The Dominion - gmos

Genetically Modified Diplomacy

Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:12:52 +0000

Canada's International Biotech Agenda

Critics argue that government is being influenced by large biotech corporations and regulatory norms in the US. photo: Jessica Bray

According to several observers, Canada's diplomatic maneuvers at the UN and WTO could weaken international environmental law and accelerate the spread of unpopular genetically-modified organisms around the world.

In 2003, Canada, along with the US and Argentina, initiated proceedings at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to challenge the European Community's (EC) ban on Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMOs). On September 29 of this year, the WTO declared the EC's GMO regulations illegal and instructed it to modify its laws accordingly.

"Although politicians claim that environmental law and trade law support each other, this ruling demonstrates that in the hands of the WTO, environmental law is in fact made subservient to trade laws," said Duncan Currie, international law expert and author of a Greenpeace assessment of the WTO case. Canada was the first industrialized country to ratify the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, which was first agreed to at the UN Earth Summit in 1992 and reaffirmed in 2002. The Convention includes the Biosafety Protocol, which regulates the movement of GMOs across borders.

"The ruling contradicts what heads of state agreed at the UN World Summit," said Currie.

The WTO ruled that the precautionary principle, a mainstay of international environmental law, was too controversial and unsettled a concept to be a general principle of law. The precautionary principle states that if the potential consequences of an action are severe or irreversible, in the absence of full scientific certainty, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.

"If taken as precedent," writes Canadian law firm McCarthy Tétrault, "this position could affect the regulation of many other industries." McCarthy Tétrault gives the example of the EC's draft rules for testing the effects of certain industrial chemicals for public health consequences. "If those rules incorporate the precautionary principle, any resulting restrictions could be challenged for not being based on hard scientific evidence."

"This ruling is important," says Howard Minigh, former vice-president of DuPont and [current?] president of Brussels-based CropLife International, which represents biotech companies. "Regulations based on political expediency and excessive precaution encouraged by propaganda from anti-biotech groups" put producers of farm goods at a disadvantage, he says.

The Canadian government claims that its domestic GMO testing system is foolproof and that Canadian-approved GMO products are safe. A review of decisions by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency shows that all 61 applications for GMO animal-feed products were approved. Agriculture Canada has also approved 89 GMO food products for human consumption.

Are Canada's regulations for GMOs safe? GMOs are not labeled, and thus difficult to test, but according to Dr. Joe Cummins, "there has been a large increase in food allergy and food-related illness after the GM foods were spread around North American markets."

"In Canada," said Cummins, who is a member of the UK-based Independent Science Panel and an emeritus professor of genetics at the University of Western Ontario, "most processed foods contain GM corn, soy or canola products."

"Even though it is not possible to do good science of the unlabelled foods, laboratory animal studies showed a range of adverse effects from allergy, inflammation or pre-cancerous lesion of the digestive system. Such studies are ignored by the Canadian government but they are well documented."

A 2004 report by the Polaris Institute looked at the 58 recommendations to protect public health by the Royal Society's 2001 Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology. The report found that while some progress has been made, there is still a great deal that needs to be done before Canadians have a precautionary regulatory system to protect their families and the environment from the risks of GMOs.

"It appears to me that the government has been unduly influenced by large biotech corporations and the regulatory norms in place south of the border," said Dr. Peter Andree, author of the Polaris report. "As a result, in general I think it is fair to say that Canadian regulators do not recognize the potential severity of the risks of products of biotechnology, or the value of a more precautionary response to those risks."

In the meantime, the Canadian government is campaigning to open the world market to GMOs, including the 'Terminator' gene. Terminator seeds are genetically engineered to result in crops that don't grow viable seeds. Farmers who use the Terminator seeds cannot save seeds from their crops and are forced to buy new seeds. There is a currently an international moratorium on the use and marketing of Terminator seeds.

"Terminator seeds are a weapon of mass destruction and an assault on our food sovereignty," said Viviana Figueroa of the Ocumazo indigenous community in Argentina on behalf of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity.

"Terminator [technology] directly threatens our life, our culture and our identity as indigenous peoples."

In 2005, a leaked report obtained by the ETC Group indicated that Canadian diplomats were heading to a Convention on Biodiversity meeting with instruction to "block consensus" in order to help lift the moratorium.

The Canadian government was swamped with letters of protest from around the world and references to the Terminator were deleted in the official text after strong objections from other countries.

"This is a momentous day for the 1.4 billion poor people worldwide, who depend on farmer-saved seeds," Francisca Rodriguez of La Via Campesina, a global network of peasant farmers, said of the decision.

In spite of the international outcry, Pat Mooney of ETC Group noted that Canada continued to support Terminator technology at the last Biodiversity Convention meeting in Curitiba, Brazil, in 2006, but in a "low-key way."

"In the end," continues Mooney, "efforts by Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA were blocked by the EU and developing countries and the Convention on Biodiversity ultimately strengthened its moratorium against Terminator."

"We nevertheless have the impression that Canada will continue to push for Terminator both in trees and crops."

