Sandra Finley

2006-04-05 Water: Unnecessary additions to chemical load in the water supply. Vaporooter. No enforcement. (#2 in a series)

 Health, Take back the University, Water  No Responses »
Apr 052006
 

(Vaporooter specs, see   http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4192)

– – — – – – – – – – – – – — – – – –

Letter to: 

(1)  Federal Ministers

–  Health, Tony Clement

–  Agriculture, Chuck Strahl

–  Fisheries and Oceans, Loyola Hearn

–  Environment, Rona Ambrose

 (2)  University of Saskatchewan, Board of Governors; Deans Ernie Barber and Lynne Pearson 

(3)  Others

—————————-

EMAILS TO-DATE:  (This email is one in a series, an attempt to get Federal Govt Departments and the University to work together to address poisons we are putting into water supplies.)

(1)  a request for integrated problem-solving, “Must connect the dots;  integrated approach”,  Mon April 03/2006.

(1a)  “Health, sharing of information among citizens”, Tues Apr 04/2006.

====================================

USE A SPECIFIC CASE TO ILLUSTRATE

Dear All,

This documentation about the chemical mixture “vapo-rooter” (to dissolve tree roots in sewer lines) is a good case to illustrate what we are doing.

It tells you what is written on the labels.  The attachment explains the toxicity.

We compartmentalize and make this into an “environmental” issue.  We compartmentalize and say “oh those bad agricultural chemicals”. 

Email #1a demonstrates that what we do to other creatures in the environment, we are doing to ourselves.  This demonstrates that city folk are equally involved.

 This is definitely a health issue.  But effective problem-solving will occur ONLY if the parties (Agriculture, Environment, Health, DFO, Universities) come together.

 We are fighting the use of vapo-rooter here in Saskatoon.  If the PMRA (Pest Management Regulatory Agency (Dept Health)) and DFO (Dept Fisheries) were doing their jobs – cities would not be putting the chemicals into the water supply.  One of the reasons Saskatoon started using vapo-rooter is because Calgary (upstream city) uses it.  Pity the guys who are at the end of the River.

 It reminds me that DFO is part of the problem.  The abandonment of regulation.  There will be more and more going into the rivers (water supply) because the Liberals slashed DFO enforcement budgets.  “We will sign up a force of “stewards” to replace enforcement of regulations.”  I will send you the full documentation of that later. 

The effort to prevent this one chemical mixture, vapo-rooter, from entering the water supply in this one City, will be two years old this summer.  We are no closer now, than two years ago.  That is “stewardship”.

 Sandra

=========================

 In his presentation (last week of March), the Government official presented terrific figures on the increase in the number of “watershed stewards” in the province.  And the commitment of the Government to “source water protection”.  Sounds great. 

BUT it doesn’t address the fact that “source water” is actually all water.

What Calgary runs through its “waste” water plant is actually one of the “sources” of my drinking water in Saskatoon.

 I use the example from City Saskatoon:  it contracts out work that involves putting the chemical mixture “vapo-rooter” into the sewer lines (goes to the “waste” water treatment plant).  One of the ingredients is a KNOWN carcinogen.  The other is bad news, too.  Here (I don’t know about elsewhere) they don’t actually have the ability to test the water to see if one of the 2 ingredients is in the water.  After they’ve put it in, ha!) Saskatoon says, in defence of the use, that Calgary also uses vapo-rooter.

… “Source water protection” ???

============================

 March 16, 2006:  This was sent to the City and to the Environmental Advisory Committee. 

THE LETTER:

 City Council needs to issue a directive:  tree roots will be augered out of sewer lines.  Vapo-rooter is not to be used.  (The City contracts out the vapo-rooter work.) 

The question of putting Vapo-rooter into the water supply was brought to Council’s attention in summer 2004.  It is not yet resolved.  It comes up at Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting March 23, 2006 and looks as though it will be dropped.

1.   YOU DO NOT OBSERVE RIVERS DYING.  ONE DAY THEY ARE DEAD.

17 rivers in P.E.I are dead, not capable of supporting aquatic life.

(documentary on CTV-TV programme W5, 3 plus years ago).  The chemicals applied to the potato fields run off into the rivers.  P.E.I didn’t plan that their rivers should be dead.  The chemicals are invisible.

2.   AUGERING DOES THE JOB WELL, AND IS COST-EFFECTIVE, IF EXTERNAL COSTS ARE FACTORED IN (AS THEY SHOULD BE)

it is insanity to add to the chemical load of the South Saskatchewan River when a perfectly safe alternative to the chemical concoction Vapo-rooter exists.  Tree roots are augered out manually.  There is nothing wrong with augering.

3.    REPORT ON TOXICITY OF VAPO-ROOTER

 No one of us requires a toxicologist’s report to know how toxic vapo-rooter is.  If the chemical mixture is potent enough to dissolve tree roots, you KNOW it should not be added to the chemical load of a River that already flows through miles and miles of agricultural land in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan.

THAT SAID, if you require a Report on the toxicity of Vapo-rooter – it seems that the process is held up for lack of one – you will find a detailed Report ATTACHED.  Thanks to Paule Hjertaas.

There is no justification for inaction.

4.    TREE ROOTS ARE A TEMPORARY PROBLEM

  Tree roots in sewer lines are a temporary problem.  When old infrastructure is replaced they are no longer a problem.  Augering is fine.

5.     YOU ARE “GETTING AWAY WITH” THE USE OF VAPO-ROOTER;  REGULATIONS ARE NOT ENFORCED

  When the problem with vapo-rooter was brought to Council NO ONE was able to produce a protocol for the removal of vapo-rooter from the water supply by the Water Treatment Plant.  As far as I can determine, it is because there isn’t one – i.e. we don’t know how to remove the chemicals from the water once they are in the water.  If you have read the instructions for the use of vapo-rooter, it is specifically stated that IT HAS TO BE CONTAINED because it is very toxic.  Putting it down a sewer line is in breach of PMRA regulations.

 See the attached Report.  From the product label:

“SPECIAL NOTICE: SANAFOAM ® VAPOROOTER ® should not be used to treat roots in storm sewers or other drains where waste water will not be treated or controlled.” 

–  I feel I have to respond to this, although given what is known about the chemicals in Vapo-rooter (metam and dichlobenil) I know before I ever get to this point, that the use of Vapo-rooter is in no way warranted. 

The Saskatoon Water Treatment Plant reported testing for the presence of the chemicals.  They didn’t find vapo-rooter.  From the attached Report, it is noted that in the case of the metam chemical portion of Vapo-rooter, you have to test for the presence of MITC, not metam.  ” … water testing for metam would be useless unless done very fast after use and in the proper place as the chemical hydrolises rapidly ( 3.17 days).  It would be much more productive to test for MITC which has an average ½ life of 20 days. As a matter of fact, MITC is the active pesticide form.  Or test for 2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile, dichlobenil which are residual a lot longer (average 130 days for dichlobenil in water and at least 5-10 months in sediments. In Ireland, dichlobenil was found in groundwater at least 3 years after the pollution stopped.  Dichlobenil, in particular, has had severe aquatic ecosystems effects. …”.

(INSERT, UPDATE:  The Environmental Advisory Committee was told that the cost for testing for the presence of dichlobenil was $3,000.  And there isn’t an available test for metam (MITC).) 

–  It has taken almost 2 years to get ? where? Would SEAC  (Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee) please expedite their recommendations?

Sincerely,

Sandra Finley

==============

Vaprooter: dichlobenil and metam

Dichlobenil also sold under Casoron, Sanofoam LD 50 oral: 2710 mg/kg and 1350 mg/kg dermal. It is a nitrile Metam is also sold in Sask under the names: Metam and Vapam. It is a dithiocarbamate with 97 mg/kg LD50 for ingestion and 800 for dermal exposure.

(Pease ask if you would like the analysis of vapo-rooter, sent as an attachment (9 pages).  /Sandra)

2006-03-31 Vaporooter is de-registered. However!

 Water  No Responses »
Mar 312006
 

Normally I would shout and dance for joy.  Surely this is a victory.

We’ve been working on vaporooter since 2003.  (Vaporooter is a chemical mixture used to dissolve tree roots in sewer lines.) 

When you read how the Government (Health Canada,  Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)), is handling the de-registration, you will understand why there is no joy.

============================= 

CONTENTS

(1)  BRIEF STATEMENT OF ISSUE (letter to City Council, today).

(1a) COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION TO OTHER COMMUNITIES

(2)  ELABORATION, WHAT DID THE Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) HAVE TO SAY?

(3)  CONTACT OTHER COMMUNITIES TO STOP USE OF VAPOROOTER, A DE-REGISTERED PRODUCT THAT POISONS WATER SUPPLIES.

