Garbage in, garbage out: Survey of 'experts' on genetic food tampering leaves out farmers

[marmar]

from Grist Magazine's Gristmill blog:





Garbage in, garbage out
Survey of 'experts' on genetic food tampering leaves out farmers
Posted by JMG at 11:37 AM on 25 Feb 2008


This is sad. Billed as a survey of what "farmers" think of genetic tampering with food crops, the survey left out one important group: farmers. Restricting itself to large-scale commodity growers, the survey is garbage in, garbage out.

I doubt that such notables as Gene Logsdon, Wendell Berry, and Joel Salatin would qualify as "experts" to these folk.

What Do Real Agriculture Experts - Farmers - Think About Genetically Modified Crops?

Submitted by News Account on 23 February 2008 - 4:01pm. Science & Society What do farmers think about GM crops? They like 'em - they like better crops with fewer pesticides and they feel that government has not listened when it counts so business has filled the void.

A group at the Open University, led by Professor Andy Lane, has taken the first systematic look at what large-scale, commodity farmers – not those mainly involved in organic growing - think about genetically-modified crops.

Lane and his colleagues found that both farmers who have been involved in GM crop trials and those who have not, regard GM as a simple extension of previous plant breeding techniques, such as those which have produced today’s established crop types. They regard GM crops as an innovation which they would assess on its merits. Their real interest is in how GM crops would work in practice and whether they can contribute to the profitability of their farms. The research suggests that these farmers do not think that GM raises any issues of principle, or that it is a matter of right or wrong.

Professor Lane said: “New technology such as GM is attractive to farmers. They want to produce high-quality food profitably and they want to farm in an environmentally sensitive way. GM may allow them to reconcile this conundrum by doing both of these things at once.”

A particular advantage of GM is its potential to allow farmers to grow crops with high yields while using less herbicide. This involves new management practices. Lane and his colleagues found that farmers who have been involved in the Farm-Scale Evaluations to assess GM in action have found GM crops feasible to grow.

The researchers also looked at how farmers learn about new developments such as GM. They found that most of the learning farmers do is informal, for example by experimentation or from their networks, which are made up from a wide range of people not necessarily just farmers. These networks can extend over long geographical distances.

Many farmers disapprove of past cuts in public funding for agricultural advisory services. It is now complicated and expensive for farmers to get good advice. They also feel that there is poor communication between farmers and people involved in agricultural policy, and between farmers and relevant scientific research.

The research project ‘Farmers Understandings of GM crops within local communities’ was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council from the ESRC Science in Society Programme. Professor Andy Lane and Dr Sue Oreszczyn work at the Department of Development Policy and Practice, Open University.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/what_do_real_agriculture_experts_farmers_think_about_genetically_modified_crops

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/23/171030/811

[GliderGuider]

1. GM canola

Press release form the National Farmers Union yesterday.

FEBRUARY 26, 2008
NFU VICE-PRESIDENT COMPLETES SPEAKING TOUR OF AUSTRALIA

Terry Boehm, Vice-President of the National Farmers Union (NFU), recently completed a speaking tour of Australia. Boehm was invited to Australia to outline the experience of western Canadian farmers with genetically-modified (GM) canola.

A number of states in Australia currently have moratoriums on planting of GM canola, but they are under intense pressure from biotechnology companies to allow the commercial introduction of GM crops. Conventional or non-GM canola generally commands higher prices in global markets for Australian farmers.

Boehm said Australian farmers should think twice about handing control over their canola varieties to multinational corporations. He pointed out that Agriculture Canada statistics clearly show that the introduction of GM canola in the 1990s failed to significantly increase canola yields. He added that while the “hybridization” process does increase yields, the process can be applied to both GM and non-GM varieties equally.

During his tour, Boehm was subject to criticism from the Canola Council of Canada, which is an industry-dominated lobby group that promotes GM canola. Boehm said the Canola Council has a vested interest in promoting GM canola. He cited the Canola Council’s website, which lists among its directors, executives from Dow Agro Sciences, Bayer, Monsanto, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and others.

“Farmers’ choices for non-GM canola varieties have virtually disappeared in Canada,” he stated. “Almost all the canola seed varieties available to farmers now are GM varieties.” The biotechnology companies which hold intellectual property rights on GM canola seed varieties are profiting from their control over what farmers plant. “Gene patents are extremely profitable to the companies when they are linked to contracts disallowing seed saving and re-use,” stated Boehm. “Over time, these companies have boosted the price of seed to the point where a farmer is on average paying $6.00 per pound. This translates into a minimum of $30.00 per acre for seed alone. In addition, a farmer pays a $15.00 per acre technology use fee (TUA) for the privilege of planting glyphosate-tolerant canola. In other specific herbicide-tolerant canolas, these fees are incorporated into the price of the chemical. The ‘package’ costs the farmer approximately the same, regardless of the option he chooses.”

Boehm said Monsanto and other biotech companies prosecute farmers “to the fullest extent of the law” in cases where his or her field is found to be contaminated by canola seed containing a gene covered by intellectual property rights owned by the company. “The biotech companies have the right to the gene, the cell, and the plant, no matter how it arrives on a farmer’s field,” he said.

Boehm said the biotech firms have used all means possible to make the seed legally sterile. “This includes patents, plant variety protection acts, and contract law. GM canola is just the beginning. The model used for canola through these so-called intellectual property rights is one that companies would like to use for all other seeds and crops if possible. The object is to make the farmers dependent on the companies for their seeds at their price.”

Boehm was one of two Saskatchewan farmers who participated in the speaking tour. Arnold Taylor, President of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD), was also a featured speaker.

- 30 –