Seeds are the basis of our food supply. We will be eating food that has been engineered to be sterile – unless we persuade the Government to support the UN ban on terminator technology.
“Let individual countries decide for themselves” is not a good strategy given the transportation of grains willy-nilly throughout a global community.
CONTENTS
- COMMENTS
- RECENT MEETING IN SPAIN, TERMINATOR BAN UNDERMINED (UN CONVENTION ON BIO-DIVERSITY)
- NORWAY SETS UP COLD STORAGE SEED BANK TO GUARD AGAINST LOSS OF SEED MATERIAL
- EXPLANATION OF UN CONVENTION ON BIO-DIVERSITY BY PAUL BEINGESSNER; INCLUDES THE DR. TEWOLDE AFFAIR, WESTERN PRODUCER
- THE UN MEETINGS IN BANGKOK, FEB 2005 Canada’s instructions to its negotiators regarding international moratorium on genetic seed sterilisation technology
- CONNECTIONS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND BIOTECH “CLIENTS”, FROM LETTER TO STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, JUNE 5, 2005
=======================================
(1) COMMENTS
FROM: Sandra Finley
TO: John Karau, Director, Biodiversity Convention office
(john.karau AT ec.gc.ca) Phone 819-953-9669
———————
Dear John Karau,
RE: Canadian position on GURTS
Canada needs to take a strong stand, alongside principled countries, in outspoken opposition to GURTS (also known as Terminator Technology).
To date, Canada’s participation in the UN Convention on Bio-Diversity has been reprehensible:
- at the Bangkok meetings (Feb 2005) Canadian negotiators were instructed to block consensus on the effort to deal with genetic seed sterilization technology.
- For the end-of-May 2005 meetings in Montreal, Canada blocked the attendance of some delegates from developing countries by witholding entry visas – the “Dr. Tewolde affair”. (I can still hardly believe that this behavior has been tolerated in Canada. No one has yet been held to account.) This is most egregious: Canada is the permanent host country through the Montreal Headquarters for the UN Bio-Diversity Convention.
- Now here we are in Granada continuing in our complicity, using the tactic of almost-silence, the failure to vocally support the public interest.
It is the responsibility of the people who work for the Government, on behalf of CITIZENS, to protect “the common good”. GURTS, Terminator seeds, “suicide” seeds, GSST, or whatever you want to call it, clearly does not serve the public interest. So the question: exactly whose interests are you serving?
We saw herbicide-tolerant crops developed with the assurance that “seeds can be contained”. We saw Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant wheat fought down and now it has come in through the back-door via BASF and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (President François Guimont). (To expect anyone to believe that seeds (Nature) can be “contained” shows contempt for the intelligence of citizens.)
- What happened in Bangkok
- The Dr. Tewolde affair
- Herbicide-tolerant wheat and now
- Granada
are all part of the same pernicious malfunctioning of Canadian Government, a continuation of Government funding and subservience to corporate interests.
It would be good if the new Government in Ottawa would provide a directive on “in whose interests” they work, to all civil servants.
Norway’s initiative – (Stowing seeds for disaster, Norway to create super-cold storage vault of edible plant life, Thursday, January 12, 2006 Page A1 Globe & Mail) – comes in recognition of the threat actively being created with the co-operation of some Governments and universities, among them Canadian. The Government of Canada needs to change course, to join hands with countries like Norway.
May Canada and Canadians be well and honorably represented by your work, John.
Best wishes,
Sandra Finley
==================================================
(2) RECENT MEETING IN SPAIN, TERMINATOR BAN UNDERMINED (UN CONVENTION ON BIO-DIVERSITY)
JANUARY 27, 2006
TERMINATOR BAN UNDERMINED AT UN MEETING IN SPAIN
The National Farmers Union (NFU) of Canada, the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) in the United States, and other organizations are concerned that “suicide seeds” may be introduced into the environment through the back door.
A worldwide de-facto moratorium on Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs – popularly known as “Terminator” technology) was undermined this past week at a United Nations conference in Granada, Spain. Terminator technology is used to create genetically modified seeds which are rendered sterile at harvest.
A resolution adopted at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Granada, Spain January 27 recommends abandoning the precautionary principle and allows testing of Terminator plant varieties on a “case by case” basis under the guise of “risk management” and “capacity building.” Government representatives from Australia, New Zealand and Canada were instrumental in forcing the change in policy at the UN forum.
