Letters to the editor – February 13, 2014
LET’S MOVE FORWARD
Almost everyone these days uncritically accepts that the solution to antibiotic-resistant disease is to use fewer antibiotics. What about using more antibiotics? More varieties, that is.
When doctors found penicillin was losing its efficacy as our first line of defence against bacterial infections, the medical community didn’t throw up its hands and use less. New antibiotics were developed.
No, not stronger antibiotics. New varieties were developed that kept us ahead of the bacteria that ail us, humans and animals alike, to the point where doctors and veterinarians now have well in excess of 100 antibiotics to rely upon in fighting infection.
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?
But now, thanks to overregulation resulting from tax-funded lobbying by anti-antibiotic, naturopathic, homeopathic, sustainability and organic activists, pharmaceutical companies have largely abandoned the development of new antibiotics ….
There will always be those who believe we must go backwards so as to move forward. But we never stood still before. Why start now?
Let’s keep moving forward on antibiotics.
Mischa Popoff,
Greenville, Texas
OWNED AND CONTROLLED
Re: “Farmer-run wheat breeding considered” (WP Jan. 16).
Many grain farmers have become pawns and indentured to seed corporations. To be an independent farmer, free of dictates that control how they can plant, harvest and save seed, farmers must retain and regain ownership and control of their own seed. Those farmers who still have complete ownership of their seed have a valuable commodity indeed, as well as control, independence and freedom.
Grain handling, selling and shipping are the other essentials that farmers have to be diligent about and take control of or they will lose their ability to market freely.
Farmers’ rights to their own produce have been eroding through loss of control and ownership of their own produce by large conglomerates.
It has troubled me deeply to see how grain farmers were deluded into thinking seed developed by non-farmer-controlled (NFC) corporations was better than what they already had and owned. With NFC corporations, there are also the many controls and constraints attached to the purchase of that seed.
J. A. Clanter,
Stony Plain, Alta.
CHEMICAL BLENDS
Re: Article by Dan Yates quoting Hugh Beckie on glyphosate resistance.
I do not argue that heavy glyphosate encourages resistance, but I wanted to point out that in areas where half chem fallow, half crop is a way of life, the common chemical is/was Rustler, not pure glyphosate as was mentioned in the article. Rustler contains glyphosate and dicamba plus emulsifiers, etc. We sometimes add 2,4-D or HEAT to help with killing high iron plants like dandelion.
I have heard rumours that Monsanto has ceased producing Rustler, leaving us to make our own blends without the aid of the supporting chemicals.
Paul Heglund,
Consul, Sask.
MOVING ON
I never intended to weigh in on the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly.
Both sides of that argument have been discussed ad nauseam and it’s time to move on.
I was, however, more than a little concerned by some of the remarks from some of the newly elected board of the recently formed Saskatchewan Wheat Development Commission. When they equate loss of single desk with diminishing farmer influence, I’m a little confused.
Control and influence are not words that one normally associates with a monopoly.
Hopefully, the new organization will be able to move ahead, without being hamstrung by a certain ideological agenda, to serve the best interests of the industry and its stakeholders.
Joe Kleinsasser,
Rosetown, Sask.
SHAME ON RITZ
Two young women who lived on the same farm and who both had an idea for milking cows came to King Gerry Ritz for a judgment.
One of the women claimed that the other, after realizing her idea was stupid, had exchanged the two ideas to make it appear that the better milking idea was hers. The other woman denied this and so both women claimed to be the inventor of the better milking idea.
After some deliberation, King Ritz called for a sword to be brought before him. He declared that there was only one fair solution: the better idea must be split in two, each woman receiving half of the idea.
The liar, in her bitter jealousy, exclaimed, “It shall be neither mine nor yours — divide it.”
However, upon hearing this terrible verdict, the idea’s true inventor cried out, “Oh Lord, give the idea to her, just don’t kill it.” The king gave the idea to the true inventor.
King Ritz’s judgment was heard throughout all the idea monopoly lobbyists of Parliament Hill and thought to be wise.
But the emperor has no clothes. Gerry Ritz is not a wise king. In promoting the Agricultural Growth Act Bill C-18, he is unwittingly or deliberately falling for the Monsanto group lobbyist propaganda that an idea is intellectual property. Intellectual, yes; property, no.
If you want to keep a nifty milking idea or a new breed of wheat seed to yourself so no one else can use it, that’s fine. It can be your trade secret. But if you give the idea to others, they may use copies of it too without in any way stopping you from using the idea just as before.
Real property is not like this. While claiming that he is in favour of the free market and curbing government handouts, what Ritz is doing here is hypocritically giving a hand to strengthen these corporations’ government licensed “idea monopolies” to take money directly out of farmers’ pockets through higher input costs. That’s a pretty big handout.
And no, the research shows that patent laws on balance do not stimulate innovation but stifle it by discouraging inventors who don’t want to be victimized by patent lawyers.
Shame on Ritz and Bill C-18.
Arthur Krolman,
Calgary, Alta.
PUBLIC ATTITUDE SHIFTING
Re: Prepare for more to succumb to anti-GMO pressure (Jan. 9 WP).
A growing number of people are sharing a wide range of opinions and emotions on the topic of genetically modified crops, ranging from enthusiasm and optimism to skepticism and fear.
Based on the sheer volume of anti-GMO coverage, it is not surprising that Kevin Hursh thinks that more companies and consumers are succumbing to anti-GMO pressure. We don’t feel the same way.
Although anti-GMO groups are making headlines with their conspiracy theories and emotionally charged allegations, our industry remains optimistic that strong science and the many benefits of plant biotechnology will prevail.
We’ve seen a significant shift in consumers’ attitudes lately. More and more people are actively seeking unbiased, meaningful answers to important questions on GMOs.
When our industry provides them with fair and accurate information, they come to realize that products are well regulated and provide important benefits.
Consumers understand the many economic and environmental benefits, which are at the heart of why so many Canadian farmers actively choose GM seed varieties.
Farmers are able to operate in an environmentally sustainable way while increasing their yields to produce enough safe and affordable food to feed Canadians as well as people around the world.
Anti-GM activists fail to acknowledge the science behind these benefits. They ask for unnecessary warning labels, reduce consumer confidence and hurt an entire industry, even as health organizations around the world have endorsed the safety of GM crops.
The tide of public opinion on GM food is turning as consumers are realizing its value.
As we approach 20 years of GM foods in the marketplace, we encourage consumers to never settle for anything less than science-based information on foods grown with GM technology.
Ted Menzies,
President, CropLife Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
