Ontario Farmer | December 7, 1999
Michael Khoo of Greenpeace, Toronto writes that given the highly charged nature of the genetic engineering (GE) debate, it is important that we stick to the facts and not resort to misinformation and slander.
AgCare Chairman Jim Fischer's attack on "private interest groups" (AgCare, Greenpeace, October 5/99), ignores the fact that GE critics come from all walks of life including consumers, scientists, labourers, seniors, environmentalists, medical groups, health professionals, lawyers, and even farmers themselves. This is why consumers are rejecting GE foods all around the world. Japan and Korea are instituting mandatory labeling.
Hong Kong supermarkets are going GE free. Europe remains closed. The US is even considering mandatory labeling.
It is also for these reasons that the American corn growers and 30 other farm groups are telling farmers to buy non-GE seed now and predicting a 25 per cent drop in GE seed sales. This is why ADM is segregating and only 36 per cent of Nebraska farmers are planning on using GE seed next year. And this is why Monsanto, Novartis, Dupont and Pioneer are preparing for the first major drop in sales of their new product. Here at home, McCain Foods just announced that it is going GE free.
It is dangerously misleading to tell farmers that consumer issues will just go away because it is only a few environmentalists who are concerned.
Fischer would have your readers believe that public concern about genetically engineered crops are based on "rhetoric and personal opinion" rather than "real science." But Fischer ignores the fact that almost no "real science" exists on the long-term impact on human health and the environment of GE crops. History is full of dangerous examples of rushing forward with new technologies such as DDT and asbestos.
Consumers are quickly realizing that history may repeat itself.
The few independent tests that have been done point to some serious concerns: the University of Wisconsin study which shows that herbicide use increases in GE crops and causes a 5% yield drag; Dr. Arpad Pusztai's controversial study showed immune system and organ damage in rats fed GE potatoes; even a conservative group of doctors, the British Medical Association, have called for an open-ended moratorium due to lack of science.
Groups like AGCare and Ontario Agri-Food Technologies would like to sweep these independent studies under the carpet and have the public trust industry-funded data, rubber-stamped by a federal government agency mandated to promote biotech products. But the public, not just Greenpeace, is rapidly beginning to question our regulatory process.
We also ask readers to consider the truth behind the false comments about Greenpeace's finances. OAFT chairman Dr. Bruce Hunter and Gord Surgeoner have both claimed that we get millions of dollars from our international office for this campaign. Again reality, and our publicly available annual report, show that Greenpeace Canada donated $300,000 to our international office in 1999. In fact they have no fundraising base beyond national offices such as Canada.
To set the record straight, our genetic engineering campaign has an operating budget of $30,000. This obviously pales in comparison to the millions of dollars that the biotech industry is spending on their public relations efforts.
So why is public concern over GE still skyrocketing? Probably because Greenpeace plays only a small part in a larger debate. These lies about Greepeace's finances are another attempt to convince farmers that concern over GE foods are the interest of only a small group of people.
Yet a national poll from September 1999 showed that over 80% of people want labeling and half want a ban on GE imports.
Polls have said this since 1994, long before Greenpeace began its campaign in Canada. Consumer rejection of GE food is broad-based and industry's aggressive misinformation only serve to heighten concerns.
So what does Greenpeace have to say to Ontario farmers about planting GE crops? Follow Dale Adolphe's (president of the Canola council) advice to keep your ear to the ground this, of any year, is likely a good year to make a late decision rather than an early one.
Listen to Greg Arason, president of the Canadian Wheat Board, who is trying to preserve premium markets for wheat and calling for a moratorium on new registrations until consumer acceptance and segregation is assured. The customer is always right and someone else will fill the void, perhaps leaving our farmers to pick up the pieces he says.
Also consider the opportunity of a new premium market in non-GE. Some Ontario soybean farmers are earning $0.40 more a bushel for non-GE European exports. The distributors we speak to say that current demand is insatiable. Segregation for these markets is possible and is the only way to achieve premiums. This also avoids having to compete with US farms which have better economies of scale.
The challenge for farmers should be how to satisfy premium markets, not how to change the preferences of a wary public.