(4)  LETTER TO “INTEGRATED PROBLEM-SOLVING OF POISONS IN WATER SUPPLY”.   (In another posting.)

(5)  PMRA HANDLING OF VAPOROOTER IS CONSISTENT WITH HANDLING OF MECOPROP AND UNACCEPTABLE.

(6)  I WILL BE IN OTTAWA NEAR END OF AUGUST, AM WORKING ON ARRANGEMENTS THAT (MIGHT?! HAH) RESULT IN MEETING WITH TONY CLEMENT, MINISTER OF HEALTH. 

=====================

(1)  BRIEF STATEMENT OF ISSUES (letter to City Council, today.  I will be speaking at Council tonight. Started this in 2003.)

RE:  Use of Vaporooter in Sewer

(Your File No. CK. 375-1)

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

I presume you have been advised by the Administration:

Vaporooter was de-registered, effective date given is March 31, 2006 by Health Canada, Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

Today I am calling and emailing information to upstream communities that are using Vaporooter.  I am asking those communities to stop using vapo-rooter because we are downstream from them, and receive the combined impact of the poisons put into and washed into the River by every community from Banff and Calgary right on down.

 The PMRA believes it is acceptable that they not disclose the reasons for the de-registration.

Nor do they accept responsibility for notifying the communities in Canada that vapo-rooter is de-registered.

 Respectfully submitted,

Sandra Finley

 =========================

(1a) COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION TO OTHER COMMUNITIES 

I will be contacting communities and asking them to stop putting vaporooter down their drains because:

–  it is a de-registered product.

–  one of its two ingredients is a known carcinogen.

–  there is no known protocol for removing vaporooter from the water supply, once it gets in.

–  there is no known test available to determine whether one of the two ingredients is in the water supply.

–  the cost for one test to see if the testable ingredient is in the water is $3000 a pop.

–  scheduled once-a-year augering works just fine to remove tree roots from sewer lines until such time as old pipes can be replaced.  The problem of tree roots is associated with old infrastructure.  It is unwise to poison the water supply for a temporary problem.

High levels of disease (cancer, Parkinson’s Disease, etc.) and developmental problems are associated with the poisons we are putting into our water, air, soil and food supply.

 I will be asking the communities that are upstream from Saskatoon to stop the use of vaporooter, because it affects the health of people downstream, here in Saskatoon. 

For people whose water supply isn’t the River:  poisons seep into underground waterways.  And they evaporate, as in the case of acid rain.

 ========================== 

(2)  ELABORATION, WHAT DID THE Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) HAVE TO SAY?

 Vaporooter is an example used to illustrate how the system works.  It doesn’t work to protect “the commons”;  it puts industry interests first.  I have been told by the PMRA that the Government is not going to do the job of notifying communities that vaporooter is de-registered.   They have only notified the supplier. 

From my perspective: we are the ones who drink the water.  If the Government isn’t going to look after it, we will.  We aren’t useless beings.  With our networks, we can improve things.  And if we have to step in to perform the function of the PMRA, so be it.  I have stated before, in relation to the cities and towns and province (Quebec) that have banned the cosmetic use of pesticides registered by the PMRA, that the PMRA is making itself irrelevant.

 The PMRA is a hindrance to getting the job done because the mantra is “If the product is licensed by the PMRA, and if used according to label instructions, then the product is safe to use.”  The example of vaporooter once again shows the dishonesty of the statement.  Vaporooter is de-registered; it is unsafe.  The public isn’t told.  Mecoprop is another example: the industry has from 2004 until 2009, 6 years, in which to continue sale of the product. Then the registration of the product will be cancelled.  They are quietly allowed to sell off their inventory, so as to avoid any financial inconvenience. While the public is spun the mantra:

“safe if used according to label instructions”.  Different rules apply to these companies.  If the product was tainted beef, then the unsafe product would be pulled immediately from the shelves.

The failure of the regulatory system has extremely serious consequences for our own health and for the health of children in particular.  The public is maintained in a state of ignorance about the products.  You find wording such as, “The industry has agreed to …”.  Why wouldn’t they agree to have 6 years in which to get the products off the shelf?  But why should we stand stupidly by and allow our water supplies to become more and more poisoned?

We know the increase in disease rates and developmental problems.  Are we so disempowered that we won’t stand up to the Government when it serves the corporate interest?

Paul Sawatsky is the regional enforcement official for the PMRA.  For newcomers:  I phoned Connie Moase, the head of the PMRA – – spoke by phone with her, and then with Karen McCullagh who is head of Enforcement for the PMRA.  I met in person with Paul Sawatsky who is the Regional enforcement officer.  The point I made with Paul and with “Ottawa”: the problem is NOT with enforcement.  It is with licensing.  The PMRA is licensing highly poisonous products which most communities are incapable of removing from their water supplies.  This is obviously true of communities that empty their sewers into a body of water with zero treatment.  It is true of communities that only have primary treatment.  It is most likely true of communities that have secondary treatment.  It is possibly also true of the few communities in Canada that have so-called “tertiary” or third level treatment capability. 

With vaporooter there is no known test to see if one of its two chemical components is in the water supply (we know that it’s been put down the drain;  we can’t test to see if it’s in the water).

In my conversations with the PMRA, I said, “You say that vaporooter is safe, “If used according to label instructions”.  The instructions say that the water into which vaporooter goes, has to be “controlled” or “treated”.  What do you mean by “treated”?  Does it mean that the water has to go through a water treatment plant?  Or does it mean that the water has to be specifially treated for the removal of the particular chemical components?

 The answer was:  this is a question that the PMRA is now addressing.  They don’t know what their labels mean. 

It is obvious if you know a little about the actual water treatment systems we have, about the total lack of capability to test for the presence of some chemicals in the water, and the cost of testing for others ($3000 for a test for just one chemical, for example) that you cannot just release the poisons into the water and rely on the water treatment plants to remove them. 

We discovered that in the case of vaporooter, no one could come up with a protocol to remove it from the water.  “Safe if used according to label instructions?”  If the label instructions require that the water be treated, it has to be treated to specifically remove the specific poisons that were put into the water.  If that is the case, then someone who puts the poisons into a sewer line, must show me the place along the sewer line where they are catching and treating the contaminated water.  Presumeably it is at the place where the sewer line from the individual property joins the artery city sewer line.  I need to see the equipment and the protocol they use to remove these specific poisons.  But as stated, in the early work on vaporooter we searched for such a protocol.  No one was able to produce one.

Presumeably the PMRA would have produced one, if they know of one.

This is all pretty damning.  Since 2003 I have been submitting evidence to the City, calling on it to cease and desist in the use of vaporooter.  The augering out of tree roots has worked just fine for decades.  It is cost effective if you are required to address the so-called “external costs”, those such as increased healthcare and environmental costs that are borne by the society at large, not by the manufacturers of the products.

 We have communicated directly with the Government (Tony Clement, Minister of Health) and with the officials at the PMRA (Connie Moase and Karen McCullagh among others).

 So what happens? …  I phone the local official to inquire.  “What is the status of your report on vaporooter?  I will be making another presentation to City Council and would like to provide up-to-date information.”

 The official provided me with all the information I need;  I am grateful to him.  He has worked with the City and with the Company to whom the vaporooter work is contracted out locally.  His report concludes that the City and Company are in compliance with the regulations.  No laws are being broken. 

Then he mentioned that vaporooter has been de-registered, as of March 31st.

Nothing to do with this work on it.  …  Had I not phoned to ask for an update on the investigation and report, I would not have known about the de-registration.  In spite of having talked on the telephone with Connie Moase and Karen McCullagh, no one communicated that vaporooter is now de-registered. 

This is disturbing to me personally because of my involvement.  The other information provided by the official is disturbing from the perspective of what is expected in a democracy.

 The PMRA will only notify the supplier of vaporooter that it is now a de-registered product. It will not notify the towns and cities whose water supply is affected. I presume the product will remain on the market until the supplier has sold all his current stock.  (I presume based on the experience with the chemical mecoprop.) 

I asked for the reasons why vaporooter was de-registered.  And was told that the officials are under instruction not to discuss those reasons, even if they know them.

I asked:  if vaporooter is de-registered, does that mean that one or both of the chemical ingredients in vaporooter is also de-registered?  The answer is “not necessarily”.  A product can be de-registered, or ingredients can be de-registered.  The public is not privy to the reasons for de-registration.

And the officials cannot talk about it.

Paul, the official, mentioned that there can be an application to re-register vaporooter.

I said to Paul that such a system makes it impossible to fix problems.  He might know of problems or solutions to them, but because of a general gag order, he (civil servants) will feel inclined to keep mouths shut.

