Effect of GMOs on Livestock Exports

[russ]

I am most concerned with the upcoming effect GMOs (Genetically modified organisms) will have on future livestock exports. With GMO canola, corn and soybeans presently in the feed industry, and no labelling in place (so livestock producers and feedmills can distinguish the GMO from the normal feedstuff) we presently have a problem. However, this problem will only get much worse in 2-3 years when the rumored wheat and barley roundup resistant varieties are released. Why are GMO feedstuffs a problem? For two reasons: 1. Our most lucrative meat trading partners are already asking our trade representatives how much GMO 'contamination' there is in the meat we export to them. 2. If other countries, like those in the EU, put labelling laws in place, then we may well lose these lucrative markets. Being as Canada is a large exporter (compared to its overall production) of meat, we cannot ignore the potential problem we will face when the countries we trade with say they will not import or will discount any meat that has been fed GMO feedstuffs. We have to be careful in our quest for larger yields and easier crop management practices by using GMOs, that we don't hurt our livestock industry, which is a major user of these grains. Therefore, I am convinced that we need a labelling system for GMOs in Canada, which will allow the livestock industry the ability to provide assurances, to those trading partners who request it, on the GMO free status of our grains and meat that we export.

[charliep]

I agree with you that the consumer is always right and that there will be a ready market for specific products that meet their needs/specifications. I don't view customers who want non GMO/raised on organic feed as a threat as long as they are willing to pay the extra costs both of raising these animals/segregation in the food distribution system. I think we need to continue to highlight why farm managers have made the move to GMO type crops. Picking on canola there are very good reasons in terms of current farming practices why GMO varieties make up 70% of seeded area this past year (minimum till, etc). Is the consumer willing to pay the extra price/face the environmental costs of moving back to old farming practices? In terms of absolute volume of product grown, what are a consumers alternatives to buy non GMO products? Are they willing to pay the extra price (i.e. there are not enough non GMO crops grown to meet their needs so they have to be prepared to pay up in the short term)? The second thing is to sort out fact from fiction. I apologize but I think it is quite a stretch from having an animal feed a protein/enery source that is genetically modified, somehow affecting the gene structure or whatever of that animal and then having a human eat the meat with some disasterous consequences in the future. Someone will have to explain to me over time how this is going to happen. This is not mad cow disease where animals were being fed by products from some pretty unsavory sources. What are other peoples thoughts on the GMO issue? Have we heard anything other than scare tactics that would justify some type of segregation? Who should pick up the tab on this segregation? The consumer is always right but.. Are their steps the farm community should take to get our message out?

[jwright]

I believe that labelling and segregation should be done wherever possible. Consumers should have a choice in what they eat, however unreasonable. That being said I think that each genetically modified organism should be separately identified on labels. One of the biggest consumer myths is that *all* genetic modifications are the same, and carry the same risks, or impacts, when this is not true. Some products have low risk/high benefit; others are high risk/low benefit. Another myth that most anti-GE people belive is that GE is just another way to rip off farmers and consumers, and that there are no real benefits for farmers anyway. This means that they don't see any lost opportunities by condemning all GE products. Of course this cause is assisted by companies that introduce products whose main purpose seems to be to enrich corporate coffers. I think we need a great deal more community influence and control over the development and introduction and release of genetically modified organisms so that we can assure consumers that the products released are safe and a net benefit to society.

[charliep]

I agree with everything you wrote. Is there any way we can make sure the consumer pays the extra costs associated with segregation at least with an extra/generous portion going to the farm manager who took the extra risk/extra effort. My theory is that we (the ag community) needs to focus more on the consumer with the idea of satisfying their needs/get paid for producing what they want. Should farm managers get more involved with further processing to capture these premiums/get signals more directly from consumers?

[cakadu]

I really like some of the discussion that is taking place here. I don't know that consumers on the whole, would be willing to pay the higher prices for segregating products from the farm to their plate. Think about the costs in terms of transport, storage and processing. In many instances, producers are not getting paid the costs of production now. What is going to happen if you add on these additional costs? It has also been my experience that when surveying consumers they will tell you that paying a premium price for a specific product wouldn't be a problem and if they thought it was good, they would pay to get it. That is not always the case. You have a certain percentage that will, but is it enough to give you anything in return? There is such a long way to go in this discussion and sorting out fact from fiction and/or hysteria is going to take some time. I don't think it is a case of absolutes - being all good/bad. We do need good, sound information out there upon to use as the basis for making choices.

[brian99]

There are so many issues here its hard to know where to start. Im not sure labelling is necessary. The purpose of labelling is to provide information to the purchaser. What info does stamping a product GMO provide? The public needs to be informed of what GMO means before labelling, otherwise it has no value. On the issue of GMO grains in livestock, it again depends if there are any differences between GMO feed and non GMO. If there isnt, and a livestock producer accepts GMO restrictions for the prudence sake, to maintain sales, that livestock producer is useless to the grain sector. As both a grain and livestock producer, I would take it as a slap in the face to have someone abandon GMO because of fear of the unknown. The grain and livestock sectors are too interconected to sell one or the other out. As far as I know, all studies have shown no differences in GMO products vs nonGMO. A steer fed GMO corn and GMO canola meal would be indistinguishable from any other. Thats whats important. Im not a mouthpiece for the chemical companies. They need to get out there and inform the public. We need to do the same. Not a sell job, but real facts about GMO crops.