Thank you for being here, gentlemen, and my thanks to Mr. White for being way out there somewhere in the air between here and wherever you are.
What you are saying, Mr. White, is speculation. I'm not sure if there exists, anywhere in the world today, proof that market acceptance criteria have interfered with Argentina's ability, for example, to move ahead.
I'd like to follow up on that theme. We know a number of things as a result of the study of my bill. First of all, biotech isn't GM, and GM is one small part of biotech. We know that the biotech industry, in addition to conventional breeding and other research, has been instrumental in increasing the yield of our crops. Canola is an example.
We talk about a science-based criteria. Any time opposition comes toward what some of us are trying to do here, whether it's the motion on alfalfa or my bill, we hear that this is somehow going against science. We've seen at the same time that there are certain scientists in the world who disagree with the majority. I'm not here to judge the merits of their studies, some of which are showing health risks with Monsanto 810 corn. There is a scientist by the name of Séralini in France, and there are others. That is their science.
My question is mainly for the canola industry. Your industry is successful. It's not under threat. Any introduction of GM canola traits or non-GM traits would certainly not necessitate any kind of negative impact on your markets. That would be my understanding, so I am not quite sure why you folks have come out against an analysis of potential negative market impact.
There is one criterion that we can use. Surely, you must understand that there is a threat to current non-GM crops--alfalfa, for example. We have talked about that and we have a motion in that regard. My bill tried to address the fact that 50% to 80% of our markets do not accept GM wheat. We know there is contamination. We know it could happen in handling.
We have fruit growers in my area who are up in arms about this new so-called non-browning apple, the cross-pollination.
Surely just having another criterion does not go against science. All it does is add insurance for farmers. I don't understand. Is it because the biotech industry is coming out heavy-handed and threatening organizations of farmers? I was told once by a representative of crops that they don't even want this topic discussed here.
Richard, thank you for your comments.
We have had this discussion, both for and against. Why is it that certain organizations are against the idea of using a market impact study as an insurance for farmers so that we don't have our alfalfa farmers and our wheat farmers and our apple farmers experiencing difficulty?
I'll leave that question open.