Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Founded in 1909, UFA Co-operative Limited is an Alberta-based agricultural co-operative with more than 120,000 member-owners. UFA’s network comprises more than 114 bulk fuel and Cardlock Petroleum locations, 34 Farm & Ranch Supply stores and a support office in Calgary, AB. Independent Petroleum Agents and over 1,000 UFA employees provide products, services and agricultural solutions to farmers, ranchers, members and commercial customers in Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan.
It takes a certain kind of ambition to do what farmers do. Between the hours and the hard labor, to the public scrutiny and bureaucratic maze running, it's not an easy task. While the agriculture industry feeds millions, quietly tilling and producing behind the scenes, many forget that our food comes from the hands of real people, with real stories.
Join us as we share stories from those with boots on the ground and unearth unique perspectives on agriculture's biggest conversations. It's time to grab your shovel and get to work. I'm Don Shafer, and this is Digging In with UFA.[00:01:00]
What is real food? Is it a naturally grown food? Is it organic? When it comes to the conversations around food that's been modified, bred, or spliced, why is changing the nature of our food necessary? Why are so many people worried about the dangers of the elusive GMO, and what is the truth about its safety?
Today, we dig in on science and genetically modified foods.
In this episode, you'll hear a handful of acronyms when discussing specific agencies, groups, or concepts within the agricultural sector. For a breakdown of what those mean, please visit the show notes on this episode.
When we discuss sustainability, we're discussing longevity. We're discussing environmental equity. We're discussing our future. So when having these conversations around how we plan on growing towards the [00:02:00] collective future, it's important to remember that it's indeed a marathon and not a sprint. It's driving voices for sustainability that will make sure we're starting that race on the right foot.
This is Stuart Smyth.
Stuart Smyth: My name is Stuart Smyth. I'm a professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Saskatchewan, where I hold the Agri Food and Innovation Sustainability Enhancement Chair. And I've been in this position for a decade now doing research on sustainability improvements in prairie agriculture.
I interact with a lot of policy makers within Ag Canada, Agriculture Canada and Canadian Food Inspection Agency and going back over the last 8 to 12 years, one of the things that was constantly arising was that these policy makers were indicating that to push back against politically motivated regulations and guidelines, they required farm level evidence that quantified changes in agricultural [00:03:00] practices.
So knowing that. There was a ready audience for the articles that would be published out of our group's research. We strive to find models and metrics and data to be able to tell these stories. And that's really what we've been doing over the last 10 years. We publish about 10 journal articles a year based on our findings of improved sustainability.
I grew up on a farm in southeast Saskatchewan and my family, on both sides of my mom and dad's side, both are still active. Farmers and my friends and neighbors are farmers. The nice thing of this is that I know our research is having a positive impact on the farmers in the province. They're able to continue using the technologies that work for them or the politicians in Canada or international organizations around the world can look at our research and observe the benefits that have happened over the last 25 to 30 years following some changes in innovative technologies.[00:04:00]
Intro: The powers of influence are often given to those with the most capital, the highest podium overlooking a sea of well intentioned voices and cries for opportunity. But what would it take to stand up to that system, to challenge and shift the powers to favor those who the laws most harshly affect? How do we find our voice to stand up for the vulnerable?
You have a voice, like our next guest. This is Dr. Sylvain Charlebois.
Sylvain Charlebois: My name is Sylvain Charlebois. I'm director of the Agri Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University in beautiful Halifax, Nova Scotia. I've been there for nine years now, and before that I was stationed at Guelph, and before that I was at the University of Regina in Saskatchewan.
And so, as a family, we've had the pleasure to live in many parts of Canada appreciating that Canada is diverse. I mean, when you go from one place to another, you realize that agriculture really is different from one place to another.[00:05:00]
As a kid, I didn't grow on a farm, but I worked on farms, mostly dairy farms because I'm from Quebec and Of course, other than dairy farms, it's basically nothing else, maybe maple syrup, but dairy is a big deal in Quebec, obviously. So I worked on these farms for most of my youth, joined the military, became an officer, left the service in 1992, and then became a lobbyist for the food industry in the province of Quebec.
And that's when I really learned how to think about systems, who actually influences who, and that really. inspired my research. It's still inspiring my research today and understanding who influences who, who depends on who within the supply chain. And obviously with farmers being price takers, they are absolutely vulnerable most of the time.