The PMRA is not notifying anyone, except the supplier, when the product is de-registered.  How are people to know that the product is extremely problematic;  they shouldn’t be using it if it is de-registered?  And how are we to know when an application is made to re-register the product?  Are the PMRA and the company just waiting until the heat is off?  Will a different supplier approach to register the product?  No one outside the first supplier and some people in the PMRA know that the product is de-registered … isn’t it ideal to be dealing with an ignorant public?  If no reasons are given for de-registration, how is the public to know that re-registration is justifiable?

I didn’t ask Paul, but Connie Moase, head of the PMRA needs to answer:  Upon what basis is the information kept secret from the public?  Show me the legislated justification.  Specifically why isn’t it public information?

If vaporooter is de-registered, there are no label instructions under which it can be used.  (“Safe, if used according to label instructions.”)

McGill’s is the local vendor in the Saskatoon area of vaporooter.  McGill’s supplied City Administration with a list of communities that are using vaporooter to support the argument that it’s okay to put the poison down the drain because all these other communities are doing it, too.

================================== 

(3)  CONTACT OTHER COMMUNITIES TO STOP USE OF VAPOROOTER, A DE-REGISTERED PRODUCT THAT POISONS WATER SUPPLIES.

 Will you contact your Council to see if vaporooter is used in sewer lines?

Bring them up-to-speed:  vaporooter is de-registered because it poisons the water supply.  It is obvious that no one else will be doing this for us.  It falls to us to protect our water supplies.

 ============================== 

(4)  LETTER TO “INTEGRATED PROBLEM-SOLVING OF POISONS IN WATER SUPPLY”.    (In another email.) 

============================ 

(5)  PMRA HANDLING OF VAPOROOTER IS CONSISTENT WITH HANDLING OF MECOPROP AND UNACCEPTABLE.

From the PMRA (2004):

 ” … In order to achieve an orderly phase-out of products containing racemic mecoprop, the registrants of the technical active ingredient have agreed to limit sales of the technical active ingredient in 2004 to a maximum of their annual average over the past five years. Beyond 2005, sales of existing end-use products in the possession of those other than the registrant as well as use of end-use product by users is permitted until 31 December 2009 when the registrations will be cancelled.”

 ============================= 

(6)  I WILL BE IN OTTAWA NEAR END OF AUGUST, AM WORKING ON ARRANGEMENTS THAT (MIGHT?! HAH) RESULT IN MEETING WITH TONY CLEMENT, MINISTER OF HEALTH.

2006-03-24 Dr. Frederica Perera, the “DNA Damage Detective”. Prevention versus Cure.

 Epigenetics  No Responses »
Mar 242006
 

ARTICLE BY HART HAIDN, INTRODUCING WORK OF DR. PERARA, CBC INTERVIEW MARCH 24, 2006

NOTE:  See 2012 research, very important:   2012-05-23  Interview with Dr. David Crews, Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance, Chemical damage can be inherited by offspring through unlimited generations

Useful References:

  1. http://www.ccceh.org Columbia University, Centre for Children’s Environmental Health, Dr. Perara
  2. “The Current: Part 2 Frederica Perera” broadcast Friday, March 24   (Link no longer valid. I don’t know if CBC has it in archives?)http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2006/200603/20060324.html
  3. Wendy Mesley, CBC TV programme “Marketplace“, (March 11 and April 2), documentary on cancer (Wendy has cancer):  (same as preceding, link no longer valid.  http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/cancer/index.html )

The documentary asks the question: why isn’t the public being told?

Hart writes:

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

But, how often do you hear or read about disease prevention?  Compare it with how often you hear or read about curing a disease. In our health care system the principle for spending is:

  • An ounce of prevention is matched by a pound of cure.

It just doesn’t make sense. What makes it worse is that governments and disease corporations (Cancer Society, Heart and Stroke foundations) are all on the same track.

Governments conveniently hide behind the phrase “The Best Science We Have”, looking at the science with the most political and economic power behind it.

When I think about an analogy about the current levels of all kinds of diseases, from cancer to Parkinson’S Disease, the development in exposing the dangers of smoking comes to mind.

Due to a concerted effort of civil society and government regulations, smoking has almost become socially unacceptable. But it was a long struggle. Look at this excerpt from an article in USA Today:

“Government: Cover-up lasted 45 years By Wendy Koch and Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

09/23/99- Updated 11:38 PM ET

WASHINGTON – On Dec. 15, 1953, a cloudy and windy day in New York City, top executives of the nation’s tobacco companies met at the Plaza Hotel to confront what they considered a crisis: studies showing a link between cigarettes and cancer.

They acted quickly. Less than three weeks later, they issued a “frank” statement insisting there was “no proof” that smoking causes lung cancer.  “We believe the products we make are not injurious to health,” they said.

That meeting, according to a groundbreaking Clinton administration lawsuit filed Wednesday against tobacco companies, began a decades-long campaign to deceive the public about the health risks of smoking. The lawsuit, citing newly disclosed industry documents, says the industry knew even 45 years ago that smoking was deadly. …”

The situation was this: scientists working in the public interest had realized for some time the link between smoking and cancer and other lung diseases. Other scientists, working for the tobacco industry (either directly or indirectly) “proved” that this link did not exist. It is amazing:
the complete unwillingness of medical science to stand up against the interests of the tobacco industry for many decades – not until the evidence for mortality from smoking was monumental and overwhelming – illustrates how easily science falls prey to external pressures.

And industry got away with this for decades – also because governments did not take the warnings seriously. The blame that the tobacco industry could rake in billions for another five decades at the expense of an ignorant public must be put firmly on governments who we should be able to trust to protect us from harm.

How naïve this trust is becomes evident again when you look at some of the latest developments in trying to expose the environmental links to numerous diseases. The situation is not much different from the tobacco fiasco. For decades we have been warned about the harmful effects of a polluted environment.

One of the problems is that it is extremely difficult to establish clear cause and effect relations between environmental pollution (this includes food, particularly highly processed foods, household cleaners and so forth).  The testing of the tens of thousands of synthetic substances that are released into the environment is woefully inadequate.

An article in Orion Magazine January/February 2006 editions states:

“A recent study of umbilical cord blood, collected by the Red Cross from ten newborns and analyzed in two different laboratories, revealed the presence of pesticides, stain removers, wood preservatives, heavy metals, and industrial lubricants, as well as the wastes from burning coal, garbage, and gasoline.  Of the 287 chemicals detected, 180 were suspected carcinogens, 217 were toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 have been linked to abnormal development and birth defects in lab animals. …”

Anyway, you get the idea: science is not an objective and benevolent arena of human endeavor. Nor are governments capable of protecting us. We all have to do our own share and take on responsibility to protect ourselves, our families and communities.

Here are two more pieces of evidence. I recorded two CBC Radio ‘The Current’ shows.

The Current: Part 1 Thursday, March 2, 2006;  interview with Wendy Mesley

The Current: Part 2 Friday, March 24, 2006; interview with Frederica Perera

A few weeks ago, the CBC’s Wendy Mesley appeared on The Current to tell us about the questions she began asking herself during her own battle with breast cancer. Questions like . why do people with a healthy lifestyle get cancer? What role does a polluted environment play in causing cancer? And why isn’t more work being done to understand the environmental causes of cancer?

We were flooded with mail from other cancer survivors and their loved ones, all expressing similar frustration and confusion over diagnoses that seemed to come out of no where. Well, award-winning cancer researcher Frederica Perera has been working for decades to shed light on the connections between the environment people live in and how that affects their risk of getting cancer.

Dr. Perera has been billed as a “DNA damage detective”. She teaches environmental health at Columbia University and is the Director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health. Dr. Perera joined us from our New York studio.

Frederica P. Perera, Dr.P.H., Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, Director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health (CCCEH)

Dr. Perera’s areas of interest include environmental causes of disease, disease prevention, molecular epidemiology, environmental risks to children, environment- susceptibility interactions in cancer and developmental damage, breast and lung cancer, cancer prevention, chemoprevention, and risk assessment. Asthma prevention is also a part of the research of the CCCEH.

Molecular epidemiology is a relatively new discipline which merges highly sophisticated laboratory techniques with epidemiologic methods in order to use biomarkers in human tissue as indicators of potential risk of cancer and other diseases — hence as a tool in disease prevention. Under the direction of Dr. Perera, the program in Molecular Epidemiology has made substantial progress in validating biomarkers in populations with well-defined exposures and/or with those with a defined risk of cancer. The biomarkers include internal and molecular dosimeters of carcinogens such as DNA adducts, alterations in genes and chromosomes such as mutated oncogenes, and genetic susceptibility factors such as polymorphisms in genes controlling the metabolism of carcinogens.  Susceptibility due to nutritional deficiencies is also one of her research interests. Her research has significant implications for risk assessment and disease prevention.

