APPENDIX 7
Memorandum from the National Farmers'
Union, Canada
GENETICALLY-MODIFIED WHEAT
A report by the National Farmers' Union to
the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
PREFACE
The NFU is the only vuluntary, direct-membership,
national farm organization in Canada. It is also the only farm
organization incorporated through an Act of Parliament (June 11,
1970).
The NFU is non-partisan and works toward the
development of economic and social policies that will maintain
the family farm as the primary unit of food production in Canada.
The NFU welcomes this opportunity to present
the views of farmers concerning genetically-modified[8]
wheat to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
GM WHEAT
The NFU was the first farm organization to develop
a comprehensive policy on the products of genetic modification.
(Copies of this policy are available on request and are posted
on our website at www.nfu.ca)
Our membership has determined that not all products
of genetic modification are necessarily negative or positive,
but that each product must be evaluated on an individual basis.
Therefore, for the purposes of this presentation,
we will focus on "Roundup Ready Wheat" (RR wheat) as
it is the first wheat variety to be submitted to the Federal Government
for approval. This brief has three sections:
B. Negative consequences of approving genetically-modified
RR wheat.
A. About the variety
Genetically-modified (GM) Roundup Ready wheat
has had its genes altered so that it will not be killed by applications
of the herbicide glyphosate. This is the same immunity shared
by Roundup Ready canola, which has been grown extensively in western
Canada.
B. Negative consequences of approving genetically-modified
RR wheat
1. Market Loss The international
customers that buy 82% of Canada's wheat crop say that they will
stop buying if Canada introduces GM wheat. These customers have
been clear—they will stop buying all wheat from us—GM
and non-GM alike. This market loss issue applies to all GM
wheat, not just RR wheat.
2. Lower prices for farmers Building
on point 1, GM wheat will dramatically decrease demand for Canadian
wheat. Decreasing demand automatically means lower prices. Other
wheat exporters, like Australia, are ready to step in and supply
non-GM wheat to buyers. This price issue applies to all GM
wheat, not just RR wheat.
3. Destruction of a viable organic industry GM
canola has made it nearly impossible for organic farmers to grow
that crop: seed supply contamination, pollen drift, and lack of
practical segregation mean that organic farmers cannot be sure
that their canola will be free of GM. At this time, GM patent
holders have not taken responsibility for the care and control
of GM seeds outside of the laboratory. This issue is currently
before the courts in two separate cases in Canada. The introduction
of more GM crops will leave organic farmers fewer and fewer crops
to grow. The organic issue applies to all GM wheat, not just
RR wheat.
4. Increased agronomic costs Some
farmers now grow GM RR canola, and many other fields have been
unintentionally contaminated with RR canola. Spray that canola
with glyphosate and most of the weeds die leaving the canola unscathed.
But introduce RR wheat into the crop rotations on that farm and
the equation changes. Now there are two crops that cannot be killed
by glyphosate—farmers will need to apply more and different
chemicals to the land in order to kill unwanted volunteers. Based
on current chemical choices and prices, researchers in Manitoba
have estimated these increased costs at up to $400 million per
year in western Canada.
5. Links between formulations of glyphosate
and increased disease Fusarium is a very serious and costly
disease in wheat. Studies have shown that formulations of glyphosate
increase the growth of fusarium. The growing of RR wheat would
dramatically increase the amount of glyphosate applied during
the growing season, and this may dramatically increase the growth
and incidence of fusarium. Very low levels of fusarium (less than
10%) are enough to render wheat useless as food or feed and therefore
completely valueless. More work needs to be done in this area,
but RR wheat should not be approved until we understand the links
between formulations of glyphosate and fusarium. Different
strains of fusarium attack different crops, but fusarium is also
an important disease in potatoes.