And so my job as a researcher is to understand how to contraveil power, how to rebalance power within the supply chain. While we're trying to serve [00:06:00] consumers the best way we can, whether it's in Canada or elsewhere around the world.
I don't see myself as an advocate, but I get upset when Ottawa gets stupid. I'm sure Stewie can relate to that, but I do believe that in many instances in recent years, well, it won't last 25 years since I became a researcher. Ottawa has made some bad decisions and my job, because I'm tenured, because I'm protected, I try to make myself a voice for farmers in general.
And I've intervened many times in Ottawa. I've testified 25 times in Ottawa, both at Senate and Parliament. Last week, I was actually at Senate and Parliament industry, voicing my concerns about Carbon pricing and some of the issues related to supply management and foreign trades with Bill C 282. I think that elected officials will look for academics to get that voice of reason.
[00:07:00] So there are many academics who play the same role as I do, but I've been a little bit more vocal and I guess perhaps a little aggressive in terms of making sure that farmers. are heard in one way or another. I think farming and farmers are misunderstood all the time. And I'm sure Stuart would agree is that we are dealing with urban centric governments, not only in Canada, but around the world.
So how do you make sure that there's good policy coming out of these urban centric governments? It is possible, but you got to be purposeful. You really have to guide them as much as possible. You can't just let things go.
Stuart Smyth: There's lots of academics that are activists and activist organizations that would prefer that evidence not be part of decision making processes and will do everything in their power and persuasion to convince them that, you know, no, that doesn't matter.
There's no good evidence yet. I would view myself equivalent to Savannah being a champion for evidence based regulations. And I know the research we're [00:08:00] putting forward is robust and they can attack it all they want. They can't refute it. So if they're attacking it, that means it does resonate and they know it's going to deconstruct their politically motivated comments that would be in opposition.
Sylvain Charlebois: Yep. Extreme activists are treating science like a buffet. They'll pick and choose whatever science they want to support a narrative. And many of these extreme activists now are in government, not in the periphery, but they're actually part of government. They're actually at the table. I've seen it, Stuart has seen it, and it's scary, really, because science is about a balance.
You have to look at all sides to gather all of the evidence, not just some of the evidence.
Stuart Smyth: They treat science like it's ice cream flavors, and they pick and choose which ones they want to like and say, no, the rest. I don't like them. I'm going to ignore them.
Intro: We tend to be afraid of those things we're unfamiliar with, and rightfully so.[00:09:00]
Without the knowledge in our back pocket to contextualize the unknown, trying something new can be scary. When it comes to the food we consume, not knowing how something is grown or altered can feel troublesome. Are genetically modified foods as dangerous and scary as some people believe? Or, are they simply innocuous and just as healthy for public consumption?
Stuart Smyth: It's a breeding technique that can more rapidly create valuable traits to agriculture than through just the standard mutagenic technologies. If we wanted drug tolerance or herbicide resistance, specific genes can be inserted into a crop variety to give it that protection or trait advantage. There's been around 5, 000 Risk assessments of genetically modified crops dating back to 1992.
So 32 years of regulatory risk assessments by over 70 governments around the world. And every [00:10:00] single one of those risk assessments by all those governments have all concluded that the risk of a GM crop is no different than the risk of producing a non GM crop. Because all food production, GM, conventional, organic, it all has risks.
I would actually argue it's even safer than non GM. There's a really good research looking at corn showing that non BT or non GM corn has a higher level of mycotoxins by higher, about 30%. These mycotoxins are linked to esophageal and stomach cancers. So from the food safety perspective, I think that that ability to reduce insect damage and raise the potential for carcinogenic mycotoxins results in GM.
food products being even safer than alternatives.
Sylvain Charlebois: I think the biggest challenge for consumers in terms of GMOs and their understanding of genetic engineering is the fact that they often think that the process, the technology [00:11:00] is unnatural. But it is natural, actually, everything is genetically modified in nature, it's just genetic engineering will cross genes that may not cross naturally in nature, but it's all about optimizing agriculture, it's about finding the right trade to deal with And with climate change, you really need that research to empower farmers to increase yields and become more productive.
And results are pretty clear. Agriculture is becoming more productive, more efficient as a result of
Stuart Smyth: biotechnologies. In terms of a regulatory risk assessment, they're treated very differently. So any new GM crop that's coming on the market has to undergo risk assessment that takes about two years to look at, you know, the impacts on non target organisms.
