The Rural Voice, 2000-04, Page 27evidence of community and
environmental disruption as well as
the creation of new pests. It could
very well be that biotechnology is
everything the scientific community
says it is, related Kevan, but Canada
is a democracy and people have the
right to know and to make decisions
for themselves. It is' the job of
ecologists and economists to assess
the applications and set policy, not
the scientific community. Kevan
concluded his session stating he's
neither for biotech nor against it —
just that he has a healthy scepticism
due to his disenfranchisement by the
corporations.
Ethics also became a part of the
debate as Marie Carter,
coordinator of the Catholic
Rural Life Conference with the
London Diocese, offered a brief
glimpse of the issue. What is needed
is a system that emphasizes principles
that promote the common good,
encompassed in Carter's presentation
of Seven Basic Principles. They
included:
Respect for Life — "Does this
technology act out of a respect for the
dignity of human life?" There's an
inherent danger when corporations
justify biotech on the grounds that it
will "feed the world".
Respect for Creation — A central
theme in many mainstream Christian
religions, Carter asked the audience,
"are we acting out of a sense of
stewardship of the earth, its creatures
and resources?"
Principle of Subsidiarity — Where
people have a basic right to have a
meaningful role in making decisions
that affect their lives, central to the
labeling issue.
A Social Mortgage on Private
Property — Is it a legitimate right of
ownership and is the obligation to
share that ownership being met?
Dignity of Human Labour — Who
profits from this and will workers
share that profit?
Principle of Solidarity — Will
others in other lands or levels of
society be adversely affected?
Preferential Option of the Poor —
How will biotechnology affect those
vulnerable in our society?
Eating as a part of the agricultural
industry was foremost on the mind of
Eleanor Kane, co-director of the
Stratford Chef School and co-owner
of the Old Prune Restaurant. Oddly
enough, Kane used much of the same
speech she gave at AGCare's annual
meeting in 1998, focusing less on
biotech specifically and highlighting
the increasing use of locally -grown
produce and its benefits at her school.
She noted that people eat too many
processed foods and care little about
the origins of their food.
If on the other hand, people take
care to buy locally grown produce,
then everyone benefits. The
consumer wins for eating that fresh
food, the environment wins because
of its proximity and the grower and
local economy win because they are
sustained by the exchange of goods
and money.
Although she stated she had to
fight her way on to the speaker's
agenda, AGCare's Mary Lou Garr
provided a detailed account of
biotech's advantages from a
producer's perspective. Garr spoke
Monach
butterfly
argument
just won't go away
despite research
of the benefits of Bt corn, not only in
curbing European Corn Borer (ECB)
populations but also reducing
mycotoxin levels in hog feed. From
an AGCare perspective, she also
assured the audience that farmers are
following refugia protocols when
planting Bt corn, noting that her farm
consistently sees 120 bu/ac yields on
corn while her grandfather, she noted,
couldn't get 30 bu/ac on a regular
basis.
Of particular note, Garr pointed to
the preliminary results of a two-year
field test study by Dr. Mark Sears
which has yielded no evidence of
harmful effects from Bt corn pollen
on Monarch butterflies.
Yet despite that reference,
subsequent speakers continued to cite
corn pollen for its effects on the
insects.
From a consumer standpoint, Garr
spoke of the need for three kinds of
labelling: organic, a GMO-free label
and a label that states foods may
contain GMO's. To do otherwise,
she warned, would confuse and scare
consumers.
David Pullen was the other
producer on the agenda and stated he
was not there on behalf of any pro or
con arguments. A fifth generation
producer and owner of McCully's
Hill Farm in St. Marys, Pullen lashed
out at corporate control and
government cutbacks that have
robbed agriculture of independent,
publicly -funded research. For the
record, he said he was not supportive
of AGCare's position on biotech.
Pullen also likened comparisons
of Bt corn and Bt pesticide used in
'organic farming to comparing apples
to oranges; Bt pesticides can be
washed off the plant but Bt corn has
the gene throughout the plant, as
stated by Stoskopf.
Like Kane, Pullen urged
consumers to consider the local
growers when making purchases;
think beyond price and appearance,
he urged. If there are to be price
increases for food, that money should
go directly to producers, not the
processors, retailers or input industry.
The after-dinner session was
represented on the anti -GE side
of the issue. Richard Wolfson
of the Consumer Right to Know
Campaign preceded keynote speaker,
the Honourable Senator Eugene
Whelan. While Wolfson's recitation
of proceedings leading up to
Canada's banning of rBGH
(recombinant Bovine Growth
Hormone) was impressive, his
reference to the Monarch butterfly
fallacy and his use of activist group's
promotional material did nothing to
solidify his initial presentation. In
fact, it weakened it considerably.
Last but certainly not least was
Senator Eugene Whelan. Although
he offered little in the way of new or
innovative statements for or against
biotechnology, his anecdotes about
the Trudeau years and his dealings
with the Americans and their views
of supply management lightened the
mood. He came out clearly against
corporate control of any aspect of
agriculture, for which he found a
most -attentive and appreciative
audience.0
APRIL 2000 23