An interesting take on the evolution of attitudes toward biotechnology recently appeared on the website of Ag-West Bio, a non-profit, agricultural advocacy organization funded by Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada and Saskatchewan’s provincial Ministry of Agriculture.
Written by Peter Phillips, an international political economist and professor of Public Policy in the Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Saskatchewan, the article, titled, “Europe and GMOs: Perhaps there is a way forward,” outlined a startling change in attitudes among European Union farm policymakers, long considered the world’s most diehard opponents of biotechnology as it’s applied to food production.
While some U.S. agri-business interest might be tempted to say, “Who cares what Europeans think?” the fact that Canada is a major exporter of ag commodities to Europe gives the drive toward official acceptance abroad of genetically engineered crops and commodities a real sense of urgency.
European politicians and regulators are widely viewed as the major barrier to the optimal development, adaptation, adoption and diffusion of biotechnology in the global agri-food system.
Prof. Phillips also noted that the 27 EU member states “produce more food than any other country in the world and are the world’s largest trader in agri-food crops. They cannot be ignored.”
In a presentation last month at EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, Phillips and a delegation of Canadian regulators and growers outlined the benefits of genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant canola.He noted that the Canadian group discussed the “real and measurable economic returns for farmers and consumers, but explained that the audience “really only perked up when we talked about the environmental effects [of GM canola].”
Of course, a similar story could be compiled for other herbicide-tolerant crops developed with genetic engineering, and indeed there is mounting evidence that such crops require less herbicide usage, in some cases fewer applications and often the ability to switch to less toxic alternatives.
In summary, Phillips wrote, “The lure of more and cheaper food and more profitable farming generated little or no interest. The consensus of those at the event was that only the environmental evidence has any chance of shifting public opinion and eliminating regulatory roadblocks in the EU.”
The missing middle ground
Why does a fight for acceptance of some other country’s GMO crops by Euro-policymakers matter to U.S. livestock producers? Because the battle isn’t about construction of some regulatory legalities regarding development and trade in GM commodities. It’s about changing public opinions about the larger issue of modern agriculture.
Think of the way that food production is currently positioned. Whether in major media coverage or as part of advocacy group messaging, it’s an overly simplistic, black-and-white debate between two alleged extremes.
On one side are conventional growers and producers and processors, who are more often than not portrayed as big, greedy and evil. On the other side are alternative farmers and marketers, who wear shiny halos and are in the business not only of feeding their customers but saving the planet, as well.
For every adjective describing one side, there is a corresponding pejorative with which to label the other:
Organic vs. Industrial. Natural vs. Chemical. Sustainable vs. Destructive. Humane vs. Abusive. Family vs. Corporate. And the most damaging of all, Ethical vs. Profitable.
Both the proponents of alternative agriculture and their public sector champions have (consciously in many cases) fallen into that exact rhetorical trench. Policies and technologies alike are either good for people, protective of animals and positive for the planet, or they’re not. There’s no meet-in-the-middle rationale available.
Thus, biotechnology stands in for a host of anti-industry pejoratives regarding conventional animal agriculture: Too big, too industrialized, too corporately controlled, too ecologically destructive. As a symbol of all that’s (allegedly) wrong with modern food production, biotech can be demonized by those who have little understanding of the science, and in the process, all of modern livestock and food production gets slammed right along with it.
But Prof. Phillips offers some hope with the notion that the very sensitivities about environmental protection might become the route to ultimate acceptance of biotechnology in agriculture, suggesting that, “Perhaps it is time to rebrand GM crops as ‘green’ alternatives to conventional technologies.”
If that were to proceed as he suggested it might, the fallout would help to positively position other practices and technologies currently condemned when critics discuss food-production issues.
As his article implies, that might indeed be the way forward. ÿ
› To review Phillip’s entire article, visit www.agwest.sk.ca/blog/2012/03/europe-and-gmos-perhaps-there-is-a-way-forward/
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dan Murphy, a veteran food-industry journalist and commentator.
Comments (0) Leave a comment