So what's the impact on pollinators? on birds or butterflies or, you know, what happens if seeds end up in a watershed? What happens to the insects and fish that reside there? It looks at, you know, the impacts [00:12:00] on human health. So is it got a potential to be an increased allergen or a toxic substance if we ingest it?
This research takes up to three years for the scientists, whether they're in a university or a private company, to undertake all of these studies. And then it takes our regulators within Health Canada and the CFIA, you know, up to another two years to then assess all the data. Canada's approved over 150 different GM crops over the past 30 years that have undergone these risk assessments.
And the conclusions have all been the same. They're safe for the environment and safe for human consumption. From a risk perspective, nothing in our grocery stores is more regulated and had more risk assessment than GM products.
Sylvain Charlebois: You know, we have to recognize that science is not an absolute. We'll never going to have enough data.
And so to argue that we don't have enough data is a bit of an oxymoron because that's what science is all about. Science is a journey to understand more and factors do change from one year to another. I mean, so [00:13:00] you have to contextualize, you have to assess risks all the time. And so I think one of the strongest advocates in Canada who supports more research in biotechnologies is Stuart himself.
I mean, that's really what science is all about, is to really understand and if there is one factor that changes, well, does that impact risk for humans? for our ecosystems for animals and so on and so forth. It's always important to continue to conduct the research.
Intro: When growing and harvesting genetically modified agriculture, what does its production impact look like in comparison to more organic produce?
Are there any calls for concern on the impact these specific foods have on the environment?
Stuart Smyth: All food production is going to impact the environment. So even if it's organic or non GM or producing one tomato or one cucumber or one beef, right, it's always going to have an impact. And the question then is, how can agriculture put [00:14:00] innovative products and technologies in place that help to minimize or reduce over time those impacts on the environment?
And a world leading area in terms of Having adopted this technology going back, this year was the 30th year that GM crops have been grown in the Canadian prairies. So we've got more evidence than anybody else in the world about what's changed. And yeah, our research is showing that when we look at the land management practices in the early 1990s was typically wheat and summer fall.
So. Farmers would grow wheat one year and they would use the same chemicals every time they had that field of wheat. It would be summer, fall of the next year. If it was heavy rains, soil was eroding into watersheds. If it was windy, soil was blowing in the air. We've had fields now that have been zero till.
For over 20 years in the prairies, so soils no longer moving into watersheds. It's no longer subject to wind erosion. When [00:15:00] we look at the environmental impact of the chemicals that are applied, the impact of these chemicals is down 65 percent in terms of impact on the environment, and we're using 45 percent less chemical per acre than we were 30 years ago.
So that's a significant Thanks again. impact in terms of the environmental benefit, but it just does not get communicated well into the Canadian public.
Sylvain Charlebois: Well, there's not much attention given to that research because it's boring. And frankly, the media has a job to do, but its job is to often find problems.
I have to give some credit to the extreme advocates because they're incredibly well organized. I mean, they're well financed, well organized, and they know how to get their message out, which is why Stuart's chair exists in the first place. But there's so much the industry can do. I mean, Stuart does some work, but at the end of the day, [00:16:00] what often wins is the argument coming from extreme activists who really Basically, fundamentally, you use one weapon, which is really effective, and that's the weapon of fear.
Fear will absolutely move the needle when it comes to public opinion. A couple of years ago, I spent some time in St. Louis at Monsanto before it got acquired. And Rene Van Hacker, who's a plant scientist, and I spent the week together there just to understand why Monsanto was the most hated. company in the world.
I mean, we had a hard time understanding what happened. And frankly, I think there was, there still is tremendous faith on the science, on the work being done. And they never really bothered conveying that to the public. There was little marketing. And by the time they realized that they were behind in terms of the messaging, it was already too late.
Because for many decades, for a few decades, you really [00:17:00] saw activists become incredibly effective in telling their story without really looking at the science. So the industry kind of lost a long time ago and it's trying to recover. It's trying to come back, but it's been a long process and a very painful one at that.
And I'm being very, very honest here. And to a certain extent, is it really the activists fault? I actually personally think that the silence that the knowledge holders. provided to the public really gave an opportunity to extremists to voice their opinion without anyone actually going against that message.
And we're still praying for it today.
Stuart Smyth: One of the challenges we have is that typically trust follows the supply chain. And so there's a significant gap with all of the products that leave a farm until they actually end up on a grocery store shelf. And so, The voice of pushback against what critics and opponents would say should have been expected to have come from the wholesale [00:18:00] retail space, but they largely kept silent.
