The Union Farmer Quarterly/Summer 2001

Agricultural Research - Problems and Promises

- by Helen Forsey, Quarterly Editor

There is almost no limit to the promises that are made in the name of agricultural research. Experts with test tubes and computers are supposed to solve pest problems, create new wonder foods, make farming profitable, feed a hungry world. Whether the focus is on miracle hybrids, the "science-based" assess-ment of a new product, or the latest study of free trade in the "agri-food" sector, farmers in Canada and around the globe are encouraged to put their faith in research and look forward to a glowing future.

Granted, there is some evidence to support this rosy view of research and its potential. In the past, much government- and university-based agricultural research did in fact serve farmers well. The excellence of Canadian prairie wheat can be traced back to Marquis and other ancestor varieties developed at government research stations. In the 1970s and 80s, Macdonald College's Ecological Agriculture Project worked closely with farmers documenting the effectiveness of alternative approaches to energy, fertilizers, and pest control. Comparative studies on conventional, low-input and organic agriculture provide specific, practical data for farmers on the net returns they may expect from various choices.

While there are other examples, nationally and internationally, of research programs that have been accessible to farmers, responsive to their needs, and geared to the public interest, that is unfortunately the exception, not the rule. Far more often nowadays it is other interests that are paying the

research piper and calling the tune. As a result, most research that serves farmers and the common good happens outside of or even in spite of the official system.

A case in point is what happened with Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH), where issues around corporate influence, food safety and the industrialization of agriculture alarmed farmers and consumers alike. When the Canadian govern-ment finally announced a ban on BGH in January, 1999, few people realized what a key role research of various kinds had played in that decade-long struggle. Yet the BGH saga dramatically illustrates both the grave problems with the present-day research establishment, and the importance of what might be called a research of resistance.

In the late 1980s, agro-pharmaceutical companies applied to Health Canada to register this genetically engineered hormone for use as a "production aid" in dairy cattle. Prior to approval, the companies were required to do field research, using the drug in several test herds whose location and identity were kept secret. When it was discovered that milk from the BGH-injected test cows was being pooled with the general milk supply, there was a public outcry, and the issue became a cause celebre.

In the battle which followed, both sides drew on research to bolster their causes. But the kinds of research involved were very different.

On the establishment side you had Monsanto, armed with the scientific studies it had bought and paid for; backed by the corporate groupies who held top management positions in Health Canada, along with some of their subordinates. They were accompanied by a chorus of carefully selected consultants, academics and representatives of professional organizations, all singing from the Monsanto-Health Canada song book.

On the side of the people (and the cows) was a motley array of conscientious objectors: the dissident Health Canada research scientists* who, with support from their union, risked their careers to challenge their bosses and expose the gaps and flaws in Monsanto's data; the MPs and Senators and their research staff who insisted on poking around behind the bureaucratic bafflegab; the public interest researchers in Vermont and in England who dug up the dirt on the issue in the US and Europe; the Council of Canadians staffers who worked on untangling the corporate linkages; and a handful of persistent investigative reporters who wouldn't let the story go. Playing a key role throughout the process was the National Farmers Union, with its BGH research bulldog Richard Lloyd, who brought all those people and all that information together in a strategic package which eventually won the day.