[I've altered the text here from the original posting on my site www.foodgirl.ca to clarify and expand on some of the issues that might be new to US readers.] On February 8th, 2011, a five-hour discussion will take place in Canada's national parliament over Bill C-474. This bill, put forward earlier this spring by BC-member Alex Atamenko as a private member's bill, made it past the first reading which is a very good sign. (These rarely go anywhere in Canadian parliament but this one is one of the rare few that has potential to pass.) The bill is simple, which is part of its appeal, and if it passes will go a long way to temper the current unbridled enthusiasm the Canadian government seems to show to any new GMO food or seed dangled in front of its face. The bill's summary is almost as long as the actual bill itself and reads as follows: SUMMARY This enactment requires the Governor in Council to amend the Seeds Regulations to require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.
Essentially, it calls for a waiting period to assess potential economic harm to Canadian farm export markets to allowing commercial sale of any new genetically modified food seed. Our current Conservative government is VERY export focussed, so it's a good strategy to take, to get them to think about their love affair (euphemism for "votes for campaign contributions and major grants to Canadian Universities") with Big Ag. They'll have to now weigh their constituents' wishes with their corporate allies' wishes. At least it's a start. On Feb 9th, the vote on whether this bill will pass or not takes place. So first, if you wish to ask our government (US NOTE: tell your friends in Canada to do this TODAY, it's not too late) to put the brakes on our headlong rush into being even more of a GMO Nation, you can easily send a letter via email to your member of parliament asking him or her to vote YES on Bill C-474 this week. These letters will be tabled on Feb 8th during the debate if I'm not mistaken. I just sent my letter off to my Member of Parliament -- the first time I've ever done that. He's a old skool white guy Conservative named Laurie Hawn. I certainly hope he reads it because I've added a twist to the form letter. Until now, the argument has centred around the considerations of the economic impacts that GMO crops and genetically engineered animals (livestock and salmon -- a.k.a. the Enviropig and AquaBounty Salmon -- coming soon to a supermarket near you courtesy of your northern neighbo(u)rs!) will have on the family farms. (As I said, it's a savvy tactic that MP Alex Atamenko is using in this case and I am impressed with its approach.) A really good article appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press recently about the devasting failure of the promise of GMO and GE agriculture in just a mere twenty years in Canada, if you need some background on the Canadian experience. Rather than increasing yields and profits, it has put the nail in the coffins of the last remaining family farming busineses. But it got me thinking how the discussion usually is focussed by the Big Ag lobby that preventing the miracle of GMO crops would do a disservice to the "family farm". (Look at their promotional material...it's nauseatingly condescending about how they are doing everything they can to help out mom-and-pop farmers in Canada.) But statistically, farmers -- whether they are pro- or anti-GMO -- shouldn't really carry that much sway, I'm afraid to say. Somewhere between one and two percent of Canadians are farmers nowadays. So the Members of Parliaments who are against GM and GE restrictions and regulations and who use the argument that they are merely protecting the choices of our brave hard-working family farmers, don't really have a argumental leg to stand on. If there are (generously) two percent of Canadians farming these days, and even if each and every one of them was wildly supportive of GMO crops and GE animals and fish, why should that matter? (I'm being cold and calculating here...I'm not anti-farmer; my very life depends on them.) Doesn't that leave ninety-eight percent of Canadians who should also get a say in what goes into their mouths hopefully three times a day? So while I'm not a farmer, I am an eater. That means, I'm able to have a say in this debate. Hoping that my MP will take my wishes into account, I amended the form letter from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, one of many groups who have easy-to-use on-line letters ready to roll off to Members of Parliament. But in my version, I added a paragraph asserting my right to be represented in this debate AS AN EATER, a member of the biggest majority party any political party could wish to have. And I have serious concerns over the safety of GM / GE foods. I'm appalled that my government thinks me so illiterate and unintelligent that they refuse to label GE / GE foods to keep me from hysterics -- and presumably the organics section of my grocery store or farmers' market. And while Bill C-474 doesn't really touch on this, I'm especially concerned about the epic environmental impact that releasing GMO foods into our ecosphere will have...like...forever. As Canadian farmers discovered when encouraged to plant GM flax (named Triffid -- I'm not joking here) IN TEST PLOTS ONLY, not commercially, in 2001, the genie doesn't not go back in the bottle. Backstory: Upon concern by other flax farmers, the Triffid seed was rounded up, destroyed, and delisted. Yet in 2009, GM contaminated flax seed was found in Canadian export shipments of flax and thirty-five countries banned Canadian flax outright. It was known as the Flax Distaster, leaving ALL Canadian flax producers without export markets and a whole lotta flax on their hands through no fault of their own. It was the catalyst that MP Alex Atamenko needed to create this bill. (There's a good overview of the Flax Diaster in this article on the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' site at this link. The "Flax Disaster" summary appears in the last third of the entry.) Here is my adjusted form letter plucked from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. Anyone has my permission to use my additional paragraph (the text is in bold, below) if they wish. Let's see if they can ignore us now. Dear Laurie Hawn, MP I am writing to ask you to vote on February 9th in support of Private Members Bill C-474 in order to protect Canada’s family farms, and to participate in the 5-hour debate currently scheduled for February 8th. I am also writing to you as one of the 98 percent of Canadians who don't farm. Yes, farmers --corporate or family farms -- are NOT the only ones affected by this debate. No one seems to be concerned with the wishes of the consumers. It has, until this point, been a "Big Ag" versus "Family Farm" discussion. I'd like to point out that eaters, that is 100 percent of Canadians, should be considered when this vote takes place. Plainly put, non-GMO crops and non-genetically modified foods have a 100,000-plus-year history of being ecologically sustainable and viable. GE crops have a two decade history, remarkable only by the muzzling of objective scientific study, but it's becoming clear that GE / GMO foods are doing more harm than good, and the handful of corporations are getting desperate to let their Pandoras out of their boxes. This is a crucial moment in Canadian's health, Canadian agriculture, and Canadian food within the global marketplace. Please vote accordingly, in favour of Bill C-474. Bill C-474 would support Canadian farmers by requiring that “an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.” This Bill is important because the introduction of new genetically engineered (GE) crops, such as GE alfalfa, can cause economic hardship to farmers. It is imperative that our government assesses the possible export market impact of introducing new GE seeds. Bill C-474 would simply require the federal government to conduct such an economic analysis. Farmers are at risk when GE crops are commercialized in Canada without also being approved in our major export markets. For example, flax farmers in Canada paid the price for unwanted GE contamination that damaged their export markets late in 2009. Now alfalfa growers are asking the government to protect their businesses from the urgent threat of GE alfalfa contamination. It’s the government’s responsibility to protect Canadian farmers from predictable problems caused by the introduction of new GE crops that have not yet been regulated in our export markets. Bill C-474 would help our government meet this responsibility. The House of Commons Agriculture Committee has already heard a strong message of support for Bill C-474 from Canada’s alfalfa growers. Laurie Hawn, please vote for Bill C-474 to make sure that alfalfa growers and other farmers do not face the same market harm caused by GE contamination that continues to hurt our flax farmers. Please speak up for my concerns on February 8th and vote for Bill C-474 on February 9th. Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. Yours Sincerely, Jennifer Cockrall-King Member of the 100 percent majority party Eaters in Canada
|
