Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 689–701 | Cite as

Farmer knowledge and a priori risk analysis: pre-release evaluation of genetically modified Roundup Ready wheat across the Canadian prairies

  • Ian J. Mauro
  • Stéphane M. McLachlan
  • Rene C. Van Acker
IMPLICATIONS OF GM-CROP CULTIVATION • SERIES • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

The controversy over the world’s first genetically modified (GM) wheat, Roundup Ready wheat (RRW), challenged the efficacy of ‘science-based’ risk assessment, largely because it excluded the public, particularly farmers, from meaningful input. Risk analysis, in contrast, is broader in orientation as it incorporates scientific data as well as socioeconomic, ethical, and legal concerns, and considers expert and lay input in decision-making. Local knowledge (LK) of farmers is experience-based and represents a rich and reliable source of information regarding the impacts associated with agricultural technology, thereby complementing the scientific data normally used in risk assessment. The overall goal of this study was to explore the role of farmer LK in the a priori risk analysis of RRW.

Materials and methods

In 2004, data were collected from farmers using mail surveys sent across the three prairie provinces (i.e., Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta) in western Canada. A stratified random sampling approach was used whereby four separate sampling districts were identified in regions where wheat was grown for each province. Rural post offices were randomly selected in each sampling district using Canada Post databases such that no one post office exceeded 80 farms and that each sampling district comprised 225–235 test farms (n = 11,040). In total, 1,814 people responded, representing an adjusted response rate for farmers of 33%. A subsequent telephone survey showed there was no non-response bias.

Results

The primary benefits associated with RRW were associated with weed control, whereas risks emphasized the importance of market harm, corporate control, agronomic problems, and the likelihood of contamination. Overall, risks were ranked much higher than benefits, and the great majority of farmers were highly critical of RRW commercialization. In total, 83.2% of respondents disagreed that RRW should have unconfined release into the environment. Risk was associated with distrust in government and corporations, previous experience with GM canola, and a strong belief in the importance of community and environment. Farmers were critical of expert-based risk assessment, particularly RRW field trials, and believed that their LK was valuable for assessing agbiotechnology as a whole.

Discussion

Over 90% of canola production across the Canadian prairies makes use of herbicide-tolerant (HT) varieties. Yet, respondents were generally uniform in their criticism of RRW, regardless whether they were HT users, non-HT-users, conservation tillage or organic in approach. They had a sophisticated understanding of how GM trait confinement was intrinsically tied to grain system segregation and, ultimately, market accessibility, and were concerned that gene flow in RRW would not be contained. Organic farmers were particularly critical of RRW, in large part because certification standards prohibit the presence of GM traits. Farmers practicing conservation tillage were also at relatively great risk, in part because their dependence on glyphosate to control weeds increases the likelihood that RRW volunteer would become more difficult and costly to control.

Conclusions

This research is the first of its kind to include farmer knowledge in the a priori risk analysis of GM crops and, arguably, given its prairie-wide scope, is the largest scale, independent-farmer-focused study on GM crops ever conducted. The surprising uniformity in attitudes between users and non-users of GM technology and among organic, conventional, conservation tillage and GM using farmers speaks to the ability of farmers to discriminate among HT varieties. Our results clearly show that prairie farmers recognize that the risks associated with RRW commercialization outweigh any benefits.

Recommendations and perspectives

Farmer knowledge systems are holistic in nature, incorporating socioeconomic, cultural, political, and agroecological factors that all can contribute meaningfully to the pre-release evaluation of GM crops. The inclusion of farmers and other stakeholders in risk assessment will also help enhance and even restore public confidence in science-focused approaches to risk assessment. Although farmers are highly knowledgeable regarding RRW and arguably any agricultural technology, their expertise continues to be overlooked by decision-makers and regulators across North America.

Keywords

A priori risk analysis Farmer knowledge Genetically modified crops Public participation Roundup Ready wheat 