As Director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health, Dr. Perera leads a team of scientists, researchers, community activists, and other experts in studying the effects of pre and postnatal exposures to common urban air pollutants on children’s respiratory health and neurocognitive development. The Center works internationally, including studies in the United States, Poland, and China. As part of the Center’s Mothers and Newborns Study, Dr. Perera and her team are currently following a cohort of more than 500 women and their children (from in utero through age 5) in the low-income New York City neighborhoods of Harlem, Washington Heights, and the South Bronx. In addition to establishing widespread exposures to pollutants within the cohort, the study has found an association between prenatal exposures to air pollutants and pesticides, and reduced fetal growth.

Dr. Perera and her colleagues are increasingly focusing their efforts in the areas of prevention of carcinogenic, developmental and asthma risks to the infant and young child, chemoprevention, and environment-susceptibility interactions in breast and lung cancer.

Link to Center for Children’s Environmental Health http://www.ccceh.org

2006-03-17 Water: Put it in upstream. It’s there downstream. Lloydminster

 Water  No Responses »
Mar 172006
 

RELATED TO:

 

Fri 17 Mar 2006

Lloydminster Meridian Booster

ALDERMAN QUESTIONS WATER QUALITY; SHOULD THE CITY BE DOING MORE TO ENSURE OUR DRINKING WATER IS SAFE?

BY LEO PARE, STAFF WRITER

A Lloydminster alderman says more could be done to improve the safety and quality of the city’s water supply.

This past January the City of Lloydminster released its annual drinking water quality notice to consumers, which revealed trace elements of chemicals like arsenic, Malathion, pesticide 2,4-D and Picloram herbicide. Although the amounts appear to be well below government limits, Lloydminster alderman Duff Stewart holds concerns about the long-term impacts those potentially harmful chemicals could have.

“When we’re pulling in things like 2,4-D we should be wondering where it’s coming from. Maybe it’s Edmonton, maybe it’s Vermilion,” Stewart said. “Maybe we have to start looking at a lot of the things we’re ingesting, whether it’s water our meat or whatever.

“There has to be an awareness, but we can’t be alarmists and say ‘don’t use our water anymore,’ because that’s not going to work.”

It has been confirmed in recent years that trace amounts of pharmaceuticals and cosmetic products are making their way into the North Saskatchewan River – the source of Lloydminster’s water since 1983 – but little is known about the potential long-term impacts on human health. Municipalities across the country work constantly to improve filtering and treatment methods, but a 100 per cent flawless system has yet to be developed.

In 2003, experts at Edmonton’s Enviro-Test Labs tested tap water in 10 Canadian cities to see whether the samples contained pharmaceutical drugs, such as antibiotics, prescription painkillers, and other drugs. The results were confirmed by a second lab at Trent University in Ontario. Drugs were found in the drinking water of four cities. Scientists called the test results a wake-up call about what’s happening to the Canadian water supply.

CHEMICAL PESTICIDES FOUND IN LLOYDMINSTER WATER SUPPLY

– Bromoxynil: a nitrile herbicide used for post-emergent control of broadleaf weeds.

In one documented case of chronic exposure to humans, workers showed symptoms of weight loss, fever, vomiting, headache and urinary problems.

– Dicamba (Banvel): a benzoic acid herbicide. It can be applied to the leaves or to the soil. Dicamba is suspected of being a human teratogen.

– 2,4-D: a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. 2,4-D has a limited ability to cause birth defects.

– Diclofop-methyl: a selective post-emergence herbicide for control of wild oats and annual grassy weeds.

– Pentachlorophenol (PCP): a chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide and fungicide.

Accumulation is not common, but if it does occur, the major sites are the liver, kidneys, plasma protein, brain, spleen, and fat.

– Picloram: a systemic herbicide used for control of woody plants and a wide range of broadleaf weeds.

The City of Lloydminster says pesticides in drinking water may occur as a result of these substances used by humans.

These substances may represent a long-term health risk if the Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC) or Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentration (IMAC) is exceeded.

To date, none of these substances have been found to be over the MAC or IMAC limits in Lloydminster water.

During a tour of the waste water treatment plant in London, Ont. in 2001, Stewart and other municipal officials observed that city’s use of an ultraviolet light system used to kill bacteria in the water supply. The City of Lloydminster then opted to utilize similar technology, but the $50,000-to-$100,000 investment was continually pushed back. To date, no such technology is used in Lloydminster’s water treatment process.

“One reason you’d want to invest in something like that is because it reduces the amount of chlorine you’d use in the system,” Stewart said. “Chlorine breaks down into a cancer-causing agent … so the more chlorine you put in, the more chances you have of including an agent that’s not good for you.

“(Ultraviolet equipment) was supposed to be on the budget this year, but when I asked they said it had been moved from the capital budget … but from the amount of money we’re making on water, we should be able to tune it up pretty quick.”

Utilities engineer Scott Kusalik said ultra-violet technology is still in consideration for Lloydminster, but because Sask. Environment requires municipalities to use a specific amount of chlorine in water treatment, – reducing the need for UV bacteria control – it is arguable whether the technology is necessary.

“It does a great job of neutralizing the bacteria in the system,” he said. “But part of our permit to operate our waterworks says we have to retain a certain chlorine residual, so if we went full UV and didn’t chlorinate, we actually wouldn’t be complying.”

Kusalik said the city conducts frequent analysis in compliance with Sask. Environment standards, and although he notes an increased awareness in regards to pharmaceuticals and other chemicals now found in water supplies, he says governments have yet to develop clear standards and regulations for those substances.

“Being downstream from Edmonton, sometimes you never know what you can get in the water,” Kusalik said. “There’s absolutely no real clarity for standards on this stuff at all.

“A lot of the drugs and that kind of stuff, we don’t even have to test for yet.”

–   – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  –

Duff Stewart, the alderman behind Leo Pare’s newspaper article, said that his friend fishes in the North Saskatchewan River.  But won’t eat the fish he catches.  He throws them back to the River.  Because they have the accumulated pesticides/toxins in their bodies.  Leo mentioned the deformities.  (same thing as is happening at Fort Chip, Lake Athabasca).

2006-03-15 Terminator Technology will not solve the problem it is intended to address

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Food, Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Mar 152006
 

A warm embrace to many recent new-comers to our network, from all of us!

And many, many thanks for the insights and input others of you have provided.  It is woven into the information base and gave me the conviction to, as Zeb recommended, “use the phone more”!

UPDATE:

March 14 I talked by telephone with Bob McLean, head of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations meetings on Terminator Technology in Brazil that start next week (March 20).

We had a good talk.  I won’t go into the arguments I presented in the conversation and the counter-arguments.

I did not say, but I understand that there is only so much that can be done by one person in the system.  Bob can do his work to the best of his ability, but we have to do our part, if there is to be a satisfactory outcome on Terminator Technology – herbicide-tolerant seeds with another design feature added:  they’re now sterile, too.  (This is the path our food supply is taking.)

This morning I sent the letter below to ALL the parties who have played a role in terminator technology, for the purpose of bringing them together in effective problem-solving.  The letter places terminator technology in context.  When you understand what has happened, you better understand “their” perceived need to proceed with terminator technology, and you can see that “they” think they are acting in our best interests.  That has to be unveiled.  Terminator is not in the public interest.  The problem is the development of herbicide-tolerant seeds.  If we stop the development of those seeds, there is no need for terminator technology and whatever ghoulish inventions will be necessary to deal with the unforeseen problems created by it.

Hopefully the letter and attachment will provide newcomers with enough background to understand what is going on.  Terminator Technology, if allowed to proceed, will further entrench governance that serves transnational corporate interests.  There are severe implications for our health (the food supply) and for the environment.

In my mind,  the best people to lobby are:    (INSERT:  outdated contact info has been removed)

(1)  Chuck Strahl, Minister Responsible for Dept Agriculture New Westminster, BC

(2)  Parliamentary Secretary to Chuck Strahl David L. Anderson, from Frontier, Saskatchewan Cypress Hills – Grasslands

(3)  Leonard Edwards, Deputy Minister Agriculture

(4)  Rona Ambrose, Minister Responsible for Dept Environment Edmonton-Spruce Grove (Alberta)

(5)  Mark Warawa,  Parliamentary Secretary, Environment, Langley, BC

(6)  Your own Member of Parliament

A phone call is best, email second best.

Effective messages are short (unlike mine!).  Something like:

“Terminator Technology is taking us further down a wrong pathway.  Please support the United Nations Moratorium on terminator technology.  And remove all licensing for these seeds in Canada.  Herbicide-tolerant seeds are the problem to be addressed.  The licensing of these seeds needs to be stopped.”

Your participation brings no results if I don’t join my hand to yours.  My letter will bear no fruit, if others don’t join their hand to mine.

Together we are powerful.

Cheers!

