The Battles

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

Awesome things happening.

You are truly a wonderful group of people!  I am indeed fortunate to work with you.

I believe our grand children will benefit.  On their behalf, “Tussen takk”, a thousand thanks as the Norwegians say.

CONTENTS    (YOU DON’T HAVE TO READ EVERYTHING!)

(1)  IMPACT ON FARMERS:  Thanks to Brent.  One short paragraph.

(2)  EXTENT TO WHICH HERBICIDE TOLERANT WHEAT IS ALREADY “OUT THERE”:  Thanks to Kerry.

(3)  TO REGISTER YOUR INPUT TO THE GOVERNMENT

(4)  ANCIENT GENETIC TRICKS SHAPE UP WHEAT:  Thanks to Elaine

(5)  LETTER-TO-EDITOR  (What I write is not “mine”.  It is an amalgamation of input from many people and authors.  I can’t always attribute sources, especially not in 298 words.  Anybody is free to cut, copy, paste and use as they see fit, with their own name on it.)

(6)  CARRY FORWARD OF INFO FROM EARLIER EMAIL “DO YOU EAT BREAD?

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

(1)  IMPACT ON FARMERS:  Thanks to Brent

“BASF Clearfield wheat is herbicide tolerant to the chemical Odyssey [imazamox and imazethapyr]. A concoction that sounds good enough to drink.

Haha. Aside from the poison, and the public issue of GMO, the issue for me as a farmer and a pulse crop grower is that we use this chemical effectivly on a variety of pulse crops. We do not need wheat weeds resistant to it showing up in our pulse fields.”

I used Brent’s words in letter to Mark Wartman, Minister of Agriculture: the Government of Saskatchewan should be speaking out.

Also in Letter-to-Editor to rebutt news report:  “this high-tech wheat has avoided the wrath of farmers, environmentalists, consumers and marketers who drove Monsanto’s herbicide tolerant wheat out of Canada in 2004.”  Will see if the letter gets printed.

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

(2)  EXTENT TO WHICH HERBICIDE TOLERANT WHEAT IS ALREADY “OUT THERE”:

Thanks to Kerry.

“I’m afraid BASF was not the first to get its foot in the door. Cynamid Crop Protections submitted SWP 965001 (Imidazolinone-tolerant) to CFIA and it was approved for “unconfined release into the environment” on March 3, 1998.

It was followed by 3 Imidazolinone-tolerant varieties submitted by BASF :

AP602CL ( approved March 20, 2003 but “not intended for cultivation in Canada”); AP205CL (approved June 11, 2004) and Teal 11a (June 24, 2004). All were approved for unconfined release but only Teal 11a did not have the caveat – “not intended for cultivation in Canada”. Therefore assume that Teal 11a is being grown.

It is not clear why CFIA went through the environmental review process for the other varieties if they were not intended for cultivation.

One of the main criteria was whether these mutagenic varities had the potential for becoming weeds and it was deduced that since wheat is primarily self-pollinated, and had no wild or weedy relatives in North America, it had low potential for spreading. Nevertheless, the first approval for Cyanimid’s product came with the following caveat ( not appended to BASF’s approval).

(INSERT:  Sandra – seeds fall off trucks ??  The RR Canola experience – by 2 or 3 years ago, 85% of the seed stocks were contaminated with herbicide tolerant seeds??)

NOTE: A longer term concern, should there be general adoption of several different crop/specific herbicide weed management systems, is the potential development of crop volunteers with a combination of novel resistances to different herbicides. This could result in the loss of the use of these herbicides and any of their potential benefits. Therefore, agricultural extension personnel, in both the private and public sectors, should promote careful management practices for growers who use these herbicide tolerant crops, to minimize the development of multiple resistance.

CFIA also conducted nutritional tests and found that except for a couple of significant differences (e.g. lower thiamine content) these varieties did not differ from similar cultivars.

I might add here that the taste and quality of wheat has already been bred out of it. There’s a young baker here in Victoria who has gone back to the old Red Fife because of its superior flavour and quality but has a difficult time finding supplies. (That organic wheat farmer on your network provides him some.)

Anyway, I hate to say it, but Cyanimid beat out BASF. The precedent is set.

The cat’s out of the bag. Pandora is outa the Box. Save your breath.

You might ask why the earlier caveat was dropped, or why the agency bothers with the charade of approving varieties that are not intended for cultivation in the first place ( red herrings ?).”

————

(INSERT:  Sandra – Christie’s Bakery here in Saskatoon is also making bread from Red Fife.  I will try and put together info concerning relationships between incidence of allergies (gluten intolerance, celiac disease) to wheat of two types:

(1) early varieties such as Red Fife and then the even earlier kamut and spelt

(2)  current varieties.

Anecdotal evidence says that people who can’t eat wheat have no problems with old varieties.  The most recent I have heard is of a couple who worked in Kenya for 4 years.  At home here in Canada he had to eliminate wheat from his diet.  (Which is common, unfortunately)  He ate local varieties of wheat while in Africa with no problem.  We have had a long line of crop development based on yield, disease resistance and high gluten content (what the bakers want and what Canadian wheat is known for).  I think there is beginning to be research to see whether the anecdotal info has substance.

Unfortunately this is research “in the public interest” and much more difficult to find funding for.)

Boy!  makes you wonder how the Govt can in good conscience say “Canadian Food Inspection Agency Accepting Comments on Submission for Approval and Release of Herbicide Tolerant Wheat” with Jan 7, 2006 deadline.  Perhaps they just want to give us this opportunity to hammer them?  Are they a bunch of masochists?

My thinking is that the deadline (Jan 7) for input to the Govt should be ignored.  They intentionally schedule these things over the Christmas holidays (did the same thing to us last year;  the shouts of “foul play” seem to have fallen on deaf ears or they have memory deficits).  Forget the rules if they so blatantly engage in abuse-of-process.

