Sandra Finley

2005-01-25 Transgenics (GMO’s): New documentary, “Genetic Matrix”

Food, Genetically Modified, Take back the University No Responses »

Jan 252005

SERIES:

– 2004-02-19 Prairie farmers consulted on GM wheat, U of M student leading independent study. Winnipeg Free Press

2005-01-25 Transgenics (GMO’s): New documentary, “Genetic Matrix”

2005-09-12 Monsanto – Video sows seeds of controversy, Univ of Manitoba (University blocks distribution of the film.)

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

CONTENTS:

(1) BACKGROUND ON THE VIDEO

(2) TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEO

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

Michelle writes: We’ve just received a review copy of a new documentary on Percy Schemeiser being launched at an event with Avi Lewis, Percy Schmeiser and Shiv Chopra in Winnipeg next week. It’s called Genetic Matrix: The Schemeiser Case and the Fight for the Future of Life.

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

(1) BACKGROUND ON THE VIDEO

Genetic Matrix: The Schemeiser Case and the Fight for the Future of Life is a short documentary (~35 minutes) that delves into the controversial issues of genetic engineering (GE), food safety, and life patents. The film is largely told through the perspective of Percy Schmeiser, 73 year old canola farmer from Saskatchewan, as he proceeds to the Supreme Court of Canada in his landmark patent infringement case with biotech giant Monsanto.

Mark Achbar, director of The Corporation says this about the film:

“This informative video is a work of passion and concern. It’s a testament to the human spirit, embodied in Percy and Louise Schmeiser, whose heroic fight against Monsanto is but the opening volley in a war we ignore at our own peril. I am grateful to Ian Mauro and his team for taking on such a daunting, important and chilling topic”.

The work includes many high profile experts to help contextualize the controversial and often complex issues presented. The film is a co-production between the Council of Canadians and Dead Crow Productions and is written, directed, shot, and edited by Ian Mauro. It is currently being distributed throughout Canada and the world.

PARTICIPANTS

Brewster Kneen (Author of Farmageddon)
Vandana Shiva (Physicist and Ecologist)
Ralph Nader (Lawyer and Consumer Advocate)
Maude Barlow (Volunteer Chairperson, Council of Canadians)
Nadege Adam (Biotech Campaigner, Council of Canadians)
Priscilla Settee (Scholar and Activist)
Rene Van Acker (Agronomist and Weed Scientist, University of Manitoba)
Ann Clark (Agricultural Researcher, University of Guelph)
Michelle Swenarchuk (Lawyer, Canadian Environmental Law Association)
Percy and Louise (Farmers embroiled in 6-year legal battle with Monsanto)
Darrin Qualman (Research Director, National Farmers Union)
Nettie Wiebe (Farmer and Professor of Ethics, University of Saskatchewan)
Terry Boehm (Vice President, National Farmers Union)
Steven Shrybman (Lawyer representing the interveners in support of the Schmeisers)
Terry Zakreski (Lawyer for Percy and Louise Schmeiser)
Andrew Kimbrell (Director, Center for Technology Assessment)
Devlin Kuyek (Researcher for GRAIN)

OUTLINE

Science and regulation of genetic engineering (including: Dr. David Suzuki, Dr. Vandana Shiva, and Nadege Adam)
Food Safety, Labeling, and Secrecy (including: Maude Barlow, Ralph Nader, Nettie Wiebe, Nadege Adam, and Priscilla Settee)
Life Patents (Michelle Swenarchuk, Nadege Adam, Priscilla Settee)
The Schmeiser Story (Percy Schmeiser, Dr. Ann Clark, Steven Shrybman, Andrew Kimbrell, and Terry Zakreski)
Conclusion (Dr. David Suzuki, Dr. Vandana Shiva, Darrin Qualman, Percy and Louise Schmeiser, Brewster Kneen, Dr. Rene Van Acker, Dr. Nettie Wiebe, Nadege Adam)

Ian Mauro

Ph.D. Candidate

Environment & Geography

University of Manitoba

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

(2) TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEO

GENETIC MATRIX:

The Schmeiser Case

& the Fight for the Future of Life

Council of Canadians &

A Dead Crow Productions Film

Written, Directed, Shot and Edited: Ian Mauro Executive Producer: Stephane McLachlan

Running Time: ~35 minutes

-Transcript-

[Text] In 1996, Monsanto released genetically engineered herbicide tolerant canola in Canada

[Text] Farmers Percy & Louise Schmeiser were sued in 1998 by Monsanto for infringing a gene patent on this canola

[Text] Monsanto vs Schmeiser’ was the first case in the world arguing that a patent over a lifeform had been violated

[Text] After Six years of legal battle, here is the conclusion to Percy & Louise’s story

[Black Screen: Voice Only]

<Percy Schmeiser> I did not lay the lawsuit against Monsanto, Monsanto laid the lawsuit against me. They are the ones that came after me because I was a seed developer and they wanted to take my rights away to develop seeds and plants.

[Fade In: Percy Schmeiser]

[Lower Third]

Percy Schmeiser

Listening to himself on the radio

<Percy Schmeiser> So the issues before the supreme court are very broad in nature, its not only simple in patent infringement, but now it is the whole issue of by putting a patent on a gene and inserting into a seed that has maybe thirty thousand other genes or any other life form. Does that give you total ownership and control of whatever higher life form you put it into?

[Graphic: Matrix Style Falling Letters]

[Opening Title] The Council of Canadians & Dead Crow Productions Present Genetic Matrix The Schmeiser Case & the Fight for the Future of Life

[Fade In: David Suzuki]

[Lower Third]

David Suzuki

Geneticist and Author

<David Suzuki> In the late 1970’s new genetic methods enabled geneticist to isolate DNA from virtually any organism they wanted, to attach those pieces of DNA to DNA from any other species they wanted. They were called joint molecules or recombinant DNA. You could make combinations of DNA that never occur in nature and than transfer those recombinant or joint molecules into other species or living organisms. Those organisms were called transgenic organisms.

[Lower Third]

Nadège Adam

Council of Canadians

<Nadège Adam> Genetically modified food refer to a whole heap of different kinds of modification, any kind of genetic manipulation would follow under the definition of genetically modified. Biodiversity as we see it today is in good part a result of genetic modification. Genetic Engineering refers specifically to the crossing of genes between two different species.

[Image: Vegetables at an outdoor market; butterflies; fish; tomatoes]

<David Suzuki> Throughout evolution, the very definition of a species was a group of organisms that were not able to exchange DNA with others that were closely related to them. That’s the very definition of a species.

< Nadège Adam > Whenever you’ll here, you know GE or GM know that though those they use these words interchangeably know that for the purpose of the debate we’re all referring to the crossing of genes between two species, something that’s has never been done before.

[Image: Dinner plate with G.E. sign]

[Lower Third]

Dr. Vandana Shiva

Physicist and Ecologist

<Dr. Vandana Shiva> Now, when you take a gene and introduce it to a crop to which it does not belong and to which it could never be related through normal breeding you have created a crop, a seed, a plant, a food that is different from the one without the gene, at the genetic level this is different.

[Image: Tractor in farm field]

<David Suzuki> So when you take a gene out of a flounder and stick in into a tomato plant you have changed the genomic context within which that flounder gene finds itself. If you took Bono out of U2 and stuck them into the Toronto Symphony and said make music – noise would come out of that but there is no way you could anticipate the consequences.

[Image: Violin and U2 poster]

< Nadège Adam > Our agencies use what is called substantial equivalence.

<Dr. Vandana Shiva> They just assume substantial equivalence and say treat it as the same, treat as the same as the parent and do not look therefore for any impact of the introduction.

[Image: Lab Equipment]

< Nadège Adam > They do not consider any different the conventional foods, and therefore they have not conducted the necessary testing to ensure that they are safe.

<David Suzuki> We don’t know the long term effects of these transgenic manipulations.

< Nadège Adam > This is a brand new technology, we’ve never done this before yet we are feeding it to our children on a daily basis not knowing what will come in the future.

[Text] Food Safety and Labelling

[Lower Third]

Priscilla Settee

Scholar and Activist

<Priscilla Settee> By in large, many citizens are in a bit of a vacuum in terms of what is happening with the safety and quality of our foods.

[Lower Third]

Maude Barlow

Council of Canadians

<Maude Barlow > Ten years ago there were no commercial genetically engineered foods for sale on our shelves. Today, almost 70% of grocery products are genetically modified.

[Image: Shopping cart in grocery store]

< Nadège Adam > Transformation of our food supply was done without our

consent or knowledge.

< Priscilla Settee > The issue of biotechnology and food has not been transparent.

< Nadège Adam > The government and industry has gone through tremendous lengths to prevent us from being able to distinguish between foods containing GE ingredients and those that don’t.

[Lower Third]

Dr. Nettie Wiebe

Past President of the National Farmers Union

< Dr. Nettie Wiebe >The possibility of democracy depends on a citizenship that knows there are choices to be made and then gets to make them.

< Nadège Adam > And the polls have been consistent for the past four years that over 90% of Canadians say we want mandatory labeling.

[Lower Third]

Ralph Nader

Lawyer and Consumer Advocate

<Ralph Nader > If an industry is so proud of its technology, it should be ferociously willing to have its food product labeled in the supermarket, so it can brag about it.

[Image: Shopping cart in grocery store]

< Nadège Adam >So what’s the problem? Well the problem is the food industry knows full well that the minute we have the opportunity to pick the product that doesn’t contain genetic engineered ingredients is exactly what we are going to do. And so while there has been such a public outcry for mandatory labelling policy, the industry has been lobbying the government very strongly to not allow that.

<Ralph Nader> Biotechnology is moving at breakneck speed all around the world, escaping jurisdictions in country after country without any legal or ethical framework.

< Nadège Adam > Any epidemiologist who works with this stuff will tell you that you need labels. You need to have two sample populations to compare, Sample A that eats GE foods and Sample B that doesn’t. You compare the two so you can see, whether or not there is an impact here. Without labels that ’s impossible to do. We actually believe that is the reason they don’t want labels, that way you avoid liability.

[Image: Grocery store deli]

<Ralph Nader > In Washington DC, there is more rigorous regulation of toys by far then biotechnology.

<Dr. Nettie Wiebe> You have a huge new technology and insertion into you food systems and consumers are not suppose to be able to know what it is and still choose. There is just a huge gap there; between what are consumer rights, citizen rights, and the corporate interest in covering this up.

[Text] Genetic Engineering and Patenting of Life

< Nadège Adam > With GE and the ability to slightly modify a plant or an animal, these companies are now claiming that these newly modified organism, GE organisms, are inventions and are claiming patents on them.

[Image: Books on The Law of Intellectual Property]

[Lower Third]

Michelle Swenarchuk

Canadian Environmental Law Association

< Michelle Swenarchuk > What is a patent…anyway? Well it’s a propriety right that has been in the law for a couple of hundreds of years and one of the most important things to know about it is that it was actually devised as a public benefit. So the fundamental purpose of the patent system is a social purpose and it is a social contract – an inventor gets an exclusive right of invention for a certain length of time in response, in exchange, for disclosing how it is made.