Sandra

======================================

LETTER SENT:  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15 AM:

———

SENT TO:    list at bottom

PURPOSE OF COMMUNICATION:

To connect people who have responsibilities for terminator technology for the purpose of problem-solving.

The office of Chuck Strahl, Minister of Agriculture is the most obvious candidate to co-ordinate the problem-solving.

Dear All,

(1)  I understand that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Dept of Agriculture,  has already licensed terminator seeds.

Request:  François Guimont (613 225 2342), President of the CFIA, responsible for the licensing of crops: will you please confirm this with me?

——-

(2)  RE: Government of Canada negotiating Terminator Technology UN Meetings start next week, March 20, Brazil (Bob McLean, Dept of Environment, is Head of the Canadian Delegation)

INPUT TO PARTIES:

Terminator Technology was a response, the wrong response, to a mistake made by credentialed,  influential authorities and the Governments  – public investment in herbicide tolerant crops.  The chemical/pharmaceutical/biotech corporations are also paying dearly as angry farmers demand they come and pull the plants (weeds) that are resistant to chemicals, out of their fields.  The public is screaming.

Rather than admit the mistake and back out, another gene manipulation is being made to try and correct the problem:  the seeds designed to be tolerant of chemical applications now also carry a “suicide” trait.

The re-design is supposed to correct the earlier design which quickly spread and became a pollutant that is very costly to control – not to mention that citizens are not anxious to have a food supply developed according to the criteria that it be resistant to chemicals (and now it has also to be sterile).  … Our Governments and Universities invested in the development of herbicide-tolerant seeds.  They’re in a hole; instead of climbing out, they are digging in deeper (We have a Problem?  … well then, we’ll make the seeds sterile!  Ha!  Aren’t we brilliant!).

“Correct” responses address the actual problem.  Inappropriate responses to problems are band-aids that temporarily cover over the problem.  Under the band-aid, the wound festers and grows larger.

Terminator Technology is a wrong response to the pollution caused by herbicide-tolerant crops:

–  It will not arrest the development and licensing of seeds designed to be tolerant of herbicide applications.  Alfalfa, grasses, lentils, wheat, canola … the list of herbicide-tolerant plants developed, licensed, in use and waiting to be introduced is long.

–  Nor does Terminator Technology address the problem that due to partnerships between the corporations, the Government, and the Universities, we are totally without effective regulation (protection of the commons).

Seeds are a vital part of the commons, to be carefully guarded and protected to serve the public interest.  With seed development, we have completely lost that function in the Canadian democracy.  The Government is a collaborator in serving corporate interests, to the detriment of the public interest.

 

And then there are the fish (Canadian) that have had growth genes from other species inserted into them, and the pigs (American) with growth genes from human beings.  The fish grow to 6 times the size of normal fish within a year’s time.  Government regulation?  Aaah!  but these fish, too, are designed to be sterile.   “Life Running Out of Control” by Germandocumentary-maker Bertram Verhaag, who I met while he was in Saskatchewan collecting the footage on our experience with gene-altered canola, is an excellent source of information – I recommend it to you.  I myself, might have titled the documentary “Man playing God”.

This is our food supply, guys.  And always it comes back to the fundamental question:  in whose interests?

The industry propaganda extols the virtues of seeds that are resistant to chemicals.  And now the virtue of chemical-resistant, sterile seeds.  The irrefutable evidence is that herbicide-tolerant seeds lead to higher levels of chemical use.  A simple person can figure it out:  more and more plants are resistant to glyphosate (roundup).  You can kill off unwanted plants with an application of glyphosate, but there has to be a follow-up application of 2,4-D to kill the resistant plants.  Is terminator technology the solution?

 

Terminator Technology is a classic example of the functioning of dynamic systems.  You have a system that is out-of-balance (use herbicide-tolerant canola to illustrate).  In order to bring canola back to equilibrium, as with any dynamic system, you have to:

a.  respond to the feedback that something is wrong by taking the APPROPRIATE corrective action to bring the system back to equilibrium,  and b.  do it “in time”.

If you fail on either account, the system falls into further disintegration and eventual collapse.  The classic case used to illustrate this by Jane Jacobs is the Atlantic cod fishery:  the feedback was declining catches.

The response was more money which both maintained and attracted more people to the fishery, which allowed bigger vessels that could go further to sea.

It was the wrong response to the feedback; the cod fishery collapsed, with severe repercussions.  The last time I checked, a number of years ago, the collapse was permanent.  That is characteristic of dynamic systems:  once they go past a certain level of disintegration, they are not retrievable.

Seeds are the basis of our food supply.  First the seeds were engineered so they can be sprayed with chemicals and survive.  Now those seeds have another modification to make them sterile.  Meanwhile the production of herbicide-tolerant plants moves forward – more and more of them are released into the environment.  The base problem is not addressed.  And in whose interests?

Much of the nutrient value is in the germ of a seed;  sterile seeds mean what?

People buy wheat germ to add to their breakfast cereal to compensate for nutrients removed in the milling process (cereal typically has the wheat germ removed to increase the shelf life of the product. The “germ” of the seed will go rancid if not refrigerated.)

What has happened to the germ of the seed, if the seed is sterile?  The health of the population is dependent upon the quality of the available foods.

Do sterile seeds produce pollen?

The problem with answering the question is that most of the research has transnational corporate interest behind it. They expected people to believe the silly things about herbicide tolerant seeds (they can “co-exist” in nature). Such lies have been held forth until they became untenable in an informed and  guffawing public.  Public trust in “the science” and the reassurances have been completely undermined. … The corporations and their collaborators….

I ask you to put your heads together.  Back out of the hole.  Terminator Technology will not correct the actual problems because in no way does it address the problems.  We are on the wrong path.  Your reputations will be saved if you have the courage to acknowledge and address the problem.  I challenge you to find the APPROPRIATE response in a TIMELY fashion.

Many of you have inherited the dilemma from your predecessors.  You don’t have face to save.  You are in a position to assert the public interest.

The CFIA, Department of Agriculture should withdraw all licensing of seeds that have been designed to be resistant to chemical applications and all seeds that have built-in Terminator Technology, also known as

– Technology Protection System (TPS)

– “Suicide seeds”

– genetic seed sterilisation technology (GSST)

– GURTS, Genetic Use Restriction Technologies.

That will address the root of the problem.  Also, the Patent Act needs to be updated.  It applies to mechanical devices.  It was never intended for application to life forms.  To subscribe to the idea that a person or a corporation can legitimately claim ownership over life forms is nuts.

———-

The United Nations negotiations on Terminator Technology are through

– the Department of the Environment.

But the people and institutions behind terminator technology are

– the Departments of Agriculture and

– Health,

– the universities where the biotechnology research is being carried out through partnerships between the Government, the Universities and

– the corrupt chemical/pharmaceutical/biotech complex of companies.

(I have a long list from the public record of the court convictions, etc. against these corporations if people question the choice of words, “corrupt”.)

I am sending this communication to many of the people/institutions that have played a role along the path that led to terminator technology.  (recipients are listed below.)  We all share responsibility for arriving at this place.

It is unfair to target the Department of Environment over Terminator Technology.  It is a shared responsibility.  May we all do our part.  This is mine.

Thanks.

Sandra Finley

————

TO:

Bob McLean

Dept of Environment

Head of the Canadian Delegation

negotiating Terminator Technology

UN Meetings next week, start March 20, Brazil

(819) 997-1303; Robert.Mclean  AT  ec.gc.ca;

(Bob was also head of delegation at the Bangkok round of negotiations)

 

John Karau

Dept of Environment

(John was head at the round of negotiations in Spain.) Biodiversity Convention office john.karau  AT  ec.gc.ca; Phone 819 953 9669

Rona Ambrose,  Minister Responsible for Dept Environment Edmonton-Spruce Grove (Alberta)  (contact info removed)

Deputy Minister, Dept Environment

(Justice Gomery recommended that deputy ministers bear more responsibility for their actions.  Hence their inclusion in this communication.)

Mark Warawa,  Parliamentary Secretary, Environment  Langley, BC  (contact info removed)

——-

NOTE:  I have asked the University of Saskatchewan to re-visit its partnerships with corporations, because of the corruption they create.  My case is well documented, from external sources and from personal experience.

My submission to the Board of Governors is attached.)

