It’s no secret that agriculture is now firmly in the sights of activist groups. We’re in a time where farmers and industry must be wary and alert. Activist organizations are very creative at how they shroud their purpose and those of us in agriculture can get drawn into supporting something we never intended to.
A recent example is how a farmer in Saskatchewan, Canada was exploited by a filmmaker in the documentary Percy Schmeiser: David vs. Monsanto. (film trailer below)
You can’t fault a person for standing for their principles (right or wrong), but Schmeiser is pulled into a one-sided story wrought with misinformation.
Schmeiser’s purpose was to stand for what he felt was his right to save seed to re-plant the next season – a stand that ended up pitting him against the research company Monsanto. The filmmaker’s purpose is quite different however: To halt research and transgenic product development by Monsanto. Period.
To the untrained ear the documentary makes a compelling case. But to those who live in agriculture every day, there are too many gaps to the story to be believable. Some examples that I caught from the film:
- Schmeiser comments that transgenic plants do not yield as well as conventional plants. In the early years of development this was true, but today transgenic plants have contributed to the greatest yield breakthroughs in history. So why did the filmmaker leave this fact out?
- Schmeiser states that “He has been growing and developing his own seed for 50 years… and one year of transgenic Canola has ruined 50 years of work.” Truth is, Canola varieties have only been in commercial production just more than 30 years (the name “Canola” was registered in 1979). Why did the filmmaker ignore this fact?
- Schmeiser claims that transgenic seed blew into his conventional field, but the film opens with a speech about a farmer’s right to re-plant seed saved from a prior harvest. Near the end of the documentary, a point-blank question is asked: “To clear the record, did you, or did you not use saved seed?” Schmeiser’s lawyer responds to the question, talks around it and never answers it. Why does the filmmaker never answer this question either?
The film cleverly embeds misinformation throughout, bringing an unknowing audience to only one conclusion: Monsanto is evil. But what about the farmers who have prospered growing transgenic crops? Where are charts showing increased yield trend lines? Where are the experts describing how modern agriculture has kept pace with world demand for food among an ever-increasing population and ever-decreasing access to farm acres?
Percy Schmeiser and other farmers were roughed up by Monsanto’s tactics as the company sought to protect its patented research. Yes, Monsanto went too far in numerous instances and learned its own tough lessons along the way. But progress and development continues… to the dismay of anti-progress activists.
The lesson from this video is stark: Be cautious of what claims to be a “documentary” about agriculture. Make sure you understand the true purpose before getting involved. To our friends and consumers who don’t live in agriculture, the message of this film was skewed from inception, an assault on progress in agriculture. Monsanto is painted as the evil multi-national corporation preying on the farmer. You are never given a chance to form your own opinion.
It begs the question, “What’s the other side of the story?” So what do you think it is?
Dr. Colin N. Clarke is a strategist for AdFarm who monitors the growth trends of agriculture while keeping one foot rooted in its history. Follow him on Twitter @colinnclarke or on Facebook at Facebook.com/cnclarke.
Loading ...
I think it’s hilarious that there are only positive comments there. Gee, Monsanto, can you be any more obvious?
I watched the documentary and it’s a compelling case. I’d love to see Monsanto’s rebuttal. In fact, I came to this web site looking for it. I hope I find it.
Great article – and thanks for standing up and writing on this issue. More needs to be done to counter balance the negatives of modern agiculture. A good blog site that tries to take this more balanced approach is http://www.ecollo.com
Excellent. Thanks for reading and sharing your comment. And thanks for the link. Always great to hear about other resources out there.
I am a young farmer who has spent his life cash cropping and working in the ag industry.
Farmers are some of the smartest most industious people in existence. I think its safe to say that they are in the business because they love it. Farmers need to have a drive to be sucsessful to raise good quality goods and a healthy business. The main reason for quality is usually pride, and the later is to put shoes on their kids feet and build equity for desired lifestyle and retirement….ring any bells consumers?
A farmer that is producing commerical commodities needs to keep a sharp pencil because of the vast global supply of these goods that puts downward pressure on the prices. They also need to make sure they are conserving the health of their biological system that they are working with. The key is always in a balance.