And that silence then echoed back up to the food processors and ultimately to the farmers. The Canadian public has a very high level of trust in farmers. Recent study from the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity shows that over 80 percent of Canadians have a very high level of trust in farmers. But where that starts to fall off is in trust in things they do.
So, there's less trust in terms of animal welfare practices, or the importance or the benefits of using genetically modified crops, or even the role of chemicals in agriculture, right? So, they have high levels of trust in the government. pretty high levels of trust in our regulatory authorities, but less trust in the food system because it's not transparent.
They can't pull back the cover and sort of really get a sense as to where it's come from, what's been involved. Is there a difference between organic and conventional? You know, if you looked at the information that over half of the chemicals used in organic agriculture have been found to be carcinogenic yet [00:19:00] because they're natural compounds, they're subject to different interpretation by the public because they think, oh, well, the organic industry has always told me they don't use any chemicals.
Well, of course they do. Otherwise, they wouldn't have any products in the marketplace.
Sylvain Charlebois: On risk communication, I mean, the industry really has done a lousy job, really. It's always been against mandatory labeling. It has used language that is foreign to a lot of consumers. So activists, extreme activists will actually try to narrow that picture as much as possible so people can understand It doesn't matter if that's the real picture and that picture is accurate.
It doesn't matter to them. What matters is to move the needle on public opinion. Our job is to make sure that people understand the entire picture, and that's much more work to convey to the public. Yes, you can use some sexy language, but you can't really overdo it. You still have to be faithful to the science and the science really, when you describe the science, you have to be [00:20:00] specific and accurate.
Stuart Smyth: A colleague of mine teaches a first year class at the University of Waterloo and he asks, on the first day of chemistry class, how many of you think chemicals are dangerous? And for the last number of years, over half of these students put their hand up thinking that all chemicals are dangerous, yet H2O is a chemical, right?
So, you know, there's a very broad misunderstanding across the public into thinking that If you hear the word chemical, it's automatically linked to cancer or a host of other ailments. But the reality is, if we didn't have chemicals, we wouldn't have a modern society.
Intro: Since we're able to modify foods to sustain shelf life or infuse vitamins or adjust flavor, are we increasing the viability of food for longer periods of time?
From food desserts to low yield harvest, how are GMOs making agriculture more productive?
Sylvain Charlebois: Do we have a more productive agriculture [00:21:00] as a result of the science that we've given to farmers? And I think the answer is absolutely. I think farmers are making more money. Farms are more viable as a result of the work that we've done in genetic engineering, especially in Canada.
So, That work at Farmgate, would that impact food price as well? And Stuart knows this very well because he's co author of Canada's Food Price Report. A lot of things actually do impact food prices at the end of the day. If, uh, I don't know, something happens in distribution or in processing that actually makes prices higher, labor, energy, regulations, then of course the output at Farmgate won't matter as much.
And let's be honest, when you walk into a grocery store, About five or six percent of everything you see goes back to the farmer. So it's not a huge portion of how much you pay at the grocery store. And so that's why it's important to keep that in mind. Now in [00:22:00] developing countries, I would say in other parts where there is less processing, I would say probably that percentage is much higher.
And so that increased output could actually have a more significant impact on food affordability in that particular market.
Stuart Smyth: If you had a poor harvester, there was other issues impacting production that would have a more noticeable or direct effect on food prices, say, you know, cucumbers or tomatoes. The GM varieties are corn, soybeans, and canola.
So if we had a poor harvest here, we're still producing, you know, 10 million tons of these types of products, right? So the impact. of canola prices impacting consumers through where it's an ingredient in processed food products, margarines or salad dressings, those types of things would be very difficult to really attribute to a lower canola yield, such as we had in 2021.
So I think it has a different impact when we look at it as part of a processed product, or is it something that we could directly consume without needing really any additional [00:23:00] preparation?
Sylvain Charlebois: The reality is this. When you look at supply chain economics, if you see agriculture become more efficient, you decrease risks to see more price volatility at retail.
Doesn't mean it won't happen, but you do decrease risks. Often we say, well, food inflation is the biggest problem we have. It is a big problem, but the biggest problem we have is price volatility. So when you go from one season to another, one harvest to another, and prices go like this, that's murder for consumers.
That's what we went through in the last couple of years. If you keep prices stable, and that's really what biotechnologies do, it stabilizes systems at farm gate. You are increasing your chances in eliminating food volatility as a major problem for consumers, no matter where you are around the world.
