2009-08-31 1. GM Wheat is back. Email to Carole Swan, head of the CFIA
2009-08-31 3. GM Wheat Critique of Penner’s “Synchronized introduction of GM Wheat” see BELOW
We helped stop Monsanto’s GM Wheat, but then the CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), through the Prairie Recommending Committee for Grains (the channel through which registration occurs) registered BASF’s “mutagenesis” wheat, designed by the same criterion, engineered so that it can be sprayed by chemicals and survive. We are talking about a pillar of our food supply.
Now we have this article by Rolf Penner, “calling for the synchronized introduction of GM wheat”.
============
CRITIQUE OF ROLF PENNER’S ARTICLE, “THE SYNCHRONIZED INTRODUCTION OF GM WHEAT”
1. A few years ago in the GM Wheat battle we circulated the handbook published by the chemical industry out of California. It spelt out that farmers should be used in the promotion of its arguments because people will believe good, down-to-earth farmers before they will believe the industry.
2. Rolf Penner, Manitoba vice-president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, farmer, says (see his article below from the Financial Post): Biotech crops significantly … “reduce the need for pesticide spraying”.
Look at the recently-registered “SmartStax” corn. It is engineered to withstand the application of 8 pesticides (some of the “pesticides” kill weeds and others kill insects). Reduction in the need for spraying? These companies engineer the crops to be resistant to pesticide applications SO THAT the crops can be sprayed with the related pesticides (more and more as the “SmartStax corn exemplifies) and survive.
If this doesn’t lay waste to the argument that pesticide use is reduced by GM crops, talk to farmers. Use the canola experience. They planted “roundup resistant” canola. Three years later they spray their “chemfallow” with roundup to control the weeds. Surprise! the “roundup resistant” canola doesn’t die. So what must the farmer do then? … get out the 2,4-D and follow up with a second application of chemicals. (INSERT update: And now – smart people – they are engineering the seeds to also be resistant to 2,4-D.)
If experience is not enough to convince you, look at the research. Independent and peer-reviewed. Not the stuff financed by the industry. Chemical applications decrease in the first 3 years after the herbicide-tolerant crops are planted. After that, chemical applications rise to more than offset the benefits of the first 3 years.
There’s Dr. Charles Benbrook 2009 study: http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159
. . . A model was developed that utilizes official, U.S. Department of Agriculture pesticide use data to estimate the differences in the average pounds of pesticides applied on GE crop acres, compared to acres planted to conventional, non-GE varieties.
The basic finding is that compared to pesticide use in the absence of GE crops, farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds. This difference represents an average increase of about 0.25 pound for each acre planted to a GE trait.
GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. In 2008, GE crop acres required over 26% more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted to conventional varieties. The report projects that this trend will continue as a result of the rapid spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds. . . . (Go to the link for access to the full report.)
3. Rolf Penner states: “One of the first problems GM wheat eliminates is a common fungus, fusarium, which attacks wheat and produces deadly mycotoxins.”
Let me explain:
GM wheat is engineered to withstand applications of, e.g. glyphosate (Monsanto’s “Roundup” and accompanying “Round-up Resistant” GMO wheat). Different chemical companies have their equivalent to Round-up and their own brand of GM seeds, different names from different chemical/biotech companies, but the process is the same: develop a GM crop that is resistant to your particular chemical, and patent the seed.
Response to Penner’s statement about fusarium: The research on the connection between glyphosate (roundup) and fusarium is conflicting. The industry is known for deliberately creating the “conflicting science”.
4. Rolf Penner states: “the canola example shows us that GM wheat would open up great opportunities for Canada if we were to go first. Let’s get on with it.”
The canola example caused Canadian farmers to lose international markets. There were moratoriums against genetically modified food crops in the European Community, for example. Canadian Triffid GM flax, engineered at the University of Saskatchewan, killed Canadian flax markets in Europe.