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

(3)  TO REGISTER YOUR INPUT TO THE GOVERNMENT

ACTION:   If you prefer that your bread be designed to be nutritious:

(instructions for submitting input no longer valid – deleted)

– “I do not want my food supply developed by the criterion that it be resistant to chemicals.”

– “Herbicide tolerant wheat should be banned.  It will lead to dramatic increases in the amount of chemicals in the environment.”

– “This process is a sham because the CFIA has already licensed herbicide tolerant wheat.”

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

(4)  THANKS TO ELAINE:  ANCIENT GENETIC TRICKS SHAPE UP WHEAT

<http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060102/full/060102-2.html>http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060102/full/060102-2.html

Published online: 3 January 2006; | doi:10.1038/news060102-2

Ancient genetic tricks shape up wheat

Turning back the evolutionary clock offers better crops for dry regions.

Tom Simonite

By re-enacting an evolutionary event that happened to wheat thousands of years ago, researchers are producing new plant varieties that could save lives in regions where drought causes food shortages.

Bread wheat (Triticum aestivum), a staple food for millions of people around the world, is the product of two rare genetic events that happened during the Stone Age in a region of the Middle East known as the ‘fertile crescent’.

Two different species can’t usually breed to produce hybrid offspring, because their chromosomes don’t match and can’t pair properly during the process that produces sex cells such as eggs and sperm. But sometimes a genetic blip can produce sex cells with double the normal number of chromosomes, side-stepping the problem. If two sex cells of this type combine, a whole new fertile species with double the number of chromosomes is produced.

Doubling up

This rare ‘duplication followed by fertilization’ event has happened twice in the history of modern, common wheat. Around 30,000 years ago, a wild wheat (Triticum monococcum) hybridized with a species of goat grass (Aegilops speltoides) to generate primitive wheat called emmer, which had four sets of chromosomes. Then about 9,000 years ago, emmer wheat grown south of the Caspian Sea crossed with another wild goat grass (Aegilops

tauschii) to produce a plant with six sets of chromosomes.

This hybrid had larger seeds than its ancestors, thanks to the bonus chromosomes, and so became a popular breed for early farmers. The descendents of these plants now cover more farmland globally than any other crop, filling more than 500 million acres worldwide.

But this genetic triumph came with a downside: the wheat was so popular that no one farmed anything else, leading to a very low genetic diversity and limiting the options for plant breeders hoping to develop varieties resistant to drought or pests. To counter this, researchers at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in Mexico have developed a way to top up bread wheat’s shallow gene pool.

Something old, something new

“We’ve been re-enacting in the lab what took place in nature nine thousand years ago,” says Richard Trethowan, a specialist in wheat breeding at CIMMYT. Researchers collected wild goat grass from the Middle East and crossed it with modern versions of emmer wheat to create bread wheat all over again. They used chemicals in the lab to induce the rare chromosome doubling that makes hybrids fertile.

The technique helps to introduce new genes in the same way as genetic engineering, but without requiring the researchers to know which genes they are on the lookout for beforehand.

The new bread wheats are not themselves suitable for farming, since most of the new hybrids have qualities that are more advantageous to grasses than to wheat. “They’re ugly things,” says Trethowan. But he adds that it is easy to use traditional breeding methods to get the few useful genes into common bread wheat strains.

Food for thought

The genetic input has allowed improvements to wheat’s drought resistance, for example. One wheat strain developed by the team produces between 20 and 40% more grain under dry conditions than traditional bread wheat, the researchers told an international symposium of plant breeders in December.

CIMMYT has sent seeds produced by the research out to centres worldwide for local testing and development, and initial results have been promising.

Farmers in Ecuador are racing to switch to one test strain that significantly outperforms the established local wheat, Trethowan says. He predicts that in five or six years time the new genes found by reinventing wheat will be dramatically improving yields everywhere. “We’re on the brink of quite a big genetic revolution for wheat breeding,” says Trethowan.

John Snape, a cereal geneticist at the John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK, adds that rich countries will probably benefit from this revolution too. “It is likely that climates in Europe will get hotter and drier thanks to climate change, and this will put new stresses on crops,” he says. One fungal wheat disease, Fusarium head blight, has already started to plague European fields thanks to warmer, more humid summers, he points out. “Being able to reach out into wild species for new genes to tackle these problems is very valuable,” he says.

©2006 Nature Publishing Group

NOTICE:  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only.

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

(5)  LETTER-TO-EDITOR

LETTER TO EDITOR.  I USED INPUT FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE.  IT’S NOT “MINE”.

ANYONE IS FREE TO USE.

IT IS IN RESPONSE TO NEWSPAPER ARTICLE AT BOTTOM.

Dear Editor,

RE:

Modified wheat taking root

By Margaret Munro

CanWest News Service

Margaret writes:  “this high-tech wheat has avoided the wrath of farmers, environmentalists, consumers and marketers who drove Monsanto’s herbicide tolerant wheat out of Canada in 2004.”

There is great protest against BASF’s herbicide tolerant wheat. From internet:

–  “Do you eat bread? Yummy! More of your bread will be designed to be resistant to chemicals if BASF has its way.”

–  “BASF Clearfield wheat is herbicide tolerant to the chemical Odyssey [imazamox and imazethapyr]. A concoction that sounds good enough to drink.

Haha. Aside from the poison, and the public issue of GMO, the issue for me as a farmer and a pulse crop grower is that we use this chemical effectivly on a variety of pulse crops. We do not need wheat weeds resistant to it showing up in our pulse fields.”

– “Unequivocally, seeds developed to be resistant to chemicals cause increase in amount of chemicals in environment.  There are more acres of wheat in Canada than any other crop.  To make this crop tolerant of chemicals will lead to dramatic increase in chems. The herbicide-resistant plants become weeds. Typically, glyphosate applications are now followed by 2,4D. We are knowingly – stupidly – setting up vicious circle of increased use.”