< Priscilla Settee > Patents were established for non-life processes.

[Text: Split Screen with Michelle Swenarchuk ] ‘Diamond vs Chakrabarty’ was the US Supreme Court case that first allowed the patenting of a bacteria]

< Michelle Swenarchuk > By extending patents to life forms is something that only started to happen south of the border in 1980, when the first patent was given on a bacteria. The famous Chakrabarty case, the single cell and after that without any particular public debate, without really any scrutiny or knowledge of patents the Canadian Patent Office decided to give patents on a single cell life forms.

[Image: Books on shelf – The Law of Environmental Justice & Human Rights Law in Canada]

< Nadège Adam > Canada is quite an important example, because we are one of the only countries of the G7 to not have any kind of language in our patent law that speaks to biotechnology and so because in the absence of regulatory framework these companies have gone through our court system. We are talking about companies who have the resources to do just that, leaving the people to do there best to fight them in courts.

[Text] The Schmeiser Story

[Black Screen: Voice Only]

< Nadège Adam > A lot of Canadians have reacted to the story of Percy Schmeiser, which perfectly illustrates the problem.

[Image: Percy Schmeiser sitting in truck listening to the radio]

[Lower Third]

Percy Schmeiser

Morning of May 20, 2004

Day before Supreme Court decision

<Radio> For six years now, 73 year old Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser has devoted his life to battling agri-chemical giant Monsanto. Back in August of 1998, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against Mr. Schmeiser. Somehow, some of their GE canola seeds ended up on his field and grew. For a long time, both sides vehemently disputed how the seeds got there in the first place, but in the end it didn’t matter. Monsanto claimed Percy Schmeiser still violated patent laws, and two lower courts agreed. Mr. Schmeiser was forced to turn over his entire crop and the seeds he and his wife spent 50 years cultivating. He also had to pay Monsanto’s legal bills. His supporters say he is just one more small farmer being strong-armed by the international corporation. They say this case will determine to what extent farmers will have control over their land, crops, and seeds. Tomorrow the Supreme Court decides, today Percy Schmeiser joins me in our Saskatoon studio, good morning.

[Text] 5-months earlier

[Music: Begins]

[Image Montage: Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa Airport, Percy Schmeiser]

[Text] The Supreme Court of Canada

Hearing of Monsanto vs. Schmeiser

[Music: Ends]

[Lower Third]

Forum on Patenting

Evening before Supreme Court hearing

<Ann Clark> Percy and Louise Schmeiser, what have they done that has brought them in a time which should have been golden retirement before the Supreme Court of Canada?

[Lower Third]

Percy Schmeiser

Outside the Forum on Patenting

<Percy Schmeiser> Now it’s at a court where it should have been many years ago

<Ann Clark> They are here because they didn’t cave in when Monsanto came and threatened them, like they threaten every other farmer.

[Image: Aerial view of cropland from plane]

<Percy Schmeiser> We just stood up to what we believed in at that time, that farmers’ rights should not be taken away, that a farmer should always be able to use their own seed.

[Lower Third]

Dr. Ann Clark

University of Guelph

< Dr. Ann Clark> But some farmers, the Schmeiser’s one of them, are seed savers. Now these people are anathema to companies like Monsanto because that means they don’t have to come back and buy the seed. They can just keep their own seed which is what most of the rest of the world does.

<Percy Schmeiser> Anyone that is a seed developer will tell you that you are developing a form of life that becomes just like a part of your family, its almost like a child. Cause you developed something that you have spent so much time with.

[Image: Aerial view of cropland from plane]

< Dr. Ann Clark> But this really is the beginning of the problem that Mr.

Schmeiser is experienced, because if he has an contamination event, and there are so many ways that that can happen, then the trait then is in his seed from that point on.

[Image: Percy standing in his canola crop]

<Percy Schmeiser> As a canola seed developer, I lost all my research and development, well I should say my wife and I have lost 50 years of research and development, because our pure seeds were contaminated by GMO’s.

< Dr. Ann Clark> The appeals court acknowledged and Monsanto acknowledged that Percy Schmeiser had not stolen or otherwise fraudulently acquired the seed.

<Percy Schmeiser> Where did the seed originally come from? It came from farmers, from all over the world. They never developed any seed or plant, and by putting a single gene in they claimed total ownership, yet a single seed or plant can have thousands of genes in, but by putting one gene in they claim total ownership. It’s the greatest theft or fraud I have ever witnessed in my life

< Dr. Ann Clark> All it has to be is there on your land and you are still guilty if the original judges decision in this case is allowed to stand. It is just a simply extraordinary situation and it very clearly illustrates that existing patent law is inappropriate for crops that have been genetically modified, particularly when the GM trait, any trait cannot be contained.

<Percy Schmeiser> I think it’s a very important moment in history. I think we are at a crossroads. There are so many important issues, like the food, the environment, property rights, intellectual property rights but most of all most important thing to me is who owns life.

[Music: Begins]

[Image Montage: Images from outside the Supreme Court] [Text] Supreme Court Morning of the hearing January 20, 2004

[Music: Ends]

<Percy Schmeiser> Good morning Ian, how are you doing?

<Ian Mauro> Not bad how are you?

<Percy Schmeiser> I got cold ears.

[Lower Third]

Percy Schmeiser

Farmer

Nathan Busch

Lawyer & Biologist

< Nathan Busch > In my philosophy, it’s okay for Monsanto to be in the

market. They have a right to be there, but so do you! You know, and they

can’t have that line way into your field, push it back out. You got to have ownership with your crops, and you got to have the right to grow your crop the way you want to and do what with it you want.

<Percy Schmeiser> That’s what we’re here for.

[Background Noise: cheers and applause ]

[Lower Third]

Steven Shrybman

Lawyer for public interest groups

< Steven Shrybman > One of the fundamental issues before the court is going to be and we argue one of the fundamental mistakes that the lower courts made was to not to distinguish between a patent to a gene or a cell on one hand and the patent to plant and a seed on the other. Patents Act of Canada doesn’t issue patents to a plant and seeds, in the simplest terms Monsanto doesn’t have a patent to the seed. So how can a patent to a gene or a cell be infringed by a planting a seed.

[Image: Inside Supreme Court Hearing]

[Text] Supreme Court of Canada

[Lower Third]

Terry Zakreski

Schmeiser’s Lawyer

< Terry Zakreski > Our contention and our factum is this, is that if this is what the claims result in, if it can mean any cell then what you have done is indirectly claimed protection for a plant. Cause to say that you haven’t claimed a plant when you’ve claimed every cell within it is akin to say that you haven’t claimed Canada when you’ve claimed every province, every territory, and every speck of dust within it.

[Lower Third]

Press Conference

On Parliament Hill regarding the hearing

< Andrew Kimbrell >In the United States we have allowed the patenting of seeds and plants and we’re issuing a report in about two weeks that show that 90 farmers, 9 – 0 farmers in the United States have been sued and are currently in court being sued by Monsanto for these patent infringements.

So this is a cautionary tale if this kind of patenting is allowed, we already have 90 and counting in cases, we have over 500 cases where the farmers has been forced to settle out of court.

[Image: Letter from Monsanto describing claim of patent infringement]

< Steven Shrybman > In the new next context of biotechnology and intellectual property rights, our global phenomena and the decision by a Appellate court in any developing country is bound to resonate with policy and law makers not only in other countries but also in international bodies that have important roles to play in making policy decisions about biotechnology, about intellectual property rights, particularly as they effect agriculture, the capacity of farmers to engage in traditional farming practices.

[Image: Photos taken in Supreme Court Lobby after Schmeiser trial]

[Lower Third]

Andrew Kimbrell

International Center for Technology Assessment

< Andrew Kimbrell > We have 90, nine zero, with the average settlement so far being $150 000, so once Monsanto gets this hold that they are asking the Canadian Supreme Court to give them, the persecution of farmers becomes immediate, it becomes widespread, and it becomes very profitable for the company.

< Steven Shrybman >The rough calculation is that there are more than 1.4 billion people on earth that depend upon their ability to save seed in order to feed themselves and their families.

< Andrew Kimbrell > In the United States, we are very use to Monsanto they have become the poster child for fifty years with the contamination of our communities, and our land. They have brought us Agent Orange, they brought us PCB’s. This is a polluter. This is a long term recidivist polluter Monsanto. There is something very unusual they are asking the Supreme Court of Canada to do for the first time of my knowledge, which is they are saying we usually have to pay when we pollute but now for the first time we want to be able to pollute when they genetically contaminate people like Percy and have them pay us. Well, they are standing all pollution, all environmental law on its head. Instead of the polluter paying, they are saying we pollute your land, and we are going to try and use intellectual property as a ruse to have you pay us for our contamination, for our irresponsibility, for our failure to control our genetic contamination.

[Image: Percy Schmeiser sitting in truck listening to the radio]

< Radio > Where are you going to be as you wait for the Supreme Court of Canada to hand its decision down on Friday?

< Percy Schmeiser > I will be at my lawyers office in Saskatoon, and then we plan to hold a news conference at 9:30.

< Percy Schmeiser > And that is what it is all about…..control of the seed supply, that farmers always have to buy their seed. So hopefully tomorrow morning when we hear the decision from the Supreme Court, farmers will maintain and continue their rights to use their seed from year to year

< Percy Schmeiser > It’s no longer a Percy Schmeiser case, it’s a case now that affects all of society, whether you are a farmer or in any walk of life, because the patenting of genes and inserting them into higher life forms and then applying control has become a big concern, for everyone.

[Image: Percy Schmeiser’s Seed Cleaning Bill, May 19, 2004]

<Percy Schmeiser >I am right now, actually at the quarter of land where Monsanto laid the lawsuit against me and it was referred to in the lawsuit as field #2, the famous number 2 field.

These all had pods on last fall, but there are no pods now. So where are they? See they shell out and they blow and yet the scientist at my trial said that it can’t blow in the wind. How unbelievable, you know.

<Percy Schmeiser> I think that whatever that the decision will be tomorrow by the Supreme Court, I am prepared to accept, but one thing I do know is that I took it as far as I could possibly take it to stand up for the rights of farmers and people around the world, that those rights should not be taken away. So win or lose tomorrow, I have done all what I could do as much as I could do and I think I have satisfaction in that I gave it my best.

[Lower Third]

International Conference Call

With groups in support of the Schmeiser’s

[Lower Third]

Voice of Steven Shrybman

Lawyer for the interveners

< Steven Shrybman > I haven’t read the entire decision, I have only read the head note. I had to go over there and actually pick it up. So we lost, 5-4. You can infringe a patent to a lower life form by using, you know, a higher life form.

[Lower Third]

9:15 AM

15-minutes before press conference

< Nadège Adam > Come in. Did we have a…… on the phone we have the coalition members essentially for the interveners.

[Lower Third]

Voice of Terry Zakreski

Schmeiser’s Lawyer

< Terry Zakreski > Well hello everybody, it’s not the victory that we had hoped for, it is a victory for Percy. He was faced with about a $200 000 judgment on him that was set aside today and I think that, you know that makes a pretty big difference to us. They had writs of execution registered against his land and goods and against his farm assets so those will all go.