Canada is also using its international aid program to spread biotech.

Through the Canadian International Development Agency, Canada is developing a biosciences centre for East and Central Africa, as one of four "agricultural centres of excellence" being developed around Africa, with an estimated cost of over $30 million. The United States is expected to build a centre in North Africa; the UK will build one in South Africa, and France; one in West Africa.

"It is clear from the information we have gathered," said Mooney, "that BECA is being built to promote agricultural biotechnology."

The WTO decision will open up new markets for Canadian biotech, an industry with annual revenues of $5 billion and an annual research expenditure of $3 billion.

Yuill Herbert examines Canada's international biotech agenda and the government's most recent GM 'victory.'

The New Chainsaw

Sat, 20 May 2006 14:16:41 +0000

Genetically engineered trees are the new threat to Canada's forests

Biotechnology could create a forest that kills insects. photo: GE Free Maine

The debate over genetically modified plants is moving beyond the fields and heating up under the forest canopy. Research on genetically engineered (GE) trees is well under way in many countries and GE trees may soon be a familiar presence in our forests. Orin Langelle and Anne Petermann of Global Justice Ecology have embarked on a campaign to stop GE tree research. According to Petermann, "GE trees are the greatest threat to the native forest since the chainsaw."

Currently, genetic research on trees is largely focused on developing methods that will make growing, harvesting and processing trees and their fruits and nuts, more 'efficient.' Scientists are experimenting with increasing levels of BT (a naturally occurring pesticide) in trees, increasing trees' resistance to herbicides, reducing levels of lignin (the substance which promotes rigidity) in trees, and making trees sterile. Each of these characteristics will have devastating consequences on the environment, says Petermann. "Biotechnology is so revolutionary that we know almost nothing about it…but so far everything has been one problem after another." For example, trees with increased levels of BT are supposed to result in a decrease in sprayed pesticides, but the opposite has been the case.

Trees with increased levels of BT result in the 'natural' selection of insects that are more resistant to the BT pesticide. This, in turn, necessitates higher pesticide levels, which can inadvertently kill non-target species. In the film A Silent Forest: The Growing Threat, Genetically Engineered Trees, David Suzuki explains that the BT pesticide will also leach into the ecological cycle through the roots, leaves, flowers, and pollen. "A forest that kills insects would be catastrophic," says Suzuki.

Scientists are also working on creating sterile GE trees to prevent pollination of native trees; however, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), it is nearly impossible to control gene flow through pollen and seed dispersal - even at a 95 percent success rate. As Petermann points out, "the sterilized trees are producing nothing, and the other 5% are still sending out tainted genes—it's a lose-lose situation." By bearing no flowers, fruit, or nuts, the sterile trees will offer little nourishment to the wildlife around them, and accidental contamination of native forests by the non-sterile - but genetically modified - trees will result in unforeseeable upsets to the ecological balance. For example, according to Greenpeace's website, "reduced lignin could speed up the decomposition of trees, altering soil ecology, structure and fertility."

The Nanjing Institute of Environmental Science has already found genes from the GE poplars in Xinjiang, China appearing in natural varieties, and researchers have found backyard and organic papaya trees in Thailand and Hawaii contaminated by pollen from nearby GE papaya plantations.

Despite the risks, the biotechnology industry is promoting genetic modification as a way to clean up the environment by addressing problems like climate change and soil contamination. Aziz Choudry, Board Member of Global Justice Ecology, says this is simply a public relations move meant to "make the insane palatable," and will not work.

"They say that they can engineer trees to suck mercury [from the soil]," says Petermann, "but then the mercury is just displaced into the air." As for global warming, GE trees could be engineered to take CO2 out of the air faster than normal trees, but GE plantations would replace native forestland, inhibiting biodiversity. "Studies done by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the World Resources Institute found that in tropical areas plantations at best sequester only 1/4 the carbon as native forests," says Petermann. GE trees wouldn't offset carbon emissions enough to make a serious impact on global warming, says Petermann. A better response to global warming, she says, would be to cut down on pollution.

On March 22nd, Langelle and Petermann attended the Convention on Biological Diversity in Brazil to seek a moratorium on the research and commercial use of GE trees. While they did not achieve an all-out ban, the UN did recommend that the precautionary approach be used with GE trees. The application of the precautionary principle would mean that GE technology must be proven safe and necessary before being used. Canada and the United States argued against the recommendation.

The United States has a large stake in biotechnology, with 150 test plots conducting over two thirds of the world's GE tree research. The Canadian government has not yet released genetically modified trees into the commercial sector, but has been testing GE black spruce, white spruce, and poplar in greenhouses and outdoors since 1997, with test plots in Quebec, New Brunswick, British Columbia, and Alberta.