The Feds know that Canadians do not want their food supply developed by the criterion that it be resistant to chemicals, nor a food supply dictated by corporate interests.  The outrage over Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Wheat caused Monsanto to withdraw its application and told the Government everything it needs to know.  (RR wheat was developed through matched research funding from the Government.)

The Government invites public participation in the decision to license BASF’s herbicide tolerant wheat (deadline January 7, right after the holidays).  But as Margaret’s article points out, herbicide tolerant wheat is already being grown.

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

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

(6)  CARRY FORWARD OF INFO FROM EARLIER EMAIL “DO YOU EAT BREAD?

herbicide tolerant wheat is back on.  If it goes thru there will be more agricultural chemicals in the environment.  run-off into water supply.

Aside from question of the criteria being used to develop our food supply.

People should be aware.  See “action”  – takes 1 minute to register opposition.  You may have colleagues who will be interested.  The medical profession will be guaranteed escalating numbers of diseased patients if this is allowed to progress.

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

ISSUES:

–  unequivocally, seeds that are developed to be resistant to chemicals bring about a substantial increase in the amount of chemicals in the environment.  There are more acres of wheat in Canada than any other crop.

To make this crop tolerant of chemical applications will lead to a DRAMATIC increase in the use of, not only more chemicals, but necessarily MORE TOXIC chemicals.  Using Roundup Resistant Canola, glyphosate applications now have to be followed up by applications of 2,4D.  The glyphosate-resistant plants become weeds.  We are knowingly setting up a vicious circle of increased chemical use, of ever more toxic chemicals.

–  people used to be able to eat wheat products without allergic reactions.

This is no longer true.  Seeds have been developed according to criteria that do not take into full account the impacts on health.

–  IN WHOSE INTERESTS?  Wheat is a basic in our food system.  To develop wheat by the criterion that it be resistant to chemicals is to ignore the public interest in favour of, in this case, the chemical company BASF.

–  the OWNERSHIP of seeds.  Seeds are part of the commons.  These companies are attempting to “own” part of the commons, a very dangerous precedent.

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

BASF is a chemical company that develops seeds.  BASF is smarter than Monsanto.  Everyone knows Monsanto, its product “Roundup”, its transgenic RR Wheat, attempted ownership of seed, court case against Percy Schmeiser, attempted bribery of Health Canada officials over bovine growth hormone,

$700 million dollar fine in Alabama over its (knowingly) poisoning of a community, etc.

BASF keeps its name and product names separated one from the other.  It effectively avoids publicity.  Brent writes:  “BASF Clearfield wheat is herbicide tolerant to the chemical Odyssey [imazamox and imazethapyr]. A concoction that sounds good enough to drink .Haha. Aside from the poison, the public issue of GMO, the issue for me as a farmer and a pulse crop grower is that we use this chemical effectivly on a variety of pulse crops.

We do not need wheat weeds resistant to it showing up in our pulse fields.”

François Guimont (613 225-2342) is 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.

You might say that the public consultation is meaningless, except to create illusions (given what is already licensed).  But it is also an opportunity:

first to let more people know what’s going on and second, the purpose of registering your input is to bring about a halt to what’s going on.  There are enough people in “the networks” to bring about change.  (It’s also a healthy way to deal with anger!!!)

Stephen Yarrow, director of CFIA’s plant bio-safety office is quoted in the newspaper article.  He is the same person I had a lengthy conversation with, in opposition to this BASF wheat.

For newcomers I have attached notes on the appalling efforts by Canada to sabotage debate at the international bio-safety meetings:

MAY 2005,  THE DR. TEWOLDE AFFAIR:  CANADA HOST TO INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON BIO DIVERSITY, DENIES ENTRY TO SCIENTISTS WHO ARE KNOWN TO BE EFFECTIVE IN PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL (BIO SAFETY) INTERESTS

—————————————-

PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO:

–  anyone who makes cakes or cookies or pie or bread

–  anyone who owns a bread maker

–  nutritionists

–  people who suffer from celiac disease (gluten intolerance), they might have a word to say

–  anyone who uses flour or who buys bread

–  bakeries and flour mills and restaurants

–  Tim Horton Donut owners and workers

–  farmers and farm organizations

–  anyone who uses wheat in any way

–  who else?

= = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = =

Canadian Food Inspection Agency Accepting Comments on Submission for Approval and Release of Herbicide Tolerant Wheat

November 8, 2005   Deadline Jan 7, 2006.

Biotechnology Notices of Submission Project – Wheat (ALS1b) which has been bred for herbicide tolerance  (URL no longer valid)

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

BACKGROUND

In 2003-04 we and others each put months of volunteer time into the battle to stop the introduction of herbicide-tolerant wheat (Monsanto’s roundup resistant (RR)wheat).  Thousands of people and many organizations from Canada and other countries joined hands in the effort.  The Government of Canada was/is a joint-developer with Monsanto of seeds developed to be resistant to chemicals.  Under the storm of protest, Monsanto announced that it was withdrawing its application for licensing.  (Licensing is through the CFIA, part of Agriculture Canada.) The Government didn’t have to take a stand.  (It is conceivable that the Govt had a role in persuading its partner to withdraw the application.)

Here it is back again, this time from the chemical company BASF (not Monsanto).

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

Sent from website,  (URL no longer valid)   on or about Dec 3, 2005:

FROM:   Sandra Finley  (contact info)

TO:  François Guimont, President of the CFIA

(INSERT:  I have modified somewhat, a slight improvement to eliminate some of the duplication in original letter.)

By the thousands, Canadians have told you that we do not want our food supply developed by the criterion that it be resistant to chemicals.  Our food supply is to be developed according to the criterion:

–   is the seed more nutritious than other varieties (of wheat, in this example)?  Does it make a positive contribution to the nutritional value of our food supply?

We fought for months and months to put a stop to herbicide-resistant wheat developed jointly by Monsanto and the Government of Canada.  Now here it is back again, only this time from BASF.

The purpose of the Government and its Legislation is to defend THE COMMONS.

Seeds are an essential part of the commons; they form the basis of our food supply. The CRITERIA NOT USED are more important than the CRITERIA CURRENTLY IN USE in the development of our food supply.  It is the RESPONSIBILITY of ANYONE who is tampering with the food supply (seeds or fish) to use appropriate selection criteria.

You have 4 issues to address:

–   GOVERNANCE. In whose interest are these undertakings?

–    HEALTH. Our food supply. Health is dependent upon food supply. It is well documented that the nutritional value of food has significantly declined over the last 50 years. That does not bode well for public health. There is a connection between our food supply, escalating disease rates, allergy rates (health) and medicare costs.  Before any seed or fish is released into the environment or licensed for use: is the nutritional value superior to that of hallmark original varieties? If the seed (food) does not make an improved positive contribution to the value of the food, therefore to the health of the citizens, it will not be licensed for use.

–   NUTRITIONAL VALUE, TASTE: Food that contributes to the healthfulness of the citizens must be appetizing, or it will be shunned in spite of its nutritive value. SO: What is the taste performance of the proposed seed: it must at least be as tasty as hallmark original varieties.

–   ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: will it perform like an “introduced or invader species” such as wild oats, purple loosestrife or zebra mussels? If so, it will not be licensed. Anyone who releases such organisms into the environment must pay the “external costs” of eradication.  Introduced species do not have enemies. They proliferate and become weeds (or exterminators of indigenous populations).  Common sense, science and experience ALL reinforce the fact that crops engineered to be resistant to chemicals bring about an increase in the use of chemicals.  Who pays the costs?  Do you know how many millions and millions of dollars are spent, year after year, to try and control wild oats (an introduced species)?  Do YOU pay for it?

Farmers now apply a round of glyphosate to kill the plants they don’t want, and then turn around and apply 2-4D to kill the plants that are resistant to the glyphosate. We have 10 years of experience with RR canola which is now a weed growing in shelter-belts, gardens and in other unwanted places. Roundup won’t kill it.  You, the CFIA, have no credibility here.

– OWNERSHIP OF LIFE FORMS.  The Patent Act was never meant to apply to life forms.  It was intended to cover mechanical devices.  In at least 4 different places in the Schmeiser decision the Supreme Court of Canada told the Government that the legislation had to be changed.  Has that been done?

The earlier “Harvard Mouse” decision also pointed out to the Government that the Patent Act required an update.  Has it been done?  Have YOU, François Guimont, done anything to insist that the Patent Act be changed?  Whose interests do you serve?

Transnational corporate interests more and more determine the food that is grown. They do not develop seed using the selection criteria of nutritional value.  And they attempt to appropriate that which belongs to the commons.

You, the CFIA, are party to the attempted appropriation.

The Government almost shut down a whole industry (cattle) when it was suspected that just ONE INDIVIDUAL’s food production might be injurious to the public good (health).  What do you do when it is suspected that crops developed with the criterion that they be resistant to chemicals, crops that serve a corporate interest, might not be in the public interest?

The health of the population, and therefore medicare costs, are dependent upon the nutritional value of our food supply.

According to a Globe and Mail report, the nutrition found in fruits, vegetables, and other food crops has declined significantly since the 1950’s.  That is YOUR responsibility.

CRITERIA USED:

The licensing process for new varieties of wheat, barley, oats, etc. uses criteria such as disease resistance, yield, and now, resistance to chemical applications.

CRITERIA NOT USED:

nutritional value, taste, impact on environment, contribution to the common good.

Plant Breeders do not have Rights.  They have RESPONSIBILITIES.

Regarding the COMMON GOOD: WHOSE INTERESTS ARE YOU SERVING? THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT.

Visionaries implemented a seed development process in Canada which used public money for the common good (e.g. Agriculture Canada Research Stations and scientists). They understood that allowing inferior seed from producers to enter the food production system undermines the value of the crop for citizens collectively.

They understood that:

~ the goals of the individual or corporation (minimize costs, maximize revenues) can be at odds with the interests of the community, ~ use of inferior seed by some individuals promotes use of inferior seed by everyone because those with higher costs will be driven out of production if they don’t adopt the same lowest-cost production. (The common good (health) and the environment are the losers.) ~ the role of Government is to serve and protect the public interest.

Historically, Agriculture Canada did that well, up until the 1980’s when Government POLICY changed (“public-private partnerships”).

TODAY, the Government is WRONG in its understanding of its role.

If it cannot be demonstrated that the society at large will benefit from the seed, then it must not be licensed. (The very name of the Act – PLANT BREEDERS’ RIGHTS – states a bad situation, a serious misunderstanding.)

Canada has a long history of exemplary seed development based on community interest. The evidence is that we HAVE floundered by succumbing to private, commercial, interest-based seed selection criteria.

From John Kenneth Galbraith’s “The Economics of Innocent Fraud – Truth for our Time”, published in 2004 : “… As the corporate interest moves to power in what was the public sector, it serves, predictably, the corporate interest. That is its purpose. …One obvious result has been well-justified doubt as to the quality of much present regulatory effort. There is no question but that corporate influence extends to the regulators. … Needed is independent, honest, professionally competent regulation … This last must be recognized and countered. There is no alternative to effective supervision. …”

Tax-payers provide salaries for Government employees to perform work that is in the public interest. ANY Government employee whose work is in collaboration with an industry, ESPECIALLY if the employee’s official work is related to the regulation of that industry, MUST resign their Government position.

I am very angry that I and others must expend so much time and energy to try and force people to do their job.

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

(contact information)

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

I left 2 messages for François Guimont, the President of the CFIA,

613 225-2342, requesting a phone call from him and eventually had a lengthy conversation  with one of his officials, Stephen Yarrow, who is quoted in the media coverage near bottom of this email.