Terry Boehm, NFU Vice-President and Chair of the Ban Terminator campaign in Canada, said officials from the Canadian Department of Environment tried to accomplish this objective last year at a similar meeting in Bangkok, but backed off following strong public opposition in Canada and worldwide.
“This time around, the Canadian delegation is involved in a supporting role, with the governments of Australia and New Zealand taking the lead in destroying the consensus against Terminator,” said Boehm. “This flies in the face of any regard for farmers, citizens and the world’s biosphere. Why would Canada help to unleash something as dangerous as Terminator on the world?”
Boehm said the Canadian delegation appears to be taking advantage of a change in government to push though an agenda that benefits large multinational seed and chemical companies.
Colleen Ross, NFU Women’s President, said the CBD consultations in Spain were supposed to involve Indigenous peoples, “yet the bureaucrats repeatedly refused to consult with farmers or Indigenous groups on this issue.” She said Terminator technology is all about who controls seeds – and ultimately who controls the food system.
“Terminator is the ultimate tool in controlling the world’s food supply, because it forces farmers to buy seeds from the handful of seed companies which dominate the global market,” she said.
Other citizens’ groups supporting the stance of the NFU and NFFC in opposing Terminator include: The Council of Canadians, the ETC Group, Inter Pares, Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, Beyond Factory Farming, GenEthics of Australia, the National Council of Women of Canada, and others.
===========================================
(3) NORWAY SETS UP COLD STORAGE SEED BANK TO GUARD AGAINST LOSS OF SEED MATERIAL
Stowing seeds for disaster Norway to create super-cold storage vault of edible plant life
Thursday, January 12, 2006 Page A1, Globe & Mail
PARIS — The future of humankind may soon be buried deep within a sandstone mountain, locked in permafrost and encased in concrete behind blast-proof doors designed to foil terrorists.
The bold experiment to preserve two million seeds, representing a veritable Noah’s ark of the world’s food crops, is expected to take shape this year on a remote Norwegian island.
The seed bank, sponsored by the Norwegian government and a private trust promoting crop diversity, is meant to preserve the genetic building blocks of edible plants in the case of nuclear war, crop disease, catastrophic climate change, earthquakes or other natural or man-made disasters. “If the worst came to the worst, this would allow the world to reconstruct agriculture on this planet,” said Cary Fowler, executive secretary of the Global Crop Diversity Trust in Rome.
The trust was established in association with the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization and aims to collect and safeguard crop diversity, in part through seed banks established across the world.
Mr. Fowler spoke to the British magazine New Scientist for an article to be published on Saturday.
The Norwegian super-cold storage vault, estimated to cost about $3-million (U.S.), should eventually stock seeds from plant varieties from every continent, according to the magazine.
Most of the seeds will be taken from inventories in existing seed banks in Africa, Asia and Latin America, where the safety of the storehouses has been compromised by electricity failures, political turmoil and poor security.
The Norwegian facility, slated for Spitsbergen in the frozen Svalbard islands, will be “a fail-safe depository,” Mr. Fowler said. “This will be the world’s most secure gene bank by some orders of magnitude,” he added.
“But its seeds will only be used when all other samples have gone for some reason.”
In announcing the project, the Norwegian Foreign Ministry called the Svalbard islands north of the mainland an ideal location for the deep-freeze stash, saying that seeds would be preserved in the permafrost even if electricity supplies fail.
Spitsbergen, population 2,330, lies at about 81 degrees north latitude. It boasts summer high temperatures around the freezing mark, a polar jazz festival in January and what is billed as the most northerly marathon race in June.
Sixty per cent of its land mass is covered by glaciers and fields of snow. The temperature yesterday was a balmy 0, but with the wind-chill factor taken into account, the outside temperature felt like -19.
New Scientist reported that the seed bank would be built inside a sandstone mountain lined with permafrost. The vault will be lined with reinforced concrete walls about one-metre thick, the magazine said, and sealed by blast-proof doors meant to protect the stock from terrorists and global warming.
The idea for an Arctic seed bank dates back more than 20 years. Cold War concerns about the Svalbard archipelago and the island of Spitsbergen, which was exploited by Soviet mining companies under a 1920 treaty with Norway, discouraged attempts to use the frozen wasteland for such a sensitive international project.
In 2004, an international treaty aimed at preserving and sharing plant genetic resources was enacted, paving the way for co-operative and modern seed banks like the one to be built in Norway.
When the treaty was adopted, experts warned that the world was too dependent on too few crops, with only 150 varieties feeding most of the world’s population and genetic diversity declining sharply.