So far, the only commercial GE tree plantations are in China, which released BT poplar trees in 2001. A destructive cycle led to China's GE forests, says Petermann. Initial deforestation in China led to desertification, leading to poplar plantations to curb the desertification. The poplar monoculture was vulnerable to insect infestation, so insect-resistant BT poplars were planted, which China did with the help of the UN Development Program and the FAO. "The accurate area of GM plantations cannot be assessed because of the ease of propagation and marketing of GM trees and the difficulty of morphologically distinguishing GM from non-GM trees," says Huoran Wang of the Chinese Academy of Forestry, "a lot of materials are moved from one nursery to another and it is difficult to trace them."

"It's completely unregulated," Langelle says. "People can buy these trees at any local nursery and plant them anywhere."

"Chile sees itself as a model for industrial forestry in the world," says Petermann, and may be next to commercialize GE trees. Genetic research is currently focused on the eucalyptus, which occupies a large portion of Chilean plantations. These plantations are already having devastating impacts on the environment and indigenous communities.

Plantations are water-intensive, which means they deplete groundwater, making it harder for other organisms and local communities to obtain water. The trees leach nutrients from the soil, reduce biodiversity and as monocultures, allow pests and diseases to flourish, requiring increased use of pesticides and herbicides. "Timber plantations are a scourge of the South," says Langelle, and combined with GE technology, plantations could have even more destructive effects. As the Greenpeace website reports, research is being done to create faster-growing trees, which would exacerbate problems of nutrient depletion and groundwater loss already present in plantations.

Petermann and Langelle are continuing their drive for a worldwide ban of GE trees at the next UN Convention on Biological Diversity in 2008. But Langelle's expectations of the UN are minimal, noting that "the UN is not really a body that's going to stop anything." Nevertheless, he believes that "people have the power to stop this."

GE trees are considered the new threat to global forests. Katie Shafley wonders why no one knows they're being grown in Canada.

Canada helps weaken 'Terminator' seed policy

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:59:17 +0000

On January 27, at a meeting of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Granada, Spain, the international community agreed to allow experimentation with Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT), also known as "Terminator" technology. "GURT" is an umbrella term referring to genetic enhancement technology that produces plant varieties with sterile seeds at harvest. There are two classes of GURT:

1. V-GURT, which are sterile seeds. This technology would oblige farmers to buy seeds from their manufacturer on an annual basis.
2. T-GURT, which are crops modified in such a way that they must be treated with a chemical that is sold by the biotechnology company, in order for them to grow. Farmers can save seeds for use each year, but must buy and use the activator compound annually.

Canada, together with Australia and New Zealand, successfully pushed for the change in international GURT policy. Canada previously attempted to convince the CBD to permit the use of GURTs in February 2005, but failed, partly as the result of a leaked document which mobilized international opposition from civil society.

While the move doesn't lift the current ban on commercial use of Terminator seeds, opponents of Terminator technology see allowing experimentation as a step in that direction. According to a press release jointly written by the Ban Terminator Campaign and the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC group), "Not only did the meeting fail to condemn Terminator as immoral and anti-farmer, Australia and the United States falsely claimed that Terminator, which creates sterility, would 'increase productivity.'"

Even under experimental conditions, GURT plant varieties could pass on sterility -- the "Terminator" or "suicide" trait -- to wild plants, or to non-GURT cultivated plants. Tests will take place in large-scale, outdoor agro-laboratories, meaning that surrounding ecosystems will be at risk of contamination.

Used commercially, critics argue that GURTs will imperil the global seed supply, contribute to the homogenization of the food supply, and threaten biodiversity in natural ecosystems. Indigenous peoples' rights to food sovereignty and self-determination are also threatened by GURTs, since socio-economic and cultural welfare is inextricably linked to environmental security. More specifically, as stated in a 2003 study performed by an Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) assembled by the UN, negative impacts of Terminator technology include: the decimation of local, small-scale, and indigenous farming practices, systems and knowledge, together with their socio-cultural dimensions; seed dependency, crop failure, loss of agro-biodiversity; unpredictable, uncontrollable, irreversible changes in the environment and the devastation of ecosystems.

According to close observers like the ETC group, the Canadian government is bowing to pressure from the powerful biotechnology and agribusiness lobby, which sees GURTs as a way to extract unprecedented profits by completely privatizing plant varieties on which the majority of the world's population depends for survival.

According to ecofeminist biologist Dr. Vandana Shiva, "Termination of germination is a means for capital accumulation and market expansion…abundance in nature and for farmers shrinks as markets grow for Monsanto [a biotechnology corporation notorious for patenting seeds used in the majority world, and the innovator of Terminator technology]…There can be no partnership between a logic of death on which Monsanto bases its expanding empire and the logic of life on which women farmers in the Third World base their partnership with the earth to provide food security to their families and communities."

McOrganic?

Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:27:37 +0000

Is corporate organic changing the organic landscape in Canada?

Is organic agriculture mirroring the global industrial agriculture system it was created to combat?

"Would you like an Organic Fair TradeTM coffee with your Egg McMuffin, Ma'am?"

Fantasy? Not if you wander into any one of 658 McDonalds scattered across the Northeastern United States. Transfair USA and Oxfam America have welcomed the fast food giant's decision to serve Newman's Own Organic Coffee. "We are excited about this regional launch, and we hope to see it spread across the country," said Seth Petchers, coffee program manager for Oxfam America. But is having a 100% Organic Fair TradeTM coffee with your Big Mac really a sign of victory for the organic movement?

