ISIS Press Release 24/04/08
Study Based on Farmers’ Experience Exposes Risks of GM Crops
The first study of its kind in North America, possibly in the world, shows
how the risks of GM technology outweigh the benefits especially in the longer
term. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Canada, along with the United States
and Argentina were the first countries in the world to commercialise GM crops.
But more than a decade later, risk assessment for GM crops is still ignoring
farmers’ knowledge and their years of experience in growing GM crops.
Ian Mauro and Stéphane
McLachlan at the University of Manitoba, Winnepeg, in Canada, have now completed
a study of farmers from Manitoba and across Canada based on interviews (n=15)
and survey by mail (n=370) conducted between 2002 and 2003. It is especially
useful in identifying the actual risks and benefits for farmers who are not
yet committed to growing GM crops.
“We’re very pleased
with this study.” Mauro says. “Using quantitative and qualitative methods,
we’ve documented the benefits and risks associated herbicide-tolerant (HT)
canola. We found that farmers have been primarily
placed at risk due to the proliferation of HT volunteers. Smaller farms and
those with a longer history of GM canola use were at highest risk.”
Canadian farmers
rapidly adopted HT canola following its commercial release in 1995. Three
varieties of HT canola have been introduced: Roundup Ready (RR), Liberty Link
(LL) and Clearfield (CF), tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate, glufosinate
and imidazolinone respectively. RR and LL are genetically modified, whereas
CF has been created by induced mutation. Currently, they represent 96 percent
of the 5.25 million ha of canola grown in Canada: approximately
50 percent RR, 32 percent LL and 14 percent CF. The great majority are grown
in the western Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta.
Thus, Canadian farmers
have a great deal of experience in growing HT canola, and that’s what Mauro
and McLachlan decided to focus on.
Comprehensive study on HT canola across Canada
The aims of their study were to:
·
Evaluate risks of HT canola relative to other
risks facing rural communities
·
Characterize the benefits and risks associated
with HT canola
·
Identify the factors contributing to the risks
and benefits associated with HT canola
·
Explore the role that farmers’ knowledge plays
in the risk analysis of HT crops and more generally agricultural technology.
Initial interviews
were conducted in the Canadian Prairies Ecozone, which includes the provinces
of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, characterized by a continental
climate having short warm summers and long cold winters, with an annual mean
temperature range from 1.5 C to 3.5 C. The mean annual precipitation is 504.4
mm.
The mail survey of
the study covered two ecoregions: Lake Manitobe Plain (LMP) and Aspen Parkland
(AP), which dominate southern Manitoba. The average growing
season for both ecoregions ranges from 173 to 187 days and the soils are predominantly
‘Black Chernozemic’ a black soil rich in organic matter. The LMP is generally
recognized as having some of the most productive soils in Manitoba, especially
suited to cereals, oilseeds and pulses. On average, canola is seeded on 1
million ha in the province.
The in-depth
interviews with 15 farmers were conducted across western Canada
between June and October 2002. The qualitative data collected during these
interviews also helped in the development of a questionnaire and to ensure
that its content and wording were appropriate. The 12-page questionnaire queried
farmers on their experience and attitudes regarding HT canola. It assessed
concerns regarding HT canola relative to other stresses that confront rural
communities; the specific benefits and risks associated with the HT canola;
and factors that contribute to risk perception among farmers, especially those
that had experience in growing HT canola. The questionnaire used a 7-point
rank order scale ranging from 1 for “strongly disagree”, to 7 for “strongly
agree”. Researchers associated with universities and industry as well as farmers
reviewed the survey for comprehensiveness, technical accuracy and impartiality.
Within each
of the two ecoregions, rural municipalities were equally divided into two
classes of low or high abundance of volunteer canola, based on the 2001 Manitoba
weed survey. The response rate was estimated to be 25 percent. The great majority
(97 0ercent) were male, most (67 percent) were full-time farmers with an average
of 28 years of farming experience. A large majority (85 percent) considered
themselves knowledgeable about farming. The education background of 48 percent
with postsecondary training was slightly higher than the Manitoba average
(34 percent). The average farm size was 575 ha, again higher than the average
Manitobe canola growers (409 ha). Minimum tillage was practiced by 51 percent
of respondents, similar to the provincial average of 45.5 percent. The large
majority (78 percent) grew HT canola, including RR (47 percent), LL (22 percent)
CF (13 percent) and various combinations (15 percent), as reflected by the
national data. For farmers growing HT canola, their attitude toward 10 benefits
and 10 risk items were assessed.
Risk of HT compared to risk of other stresses for the rural community of farmers
Of the ten general risk items facing rural communities,
input costs, cost of machinery and commodity prices top the list in that order,
with high mean scores of 6.72, 6.67 and 6.60 respectively. Thus, farm economics
were of paramount concern. This reflects the decline of net income of Canadian
farmers over the last 20 years and farmers are now in the worst farm-income
crisis in history. Environmental concerns that affected crop production, and
hence income, were also ranked high; these included excessive moisture, drought,
and natural disasters. HT crops ranked 9 out of the 10 general risks, but
its score was still high at 5.08 (moderately risky). Its low ranking in comparison
to other stresses explains why farmers took it up in the first place. These
are farmers with big farms, averaging 575 ha, above the provincial, where
ease of management is paramount, reducing input costs such as labour.