Stuart Smyth: And that's where traits as we go forward with, you know, the potential to have increased climate volatility, things like drought tolerance or better disease resistance, or even changes in [00:24:00] insect populations.
All of those traits are going to help provide a base of production that will mitigate some of that price volatility because we're always going to produce, you know, a consistently increasing base of production. So to compare crop production in Saskatchewan to Europe, 3 percent of the cropland in Saskatchewan involves summer fallow.
64 percent of cropland in Europe uses summer fallow. So it's a night and day difference between sustainable productions. I view continuous cropping zero. Till or minimum tillage as a sustainable crop production process. Certainly tillage does have a role in agriculture. We'll never remove it, but the less tillage we do, the more sustainable our agriculture is because every year that soil's not tilled, it can sequester more and more carbon, which then results in agriculture making significant contributions to Canada's actions around climate change mitigation.
But at a global level, academics, agricultural [00:25:00] economists, predominantly have been studying genetically modified crops for 25 years. They've looked at every variety that's been commercialized in any country and they've done assessments saying, okay, well, what are the yields and the inputs required for GM varieties versus non GM varieties?
So whether we're talking about eggplants in Bangladesh or cotton in India or soy beans in Argentina, All of these studies for 25 years have confirmed that GM varieties reduce the amount of inputs required so that there's fewer chemicals going on these crops and the yields are higher. So I think, you know, 25 years of evidence to me is really providing scientific confirmation that GM crops are safe, they're higher yielders and they reduce chemical use.
The large bulk commodities certainly have a contribution that in terms of looking at crop production, I mean, we're talking an increase of corn and soy of hundreds of millions of tons over the last 25 years. So as Sylvain [00:26:00] mentioned earlier, that that increased production contributes to increased price stability.
Yes, where the evidence is probably most notable. is in developing countries in these small farms that are the size of a couple of households, right? So in most North American cities, you get about eight houses to an acre. Farms in many of these developing countries are half an acre or two thirds of an acre.
So the size of six houses is the size of a farm. And it's these small farms that have multiple crops a year that are seeing increased yields or reduced input costs, higher farm revenue. So that higher revenue is showing up, it's allowing their children to get a higher level of education. Within the system and particularly girls, because in a lot of developing countries, females don't receive as high an education as the males do.
So that increased household income is positively contributing to higher levels of female education. Those are the spillover benefits from having higher yields, higher farm [00:27:00] revenues is an increased level in your general society education. And that just has spillovers for the entire society.
Intro: Why did genetically modified foods become synonymous with something that's to be feared? And in the light of that public perception, why did it take government entities so long to publicly state its safety and viability? By letting that fear resonate and linger throughout the public, there's an implication of quiet endorsement.
When we know the science, and we know what it can offer, why is there so much pushback against the idea of GMO and non GMO foods in the marketplace together?
Stuart Smyth: I do think the government is a strong supporter of biotechnology and genetically modified crops. We have a science based regulatory system which allows everybody to understand what evidence is needed to get varieties approved.
And in terms of supporting the industry, you'd always like them to do more. They certainly have [00:28:00] frequently asked question sections on their web pages. The one thing that Canada does differ from the United States is the United States has their international aid. development programs, and biotechnology plays a strong role in all of the United States international development work around agriculture.
In Canada, it doesn't. Within the global affairs and the development programs they've got there, biotechnology is really Not present coming out of any of the Canadian programs, and I think that's something that Canada should try to better champion the science that's going on within Canada and then elevate that to an international level, because when I travel, Canada is a very reputable country in terms of agricultural science and innovation and regulation.
Sylvain Charlebois: I mean, you did ask earlier, Stuart, about government support. And how much regulation do we have? I actually think that we're going in the [00:29:00] right direction here with the latest gene editing. decision. That was a big one, a huge one. And we should be all thankful for that decision, because I actually think it's going to make a huge difference.
It's going to make genetic engineering more accessible, cheaper, more efficient. We're not going to be talking about millions of dollars of investment to actually find that right. trait anymore. It's just going to make the whole science more frugal, if you will, and specific and targeted. So I know that farmers are actually quite happy with the decision, but I'm hoping that consumers will understand exactly the benefits of that decision as well.
So I think the support is actually quite superb and I've had the pleasure to work with Health Canada and the CFI over the years and they get it. They absolutely understand it while they're feeling all of the hatred and criticism coming from. media and activists. I think they're doing a pretty good job conveying to the public or protecting the science that we all need.