The CFIA web-site says:  “Currently, the CFIA and Health Canada post decision documents on the Internet after a product has been approved. They have not previously posted information about products that are under review, as will be the case in this pilot project.”  Two of our members have investigated the CFIA web-site and advise that the licensing of these seeds is further advanced than we know.  The newspaper article at bottom tells the larger public this is so.

Which makes this public consultation into a sham.  Never mind.

USE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO INFORM MORE PEOPLE ABOUT THE TRUE NATURE OF SOME GOVERNMENT IN CANADA.

This application from BASF is a “pilot project” with regard to PROCESS.

A point I did not make in my letter to the CFIA, but which is important: the idea that the Government can achieve “transparency” by posting each application on a web-site as it comes up, implies that citizens have nothing to do but sit and watch the Government web-site and then launch a campaign every time it steps out of line.  This is not transparency, but policing by citizens.  If the licensing follows the right principles, and if actions are principled, citizens might gain some confidence in the system of regulation and governance.  If the regulations and laws are out-of-date (the Patent Act), they are the source of the problem and need to be changed.  That things are being done “according to the law” is not an excuse.  (See my letter to François.)

This charade of “transparency” will be an attempt to deal with all the flack heaped upon the Government in the past over round-up resistant(RR) wheat and other related issues such as Bill C-27, Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, C-28 Interim Marketing Authorizations, the Whistle-blowers Legislation, etc.  The charade needs to be challenged for what it is – it is not transparency.

(Aside: People in our network have been involved in the “Smart Regulations”

“Government Directive on Regulating” (GDR).  You can see the connection:

here the CFIA is running a “pilot project” to be “transparent”.  The GDR is in precisely the same vein – an attempt to deal with all the flack directed at the Government.  We have used this BASF application as input to the GDR as part of the illustration of growing non-compliance with the laws and regulations in Canada and why that is happening.  Please ask me if you would like a copy of our correspondence with the Privy Council Office (PCO) and Alex Himelfarb, head of the PCO about “Smart Regulations”.)

——————-

RED HERRING

It has been pointed out that this licensing application is not about “transgenics” or “GMO’s” as in the case of Monsanto’s RR Wheat.  BASF uses a different process called “mutagenesis” to develop its herbicide-tolerant wheat.  This is a red herring argument which can be avoided by focussing on the CRITERIA being used to “develop” our food supply – see the letter to François.  The criterion is resistance to chemicals; nutritional value is an after thought.

Mutagenesis is also addressed in the media article at bottom of this posting.

—————

Curiously, the text reads “the CFIA and Health Canada”.  One interpretation of the Government text is that the reference to “Health” is an effort to convey the impression that Health is a priority.

The CFIA is part of AGRICULTURE Canada.  The CFIA licenses the seeds that are tolerant to the herbicides licensed by HEALTH Canada through the PMRA (Pest Management Regulatory Agency).  The “clients” of both agencies are the same.  People familiar with the pesticide debate know that the Auditor General’s Dept has stated emphatically in 4 consecutive reports starting in

1988 that the PMRA is not getting the job done.  From experience we know that conflicts-of-interest abound between the PMRA and the chemical industry it is supposed to regulate.  It sees the industry as its “clients”.  The CFIA and the PMRA are very much sister organizations; both view the industry they are supposed to regulate as “clients”.  The statement “The CFIA and Health Canada …” can be interpreted in this context.

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

REFERENCE:

If you do not know the story of the CFIA, it is well enough told in the movie THE FUTURE OF FOOD, an American movie with Canadian content.  What is described about the U.S. situation is true of the Canadian.  For more information about the film:

http://www.thefutureoffood.com/

“Already playing to packed houses in the U.S., this award-winning documentary offers an in-depth investigation into the alarming changes happening in the corporate-controlled food system. With beautiful and haunting images, it reveals the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled grocery store shelves for the past decade. Released in the States in September, THE FUTURE OF FOOD opened in Calgary on Nov. 18th, Vancouver on December 1 with a special benefit screening in Saskatoon on December 2.”“THE FUTURE OF FOOD has inspired food and farming communities all over the world,” says Producer-Director Garcia. “We are very pleased that audiences across Canada will have the opportunity to see the film and educate themselves about what is happening to agriculture today.”)

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

RECENT MEDIA COVERAGE, SASKATOON STAR PHOENIX:

Modified wheat taking root

By Margaret Munro,  CanWest News Service

Saskatchewan farmer Michael Kirk has a virtually invincible variety of wheat stashed in his bins ready for planting in spring.

The wheat, known by the name CDC Imagine, stands straight even in high winds and unlike many varieties is not prone to losing its seeds in bad weather, says Kirk.

But what really sets it apart is a gene mutation. CDC Imagine has been genetically altered so it keeps growing when sprayed with herbicides that normally make wheat shrivel and die. It’s a distinction that makes CDC Imagine the first herbicide tolerant wheat in Canada.

Perhaps even more remarkable, this high-tech wheat has avoided the wrath of farmers, environmentalists, consumers and marketers who drove Monsanto’s herbicide tolerant wheat out of Canada in 2004. The opposition was based on fears about possible human health hazards, increased weed resistance and fears of corporate control over important crops.

CDC Imagine has taken root on the Prairies with little protest. More than 200,000 acres of the wheat were grown in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in 2005. And BASF Canada, which produces CDC Imagine, has now applied to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for permission to grow three more types of herbicide tolerant wheat.

They all have the same “novel trait,” says Stephen Yarrow, director of CFIA’s plant bio-safety office. But protests are “not even on the radar screen,” he says.

The reason is that BASF — the world’s largest chemical company, based in Germany — created its wheat using a gene-altering process called mutagenesis, which is much more palatable to foreign markets and the Canadian Wheat Board than Monsanto’s genetically modified creation.

