GM DOGMA
From your editorial, Organic sector must keep claims real, educate public (WP, Feb. 14/13):
“And it is important to recognize the weight of scientific evidence that shows the benefits of an abundant and affordable food supply made possible by today’s technologies vastly outweighs whatever the miniscule danger might be behind such minute residues.”
I find it interesting that your paper has taken this stance. This is also the stance of the GMO and chemical corporations, which tell us that only their brand of GMO- and chemical-heavy agriculture can feed the world. This, to me, is sheer dogma.
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?
Genetically modified organisms have been rushed onto the market and allowed into the food supply in Canada and the U.S. with only 90-day animal feeding tests.
How can your paper possibly make the claim that the benefits of GMOs outweigh the “minuscule danger” of GMO contamination? How can your paper possibly downplay the devastating contamination of natural, organic food by GMOs?
In the very same paper, you printed my letter to the editor, which tells you about the first ever long-term animal feeding trial of GMOs, which found the exact opposite of your claims. That study found there are actually major red flags around GMO and glyphosate safety. At the very least, much more testing would have to be done before GMOs could be declared safe, as your paper has done.
You may downplay the degradation of natural food, but organic farmers and those who desire to eat non-GM food feel very differently on the subject.
Outside the corporate organic realm, I don’t believe many organic producers would make claims about the purity of their products. They know there is no guarantee of purity at this point, and the reason for that is the irresponsible unleashing of genetically modified seeds and crops that have resulted in genetic contamination. Most organic farmers will not argue that their products are GMO-free.
They have been cautioning against the type of cross-contamination we are now seeing since the 1990s. This is why the approval and proposed growing of GM alfalfa in Canada is so very shortsighted.
Jillian MacPherson,
Foam Lake, Sask.
WHEAT BENEFITS
Western Canadian wheat has a global reputation tarnished by incomplete understanding presented by people such as Peter Johnson at FarmTech 2013 and reported in The Western Producer by Mary MacArthur Feb. 7.
Mr. Johnson, an extension agronomist from Ontario, is quoted as saying: “Western Canada has the least genetic progress of any wheat in the world.”
This is in stark contrast to Dr. Hans Braun, global wheat director for the Centre for International Wheat Improvement, who described the genetic progress in western Canadian wheat at the Wheat Summit 2012 as being very impressive, given the challenges of the Canadian environment and standards for quality. He has pointed out that producers and the industry are getting a bargain for what has been accomplished.
Mr. Johnson also neglected to inform the audience that western Canadian wheat varieties are grown by choice successfully even in Eastern Canada. There are various pieces of misinformation in circulation such as the performance of canola compared to wheat. In truth, the provincial crop production statistics for the past 13 years clearly demonstrate that the rate of productivity increase of wheat is comparable to that of canola.
Genetic gains in wheat have been achieved with only about one-third of the research investments made in canola. Richard Gray, economist at University of Saskatchewan, completed an analysis on the internal rates of return on investment and benefits to costs on the wheat breeding checkoff administered by the Western Grains Research Foundation. The benefit to cost for wheat cultivar improvements was an astounding $20.40 for each $1 invested.
R. M. DePauw,
senior principal wheat breeder,
Agriculture Canada,
Swift Current, Sask.
P.J. Hucl,
wheat breeder,
University of Saskatchewan Crop Development Centre,
Saskatoon, Sask.
SENATE A BURDEN
It used to be different.
… As long as the Senate is a tentacle of the government with a majority, it will always be in lock step with that government.
Keeping two of the same, the House and Red Chamber, is a great cost burden to Canada’s taxpayers, besides being a waste that Canadians can do without.
The initial setting up of the now antiquated Senate was to have second sober thoughts. We know and realize that is not the case nowadays.
As I see it, if the Senate was to function properly, they would be elected by the people, for the people. No appointing by the prime minister. But how does one elect someone that has no political ties? That’s the hard answer. That quagmire exists.
In the meantime, I suppose we have to have somebody in the Senate chambers to turn the lights on and off.
John Fefchak,
Virden, Man.
PAPER CRIMINALS
Re: Harper continues to make paper criminals with gun owners.
Just another broken election promise for Harper? In 2005, the Conservative party approved this policy declaration: That a Conservative government will repeal Canada’s costly gun registry legislation and work with the provinces and territories on cost-effective gun control programs designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals while respecting the rights of law-abiding Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly.
Surprise, surprise, the long gun registry is dead but the rest of C-68 is very alive. The current policy is that every firearm owners must have a valid possession certificate. This lifetime licensing allows the government to track firearm owners forever.
Why does this government so distrust the vast majority of decent non-violent firearm owners that it wants to identify and track every innocent gun owner forever?
If your firearm possession certificate expires, you have become a paper criminal, according to the current laws. You are in illegal possession of all your firearms without this piece of paper called a PAL.
It is estimated that over 600,000 gun owners are paper criminals. You can be charged, lose your firearms and go to jail for illegally possessing firearms without a valid possession certificate. We have no property rights in Canada.
The goal of any firearm law should be to reduce crime. Making paper criminals out of law abiding citizens is wrong. We need to identify, register, and track the 176,000 violent criminals who have gone through our courts instead of tracking the eight million innocent, peaceful and responsible firearm owners. Please contact your MP.
Inky Mark,
Dauphin, Man.
BENEFITS VS. COSTS
Canadians are facing a national debt in excess of $600 billion and increased personal living costs but with improved communication are able to investigate the cost of government programs and policies to determine the benefits versus the cost. Presently, the need for our current Canadian Senate or a different type of Senate is topic of conversation by many Canadians.
Canada has a parliamentary system of government with elected members of Parliament that by a majority vote establish or amend the laws and policies of our country.
The Canadian Senate benefits versus cost is one challenge facing our elected members of Parliament. They also face similar problems with other programs and policies such as the Official Languages Act (1969) and equalization payments.
Canadians have a right and duty to investigate how these acts and policies will affect their lives and the lives of their children. Please accept this responsibility to investigate and question your member of Parliament on their opinion on these very important issues.
Ken Kellington,
Devon, Alta.