6. Segregation of GM wheat is not possible The
recent NFU convention heard from Rene Van Acker, a Manitoba plant
scientist, that seed-stock contamination is inevitable. Wheat
pollen drift, out-crossing, gene bridging, mechanical mixing (seeds
not cleaned out of combines, augers granaries etc), and contamination
due to weather events will create exactly the same problems that
we have with the contamination of registered canola seed. Segregation
is not possible on the farm, much less the handling system, so
we would be left with various levels of contamination throughout
the system.
7. Environmental risks Environmental
damage and damage to third party crops is certain to occur. Recent
news events originating with Agriculture Canada have focussed
on a new gene technology that involves producing sterile seed.
With this product, the genetically-modified seed is viable, but
any seed produced by out-crossing with non-GM seed is sterile.
This means that non-adopters will have their seed killed by the
genetically-modified seed. Farmers wishing to re-use their own
seed will be prevented from doing so. In the case of organic farmers,
their seed will again be contaminated by the GM crop.
The older "terminator" technology
sterilized the GM seed—it sterilized itself. This new technology
sterilizes someone else's seed—in effect becoming "predator"
technology. This again raises the question, are patent holders
responsible for damage caused by their products?
This methodology also raises another question.
For thousands of years, our food supply has been based on seed
that grows. Are we choosing the right option if we decide from
now on to base our food supply on seed that will not grow—"terminator"
or "predator" technology? The natural environment has
a way of adapting and incorporating change in unpredictable ways.
Should we be providing the natural environment with the option
of producing sterile seeds?
8. Who decides? Eventually an
individual or group will say "Why not let the market decide?"
This sounds like a simple solution, but it is not. First, at the
consumer end of the market, the buyer does not have any information
on which to base a decision. The government of Canada has not
endorsed mandatory labelling for products that contain GMOs and,
therefore, the consumer is in the dark when it is time to make
the purchase.
Second, at the farmer end of the equation, unfortunately
there will always be some farmers that will grow or use a product
if it is not specifically banned. Dieldren is a highly effective
insecticide when used to control grasshoppers, and if it was banned,
some farmers would still be using it. Due to harmful side-effects
to the rest of the environment, dieldren had to be banned. The
same is true for freon, the CFC that used to be used in air conditioning
systems. Freon and dieldren were used by a society that was ignorant
of the harmful side-effects on the environment. The market is
incapable of making these types of responsible decisions.
9. Control of our food Approval
of GM wheat further consolidates the control of our food supply
into the hands of a handful of transnational seed and pesticide
corporations. These corporations, through privatization of research
and development, intellectual property rights legislation, and
widespread genetic contamination, are fundamentally changing our
food supply system. The issues involved are outlined in a paper
written by Devlin Kuyek titled Contamination and Corporate
Control of Canada's Seed Supply.
By reducing public research and creating a legislative
framework that rewards patent holders of living organisms, government
has spearheaded the change. One consequence of the transformation
is that we have at least two court cases in process between farmers
and seed companies, with others sure to follow. In these cases,
farmers' money is being used to pay for both sides of the cases,
and the outcomes will form the basis of public policy. If citizens
are formulating public policy through the courts, then why are
citizens electing and paying politicians. This may actually tie
in to the Prime Minister's intended changes to the way that political
fundraising is done in this country, and if his changes proceed
as planned, we may in time return to public policies that again
provide some balance between the public good and the private good.
C. Recommendation
The National Farmers Union recommends in the
strongest possible terms that the government of Canada prevent
the introduction of GM wheat into Canadian food and fields unless
the concerns of Canadian farmers, industry, and consumers are
adequately addressed.
June 2003
8 For the purposes of our policy and of this brief,
the NFU uses the terms "Genetic Modification", "Genetic
Engineering", and "Biotechnology" as fully synonymous
terms, referring exclusively to the direct transfer or modification
of genetic material using recombinant DNA techniques. Any references
to non-rDNA techniques are referred to as "traditional animal/plant
breeding". These definitions are consistent with those used
by the Royal Society of Canada Report entitled Elements of
Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology
in Canada, which was released in January of 2001. Back
| 