Rebecca Kneen, co-owner of Crannóg Ales, a certified organic farm and micro-brewery in BC's Okanagan Valley, concedes that if organic and fair trade standards are being met, there will be some benefit to farmers but hastens to add that "this is a tiny action in a company that pollutes massively, has obscene hiring practices and labour relations and devalues food."

The Big Boxes of the new suburban landscape are going organic. "We are particularly excited about organic food, the fastest-growing category in all of food," said Walmart's CEO Lee Scott at a recent shareholders meeting, according to The New York Times. Loblaws' President's Choice Organics line has expanded beyond organic produce to include organic chicken noodle soup, frozen entrees and cookies.

Even products that look so wholesome that one imagines they were made in a local hippie's kitchen often carry a multinational logo. Phil Howard, a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Agro-ecology and Sustainable Food Systems, notes that according to one estimate, 40% of the packaged organic foods on the shelves of natural food stores are produced by some of the biggest companies in the world.

Kellogg owns Kashi, a supplier of organic whole grain cereals. Kraft has bought out Boca, a maker of organic soy burgers. The corporate interest in organics goes beyond food to include things like organic cotton and organic seeds. Select Walmart stores now sell a limited line of organic cotton supplies for yoga, bath and baby. M&M/Mars has bought Seeds of Change, an organic seed company. "Many organic seed varieties are now available only through a giant seed company called Seminis, which earlier this year was acquired by Monsanto," reports Howard.

The corporate takeover of organics can be seen as both a success and a failure for the organic movement, believes Howard. "On the one hand, the acreage devoted to organic production, without synthetic pesticides, increases every year to meet the market demand. On the other hand, some of the ideals of the organic movement, which was in a large part a response to industrial agriculture, have fallen by the wayside." Organic agriculture increasingly resembles the global, industrial agriculture system it was created to combat, says Howard.

Kneen agrees, "Even though a 50-acre field of broccoli may not be sprayed with noxious chemicals, it is still mono-cropped, mechanically harvested and transported thousands of miles before it is eaten." Kneen argues that organic or not, industrial agriculture negatively impacts the environment through the loss of crop and seed diversity and fossil fuels required for large machinery and long-distance shipping,

Organic produce - even vegetables that could be grown locally, like garlic, potatoes, carrots and apples - is regularly trucked thousands of miles to arrive on supermarket shelves. In fact, 85% of organic food in Canada is now imported. Howard describes why supermarket chains (like Whole Foods in the US) rarely stock local organic produce. "Whole Foods has centralized their distribution of produce, and it's easier for them to buy from a large-scale grower in Mexico than a small-scale farmer next door," he explains. "The price premiums that small-scale farmers once relied on to stay in business have been declining as they are forced to compete with massive farms that grow only a single crop. These mega-farms have economies of scale but externalize more costs to society and to ecosystems in comparison."

Peter Johnston, a garlic farmer on Lasqueti Island in British Columbia, has noticed that the niche market for small organic farmers has quickly disappeared. "Before supermarkets began [stocking organic produce], it was bought either directly from the growers or from health food stores. We sold to a couple of them on Vancouver Island. These either no longer exist or don't carry produce anymore. The chains aren't interested in buying from small, local, seasonal producers."

Sea Spray Atlantic Growers Cooperative was formed three years ago partly in response to the Atlantic Superstores interest in selling organic produce. But Norbert Kungl, whose organic farm Selwood Green is part of the cooperative, reports that sales to the Superstores have shrunk significantly. "When we have local production, they will order, but the orders are discouragingly small," said Kungl. One member of the cooperative began growing large quantities of baby spinach and salad mix because the Superstore had indicated interest in purchasing it, but by the time it came to sell, Superstore was no longer interested. "They would not take those items because they had a deal or were in the process of a deal with PC Organics and some large companies in California," explains Kungl. Kungl has learned to expect this from the Atlantic Superstore. "We know that if they can get anything as a PC Organic Product they will not have competing local produce in the store."

Crannog Ales strives for a zero waste operation. Spent grain is fed to pigs on the organic farm where the brewery is located. Photo Credit: Rebecca Kneen, Crannog Ales

According to Johnston, most consumers do not distinguish between local and corporate organic foods. Johnston describes the frustrating attitudes of many shoppers, "If it's organic, it's good, even if it is shipped from Mexico or Europe. The lowest possible price is important."

Low prices are coming at a high cost, says Kneen, including weakening local economies, causing the disappearance of mixed farms with diverse crops and damaging "the entire rural fabric of Canada, which is based on small farms and the culture and skills developed by farmers and ranchers."

Large companies are often able to sell one organic product at a low price by subsidizing it with a line-up of non-organic products, thus undercutting the small organic producer. But according to Kneen, small organic producers, like Crannóg Ale's Micro-brewery, offer the customer and the community far more than a cheap product. "What we do is focused on high quality products, locally sourced ingredients, supporting the local economy and creating as little environmental impact as possible throughout our entire process," explains Kneen. "Corporate beer is focused on the bottom line."

Small farmers are frustrated by an organic certification process that fails to differentiate between the organic potato grown by a small mixed farm next door and the organic potato shipped from an industrial monoculture farm in Mexico. "Some of us would like to include fossil fuel audits in the certification process," explains Johnston. "Not a hope with the corporations involved though. [With corporations], there is and will be constant pressure to produce enough product at the lowest possible price."

"Constant vigilance will be required to resist attempts to weaken the USDA standards in ways that benefit corporations at the expense of everyone else," warns Howard referring to organic standards in the US. "Some [small farmers] have already given up on the term "organic" to describe their values. They would rather explain exactly how they grew the food, or even invite customers to see their farm, than pay hundreds of dollars for a certification that they see as a sort of lowest common denominator."

For the bewildered conscientious food shopper, Kneen's advice is unequivocal: "Buy local!! Ignore corporate organic, and buy locally produced food directly from the farmer or through a food co-op."

Sea Spray Atlantic Growers Cooperative is hoping customers will follow advice like Kneen's. The cooperative is refocusing its energy away from Atlantic Superstores towards selling produce directly to customers. This kind of exchange can happen at farmers markets and through Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) boxes, which deliver boxes of fresh produce from the farm directly to consumers' doors.

Johnston agrees with the emphasis on local. He adds, "I'd also like customers to buy basic, wholesome food rather than processed convenience foods. But supermarket chains and food corporations won't encourage this. It isn't profitable." When food shopping, Johnston asks customers to stay smart. "Are organic twinkies really a good idea?"

Hillary Lindsay investigates the new corporate organic landscape and its impact on Canadian farmers.

Canadian Official Told to "Block Consensus" on Terminator Gene Moratorium

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:33:03 +0000

According to documents leaked to the press, Canadian officials were instructed to initiate a lift on the de facto international moratorium on "terminator gene" technology and "block consensus" on any other option at a UN meeting on biological diversity earlier this month.

"Genetic Use Restriction Technologies" produce genetically modified crops that are sterile, thus making it impossible for farmers to save any seed.

Opponents call it a "recipe for starvation" and an attempt for corporations to tighten their control over the world's food supply. Supporters say it is a way for corporations to protect their intellectual property.

Canadian observers were surprised by their government's stand. In a letter demanding that Canada support the moratorium, the National Farmers' Union called terminator crops "the most controversial and immoral agricultural application of genetic engineering to date."

"It was a complete surprise to see this coming from Canada," Jim Thomas of the Toronto-based ETC Group was quoted as saying. "Canada's proposal could easily have been mistaken for one written by Monsanto."

Canadian Food Inspection Agency official Stephen Yarrow denied that the government was "pushing the technology," and said they were upset at the characterization. Yarrow explained that the technology needed more testing before an all-out ban could be justified.

In the end, Canada's efforts were unsuccessful, and the moratorium remained in place.

The leaked documents were reported in Europe by the Guardian but were not mentioned the Canadian media. The revelations did raise concerns in internet discussion groups on both sides of the political spectrum, however. One comment on the conservative Free Dominion website said, "We're selling starvation, aren't we?... this is sick." Comments on the left-leaning Rabble.ca chastised the CBC and other media for not covering the scandal.

The leaked documents are available on the ETC Group web site (etcgroup.org).

» Guardian: Canada backs terminator seeds

» Inter Press: Ban Endures On Terminator Seeds

» ETC Group: Canadian Government to Unleash Terminator Bombshell at UN Meeting: All-out push for commercialisation of Sterile Seed Technology

» Scoop (New Zealand): Maori Party Appalled At Support Of Terminator Tech

» Rabble.ca discussion: Topic: Canada to back terminator technology at the UN

» Free Dominion Discussion: Canadian Government to Unleash Terminator Bombshell at UN Meeting: All-out push for commercialisation of Sterile Seed Technology

PEI Considers Banning Genetically Modified Crops

Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:56:16 +0000

The provincial government of Prince Edward Island has attracted international attention with its plan to hold hearings on a possible ban on the growth of genetically modified (GM) crops. US and Canadian experts and citizens groups opposed to GM foods are directing their energies to setting a precedent on the island province.

Industry groups like the PEI Federation of Agriculture are urging a more cautious approach. "We need to make sure that any decisions that affect farmers are based on truth and science," a spokesperson was quoted as saying. "Right now, GMOs are legal crops in Canada, approved by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency."

Critics of GM crops also claim the side of truth and science, arguing that new organisms were approved because of corporate political pressure, not because they were proven safe -- a process they say would take years. Other critics say that GM crops are a sophisticated and possibly dangerous means of asserting corporate power insofar as they are used to control the food production process and extract profit with no benefit to Canadians.

Polls have shown that as many as 70 per cent of Canadians want GM foods labeled, but citizens' groups say that the government has been intransigent.

