POSITION NOT DEFENDABLE
Re: GM rice doesn’t address poverty, lack of biodiversity (WP Dec. 11), Organic Matters column by Brenda Frick.
Let’s fully understand Dr. Frick’s position against GM golden rice — a strain of rice developed to address vitamin A deficiency in rice — a staple food in many poorer countries.
Experts say about 250,000 to 500,000 children go blind each year from vitamin A deficiency and about half of those will die within a year of becoming blind.
She says the core issue is that rice is the sole food source.
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?
No, the core issue is that the rice being consumed is contributing to the blindness and death of children.
A solution for this preventable malady exists. Golden rice was developed specifically to address this problem by introducing beta-carotene genes (precursor of Vitamin A) into the rice.
We consume GM foods and our grocery shelves are filled with fortified foods — check any cereal box. Japan, probably the most food safety conscience country in the world, consumes millions of tonnes of GM soy and canola products each year.
Wealthy economies are comfortable with the science and concept of fortified and GM foods to promote our health and well-being.
Yet Dr. Frick would deny this scientific benefit to these children. She has many arguments in her column that are worthy of consideration, but to condemn helpless children to eventual blindness and death when a solution exists is a position that the anti-GMO activists cannot defend.
Gerald Donkersgoed, P.Ag.
Surrey, B.C.
MORE INSIGHT USEFUL
Kelsey Johnson’s comments (WP Dec. 4 column) on the situation of political impact/importance of the Ontario agricultural community are well timed but perhaps a bit more insight is useful.
Yes, Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne promised to try to gain more support from rural Ontario and this was one of her motives in naming herself agriculture minister in the previous government.
This ingratiating manoeuvre didn’t work, and in the recent election her Liberals failed to win a single seat in rural Ontario.
Resultantly, she named Jeff Leal MPP for Peterborough (a city of 70,000) to that portfolio (he was minister of rural affairs previously when the premier split it off from agriculture). So Leal is now minister of agriculture and rural affairs.
He is a quality person and fine gentleman. However, he is not a former farmer, nor associated with agriculture. His posture on the issue of neonics appears to be written by Queen’s Park bureaucrats focused on maintaining urban support.
Sadly, Ontario farmers do not appear to have a supporting voice in this cabinet. And more sadly, the dichotomy between rural and urban Ontario is underscored when the Toronto subway carries misleading advertising about production agriculture and there is not a whisper of objection from the agricultural ministry.
Martin C. Pick,
Cavan, Ont.
DON’T TURN YOUR BACK
A couple of weeks ago, the Stephen Harper government gave multi-national seed companies more power and rights. These new rights are enshrined inside the legislation.
At the same time, the Harper government allowed farmers a narrowly defined privilege to replant some of their seeds. But this privilege is not enshrined — it can be limited or withdrawn by regulations, which can be created by the minister at any time he sees fit.
So, seed companies get more rights. Farmers get a temporary privilege, and another knife in the back from the Harper government.
Ron Watson,
Lancer, Sask.
IN SUPPORT OF GM
Re: GM rice doesn’t address poverty, lack of biodiversity (Dec. 11 WP) column by Brenda Frick.
Full disclosure: I work in the seed industry and I’m a passionate supporter of modern agriculture, including biotechnology.
The reason for my support of GM technology is simple — I have personally witnessed the environmental benefits and crop production improvements it offers farmers and our planet.
I also believe every food production system, including organic agriculture, has something to teach us. I understand that solving big problems such as malnutrition will take much more than just improving crop yields. It will take creativity and co-operation.
Few would claim that golden rice is a panacea to malnutrition. It does, however, have the potential to solve real problems.
Unfortunately, we may never get a chance to gauge its effectiveness because environmental groups have successfully fought it every step of the way. Vitamin A deficiency is responsible for up to two million deaths each year and some 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness. Pregnant women and children are particularly susceptible.
We should all take a minute to let that sink in. Imagine the outcry if those victims were Canadians, or our neighbours and our families.
Meanwhile, we fill farm publications and letters to the Editor with ideological rhetoric about what’s best for the developing world — all written from the comfort of our La-Z-boys.
I suspect that for people like Frick and the organizations that categorically oppose golden rice to consider that it just may be one of the tools that could make a difference would show weakness in the anti-GM dogma, and that would never do.
I long for the day we consider all solutions based on an objective review of their merit and shed this ideological baggage.
I’m hopeful the day will come when all people, particularly those in the developing world, will be free to choose solutions they feel best meet their needs.
In the time it’s taken you to read this letter, six people — most likely sons and daughters — have died of vitamin A deficiency largely because we think we know what’s best for them. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves.
Greg Hockaday,
Calgary, Alta.
GOOD POLICY PROGRAM
I am writing in response to the column by Ross Macdonald on “Good ag policy helps make communities great” (Nov. 27, WP).
Macdonald raises a good point about the investment our government makes in events like Canadian Western Agribition and the value brought to the industry and its related stakeholders.
Macdonald notes the event contributes $27 million in economic activity. The most current contribution is, in fact, more than $37 million annually.
To further support Macdonald’s argument about good policy, the investment in Agribition also brings both a social and cultural benefit to society.
The base funding the show receives is instrumental in providing a social gathering of visitors and exhibitors from across North America, paving the way for the obvious economic output. Not to be outdone is the cultural benefit. The show attracts over 125,000 visitors annually, many of which experience agriculture for the first time.
More than 6,000 school kids benefit from the first-hand look and feel of the best beef show on the continent. Agriculture awareness is a key component of the show and is instrumental in attracting youth to the industry.
On a tangible note related to policy, three years ago the provincial government piloted a program for international market development funded through the federal Growing Forward 2 program.
This policy became the foundation for today’s Incoming Buyers Program at Canadian Western Agribition and has been instrumental in attracting buyers from other countries to the show to purchase Canadian genetics and technologies.
Since inception, this program has paid approximately $100,000 in travel support to qualified buyers from over 10 countries.
In this case, good policy paved the way for domestic and international trading opportunities. Not bad for the preservation of a $37 million economic engine.
Marty Seymour, CEO,
Canadian Western Agribition,
Regina, Sask.