References

  1. Abergel E, Barrett K (2002) Putting the cart before the horse: a review of biotechnology policy in Canada. J Can Stud 37:135–161Google Scholar
  2. Aerni P (2002) Stakeholder attitudes toward the risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology in developing countries: a comparison between Mexico and the Philippines. Risk Anal 22:1123–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auberson-Huang L (2002) The dialogue between precaution and risk. Nat Biotech 20:1076–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett J, Cooper H, Senior V (2007) Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science. Risk Anal 27:921–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckie HJ, Thomas AG, Stevenson FC (2001) Survey of herbicide-resistant wild oat (Avena fatua) in two townships in Saskatchewan. Can J Plant Sci 2:463–471Google Scholar
  6. Bell I (2004) Buffer zone enlarged for GM wheat trials. Western Producer. March 4Google Scholar
  7. Blackshaw RE, Harker N (2002) Selective weed control with glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant spring wheat. Weed Tech 16:885–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouchie A (2002) Organic farmers sue GMO producers. Nat Biotech 20:210–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brook RK, McLachlan SM (2006) Factors influencing farmer attitudes associated with bovine tuberculosis in wildlife and livestock around Riding Mountain National Park, Manitoba. J Environ Manag 80:156–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brule-Babel AL, Willenborg CJ, Friesen LF, Van Acker RC (2006) Modeling the influence of gene flow and selection pressure on the frequency of a GE herbicide-tolerant trait in non-GE wheat and wheat volunteers. Crop Sci 46:1704–1710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  12. Carter C, Berwald D, Loyns A (2005) The economics of genetically modified wheat. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ONGoogle Scholar
  13. Connelly NA, Brown TL, Decker DJ (2003) Factors affecting response rates in natural resources-focused mail surveys: empirical evidence of declining rates over time. Society Nat Res 16:541–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Creswell JW (2002) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychomet 16:297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. CWB (Canadian Wheat Board) (2004) Grain matters (July/August). In: Carter C, Berwald D, Lyons A (eds) The economics of genetically modified wheat. University of Toronto, Toronto, ONGoogle Scholar
  17. CWB (Canadian Wheat Board) (2008) Available at: http://www.cwb.ca
  18. Dillman D (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, Toronto, ONGoogle Scholar
  19. Dyck B, Fries T, Glen B, McMillan D, Zacharias K (2007) Wheat research must include GM editorial. Western Producer. December 29Google Scholar
  20. Eyzaguirre P (1992) Farmer knowledge, world science, and the organization of agricultural research systems. In: Moock JL, Rhoades RE (eds) Diversity, farmer knowledge, and sustainability. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  21. Fowler C, Mooney P (1990) Shattering: food, politics and the loss of genetic diversity. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZGoogle Scholar
  22. Friesen LF, Nelson AG, Van Acker RC (2003) Evidence of contamination of pedigreed canola (Brassica napus) seedlots in western Canada with genetically engineered herbicide resistance traits. Agron J 95:1342–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fulton M, Keyowski L (1999) The producer benefits of herbicide-resistant canola. AgBioFor 2:85–93Google Scholar
  24. Furtan WH, Gray RS, Holzman JJ (2005) Regulatory approval decisions in the presence of market externalities: The case of genetically modified wheat. J Ag Res Econ 30:12–27Google Scholar
  25. Harker NK, Clayton GW, Blackshaw RE, O’Donovan JT, Lupwayi NZ, Johnson EN, Gan Y, Zentner RP, Lafond GP, Irvine RB (2005) Glyphosate-resistant spring wheat production system effects on weed communities. Weed Sci 53:451–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Howatt KA, Endres GJ, Hendrickson PE, Aberle EZ, Lukach JR, Jenks BM, Riverland NR, Valenti SA, Rystedt CM (2006) Evaluation of glyphosate-resistant hard red spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Tech 20:706–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huygen I, Veeman M, Lerohl M (2004) Cost implications of different GM tolerance levels: non-genetically modified wheat in western Canada. AgBioForum 6:169–177Google Scholar
  28. Jensen KK, Gamborg C, Madsen KH, Jorgensen RB, Krauss MK, Folker AP, Sandoe P (2003) Making the EU ‘risk window’ transparent: the normative foundations of the environmental risk assessment of GMOs. Environ Biosafety Res 3:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kloppenburg J (1991) Social-theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science—local knowledge for an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociol 56:519–548Google Scholar
  30. Kloppenburg J (2004) First the seed: the political economy of plant biotechnology, 2nd edn. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  31. Knispel AL, McLachlan SM, Van Acker R, Friesen L (2008) Multiple herbicide tolerance transgenes in escaped canola (Brassica napus) populations. Weed Sci 56:72–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kuyek D (2007) Good crop/bad crop: seed politics and the future of food in Canada. Between the Lines, Toronto, ONGoogle Scholar
  33. MacRae M, Penfound H, Margulis C (2002) Against the grain: the threat of genetically engineered wheat. Greenpeace, Toronto, ONGoogle Scholar
  34. Magnan A (2007) Strange bedfellows: contentious coalitions and the politics of GM wheat. J Can Sociol Anthrop 44:289–317Google Scholar
  35. Mauro IJ, McLachlan SM (2008) Farmer knowledge and risk analysis: post-release evaluation of herbicide-tolerant canola in western Canada. Risk Anal 28:463–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mauro IJ, McLachlan SM, Sanders J (2005) Seeds of change: farmers, biotechnology and the new face of agriculture. Documentary film. Dead Crow Productions and Dada World Data, Winnipeg, MB, www.seedsofchangefilm.org
