Two takes on the stagnation of GMO
Re GMOs may not be yielding promised bounty, Oct. 31
This article features some of the halftruths that have poisoned public conversation on the value of agricultural biotechnology. True, farm pesticide usage has declined more dramatically in France than in Canada and the U.S., but that decline comes from a far higher level; pesticide usage per acre is still much higher there and GMO crops represent only a small portion of the crops grown there and here.
The genetic modifications used in corn, soybeans and canola in North America were introduced for reasons of pest control, not higher yield per se. As a recent report by the U.S. National Academies of Science shows, the improvements mean better yields when their usage means better pest control — but not where pests aren’t a problem.
There are sound reasons why several hundred thousand North American farmers like me pay extra to purchase and grow GMO seeds. It’s not because we are stupid or are beholden to big companies as the article subtly implies. Farmers know value for money and take pride in growing better quality and more productive crops, even as the relative cost to consumers continues to decline. Food now represents less than 10 per cent of average family spending; the farmers’ share is only 1.5 per cent. Terry Daynard, Guelph
It is encouraging that genetic modification has not resulted in increased crop yields over the past two decades. At a time when it’s more important than ever to support small-scale agricultural enterprises, both here and abroad, to learn that agribusiness giants such as Monsanto have fallen short of their promised mark is not necessarily bad news.
At the COP 21 climate talks last year, Canada committed $2.65 billion to support people in the poorer countries of the global south who are severely affected by climate change. Most development experts agree that small scale family farming must be at the heart of climate change solutions. Let’s hope the Liberals keep their promise. Tom McCarthy, Mississauga