The Union Farmer Quarterly/Summer 2001

Colonizing the Research Culture

All this is bad enough, but unfortunately it is more than just a question of funding. The very mentality of many government and university researchers, like that of some farmers in commodity groups and mainstream farm organizations, has been colonized by corporate interests. We saw repeated evidence, during the struggle over BGH and since, of a revolving door syndrome where university people and government managers move in and out of cushy positions in the profit sector. This means that companies often don't even have to be involved directly in order to get their way; their obedient and eager servants will happily do their dirty work for them.

Stewart Wells gives the example of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the research on genetically modified wheat. Several years ago, a government employee at the Cereal Research Centre in Winnipeg negotiated an agreement with Monsanto committing the government to research Roundup-Ready wheat. That agreement, initially unauthorized, was eventually ratified by the Deputy Minister, and scientists at Winnipeg and elsewhere were obliged to work on this dangerous development. Right now there are more than 50 test plots in co-op variety trials of Roundup-Ready wheat being grown in secret locations across the prairies - wheat whose pollen threatens to contaminate the fields of neighbouring farmers who have no way of knowing they are even at risk.* Mean-while, the Ag. Canada employee who started this disaster has quit the government and gone to work for Monsanto.

So the corporate mentality is alive and well, far beyond the private sector boardrooms, with dismaying consequences for agricultural research. Materials from the Canadian Agri-Food Research Council (CARC), and from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Research Branch, give an idea of just how far it has gone.

CARC's 37-member Council is com-posed half of "industry" representatives (Meat Council, Food and Consumer Products Manufacturing Council, Grains Council, Canadian Federation of Agricul-ture, Crop Protection Institute, Consumers' Association, Monsanto, etc.) and half of federal and provincial government and university people. CARC works on coordinating and setting priorities for research "to assist the agriculture and food industry to be globally competitive, environmentally sustainable, and socially responsible."

The Council's list of "Areas Receiving Priority Consideration" gives an idea of the "what" of agricultural research in Canada. It does include, alongside gene manipu-lation, robotic pigeon feeders and nutraceuticals, many topics of importance and potential use to farmers. What it does not deal with are the other crucial questions - the "whos", "whys", "hows", and "who fors" of the research it recommends.

Some frightening answers to those questions can be gleaned from Ag Canada's glossy booklet, "Spotlight on Research". Directed at "our clients and research partners in industry, universities, and governments", the booklet frames the work of the Research Branch within what it terms "The Life Sciences Revolution", offering "guidance" in three areas: "the security of the food system..., the health of our environment..., and innovation for growth."

Farmers and others will be interested to note that for the folks in charge of the Research Branch, that first goal of food security "encompasses the concepts of risk management, a secure marketplace, and consumer confidence." Not a word about a dependable and affordable food supply, food safety and nutritional quality, keeping farmers on the land, or food self-reliance.

The classifications for "key results" listed under the project descriptions are equally revealing: "Innovation and Discovery", "Market Diversification", "Risk Management", "Environmental Stewardship" and "Environmental Awareness" (these two are for the "Genetic Resources" program), "Skills and Investment", and "Consumer Confidence".

Unless I missed something, neither CARC's brochure nor the Ag Canada booklet mentions farmers or farming. The booklet raves on about "scientists" and "researchers", makes passing reference to "Canadians" and "consumers", and in one or two cases to "growers" or "producers", but never "farmers". In the brochure, the word "farm" itself appears only twice: once in the address (the Central Experimental Farm in Ottawa) and again in relation to a code of practice for the care of farm animals. Both publications are phrased entirely in the fancy terminology of "agri-food", "life sciences", sectoral strategies, "skills and investment", technology transfer, "clients and partners", commodities and "competitive products".

Such language makes farmers disappear. And that's just fine with the powers that be. After all, if farmers are rendered invisible and farming is no longer something that is done, then the corporate-controlled "agri-food industry" can proceed with its agenda without hindrance.

This perversion of the language is part and parcel of the sanitizing of agriculture, the effort to remove the smell of earth and animals and human sweat and confer a purely "scientific" cachet. Presumably in upcoming publications, the Department will have completed the process by removing the offending words completely. The animal care code of practice will apply to "agri-food organisms" and CARC's address will be the "Central Experimental Agri-Food Facility".

Manipulated language is the flag-bearer for the colonization of the research mentality, and it can be a major factor in determining what actually happens and what does not. Professor Ann Clark of the University of Guelph notes how the deliberately vague term "substantial equivalence" has been used by officials to obscure the differences between genetically modified foods and their natural counterparts, thus avoiding any requirement for research into safety issues before approval. The term "risk management" is now a watchword in pesticides research, food safety, biotechnology and numerous other fields, essentially replacing both the terminology and the reality of the precautionary principle. Similarly, the proposed name change of the Health Protection Branch at Health Canada to the "Health Products and Food Branch" is not merely cosmetic; it is set to usher in a whole set of accompanying changes which will literally and figuratively remove the emphasis on health protection and replace it with "products".