  37. Maxwell JA (2005) Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  38. McBride WD, Books N (2000) Survey evidence on producer use and costs of genetically modified seed. Agribusiness 16:6–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nap JP, Metz PL, Escaler M, Conner AJ (2003) The release of genetically modified crops into the environment: overview of current status and regulations. Plant J 33:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. NAWG (National Association of Wheat Growers) (2009) Nawg’s biotechnology petition survey results, Washington, DC, http://www.wheatworld.org/html/info.cfm?ID=21
  41. Neufeld SJ, Cinnamon JL (2004) Farm parents’ attitudes toward farm safety experts. Rural Sociol 69:532–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. NFU (National Farmers Union), SOD (Saskatchewan Organic Directorate), COG (Canadian Organic Growers), and Greenpeace (2004) The greatest threat to wheat farming isn’t hail or drought, it’s Roundup Ready wheat (ad). In: Farmers Independent Weekly. March 25, 2004Google Scholar
  43. NRC (National Research Council) (2002) Environmental effects of transgenic plants: the scope and adequacy of regulation. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  45. Penning JME, Irwin SH, Good DL (2002) Surveying farmers: a case study. Rev Agric Econ 24:266–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pidgeon N, Simmons P, Henwood K (2006) Risk, environment, and technology. In: Taylor-Gooby P, Zinn J (eds) Risk in social science. Oxford University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  47. RSC (Royal Society of Canada) (2001) Elements of precaution: recommendations for the regulation of food biotechnology in Canada, Ottawa, ON, http://www.rsc.ca/index.php?page_id=119
  48. SAS (2007) SAS Online Doc 9.1.3.: SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, http://support.sas.com/onlinedoc/913/docMainpage.jsp
  49. Sharples FE (1991) Ecological aspects of hazard identification for environmental uses of genetically engineered organisms. In: Levin M, Strauss H (eds) Risk assessment in genetic engineering: environmental release of organisms. McGraw Hill, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  50. Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20:195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20:713–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith RE, Veldhuis H, Mills GF, Eilers RG, Fraser WR, Lelyk GW (1998) Terrestrial ecozones, ecoregions, and ecodistricts, an ecological stratification of Manitoba's natural landscapes. In: Technical bulletin 98-9E. Land Resources Unit, Brandon Research Centre: Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Brandon MBGoogle Scholar
  53. Smyth S, Khachatourians G, Phillips PWB (2002) Liabilities and economics of transgenic crops. Nat Biotech 20:537–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. SPSS (2006) Version 15.0 Command Syntax Reference. SPSS Inc, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  55. Statistics Canada (2001) Farm operators by education, by province (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta). Census of Agriculture, http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/agrc40a.htm
  56. Statistics Canada (2006a) Farm data and farm operator data. Census of Agriculture, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/95-629-XIE/95-629-XIE2007000.htm
  57. Statistics Canada (2006b) Total farm area, land tenure and land in crops, by province (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta). Census of Agriculture, http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/agrc25a.htm
  58. Statistics Canada (2006c) Snapshot of Canadian agriculture. Census of Agriculture, http://www.statcan.ca/english/agcensus2006/ articles/snapshot.htm
  59. Statistics Canada (2008) Estimated areas, yield, production, average farm price and total farm value of principle field crops, in metric units, annual, 1908-2007. CANSIM Agriculture Statistics Database. Ottawa, ONGoogle Scholar
  60. Stokstad E (2004) Monsanto pulls the plug on genetically modified wheat. Science 304:1088–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Taylor-Gooby P, Zinn J (2006) Risk in social science. Oxford University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  62. Tsouvalis J, Seymour S, Watkins C (2000) Exploring knowledge-cultures: precision farming, yield mapping, and the expert-farmer interface. Environ Plann A 32:908–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. USC and ETC (2008) The seed map: food, farmers, and climate change, http://usc-canada.org/resources/seed-map/
  64. Van Acker RC, Brule-Babel AL, Friesen LF (2003) An environmental safety assessment of Roundup Ready wheat: risks for direct seeding systems in western Canada. Canadian Wheat Board, Winnipeg, MBGoogle Scholar
  65. Van Acker RC, Brule-Babel A, Friesen L (2004) Intraspecifc gene movement can create environmental risk: the example of Roundup Ready wheat in western Canada. In: Breckling B, Verhoeven R (eds) Risk hazard damage: specification of criteria to assess environmental impact of genetically modified organisms. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  66. Warick J (2003) Lining up against GM wheat: farmers, Canadian Wheat Board largely united in opposing Monsanto’s application to market ‘Roundup Ready’ genetically-modified wheat. Saskatoon Star Phoenix, www.healthcoalition.ca/sp-wheat.pdf
  67. Wilson WW, Janzen EL, Dahl BL (2003) Issues in development and adoption of genetically modified (GM) wheat. AgBioFor 6:101–112Google Scholar
  68. Wisner R (2003) Market risks of genetically modified wheat: the potential short-term impacts of GMO spring wheat introduction on U.S. wheat export markets and prices. WORC, Billings, MT, http://www.worc.org/issues/marketrisk-reports.html
  69. Wu F (2004) Explaining public resistance to genetically modified corn: an analysis of the distribution of benefits and risks. Risk Anal 24:715–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yarrow S (1999) Biosafety issues of genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant plants—agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s perspective. In: Shantharam S, Montgomery JF (eds) Biotechnology, biosafety, and biodiversity: scientific and ethical issues for sustainable development. Science, Enfield, NHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian J. Mauro
    • 1
  • Stéphane M. McLachlan
    • 1
  • Rene C. Van Acker
    • 2
  1. 1.Environmental Conservation Lab, Clayton H. Riddell Faculty of Environment, Earth, and ResourcesUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Department of Plant AgricultureUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations