The conversation surrounding genetically modified organisms can be touchy, both in the agriculture and consumer setting. But Flathead Valley farmers, ranchers and consumers on Thursday put those emotions aside to hear information from both sides.

The Montana Land Reliance hosted the Flathead Regional Agricultural Forum at the Hilton Garden Inn in Kalispell. The conference featured presentations from local producers working with fully organic operations, as well as a representative from Monsanto, one of the biggest names in genetically modified crops.

Acknowledging the topic as a popular point of contention, the host was quick to underscore the importance of listening before further digging into a predetermined viewpoint.

“The GMO conversation is emotional on both sides of the spectrum,” said Mark Schiltz, western manager for the Montana Land Reliance. “But we don’t have any say over what happens on private property.”

William Dyer, a plant sciences and plant pathology professor at Montana State University, carried the same sentiment, preferring not to sway anyone in attendance.

Before diving into an explanation of plant genetics, Dyer asked the crowd of about 150 people to raise their hands if they were in favor of GMOs, then asked those against GMOs to raise their hands. The room was split 50-50.

Like many of those in attendance, Kalispell alfalfa farmer Greg Nelson said he came to the conference on Thursday to learn more about GMOs. Nelson said he believes the GMO conversation hasn’t been facilitated properly by companies, organizations or the media.

“I think our present day media’s portrayal of GMOs is a bit biased toward negativity,” Nelson said. “I think the majority is based on emotion, slanting to the extreme.”

“I’m concerned about GMOs and just trying to learn more about the subject,” said Tyler Hawk, a Bigfork horticulturist. “I think it’s heavily manipulated and playing on people’s emotions on both sides.”

After gauging the room with the hand-survey, Dyer explained how GMOs are made: by extracting bacteria that injects itself into plants, replacing part of the bacteria with a new DNA and injecting back into the plant in order to initiate the modification.

Dyer compared genetic modification to a traditional agriculture method of modification, basic plant breeding, which is essentially cross breeding two plants to make a ruffled combination of the two.

The biotechnology used in working with GMOs adds a new gene to a single plant for a more subtle modification, Dyer said, resulting in a more controlled process.

“It’s much more precise than conventional plant breeding,” Dyer said. “This is an extension of that technology.”

Regardless of the process, some expressed concern with the long-term health risks of GMOs and what ingredients are added to plants during that process. Dyer explained that GMOs are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration before the products can reach the market, although he said there is more research to be done.

“Nothing is risk-free though,” he said.

Dyer’s list of possible advantages to the GMO industry included cheaper food production, efficiency for farmers, sustainable farming space, reducing food shortage and lowering the cost of pharmaceutical drugs, like insulin. A more recent development, Dyer said, is the ability for GMOs to perform well under stress conditions, such as poor soil.

On the concerns side, Dyer noted that GMOs could make future farmers dependent on chemical inputs in order to yield a health crop, while the long-term health risks are still an unknown. He also pointed to a small group of big companies cornering the worldwide seed and crop market as one of the industry’s concerns.

Dyer again said his presentation was simply to instruct the audience on the background and science of GMOs, not to make their determination on whether or not to support GMOs.

“It’s up to you, the citizens, to make that decision,” he said.

Wanda and Ken Hinzman of Columbia Falls attended the conference with a stance already in place.

“Because I’m not impressed with Monsanto,” Wanda said. “I’m worried. I’ve got too many kids with allergies coming up. They’re not checking out the long-term. It’s a monopoly and I’m not impressed.”

James Curry, Monsanto director for state and local government affairs, hoped to alleviate concerns about his company and its reputation around the globe.

“This doesn’t have to be GMO versus non-GMO. It’s all agriculture — we’re all in this together,” he said.

Curry’s presentation carried statistics to illustrate the efficiency and benefits brought by genetically modified crops: increased productivity, protecting biodiversity and a reduced farming footprint, with crops now able to grow in one place, rather than rotate.

Becky Weed, a certified organic sheep rancher and wool producer in Bozeman, provided a counterbalance to Curry’s presentation. Her main concerns included rising costs due to concentration of the seed industry and herbicide resistant plants as a Darwinian-type result of the chemicals.

“I became confused as to how our society was going to handle this as a debate,” she said. “I don’t think my neighboring farmers understand the magnitude and long-term potential of what we’re involved in.”

BRAATEN SAID that the industry’s current position is not the work of several large-scale companies, but more a reflection of the consumers in the farming market.

“What we have today is a result of years and years of decisions,” he said. “The industry is just responding.”

Hawk, the horticulturist said that he thought the genetic modification conversation was manipulated by the companies and media, said he left the conference with a better understanding of genetic plant modification than he had before the event.

“I think it’s been quite balanced,” he said. “If more people came to these functions they’d have opinions based on science and not hearsay.”

Reporter Seaborn Larson may be reached at 758-4441 or by email at slarson@dailyinterlake.com.