The Western Producer (WP) is Canada’s most circulated agricultural publication. The weekly newspaper reaches over 65,000 Canadians (mostly farmers). Understandably, The WP exerts a considerable influence on agricultural and food perspectives in Western Canada.
As a journalist who, for many years has been covering the topic of genetically modified (GM) foods, I’ve come to recognize a rather troubling and ongoing approach The WP takes when covering the GM subject.
On Friday, April 16, I will send my thoughts to the editors of The WP. This week’s Deconstructing Dinner column features a segment from that letter (a full version will be available on-line).
“Thank you to the WP for sharing my perspectives with your readers re: your Mar. 19 editorial titled,“GM makes strides with acceptance”.
I believe editorials are the most important piece of any newspaper. They allow the reader to understand the personal position(s) of the editor(s) and provide transparency to the reader.
As a journalist who has been covering the topic of GM for many years, the title of this particular editorial caught my attention.
I believe WP readers (and more specifically, Canadian farmers) deserve balance, and as it relates to the issue of GM, I speak of the balance that an industry publication could provide by more accurately sharing the perspectives of eaters (and not only industry and/or farmers). This is the focus of my own work; bridging the gap between the farmer/eater so both sides can better understand each other.
The WP is also in a unique position as likely being the most notable medium communicating marketing messages (through advertising) by biotechnology companies. While some publications might view editorial content and advertising as separate entities, I would submit that the heavy concentration of biotech advertising in The WP carries with it a strong influence on your readers’ perspectives on biotechnology. I believe the presence of these ads should be considered when developing balanced editorial content.
With that said, I believe WP readers deserve to learn why so many eaters reject GM.
As I’ve come to observe through my own work, rejections of GM are not because eaters ‘misunderstand’ the science (as is so often the conclusions made within WP articles on GM), but is the result of eaters not trusting those behind the science. More importantly, many eaters also recognize that science is not the be-all and end-all of explanations.
Eaters have an important perspective on issues such as GM because they’re not restricting their views to what they see through a microscope and a financial statement. Their vision is broader, more holistic, and diverse. As any farmer would know, diversity in nature is vital to sustainability and I believe the same goes for diversity found within our perspectives.
As it relates to the comments found within the Mar. 19 editorial, these concerns among the eating public have driven democratically elected politicians to take the stand they do against GM. Yet, in light of a biotech industry-funded report featured in the WP’s Feb. 19 issue, WP editors concluded that the report’s findings, which forecasted growth in the planting of GM crops worldwide, “marks a diminishing of the political pandering to fear represented by blanket rejections of GM crops”.
Firstly, I absolutely fail to see how numerical figures of GM planting worldwide suggest a diminishing of “political pandering to fear”. That’s quite a stretch.
It’s also a pretty lofty position to suggest that political figures worldwide who have held GM back from widespread approval and acceptance is the result of “pandering”.
I wouldn’t consider the over half-dozen mandatory labelling bills introduced in the House of Commons over the past 10 years as a result of “pandering”. Clearly, there are Members of Parliament in this country who are representing the concerns of their constituents and the interests of Canadians. That’s their job, and the last thing any Canadian should do is mock their job by calling it “pandering”. I would imagine that the 101 MPs who voted in support of a May 2008 bill calling for the mandatory labelling of food containing GMOs would be insulted to hear that their vote was merely “pandering”. As an aside, only 156 MPs opposed the bill.
What I would instead suggest, is that irrespective of what the ‘science’ concludes, WP editors and industry must come to recognize that since the introduction of GM, industry has fundamentally failed to convince the eating public that GM is safe and represents an appropriate shift in agricultural practices.
If industry had indeed succeeded in communicating assurances to the public, then they would need not continually block the establishment of mandatory labelling laws.
If GM was so great in the eyes of the eater, then a label on the package of food would be inconsequential (and maybe even act as a selling feature) instead of the threat that it represents to the current structure of the agri-food sector.”
Jon Steinman is the host of Kootenay Co-op Radio’s innovative radio podcast Deconstructing Dinner based in Nelson, British Columbia. His weekly column on food related issues is re-published with permission on the New Resilient.
