CELEBRATING 136 YEARS AS CANADA’S PREMIER HORTICULTURAL PUBLICATION
APRIL 2015
VOLUME 65 NUMBER 04
BIOTECHNOLOGY IN 2015
The biotech road leads to a horticultural horizon
At this time of year, getting onto the land is a primal urge of farmers. Here, this coulter-disc machine prepares the soil for potato planting. “This process is vertical tillage whereby we can cut the straw finer to make a better seed bed without covering all the straw,” says potato grower, Stan Wiebe, MacGregor, Manitoba. “We are making the field less susceptible to wind erosion.” Modern equipment plus ever-evolving seed cultivars put spring into a farmer’s step. In the next couple years, the non-bruising, late-blight resistant Innate potato may add yet another choice. Photo by Stan Wiebe.
INSIDE Lack of financial protection worries Canadian exporters Page 6 Retailers want more stone fruit
Page 10
Focus: Water management and irrigation
B section
www.thegrower.org P.M. 40012319 $3.00 CDN
KAREN DAVIDSON Two horticultural crops -- the Arctic apple and the Innate potato -- are arriving at a milestone together. Both are products of biotechnology, the result of genome editing that silences the enzyme responsible for bruising. Both have been recently approved for sale in the United States. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada approved the Arctic apple on March 20. Conclusions to the review of the Innate potato are expected soon. “It will be interesting to see what the Canadian government does,” says Keith Kuhl, a Manitoba potato grower and president of the Canadian Horticultural Council (CHC). “The USDA has approved these products and we have an open border policy. Does the government have a desire not to allow them into Canada or will the
government allow advances using this technology?” Kuhl notes that all genetically modified research is moving towards cisgenesis – the science of manipulating the plant’s own genes. That’s what distinguishes the Arctic apple and the Innate potato from other biotech crops. There is no genetic material from other species. Transgenics are a thing of the past, says Kuhl. Today’s technology offers the same results as natural breeding, just faster. Bringing consumers up to speed on that science may prove more problematic. “We also want to ensure that we don’t go against public opinion,” says Kuhl. “Consumers must be on side as we move forward. We’re trying to find methods to educate the public in all farming practices.” To answer growing requests for a position on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the CHC approved a standing policy statement at its recent March 12
annual general meeting in Quebec City. Remaining neutral on the issue, the Canadian Horticultural Council “supports all approved production practices which will enable the future viability and sustainability of horticulture production.” Hugh Reynolds, a potato grower from Delta, British Columbia, picks up on the sustainability theme. “I think that Innate potatoes will be an amazing thing,” he says. “I want a potato that’s not susceptible to late blight. If we can cut down on the fungicide applications, then I’m excited. It’s good for the environment, it’s good for people to eat.” Having watched the GMO debate of the last decade, he’s hopeful that consumers will see that fear-mongering has denied new products to emerging countries where there’s insufficient food. “I will always speak for science so that these people can have food,” says
Reynolds. Looking back 20 years It’s been a long and winding road for biotechnology since the first products were commercialized almost 20 years ago. At that time, consumers were prepared to pay for NatureMark potatoes in test pilots in the Maritimes. Potatoes that were resistant to Colorado potato beetle and thus required less pesticide were a benefit that Maritime consumers could comprehend. But McCain Foods refused to contract the potatoes fearing a backlash from environmental groups. Monsanto ceased its insect-resistant potato research in 2001. By 2004, the biotech pioneer also pulled out of glyphosate-tolerant wheat and diverted its research resources into crops such as corn, soybeans and canola.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 3