Risks versus benefits of HT canola
With regard to the benefits of HT canola, easier weed
control, herbicide rotation and better weed control came top at scores of
5.47, 5.37 and 5.28 respectively. With regards to other purported benefits,
67 percent disagreed that HT crops were protecting “small farm heritage”,
and 58 percent disagreed that HT crops were “the answer to feeding the world’s
hungry”; while 39 percent rejected the notion that HT crops made “Canadian
agriculture more competitive.”
Loss of markets, restriction of farmers’ rights in technology
use contracts, and increased lawsuits were uppermost among the top risks
at scores of 5.87, 5.56 and 5.36 respectively. One farmer interviewed said:
“The loss of [European ] markets due to GMs had a huge financial impact. This
was likely larger than cost of controlling volunteers or benefit of easy weed
control.”
Operational risks
also scored high at 5.08, 5,07, 5.02 and 4.97 for HT volunteers, gene spread,
herbicide resistant weeds, and RR crops causing problems in zero-tillage systems.
One farmer in Saskachewan indicated how he was sued over patented HT canola
that contaminated his land, creating biological and legal risks that had implications
for all farmers. He said: “What it means to farmers all around the world is
the loss and right to use your own seed….My rights as a farmer have been taken
away because now I can no longer grow canola under fear of a lawsuit.”
Farmers generally
believed that it was not possible to control HT traits from spreading in the
environment. Thus, most of respondents felt that “Terminator Technology” (75
percent), “segregation techniques “ (67 percent) and “good farming practices
(51 percent) would not solve HT trait contamination problems.
Major risk variables of HT canola: volunteers, years of growing, and farm
size
The respondents could be
segregated into three groups, those for whom the benefits were higher than
risks, those for whom risks and benefits were equal, and those for whom risks
were higher than benefits. The simplest model that best fits the data identified
three main factors affecting perception of risks versus benefits: farm size,
years of using HT, and volunteers. The data suggests that farmers perceived
greater risk if they have smaller farms.
Linking the demise
of small family farms with HT technology, one farmer stated; “GM technology
will most certainly hasten the demise of family farms if it is allowed to
progress unchecked. When we started farming… seed could be saved from one
year to year….now, each year, a tremendous monetary outlay for seed must be
made in order to grow canola because of the new GMO systems….more and more
family farms will disappear – simply because they are unable to shoulder these
costs which will happen annually without relief.”
Those farmers growing HT canola for more than a year perceived higher risks.
A number of interviewed farmers similarly expressed concern that these risks
increased over time. Risks were also perceived to be greatest for those who
had volunteer canola on their land. Indeed, many indicated having problems with
HT volunteers.
“These volunteers are showing up in fields that have
never been planted to these crops. Farmers that have never seeded genetically
modified crops are finding volunteers on their farm and that the volunteer
picture is much broader than we had expected to see.”
The three variables
that contribute most to risk were in order of importance, HT volunteers, years
of growing HT crops and farm size. In total, 38 percent of HT farmers had
experienced HT volunteer canola on their land. Of these 51 percent believed
the source came from within their operations, 20 percent believed they came
from outside, and 29 percent believed it came from both sources. Many respondents
were concerned about the promiscuous and persistent nature of these volunteers,
and that this would eventually compromise benefits currently associated with
the technology.
“I had volunteer
Roundup resistant canola in a sunflower field before I had ever used it, and,
I could not remove it with Roundup [herbicide] or other means. We are finding
resistant canola everywhere, even if it has never been seeded on that field.
I like using Roundup as pre-emergent burn-off and it’s not working great anymore.”
Farmers who grew
HT canola and had experienced HT volunteers
believed that, on average, they were emerging
in their field 2.5 years after planting these crops. Moreover HT volunteers were primarily Roundup Ready (72 percent)
and emerged up to six years after have been planted. Multiple resistant volunteers
were also prevalent (20 percent), followed by CF (6 percent ) and
LL (2 percent). Many methods have been used to control volunteers, including
additional herbicides and tilling. Zero-till farmers actually reverted to
tillage to control RR volunteers.
Monsanto is the only
company that charges a $15/acre fee for HT canola. There is now a wider trend
toward contract production that may increase seed costs and erode farmer rights
to save, reuse and exchange seeds. Many of these contracts allow companies
to investigate farmers, their land, and community for evidence of appropriation
of proprietary seed technologies. This issue was addressed by the landmark
Supreme Court of Canada decision, Monsanto v. Schmeiser, which essentially
upheld industry’s intellectual property claims over GM seeds and plants, making
farmers liable for patent infringement, despite the likelihood that the seed
they plant may have contaminated by GM traits.
A large majority
(76 percent) of respondents who used HT canola anticipated that HT volunteers
would become “more of a problem in the future”, and 85 percent believed that
industry had shifted the burden of responsibility for HT volunteers onto farmers.
One respondent stated:
“Our biggest concern
is Roundup Ready canola polluting our fields by being blown off neighbors
fields and infesting our fields with voluntary plants. Is Monsanto going to
compensate farmer in this situation?”
The
answer is yes. Schmeiser has just won an important victory over Monsanto in
his lawsuit against the company for contaminating his land. In an out of court
settlement, Monsanto has agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of HT canola
with no gag-order. Schmeiser believes this precedent will ensure farmers are
entitled to reimbursement when their field become contaminated [2]
References
- Mauro IJ and McLachlan
SM. Farmer knowledge and risk analysis: postrelease evalulation of herbicide-tolerant
canola in Western Canada. Risk Analysis 2008, 28, DOI:10.1111/j.1539-6924.200801027.x
- Schmeiser pleased with victory over Monsanto, Monsanto vs Schmeiser, http://www.percyschmeiser.com
| 
