• 1999 Crop
• New Federal Safety Net Announcements
• Market Revenue Insurance
• Canada versus the U.S.
• Premier Romanow
• AgriCorp and Crop Insurance
• Genetically Modified Corn
• GE Labeling
• Biotech Competition, Affordability and Paperwork
• World Trade Organization
• Nacan and Casco
• Monarch Butterflies and Bt Corn
• Pesticide Use Reduction
• Corn Research Contributions
• NISA
• Corn Prices

• They claim GE (genetically enhanced or genetically engineered, your choice) foods are not adequately tested and that testing is done by companies. (In fact, the toxicological tests are equivalent to those used in registering new pharmaceuticals and pesticides, and company data, meeting government criteria, are used in all cases.)

• They claim that there is no long-term testing and that humans have no history of exposure to these new genes and proteins. (Yet no one defines what long-term testing means – beyond the present lifetime rat feeding trials – and the genes used in Bt corn, potatoes, and in Roundup-tolerant soybeans and canola, come from common garden soil organisms to which humans have been exposed for eons. With Bt, the gene also comes from a product sprayed on organic crops for more than 40 years.)

• They claim that new technology provides no consumer and environmental benefits (ignoring the use of fewer and safer pesticides with RR soybeans and canola, and fewer worms, moulds and mycotoxins with Bt corn; the potential for reduced pesticide usage is even greater with Bt sweet corn and potatoes).

• They emphasize threats to Monarch butterflies (see information later in this story).
• And they claim this is all an evil plot hatched by Monsanto and other biotech/chemical companies (again, see comments that follow).

There are signs the media is beginning to tire of this issue, but a resurgence is quite possible. The situation resembles the “Alar” episode of a decade ago.

In the meantime, expect to see lots of continued media presence for OCPA and AGCare on this issue. We’d welcome individual farmers sending letters to newspaper editors as well.

GE LABELING
A common theme in letters to editors and from the activists is the need to label GE foods. Folks in Ottawa seem aware of the complexities involved – and of the deceptive nature of labeling rules in Europe – but to the average citizen, it seems so simple.

A group of 40 appointees with voting rights (one is Ken Hough of OCPA) and 40 observers has been formed by the Canadian General Standards Board to develop guidelines for the voluntary labeling of foods containing GE ingredients. The group’s first meeting occurred in late November (after this newsletter was written). This will not be a speedy process, given that decision making is done by consensus. It may lead to a more formalized approach to labeling.

The AGCare position is that labeling should only be used when there is a known effect on health or nutrition. This position has been endorsed by the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. OCPA supports this position. If, however, this position is not accepted widely, then the alternative OCPA position will be to label all foods which are genetically engineered.

The pressure to label GE foods is also intensifying in the U.S. There was strong pressure to label in Australia as well, until a study showed this would boost average food costs by 5 to 15 per cent. The issue is now under review. A major survey of Japanese food manufacturers showed that the elimination of all GE ingredients in food, via labeling, would increase food prices by at least 20 per cent. Finally, a recent Toronto Star feature documented the high costs of food in the United Kingdom. Eliminating GE foods has contributed to this differential.

BIOTECH COMPETITION, AFFORDABILITY AND PAPERWORK
Farmers and others have expressed concerns about the need to ensure widespread, competitive access to core technology used in creating GE crops. They’re also worried about the affordability of the technology for farmers both in Canada and developing counties, and about the complex Technology Use Agreement forms farmers must sign to purchase seeds of many GE crop varieties. Because of this, AGCare wrote major companies in early November and issued a news release, requesting the companies provide the following commitments:

1. Assurance that core agri-food biotechnology – i.e., that used to transfer genes into crop species – will be available to competing companies, especially small seed companies, and to public plant breeders. These companies and public breeders should have the right to use the technology freely in research, and to market the resulting improved crop varieties on the condition that a fairly-priced royalty be paid to technology-patent holders, based on volume of sales. Where the plant breeding company or institution and patent holder cannot agree on terms of research, sale and royalty payments, there should be a third-party arbitration process.
2. Assurance that farmers are not obliged to sign waivers or legalistic documents when purchasing genetically enhanced seeds. As a maximum, farmers should be asked to sign simple agreements saying they will not allow harvested seed to be used to plant a subsequent crop. The use of additional statements which read like legal documents designed to protect the company at the expense of farmers should be eliminated.
3. Assurance that the technology is available at an affordable price to farmers, permitting them to share profits from use of the technology. Economic benefits should also be shared with consumers. Further, means are needed to ensure access to the technology at minimal or no cost for farmers in developing countries, with whom Canadian farmers do not compete in global markets. We are aware that some companies have made their technology available at no cost to research institutions for crop improvement in the developing world. Such initiatives are to be applauded and encouraged. OCPA supports this position.