5. There are many more thousands of acres planted to wheat than canola in Canada. The industry, working with the Government and people like Rolf Penner (Western Cdn Wheat Growers), is trying to get the GM wheat onto the market. Once it’s there you can’t get rid of it. As I recall, the National Farmers Union (NFU) and the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) independently pegged the losses from GM wheat in the hundreds-of-millions per year. Those costs include the potential end of organic agriculture (as GM wheat and the other GM crops that could/would follow make organic too risky); export market loss (many of our best wheat customers have stated a zero tolerance); lower net income to farmers (higher costs and loss of markets); a higher incidence of fusarium – mycotoxins in the food supply are a very serious threat to human health – who would bear the cost of the required increase in inspection for fusarium in food grains for people AND for animals?; agronomic costs (more expensive chemicals to try to kill GM RR wheat in GM RR canola, etc.); segregation systems will not work; there is no labeling in place; and, perhaps most important, the wheat seeds will be subject to strict, punative, and costly patenting or other controls. And might I add that the court system used by the corporations to suppress criticism, is paid for by the citizens of Canada.
As for claims for GM wheat—drought tolerant, fertilizer efficient, fusarium resistant – these are spin-doctor advertising campaigns.
As agricultural economists would know, a business strategy for a “market oriented” response might be (ethics aside) to let the US or Australia go ahead with GM wheat and then Canada could move in and snap up all the foreign customers that don’t want GM crops. (Except that, hopefully, citizens in those countries will remain engaged in the fight to stop that which is bad for everyone.)
The reason that groups want “synchronized introduction” is to cut off the possibility that there could be sufficient quantities of non-GM wheat to serve customers; they want us all jumping off the cliff together.
Also note that Rolf Penner’s “if we were to go first” statement contradicts his “synchronized introduction”.
Penner says: “In every country where biotech crops are grown, farmers have seen noticeable improvements in their bottom lines.” That is pure, easily-debunked bull. If you add up all of Canadian farmers net income from the markets for the past 24 years, you get approximately zero. Farmers produced 8/10 of a trillion dollars in food, but they were left with essentially zero, in terms of net incomes from the market. Such was not the case pre-1985. 100% of that 8/10 of a trillion was captured by powerful chemical, fertilizer, and seed companies. Penner has to demonstrate economic benefits to farmers from GM seeds. His statement is not supported.
Rolf Penner must produce at least one peer-reviewed, independent science journal study on the human health safety of any GM wheat.
Unfortunately for Rolf, the industry makes it next-to-impossible for him to do this.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research Feb 2009.
“No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions,” the scientists wrote in a statement submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. …”
… “the agreements also prohibit growing the crops for research purposes.”
I recall that scientists like Rene Van Acker from the University of Manitoba have debunked the idea that GM technology gives significant yield advantage—most of the increase comes from agronomics, conventional breeding, etc. Graphs of corn yield show that yields have been increasing for 100 years, and the slope of that yield increase trendline did not get steeper after the introduction of GM varieties.
=== === === === === ===
ROLF PENNER’S ARTICLE, “THE SYNCHRONIZED INTRODUCTION OF GM WHEAT”, August 19, 2009, FINANCIAL POST
PUBLICATION: National Post DATE: 2009.08.19 EDITION: National SECTION: FP Comment PAGE: FP13
_______________________________________
The future of wheat; Genetically modified wheat would increase yields, cut pesticide use and give Canadian farmers a global edge
Nine wheat organizations in Australia, Canada and the United States, among them the North American Millers’ Association, recently released a joint statement that called for a synchronized introduction of genetically modified (GM) wheat into the marketplace.
The trend toward major biotech crops in soybeans, corn and canola is already well established over the past dozen years. It is high time that wheat joins their ranks.
The potential benefits of extending this technology to wheat are quite real, for both producers and consumers, as a recently updated study by British economists Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot demonstrates. The authors note that GM varieties help generate higher yields for many farmers and therefore increase overall crop production.
Biotech crops also significantly increase farmers’ incomes, reduce the need for pesticide spraying and cut greenhouse-gas emissions from agriculture.
