Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

The CFFO Commentary: Biotechnology Will Remain an Ongoing Discussion for Farmers

By John Clement

April 8, 2011

 

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario has had a number of long, focused conversations about the role of Genetically Modified Organisms in agriculture. It’s a lightning rod of an issue, with most people either being for or against the use of the technology. Few individuals or groups seem to be comfortable being somewhere in the middle. 

And yet that middle ground is precisely where many CFFO members find themselves feeling most comfortable. Our members started their conversation in 1995 with a seminar series, continued it in 1999 with a position statement and revisited it again just last month at a meeting of delegates. The main discussion points that showed up were how to blend farmer’s natural entrepreneurial tendencies with a stewardship ethic that takes creation care seriously.

 In 1995, the CFFO hosted 18 seminars across the province with a focus on exploring the potential benefits and drawbacks of biotechnology. The impact on the family farm’s viability and the ability to control or regulate biotechnology’s development and impact, along with spiritual and ethical questions about the limits of human activity and crossing species distinctions, were the most important concerns. Yet many also recognized the potential benefits of biotechnology for themselves and society generally, particularly in less controversial areas. The bottom line message from the participants in that seminar series was “proceed if you must, but with caution.” 

In 1999, CFFO members progressed the discussion by adopting a position statement that carried “proceed, but with much more caution” in the title. That position statement carried important components on stewardship, along with an analysis about the benefits and cautions regarding the use of biotechnology. It called for separation and identification of GMO foods throughout the food chain, as well as mandatory labeling and a call for farmers to exercise caution in the use of biotechnology. The statement said “we expect this new production and management tool will create a flood of new opportunities and challenges. They will also challenge our stewardship of God’s creation. New patterns for stewardship will need to emerge.” 

Our members opened up the discussion again at a recent meeting of CFFO delegates from across the province. After reviewing our past statements, members again expressed their satisfaction with the stand the organization has taken in the recent past. But I’m guessing that the conversation is far from over and will continue to pop up on a regular basis in the coming years.  

A statement from a report on the 1995 seminar series says it best: “In the end, strong principles, a limited sense of control, a society with an often contrary agenda, combined with a desire to succeed and participate, appears to lead to a cautious acceptance of biotechnology’s basic direction. In practice, farmers are prepared to examine its products on a case-by-case basis. Yet, this mixture of ambivalence and conviction may prove to be a volatile one. Virtually any response to particular applications of biotechnology is possible --- depending on the issues that surround its production and use.”

 

 

John Clement is the General Manager of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario. The CFFO Commentary represents the opinions of the writer and does not necessarily represent CFFO policy. The CFFO Commentary is heard weekly on CFCO Chatham, CKNX Wingham, and UCB Canada radio stations in Chatham , Belleville , Bancroft, Brockville and Kingston . It is also archived on the CFFO website: www.christianfarmers.org. CFFO is supported by 4,200 family farmers across Ontario.

Views: 60

Comment

You need to be a member of Ontario Agriculture to add comments!

Join Ontario Agriculture

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

Ag in the House: Oct. 26 – 30

Minister MacDonald highlighted how the government is supporting food security

Exploring grape pomace’s potential as pork sausage preservative

Scientists at Iowa State University are studying grape pomace as an alternative preservative for pork breakfast sausage. The U.S. sausage market exceeds $7.5 billion. Processed meats often use synthetic ingredients to maintain overall quality, stability and safety. However, consumer preferences toward “clean-label” ingredients and recent reassessments of some food additives, such as butylated hydroxyanisole, are boosting interest in more natural alternatives. Grape pomace is a by-product of winemaking, obtained after pressing white grapes or after fermentation and pressing of red grapes. GP represents a rich source of fiber and phenolic compounds, but it is usually composted, used as animal feed or discarded. “This winemaking by-product is often wasted, but we know that GP has some antimicrobial and antioxidant properties,” said Aude Watrelot, assistant professor of enology in food science and human nutrition. “How effective would GP be when substituted for current additives in a po

Canadian Pork Research Enters New Phase with More Flexible Funding for Industry Priorities

Canada’s pork industry is strengthening its approach to research and innovation through a funding model designed to address both long-term industry priorities and emerging challenges facing producers. Swine Innovation Porc (SIP), the national organization coordinating research for Canada’s pork sector, has released its 2025–26 annual report, highlighting the continued development of its national research programs and the introduction of additional funding flexibility. At the centre of this approach are two complementary initiatives: the established Swine Cluster program and the newer Advancing Swine Research Program. Together, these programs are intended to strengthen the industry’s ability to invest in scientific discovery while supporting practical research that responds to changing production conditions. Building on More Than a Decade of Collaborative Research Since 2010, Canada’s Swine Cluster program has provided a foundation for coordinated research involving universities, re

Canadian Swine Researchers Face November 13 Deadline for Up to $150,000 in Research Funding

Swine Innovation Porc is seeking research proposals focused on animal health, biosecurity, production efficiency, sustainability and pork quality, with funding available for projects addressing key challenges facing Canada’s pork industry. Canadian swine researchers have until November 13 to submit letters of intent for a new round of funding through the Advancing Swine Research Program, an initiative designed to strengthen the competitiveness, efficiency and long-term sustainability of Canada’s pork sector. Administered by Swine Innovation Porc (SIP), in partnership with the Pork Promotion and Research Agency (PPRA), the program supports industry-focused research that delivers practical benefits to producers, processors and the broader pork value chain. Successful projects may receive funding covering up to 50% of eligible project costs, with a maximum contribution of $50,000 annually over three years, representing a potential investment of $150,000 per project. Research Prioritie

When Pork’s Seasonal Recovery Doesn’t Arrive: What Canada Packers’ Q3 Results Reveal About the Market

Canada Packers’ third-quarter results offer a revealing look at the pressures facing North American pork production. Beyond the company’s $28.1 million loss, the more important story involves weakening pork demand, unusually compressed processing margins, and questions about when the industry can expect more favourable market conditions. For an industry accustomed to seasonal fluctuations, the absence of a typical summer recovery in pork values may be one of the most significant developments emerging from Canada Packers’ latest earnings report. The company reported third-quarter sales of $420.7 million, down 12.7% from the same period in 2025, alongside a net loss of $28.1 million compared with a profit of $25.6 million a year earlier. Adjusted EBITDA declined to $31.5 million from a pro forma $56 million in the comparable period, reflecting the effects of broader market compression. The reported net loss also included a $47.6 million non-cash decline in the fair value of biological

© 2026   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service