We came very close on that validity issue, a 5-4 split, you know, almost.

< Nadège Adam > Percy do you want to say anything?

<Percy Schmeiser> Well, what I’d like to say that my wife and I have brought it as far as we could. We always wanted it to go to the Supreme Court, and although it was a personal victory for myself the whole issue of patenting life forms or a gene and putting into life forms and then control of it, I think now will have to be addressed by the parliament of Canada.

[Lower Third]

Voice of Pat Mooney

ETC Group

< Pat Mooney > The bad news is you have to run for parliament now Percy.

[Background Noise: Laughing]

< Terry Zakreski > So ends a long and hard fought legal battle and we think a well fought legal battle. We raised four grounds of appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada and as it ends or as it turns out only one of those grounds of appeals made it across the finish line. But the foregrounds of appeal where simply that the patent really didn’t extend into farmers field, it would allow a company that patents a gene or a cell to control plants in which they incorporate their gene and cell.

[Text: Split Screen with Terry Zakreski] 1st Monsanto’ patent to a gene and cell should not give them control over seeds and plants

< Terry Zakreski > The second ground was that since Percy didn’t spray his crops with Roundup he didn’t use their patent.

[Text: Split Screen with Terry Zakreski] 2nd Percy did not spray his crops with the herbicide Roundup so how could he infringe the patent

< Terry Zakreski > The third ground was when you have somebody who comes into possession of patented material they should at least enjoy the right to continue to save and reuse seed as they have always done.

[Text: Split Screen with Terry Zakreski] 3rd Farmers should always have the right to use their own seeds and plants

< Terry Zakreski > And the fourth ground of appeal was that there was no profit earned in this case because Percy never benefited from the presence of the Roundup Ready gene in his fields and that is that the one that the majority of the court found favour with and set aside the lower court judgment that Percy was to turn over his profits from the crop that he grew in 1998.

[Text: Split Screen with Terry Zakreski] 4th Since Percy did not benefit from Monsanto’s GE canola he should not have to pay them anything

< Terry Zakreski > And also the other thing that court did as there is as significant as they said was that each parties was to bare their own costs and there was approximately $200,000 judgment that was set aside by the Supreme Court of Canada today.

[Lower Third]

Terry Boehm

National Farmers Union

< Terry Boehm > What this issue is fundamentally about is control. When a farmer plants a seed, tied up in that seed he is planting hope, he is planting hope for his family, for his future and ultimately for a bountiful harvest. He is not planting Monsanto’s patented gene, and unfortunately this court ruling is allowing seeds to become a tool of oppression now.

[Lower Third]

David Commons

CBC Reporter

< David Commons > Mr. Schmeiser this has been a long extensive personal battle over here, a long expensive personal crusade for you. Where do you go from here?

<Percy Schmeiser> I really believe as of this morning, my battle is over. I have brought it as far as it could all the way to the Supreme Court, and as I said before it was a personal victory for me in regards to the awarding of costs, but I believe that in my heart I will always be fighting for the rights of farmers – always, to be able to use your seed from year to year.

So, as I said the battle ends for me today but not the battle in my heart.

[Text] The Fight for Life

[Lower Third]

David Suzuki

Geneticist and Author

<David Suzuki >In the future, biotechnology may in fact be a very important part of the environmental, and the health and the food crisis that we are

going to encounter in the coming years. But believe me, it is far too soon

to have any of this stuff in our food stream, in our medical stream or out in open fields. It’s far too soon.

[Lower Third]

Ralph Nader

Lawyer and Consumer Advocate

< Ralph Nader > This is a technology that is far ahead of the science that must be its governing discipline. Whenever you have a gap between a technology that has been deployed, in this case millions of acres, and the science that must be discovered and tested, you have trouble. We saw that with nuclear power and radioactive waste, we saw that with motor vehicles and photo chemical smog.

[Lower Third]

Darrin Qualman

National Farmers Union

< Darrin Qualman >You can take a table and start stalking up the peer reviewed academic papers that have been published in journals on the health

effects of GM crops and it is a tiny tiny stalk. We might not need 2000

such reports, we might not even need a 1000 but you think with a new technology that each and every one of us was going to eat that you would need a couple of hundred, but they don’t exist.

[Lower Third]

Brewster Kneen

Author of Farmageddon

< Brewster Kneen >We don’t have a tradition of critical thinking about technology.

[Lower Third]

Dr. Nettie Wiebe

Farmer and Professor of Ethics

<Dr. Nettie Wiebe> There is a presumption that technological change is progress.

[Lower Third]

Dr. Vandana Shiva

Physicist and Ecologist

< Dr. Vandana Shiva> That so much of what is being talked about as an advance actually has nothing to offer us except hazards and control. It’s an advance in control; it’s a brilliant advance in control.

[Lower Third]

Louise Schmeiser

Farmer

<Louise Schmeiser > Everything is born of a seed. Like people, plants, animals, it’s seed. If they can control that, look what they can all control. It’s to the point of scary.

< Brewster Kneen > We just need to look at what seed they want control of, its clearly a lucrative business….we all have to eat.

< Devlin Kuyek > The seed saving of course is a huge obstacle to the private seed industry.

< Brewster Kneen > And if you can get control of the major staple crops by owning the seed you can charge whatever you want.

< Devlin Kuyek > If you make seed saving a criminal activity, well that opens up a large market.

< Brewster Kneen > I can see a scenario where the farmers will end up with fewer and fewer farmers and they will be basically growing on contract for the companies.

[Lower Third]

Devlin Kuyek

Researcher for GRAIN

< Devlin Kuyek > You will see how it’s played out with Percy, how patents can undermine these traditional practices.

< Darrin Qualman > I think that is an absolute case study in how this works and for every Percy Schmeiser there is out there that is publicly saying hey I am being attacked by Monsanto, there is many many farm families that have been forced to sign gag order confidentiality agreements and they are not talking and they never can talk, and if they talk they lose the farm.

< Dr. Vandana Shiva > Then pollution is not the problem, it’s the way of owning farmers fields like they did in the case of Percy Schmeiser. You pollute and you own. You’ve got patents and no responsibility.

< Percy Schmeiser > I would say that if you go to any canola field now, I don’t care where, you would find GMO in it.

[Lower Third]

Dr. Rene Van Acker

University of Manitoba

< Dr. Rene Van Acker > The outcomes of the supreme Court trial is that Percy Schmeiser was guilty of patent infringement on the basis of the gene being there, and yet the gene is everywhere.

< Percy Schmeiser > I phoned up a couple of seed companies this spring and if I wanted to seed canola, I want pure canola seed. They just laugh at you. They said there is no such thing.

< Dr. Rene Van Acker > Some of the work we did and work that Ag Canada did that showed that canola seed lots were contaminated with transgenes. So what that meant is that a farmer could buy non-GM canola seed and they had a better than 50% chance of having GM genes in their non-GM canola seeds or having Roundup Ready gene in their non-Roundup Ready canola.

< Percy Schmeiser > Where is our purity with registration, certification, pedigree seeds now?

< Dr. Rene Van Acker > It’s almost impossible for farmers to avoid it.

< Darrin Qualman >If the corporation took on the farmer, although the farmer was very courageous in being willing to stand up and risk more by going public.

<Percy Schmeiser> I might have won or lost this battle but the war continues. The war will continue against these corporations.

[Lower Third]

Nadège Adam

Council of Canadians

< Nadège Adam > Just to know the power of that company, Monsanto, and it only took two people to take that stand to rally an entire world behind them.

<Percy Schmeiser> You cannot fight the battle alone and I have people helping me from all over the world.

< Dr. Nettie Wiebe > There is internationally a tremendous amount of support for the Percy Schmeiser case. It just speaks to how worried people are about that interface now between the corporate power and small farmers.

< Nadège Adam > From the onset Percy’s battle in Canada has been portrayed as a David vs. Goliath story, and it is very much like that. But by the time, you know, the hearing was done what the papers were talking about was should we or should we not allow the patenting of life forms.

< Priscilla Settee > You know we never believed in our life time that life could become commodified.

< Dr. Nettie Wiebe > How did we ever come to the view that it was appropriate to claim ownership of genetic material and life forms and the replication thereof. That’s as my kids would say really sketchy.

< Nadège Adam > What we need is for constituents to make it very clear to its politicians that this is unacceptable.

< Percy Schmeiser > Now it is up to the parliament of Canada, the people of Canada, to decide. We could not do anymore than that.

<Ralph Nader> If there is one thing that every politician I have ever met has, it’s a great finger to the wind. And so it’s our job to give them a lot of wind.

[Image: Fade out to black screen]

[Music: Begins]

[Text] In their early 70’s, Percy and Louise continue to farm in Saskatchewan

[Image: Photo montage of the Schmeiser’s]

[Text] Most recently, Percy and Louise have taken Monsanto to small claims court for $140

[Text] Seeking cleanup costs for the contamination of their organic garden with Monsanto’s GE canola

[Text] Since the original lawsuit, Percy and Louise have traveled all over the world speaking about the impacts of GE crops

[Text] The Schmeiser’s have received many international awards for fighting for farmers’ rights and the environment

[Text] Percy after he received the Mahatma Gandhi award for his non-violent service to humanity

[Text] Presented to him in Delhi, October 2000

[Text] People from all over the world continue to send them letters of support

[Image: letter of support – “You have inspired people across the world by your perseverance in spite of great odds”]

[Text] This film is dedicated to Percy and Louise Schmeiser

[Music: Ends]

<Louise Schmeiser > I’ve been asked why did you do it…many times you know I was asked that. But I say, I guess you believe in something and you think it could make a change, you work at it.

[Text] A Dead Crow Production

Written, Directed, Shot,

and Edited by:

Ian Mauro

Executive Producer:

Stephane McLachlan

Additional Videography:

Mel Yestrau

Corey Toews

Jim Sanders

Additional Editing:

Corey Toews

Sound Engineering:

Norman Dugas Production

Photography:

Ian Mauro

Film participants

(in order of appearance):

Percy Schmeiser

David Suzuki

Nadege Adam

Vandana Shiva

Priscilla Settee

Maude Barlow

Nettie Wiebe

Ralph Nader

Michelle Swenarchuk

Ann Clark

Nathan Busch

Steven Shrybman

Terry Zakreski

Andrew Kimbrell

Terry Boehm

Darrin Qualman

Brewster Kneen

Louise Schmeiser

Devlin Kuyek

Rene Van Acker

Special thanks to:

Council of Canadians

ETC Group

National Farmers Union

Research Foundation for

Science, Technology,

and Ecology

Sierra Club

International Center for

Technology Assessment

The Schmeiser Family

Music:

Redsayno

‘Ballad for the mining towns’

‘Open spaces, nothing holy’

www.redsaynomusic.com

Phil Vernon

‘Ballad of Percy Schmeiser’

Christian Dugas

‘D-day’

‘Finale’

Chilliwack

‘Patent on the wind’

Archival Material:

Ralph Nader and Maude Barlow’s appearance courtesy of the Council of Canadians and their conference on ‘Science and the public good’

U2 album cover

courtesy of Negativland

Supreme Court Footage courtesy of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). This footage cannot be used for purposes other than education and training and is

non- transferable to other third parties. Copyright to this footage is owned by the SCC.