———————

University of Saskatchewan

Board of Governors

c/o Lea Pennock, University Secretary

Lea.Pennock  AT  usask.ca; alex.hockley  AT  usask.ca;

Ernie Barber, Dean of Agriculture, U of S ernie.barber  AT  usask.ca;

François Guimont (613 225 2342),  President of the CFIA, (Cdn Food Inspection Agency) responsible for the licensing of crops that are the basis of our food supply. The CFIA is part of Agriculture Canada.  guimontf  AT  inspection.gc.ca;

Stephen Yarrow, director of CFIA’s plant bio-safety office syarrow  AT  inspection.gc.ca;

Chuck Strahl, Minister Responsible for Dept Agriculture New Westminster, BC

Parliamentary Secretary to Chuck Strahl, David L. Anderson, from Frontier, Saskatchewan Cypress Hills – Grasslands

Leonard Edwards, Deputy Minister Agriculture edwardslj  AT  agr.gc.ca; (613) 759 1101

the United Nations moratorium on Terminator c/o Dr. Tewolde (Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher, Ethiopia) African biosafety negotiator esid AT  ethionet.et;

Dr. Hamdallah Zedan, Executive Secretary of the CBD Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety secretariat AT  biodiv.org;

My Member of Parliament

(The University of Saskatchewan is also in his riding) Brad Trost Saskatoon Humboldt

———————–

UN Meeting in Brazil (20-31 March 2006) on Terminator Technology.  This matter requires prompt attention.

 

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

2006-03-03 Monsanto: Request for help from our old friend, Manfred in Germany

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Food, Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Mar 032006
 

Newcomers:

Manfred makes documentaroes for German Public Television.  He worked with us when he was here filming the effects of (at that time) 7 years of Saskatchewan experience with RR (Roundup Resistant) canola.

For a few years he has been looking at Monsanto’s work, and is now asking for assistance.

I am just going to paste together.  Not organized or edited.  Sorry.

Any information or insights you may have will be appreciated.

/Sandra

========================

I received from Ron/Hart and passed this on to Manfred:

Toronto Star

Taking on chemical giant

Feb. 25, 2006. 01:00 AM

CAMERON SMITH

Alfalfa is the next battleground in the fight to control Canada’s agricultural seeds, and so far, Monsanto Canada Inc. is winning.    (Link no longer valid)

=======================================

Received from Kathleen, passed on to Manfred:

Cotton Farmers Sue Monsanto, Others, for Crop Loss

USA: February 27, 2006

KANSAS CITY – More than 90 Texas cotton farmers have sued Monsanto Co and two affiliated companies, claiming they suffered widespread crop losses because Monsanto failed to warn them of a defect in its genetically altered cotton product.

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Marshall, Texas, seeks an injunction against what it calls a “longstanding campaign of deception,” and asks the court to award both actual and punitive damages.

In addition to Monsanto, the suit names Delta & Pine Land Co and Bayer CropScience LP, producers and retailers of Monsanto’s biotech cotton. A Delta & Pine Land spokeswoman said the company had no comment and no one for Bayer, a unit of Bayer AG, returned phone calls seeking comment.

Monsanto, which denies the allegations, wants the complaints removed from the court system and handled through arbitration. About half of the farmers agreed this week to enter into arbitration, but others have not. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Monday in Austin.

The farmers’ essential claim is that Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” cotton did not tolerate applications of Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer as it has been genetically altered to do.

The farmers claim there is evidence that the promoter gene inserted into the cotton seeds in the genetic modification process does not work as designed in extreme high heat and drought conditions, allowing herbicide to eat into plant tissue, leading to boll deformity, shedding and reduced yields.

The plaintiffs claim Monsanto knew this but did not disclose it so the farmers would continue to buy and use Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.

“We feel like Monsanto’s been lying to us all along,” said B B Krenek, a Wharton, Texas cotton consultant who is working with a number of affected farmers.

Monsanto spokesman Andrew Berchet said there is no evidence that anything other than the weather is to blame for the technology that caused the crop losses.

“As far as we can tell this is weather related. The month of June was one of the driest and hottest in more than a century,” said Berchet. “We don’t see evidence that this is related to our product.”

But farmer Alan Stasney said he has evidence in his fields. A strip of cotton four rows across and 3,000 feet long that inadvertently was not treated with Roundup yielded 1,051 pounds of lint per acre at harvest, while on either side of those rows, cotton that was treated with Roundup yielded only 675 pounds per acre.

Stasney said the lost yield cost him more than $250,000 in sales and forced him to refinance his farm.

“It is just a real sad situation,” said Stasney. “There are a lot of people in a world of hurt because of that.”

Story by Carey Gillam

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

===============================================

Manfred’s comments:

this text seems to be a liitle crazy. Farmers sue Monsanto, because the technique doesent work.

This is totally the wrong direction for an environmental sustainable agriculture. Or?

=================================

Received from Allan, Passed along to Manfred:

Near the bottom of this article you will find some good news!

“University of California won a $100 million – plus settlement Monday from agricultural giant Monsanto for patent claims over the hormone used to make cows produce more milk.”

Too bad that the FDA didn’t “step-in” and demand that Monsanto stop producing that hormone but, given the nature of politics in the USA, I suppose that is expecting common sense where none exists….

Allan

—– Original Message —–

From: SiliconValley.com

Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:38 AM

Subject: SiliconValley.com – First Edition

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2006

First Edition

. . . .  The University of California won a $100 million-plus settlement Monday from agricultural giant Monsanto for patent claims over the hormone used to make cows produce more milk.

=================================

THIS IS THE QUESTION:

*****  Hi Sandra,

what I meant was that report (read below)  on Pesticides that Monsantos shareowners wanted to have and as far as I understood Monsantos board refused to hand out.

—————–

Manfred’s question is in relation to this information circulated in our network:

LATEST NEWS

3:30 PM CST Thursday

Monsanto reelects three directors at annual meeting

Monsanto Co.’s shareholders have elected three directors to new terms through 2008 at its annual meeting Thursday.

John Bachmann, senior partner of Edward Jones; William Parfet, chairman and chief executive of MPI Research Inc.; and George Poste, chief executive, health technology networks and director, Arizona Biodesign Institute, were reelected to new terms. Institutional Shareholder Services had recommended a “withhold vote” Parfet and Poste, but the company said in a letter to shareholders it believed the recommendation was based on misguided judgment and urged approval of the two directors.

In addition, shareholders approved the appointment of Deloitte & Touche as the company’s independent auditor and the company’s long-term incentive plan.

Shareholders also rejected four shareholder proposals, including a request that the board review its policies for genetically engineered seed and report to shareowners; that the board provide a report to shareowners regarding pesticides; the adoption of a human rights policy and preparation of a report on the adoption and implementation of the policy; and a proposal regarding animal testing.

St. Louis-based Monsanto Co. (NYSE: MON) develops insect- and herbicide-resistant crops and other agricultural products.

© 2005 American City Business Journals Inc.

http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2005/01/17/daily62.html

 

2006-02-14 and 03-03, Letters to University of Saskatchewan Board of Governors, and Reply received. Request to re-evaluate University’s partnerships with business.

 Food, Genetically Modified, Health, Sustainability, Take back the University, Technology, Trade Deals, PPPs, Integration Canada-U.S.  No Responses »
Feb 142006
 

Two letters to the University are followed by the response received.

(1)    FIRST COMMUNICATION,  February 14, 2006

TO:   University of Saskatchewan Board of Governors,  Members listed below

CC:

  • Pat Atkinson, MLA Saskatoon Nutana, Minister of Advanced Education and Employment
  • Ernie Barber, Dean of Agriculture, U of S
  • Lynne Pearson, Dean of Commerce, U of S

—————————————-

Dear Board Members,

I request that you re-evaluate the University’s partnerships with business.

The Federal Government through Agriculture and Health has partnered with the biotech companies.  So too have universities, including the U of S.

The outcome is predictable:  corruption.  A list of quotes from authorities that make the connection (Galbraith, Soros, Jacobs, Ralston-Saul, Krever, Ho) appears  (See  Thinkers of the Day on the Unholy Alliances between Government (public institutions) and Industry. )

You may also find the well foot-noted article “Science under Siege” helpful – about the undermining of “science” through corporate funding of research.  (Click on 2005-08-05 Science under siege)

Apart from the academic documentation, the egregious example of the corrupting influence of the “partnerships” comes from Canada’s participation in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.  You may know that Canada is host country to the Convention.  Currently there is an international de facto moratorium on Terminator Technology (seeds engineered to be sterile).  Canada has attempted to sabotage the moratorium.

(INSERT:  This has to do with the with-holding of entry visas to Canada, for UN delegates to these UN bio-safety (biological diversity) meetings in Montreal.  Montreal is the permanent site for the UN Bio-safety Protocol;  the delegates attend meetings there occasionally, so they are known people.  To have had their entry visas witheld, to thwart attendance is an abomination.)

The Government’s argument was that the applications for visas weren’t filed in time for the Government to process them.  When I raised the question of the with-holding of entry visas with a responsible Government official I was told that the information which would corroborate the timing of the applications for the visas was personal to the overseas applicant and therefore not available to the public.