Stuart Smyth: Yeah, and I would [00:30:00] certainly echo that Health Canada, the CFIA, the PMRA are all expert scientists and doing Very rigorous and detailed research to ensure that Canadian society is as well protected as they can possibly be. And certainly any of the criticism leveled against these organizations is all politically motivated.
There is no robust evidence that our regulators are allowing unsafe products into the Canadian food system. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have a incredible. amount of respect for Canadian regulatory scientists. Certainly, as I mentioned earlier, that the evidence going back over 25 years is showing that when farms adopt GM crops, either through fewer herbicide applications or fewer insecticide, you know, any type of pesticide application is dropping and therefore yields will increase because of less pest pressure.
Yields are also increasing through varieties now as the genetics for yield [00:31:00] increasing is better understood, more drought tolerance in these varieties. So I think around the world, the evidence is pretty consistent that when farmers adopt GM varieties, it's going to result in higher yields for their operations.
Sylvain Charlebois: I agree 100%. I think Stuart nailed it. I think there is momentum. And when you look at regulations in Europe, for example, you do feel that there is momentum. That recognition that genetic engineering can actually make a difference.
Stuart Smyth: So when we looked at some FAO data a couple of years ago in an article, we estimated that crop production in Canada between 1995 and 2020 has increased by 28%.
In the U. S. it's gone up 35%, but in Europe, where they've rejected biotechnology, crop productions only increased 7 percent over that 25 year period. So, one quarter of what it is in Canada and one fifth of what it has been in the States.
Intro: As we put all these thoughts and perspectives together, what message are you hoping to [00:32:00] leave with the general public? What truth about GMOs do you hope to reiterate and instill in those still fearing genetically modified foods?
Sylvain Charlebois: What I can say to the general public is that if there's an arm that grows on their foreheads, it's not because of GMOs.
It's something else. I'm just kidding here. I mean, essentially, it's important to read the science and get to the information, get as much information as possible. I think that's the most important thing. And I've been a strong advocate for mandatory labeling for a very long time. I'm one of the few scientists out there that actually believes in genetic engineering.
I think there are Good things happening there. But at the same time, the public deserves to know as well. And we're repeating the same mistakes over and over again with cultured meats, cultured agriculture, cellulite agriculture. There are a lot of new technologies coming up. So if you're not trying to get proper information, things are going to get scary.
So you really need to [00:33:00] understand what's happening. But I've always said to regulators, mandatory labeling is essential. In 2026, we'll have this front of package labeling rule that will actually force manufacturers to put specific labels if sodium, fat, or sugar content is too high. We should do the same with GMOs, and I think if you actually allow Canadians to befriend the enemy, quote unquote, it will allow them to really understand that genetic engineering is very much part of our lives, and they're fine.
They're actually doing fine.
Stuart Smyth: I would just add to that that probably one of the things that is tried to be instilled in the public is that somehow you can have a food product that is 100 percent safe. Well, nothing we consume in our society has 100 percent safety level. Whether it's organic or conventional or GM, there's always going to be a risk that it could be contaminated with something from the soil or in transportation.
So there's risk associated with all of the food products we consume. [00:34:00] And it doesn't matter what type of food products you're consuming, but the important thing is to pay attention. Are there recalls of specific products and follow that. We have very rigorous. Food product recalls in Canada when companies or regulators discover that something is no longer within the margins of safety.
And I think that the reassuring thing is that over 30 years of GM crop production, there's not been a product recalled because it's got GM ingredients in it. So that reassures the public that the use of biotechnology is and has consistently provided safe products to the marketplace.
Intro: At the end of the day. We look to our resiliency within ourselves and our communities to make our collective futures as bright as possible. All it will really take is conversations [00:35:00] like these, some vulnerability, and a little digging.
Thanks to the support of UFA Cooperative, we're able to share stories from those who live and breathe agriculture. We'd like to thank our guests for sharing their insight into the future of agriculture and for being with us today. For more information and a new episode every month, visit ufa. com. With listeners like you, we'll continue to dig a little deeper here on Digging In with UFA.
I'm Don Shafer, thanks for listening. Another Everything Podcasts Production. Visit everythingpodcasts.com, a division of Pattison Media. Subscribe wherever you get your podcast.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this podcast reflect opinions and perspectives from participating guests and not necessarily those of UFA, UFA Cooperatives membership, elected officials, or stakeholders.