Common Ground cover courtesy of Common

Ground Publishing Corp.

www.commonground.ca

Schmeiser family photos courtesy of Percy and Louise Schmeiser

Research:

Ian Mauro

Stephane McLachlan

Peer Reviewed Articles:

Pryme, I. and Lembcke, R. 2003. In Vivo Studies on Possible Health Consequences of Genetically Modified Foods and Feeds – With Particular Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified Plant Materials. Journal of Nutrition and Health

Friesen, L., Nelson, A., and Van Acker, R. 2003 Evidence of Contamination of Pedigreed canola (Brassica Napus) Seed lots in Western Canada With Genetically Engineered Herbicide Resistant Traits. Agronomy Journal. 95:

1342-1347

Downey, K. and Beckie, H. 2002. Report on Project Entitled ‘Isolation Effectiveness in Canola Pedigree Seed Production’ Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada. Saskatoon Research Centre.

Acknowledgements to:

Elois Yaxley

Sara Coumantarikis

Jason Andrich

Mark Achbar

Jennifer Abbott

The Environmental

Conservation Lab (ECL)

The Harvest Moon Society

Food Security Assembly

Canadian Broadcasting

Corporation (CBC)

The Learning Network

Global environmental

and Outdoor Education

Council (GEOEC)

The Forum on Privatization

and the Public Domain

The David Suzuki

Foundation

Important websites

www.percyschmeiser.com

Shot on location in:

Ottawa, Ontario

Toronto, Ontario

Winnipeg, Manitoba

Bruno, Saskatchewan

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Dundurn, Saskatchewan

Edmonton, Alberta

Support for this film was provided by the Council of Canadians and Dead Crow Productions

2005-01-25 Transgenics (GMO): BASF Clearfield wheat, what do you know?

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

Jan 252005

I have INSERTED what I know. Can you help with the answers to Lorne’s questions? Many thanks to Lorne for raising them.

Maybe we should be doing something?

Some of you will have valuable input.

Cheers!

/Sandra

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

Lorne writes:

Greetings All,

This is a heading from the Western Producer

CLEARFIELD WHEAT VARIETIES HIT MARKET

One seed company has shelved its herbicide tolerant wheat but another is stocking shelves with bags of a new one-pass weed control system .

Limited supplies of BASF Canada’s Clearfield wheat will be available to growers through Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and Agricore United in 2005.

——————-

LORNE’S QUESTIONS:

(1) Supplied by whom ?

(2) What does BASF stand for ?

(3) Do we smell Monsanto somewhere ?

(4) Is this variety a G.M. variety or the like?

All for now

Lorne.

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

QUESTIONS 1 and 2:

( Sandra): If you look at farm publications you will see “Clearfield” crop varieties advertised. And the herbicide “Odyssey”.

BASF is the world’s leading chemical company, headquartered in Germany, manufacturer of Odyssey, developer of Clearfield crop varieties engineered to be resistant to Odyssey. (More on the engineering process below.) My guess is that BASF is an anacronym for words which German-speaking people understand.

Strategically BASF is much smarter than Monsanto:

– They have been successful in playing down the corporate name; like most of us, Lorne knows “Monsanto” but he doesn’t know “BASF”, even though BASF is the largest.

– They have de-linked the name of their herbicide from their herbicide-resistant crop varieties and de-linked these from the corporate name. Monsanto’s strategies which connected the three created a lightning rod which BASF’s strategies avoided.

IMPORTANT

– “Clearfield” is marketed as being non-GMO. It is said to be “traditionally bred” (through selection of seeds that possess a particular attribute). Very nice strategy in today’s world! Read the “Clearfield” process below, and then make a decision: is the claim true? Is it a matter of semantics? Definitions? Is it propaganda? These are very serious questions, because the Univeristy of Saskatchewan is partnered with BASF in the development of Clearfield varieties.

The process involves mutagenesis: chemical agents are used “to force the DNA within seeds to mutate in unexpected ways”, after which seed selection takes place. BASF’s (may I use the word) “propaganda” (?) states that this is “non-GMO”, “Traditional breeding”? Below I raise the issue of the University’s participation in the promotion of propaganda.

– Europeans are far ahead of North Americans on most matters related to environmental protection. And corporate players do not run European Governments to the same extent that the White House is run by Monsanto.

BASF operates within the European context, Monsanto within the American. So BASF HAS TO play its environmental cards more effectively, and it does.

Its web-site has phrases like “Science around us – Social Responsibility – Environmental Protection and Safety” in positions of prominence on the page.

————————–

QUESTION (3): Do we smell Monsanto somewhere ?

BASF is a large chemical company which engages in the same agenda and activities as Monsanto and Dow. Industry members are competitors but they collaborate on matters that affect chemicals and transgenics, their common interest. Croplife International is one of the vehicles through which they collaborate. The documentary “Trade Secrets” demonstrates more of the collaboration through organizations such as the American Association of Chemical Manufacturers.

In my opinion Monsanto is the lightning rod for the industry because they have been more arrogant and stupid in their decision processes; their arrogance led them to underestimate the power of a single farmer. Several decisions regarding court cases have been stupid; they have and continue to supply us with many, many opportunities to expose them for what they are.

BASF, on the other hand, doesn’t hand us those same opportunities on a plate. I suspect that we don’t know BASF, only because they are more clever, which should give us concern.

——————————–

QUESTION (4): Is this variety a G.M. variety or the like?

Lorne’s question is about a herbicide-resistant variety of wheat, Clearfield wheat. These 2 articles are about Clearfield lentils, but explain things quite well.

They also describe the role of the University of Saskatchewan’s Crop Development Centre (CDC). If, as I have stated, the use of phrases such as “non-GMO” and “traditional breeding” is propaganda, then the University stands condemned, as a consequence of its participation in the promotion of non-truth/propaganda.

/Sandra

—————–

http://www.statpub.com/open/76532.html

Science Behind Clearfield Lentils

VANCOUVER – Jan 21/04 – STAT — The technology behind the development of the Clearfield lentils which are expected to be approved for use by the Canadian government this year dates back to 1922 and efforts by scientists to force the DNA in seeds to mutate in unexpected ways.

However, the first commercial applications of the technique did not appear until the 1950s. Researchers appeared to originally place more emphasis on using radioactive materials — neutrons, gamma rays, or X-rays — to force the DNA within seeds to mutate in unexpected ways. Now, chemical agents seem to be more often used. The technique is called mutagenesis.

In the case of the Clearfield lentil, seed from unspecified lentil varieties were exposed to a chemical which triggered unexpected mutations within the seed. Researchers were searching for mutations would result in a plant which is resistant to the imidazolinone family of herbicides. The herbicides used for this project are manufactured by BASF.

In simple terms, the seeds are then grown. They are sprayed to see if any mutated to become resistant to the target herbicide. The survivors are then crossed with a commercial lentil variety. The seed was planted and the plants again tested for herbicide resistance. The process continued until the breeders had a seed which was commercially acceptable and which was resistant to the herbicide.

————–

http://www.statpub.com/open/76205.html

Herbicide Resistant Lentil Pending

SASKATOON – Jan 17/04 – STAT — A new, traditionally bred lentil which is resistant to some herbicides could be available in Canada by the 2005 under an agreement between the University of Saskatchewan’s Crop Development Centre (CDC) and BASF Canada.

BASF Canada has signed a research agreement with the Crop Development Centre. “This joint initiative will lead to the commercialization of Clearfield lentils for western Canada,” says Rick Holm, Director, Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan.

Howie Zander, Clearfield Business Manager, BASF Canada, said, “The development of Clearfield lentils expands current Clearfield technology and creates a global first – western Canadian growers can utilize this non-GMO technology and enjoy access to global markets. Having global market access while growing a variety produced under western Canadian growing conditions provides growers with a marketable crop that has the potential of exceptional grades and quality.”

The genetics for Clearfield lentils are developed through traditional plant breeding methods and will be supplied by the University’s Crop Development Centre.

The weed control in Clearfield lentils will come from Odyssey, a herbicide that is custom designed for all soil types and which provides western Canadian growers with exceptional control of both broadleaf and grassy weeds. Additional lentil protection is available to producers through the recently expanded list of BASF fungicides, namely Headline and Lance.

The CDC and BASF have a distribution agreement with the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers to provide Clearfield lentils to growers. In addition, BASF is currently working with the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers on a commercial agreement.

2005-01-10 Transgenics: Genetically modified arboriculture, The Economist

Genetically Modified No Responses »

Jan 102005

Please! just give me one of these developments that I can be positive about!

For me, the unaddressed question here is the same as raised in the documentary “Life Running out of Control” and reinforced by our experience with RR (Roundup Resistant (GM) Canola: the plants/animals/fish/life forms are engineered to have advantages which enable them to outperform other varieties.

WE KNOW THAT introduced species proliferate in the environment because they have no enemies; zebra mussels, purple loosestrife, rabbits in Australia, … through a long-long list. IS ANYONE LOOKING AT THAT EVIDENCE AND HISTORY, AND APPLYING IT TO THE CASE OF TRANSGENICS (genetic modification)? We do not have to proceed in ignorance. A transgenic is an “introduced species”.

Thanks to Elaine:

This is what they’re planting at abandoned pig factories to suck up the sludge left in the bottom of the manure lagoons. The farmers who otherwise take the raw liquid manure don’t want the sludge on their land because it’s too toxic… Elaine

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

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3535741

Genetically modified arboriculture

Down in the forest, something stirs

Jan 6th 2005

From The Economist print edition

GM trees are on their way

IN SEPTEMBER 2004, a group of scientists from around the world announced that they had deciphered yet another genome. By and large, the world shrugged and ignored them. The organism in question was neither cuddly and furry, nor edible, nor dangerous, so no one cared. It was, in fact, the black cottonwood, a species of poplar tree, and its was the first arboreal genome to be unravelled. But perhaps the world should have paid attention, because unravelling a genome is a step towards tinkering with it. And that, in the end, could lead to genetically modified forests.

The black cottonwood was given the honour of being first tree because it and its relatives are fast-growing and therefore important in forestry. For some people, though, they do not grow fast enough. As America’s Department of Energy, which sponsored and led the cottonwood genome project, puts it, the objective of the research was to provide insights that will lead to “faster growing trees, trees that produce more biomass for conversion to fuels, while also sequestering carbon from the atmosphere.” It might also lead to trees with “phytoremediation traits that can be used to clean up hazardous waste sites.”

It is also pretty sure to lead to a lot of environmental protest—hence, perhaps, the environmental emphasis of the energy department’s mission statement. Given the argument about genetically modified field-crops that has taken place in some parts of the world, genetically modified forests are likely to provoke an incandescent response. Soya, maize, cotton and the like were already heavily modified for human use before biotechnologists got their hands on them. One result is that they do not do very well in the big, bad, competitive world outside the farmer’s field. But trees, even the sorts favoured by foresters, are wild organisms. GM trees really might do well against their natural conspecifics.