I told him that the information might be withheld from Government officials (who might then doubt what they are being told by higher ranking people) but the information is readily available in the public sphere through email networks directly from the scientist(s) and others who were being barred from attending the meetings.

The African scientist, Dr. Tewolde, in particular has been very effective in asserting the public interest and was one for whom the entry visa was originally withheld.  I think it is fairly obvious that the Government of Canada, through its partnerships with Monsanto to develop “Roundup Resistant wheat”, and through the licensing of BASF’s herbicide-tolerant wheat, etc. has acted in the interests of the transnational corporations.  That interest is contrary to the interest represented by the people who were blocked from attending the Montreal meeting.

The actions are reprehensible and serve to demonstrate what happens when corporations are in bed with the Government.  They are also in bed with “credentialed” authorities from what are supposed to be our higher centres of learning.  Details of the Government actions are (at  2006-01-27  Terminator Technology  (GMO))

Participation by the University of Saskatchewan in corporate partnerships has put the reputation of the University in serious jeopardy.

It would be prudent to change course, as difficult as that may be.

Note:  information to make the case is included for you to scroll through.  (2006-04-12  Real-life experience. PPP’s and corruption in action. Government-University-Chemical Biotech.)  The complete package is a serious indictment of where we have allowed ourselves to be taken.

The problem needs to be acknowledged as a first step to finding a way out of the predicament.  I do not expect that you all will make time to sink your teeth in, but a few people will.

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

– – – – – –  – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – – –

COPIES TO:   University of Saskatchewan Board of Governors

Members Ex Officio

  • Peter MacKinnon, President
  • Tom Molloy, Chancellor

Members Appointed by the Government

  • Gail R. Appel
  • Art Dumont
  • Nancy E. Hopkins
  • Garry Standing

Members Elected by the Senate

  • Judy Buzowetsky
  • Gary Carlson

Faculty Member

  • Linda McMullen

Student Member

  • Gavin Gardiner

Secretary to the Board

  • Lea Pennock, University Secretary

Resource Officers

  • Michael Atkinson, Provost & Vice-President (Academic)
  • Paul Becker, Associate Vice-President (Facilities Management)
  • Barb Daigle, Associate Vice-President (Human Resources)
  • Steven Franklin, Vice-President (Research)
  • Laura Kennedy, Associate Vice-President (Finance & Resources & Controller)
  • Heather Magotiaux, Vice-President, University Advancement
  • Richard Florizone, Vice-President (Finance & Resources)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

(2)   LETTER # 2

SENT:  March 3, 2006

TO:   University Secretary  Lea Pennock

Dear Lea,

The light went on … AFTER I made the submissions for the Board of Governors.

The package of information I submitted, to make the case for re-consideration of the relationships between the University and corporations, is information from other authorities.

But I have personal experience which speaks loudly to “Egregious example of “partnerships” outcome”.

If I am invited to make a verbal presentation, my personal experience would be appropriate reinforcement of the need to re-evaluate public partnerships with business.

When I objected to a Government of Canada scientist who works on the University grounds taking significant amounts of money from the industry his Department is responsible for regulating, I received a letter from a lawyer threatening to sue me.

Copies of the

  • letter from the lawyer
  • my response to the lawyer
  • Saskatoon Star Phoenix front page report of the incident

tell the story.  (INSERT:  Click on  2004-04-10  Tom Wolf, Health Canada scientist threatens to sue me. Response – the mafia uses threat of broken bones.)

A verbal presentation could actually be just my fielding of any questions arising out of the documents.

My experience is damning and reinforces the critics of today’s “science” and public-private-partnerships.

We have a very weak democracy as a consequence of these partnerships.

Anytime a Government employee and member of the University community uses intimidation tactics to silence legitimate citizen protest, and no steps are taken to address the situation, we are in deep doo-doo.  I have submitted the documents to various bodies and people in Government to no effect (one example is the Standing Committee on Health).

Corruption is a symptom of the failure to maintain separation between the commercial and guardian (governing) roles in the society.  We have escalating corruption in Canada.  It is well past the time for appropriate corrective action.

I don’t know how you want to handle this, Lea.

Sorry I didn’t think to include this in the original package of information.

Yours truly,

Sandra (Finley)

= = = = = = = = =  = = = = =  == = = = =

(3)   REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE UNIVERSITY

Fri 07/04/2006 3:36 PM

SUBJECT:  Your letters to the Board of Governors

Dear Ms. Finley:

The Board of Governors of the University of Saskatchewan met on March 31, 2006.  The Board’s agenda included your e-mail correspondence of February 14 and of March 3, and your offer to come and present material on the subject of corporatization.

The Board asked me to thank you for raising this matter, and to assure you that the Board recognizes the potential for conflicts of interest in conducting research, and treats such issues very seriously.  They also asked me to let you know that the Board does not hear presentations from external interests, but that it does from time to time invite presentations from its Research Office about the protocols and safeguards that are in place to protect independence of research and to guard against conflict of interest in corporate partnerships.  It is of course very much part of the Board’s ongoing role to ensure that the University’s autonomy and integrity is protected.

The Board also asked that further correspondence from you be referred to the administration for their response as appropriate.

With thanks for your interest in the University of Saskatchewan,

Lea Pennock

2006-01-30 ACTION REQUEST SERIOUS: Protection of seed stocks (food supply). Terminator Technology. Tewolde affair (bio-diversity)

 Food, Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Jan 302006
 

“Suicide seeds” are now coming through the back door?  (genetic seed sterilisation technology  also known as Terminator Technology, also known as GURTS – Genetic Use Restriction Technologies)

Could you send One email?  Or make One phone call?  It’s easy enough to stop this.

Seeds are the basis of our food supply.  We will be eating food that has been engineered to be sterile – unless we create a critical mass, large enough to persuade the Government to support a 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.

We forced them to back down in Bangkok last year.  We embarrassed them into granting (belatedly) an entry visa to Dr. Tewolde.  We can once again cause the right action to take place.

Background informaion is included for those new to our network.  Cheers!

——————————–

 

CONTENTS

(1)   COMMENTS

(2)   RECENT MEETING IN SPAIN, TERMINATOR BAN UNDERMINED (UN CONVENTION ON BIO-DIVERSITY)

(3)   NOTES FROM TERRY PUGH (NFU – NATIONAL FARMERS UNION)

(4)   SEND YOUR OBJECTIONS TO JOHN KARAU, HEAD OF CANADIAN DELEGATION

(5)   NOTES ON PHONE CONVERSATION WITH KARAU’S OFFICE

(6)   NORWAY SETS UP COLD STORAGE SEED BANK TO GUARD AGAINST LOSS OF SEED MATERIAL  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=9456

(7)   OTHERS WHO WILL BE INTERESTED, PLEASE LET THEM KNOW

(8)   LETTER FROM MARC LOISELLE TO JOHN KARAU

(9)   EXPLANATION OF UN CONVENTION ON BIO-DIVERSITY BY PAUL BEINGESSNER;  INCLUDES THE DR. TEWOLDE AFFAIR

(10)  THE UN MEETINGS IN BANGKOK, FEB 2005.  Canada’s instructions to its negotiators regarding international moratorium on genetic seed sterilisation technology

(11)  CONNECTIONS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND BIOTECH “CLIENTS”, FROM LETTER TO STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, JUNE 5, 2005

(12)  FOR MORE INFORMATION

=======================================

 

(1)  COMMENTS

 

Feel – we are part of a swell on the seething sea of humanity. We rise, fall back and rise again to wash away that which is not good.

This letter to Environment Canada provides commentary:

 

FROM:  Sandra Finley

(1)  TO:

John Karau, Director

Biodiversity Convention office

(john.karau@ec.gc.ca)  Phone 819-953-9669

 

(2)  Separate email sent to Timothy J Hodges,

Associate Director,

Access and Benefit Sharing,

Environment Canada,

Biodiversity Convention Office,

tim.hodges@ec.gc.ca

 

(I would like to CC:  Prime Minister Stephen Harper but when I phone the Govt I am told there isn’t an email address yet, until the swearing in on Feb 6 when the new Govt takes over.)

 

———————

 

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 sterilisation 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.

– 30 –

Contact:  Terry Boehm, NFU Vice-President (306) 255-2880

Colleen Ross, NFU Women’s President (613) 652-1552

Terry Pugh, NFU Executive-Secretary (306) 652-9465

===========================================

 

(3)   NOTES FROM TERRY PUGH (NFU – NATIONAL FARMERS UNION)

Hi Sandra,

It is apparent that letters to the federal government and the Canadian delegation at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meetings do make a difference – so we need to continue (addresses below).