Genetically modified plants have genes inserted or engineered into them that have been borrowed from other organisms, such as microbes, animals or other plants. Monsanto engineered herbicide tolerance into its wheat using a soil bacterium.

Endorsed by Wheat Board

Mutagenesis entails blasting seeds or cells with radiation or bathing them in chemicals to cause mutations in a plant’s existing genes. Plant breeders have used the process for decades to create new flower colours or better barley for beer making. BASF used chemicals to create the mutation that protects CDC Imagine from herbicides.

Some say it doesn’t really matter whether the plants are created through genetic engineering and mutagenesis. “It does seem to be splitting hairs,”

Kirk said in an interview from his farm in Climax.

“The risks to the environment are exactly the same,” Yarrow says.

But the distinction has given BASF free rein to market CDC Imagine as “the first and only non-genetically modified” herbicide tolerant wheat in Canada.

The wheat has been embraced by the Canadian Wheat Board, which led the protests against Monsanto wheat out of a fear the GM wheat might end up co-mingling or contaminating regular wheat, and prompt offshore customers to boycott all Canadian wheat.

“We have no concern with the BASF wheat, because it’s not GM,” says Maureen Fitzhenry, media relations manager at the Canadian Wheat Board.

To create herbicide tolerant wheat, BASF scientists bathe seeds in a chemical that induces change in gene sequences, says Kent Jennings, manager of biotechnology and toxicology at BASF Canada. They then grow the wheat and spray it with herbicide. The survivors have the desired mutation.

A single genetic change or mutation is all it takes to create imidazolinone tolerance, says Jennings, likening it to a single typo in a sentence. “It’s the smallest genetic change you could possibly get,” he says. The typo prevents the herbicide from binding to an enzyme in the wheat.

“It’s a nice slick system,” says Kirk, who grew 720 acres of CDC Imagine last summer.

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

MAY 2005:  CANADA HOST TO INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON BIO DIVERSITY, DENIES ENTRY TO SCIENTISTS WHO ARE KNOWN TO BE EFFECTIVE IN PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT (BIO SAFETY) – THE DR. TEWOLDE AFFAIR 

Excerpt from submission to Privy Council Office (PCO), General Directive on Regulating (GDR), part of SMART REGULATIONS:  “In NON-COMPLIANCE, THE ROLE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE:  “How can it be that CANADA denied entry to scientists from developing countries to the Biosafety Protocol meetings in Montreal (Dr. Tewolde and others)?”

Middle of May, 2005:  As host to world biosafety negotiations, is Canada playing dirty?  Canada is the host country to the world negotiations on the Convention on Bio Diversity (CBD), negotiations which involve international safety issues on the use and trade involving transgenic materials or GMO’s.

Africa’s chief negotiator (Dr. Tewolde) represents a world majority view that runs counter to Canada’s, the US, the EU and the corporate tansgenic giants. Canada, through the administration of its visa policy, refused Africa’s chief negotiator a visa to attend the concluding meetings in Montreal. A huge public outcry led to granting of the visa so Dr. Tewolde eventually attended, but missing the first days of the meetings.  Other attendees from developing countries were also denied entry visas and were thereby barred from attending – they didn’t have the same ability as Dr. Tewolde to make their plight known.  This is a terrible blight on Canada’s international reputation.  Not to mention that it is not the behaviour of a democratic nation.

What the incident tells me is that there are very influential people in the Government of Canada who are capable (if their actions go unnoticed) of denying people their basic rights;  people they see as a threat to their agenda.  We do not have democratic Government, or at best we have the remnant of a democracy.  As far as I am aware, there has been no answering:

who was behind the witholding of the visas?  That was a very serious abuse of power that should not go unanswered.

Further to:

2005-12-03  Transgenics (GMO):  HERBICIDE TOLERANT WHEAT, BACK AGAIN, INPUT DEADLINE JAN 7

This adds (details follow the points):

–  red herring argument and how to address it:  BASF’s process is mutagenesis, not transgenics as in Monsanto’s RR wheat.  From my telephone conversation with the CFIA, this is the argument they try to use.  If you are prepared, it is easy to cut them off.  Don’t go there, it’s not the issue.

–  my letter to CFIA did not address the bogus idea that this pilot project constitutes “transparency”.  Will someone please?

–  curiosity of web-site text “the CFIA and HEALTH Canada” when the CFIA is part of AGRICULTURE Canada.

–  an apology to you:  my letter to François Guimont, President of the CFIA (earlier email) was dishonourable in its venting of anger.  I vow not to go that route again.

Please see that this gets as wide circulation as possible. There is a lot at stake.  Thanks.

Sandra

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

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Accepting Comments on Submission for Approval and Release of Herbicide Tolerant Wheat

November 8, 2005

Biotechnology Notices of Submission Project – Wheat (ALS1b) which has been bred for herbicide tolerance (URL no longer valid).

If you would like to provide comments on this submission, a feedback form is available from the web-site.

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

DEADLINE

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/subs/subliste.shtml

Jan 7, 2006.

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

COMMENT AND LETTER TO THE CFIA

We and others each put months of volunteer time into the battle to stop the introduction of herbicide-resistant wheat (2003-04).

Thousands of people and many organizations from Canada and other countries joined hands in the effort.  The Government of Canada was/is a joint-developer with Monsanto of seeds developed to be resistant to chemicals.

Under the storm of protest, Monsanto announced that it was withdrawing its application for licensing (May 10, 2004). The Government didn’t have to take a stand.

Here it is back again, this time from the chemical company BASF (not Monsanto).

My letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is appended.  (The CFIA is responsible for the licensing of seed (crops) which are the basis of our food supply.)

I have left 2 messages for François Guimont, the President of the CFIA, 613 225-2342, requesting a phone call from him.  The receptionist tried to hand me off to “an expert” on herbicide-tolerant wheat.  I said, no, that François is responsible for the operations of the CFIA, that the matter is critical and I will speak with François.  (The matter needs to be discussed with him, and by more people than me.)