The wood and the trees

Lofty mission statements aside, the principal commercial goals of arboreal genome research are faster growth and more useful wood. The advantage of the former is obvious: more timber more quickly. More useful wood, in this context, mainly means wood that is more useful to the paper industry, an enormous consumer of trees. In particular, this industry wants to reduce the amount of lignin in the wood it uses.

Lignin is one of the structural elements in the walls of the cells of which wood is composed. Paper is made from another of those elements, cellulose. The lignin acts as a glue, binding the cellulose fibres together, so an enormous amount of chemical and mechanical effort has to be expended on removing it. The hope is that trees can be modified to make less lignin, and more cellulose.

In a lucky break, it looks as though it might be possible to achieve both goals simultaneously. A few years ago a group of researchers at Michigan Technological University, led by Vincent Chiang, started the ball rolling. They produced aspens, another species of poplar, that have 45% less lignin and 15% more cellulose than their wild brethren, and grow almost twice as fast, as well. The mixture the team achieved leaves the combined mass of lignin and cellulose in the trunk more or less unchanged and, contrary to the expectations of many critics, the resulting trees are as strong as unmodified ones.

The trick Dr Chiang and his colleagues used was to suppress the activity of one of the genes in the biochemical pathway that trees employ to make lignin. They did this using so-called “antisense” technology. Antisense technology depends on the fact that the message carried by a gene is encoded in only one of the two strands of the famous DNA double helix.

Because of the precise pairing between the components of the two strands, the other strand carries what can, in essence, be described as an “antimessage”. The message itself is copied into a single-stranded messenger molecule which carries it to the protein-making parts of the cell, where it is translated. But if this messenger meets a single-stranded “antimessenger” before it arrives, the two will pair up. That silences the messenger. Dr Chiang therefore inserted into his aspens a gene that makes antimessengers to the lignin gene in question.

Wood can be improved in other ways, too. When it comes to papermaking, long fibres of cellulose are preferable to short ones. Thomas Moritz, of the Umea Plant Science Centre in Sweden, and his colleagues, have found out how to make hybrid poplars that reflect this industrial preference. In this case they did it by making a gene work overtime, rather than by suppressing its activity. The gene they chose is involved in the synthesis of a hormone called gibberellin and, once again, a side-effect of the alteration was to cause the trees to grow faster.

How such genetically modified trees would fit in with the natural environment is, of course, an important question—and it is important for two reasons. The first is political. The row about GM crops shows that people have to be persuaded that such technology will have no harmful effects before they will permit its introduction. But there is also a scientific reason. Trees have complex interactions with other species, some of which are necessary for their healthy growth.

Claire Halpin, of Dundee University in Scotland, and her colleagues have been looking into the question of environmental interactions using hybrid poplars that contain antisense versions of two other genes for enzymes involved in the production of lignin. The trees were grown for four years at two sites in France and England, in order to see how they fitted in with the local environment.

The trees and the bugs

The answer seems to be that they fitted in reasonably well. They grew normally and had normal diplomatic relations with the local insects and soil microbes. They also produced high-quality pulp.

A tree’s interactions with soil microbes are often beneficial to it (the microbes provide nutrients) so this is an important result. But insects are frequently hostile, and some researchers are looking for ways to protect trees from them. Lynette Grace of Forest Research in Rotorua, New Zealand, for example, has taken an approach based on introducing the gene for Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin, a natural insecticide. This gene is already used to produce versions of crops such as cotton that do not require the application of synthetic insecticides. Dr Grace and her colleagues adapted it to the radiata pine, which is plagued by the caterpillars of the painted apple moth.

Genetic modifications based on Bt are environmentally controversial. On the one hand, they reduce the amount of pesticide needed. On the other, there is a fear that the gene might “escape” from crops into wild plants that form the foodstuffs of benign insects. In the case of trees it might not even be necessary for the gene to jump species. GM trees, with immunity to insect pests and faster growth rates than their unmodified competitors, might simply spread by the normal processes of natural selection. That really would be survival of the fittest.

2004-11-28 Lockheed Martin and the Future of Warfare, NY Times, “Lockheed Martin doesn’t run the United States. But it does help run a breathtakingly big part of it.”

Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials) No Responses »

Nov 282004

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/041128-lockheed.htm

The New York Times November 28, 2004

Lockheed and the Future of Warfare

In-Depth Coverage

By Tim Weiner

LOCKHEED MARTIN doesn’t run the United States. But it does help run a breathtakingly big part of it.

Over the last decade, Lockheed, the nation’s largest military contractor, has built a formidable information-technology empire that now stretches from the Pentagon to the post office. It sorts your mail and totals your taxes. It cuts Social Security checks and counts the United States census. It runs space flights and monitors air traffic. To make all that happen, Lockheed writes more computer code than Microsoft.

Of course, Lockheed, based in Bethesda, Md., is best known for its weapons, which are the heart of America’s arsenal. It builds most of the nation’s warplanes. It creates rockets for nuclear missiles, sensors for spy satellites and scores of other military and intelligence systems. The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency might have difficulty functioning without the contractor’s expertise.

But in the post-9/11 world, Lockheed has become more than just the biggest corporate cog in what Dwight D. Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex. It is increasingly putting its stamp on the nation’s military policies, too.

Lockheed stands at ”the intersection of policy and technology,” and that ”is really a very interesting place to me,” said its new chief executive, Robert J. Stevens, a tightly wound former Marine. ”We are deployed entirely in developing daunting technology,” he said, and that requires ”thinking through the policy dimensions of national security as well as technological dimensions.”

To critics, however, Lockheed’s deep ties with the Pentagon raise some questions. ”It’s impossible to tell where the government ends and Lockheed begins,” said Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit group in Washington that monitors government contracts. ”The fox isn’t guarding the henhouse. He lives there.”

No contractor is in a better position than Lockheed to do business in Washington. Nearly 80 percent of its revenue comes from the United States government. Most of the rest comes from foreign military sales, many financed with tax dollars. And former Lockheed executives, lobbyists and lawyers hold crucial posts at the White House and the Pentagon, picking weapons and setting policies.

Obviously, war and crisis have been good for business. The Pentagon’s budget for buying new weapons rose by about a third over the last three years, to $81 billion in fiscal 2004, up from $60 billion in 2001. Lockheed’s sales also rose by about a third, to nearly $32 billion in the 2003 calendar year, from $24 billion in 2001. It was the No.1 recipient of Pentagon primary contracts, with $21.9 billion in fiscal 2003. Boeing had $17.3 billion, Northrop Grumman had $11.1 billion and General Dynamics had $8.2 billion.

LOCKHEED also has many tens of billions of dollars in future orders on its books. The company’s stock has tripled in the last four years, to just under $60.

”It used to be just an airplane company,” said John Pike, a longtime military analyst and director of GlobalSecurity.org, a research organization in Alexandria, Va. ”Now it’s a warfare company. It’s an integrated solution provider. It’s a one-stop shop. Anything you need to kill the enemy, they will sell you.”

As its influence grows, Lockheed is not just seeking to solve the problems of national security. It is framing the questions as well:

Are there too few soldiers to secure the farthest reaches of Iraq? Lockheed is creating robot soldiers and neural software — ”intelligent agents” — to do their work. ”We’ve now created policy options where you can elect to put a human in or you can elect to put an intelligent agent in place,” Mr. Stevens said.

Are thousands of C.I.A. and Pentagon analysts drowning under a flood of data, incapable of seeing patterns? Lockheed’s ”intelligence information factory” will do their thinking for them. Mining and sifting categories of facts — for example, linking an adversary’s movements and telephone calls — would ”offload the mental work by making connections,” said Stanton D. Sloane, executive vice president for integrated systems and solutions at Lockheed.

Are American soldiers hard-pressed to tell friend from foe in the crags of Afghanistan? Lockheed is transferring spy satellite technology, created for mapping mountain ridges, to build a mobile lab for reading fingerprints. Lockheed executives say the mobile lab, the size of a laptop, is just the tool for special-operations commandos. It can be loaded with the prints of suspected terrorists, they say, and linked to the F.B.I.’s 470 million print files. They say they think that American police departments will want it, too.

Does the Department of Homeland Security have the best tools to protect the nation? Lockheed has a host of military and intelligence technologies to offer. ”What they do for the military in downtown Falluja, they can do for the police in downtown Reno,” said Jondavid Black of the company’s Horizontal Integration Vision division. Lockheed is also building a huge high-altitude airship, 25 times bigger than the Goodyear blimp, intended to help the Pentagon with the unsolved problem of protecting the nation from ballistic missiles. The airship, with two tons of surveillance sensors, could be used by the Department of Homeland Security to stare down at the United States, Lockheed officials said.

In a pilot program for the department, Lockheed has set up spy cameras and sensors on the U.S.S. New Jersey, anchored in the Delaware River, providing 24-hour surveillance of the ports of Philadelphia and Camden, N.J. The program grew out of the Aegis weapons and surveillance systems for Navy ships, and it soon may spread throughout the United States.

The melding of military and intelligence programs, information-technology and domestic security spending began in earnest after the Sept. 11 attacks. Lockheed was perfectly positioned to take advantage of the shift. When the United States government decided a decade ago to let corporate America handle federal information technology, Lockheed leapt at the opportunity. Its information-technology sales have quadrupled since 1995, and, for all those years, Lockheed has been the No.1 supplier to the federal government, which now outsources 83 percent of its I.T. work.

Lockheed has taken over the job of making data flow throughout the government, from the F.B.I.’s long-dysfunctional computer networks to the Department of Health and Human Services system for tracking child support. The company just won a $525 million contract to fix the Social Security Administration’s information systems. It has an $87 million contract to make computers communicate and secrets stream throughout the Department of Homeland Security. On top of all that, the company is helping to rebuild the United States Coast Guard — a $17 billion program — and to supply, under the Patriot Act, biometric identity cards for six million Americans who work in transportation.

Lockheed is also the strongest corporate force driving the Pentagon’s plans for ”net-centric warfare”: the big idea of fusing military, intelligence and weapons programs through a new military Internet, called the Global Information Grid, to give American soldiers throughout the world an instant picture of the battlefield around them. ”We want to know what’s going on anytime, anyplace on the planet,” said Lorraine M. Martin, vice president and deputy of the company’s Joint Command, Control and Communications Systems division.

Lockheed’s global reach is also growing. Its ”critical mass” of salesmanship lets it ”produce global products for a global marketplace,” said Robert H. Trice Jr., the senior vice president for corporate business development. With its dominant position in fighter jets, missiles, rockets and other weapons, Lockheed’s technology will drive the security spending for many American allies in coming decades. Lockheed now sells aircraft and weapons to more than 40 countries. The American taxpayer is financing many of those sales. For example, Israel spends much of the $1.8 billion in annual military aid from the United States to buy F-16 warplanes from Lockheed.

Twenty-four nations are flying the F-16, or will be soon. Lockheed’s factory in Fort Worth is building 10 for Chile. Oman will receive a dozen next year. Poland will get 48 in 2006; the United States Treasury will cover the cost through a $3.8 billion loan.

