Keeping Company with the Devil.
- August 16, 2001
This Opinion was featured in the August 16, 2001 issue of Canada's The Western Producer
The Canadian Wheat Board's (CWB) decision to join a group of organizations that is opposed to genetically modified crops can and undoubtedly will be both praised and condemned. Unfortunately too many people will judge it on the politics rather than its merits.
A better understanding of the challenge faced by the CWB might provide an opportunity for agreement between both sides of the great board divide.
Although it does much else, the CWB's ultimate job is to maximize farmers' market returns from the sale of wheat and barley in export, food and industrial markets. This says, of course, absolutely nothing about GM crops because the board was set up long before they were ever thought of.
Most farmers with the positive experience of GM canola behind them would probably say that the CWB has no business in getting between them and the productivity that this technology provides. They might even claim that the board is shooting itself in the foot by limiting the long term competitiveness of Prairie agriculture and putting future export potential, its bread and butter, at risk.
The challenge for the CWB is that at least in the short term there is considerable opposition to the technology. And the board as a marketing agency is probably acutely aware that the customer is always right.
Associating with opponents of genetic engineering provides two great benefits to the CWB. It emphasizes the GM-free status of Prairie wheat and provides an insight into the thinking and motivation of the opponents to GM crops.
Being GM-free might provide a premium for Canadian farmers and the board should be in the best position to judge this. The possible pitfall to this shorter term strategy is that, if and when opinions change, any premiums will evaporate and farmers will be left to compete on international markets without the technology.
And this is where the second benefit of being involved with GM-free advocates arises. Their motivation is very diverse including food safety, environmental, ethical, commercial and political concerns.
As yet there seems to no objective basis for such opposition. But equally, and as with any new technology, no absolute assurances can be provided. And, while there is a perception that risks are unacceptable, opposition will persist.
But at some point in the future either because experience and familiarity with the technology creates increased confidence, or more likely because something else knocks genetic engineering off its Frankenstein pedestal, opposition is likely without warning to fade. And then plan B needs to swing into action.
Concern should not be over the one-sided company the board is keeping, but whether it has an open and alert mind on the issue on the one hand. And, if it has, its credibility with this company on the other.
The board's stated policy on GM crops suggests that it has an open mind, but some of the company it is keeping may not find this acceptable. It has a challenge, indeed.
top of page