=======================================
(4) EXPLANATION OF UN CONVENTION ON BIO-DIVERSITY BY PAUL BEINGESSNER; INCLUDES THE DR. TEWOLDE AFFAIR, WESTERN PRODUCER (blocking of entry visas for foreign scientists to attend Biosafety Protocol Meetings in Montreal)
FROM THE WESTERN PRODUCER, June 6 2005, by Paul Beingessner.
Excerpted:
” … I suspect, for example, that few western Canadians are aware of the Convention on Biological Diversity or the Cartagena Protocol. They probably also don’t know that the Convention has its headquarters in Montreal.
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is a global treaty whose principles were adopted in 1992 by 150 government leaders at the Rio Earth Summit. Its goal is to promote “sustainable development”. The CBD recognizes the need for conserving biological diversity – that we need to maintain the great genetic diversity of the world’s plants and animals if we are to sustaine life on the planet. The CBD also recognizes that this will not be practical unless everyone shares fairly in the benefits from the use of genetic resources.
One of the outcomes of the CBD has been the 2000 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. This agreement for the first time sets out a regulatory system for ensuring the safe transfer, handling and use of Genetically Modified Organisms across national borders. The most controversial part of the Protocol is its use of the Precautionary Principle. This Principle says if there are threats of serious damage to the biodiversity of a country or the health of its citizens, the country may refuse to allow in GMOs, even though the science on the threat is not completely certain.
While many countries signed the Cartagena Protocol, fewer have taken the second step of ratifying it. Ratification means the country is bound by the provisions of the Protocol. The list of those who have ratified is dominated by Third World countries, from Azerbaijan to Yemen. Noticeably absent are major agricultural exporters. Canada signed the treaty but did not ratify it. The U.S. has not even bothered to sign. (Mind you, the U.S. hasn’t signed the Land Mines Treaty, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Children, and a host of others.)
Agricultural exporters seem to fear that other countries will use the Protocol as an excuse to keep out imports of GMO crops. Those ratifying the Protocol have a host of other concerns. One of these is the fear GMO seeds will compromise their biological diversity. Many modern crops have their origins in Third World countries.
Mexico provides an example of this. It is the ancestral home to corn and still contains primitive varieties. These are the source of germplasm for modern plant breeding. Unfortunately, many of these native varieties have become contaminated with genes from genetically modified varieties, despite laws in Mexico to prevent this.
(INSERT: “THE TEWOLDE AFFAIR” BEGINS HERE)
The Cartagena Protocol was the subject of a conference in Montreal from May 25 to June 3. The Canadian government played an unusual role in this conference, besides being the host. It refused to give a visa to attend to an Ethiopian delegate, Dr. Tewolde Egziabher.
The 65-year-old Tewolde was educated at the University of Wales and was Dean of the Faculty of Science at the University of Addis Ababa in Ethiopia in the 1970s. Since 1995 he has been General Manager of the Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia. Tewolde worked hard in the development of the Protocol and was instrumental in organizing African countries to negotiate as a block on these issues, and to be leaders of the G77 countries.
Despite being in Canada several times before, Tewolde was denied a visa to come to the conference, with no explanation given. The Canadian government was deluged with letters and emails from people and organizations in Canada protesting this. (INSERT: I got on the phone and blasted them.) Again without explanation, the government finally granted Tewolde a visa, in time to attend the last few days.
Canada also refused visas to other Third World participants. Two farmers from India, one a retired professor of agricultural economics and adviser to his state government, were also prevented from coming. They were told to bring their bank statements should they wish to re-apply for visas – far too late to attend the conference. An Iranian, senior expert at his Ministry of Foreign Affairs and responsible for biodiversity-related international agreements, was also refused a visa.
It is worth noting that all these folks were concerned about the import of GMOs to their countries.
Canada’s actions in these cases might be malicious, or only ignorant.
Canada has a record of refusing visas to people from poor countries to attend conferences. Young people from Haiti and other impoverished countries were refused visas to attend World Youth Day when the Pope came to Toronto, even though they were sponsored by Canadian organizations.
In Tewolde’s case, maliciousness is more likely. He has been an outspoken leader and critic of American policy in regard to the export of GMOs. Canada is offside with most of the world in refusing to ratify the Cartagena Protocol, but on side with the U.S. and seed giants like Monsanto. Maybe Canada was just trying to tip the scales toward its side. … ”
===============================
(5) THE UN MEETINGS IN BANGKOK, FEB 2005, Canada’s instructions to its negotiators regarding international moratorium on genetic seed sterilisation technology
Canada’s instructions to its negotiators regarding international moratorium on genetic seed sterilisation technology (Terminator Technology, also known as GURTS – Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) to “block consensus”.
