Compromise canola bill foreshadows controversy
Limited canola production will likely continue in Oregon’s Willamette Valley under recently-passed legislation, but the debate it inspired foreshadows future battles over the crop.
House Bill 3382, approved by Oregon’s House and Senate, allows 500 acres of canola to be grown in the region through 2019 despite an overall moratorium on its cultivation.
Canola is restricted in the Willamette Valley due to the concerns of specialty seed growers who worry it will cross-pollinate with related crops and destroy their market.
To reassure canola opponents, lawmakers included provisions in HB 3382 that set new conditions on canola research conducted by Oregon State University.
The research is intended to yield recommendations for coexistence between canola and other crops, but canola proponents suspect the veracity of OSU’s study will become a point of contention in future discussions.
Before the Senate passed the bill 25-5 on June 17, it was amended to require that OSU’s research be evaluated by vegetable seed experts and that it include historical data about canola’s interaction with brassica crops in other regions.
During a discussion of HB 3382, Sen Chris Edwards, D-Eugene, said the new research parameters were included in the bill due to fears that OSU and the Oregon Department of Agriculture — which will make recommendations on coexistence — have a “pro-canola bias.”
Edwards noted that in 2013 lawmakers were contemplating an outright ban on canola in the Willamette Valley but instead opted for a six-year moratorium while OSU conducts a three-year study of the crop’s potential to cause weed and disease problems.
Farmers were permitted to produce canola on 500 acres during the study and under HB 3382 will grow that amount until the end of the moratorium, subject to certain restrictions.
“It’s a reasonable compromise between opposing views on the bill,” Edwards said.
Opponents of canola production are already casting doubts on the validity of OSU’s research, giving themselves “wiggle room” to eventually refute the study’s conclusions, said Matt Crawford, president of the Willamette Valley Oilseed Producers Association.
While the study is focused on weed and disease issues, canola opponents actually have other reasons they’re worried about the crop, he said.
Some see it as providing a “biotech foothold” in the region, as genetically engineered varieties of canola are available, Crawford said.
Other critics dislike canola’s potential to compete for acreage with other crops, he said. “The more options a farmer has, the harder the seed company will have to try to have a place on those farms.”
While the possibility for cross-pollination does exist, other related brassica crops — including turnips and radish — are grown on large acreage in the valley without restriction, he said.
Canola could similarly coexist if it’s included in a “pinning” system used for other brassicas, which allows farmers to plant at sufficient distances to avoid cross-pollination, Crawford said.
The legislature’s willingness to pass HB 3382 is a positive sign for canola, particularly since it was supported by lawmakers who wanted to prohibit the crop two years ago, he said. “That was actually a pretty big step.”
The Willamette Valley Specialty Seed Association does not preclude coexistence between canola and related crops, said Greg Loberg, the group’s public relations chair and manager of the West Coast Beet Seed Co.
“It will be difficult to find that sweet spot, but I don’t think it will be impossible,” he said.
Even so, canola doesn’t neatly fit into the management system for brassica seed crops because it’s grown for oil rather than genetics, Loberg said.
There’s no incentive for oilseed farmers to keep the genetics of canola pure, which raises questions about their willingness to follow coexistence rules, he said. “Will all canola oilseed producers abide by that same principle?”
Canola restrictions have been in place for more than 25 years in the valley, which has given specialty seed producers the opportunity and confidence to expand their business, Loberg said.
Removing or altering those protections should not be done carelessly, which realistically will require continued involvement from lawmakers, he said. “They picked up a piece of Oregon agriculture and now there’s no good way to put it down.”