Before any important decisions are made, we must take a look back at what has happened because of past decisions. Too many decisions were made to ensure a quick profit without looking at how those decisions will affect the health of our plants, our animals, our people and our planet tomorrow.
About 60 years ago, our federal government looked at the money that it was spending on agricultural research and noticed that many accurate research projects take longer to complete than the party in control at the time will be in power. The government took a look and decided that instead of the government providing all the funding for research either to universities or government research farms, the government would provide half the funding if the other half was paid for by private individuals or companies. This move would get twice as much research completed for the same government spending. Who could see anything wrong with that? Soon, research into plant breeding, development of chemical sprays, drugs for animals and people were transferred to private companies.
Most contracts for research are a three-year contract and must be renewed to accurately finish many projects. This runs the risk that if the preliminary results do not lean towards a profit for the private company, they either don’t renew the contract or don’t publish the results. This effectively gives the private companies a 50 per cent grant for their research. This method of shared funding has continued through several changes in the ruling party, with no major change in policy. Some of those private parties that pay half the research funding also do very effective lobbying at government levels.
Many countries who are run as a dictatorship or with a communist system also provide free health care. If any drug or chemical spray causes a health problem that costs the government money, it is immediately removed from the market in that country. Those countries are less likely to give up control of research to help protect their health care. An example of what can happen: the country just south of Canada has recently renewed approval for several chemical crop sprays, even though they have been declared a probable cause of cancer, and the manufacturer has paid billions of dollars to victims and their families. With most of their health care private, diseases like cancer are big money for the drug companies and also the companies that manufacture and sell those chemical sprays.
Though Health Canada reapproved the use of glyphosate-based herbicides in 2017, Canada’s Federal Court has challenged the approval of some new and questionable glyphosate sprays until more health studies have been completed. Canada is not the first to question some early studies.
Over 30 countries in the world have already made some of those sprays illegal, as well as the GMO crops that were treated with the spray. Some countries and farmers say, “How can we feed the world without those chemical sprays?” Before the white man came to this part of the world, Indigenous communities were planting two or more crops together (brother and sister crops) to keep weeds away, and chemical sprays did not exist. Much of the chemical technology used in weed control today was developed during war time to defoliate trees to see the enemy better, and to poison the enemy.
Recently, scientists (studying both soil and humans) have shown concern about the reduction in micro-bacteria in the human gut, and in our soil. Some bacteria are very important to the health of digestive tracts. These micro-bacteria not only help digest our food but also repair small lesions in our digestive system. Some of those same chemical crop sprays under review are also patented as a bactericide that kills those micro-bacteria that make up our biome in our gut. Soil scientists are also very concerned about life in our soil, which normally has about one billion micro-bacteria in a teaspoon of healthy topsoil. That same herbicide-bactericide also kills those microscopic soil bacteria that decompose organic matter and can break down soil minerals like sand, clay, and loam into a liquid that plants can absorb as free fertilizer. Some scientists have declared maintaining nutrient density in our food and life in the soil as the world’s largest challenge for our next generation. We have spent years trying to get more tonnes per acre of grains and other produce with very little regard to the nutrient density of that food. Canada’s dairy farmers have been paid for the nutrients (fat, protein, and other solids) in milk for years. Why should we be paying for water? We can get that from the tap.
Chris Judd is a farmer in Clarendon on land that has been in his family for generations.