I keep in mind that the more a farmer spends to produce a crop the higher the risk and so the reward should be higher.
Here are the two sides to this story being discussed on this blog illistrated in the following two examples.
1. One Farmer has addopted the use of GMO crops. The pay back for the farmer is in healthier soil, less fuel consumption, reduced pestiside use, less labour requirement and increase in yields, in short reduce cost of production with positive biological and cash impact. The cool thing is that there is also a payback for the consumer in availabliity of lower priced goods. This is a win win situation for low cost consumers and farmers.
2. The next door neighbour grows a conventional non-GMO class of the commodity. This farmer has the same life goals as the previous farmer. The added benifits of the GMO are not present in this system so the farmer has two options.
1.do nothing to combat the problems that GMO’s resolve
or
2. Implament other technology to physically, chemically or biologicaly to get them to a profitable position.
This gentalman will have higher risk in exposure to mother natures curve balls. He will likely be able to overcome problems but the cost will be more than in a GMO system. This intern means this gentleman should recieve more reward for his risk. The market is out there and thousands of farmers are following this path. The farmer has potential for more reward and the consumer that does not want to have goods from GMO’s has an option. The catch is this option is going to cost the consumer more to purchase. Win Win for producer and consumer.
The same rules apply to oganic vs non-organic. At the end of the day the farmers that are large enough to make an actual impact on the supply chain for the marketplace are only producing what there is demand for by the consumer and the risks associated with producing what consumers want.
I find this the funny part about all of this banter re gmo’s. The un-ag-educated consumer doesn’t even realize that they ultimatly drive what a farmer grows. I will end by saying this… Farmers grow what consumers want to buy, if GMO’s rub you the wrong way just pull out your wallet because we can and will grow whatever you want….at a price.
And as for the farmer in the video. If he is a consumer of seed if he wants the benifits of GMO then he should have pulled out his wallet and paid for it like everyone else does and carry on business as usual.. or buy some new non gmo seed it will likely be a lot stonger variety than the strain he has fluked himself into over the last 30 years and then keep his right to grow his own seed.
Wow, great comments, Cropit. Thanks for speaking up and sharing your thoughts. Great parallels between ag and non-ag careers (pride in the work, provide for the family, suitable lifestyle, prepare for retirement). Keep telling the farmer’s story. The more people understand about the commitment and business of agriculture the better. Thanks again for your comments.
[...] http://www.adfarmonline.com/blog/aroundthefarm/activism-in-ag [...]
I read this article the other day and enjoyed it immensely. It is fun to come back a few days later and see the discussion that has started in the comments! This is one of the reasons I love the Internet and social media, it allows us easy access to information and to have discussions with people we might have never met.
Having just watched the trailer, I would be interested in watching the entire documentary and looking into the source information used for the documentary. Kim you mentioned that:
The other side of the story isn’t presented here in all cases, so why should a documentary, with seemingly nice backing from the German government (HIGHLY anti-GMO), be required to show all sides of the story? That’s the beauty of documentaries, to give a more focused picture into an unexplored subject matter of interest that conventional media outlets cannot.
I think that it is the responsibility of the person creating the documentary to discuss both sides of the issue so the viewer can have an informed reaction to the material presented. If only one side is presented, I think the intent of the material switches from documentary to propaganda, and can become downright deceptive.
That being said, I want to say my perspective comes from growing up on a family farm in North Dakota. I have lived overseas where GMO crops aren’t widely used. One of my current occupations is operating a seed dealership for our family farm here in ND. We sell seed that comes from both Dow and Monsanto’s genetics. Our family is also a proud supporter of a local CSA farm.
The “David v. Goliath” theme that is presented here also manifests itself when looking at organic versus GMO. There is a growing number of people who tend to view organic as good and GMO as bad without fully investigating the issues at stake in making that decision. People tend to think that GMO or non-organic crops are worse for you because of pesticides. Organic foods, however, tend to have a high level of toxins due to the defense mechanisms they need to produce to grow. The point I’m trying to make is that people on both sides of the fence tend to, in my opinion, oversimplify the matter and ignore the complexities and unanswered questions that exist.
