The Rural Voice, 1987-03, Page 18pesticide was forced to duplicate the
entire research package of the original.
But PSR 1985 allows the govem-
ment to license such competitors if
they provide additional data in areas
that the government believes need to
be updated.
Moncrieff says PSR 1985 is the
government's attempt to let farmers
"I can take you to places
in the midwest States
where they're running
thousands of acres
without the use of
chemicals. When people
say it can't be done on
a large scale, they're just
justifying what they do.
They're brainwashed."
— David Reibling
"have it both ways." They gain the
advantages of a research -based propri-
etary rights system, but they also
enjoy the price -cutting benefits of
competition.
Having it bothways just won't
work, Moncrieff says. "If there isn't
sufficient protection for a product in
Canada, nobody will undertake the R
and D necessary to register it here. If
you want Canada to take advantage of
the very best science and technology
available, you've got to give some
protection to it."
Ron Cameron says it isn't so
much that Canadian farmers want to
have it both ways, but that Canadian
farmers, with their variety of oper-
ations, want the system that benefits
them most as a group.
"If you're a wheat producer in
Western Canada you have a very big
market and can attract a lot of people
to compete to give you the product
you need. But if you're a lima -bean
grower in Southern Ontario, there's
not too much profitability in supply-
ing you a pesticide specific to lima
beans. So you don't have a lot of
people knocking on your door to
register a product, at considerable cost,
with no chance of ever recovering that
cost out of the product."
The CPAC, Cameron says, thinks
that PSR 1985 is an acceptable com-
promise, allowing some competition
but still maintaining patent protection.
For a significant minority of
farmers, however, patent protection
and pesticide licensing don't figure in
farm management decisions at all.
David Reibling is the president of
Ontario's Organic Crop Improvement
Association. As part of the associa-
tion's certified organic produce pro-
gram, member farms must be certified
free of synthetic chemicals for at least
three years.
Reibling says that although he
thinks farmers can operate successfully
without using synthetic chemicals,
he's not against the use of chemicals.
"I'm against the abuse of chemicals.
I don't think we'll ever see the world
go to chemical -free farming, but I
think we can cut our usage way back
and still maintain decent yields."
Reibling processes and markets
much of the produce he and his father
grow on their 250 acres near Tavistock
(Oak Manor Farms). And he scoffs at
suggestions that organic farming is all
right for a back -yard garden but not for
serious agriculture.
"If I wasn't into processing I would
probably be running five or six hun-
dred acres myself. I can take you to
places in the midwest States where
they're running thousands of acres
without the use of chemicals. When
people say it can't be done on a large
scale, they're just justifying what they
do. They're brainwashed."
Crop rotation is the farmer's best
defence against weeds and insects,
Reibling says. "You have to keep
in mind that every time you use a
pesticide, you eliminate a natural
predator. You're taking on its job.
And it really snowballs. While you're
taking on the natural predator's job,
the enemy has built up a resistance to
the product you're trying to eliminate
it with."
Bill Jonjegan, president of the
Christian Farmers Federation of Ont-
ario (CFFO), agrees with Reibling
that the elimination of pesticides is
unlikely. Neither is it C11-.0 policy.
"I think we have kind of a middle of
the road approach when it comes to
pesticides. We don't use them indiscri-
minately. We should use them in the
areas where they do the most good."
Integrated pest management, or
the more sparing use of pesticides in
combination with natural predators
and strict crop rotation, is something
Jonjegan says fits the general CFFO
approach.
"I'm not saying that you could use
it on everything, but now we're even
treating some of the major crops like
corn, by saying, "Hey, we're bound to
get it, so spray for it." That attitude,
Jonjegan says, can lead to problems.
"Take what's been happening in
Iowa, and the problems they've been
having with the nitrogen and phos-
phorous from fertilizers and with some
of the herbicides leeching right down
into the water tables. They have a
critical problem, and I don't think
Ontario's that far behind. I think
it's just a matter of awareness."
"I think we have kind
of a middle of the road
approach when it comes
to pesticides. We don't
use them indiscriminately.
We should use them in
the areas where they
do the most good."
— Bill Jonjegan
Awareness, in fact, looks to be
an important word in any future dis-
cussions about the role of pesticides
in agriculture. It means that the
government and the general public
must be well -versed on the risks and
benefits that come as part and parcel of
the system that provides Canadians
with some of the world's cheapest
food. And it means that farmers
should be conscious of the possibility
that the system could — and perhaps
must — be improved.0
16 THE RURAL VOICE