In the future, Lockheed hopes to build and sell hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of the next generation of warplanes, the F-35, to the United States Army, Navy and Air Force, and to dozens of United States allies. Three years ago, Lockheed won the competition to be the prime contractor for this aircraft, known as the Joint Strike Fighter.

The program was valued at $200 billion, the biggest Pentagon project in history, but it may be worth more. The F-35 is in its first stages of development in Fort Worth; its onboard computers will require 3.5 million lines of code. Each of the American military services wants a different version of the jet.

There have been glitches involving the weight of the craft. ”We did not get it right the first time,” said Tom Burbage, a Lockheed executive vice president working on the program. But a day will come, he said, ”when everybody’s flying the F-35.” Lockheed hopes to sell 4,000 or 5,000 of the planes, with roughly half the sales to foreign nations, including those that bought the F-16.

”It’s a terrific opportunity for us,” said Bob Elrod, a senior Lockheed manager for the F-35 program. ”It could be a tremendous success, at the level of the F-16 — 4,000-plus and growing.” That would represent ”world domination” for Lockheed, he said.

In the United States, where national security spending now surpasses $500 billion a year, Lockheed’s dominance is growing. Its own executives say the concentration of power among military contractors is more intense than in any other sector of business outside banking. Three or four major companies — Lockheed, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and arguably Boeing — rule the industry. They often work like general contractors building customized houses, farming out the painting, the floors and the cabinets to smaller subcontractors and taking their own share of the money.

AND, after 9/11, cost is hardly the most important variable for Pentagon planners. Lockheed has now won approval to build as many F-22’s as possible. The current price, $258 million apiece, easily makes the F-22 the most expensive fighter jet in history.

Mr. Stevens, whose compensation last year as Lockheed’s chief operating officer was more than $9.5 million, says cost is essentially irrelevant when national security is at stake. ”Some folks might think, well, here’s a fighter that costs a lot,” he said. ”This is not a business where in the purest economical sense there’s a broad market of supply and demand and price and value can be determined in that exchange. It’s more challenging to define its value.”

Lockheed says it has transformed its corporate culture. In the 1970’s, it was discovered that the company had paid millions of dollars to foreign officials around the world in order to sell its planes. In one case, Kakuei Tanaka, who had been the prime minister of Japan, was convicted of accepting bribes.

”Without Lockheed, there never would have been a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,” said Jerome Levinson, who was the staff director of the Senate subcommittee that uncovered the bribery.

The antibribery provisions of that law, passed in 1977, owed their existence to the Lockheed investigation, he said. The last bribery case involving Lockheed came a decade ago, when a Lockheed executive and the corporation admitted paying $1.2 million in bribes to an Egyptian official to seal the sales of three Lockheed C-130 cargo planes.

Mr. Trice, Lockheed’s senior vice president for business development, says the company cleaned up its act at home and overseas since the last of the series of major mergers and acquisitions that gave the corporation its present shape in March 1995. ”You simply have to look people in the eye and say ‘we don’t do business that way,”’ he said.

There really is no need to do business that way any more — not in a world where so much of Lockheed’s wealth flows directly from the Treasury, where competition for foreign markets is both controlled and subsidized by the White House and Congress, and where Lockheed’s influence runs so deep. Men who have worked, lobbied and lawyered for Lockheed hold the posts of secretary of the Navy, secretary of transportation, director of the national nuclear weapons complex and director of the national spy satellite agency. The list also includes Stephen J. Hadley, who has been named the next national security adviser to the president, succeeding Condoleezza Rice.

Former Lockheed executives serve on the Defense Policy Board, the Defense Science Board and the Homeland Security Advisory Council, which help make military and intelligence policy and pick weapons for future battles. Lockheed’s board includes E.C. Aldridge Jr., who, as the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer, gave the go-ahead to build the F-22.

None of those posts and positions violate the Pentagon’s rules about the ”revolving door” between industry and government. Lockheed has stayed clear of the kind of conflict-of-interest cases that have afflicted its competitor, Boeing, and the Air Force in recent months.

”We need to be politically aware and astute,” Mr. Stevens said. ”We work with the Congress. We work with the executive branch.” In these dialogues, he said, Lockheed’s end of the conversation is ”saying we think this is feasible, we think this is possible, we think we might have invented a new approach.”

Lockheed makes about $1 million a year in campaign contributions through political action committees, singling out members of the Congressional committees controlling the Pentagon’s budget, and spends many millions more on lobbying. Political stalwarts who have lobbied for Lockheed at one point or another include Haley Barbour, the governor of Mississippi and a former Republican national chairman; Otto Reich, who persuaded Congress to sell F-16’s to Chile before becoming President Bush’s main Latin America policy aide in 2002; and Norman Y. Mineta, the transportation secretary and former member of Congress.

Its connections give Lockheed a ”tremendous opportunity to influence contracts flowing to the company,” said Ms. Brian of the Project on Government Oversight. ”More subtly valuable is the ability of the company to benefit from their eyes and ears inside the government, to know what’s on the horizon, what are the best bets for the government’s future technology needs.”

SO who serves as the overseer for the biggest military contractors and their costly weapons? Usually, the customer itself: the Pentagon.

”These programs are huge,” said Dov S. Zakheim, the Pentagon’s comptroller and chief financial officer for the last three years, who recently joined Booz Allen Hamilton, the consulting firm. ”There is a historical tendency to underestimate their test schedules, their technological hurdles, the likely weight of an airplane and, as a result, to underestimate costs.

”Because you have so few contractors, you don’t get the level of attention that the average citizen would think would be devoted to a program costing billions of dollars,” he said. ”With this massive agglomeration into a very small number of companies, you get far less visibility as to whether the subcontractors are effectively managed. Problems accumulate.”

”Twenty years ago, the complaint was, it takes so long to build things,” he said. Weapons designed in the depths of the cold war were built long after the Berlin Wall crumbled. That led some people, including George W. Bush while running for president in 1999, to suggest that the Pentagon skip a generation of weapons set to roll off the assembly line in this decade and concentrate instead on lighter, faster, smarter systems for the future.

That didn’t happen. It still takes two decades to build a major weapons system, and the costs are still staggering.

”The complaints haven’t changed 20 years later,” Mr. Zakheim said. The difference between then and now is the concentration of expertise, experience and power in a few hands, he said, ”and I don’t think the effect has necessarily been a good one.”

Mr. Stevens rejected that criticism. ”I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard ‘not progressive, not sophisticated, ponderous, slow”’ as terms used to describe Lockheed, he said. ”I see none of that.”

What he sees is a far grander vision. Lockheed, he said, is promising to transform the very nature of war. During the cold war, when Lockheed and its component parts built an empire of nuclear weapons, Mr. Stevens said, the watchword was: ”Be more fearful. ‘Deterrence,’ isn’t that Latin? ‘Deterrere.’ Induce fear. Terrorize.”

Today, Lockheed is building weapons so smart that they can change the world by virtue of their precision, he said; they aim to wage war without the death of innocents, without weapons misfiring, without fatal miscalculation.

”I know the fog of war exists,” Mr. Stevens said, adding that it could be lifted. ”We envision a world where you don’t have any more fratricide,” no more friendly fire, he said. ”With technology we’ve been able to make ourselves more secure and more humane.

”And we aren’t there yet — but we sure have pioneered the kind of work that is taking us well along that trajectory. And there’s a lot of evidence that says we’re doing well. And we’re setting the bar high and we expect to be able to do that. Now that’s pretty exciting stuff.

”I don’t say this lightly,” he said. ”Our industry has contributed to a change in humankind.”

2004-11-28 Pesticides: The Dynamics of Change. Health Officials won’t do the job, even when paid $20,000.00 a month.

Culture and Ethics, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Health, Sustainability, Take back the University, Why we flounder or do not flounder No Responses »

Nov 282004

There IS something that can be done. This email is only part of it.

From letter to Chief Medical Health Officer:

“… it is claimed that high salaries are necessary in order to attract the right people. But the right people are those who will assume responsibility and carry out the action which common sense dictates is needed. The right people are those without fear. It seems to me that the greater the paycheque, the more entrenched is the status quo, and for this very reason I cite – that people are fearful of losing the pay-cheque. Perhaps I am in a state of luxery – I can be fearless because I don’t have a paycheque to lose? …”

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

Last Wednesday we met with 3 officials from the Regina Qu’Appelle Health Authority.

We began working, we thought “with” them, in 2001-02 to move forward on the pesticide agenda in Regina. We have supplied information, had meetings, etc. on an on-going basis.

The first big let-down came when the Medical Health Officer, Dr. Maurice Hennink, gave the Health Authority’s presentation to City Council a couple of years ago. Councillor Fred Clipsham asked question after question, giving Maurice every opportunity to say, “yes, these are harmful substances”, or “yes, they have an impact on the developmental health of children”, … anything. What he got was avoidance. Finally, in exasperation Councillor Clipsham said to Dr. Hennink, “I can’t tell which side of the fence you’re sitting on, Doctor.” The words don’t leave my memory. When your own Health Authority won’t back you up, in spite of all the information supplied to them, it is worse than any presentation given by the chemical industry itself.

I went to this particular meeting on Wednesday with re-newed optimism. The CEO, Dwight Nelson was in attendance, as well as Dr. Tanya Denier, to whom Maurice reports, and Maurice himself. … To me it is such a no-brainer, I can’t see how anyone, especially the Health Authorities, can do anything BUT to take effective action to help eliminate unnecessary exposure.

We got nowhere. Dwight made it very clear that we should understand that the Health Authority takes its marching orders from the Province. I asked, “Where is your Board of Directors on this question?”. Response: “They are all appointed by the Province.”

The Province doesn’t want to do anything about pesticide use. The Health Authorities won’t challenge them, not even in their own districts. The DOCTORS won’t do anything.

Coincidentally, just after this Wednesday meeting, I received a letter from Deputy Minister of Health John Wright, telling me why the Province can’t do anything:

“Health regions are responsible for implementing prevention and health promotion initiatives in their local communities.” !!

We pay Dwight Nelson, CEO of the Health Authority, well over $200,000 a year, plus travel to conferences, etc. – perks that come with the job. I don’t know how much Tanya Denier and Maurice Hennink make. The Deputy Minister, John Wright, will be paid $120,000 to $130,000 plus lots of perks.

The last time I checked, Board members are paid $200 a day. It is highly unreasonable for us to pay these salaries to people who refuse to do their job (protection of health).

At Wednesday’s meeting, we learned that the Medical Health Officers (MHO’s) for the Province (from all the Health Authorities) had a meeting on Thursday and Friday (Nov 25 and 26) with the Chief MHO for the Province, Dr. Ross Findlater. Pesticides was on the agenda. I emailed this letter:

——————–

Hi Ross,

If you are in Saskatoon sometime, my number is 373-8078. Perhaps we could have a coffee. Or, sometime when I am in Regina.

I don’t understand what is going on.

Perhaps people in the Health field think I am some kind of wacko weirdo.

