A RECENT article in this paper, “Sprayer struggles with RR canola,” (Aug. 13) gave me one of those “should ‘a seen that one a comin’ ” moments.
A little more than a decade ago, I was invited to participate in a workshop on biotechnology in agricultural production. The hall was full of scientists, industry representatives, bureaucrats and farmers.
And it was buzzing with excitement. Roundup Ready canola had been released commercially two years earlier. The uptake by farmers had been rapid. Industry leaders and others were exuberant about the future of bio-engineered crops.
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?
During my presentation I raised some worries about this powerful new technology. Our brief farming experience was already raising red flags.
For example, a light hailstorm in early August the year before had hit our neighbour’s Roundup Ready canola, knocking out viable seeds. They sprouted vigorously the next spring and were immune to a Roundup chemical solution, of course.
Other farmers at the conference also expressed concern about creating a new weed problem.
But the experts dismissed such worries. There was no scientific proof that the technology created such problems.
Fast forward to August 2009 and read a commercial sprayer in Alberta declaring that RR canola is now the worst weed on the Prairies. Weather conditions have encouraged a lot of hardy volunteer Roundup Ready canola this summer.
And it is farmers who suffer the real risks and costs of this technology. The downside includes extra costs of swathing, added worries about delayed harvesting, downgraded quality and the prospect of having even more trouble with these weeds in the future.
Much of this could have been prevented. Those who introduced, approved and regulated new technologies should have heeded the precautionary principle that is part of many international agreements.
The precautionary principle applies to the adoption of new technologies stating: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” (Rio Declaration, 1992)
Scientific data on Roundup Ready canola was incomplete in 1996. For example, it was only recently “proven” by research at Sweden’s Lund University that genetically modified canola seed remains viable for as long as 10 years after being seeded.
The researchers found volunteers in their test plots a decade after it had been used, despite rigorous eradication controls.
Shouldn’t Agriculture Canada have had this and other data in hand before proceeding to license and approve the release of these seeds for commercial use?
Proceed at your own risk means be careful. But proceeding at the risk of farmers and the environment surely puts an even heavier burden of caution on the drivers of new technologies.
Nettie Wiebe is a farmer in the Delisle, Sask., region and a professor of Church and Society at St. Andrews College in Saskatoon.