First, the economic benefits: In every country where biotech crops are grown, farmers have seen noticeable improvements in their bottom lines. In estimated dollar terms, GM use worldwide created $10-billion in benefits in 2007 alone and $44-billion from 1996-2007. That calculation includes both cost reductions and increased yields. In 2007, biotech crops yielded 32 million tonnes more in production than conventional crops would have delivered. If these biotech crops had not been planted, another 29 million acres of land — the equivalent of 17% of the total farmland in Canada
— would have been required to make up the difference.
One of the best economic comparisons looks at the difference between Canadian and Australian canola growers. We embraced GM canola early on, while the Aussies decided to stick with conventional breeding. The result, according to Dr. Christopher Preston from the University of Adelaide, is stark. While the Australians were not able to generate any kind of price premium for their GM-free canola, Canadian growers enjoyed a 20%-25% gain in crop yields. The economic advantage went to Canada.
With about 20% of the world’s food calories coming from wheat, and wheat acres steadily declining over the past 30 years because it is more economical for farmers to grow other things, the obvious benefit to consumers comes from higher yielding crops. They will ensure a steady supply of affordable wheat for future consumption.
When it comes to the environment, Brookes and Barfoot report that, since 1996, GM crops have reduced the global use of pesticides by 792 million pounds (360 million kilograms), a significant reduction of almost 9%. Equally important, they claim that the global environmental impact from pesticide use — a slightly different calculation — fell by more than 17% due to the use of GM varieties, again a significant reduction.
Further, for those who, despite evidence to the contrary, are still convinced that mankind causes global warming, GM crops can play an important role in the reduction of CO2 dumping. The study shows that the use of diesel fuel falls because GM use means less need to spray pesticides and a dramatic reduction in the amount of tillage required. A reduced tillage also increases the amount of carbon stored in the soil. In 2006, these two factors combined enabled an estimated reduction of almost 15 billion kilograms of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere due to the use of GM
crops — the equivalent of removing more than six million cars from the road for one year.
The potential benefits go beyond these. One of the first problems GM wheat eliminates is a common fungus, fusarium, which attacks wheat and produces deadly mycotoxins. A new experimental wheat variety from Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation alters the grain’s starch composition, an improvement that shows great promise in reducing the incidence of bowel disease, diabetes and obesity. Others are looking into the addition of a small molecule called resveratrol, commonly found in red wine that may help prevent age-related disorders like neurodegenerative diseases and cardiovascular disease. Contrary to what some anti-GM activists claim, wheat allergies could actually be reduced by specially breeding wheat with proteins, starches and glutens that no longer trigger the same allergic reactionsthat conventional
wheat varieties do.
Those who oppose GM wheat also frequently claim that GM foods have not been properly tested, or they assert that few independent studies have been published to establish their safety. Another claim is that regulatory agencies rely exclusively on corporate information to decide whether GM foods are safe. They are wrong on all three counts. Currently more than 270 peer-reviewed reports in the scientific literature document the general safety and nutritional wholesomeness of GM foods.
If we gave GM wheat the green light today, it would be six to 10 years before we’d see a commercialized product. That’s all the more reason to move forward with it now. The benefits for consumers and farmers are obvious and the safety record is excellent, with the rewards far outweighing any possible risks the naysayers might imagine.
Even if other countries are reluctant to move ahead, the canola example shows us that GM wheat would open up great opportunities for Canada if we were to go first. Let’s get on with it.
– Rolf Penner is a Manitoba farmer and the Manitoba vice-president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, one of the organizations calling for the synchronized introduction of GM wheat.
Please also read my article, “Ottawa Dithers Over Concerns About Roundup,” at:
http://www.pathslesstravelled.com/2012/02/roundup-modern-miracle-or-man-made.html
Excellent article, Larry. Many thanks! I hope people will follow your link.
I will find time, sometime, to post the information that adds to your documentation of the corruption of the PMRA (Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada). They work for the Corporate interest, not to protect Health. Just one example: they put Dr. Keith Solomon from the University of Guelph on the review panel that made the decision about 2,4-D. He was “for hire” by the tobacco industry before he became a paid “professional” for the chem-biotech corporations. In the 1990’s he came to Regina on his own dime, out of the goodness of his heart (ha!) to speak against the introduction of a cosmetic pesticide by-law there.