February 7, 2005 ETC Group News Release www.etcgroup.org
A confidential document leaked today to ETC Group reveals that the Canadian government, at a United Nations meeting in Bangkok (Feb 7-11), will attempt to overturn an international moratorium on genetic seed sterilisation technology (known universally as Terminator). Even worse, the Canadian government has instructed its negotiators to “block consensus” on any other option.
“Canada is about to launch a devastating kick in the stomach to the world’s most vulnerable farmers – the 1.4 billion people who depend on farm saved seed,” said ETC Group Executive Director Pat Mooney speaking from Ottawa. “The Canadian government is doing the dirty work for the multinational gene giants and the US government. Even Monsanto wasn’t prepared to be this upfront and nasty. Canada is betraying Farmers’ Rights and food sovereignty everywhere.”
Terminator technology was first developed by the US government and the seed industry to prevent farmers from re-planting saved seed and is considered the most controversial and immoral agricultural application of genetic engineering so far. When first made public in 1998, “suicide seeds” triggered an avalanche of public opposition, forcing Monsanto to abandon the technology and prompting the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to impose a de facto moratorium on its further development. According to the leaked instructions to Canadian negotiators at SBSTTA 10 (a scientific advisory body to the CBD), Canada will insist on Wednesday (9 Feb.) that governments accept the field testing and commercialization of Terminator varieties (referred to as GURTS — Genetic Use Restriction Technologies). Canada will also attack an official UN report, prepared by an international expert group, which is critical of the potential impacts of Terminator seeds on small farmers and Indigenous Peoples. In stark contrast to Canada’s position, the expert report recommends that governments seek prohibitions on the technology.
In Bangkok, civil society and Indigenous Peoples are calling on the Canadian government to abandon its endorsement of Terminator and to join with other governments to prohibit the technology once and for all. Many African and Asian governments have called for Terminator to be banned and the European Union has also been supportive of the existing moratorium.
“It is outrageous that Canada is backing an anti-farmer technology and shameful that it will ‘block consensus’ on any other outcome. Governments from around the world must not accept this bullying tactic,” says ETC Group’s Hope Shand from the negotiations in Bangkok. “If Canada blocks decision-making on this issue, the moratorium will be in jeopardy and terminator seeds will be commercialized ending up in the fields of small farmers.”
The full leaked text of the Canadian government’s instructions to its negotiators on Terminator/GURTS follows. “Advice on the report of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTS); Canada has major reservations regarding the recommendations in the AHTEG report. Canada notes that the experts were unable to reach consensus and that while this is recognized in para. 15 of the report, this should have been made clear in the recommendation section of the report. Unfortunately, the report leaves the impression that consensus was achieved on all of the recommendations when this was clearly not case and in particular in terms of recommendation (b) which reads as follows, “In view of the current lack of data, recommends that Parties and other Governments consider the development of regulatory frameworks not to approve GURTs for field-testing and commercial use.” Canada will suggest that the document clearly indicate in the Annex that there is no consensus on for the recommendations. Alternatively, the AHTEG report can be referred to as the “Chairs’ report”. Canada also believes that the AHTEG report contains scientific inaccuracies and a lack of balance in terms of reflecting both potential positive and negative impacts of this technology, and these issues should be addressed before the report is further distributed. We believe that it would be beneficial for Parties and other governments to submit comments to the Executive Secretary/CHM to represent national views to improve the accuracy of the document, and that these be made available to both the 8j working group and COP.
Additionally, Canada will propose that SBSTTA adopt a recommendation for decision at COP8 based on the revised wording of recommendation “b” below and will propose this recommendation be incorporated for consideration at the 8j meeting: NEW WORDING for recommendation b) of AHTEG report (b) In view of the current lack of data, recommend that Parties and other Governments consider the development of domestic regulatory frameworks TO ALLOW FOR THE EVALUATION OF NOVEL VARIETIES, INCLUDING THOSE WITH GURTS, FOR FIELD TESTING AND COMMERCIAL USE BASED ON APPROPRIATE SCIENCE-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL RISK/SAFETY ASSESSMENTS.
In Canada’s opinion the revised wording we are suggesting, strengthens the recommendation and provides for a strong scientific assessment of risk.
If we are unsuccessful in obtaining these additions (indication that recommendations in the AHTEG report were not based on consensus OR agreement to have national views submitted) AND changes to recommendation “B” –or any other outcome which clearly addresses our concern over a defacto moratorium on GURTS– Canada is prepared to block consensus on this issue.”
= = = = = = = = = = = =
(6) CONNECTIONS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND BIOTECH “CLIENTS” FROM LETTER TO STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, JUNE 5, 2005
(INSERT: given the actions of the Canadian Government in Bangkok, the Dr. Tewolde affair, and Granada, I assume that the Department of Environment (witness Biodiversity Office) can be added to the list of connections between departments and “clients”. Justice Gomery said that the Prime Minister’s Office should not have the power it has over the appointment of Deputy Ministers. Our experience says “Right on, Justice Gomery!”. As seen in the submissions made to the GDR (General Directive on Regulating) the co-ordination required to put people in strategic positions to assist with “the agenda” appears to be run through the Privy Council Office (Alex Himelfarb). (Liberal Govt))
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Réal Ménard (MP) is absolutely right that an Enquiry into the operations of Health Canada (PMRA – Pest Management Regulatory Agency) is in order.
Further to the personal experience submitted to you earlier (Health Canada scientist’s attempt to intimidate me into silence) I have appended documentation of 2 events related to biotechnology. The events make a loud statement that something is very rotten in the state of Canada.
Some will think that the UN Biosafety Protocol Meeting in Montreal and the February UN Meeting in Bangkok have nothing to do with Health Canada and are therefore irrelevant to the decision on whether an Enquiry into the operations of Health Canada is warranted. But Health Canada plays a large role in biotech in Canada.
The PMRA (Pest Management Regulatory Agency) is responsible to the Minister of Health. The CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) is responsible to the Minister of Agriculture.
The clients of the PMRA (Health Canada) are the chemical companies. The pharmaceutical companies have large ownership interests in the chemical companies, who in turn, by-and-large are the biotechnology industry.
Biotechnology in Canada has a current main thrust into agriculture where crops (our food supply) are developed to be resistant to herbicides. (One might logically think that the food supply would be developed using the criteria of nutritional gains and environmental impact on the common good, but this is not the case.) The companies go to Health Canada to get their pesticides and pharmaceuticals licensed for use, and they make large payments to the PMRA (at least $8 million a year as reported by the television programme W5 a couple of years ago). These companies then have partnership agreements whereby the Government through Agriculture Canada pays half the research costs for developing seeds that are resistant to the licensed chemicals. And they have partnership agreements through Health Canada to fund research on biotech drugs.
A second developing main thrust of biotechnology in Canada, and with the same corporate criteria as are applied in agriculture, is into the development of biotech pharmaceuticals. The partnership agreements through which public funding flows to the drug companies to fund research are through a front known as the Health Research Foundation. Health Research Foundations exist at the Provincial level of Government as well. These publicly funded “foundations” fund research that has “the potential for commercialization”. Biotech pharmaceuticals figure prominently. Government funding of the transnational pharmeceutical companies is done in precisely the same way as its funding of the chemical/biotech companies (e.g. for the development of crops such as roundup resistant wheat) which is through front organizations with names such as BioTech Canada and AgWest Biotech.
Both the food and the drugs we consume are determinants of health. The PMRA, other branches of Health Canada, and the CFIA work closely together – their “clients” are the same companies. As I have mentioned, the pharmaceutical companies own the chemical companies who own the biotechnology companies.
These are mostly large transnational corporations many of which have a very long and well-documented history of corruption and non-compliance with the laws of the land.
Given the overlaps in ownership, the overlapping interests in biotechnology, and the collaborations between the Government and the industry through partnership agreements, it is very reasonable to presume that Health Canada may indeed be collaboratively behind the 2 events mentioned. Both the witholding of entry visas to scientists who are effective in their work to insist on a Biosafety Protocol, and the attempted sabotage by Canadian Government negotiators of the UN deliberations on genetic seed sterilisation technology, have the same end in view. I therefore presume that the same people in Government are behind both events. The events are an outrage to democracy and an international embarrassment to Canadians. I don’t know of any other way than an Enquiry to determine what is going on.
(1) Dr. Tewolde and other scientists who were to attend the UN Protocol Meetings on Biosafety in Montreal
(2) the UN Meetings in Bangkok in negotiations on genetic seed sterilisation technology
Documentation on both is appended. It tells you that what Drs Chopra, Haydon and Lambert are telling you is the truth. What is going on in the Government and specifically in Health Canada is not to be tolerated in a democracy.
There needs to be a public enquiry.
Yours truly,
Sandra Finley