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
The Millennium Round of WTO negotiations begins in Seattle in late November, with a process which is expected to resemble a circus, dominated by anti-trade groups of which Canada will supply its share. Expect to see this event used as a stage for more demonstrations against biotechnology.

A major issue will be whether countries should be expected to honour their obligations under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (S&PS) agreement reached during the Uruguay Round. The S&PS agreement states that countries cannot restrict imports of food and agricultural products unless these restrictions are based on international standards for heath and safety, or domestic standards which can be defended scientifically. Europe has defied this obligation in the case of hormone-fed beef and in its decision to suspend the approval process for new GE food and agricultural products.

Europe says it is respecting citizen choice. But there is a clear difference between citizens refusing to buy products, and governments refusing to give them the choice where the products meet health and safety standards.

In its pre-Seattle statements, the EU has said it wants to keep the S&SP agreement as presently written and have the right to ignore the agreement. Clearly, this will not satisfy a lot of other countries, Canada included.

The other looming agricultural trade problem is state trading, with the EU having apparently joined the U.S. in attacking organizations such as the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB).

In the last trade round, Canada wasted negotiating time defending exemptions to Article XI. But Article XI is gone and supply management is alive and well. Will a disproportionate amount of Canadian negotiating energy be spent this time defending the CWB?

NACAN AND CASCO
The Nacan plant at Collingwood has announced it will begin producing some non-GE corn starch for customers (chiefly those marketing in Europe) willing to pay more for starch made from non-biotech corn. OCPA directors support this initiative, provided that reasonable incentives are paid as compensation for the efforts made to ensure purity – and, in some cases, for lower yields.

The OCPA believes the additional costs and obligations equal those involved in the production of waxy corn for the Collingwood plant – i.e., in the range of 25-35 cents/bu.

Farmers interested in exploring this market are encouraged to contact Richard Lafave, chief corn buyer for National Starch Company (headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana) owner of Nacan. His phone number is (317) 656-2213, fax (317) 656-2382, email: richard.lafave@nstarch.com .

OCPA is willing to promote similar offers by other buyers. To date, Casco has found no need to provide a separate supply of non-GE corn products, though this could change depending on customer demands.It’s worth noting that Nacan’s business is primarily in specialty starches, while Casco specializes in high fructose corn syrup, glucose, dextrose and other sugar products as well as in general starch, corn oil and protein feed products.

OCPA believes Bt corn is better because of its lower content of worms, moulds and mycotoxins (and often better yields) but is willing to supply what customers want, at a price. The extreme in this “specialized products at a price” approach is organic corn production, of which there is some in Ontario.

MONARCH BUTTERFLIES AND BT CORN
A major meeting of North American researchers concerned with potential effects of Bt pollen on Monarch butterflies occurred in Chicago November 2. The following summary is provided courtesy of the Chicago Tribune:

When scientists announced in the spring that genetically engineered corn might kill Monarch butterflies, two things happened: Groups opposed to genetic engineering adopted the Monarch, perhaps the most recognizable American butterfly – as a symbol of the potential for trouble when science transplants genes from one species to another...and swarms of scientists headed out to cornfields across North America during the summer to see if the work done in the lab made sensein the field. Although data remains inconclusive, several studies suggest it is unlikely that many Monarchs will be killed by accidentally eating pollen from so-called Bt corn.

On Tuesday, the first Monarch Butterfly Research Symposium is to convene in Rosemont, where university scientists, some of whom have received grants from the bioengineering-seed companies, will discuss their early findings.” My impression right now is that the Bt impact on Monarchs is minimal,” said Dennis Calvin, a Penn State University entomologist. Highway departments that mow roadsides and railroads that spray their right-of-ways probably kill more Monarchs than transgenic corn, Calvin said.

The summer’s Monarch research was spawned by the findings of John Losey, a Cornell University entomologist who in May reported in the science journal Nature that transgenic corn has the potential to kill Monarch caterpillars. He found that if milkweed, the only plant that Monarch caterpillars eat, is dusted with pollen from genetically engineered corn, some of the caterpillars die. Bt corn has been implanted with a gene taken from a bacterium that is toxic to caterpillars. The gene tells the corn to produce the same caterpillar poison the bacteria makes, killing off a pest called the corn borer, a moth larvae. But that is toxin also present in the corn’s pollen, which drifts away from the corn and lands on any plant that happens to be growing nearby, including milkweed.

