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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abergel E, Barrett K (2002) Putting the cart before the horse: a review of biotechnology policy in Canada. J Can Stud 37:135–161
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 22:1123–1137
Auberson-Huang L (2002) The dialogue between precaution and risk. Nat Biotech 20:1076–1078
Barnett J, Cooper H, Senior V (2007) Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science. Risk Anal 27:921–933
Beckie HJ, Thomas AG, Stevenson FC (2001) Survey of herbicide-resistant wild oat (Avena fatua) in two townships in Saskatchewan. Can J Plant Sci 2:463–471
Bell I (2004) Buffer zone enlarged for GM wheat trials. Western Producer. March 4
Blackshaw RE, Harker N (2002) Selective weed control with glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant spring wheat. Weed Tech 16:885–892
Bouchie A (2002) Organic farmers sue GMO producers. Nat Biotech 20:210–211
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 80:156–166
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 46:1704–1710
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, NY
Carter C, Berwald D, Loyns A (2005) The economics of genetically modified wheat. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, ON
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 16:541–549
Creswell JW (2002) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychomet 16:297–334
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, ON
CWB (Canadian Wheat Board) (2008) Available at: http://www.cwb.ca
Dillman D (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, Toronto, ON
Dyck B, Fries T, Glen B, McMillan D, Zacharias K (2007) Wheat research must include GM editorial. Western Producer. December 29
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, NY
Fowler C, Mooney P (1990) Shattering: food, politics and the loss of genetic diversity. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ
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 95:1342–1347
Fulton M, Keyowski L (1999) The producer benefits of herbicide-resistant canola. AgBioFor 2:85–93
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 30:12–27
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 53:451–464
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 20:706–716
Huygen I, Veeman M, Lerohl M (2004) Cost implications of different GM tolerance levels: non-genetically modified wheat in western Canada. AgBioForum 6:169–177
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 3:161–171
Kloppenburg J (1991) Social-theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science—local knowledge for an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociol 56:519–548
Kloppenburg J (2004) First the seed: the political economy of plant biotechnology, 2nd edn. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI
Knispel AL, McLachlan SM, Van Acker R, Friesen L (2008) Multiple herbicide tolerance transgenes in escaped canola (Brassica napus) populations. Weed Sci 56:72–80
Kuyek D (2007) Good crop/bad crop: seed politics and the future of food in Canada. Between the Lines, Toronto, ON
MacRae M, Penfound H, Margulis C (2002) Against the grain: the threat of genetically engineered wheat. Greenpeace, Toronto, ON
Magnan A (2007) Strange bedfellows: contentious coalitions and the politics of GM wheat. J Can Sociol Anthrop 44:289–317
Mauro IJ, McLachlan SM (2008) Farmer knowledge and risk analysis: post-release evaluation of herbicide-tolerant canola in western Canada. Risk Anal 28:463–476
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
Maxwell JA (2005) Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
McBride WD, Books N (2000) Survey evidence on producer use and costs of genetically modified seed. Agribusiness 16:6–20
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 33:1–18
NAWG (National Association of Wheat Growers) (2009) Nawg’s biotechnology petition survey results, Washington, DC, http://www.wheatworld.org/html/info.cfm?ID=21
Neufeld SJ, Cinnamon JL (2004) Farm parents’ attitudes toward farm safety experts. Rural Sociol 69:532–551
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, 2004
NRC (National Research Council) (2002) Environmental effects of transgenic plants: the scope and adequacy of regulation. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
Penning JME, Irwin SH, Good DL (2002) Surveying farmers: a case study. Rev Agric Econ 24:266–277
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, NY
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
SAS (2007) SAS Online Doc 9.1.3.: SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, http://support.sas.com/onlinedoc/913/docMainpage.jsp
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, NY
Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20:195–203
Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20:713–719
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 MB
Smyth S, Khachatourians G, Phillips PWB (2002) Liabilities and economics of transgenic crops. Nat Biotech 20:537–541
SPSS (2006) Version 15.0 Command Syntax Reference. SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL
Statistics Canada (2001) Farm operators by education, by province (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta). Census of Agriculture, http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/agrc40a.htm
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
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
Statistics Canada (2006c) Snapshot of Canadian agriculture. Census of Agriculture, http://www.statcan.ca/english/agcensus2006/ articles/snapshot.htm
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, ON
Stokstad E (2004) Monsanto pulls the plug on genetically modified wheat. Science 304:1088–1089
Taylor-Gooby P, Zinn J (2006) Risk in social science. Oxford University Press, New York, NY
Tsouvalis J, Seymour S, Watkins C (2000) Exploring knowledge-cultures: precision farming, yield mapping, and the expert-farmer interface. Environ Plann A 32:908–924
USC and ETC (2008) The seed map: food, farmers, and climate change, http://usc-canada.org/resources/seed-map/
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, MB
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, Germany
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
Wilson WW, Janzen EL, Dahl BL (2003) Issues in development and adoption of genetically modified (GM) wheat. AgBioFor 6:101–112
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
Wu F (2004) Explaining public resistance to genetically modified corn: an analysis of the distribution of benefits and risks. Risk Anal 24:715–726
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, NH
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the farmers that participated in this study, and value their knowledge and expertise. Special thanks to Melisa Yestrau for processing and mailing surveys and to Ryan Brook who assisted with data analysis. The Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), operating grant to S.M. McLachlan and PhD scholarship to I.J. Mauro, and the Manitoba Rural Adaptations Council (MRAC) provided financial support for this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editors: Winfried Schröder and Gunther Schmidt
Overview of the series, thematically oriented:
1. The variability of processes involved in transgene dispersal: case studies from Brassica and related genera
Rikke Bagger Jørgensen, Thure Hauser, Tina D’Hertefeldt, Naja Steen Andersen, Dany Hooftman
2. Cumulative impact of GM herbicide-tolerant cropping on arable plants assessed through species-based and functional taxonomies
Geoffrey Squire, Graham Begg, Cathy Hawes, Mark Young
3. 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
4. Dispersal and persistence of genetically modified oilseed rape around Japanese harbors
Masaharu Kawata, T. Ishikawa, Kikuku Murakami
5. Hazard mitigation or mitigation hazard? Would genetically modified dwarfed oilseed rape (Brassica napus) increase feral survival?
Hauke Reuter, Gertrud Menzel, Hendrik Pehlke, Broder Breckling
6. How to model and simulate the effects of cropping systems on population dynamics and gene flow at the landscape level: example of oilseed rape volunteers and their role for co-existence of GM and non-GM crops
Nathalie Colbach
7. Hybrid regimes of knowledge? Challenges for constructing scientific evidence in the context of the GMO-debate
Stefan Böschen
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mauro, I.J., McLachlan, S.M. & Van Acker, R.C. Farmer knowledge and a priori risk analysis: pre-release evaluation of genetically modified Roundup Ready wheat across the Canadian prairies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 16, 689–701 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-009-0177-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-009-0177-6