In order to understand the context of my comments I would like to relate the focus of KAP’s policy on biotechnology. We believe that producers must realize benefits from the use of biotechnology. There is a need for publicly funded research which is accessible by producers. There must be a market for the products of biotechnology before they are introduced. We must balance the benefits and risks of biotechnology and this must be based on consistent scientific proof. We need to harmonize our regulatory processes based on sound science; and this should encourage competition while still enabling the continuation of research.

We recognize and embrace the fact that we must, in cooperation with government, help consumers recognize the benefits of biotechnology, the risks of biotechnology and the risks of not having the technology developed and/or utilized.

Over this past year, KAP has adopted policy which reflects the marketability of GM products, specifically GM wheat. This issue has also been adopted at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture level.

I will address specifically the GM wheat issue. To heighten awareness on the marketability issue, KAP joined with other groups (such as Greenpeace, NFU and Council of Canadians) to highlight the issue. Some of the activities that this lobby effort included was a press conference at the end of July; a written request for a meeting with the Prime Minister; and most recently a presentation to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. These three venues helped us bring much needed attention to the marketability issue; and while some of the other groups were present for much different reasons, we did manage to have our agenda in the forefront. We did not get a meeting with the Prime Minister but at the Senate Agriculture Committee several of the Senators raised the issue of agronomic concerns.

Marketability is not a criteria that is used in the variety registration process in Canada.

We support a science based system and that is currently what we are led to believe we have.

We have a dilemma - we have asked that marketability be part of the registration process and that has not been accepted as it is outside of the science based system. Even if it was accepted who would have the ultimate responsibility for making the decision that the threshold has been met?

2.

Would we or our customers still have the same feeling about GM wheat if it was fusarium resistant instead of Round-up Ready. If it was other food quality traits rather than herbicide resistant, what would we do?

If we accept science in principle, then only selectively apply it - what happens? That is what the Europeans appear to do in some of their trade policies when they invoke the use of the Precautionary Principle.

What responsibility do the developers have towards the management system of their clients? Will or should a company launch a product which has the potential to compromise the current management systems of their client or customers.

Marketability is being driven by opponents to the technology - Greenpeace, Council of Canadians, etc. They do not accept the technology or say that it has not been properly tested. Sometimes we are tempted to ask "Are their motives really sincere or is about raising money and the profile of their organization?"

I can not really offer too many comments on the legal aspects of the introduction of products of biotechnology, but I would like to take the opportunity to raise some of the more interesting dilemmas.

People who don’t want their crops contaminated with GM products are saying they must be protected by society from this contamination. Is this an unrealistic expectation or should they be expected to protect themselves from any unwanted plant material? If I want to build a hog barn or feedlot, I must do so in a location that meets everyone else’s concerns. In the past seed growers had to provide their own isolation areas to protect their crops from contamination.

Should there be any liability if pollen moves off your property and who owns it? Does the patent holder of genetic material ever lose control of the material? What is his responsibility? This pollen movement has occurred since there were plants but now that we have patented life forms and technology to trace the movement are we in need of a further legal definition of responsibilties.

We need internationally recognized tolerances for GM crop admixtures and dockage. Zero is not attainable and therefore not an option.

Will the desire or wishes of your organization have an influence on the developers of herbicide tolerant wheat and how or when they market the product? What will the impact of herbicide tolerant cereals have on zero tillage systems?

What are the corporate obligations of the developers?

Are there alternative herbicides that will take out RR cereal varieties that are cost effective? - I leave that to the chemical companies to answer.

3.

Can a segregation and IP system be developed. In Canada at this time it would appear that our normal commercial grain handling system could have difficulty handling these products if the tolerance levels for contamination are very low.

Will exporters even want to handle GM wheat and who will carry the liability if and when unwanted mixtures do occur?

How do we give the research community the necessary incentive and assurances to continue their large investment in breeding programs and technology investment?

These are some of the unanswered questions we have as an organization. We support the use of biotechnology and want to see the research continue as it would appear to have many potential benefits for society. However we can not at this time afford to lose significant markets which would be the result from the introduction of GM wheat into North America today.

As we move forward I believe that it is imperative that groups or individuals who see benefits from the use of biotechnology in agriculture continue to work together in order to try to find solutions to some of the problems we face. Occasionally we may find ourselves with odd bedfellows but in the end we need to find a way for the technology to move forward and have the developers rewarded for their efforts.

Weldon Newton operates a grain and farrow to finish hog farm near Neepawa Manitoba in partnership with his brother Murray.

Weldon Newton has served on the executive of Keystone Agricultural Producers for the past 5 years. He has been Vice President for 4 years. During that time he has chaired the Environment and Livestock committees for KAP. He has also been a director of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture for the past 4 years.

He previously served as Director, Vice Chairman and Chairman of Manitoba Pork and as a director of the Canadian Pork Council.