First of all, the technology is flawed in the sense that it's patented. It's a life form that's patented, and it's allowed in the U.S. Canada didn't allow it until the Schmeiser decision. The Supreme Court reversed their decision on the Harvard Mouse. They allowed the patent. It's patented. Patents should never have been issued on that. It's like patenting a motor you can't shut off. They can't control it. It runs amok. And that's what's happened.
And it's not about feeding the world. It's about selling Roundup. It's the value chain that they tap into on whatever company it is. That's what it's all about. And our government has acquiesced in that endeavour.
We grew canola for years successfully before we had Roundup. There are some benefits, for sure, like the direct seeding. But we use direct seeding systems too. My air seeder is as big as anybody's. So there are systems.
You talked about the research. The research has all been focused on this type of technology to the exclusion of all others, because there's value in being able to get a technology use agreement or sell a herbicide.
But to get back to your other question, the increase in yield is mostly owing to hybridization, which is a conventional technique. They're the same in corn and canola. It's easier to farm with a big sprayer. But it's not necessarily better food. It's probably not as good.