FEBRUARY 2017 • COUNTRY LIFE IN BC GMO resolution fueling debate in Bulkley Valley
Resolution passed without consultation with local farmers Stories by EMILY BULMER
a dispute between
BURNS LAKE – Residents of the Bulkley Valley want local governments to stand by a 2013 resolution against the use of genetically engineered (GE) products in local agriculture.
Reports of GE corn and canola on local farms during the 2014 to 2106 growing seasons prompted residents to present their concerns to the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako (RDBN) in November. Those concerns include the use of herbicides by producers using GE seeds and the impacts to producers who may want to pursue organic certification.
Residents asked the district to reaffirm the 2013 resolution in which the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako affirmed that it “does not support the use of GMOs for agricultural purposes within the region.” The motion cited “broad community concern regarding the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in agricultural activities” and an inability to limit cross- pollination as the basis for the district’s opposition. Reaffirming the 2013 motion is problematic, however.
Mark Fisher, RDBN director for Area A (Smithers Rural), says the motion has
resurfaced, in part, because of
neighbours. Opponents of GE products want the district to take action but the motion never had the force of legislation so it’s tough for the current directors – few of whom knew it existed – to enforce what was essentially the disapproval of their predecessors.
“It is not a bylaw so, first of all, there's nothing to enforce,” he explains. “The other complication is that GMOs are a legal product so even if we did have something that we could enforce locally through bylaw, it would be overruled by federal law.”
Moreover, local farmers weren’t consulted on the motion.
Motion defeated
Phil Brienesse, a Smithers councillor, made a similar point following a presentation to Smithers town council in October.
Presenters asked council to support the regional district’s 2013 resolution following the presentation. A motion came forward at a subsequent council meeting in November to “not support the use of Genetically Modified Organisms, for agricultural purposes, within municipal boundaries.”
However, the motion was defeated 5-2.
“It wasn't a unanimous ANGUS BULLS BULL SALE DATES
MAR 11 HARVEST ANGUS MAR 18 ANGUS ADVANTAGE MAR 25 NORTHERN ALLIANCE APRIL 1 BEST BET APRIL 8 VANDERHOOF APRIL 13 WILLIAMS LAKE 80th
BC ANGUS
BRITISH COLUMBIA ANGUS ASSOCIATION
www.bcangus.ca Tom DeWaal2President 250.960.0022 | Carley Henniger2Secretary 587.830.4175
EMILY BULMER PHOTO
vote,” says Brienesse, who voted against the motion. “We wanted to reach out to the farming community.” His own opposition stemmed from the broad range of GE products and the narrow focus of those who opposed them.
“What the people were having issues with – and the entire presentation centred on – [was] the use of glyphosate,” he says. “GMOs come with the increased use of herbicides and sometimes pesticides, but it seemed like a broad statement versus something like 'we don't support the use of glyphosate' or something more specific.”
He also questioned whether it was even appropriate for Smithers to address the issue.
“We don't have large scale agriculture that would be using this type of farming method and we were a little
concerned of stepping on the toes of the regional district and making comments on farming based on a
presentation from one group without hearing the other side
See GMO on next page o
17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47