My personality type is that of “investigator” – when I don’t understand, I try to figure things out. It is the way I am. I ask questions: how can it be that by far the majority of Canadians are opposed to the introduction of wheat that has been engineered to be resistant to herbicides – but the Government pushes ahead with it, in spite of the opposition? Even when, after the experience with herbicide-resistant canola and loss of markets, the product – roundup resistant wheat – doesn’t make any common sense. In the attempt to understand the process and what is going on, one learns.

That is how I know about the PMRA. I don’t make unfounded statements.

There is a reason for everything. If you take the time to gather the information, sort it out, and think it through, you can understand the reason. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the PMRA, the chemical industry – it’s all consistent with the findings of the Auditor General.

It does not take a rocket scientist to differentiate between “good” and “bad” science. Nor to know what we should be doing about pesticides.

In an attempt to understand how it can be that officials will not act to protect the public from unnecessary exposure to pesticides when the evidence is clear (but the products are invisible and have long-term effects) (the effects are worse than those of tobacco) I wrote a piece “The Dynamics of Change” which I have appended.

What it says is that conventional wisdom is difficult to change. But I think there is more at work here. The explanation is insufficient.

After meeting with officials from Health, who tell me that the Health Authorities are “the creation of the Provincial Government” and therefore have no responsibility except to carry out the policy directives of the Provincial Government (unless there is an immediate threat such as a SARS outbreak), I am beginning to formulate another hypothesis.

I start from the question: WHY do I assume responsibility for the removal of these known cancer-causing, endocrine-disrupting formulations from the environment and the Health officials do not? That is a reasonable question to ask.

What is the difference between the Health officials and me? … well, some of them are paid $130,000 a year, the protection of health is their responsibility. My remuneration is negative (I contribute out of my own pocket; my time is volunteered), and the question of pesticides is arguably not my responsibility.

Is it that I am better informed than they are? IGNORANCE sometimes explains, although does not excuse, inaction. … I don’t think that can be the case. The officials know

that the Canadian Institute of Child Health has documented a steady upward trend in the number of children with cancer, a 25% rise over 25 years.
They know of Dr. Guillette’s work which clearly shows that children exposed to agricultural pesticides

“exhibit more neuromuscular and mental defects. They were less proficient at catching a ball, reflecting poor eye-hand co-ordination. Stamina levels were also lower. Also the exposed children had symptoms of illness three to four times the rate of the unexposed, with a high rate of upper respiratory infections, suggesting suppressed immune systems.”

They know about the Report from the Ontario Family Physicians.
They know about the Auditor General’s Reports.

etc. etc. … no, I do not think ignorance is the answer.

FEAR? If fear, then what are they afraid of? … what fear is so great that it leads one to inaction, when you know that the price of inaction is more children with “neuromuscular and mental defects” and cancer.

DIFFERENT BRAIN STRUCTURE? That is perhaps part of the problem. If I observe myself in relation to other people, I notice that we have different time horizons. None of which is better than another. A native fellow arrives in Saskatoon at 10:30 at night by bus and does not know where he will spend the night (he is an artist of international renown – he has the money and a phone but he doesn’t “plan ahead” as some other people do. It’s not a problem – just a different way of being in the world.)

Is that what is happening in the case of pesticides? I look at them and, I KNOW that DOWN THE ROAD there will be fewer children who will suffer the effects of inadvertent, unnecessary exposure to pesticides, if we legislate a phased-in ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides today.

Maybe the Health officials have shorter time horizons? They don’ think “down the road”? Too busy just getting through today?

DIFFERENCE IN BELIEFS?

Use the example of gambling. Two belief pillars have to be in place in order to support it:

(1) we are incapable of creating other, alternate employment opportunities.

(2) the individual and his/her family is expendable.

I believe that we DO have creative abilities that can create better alternatives. And, whether in gambling or in cosmetic pesticide use, IF YOU KNOW THE PERSONS AND FAMILIES WHO HAVE SUFFERED from the unnecessary exposure, you care, and you say “we can do without this stuff”. The individual is not expendable. To me, there is always a sense of those who should be the leaders in the society, preying on the weak, those who have no voice – when it comes to gambling or cosmetic pesticide use.

EMOTIONS?

I should come back to that question. Analysis of brain functioning, through the most powerful of the MRI machinery, shows that our actions arise out of emotions. The action I arrive at is obviously different from the action arrived at by the Health official.

Is there more than fear at work? Would I behave differently if I stood to lose a paycheque of, say $11,000 a month? Maybe I can never know the answer to that.

But it raises an interesting thought: it is claimed that high salaries are necessary in order to attract the right people.

But the right people are those who will assume responsibility and carry out the action which common sense dictates is needed. The right people are those without fear.

It seems to me that the greater the paycheque, the more entrenched is the status quo, and for this very reason I cite – that people are fearful of losing the pay-cheque.

Perhaps I am in a state of luxery – I can be fearless because I don’t have a paycheque to lose? Is the stumbling block for elected officials to display leadership, similar – the fear of loss of, not a paycheque, but power?

I sincerely want to understand. I know that Health officials are people just like myself – we do what we can to ensure that our children will lead fulfilling lives. But someplace there is a disconnect. Where is it? What is the obstacle?

Maybe we could discuss the matter over coffee?

Best wishes,

Sandra

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

Why is there little change when so much that is known dictates change?

THE DYNAMICS OF CHANGE

We have ample information to know we must reverse the trend of using chemicals as a response to pesky problems. So WHY aren’t we changing?

It is normal for people – and organizations – to resist change.

Dr. Stuart Hill from McGill University states what we know:

‘It is common for proposals for change, which usually imply criticism of current practices, to bring up a diverse range of defensive behaviours.”

I’m making a suggestion that raises defensive behaviour. And how will I in turn react to your defensive behaviour?

Commonly, I will ‘.. focus on strengthening the case for change, often by doing more research, and seeking legal and political solutions. (Precisely as I am now doing!)

While these initiatives are often essential components of the change process, they fail to address the psychological and emotional barriers to change.’

This booklet which strengthens the case for change, contains all the arguments in favour of the status quo. These arguments come from the past, when we were inexperienced. Opposite these arguments are today’s facts, what we have learned from experience.

Dr. Hill notes that resistance to change continues, even when growing evidence makes it clear that a given practice has serious health consequences.

– Smoking continued unfettered for decades before action was taken.

– It took over 20 years after the effects of DDT were known, before the EPA cancelled all use of DDT on crops.

– As early as 1897 the paint industry acknowledged that its lead-based products were poisonous to children. Today, after more than a century of poisoning children, the paint industry continues to sell lead-based paint, though its use inside homes was restricted in Australia in 1920, in many European countries in 1923-24, and in the U.S. belatedly in 1972. It took until 1982 in Canada to get lead banned as an additive in gasoline.

John Kenneth Galbraith originated and defined the term “conventional wisdom” in understanding these matters. I, and others, are trying to change the conventional wisdom about chemical pesticide use.

The hallmark of conventional wisdom is its acceptability by the majority.

Galbraith observed that ‘its purpose is not to convey knowledge’ but to make the ideas sacred and worthy of public honour. We bow down before the wisdom of the learned authorities and the admen.

So conventional wisdom isn’t about reality (e.g. lawn and household chemicals bring disease to children and pets), but about our accepted view (aren’t our lawns nice and pretty). Because familiarity is such an important test of acceptability, the acceptable ideas have great stability.

The acceptable idea in Saskatchewan is that chemical pesticide use may present some problems, but no big deal.

How do we change conventional wisdom that is harmful and extremely costly?

It is not through ideas such as in the booklet; it is through the march of events.

Conventional wisdom remains with the comfortable and the familiar, while the world moves on. It is always in danger of obsolescence as we learn new things. Before the widespread use of chemicals, the effects on health were known to few people. Now most people have an inkling.

All I can do is to crystallize in words what events have made clear: our society has made a mistake in relying on the propaganda of the chemical industry. Our conventional wisdom is failing us.

The cost of not changing is very high. To treat a child with cancer costs a million dollars. From earlier communications you will know about the 4 teenage friends from a small bedroom community south of Saskatoon. The cost of treating these 4 cancer cases alone will generate $4 million in the medicare system. Three of the kids are already dead.

The Ontario College of Family Physicians recently stated: “…Given the wide range of commonly used home and garden products associated with health effects, the College’s message is to AVOID EXPOSURE TO ALL PESTICIDES WHENEVER AND WHEREVER POSSIBLE. This includes reducing both occupational exposures, as well as lower level exposures….”

The number of Canadian children with cancer increases by 1% every year. We have to start somewhere to change.

We, citizens and officials, can ALL assume leadership roles and step-by-step, there will be a reversal in the trend to add toxic chemicals in ever greater quantities and mixtures into our water and air.

2004-11-13 Genetically modified: documentary by Bertram Verhaag “LIFE RUNNING OUT OF CONTROL; Gene Food and Designer Babies.” GM fish and pigs.

Genetically Modified, Salmon & Fish No Responses »

Nov 132004

Bertram from Germany writes “there was an interim injunction from Monsanto versus our film “LIFE RUNNING OUT OF CONTROL“.

(See future postings for updates.)

— – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

PRESS RELEASE, JULY 2004

Wednesday, July 14, 23:00 p.m.

The Documentary:

Life Running Out of Control – Gene Food and Designer Babies

A Film Produced by Bertram Verhaag and Gabriele Kröber

Editor: Dr. Gudrun Hanke-El Ghomri

Genetic technology is one of the most important topics of our century. The film made by Bertram Verhaag and Gabriele Kröber demonstrates that the risks and perils of gene manipulation have not been fully estimated up to now, neither with regard to plants, animals nor even humans.

In Canada, genetically modified canola and soya have been cultivated on a large scale for years. Percy Schmeiser was one of those Canadian farmers who cultivated canola in the traditional way – until a heavy storm blew genetically modified canola onto his fields during harvest time. Canola, which was patented by the US corporation Monsanto. Since then, Monsanto has been suing Schmeiser for illegal cultivation of its patented seed.

In India, many small farmers are faced with ruin because Monsanto’s genetically modified cotton, approved in 2002 for the first time, had produced a disastrous crop. Thousands of farmers see the only escape from debts in suicide. Vandana Shiva, author and environmental advocate, with a Ph.D. in physics, has dedicated herself to protecting the rights of India’s small farmers and preserving bio-diversity for more than 20 years. She collects traditional seeds and passes them on to farmers. Vandana Shiva is firmly opposed to patenting foodstuffs in any form. Fifteen years ago she founded the privately-funded experimental farm NAVDANYA.

“Aqua Bounty”, a Canadian company, is shortly expected to obtain market approval of its sterile, genetically modified giant salmon. Can the consumption of “gene food” cause chronic diseases and a weakening of the immune system? At least some scientists harbor this suspicion. Only a few scientists are doing independent – without the financial support of private industry – research on the impact of transgenic animals and plants on the environment and health, as for example, the Norwegian Terje Traavic.

Since the final sequencing of the human genome, a cure for illnesses such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes or Alzheimer’s appeared to be in the offing.

Genes for criminal behavior, depression or alcoholism were sought after.