The Canadian government strategy was much more low-key than last year (“the Bangkok meeting”).  Australia and New Zealand were the leaders at this meeting. Australian delegates stated they had clear instructions to remove reference to the precautionary approach and to insert language on a “case by case assessment”  (This language of “case-by-case assessment” is how the Canadian government describes its regulation of genetically engineered products and is a way of moving the issue of Terminator from a moratorium to the stage of national regulation-approval). The actions of the Australian negotiators confirmed that they, with New Zealand and Canada, have a clear strategy to win approval of Terminator Technology and that the UN meeting March 20-31 in Brazil of the CBD (Convention on Bio-Diversity) will be critical to the future of Terminator.

Canadians need to maintain and increase pressure on our government as we head to the UN meeting March 20-31. Canadians are asked to write to PM Harper and their MPs. The new Conservative Government must take a clear position against Terminator and abandon the Liberal Party position of neither promoting or opposing Terminator. This is really important now because Australia and New Zealand (with assistance from the US) will try very hard to undermine the moratorium in March – and they will want the Canadian government’s help to do this.

=======================================

 

(4)   SEND YOUR OBJECTIONS TO JOHN KARAU, HEAD OF CANADIAN DELEGATION AND TO PRIME MINISTER

Postcards addressed to the Prime Minister are available for distribution in communities: to obtain postcards, please e-mail sarah.banterminator@sympatico.ca

(INSERT:  Sandra – It is of course hard to reach MP’s in this transitional stage of new Government.  It will be easier after they are sworn in on Feb 6.  Even then they will be busy learning the ropes.  I will mark my calendar for mid-Feb to start EMAIL communications with our MP’s and the Prime Minister about Terminator Technology, in time for the March 20 meetings in Brazil.  The postcards and letters to Parliament are, and should go ahead now.)

Letters can be sent to:

Mr. John Karau, Director

Biodiversity Convention office

Environment Canada

351 St. Joseph Boulevard, 9th Floor

Place Vincent Massey

Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3

Phone 819-953-9669

Fax 819-953-1765

E-mail: john.karau@ec.gc.ca

 

Cc:  Prime Minister Stephen Harper

80 Wellington Street

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0A2

 

Cheers,

Terry Pugh  (NFU)

===========================================

 

(5)   NOTES ON PHONE CONVERSATION WITH KARAU’S OFFICE

 

PHONE CONVERSATION

Monday, Jan 30, 819-953-9669, Office of John Karau, Director

Biodiversity Convention office:

(Note: this is Environment Canada but Agriculture Canada is behind the seed development.  The Cdn Food Inspection Agency will be responsible for licensing.)

The receptionist advised that EVERYONE who deals with the Bio-Diversity Convention is at the meetings in Spain and will not return until next week.

I asked if there was someone in Agriculture Canada who was connected and with whom I could speak, but she doesn’t know.

I explained that I am from an agricultural background and have an interest in how our food supply is being developed.  I do not like what the Federal Govt is doing.  I asked whether John Karau would likely be kept on as Director of the Biodiversity Convention office under the new Government?

She does not know.  I asked how am I to communicate the reasons for my objections?  She energetically assured me that all the communications that have been coming into John Karau are being forwarded to Granada (Spain) as they come in.

======================================

 

(6)   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.   Go to http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=9456

=======================================

 

(7)   OTHERS WHO WILL BE INTERESTED, PLEASE LET THEM KNOW

Interested in food?  Agriculture?  The right of farmers to own seeds?

GMO’s?  Health?  Issues of governance?  Environment?  Bio-Diversity?  the

Future?  …  we need critical mass.  Pass this email along.  That simple

act will increase the likelihood of reaching “the tipping point”, to change

the path we’re on.

==============================================

 

(8)  LETTER FROM MARC LOISELLE TO JOHN KARAU

 

URGENT ACTION today – Ban Terminator Seeds

From: Marc Loiselle

Date: Jan 25 2006

 

As the forwarded letter email alerts, today is the last and ideal day to reach the head of the Canadian g’ment delegation to the UN meetings in Spain to urge him to stop pushing for acceptance of Terminator technology. See our own letter below as an example for you to use.  Do not delay; this is important. (I would still send a letter after today regardless, due to the importance of this!

Email to john.karau@ec.gc.ca mailto:john.karau@ec.gc.ca

Marc & Anita

————————————————————————–

Mr. Karau,

 

As Director, Biodiversity Convention Office, Environment Canada and head of the Canadian Government delegation to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity Working Group on Article 8(j) in Granada, Spain, we urge you to stop pushing for acceptance of Terminator/GURTs.

We demand that you and the other Canadian officials act to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples and farmers to save and breed seeds; not the opposite!

We demand that Canada acknowledge that the serious negative impacts of Terminator on traditional knowledge, Indigenous peoples and farmers in Canada and around the world requires a _*ban*_ on the technology!

Terminator/GURTs is a technology of genetic engineering that is designed by the multinational seed industry and the United States Department of Agriculture to render seeds sterile at harvest, thus preventing farmers from saving and re-using seed, forcing them to return to corporations to buy seed every season. This  predatory strategy is widely condemned by scientific bodies, international development experts, Indigenous peoples, and farmer and civil society organizations because it threatens livelihoods, food security, and agricultural biodiversity. As farmers we recognize the very real threat that this technology poses for our own seed and food production.

 

Terminator/GURTs would interrupt Indigenous and farmer seed saving and seed exchange, and thereby have important impacts on the practice and retention of traditional knowledge that, in turn, supports food sovereignty, self-determination, cultural and spiritual practices, and the protection of biodiversity around the world.

 

Terminator is a biosafety hazard as these seeds could be unintentionally introduced into communities through seed markets or humanitarian food aid. We have seen this happen already with GE corn spreading unwanted in Mexico. Terminator genes can also escape through pollen flow in the first generation, passing sterility genes to related (open pollinated) crops nearby.

 

We demand better from our government officials than to be a mouthpiece for corporate promotion of Terminator/GURTs technology and to sell out to American and multinational interests that do not have the common good of all citizens at heart.

 

Sincerely,

 

Marc & Anita Loiselle

 

Marc Loiselle

Communications & Research Director,

Organic Agriculture Protection Fund (OAPF),

‘To preserve and protect certified organic food and fibre production’

Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD)

http://www.saskorganic.com

 

================================================

 

(9)  EXPLANATION OF UN CONVENTION ON BIO-DIVERSITY BY PAUL BEINGESSNER;

INCLUDES THE DR. TEWOLDE AFFAIR  (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. 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. … ”

===============================

 

(10) THE UN MEETINGS IN BANGKOK, FEB 2005

 

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.”

 

==================================

 

(11)  CONNECTIONS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND BIOTECH “CLIENTS”,  FROM LETTER TO STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, JUNE 5, 2005

 

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

 

==================================

 

(12)  FOR MORE INFORMATION

 

The Organic Consumers web-site has good information.  This is an American site.  Look at those nice references to the Canadian role in Terminator Technology!

http://www.organicconsumers.org/un.htm

CREATING A SAFER GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

 

FEBRUARY:   The OCA informed you of new efforts by the biotech industry to legalize the “Terminator” gene, an experimental genetic engineering (GE) technique that makes plant seeds sterile. The technology would benefit GE seed producers by forcing farmers to purchase new seeds every year, but scientists are deeply concerned about what could happen if this experimental “suicide” trait spread from crops into wild plants via pollen drift. Thanks in part to your deluge of emails to the United Nations, those efforts by the biotech industry were stopped, and the terminator has been (at least temporarily) terminated. http://www.organicconsumers.org/un.htm

 

2006-01-27 Terminator Technology (GMO), UN Convention on Bio-diversity, Dr. Tewolde affair, (Norway) Spitsbergen seed bank

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Food, Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Jan 272006
 

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

  1. COMMENTS
  2. RECENT MEETING IN SPAIN, TERMINATOR BAN UNDERMINED (UN CONVENTION ON BIO-DIVERSITY)
  3. NORWAY SETS UP COLD STORAGE SEED BANK TO GUARD AGAINST LOSS OF SEED MATERIAL
  4. EXPLANATION OF UN CONVENTION ON BIO-DIVERSITY BY PAUL BEINGESSNER; INCLUDES THE DR. TEWOLDE AFFAIR,  WESTERN PRODUCER
  5. THE UN MEETINGS IN BANGKOK, FEB 2005   Canada’s instructions to its negotiators regarding international moratorium on genetic seed sterilisation technology
  6. 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

 

2006-01-12 GMO: Spitzbergen. Svalbard Global Seed Vault. Norway sets up cold storage seed bank to guard against loss of seed material

 Food, Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Jan 122006
 

NOTE:

 

  • I am quite sure that the video “Life Running Out of Control” has footage from Spitzbergen (prior to Monsanto’s involvement).

 

Stowing seeds for disaster

Norway to create super-cold storage vault of edible plant life

Page A1,  Special to The Globe and 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.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries