As part of a Canadian delegation to Europe last month, Don Kenny, chair of the Guelph-based Grain Farmers of Ontario, stood alongside federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz and others, imploring the European Union to take a science-based approach to agricultural trade and genetically modified crops. Any decisions made in Europe about restricting Canadian imports should be based on scientific study, not theoretical threats or public pressure, they said.
But the delegates knew that despite Canada’s advocacy position abroad, back home, technology could be in trouble. That’s because parliamentarians were considering Bill C-474, which would amend the Seed Regulations Act, introduced by New Democrat agriculture critic Alex Atamanenko.
The proposed changes would require that the potential impact of a new genetically engineered seed on export markets be studied before it could be sold. While the delegation was in Europe, the bill’s third reading was coming up.
So it’s understandable that Kenny - and many others in mainstream agriculture who support research and technology - were audibly relieved when the bill was defeated last week, 176 to 97, as the Liberals and Conservatives voted together to put it down. According to Kenny, the bill “would have undermined everything the delegation advocated for” in Europe.
For his part, Ed Schafer, president of the Canadian Canola Growers Association, said the proposed changes “would have added ambiguity and uncertainty to the seed system.”
The end result, he said, would be “a loss of innovation and competitiveness for farmers.”
And all this stemmed from the suggestion that new technologies be studied for their export impact?
Well, that’s the superficial explanation. But really, the C-474 battle was fundamentally about different approaches to creating agricultura lpolicy in Canada, and polarized attitudes toward agribusiness. The bill was defeated, but the war rages on.
On one side are those who favour policies based on sound science. They argue that if decision- and policy-makers eschew science-based evidence (testing, primarily), and bend to special interests, Canada could become a developmental backwater. Commercial farmers could be denied technologies enjoyed by their global competitors, they say, because companies are unlikely to invest meaningfully in new crop varieties in Canada, knowing products could be shut out of the market because they might cause problems.
The opportunity is huge for small but vocal special interest groups to influence such decisions.
On the other side were proponents of the precautionary principle - that is, those who favour a cautious approach toward new technology, regardless of whether science says it’s safe.
In the case of Bill C-474, being cautious meant new biotechnology products could not be exported until market assessments of their potential impact were completed. And should those assessments indicate a potential problem, the technology could be held back.
But is the current system broken? Most farmers don’t think so. The canola growers’ Schafer says with herbicide-tolerant canola (great in salads, by the way), farmers have reduced their herbicide use and shifted to conservation tillage practices, which are better for the environment and prevent soil erosion. And biotechnology has improved canola farmers’ fortunes - a University of Saskatchewan study shows farmers benefit by up to $26 per acre from planting herbicide-tolerant canola, compared to conventional canola.
So, this time, science-based policy advocates, including farmers, won the fight. But they need to work hard every day to make their positions better understood to the public and to decision makers. Genetically modified food opponents will not let up. Neither should those who believe in evidence-based policies.