Scientists over the summer tried to measure how much Bt pollen it takes to kill the caterpillars and how much might land on milkweed leaves. Mark Sears, a professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario, found that corn pollen doesn’t travel far. Using sticky petri dishes set on poles that are about the height of milkweed, about 3 feet, Sears and his colleagues determined that 90 per cent of the pollen landed within 16 feet of the field. He also set out to find out how much Bt pollen has to be sitting on a milkweed leaf to kill a Monarch caterpillar. He found a threshold of about 500 to 700 pollen grains per square centimeter before the youngest, smallest Monarch larvae started to die. When the researchers counted pollen grains on milkweed leaves in the field, they found that plants growing in the cornfield had an average of 78 grains of Bt pollen per square centimeter. Milkweed just three feet outside the cornfield had only 26 grains per centimeter.” The risk to Monarch larvae is very minimal,” Sears said. Galen Dively from the University of Maryland also set out to measure how much of the pollen lands on milkweed and collected 1,300 milkweed leaves from in and around Maryland cornfields. Although just 13 per cent of his samples have been analyzed at a federal pollen laboratory, the early results also suggest that there is not enough pollen on milkweed leaves to kill Monarch caterpillars.” The milkweed isn’t real good at catching pollen,” Dively said. “Pollen tends to bounce off of it.” John Pleasants, a professor in the department of zoology and genetics at Iowa State University, found that 88 per cent of the milkweed within one meter of a corn field would fall below the level where they could hurt the caterpillars, and 100 per cent of the milkweed just two meters from a Bt field would be Monarch-safe.

Losey, too, will submit new research at the symposium that suggests that Monarchs might avoid milkweed near corn plants anyway. He believes, however, that the question remains open of whether Bt corn kills Monarchs.”It is too early to be reassured or more alarmed based on the early data,” Losey said. “It’s too early to rule how big a risk there is going to be.”

PESTICIDE USE REDUCTION
The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has released results of its survey on 1998 pesticide use in Ontario agriculture. The survey shows total provincial farm pesticide of 5.167 million kg of active ingredient in 1998, versus 6.246 million in 1993, 7.201 million in 1988 and 8.719 million in 1983. The reduction is 41 per cent since 1983. Most of the reduction is a result of decreases in per-acre application rates for corn and soybeans, and a shift to soybeans (average application rates are now lower with soybeans than corn). About 38 per cent of 1998 pesticide usage was for corn, 25 per cent for soybeans, 82 per cent for all field crops and 18 per cent for horticulture. Interestingly, there has been only a seven per cent decline in total pesticide usage for horticulture since 1983 (though the trend is down since 1993).

The average per-acre pesticide use in corn in 1998 was 2.28 kg/ha versus 1.50 for soybeans. Both crops required about 3.5kg/ha of active ingredient in 1983.

Biotechnology represents an opportunity to reduce these numbers even further. A one litre/acre application of Roundup represents 0.9 kg/ha of active ingredient.

CORN RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS
Ontario corn seed companies have provided about $128,000 in voluntary research contributions (equivalent to 50 cents per unit of seed sold) on 1999 crop year seed sales, according to information provided by Agricorp, the independent trustee hired to manage the collection process. The total amount of money will be used to fund corn research, with all administration costs being paid by OCPA. Details will be provided in future issues of the Ontario Corn Producer.

OCPA thanks those who supported this program in 1999. They are Agventure Seeds Inc., Cargill Hybrid Seeds, Direct Seeds Inc., Hyland Seed (W.G. Thompson & Sons Ltd.), Maizex Inc., Mycogen Canada Inc., Novartis Seeds Inc., Pride Seeds (King Agro Inc.), Renk Seed Company of Canada Ltd. and Zeneca Seeds.

NISA
December 31 is the final deadline for producers to:

• submit their 1998 stabilization NISA program application;
• make a deposit or request a withdrawal;
• submit their 1999 Interim Withdrawal application.

CORN PRICES (November 15, 1999)

Period: Oct. 1 - Sept. 30	Approximate Tonnes Marketed	Average Weighted Price
1998-99	3,881,900	$117.77/tonne
1997-98	2,530,000	$141.48/tonne
1996-97	3,007,200	$151.24/tonne
The above figures are based on levies received by OCPA for commercial sales.

1