Biotechnology is now a fundamental part of agriculture ...but whether it’s destined to become a routine part of future agri-food business is uncertain.
Canadian farmers are well aware of the present and anticipated pluses they believe will benefit not only farm profitability, but consumers and society at large – through better food products, lower costs of food production and improved environment.
But against this must be balanced the concerns of others – including some farmers – who believe genetic engineering means violating the fundamentals of nature, and who worry about future, unknown risks. We’ve seen this reaction in the United Kingdom, conditioned by government mismanagement of the “mad cow” fiasco. But anti-agri-food biotechnology sentiment is abundant in many other parts of the world, too, including North America.
The tactics of environmental, anti-biotech activist groups have been effective because their messages have struck a chord with average citizens. For many, the messages of fear and distrust are more credible than the assurances provided by modern science – perhaps because the voices of scientists are not in harmony. The dominant role of multi-national chemical companies, now positioned as “life science” companies, is seen by many, including some farmers, as representing excessive control over agriculture and food.
It’s not necessarily a rational thought process. Corporate domination occurs elsewhere in agriculture, and in the food manufacturing and retail business. And plant breeders have been engaged in “genetic engineering” – including crosses between plant species – for decades.
Perhaps the difference with agri-food biotechnology is that it is so high profile, and involves lots of money. Well-publicized stories of buy-outs, legal battles and business intrigue have contributed to its profile. Consumers have seen few immediate benefits, and biotech giants have been ineffective in explaining public benefits in a credible manner. Monsanto has replaced Cargill as the agri-food multi-national most commonly discussed in farm coffee shops and in activist literature.
Although the arguments may not be rational, this issue is highly important. What’s at stake is the future of a whole new world of technology with major benefits expected for all.
The question is what should we do as Canadian farmers? We’re just three per cent of the population of a small country?
We can claim impotence and do nothing. But that’s not the OCPA style. Better answers may lie elsewhere.
One area is communication. Although farm organizations have limited financial resources, we do have a vital asset which large companies and governments generally lack – credibility. And we have established, at least within Ontario, effective vehicles for cooperative action. AGCare and Ontario Agri-Food Technologies are examples. It’s critical these entities be used more effectively – and in a coordinated manner – to tell the public, honestly and openly, how we feel about the new technology, about concerns and aspirations, about how the technology can benefit farmers, environment and consumers, and about safeguards.
Consumer choice is just as important. The consumer must have the opportunity to buy food products grown in a more-traditional manner. The most obvious present source is organic produce. We need to provide non-biotech produce for those willing to pay the additional costs for such, but who don’t want the other trappings of “organic.”
There are risks in doing so. An example is U.S. milk retailers who could not cash in on an expected large market for rBST-free milk. Consumer purchases don’t always match polling results, especially when indicated preferences are more expensive. But, if consumers don’t have choices, then they, through government regulation, may deny producers choices, as well.
The issue of choice and labeling is especially difficult for crops such as grain corn and soybeans, where very few Canadians buy the farm-produced product directly. Rather, these crops are transformed into thousands of different products where corn and soybeans may represent but a minor component. Do we label toothpaste containing sorbitol made from corn? Or milk from cows fed Bt corn? The labeling issue is complex, but must be addressed.
Even though our financial resources are relatively small, producer-funded research is also important for ensuring Canadian biotech research is targeted on unique Canadian agri-food opportunities and problems. And producer funds can be used to lever larger amounts of industry and public money.
The question of regulation is equally difficult. Government decisions for approval (or non-approval) must be made on the basis of scientific risk assessment. While the credibility of Government of Canada suffers from its handling of the rBST issue, it’s still good compared to most other countries.
There are requests to ban some technologies, such as the TPS gene which prevents second-generation seed from germinating. But can this be done effectively in Canada without similar action in the U.S.? Anti-trust action, to prevent monopolistic activity, is possible, but also seems fruitless for a small country such as Canada. The U.S. Department of Justice, which has a good track record of acting to prevent monopolistic activities, is probably the best global guardian. The U.S. Congress is showing increased interest in ensuring competition – including limits to the breadth of U.S. biotech patents, a problem area.
The priorities for Ontario corn farmers must feature communications, choice and research. But this is a fast-moving, rapidly changing subject. Stay tuned.
1