I am a fan of GMO crops. I think that the advances in research brought about by companies like Monsanto are making agriculture a better place and industry. We are seeing yield potential in crops that would have not been dreamed of before. Using GMOs allows for less pesticide, and consequently fewer trips across the field which saves on fuel emissions, etc. The innovations in GMO allow for a stable product to come to market in a shorter time which allows for more innovation and focused research.
I’m a firm believer that organic/natural production can co-exist with GMO produced crops. But I think it’s unfair for one side to ostracize the other when we’re really after the same goal: feeding the world with healthy, sustainable agriculture. The moment we stop throwing stones at each other and start working together to achieve these goals we will have made progress. Discussions like this are just the start of that process.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, Peter. Great thoughts. A highlight: “…We’re really after the same goal: feeding the world with healthy, sustainable agriculture. The moment we stop throwing stones at each other and start working together to achieve these goals we will have made progress. Discussions like this are just the start of that process.” Thanks for your involvement and advocating on the part of ALL farmers. Again, appreciate the comments!
The issue of whether to choose GMO seed or the use of other technologies is really separate from the business practices of large corporations. The average person doesn’t see agriculture for the massive and complex industry that it is and simply do not understand the role that companies like Monsanto play.
The public latches on to the ‘David vs. Goliath’ aspect of these stories and it always seems obvious which side we are *supposed* to be on. It’s an issue with so much media that carries the ‘documentary’ label nowadays – there’s a single predetermined agenda and only facts supporting that agenda are explored.
Good points, M.Fleming. Thanks for sharing. We live in ag everyday and understand the industry’s complexities, but the average consumer doesn’t. The more we can encourage people to ask questions, rather than take things at face value, the better. And farmers can be better prepared to answer questions (and ask more of their own) as well. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
It’s unfortunate that Monsanto has been heavy handed with some growers in this process, but I disagree that as farmers we are “forced to choose GMOs”. There are benefits to using science and technology; and there is a lot of research that proves using biotechnology has decreased soil erosion and the amount of chemical, fuel and other resources necessary to produce crops. The best thing for farmers, Canadian and elsewhere is open competition among the major companies and continued research in both biotech and conventional seed breeding.
Great points, tmvannd. Nice to hear from farmers like yourself on these issues too. There’s no one closer to the land or the crops than you. It’s always great to get a farmers perspective. Thanks for sharing.
Excellent insight Colin. I appreciate you taking the time to draw out the facts that are being ignored. Thank you.
I stumbled upon this blog and it’s very interesting. It actually appears that your blog has been skewed from inception as well. The other side of the story isn’t presented here in all cases, so why should a documentary, with seemingly nice backing from the German government (HIGHLY anti-GMO), be required to show all sides of the story? That’s the beauty of documentaries, to give a more focused picture into an unexplored subject matter of interest that conventional media outlets cannot. I’d prefer to purchase organically and locally. From growers that aren’t forced to choose GMOs. And no amount of preaching from an ad agency focused on sustaining chemical companies, chemical additives or lien-inducing farm equipment, etc. will ever change my mind about that. Canadian farmers deserve more respect, and so does the country itself. For example, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2824817520100428 . Sickening, really. The more educated consumers become, the more highlighted and desirable non-GMOs will be, and the more that true family farmers will reap the benefits of quality of food over quantity of food.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Kim. The purpose of the review was two-fold. 1) Encourage farmers to ask questions about at the true purpose of a group or movement before getting involved. 2) Encourage general consumers to discover both sides of a story before judging.
Progress in ag has allowed N. America to prosper, our cities and population to grow. The % of income spent on food in the U.S. dropped from 13.8% in 1970 to 9.8% in 2005 (similar figures for Canada). This is not by accident. Tech advances in farming & food production has allowed us to have the most plentiful access to food at the lowest per capita spend in the world. I love that people choose to support farmers markets and organic farms, it’s a wonderful option. We simply need to be very careful that we don’t discourage continued innovation and progress in agriculture. America wouldn’t be 300 million + strong today without it. Keep supporting your local farmers Kim. All of them. They are the lifeblood of N.America and the greatest farmers in the world.