Digging a lot deeper on genetically modified crops
There are arguments worth considering on both sides of this murky debate
My decision to grow genetically modified soybeans was made without malice toward the earth. Nor did growing that crop make me a witting or unwitting participant in a biotech company’s alleged bid to monopolize agriculture.
For some, the proximity of the word ‘genetic’ to the word ‘modification’ too easily conjures images of tampering, as if a team of maniacal scientists has set out to change the course of human history under the suspicious guise of “progress.”
On the other side is uncritical acceptance. And that’s just as ugly.
In agriculture, industry is always pushing the latest chemicals and the latest seed varieties on the farmer. If we don’t push back, monopolies form.
Both of these sides are wrong. And neither is representative of the average Canadian farmer.
“I don’t know how I feel about GM crops,” said an agronomist and soybean expert whose advice on agriculture matters is respected and sought out by farmers.
I was expecting a firm but thoughtful position in favour of the crops — she has an MSC in agriculture and has been working in the industry for many years — but her position was less sure.
In late October, the New York Times published Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops, an article exploring and calling into question the great project of genetically modifying crops to increase yields while decreasing chemical usage.
There are reportedly billions of people starving on this planet, and by 2050 the world’s population is expected to increase to 10 billion. GM crops were supposed to be the saviour, not Frankenstein’s wretch.
The article cited data the Times itself gathered, as well as some from the United Nations. It compared Europe — a continent that basically rejected genetically modified crops and similar technologies a couple decades ago — to Canada and the United States, two countries that have accepted the biotechnology.
The results of this piece are suspicious. To be sure, at least one 20,000-acre grain farmer in Saskatchewan could have provided a quote that would have sent the article back to the ground floor.
When the story broke, farmers across Canada took to Twitter and railed against its findings, saying things like, “They should have talked to me. My farm has reduced its herbicide usage since growing GM crops.”
And the finding that yields haven’t increased significantly since varieties like Roundup Ready soybeans were introduced by Monsanto in the mid-1990s is an interesting morsel — and one that is no doubt substantiated — but an incredibly dubious one.
I’m certain our farm would not be able to produce 45 bushel per acre soys if we grew a non-GM variety.
The farmers who first attempted to grow soys in southern Manitoba in the early ’80s and early ’90s had such poor outcomes they conceded that the crop was better grown in other regions.
Now, the crop is growing, and an undeniably important part of Canada’s economy.
The Times article is not entirely wrong. In fact, it isn’t wrong at all; just selective and poorly fleshed out. It mentions the potential pitfalls of Roundup-tolerant weeds sprouting as a result of constant exposure to only one herbicide. Yes, this is true. Weeds persistently killed with the same chemical will eventually adapt to survive and become less affected by it. This has become a significant issue in areas of the U.S.
But what this article fails to account for is the many farmers in Canada and elsewhere who understand this and mitigate the risks of such happening on their farms by mixing small quantities of compatible chemicals into their Roundup to ensure invasive weeds are not able to develop these tolerances.
It paints an almost malevolent, anti-environment, anti-stewardship picture of the North American farmer, who, in this article, is an uncritical consumer passively accepting seed and chemical recommendations from the large companies.
The bulk of Canadian farmers are much smarter than that. It would have been difficult for our farm to find soybean seed that wasn’t Roundup Ready. It’s what’s available, it’s what is affordable — and this is a problem. Farmers wanting to try non-GM varieties will have to dig to find them.
More and more farmers are urging ag research bodies to look into developing and promoting nonGM varieties and how to grow them properly and profitably.
There are good arguments on both sides, and there are fallacious arguments on both sides, as well.
Be suspicious of large companies urging you to buy what they’re making. Be skeptical of new technology and chemistry. But don’t write it all off. There are smart people at Monsanto and Syngenta. And there are smart people on the front lines, protesting, holding their collective and individual power in check.
It’s OK. Wallow in the grey mess. The right answer to genetically modified crops is yes and no.