(UPDATE:  Stephen Yarrow, head of the Environmental arm of the CFIA phoned.  I spent an hour and a half on the phone discussing the basis of objection to herbicide-tolerant wheat.  With all the work we have done, it is not difficult to refute their arguments.)

They do not expect us to be well informed from many different angles.  If you persist you will discover, I think, that they actually come over to our side.  I should have a recording of the conversation!  … they know when they’ve been called on a silly argument.  Probably not enough people call them.  Please, take the time.  My call by itself will not be sufficient.

François Guimont, President, 613 225-2342

The CFIA web-site says:  “Currently, the CFIA and Health Canada post decision documents on the Internet after a product has been approved. They have not previously posted information about products that are under review, as will be the case in this pilot project.”  Kerry investigated the CFIA web-site and advises that the licensing of these seeds is further advanced than we know.

This application from BASF is a “pilot project” with regard to PROCESS.  I think we have little alternative than to see it as an opportunity and hit it as hard as we can, regardless of what has already been licensed by the CFIA.

The information above takes you to the web-site from which you can register your input to the CFIA.  By Jan 7.

A point I did not make in my letter to the CFIA, which someone else needs to do:  the idea that the Government can achieve “transparency” by posting each application on a web-site as it comes up, implies that citizens have nothing to do but sit and watch the Government web-site and then launch a campaign every time it steps out of line.  This is not transparency, but policing.

If the licensing follows the right principles, and if actions are principled, citizens might gain some confidence in the system of regulation and governance.  If the regulations and laws are out-of-date (the Patent Act), they are the source of the problem and need to be changed.  That things are being done “according to the law” is not an excuse.  (See my letter to François.)

This charade of “transparency” will be an attempt to deal with all the flack heaped upon the Government in the past over round-up resistant(RR) wheat and other related campaigns such as Bill C-27, Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, C-28 Interim Marketing Authorizations, the Whistle-blowers Legislation, etc.  The charade needs to be challenged for what it is – it is not transparency.

(Aside: People in our network have been involved in the “Smart Regulations”  “Government Directive on Regulating” (GDR) campaign, deadline for input Dec 23.  You can see the connection: here the CFIA is running a “pilot project” to be “transparent”.  The GDR is in precisely the same vein – an attempt to deal with all the flack directed at the Government.  We have used this BASF application as input to the GDR as part of the illustration of growing non-compliance with the laws and regulations in Canada and why that is happening.  Please ask me if you would like a copy of our correspondence with the Privy Council about “Smart Regulations”.)

It has been pointed out that this licensing application is not about “transgenics” as in the case of Monsanto’s RR Wheat.  BASF uses a different process called “mutagenesis” to develop its herbicide-tolerant wheat.  This is a red herring argument which can be avoided by focussing on the CRITERIA being used to “develop” our food supply – see the letter to François.  The criterion is resistance to chemicals; nutritional value is not a criterion.

Curiously, the text reads “the CFIA and Health Canada”.  The CFIA is part of AGRICULTURE Canada.  One interpretation is that the reference to “Health” is an effort to convey the impression that Health is a priority (not agriculture and transnational corporations).

I know that the CFIA works with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) which is part of Health Canada.  (The CFIA licenses the seeds that are tolerant to the herbicides licensed by the PMRA.  The “clients” of both agencies are the same.)  So I read the text as “Currently, the CFIA and the PMRA post decision documents …”.  I believe that is the statement as it should read, if it is to reflect truth.

People familiar with the pesticide debate know that the Auditor General’s Dept has stated emphatically in 4 consecutive reports starting in 1988 that the PMRA is not getting the job done.  From experience we know that conflicts-of-interest abound between the PMRA and the chemical industry it is supposed to regulate.  It sees the industry as its “clients”.

The CFIA and the PMRA are very much sister organizations.  Hence the statement, “The CFIA and Health Canada …”

(UPDATE:  Stephen Yarrow says it is not the PMRA, it is a different part of Health Canada that is involved in evaluating the nutritional value of the herbicide-tolerant wheat and they have said that all is ok.)

My letter to François Guimont included 3 statements related to the security of his job because of the failure of the CFIA to carry out its mandate to protect the Canadian food supply.  The statements were a consequence of my anger.  I should have exercised self-discipline, for more than one reason.

From a strategic point-of-view, it is much more effective to add more people to my distribution list, to add new troops, than it is to indulge myself.  I have now added more people, and feel much better with that tactic! My apologies to you.

Cheers!

Sandra

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

Sent from

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/bio/subs/2005/20051108e.shtml

on or about Dec 3, 2005:

FROM:

Sandra Finley

Saskatoon, SK

306-373-8078

sabest1@sasktel.net

TO:  François Guimont, President of the CFIA

By the thousands, Canadians have told you that we do not want our food supply developed by the criterion that it be resistant to chemicals.  Our food supply is to be developed according to the criterion:

–   is the seed more nutritious than other varieties (of wheat, in this

example)?  Does it make a positive contribution to the nutritional value of our food supply?

We fought for months and months to put a stop to herbicide-resistant wheat developed jointly by Monsanto and the Government of Canada.  Now here it is back again, only this time from BASF.

You have 4 issues to address:

– GOVERNANCE (In whose interest are these undertakings?)

– HEALTH (Our food supply. Health is dependent upon food supply. What is the criteria for seed selection?)

– ENVIRONMENT (Introduced species do not have enemies. They proliferate and become weeds.  Common sense, science and experience ALL reinforce the fact that crops engineered to be resistant to chemicals bring about an increase in the use of chemicals.  Farmers now apply a round of glyphosate to kill the plants they don’t want, and then turn around and apply 2-4D to kill the plants that are resistant to the glyphosate.  I know.  I am from Saskatchewan.  We have 10 years of experience with RR canola which is now a weed growing in shelter-belts, gardens and in other unwanted places.