"Ottawa has ignored Canadians' repeated calls for a public debate on GE foods. The federal government has done nothing to address concerns about the potential harmfulness of these products to our health, environment, and economy," says Nadège Adam of the Council of Canadians.

Several municipalities in Canada have passed resolutions banning the cultivation of GM crops. Except in Europe, where distribution without clear labeling is largely banned, banning the sale of GM crops is another matter. An estimated 60 per cent of processed food in North America contains some GM material.

Industry groups have not responded directly to criticism from citizens' groups, instead focusing on economic arguments. "If the PEI government decides it wants to seriously consider a GMO ban, it had better make darn good and sure those markets really do exist for the non-GMO products -- enough to sustain producers who are currently making a living on GMO products," the PEI Federation of Agriculture spokesperson was quoted as saying.

Canadian Press: Hearings spark interest in possible P.E.I. ban on genetically modified crops

» Council of Canadians: PEI to go GE-free?

GM Crops Spark Food Sovereignty Protests

Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:38:58 +0000

Taiwanese Farmers March in Protest of WTO-Mandated Agriculture Regulations.

Thousands of farmers in twenty-six countries held public demonstrations advocating food sovereignty and decrying the role of transnational corporations in agriculture. The largest agricultural protest took place in California and was accompanied by a large police presence. Among those issues being protested is the World Trade Organization's involvement in the proliferation of genetically modified (GM) crops against the will of some member states.

The European Union recently allowed the importation of some Swiss-engineered GM crops even though products containing these foods will be labeled, and growing the crops in EU countries is still prohibited. Friends of the Earth Europe delivered a petition with over 100,000 names to the WTO stating that the trade body has no place in the GM crop debate, as it is "secretive, undemocratic and unfit to serve in the interests of the general public".

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Association (FAO) released a report claiming the GM crops have no established adverse effects to health or the environment, and help poor farmers. Anti-GM advocates accused the FAO of bending to corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta, while biotech firms accused them of "scare-mongering". Facing difficulties in convincing European consumers to buy products labeled as genetically modified, Monsanto recently cancelled its "Roundup-Ready" GM wheat project.

Proponents of GM crops point to a lack of evidence of risks to health and environment, and higher yields for farmers. Those who advocate prohibition of GM crops counter that research into risks is heavily skewed by corporate funding, and that GM crops are designed with corporate profit first in mind.

Others point out that crop yields are not the problem, but that poverty, lack of price regulation and equitable distribution are. Raj Patel of the Institute for Food and Development Policy argues that it is not farmers that benefit from higher yields, but transnational food distributors that benefit from the resulting lower prices. "Corporations depend on cheap inputs, such as the agricultural products grown in the Third World, to make their food processing profitable." US taxpayer funded "food aid," says Patel, serves to drive prices down further by flooding African markets with subsidized GM corn and rice.

The National Farmers' Union (NFU) of Canada makes a similar case: farmers, it claims, are already producing far more than is needed; it is the plummeting price of food and the consolidated power of the distributors that forces them to produce greater volume at a lower cost in order to stay afloat.

» Associated Press: UN food agency backs genetically modified crops

» Via Campesina: Actions in 26 Countries

» AP: Protesters demand WTO keep out of genetically modified food issue

» Institute for Food and Development Policy: The Profits of Famine: Southern Africa's Long Decade of Hunger

» Institute for Food and Development Policy: Food Aid in the New Millenium - Genetically Engineered Food and Foreign Assistance

» AP: U.N. food agency supports genetically modified crops despite lingering public opposition

» Reuters: EU Lifts Genetically Modified Food Ban

» GlobalVision News Network: Farmers Blame Health Problems on Genetically Modified Crops

» Truth About Trade: Kenya prepares to grow genetically modified maize

» Science Magazine: Monsanto Pulls the Plug on Genetically Modified Wheat

Crop Control

Fri, 25 Jun 2004 03:13:12 +0000

Genetically modified crops threaten organic growers

Organic farmers in Saskatchewan worry that widespread use of GM mean would mean the end of organic wheat in Canada. Rob Maguire

The battle over genetically engineered (GE) foods raged on in the month of May, with uncertain victories declared on two fronts. On May 10th, biotech giant Monsanto announced that it was "deferring all further plans to introduce Roundup Ready wheat" into the marketplace. While opponents to GE foods were still celebrating, however, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of Monsanto on May 21st, in the controversial Schmeiser case. As the dust settles on fields across Canada, farmers, consumers, and activists are struggling to understand the implications of these decisions.

Monsanto is a multinational agro-chemical and foods conglomerate. The corporation is perhaps best known for their herbicide, Roundup, which is the No. 1 selling agro-chemical in the world. The herbicide, works best when used with Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds. Roundup Ready crops, such as canola and soybeans, have been genetically engineered to survive when sprayed with Roundup, which will kill all other weeds. Monsanto's licensing agreement forbids farmers to save their seeds--an age-old farming tradition--meaning that farmers have to purchase new seeds from Monsanto each year.

On May 21st, the Supreme Court found Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser guilty of infringing on Monsanto's patent rights by saving and planting Monsanto's Roundup Ready canola seeds on his farm. However, what is more interesting, according to Dr E. Ann Clark, is what Schmeiser was not found guilty of: "He was not found guilty of obtaining the seed fraudulently. Indeed, all such allegations were dropped at the actual hearing due to lack of evidence." Furthermore, says Clark, who is a is a professor of Plant Agriculture at the University of Guelph, "No one--including Monsanto--argued that Schmeiser actually benefited--or even intended to benefit--from growing a crop contaminated with RR plants."

"I didn't want their technology on my fields", says Schmeiser, who insists that the RR canola seeds somehow blew off a passing transport truck or from neighboring fields. According to a statement issued by Judge W. Andrew Mackay during a 1998 Federal Court judgement on the case, however, it does not matter why or how the seeds became mixed with Schmeiser's crop: "[T]he source of the Roundup resistant canola... is really not significant for the resolution of the issue of infringement." What mattered to the courts was that RR canola had contaminated Schmeiser's crop and that he had failed to report this contamination to Monsanto.

The fact that the spreading of GE seeds by wind or other means cannot be controlled by the farmers of non-GE crops did not change the Supreme Court's decision to hold them responsible for the contamination of their fields. "It is the organic farmer that will be held liable for contamination," explains Nadege Adam, a Biotechnology Campaigner for the Council of Canadians. According to Clark, the problem of contamination is affecting many more farmers than Schmeiser: "Cross-contamination of seed crops with GM seed is now so pervasive that seed companies will no longer guarantee '100% GM-free' for any field crop that has been subject to genetic modification."

The introduction of a field crop that has been genetically modified essentially eliminates the possibility of growing that crop organically. Adam describes what has happened to the organic canola industry: "Two years ago, 200 farms in Canada grew organic canola; now there's only one. You cannot have an organic crop and a GE crop in the same area. The two simply cannot coexist."

The Organic Agriculture Protection Fund (OAPF), a coalition of Saskatchewan's certified organic farmers, has decided to do something about widespread crop contamination and the threat to their livelihoods. The group is taking Monsanto and Bayer Crop Science to court in a precedent-setting class action lawsuit to get compensation for losing canola as a crop due to genetic contamination, and to stop the approval of GE wheat as a commercial crop in Canada. The group fears that organic wheat will suffer the same fate as organic canola in Saskatchewan.

Meanwhile, on May 10th, Monsanto had announced that it was shelving its plans for GE wheat in order to, "[R]ealign research and development investments to accelerate the development of new and improved traits in corn, cotton and oilseeds." Though this announcement is heartening for OAPF and other opponents of GE wheat, who believe the real reason for Monsanto's change of heart is due to consumer backlash, Adam warns that the fight to stop GE wheat has not yet been won: "Monsanto was very careful in the wording of their press release. They said that they wouldn't commercialize GE wheat right away. However, their applications for the approval of GE wheat are still being processed by Ottawa." According to Adam, Monsanto's strategic announcement eased much of the opposition to GE wheat, despite the fact that its introduction remains an imminent threat in Canada. "Now, if GE wheat is approved [by Ottawa] it will be up to Monsanto to decide if they release it into the marketplace. Not if, actually, but when."

- by Hillary Lindsay -

Harvest Goon

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:47:50 +0000

Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture: Review

"A must-read for anyone who eats in the 21st century."

Our connection to the environment is perhaps most apparent when we sit down at the dinner table to eat a meal. That "we eat our daily bread without being conscious of the massive loss of topsoil, diversity and farm communities involved in its production" testifies to North American's disconnection from the land that sustains us. It is this disconnection that is allowing corporations to hide the very real and terrible impacts of the industrialization of our food supply, and it is this disconnection that Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture addresses.

Far from being the wholesome, harmless industry that the media makes it out to be, the authors of Fatal Harvest demonstrate that modern agriculture is perhaps the biggest threat to water, soil, biodiversity, cultures and communities around the globe. With over 250 striking photos and 40 essays from leading thinkers, farmers and activists such as Wendell Berry, Helena Norberg-Hodge, Vandana Shiva and Wes Jackson, Fatal Harvest calls on citizens to become "paradigm warriors" in the fight against the industrial worldview and the destruction that is resulting.

The book is divided up into seven sections. The first, entitled "Farming As If Nature Mattered" questions the principles of industrial agriculture and proposes an alternative agrarian paradigm. The industrial worldview, Fatal Harvest argues, holds profit as its first priority, viewing nature as a set of limits on productivity and efficiency which can be overcome by science. The agrarian alternative considers humans' connection to the land (which exists, whether or not we are conscious of it) and takes community, sustainable land use and biological diversity as its priorities. These opposing modes of thought are visually contrasted in Part Three. Here, striking side-by-side photo layouts compare agrarian and industrial landscapes for everything from apples, to cotton, to wheat. With these photos readers are guided "...past the deceptive facade of modern farms, which make them appear as healthy, thriving, lush and productive into a visual understanding of the destructive and deadly 'monocultured' reality of current food production."

According to the creators of the book, this 'deceptive facade' has been maintained with millions of corporate advertising dollars dedicated to the message that farming today is not only better than ever, but an absolute necessity in today's world. The second section of the book is therefore devoted to debunking the myths which promote and defend industrial agriculture. Among the 10 myths "debunked" in this section are that industrial agriculture will feed the world, and the idea that industrial agriculture is cheap. According to the editor of Fatal Harvest "...hunger is not created by lack of food but by poverty and landlessness, which deny people access to food." and "if you added the real cost of industrial food-its health, environmental, and social costs-to the current supermarket priced, not even our wealthiest citizens could afford it." When all costs are calculated, Fatal Harvest argues, small-scale intensive farms are more efficient than industrial ones. The next three sections fill out this argument with essays on the environmental and social costs of the new technologies, farming methods, and globalization, associated with industrial agriculture.

The final section, "Organic and Beyond," looks to the future of farming. The editor warns the reader against the temptation of seeing "simply organic" as enough, by allowing large corporations to cash in on the growing popularity of chemical free food: "If organic production ends up mimicking conventional agribusiness (huge, faraway operations minus the chemicals, with centralized distribution and processing) what becomes of the independent, regionally-and quality-oriented, stewardship-minded farmer?" The essays in this section not only stress the importance of innovative alternatives to industrial farming (from urban gardens, to farming with the wild), but also stress the urgency of replacing a system that gives so much power to corporations willing to sacrifice all other values for increased short term profit.

Fatal Harvest is not simply a book about food, but also a book about life. By honouring the relationships between food, family, money, community, power, health and war, Fatal Harvest reminds us that many things start at the breakfast table. Fatal Harvest is a must read for anyone who eats in the 21st century.

* * *

Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture is edited by Andrew Kimbrell and published by Island Press with a listed cost of $45.00. If you have the cash, it's worth every penny; otherwise, try the library!

Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture: Review
Our connection to the environment is perhaps most apparent when we sit down at the dinner table to eat a meal. That "we eat our daily bread without being conscious of the massive loss of topsoil, diversity and farm communities involved in its production" testifies to North American's disconnection from the land that sustains us. It is this disconnection that is allowing corporations to hide the very real and terrible impacts of the industrialization of our food supply, and it is this disconnection that Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture addresses.

Headlines

Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:36:40 +0000

Flooding in India Leaves 400,000 Homeless

A major flood on the Brahmaputra river caused by heavy rainfall displaced over 400,000 people in the Indian state of Assam this week. In 2002, a similar flood forced 10% of the area's population of 26 million to relocate. The floods are a regular occurrence in the region during the monsoon season. (Environmental News Service)

Protesters in Sacramento: highlighting alternatives to genetic engineering. photo: Biotech Indymedia

Almost Half of US Senators are Millionaires

Financial disclosure forms released last week revealed that at least 40 out of 100 US Senators possess a net worth of over $1 million. Of the millionaires, 22 were Republicans and 18 were Democrats. All but six were men. A similar, earlier report revealed that all of George W. Bush's Cabinet are worth six figures or more, with several multi-millionaires, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld among them. (CNN, Washington Post)

13,000 Muslim Men to Be Deported from US; New Canadian Laws Put Into Practice

US immigration authorities called for 82,000 Muslim men living in the US to take part in a special registration between December 2002 and April of this year. Now, 13,000 of them are facing deportation. According to a report by the World Socialist Web Site, the Justice Department issued numerous statements stating that there was "nothing to fear". 11 of the 13,000 are alleged to have terrorist ties, though these are unspecified.

Fayiz Rahman of the American Muslim Council was quoted as saying that the program was "targeted only towards Muslims.... They are planning to reduce the number of Muslims on American soil... discourage Muslim immigration, make our lives difficult." A Justice Department report issued on June 2 documented numerous violations of civil liberties against Muslims directly following September 11th, including "verbal and physical abuse, withholding of counsel, and denial of bond."

A year-old Canadian law enables CSIS, with the authorization of the immigration minister, to detain immigrants indefinitely, without charge or trial (See Canadian News, page 2). (World Socialist Web Site, New York Times, Agence France-Presse, Montreal Muslim News)

Biotech Conference in Sacramento Draws Protests

The US Department of Agriculture staged a conference in Sacramento, California designed to promote the virtues of biotechnology to various foreign ministers before the upcoming WTO summit in Cancun. The US and Canada have been continually at odds with Europe over the issue of Genetically Modified (GM) foods; many African countries have declined imports of GM foods for fear of contaminating their own crops and cutting off essential European markets.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman touted GM crops and free trade as solutions for starvation in developing countries. Outside, protesters sought to draw attention to alternatives in organic farming and other sustainable practices, while decrying the unforeseeable consequences of biotechnology. Critics have argued that famine is almost always a consequence of faulty distribution mechanisms, not insufficient supply. Others have accused the US Government of subsidizing unsold GM crops by foisting them on developing countries through USAID. (Indymedia BioTech, Mercury News)