriculture has the potential to feed the world.
Supporters of the lawsuit against the biotech companies are not willing to follow an unthinking “let the market decide” ideological approach to GMO regulation. Instead, the responsibilities of citizens in a civil society require our engagement in conscious stewardship.
– Arnold Taylor,
SOD – Organic Agriculture Protection Fund Committee,
Kenaston, Sask.
New wave
Wal-Mart’s decision to add free-range pork and organic beef to some of its Alberta stores is a good indication that consumers really are asking for higher welfare products (Wal-Mart goes shopping at local meat firms, WP, Sept 20).
As Bob Dylan put it, the times they are a changin’ and agriculture in Canada must keep up.
Whether or not you agree with animal protection groups from around the world that giving animals more space and more natural conditions is a positive, much needed move, no one can deny the fact that the market is changing, and keeping the status quo – intensive confinement – simply means you will have further to scramble when the market forces change on everyone in the very near future.
Like many, I find myself wondering why anyone would be putting more cages in layer barns, building more crates for sows or creating more stalls for veal calves.
Get ahead of the wave, because it’s coming, if it’s not here already.
You’ll fare much better if you ride it rather than getting swept under.
– Bruce Passmore,
Farm Animal Welfare Project Co-ordinator,
Vancouver Humane Society,
Vancouver, B.C.
Biofuel plan
Re: WP, page 57 (Oct. 11 Reuters story. ) Farmers around the world are harnessing the potential of biofuel development and our new government is proud to help Canadian farmers lead the way.
Biofuel development is creating productive new markets for the crops our farmers grow and it’s creating new jobs for our rural communities.
And all of this is great news for the environment as biofuels provide a cleaner-burning, renewable energy source.
A recent Western Producer article questions the environmental benefits of biofuels. I’d like to address those concerns.
This government has done extensive research that demonstrates biofuel production and use produces fewer emissions than conventional fuels.
The fact is that biofuels are a win-win for Canada. They’re good for Canadian farm families and they’re good for our environment.
That’s why our government has worked hard to deliver real action on biofuels.
We’re mandating five percent ethanol in gasoline and two percent biodiesel in diesel. This is a positive step that will help us reach our goal to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020 … while also creating jobs and a market for producers.
This government is going further by offering incentives to get biofuel plants up and running. And we’re tailoring those incentives to make sure farmers themselves can get involved.
Our government delivered real action on these initiatives just last week when I announced more than $5 million in funding for an ethanol plant in Unity, Sask. It’s a great project with over 300 farmers investing more than $12 million. Farmers across Canada are going to benefit from opportunities like the one in Unity.
That’s the present for biofuels and this government is already looking to the future. We’re investing $500 million in the NextGen Biofuel Fund to jumpstart development of the next generation of renewable fuels.
This cutting-edge research has the potential to turn waste products such as wheat straw and wood chips into cleaner-burning, renewable fuels….
– Gerry Ritz,
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board,
Ottawa, Ont.