Roundup won’t kill it.  You, the CFIA, has no credibility here.)

– OWNERSHIP OF LIFE FORMS.  The Patent Act was never meant to apply to life forms.  It was intended to cover mechanical devices.  In at least 4 different places in the Schmeiser decision the Supreme Court of Canada told the Government that the legislation had to be changed.  Has that been done?

The earlier “Harvard Mouse” decision also pointed out to the Government that the Patent Act required an update.  Has it been done?  Have YOU, François Guimont, done anything to insist that the Patent Act be changed?  Whose interests do you serve?

Transnational corporate interests more and more determine the food that is grown. They do not develop seed using the selection criteria of nutritional value.  And they attempt to appropriate that which belongs to the commons.

You, the CFIA, are party to the attempted appropriation.

The Government almost shut down a whole industry (cattle) when it was suspected that just ONE INDIVIDUAL’s food production might be injurious to the public good (health).  What do you do when it is suspected that crops developed with the criterion that they be resistant to chemicals, crops that serve a corporate interest, might not be in the public interest?

The health of the population, and therefore medicare costs, are dependent upon the nutritional value of our food supply.

According to a Globe and Mail report, the nutrition found in fruits, vegetables, and other food crops has declined significantly since the 1950’s.  That is YOUR responsibility.

CRITERIA USED:

The licensing process for new varieties of wheat, barley, oats, etc. uses criteria such as disease resistance, yield, and now, resistance to chemical applications.

CRITERIA NOT USED: nutritional value, taste, impact on environment, contribution to the common good.

Plant Breeders do not have Rights.  They have RESPONSIBILITIES.

The purpose of the Government and its Legislation is to defend THE COMMONS.

Seeds are an essential part of the commons; they form the basis of our food supply. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of ANYONE who is tampering with the food supply to use the following selection criteria.

Before any seed is released into the environment or licensed for use:

– NUTRITIONAL VALUE (in the case of seed that becomes food): is the nutritional value of the seed superior to that of hallmark original varieties? If the seed (food) does not make a improved positive contribution to the value of the food, therefore to the health of the citizens, it will not be licensed for use. It is well documented that the nutritional value of food has significantly declined over the last 50 years. That does not bode well for public health. There is a connection between our food supply and escalating disease rates (health) and medicare costs.

– ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: will it perform like an “introduced or invader species” such as wild oats, purple loosestrife or zebra mussels? If so, it will not be licensed. Anyone who releases such organisms into the environment must pay the “external costs” of eradication.  Do you know how many millions and millions of dollars are spent, year after year, to try and control wild oats (an introduced species?  Do YOU pay for it?)

– TASTE: Food that contributes to the healthfulness of the citizens must be appetizing, or it will be shunned in spite of its nutritive value. SO: What is the taste performance of the proposed seed: it must at least be as tasty as hallmark original varieties.

– COMMON GOOD: WHOSE INTERESTS ARE YOU SERVING? THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT.

Visionaries implemented a seed development process in Canada which used public money for the common good (e.g. Agriculture Canada Research Stations and scientists). They understood that allowing inferior seed from producers to enter the food production system undermines the value of the crop for citizens collectively.

They understood that:

~ the goals of the individual or corporation (minimize costs, maximize

revenues) can be at odds with the interests of the community, ~ use of inferior seed by some individuals promotes use of inferior seed by everyone because those with higher costs will be driven out of production if they don’t adopt the same lowest-cost production. (The common good (health) and the environment are the losers.) ~ the role of Government is to serve and protect the public interest.

Historically, Agriculture Canada did that well, up until the 1980’s when Government POLICY changed (“public-private partnerships”).

TODAY, the Government is WRONG in its understanding of its role. A necessary criterion for deciding whether a new seed will be introduced is: whose interests will be served by the introduction? Seeds are part of the commons.

If it cannot be demonstrated that the society at large will benefit from the seed, then it must not be licensed. (The very name of the Act – PLANT BREEDERS’ RIGHTS – states a bad situation, a serious misunderstanding.)

Canada has a long history of exemplary seed development based on community interest. The evidence is that we HAVE floundered by succombing to private, commercial, interest-based seed selection criteria.

From John Kenneth Galbraith’s “The Economics of Innocent Fraud – Truth for our Time”, published in 2004 : “… As the corporate interest moves to power in what was the public sector, it serves, predictably, the corporate interest. That is its purpose. …One obvious result has been well-justified doubt as to the quality of much present regulatory effort. There is no question but that corporate influence extends to the regulators. … Needed is independent, honest, professionally competent regulation … This last must be recognized and countered. There is no alternative to effective supervision. …”

Tax-payers provide salaries for Government employees to perform work that is in the public interest. ANY Government employee whose work is in collaboration with an industry, ESPECIALLY if the employee’s official work is related to the regulation of that industry, MUST resign their Government position.

I am very angry that I and others must expend so much time and energy to try and force people to do their job.

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

(contact information)

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

(REFERENCE:

If you do not know the story of the CFIA, it is well enough told in the movie THE FUTURE OF FOOD, an American movie with Canadian content.  What is described about the U.S. situation is true of the Canadian.  For more information about the film:

http://www.thefutureoffood.com/

“Already playing to packed houses in the U.S., this award-winning documentary offers an in-depth investigation into the alarming changes happening in the corporate-controlled food system. With beautiful and haunting images, it reveals the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled grocery store shelves for the past decade. Released in the States in September, THE FUTURE OF FOOD opened in Calgary on Nov. 18th, Vancouver on December 1 with a special benefit screening in Saskatoon on December 2.”“THE FUTURE OF FOOD has inspired food and farming communities all over the world,” says Producer-Director Garcia. “We are very pleased that audiences across Canada will have the opportunity to see the film and educate themselves about what is happening to agriculture today.”)