Protecting seeds farmers’ No. 1 job
Ancient wisdom holds that actions taken today must consider how they are likely to play out seven generations into the future. This wisdom is largely neglected in our decision making when we consider the implications of altering the genetic structure of a seed, a consideration absent from the Western Producer editorial of March 7.
The editorial opens with the line, “public opposition to gene editing appears to be fading into the sunset, and not a moment to soon”. It then goes on to discuss how the public is likely to accept gene edited crops and the underlying technology because it has beneficial application for public health, concluding that the “challenge is to make sure these new and vital crop breeding technologies are as relevant to consumers as they are to producers.”
Read Also
Determining tariff compensation will be difficult but necessary
Prime minister Mark Carney says his government will support canola farmers, yet estimating the loss and paying compensation in an equitable fashion will be no easy task, but it can be done.
Nowhere in the article is there any consideration for what a seed’s needs might be, and a seed for me represents everything that life is.
We are at best two generations into this novel way of redesigning a seed’s internal structure to meet our perceived needs, and already we are seeing consequences.
The introduction of GMO seeds has been instrumental in the emergence of super weeds, as billions of pounds of glyphosate have been sprayed upon the landscape, a deadly poison that has worked its way into the food chain.
Twenty-five years ago I was a chemical farmer, or conventional, as we like to call ourselves. One day, as I was hauling a load of chemical out to the field, I had an epiphany. I realized that as far as the plants growing in the field were concerned, I was Dr. Death.
It didn’t matter that some of the plants had been genetically altered so that they could survive the onslaught, it was my intention to destroy that caused me to re-evaluate my motivation.
My mission as a farmer was to grow good, healthy food, and here I was, the grim reaper, in pursuit of monetary reward. I became an organic farmer, which historically has always been the convention.
The WP article is correct in calling gene editing a technology, which is the application of scientific knowledge, which in this case is the ability to redesign a seed’s internal structure. This does not mean science understands the why’s and how’s of seeds’ existence, nor does it mean we understand how redesigning a seed to meet the needs of farmers and consumers is likely to play out in the long term.
There was a time when I believed that making money was part of my job description. I no longer believe that. I now see myself as having taken on the responsibility of caring for seeds in a manner that ensures their fecundity well into the future.
Wayne James,
Beausejour, Man.
Governments do take environmental action
I just read your recent article on page 3 of the March 21 issue entitled, Sask. RMs take tough stance on carbon dioxide, and would like to add my two cents to the conversation.
In the article, Al Magel, reeve of the RM of Last Mountain Valley, was quoted as saying, “Before that it was the ozone layer will be destroyed in 10 years. Before that, it was the ice age. Before that it was acid rain. What did we do about it? Nothing, and nothing happened.”
I appreciate you adding the statement, “stronger air pollution regulations have both reduced the impact of acid rain and allowed the hole in the ozone layer to begin to repair.”
Contrary to Mr. Magel’s comments, governments and industry certainly did do something.
The impact of acid rain was brought under control by the reduction of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions generated by power plants and other industrial and mining facilities. This was made possible through government regulations such as the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement of 1991.
The depletion of the ozone layer was fundamentally reversed by a worldwide ban on the production and use of chlorofluorohyrdocarbons via the Montreal Protocol in 1987 and subsequent government regulations in 1996 by 197 countries.
Regardless of where one falls on the issue of human-induced climate change, I think we would all be well-served to base our opinions on facts and avoid making misleading statements that are clearly untrue.
Blaine Morien,
Saskatoon