The reproduction industry promotes the concept of the “perfect” child by means of genetic analysis.

In Iceland a large data bank has been created that is owned by a private company. Blood samples, DNA analyses and available data on all Icelandic patients are supposed to be collected here, thus enabling certain genes to be assigned to various hereditary and endemic diseases. The Swiss company F. Hoffmann-LaRoche has pledged $200 million – however, only after the data has been supplied – for the identification of genes that are responsible for certain diseases. The impact of gene technology on our lives is increasing. And we are often unaware of this.

Gene technology: a golden opportunity or a risky intervention into life processes? For Bertram Verhaag the answer is unequivocal: This is a gigantic human experiment without a control group.

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

BACKGROUND FOR NEWCOMERS (Sandra speaking):

Last year while our network was battling Roundup Resistant Wheat, we worked with two different filmmakers who came from Germany to Saskatchewan – Manfred from German Public Television, and BERTRAM VERHAAG who is an independent documentary film maker.

If you mention a video “Blue Eyes, Brown Eyes” to educators in Canada, the United States and in many, many countries around the world, they will respond with enthusiasm. In 1995-6 Bertram and his crew made THAT DOCUMENTARY, which is about disempowerment – not disempowerment “in theory”, but by visceral demonstration using real people. The video is widely used internationally in the fight against racism.

We continue to work with Bertram and Manfred. On my part, it is not just a “work” relationship, but one of friends. I have great admiration and respect for the work they are doing.

Some of the footage and commentary for Bertram’s documentary “LIFE RUNNING OUT OF CONTROL” was obtained in Saskatchewan while he was here last year.

“LIFE RUNNING OUT OF CONTROL” takes you around the world on an exploration of what is happening in the universe of transgenics. You see pigs that are the product of Pig crossed with Human genes. Fish for commercial enterprise that are the product of fish genes crossed with growth genes from non-fishes to produce fish, that are at the end of a year, 6 times larger than the natural species. You see the problems that are created, but completely glossed over and not addressed … the (to me) frightening inability of scientists and Governments (PEOPLE!) TO THINK. Psychological denial – the same as in the email just circulated – “EPA to use poor kids as guinea pigs to test toxic chemicals”. Some huge failure created by people working in concert with each other, and individually perceiving no responsibility.

BERTRAM WRITES:

” … We are trying to do our part from good old Europe. As you maybe know already there was an interim injunction from Monsanto versus our film “LIFE RUNNING OUT OF CONTROL”. Last week was a discussion at the court and we found a way both sides can live with- and now the film is on the market again.

What Monsanto asked to change was the following: They (Monsanto) claimed that we had shown Percy Schmeiser only as a victim and not as “actively RoundUpReady Canola cultivating farmer”. Monsanto could ask for this because this is cited in the Supreme Court Ruling (even it is a mistake by the Supreme Court) so we had to change one sentence which fortunately didn’t at all change our film.

Second good news: we sold the film to SCN (Saskatchewan Networks) in Regina. They will air the film as North American Premiere in February, 10 th 2005 at 8:30pm. …

I hope you are well and healthy and have a good time in spite of all this surrounding problems.

Very best wishes- from Munich,

Bertram

—

DENKmal-Film GmbH

Schwindstrasse 2

80798 München

tel: +49-(0)89-52 66 01; fax: +49-(0)89-523 47 42; www.denkmal-film.com; mail AT denkmal-film.com

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

(ME, SANDRA, WRITING:)

I have VHS copies of ”LIFE RUNNING OUT OF CONTROL” – the original pre-Monsanto version!! Please contact me if you wish to obtain. (UPDATE: all copies except one were passed along to other people to be used like a chain letter.)

We congratulated Bertram and his crew earlier for the accomplishment that “Life Running Out of Control” represents. It is easy enough to say “bravo! bravo!” to Bertram now, for his success in court against Monsanto, and I DO give him a warm embrace and a standing ovation! – it is just as important to remember the costs. I shudder at the cost and the determination it takes to make the documentary. The documentary is for the public good – information we need. The success of one documentary, Blue Eyes Brown Eyes, covers past costs and allowed Bertram to continue his work. I get angry that Monsanto can de-rail and add significant costs to this new production by taking the filmmaker to court. Lawyer costs, personal time away from productive work, the tension of the legal battle, uncertainty as to outcome – Monsanto piles this on top.

Bertram’s success in court is another victory – another wearing away of Monsanto. That win is for all of us. Thank-you to him for fighting it. We are indeed warriors around the world! Somehow it makes me feel kind of special that I have the good fortune to be able to join hands with all of you.

When you see the awards that “LIFE RUNNING OUT OF CONTROL” garners – “List of Festivals and Awards” you will be as happy as I am. A further contribution we all can make is to help ensure that people see the documentary.

Cheers!

2004-11-02 “The Insider”, “The Corporation”, & J K Galbraith’s “The Economics of Innocent Fraud”

Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Culture and Ethics, Why we flounder or do not flounder No Responses »

Nov 022004

Galbraith’s book “The Economics of Innocent Fraud” ( 2004-09-13) further reinforces the message behind Joel Bakan’s “The Corporation” and “The Insider“.

(1) THE INSIDER, movie, 1999, available on video

I just saw “The Insider“. It’s excellent – stay with it past the introductory portion which is at first confusing. It’s about the Tobacco Industry. Parallels to the Chem Industry.

This review will give you an idea:

http://www.greaterthings.com/Essays/all_fakes.htm “… a precursor to enable me to appreciate all the more the video I watched last night: “The Insider,” which was based on a true story in which a fortune 500 corporate tobacco executive, Jeffery Wigand (played by Russell Crowe), blew the whistle on the industry, and Lowell Bergman (played by Al Pacino), a producer from 60 Minutes quit his job because 60 Minutes balked under pressure to not air the interview — after the guy had risked everything to come forward, including death threats against his family, his wife leaving him and taking his two daughters. Bergman said of the movie that it was “the presentation of information that you’ll never see on network television news.” “Jeffrey Wigand became the first fiduciary officer of a Fortune 500 company to ever speak out of school on television.”

Paradoxically, the locating of the Unabomber happened just after the point of climax in this story. Bergman had this to say: “I would venture to guess that if you become one of those modern heroes of industrial America today and are worth more than a billion dollars, you are virtually immune from any negative enterprise reporting from any television network news organization.” He praised on his favorite lines from the movie: “You know, the press is free for those who own one.”

Where is the honor to make us a noble people?

The courage shown by Jeffery Wigand was almost single handedly responsible for finally bringing about the call to responsibility by the Tobacco industry for the many deaths and diminution of health that their product has caused — with their full awareness.

Great show, by the way. It’s a must see. Very sophisticated and very real.

We (those friends/business associates of mine) need someone like Bergman in the cause in which we are engaged. The question is, do we deserve him? Not if we can’t be as true to our word and faithful to integrity as Wigand was.

http://www.jeffreywigand.com/

“I did the right thing ….. As you can see we were all just ordinary people placed in extraordinary situations and did the right thing, as all should do.”

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

(2) THE CORPORATION: THE PATHOLOGICAL PURSUIT OF POWER

by Joel Bakan.

The movie came out in 2003 (free on-line at http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+corporation+film&FORM=VIRE8#view=detail&mid=070C42F2F67A2C31C1C4070C42F2F67A2C31C1C4) . The publish date on the book is 2004.

If you have the opportunity, both are excellent – – they will help change the course of history.

http://www.alternet.org/story/17695

Corporations Are Insane

By Ross Crockford, AlterNet. Posted January 29, 2004.

A new film argues that our era’s dominant institution is a psychopath. Add up the symptoms, and the corporation starts to resemble Ted Bundy.

Enron. WorldCom. Bechtel. Halliburton. To the cheerleaders on MSNBC and in The Wall Street Journal, such deceitful, profiteering companies are a few “bad apples” in a healthy economic barrel, as rare as a murderer in a convent.

But a new documentary that premiered at the Sundance festival film last week argues that these rogue companies aren’t the exception, they’re the rule.

The controversial premise of The Corporation is that every company is legally programmed to act like a psychopath. And the bigger it gets, the worse it behaves.

“The corporation is a paradox,” says Mark Achbar, who co-directed and wrote the documentary with Vancouver filmmaker Jennifer Abbott and law professor Joel Bakan. “It generates tremendous wealth, but at tremendous social and environmental cost.”

Achbar, best-known for his 1992 documentary “Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media,” says that when he started working on the new film six years ago, it originally was about the anti-globalization movement. But he realized that the growing protests were really against corporate power — and despite the millions of news hours and pages devoted to mergers, acquisitions, marketing strategies and CEO profiles, no one had really examined the history and the character of the corporation itself.

An unlikely subject for a hit film, perhaps. But The Corporation’s entertaining mix of interviews, cartoons and old industrial films has already won three “people’s choice” prizes at film festivals, including Sundance’s World Cinema Documentary Audience Award (sponsored, ironically, by Coca-Cola). In Canada, where “The Corporation” has garnered rave reviews — one compared it to “the best issue of Harper’s magazine set to music” — it’s currently playing to sold-out theatres across the country.

“Everybody wants to buy their products from a socially responsible corporation, not from some horrible polluter,” Achbar says. “The question is, how are we going to resolve this dilemma?”

As the film spells out, corporations have often been regarded with suspicion. America’s founding fathers worried that enterprises like the Dutch West India Company, which controlled vast areas of the new world, would overwhelm their republic. (Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend: “I hope we shall …crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”) So when the U.S. Government granted charters allowing new corporations to come into being, the terms were restricitve.

But corporations grew in size and power during the booming 19th century, and their owners wanted to expand their legal rights as well. Since owners or shareholders couldn’t be held personally liable, they argued, the corporation itself should be treated as a “person” — thus entitling it to all the protections of the Constitution. The argument was accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway Company. Consequently, a corporation today has the right to free speech, the right to own property, and the right to due process of law, just as a person does.

So what kind of person is it?

To answer that question, the film ingeniously compares notorious examples of bad corporate behavior to a list of psychiatric symptoms. Nike jumping from sweatshop to sweatshop in ever-poorer countries? That shows an “incapacity to maintain enduring relationships.”

Monsanto’s refusal to acknowledge the harm caused by Agent Orange? That’s an “incapacity to experience guilt.” Corporate directors are required by law to do only what’s best for the company, regardless of the consequences to anyone else — in other words, a corporation is motivated purely by self-interest. Add up the symptoms, as an FBI consultant does onscreen, and the corporation starts to resemble Ted Bundy.

Several of these points are scored in the film by Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, writer Naomi Klein and historian Howard Zinn. The filmmakers also interviewed CEOs — and discovered that many of them are equally troubled by corporate pathology. The perverse genius of the corporation is not just that it maximizes profit by offloading as many costs (employee education, environmental cleanup) as possible onto the public; it also enables owners and managers to simultaneously claim that each other are ultimately responsible for the company’s actions. Even to those at the top, the corporation seems like a monster beyond anyone’s control.

“Even though the perception is that you have absolute power to do what you want, the reality is that you don’t have that power,” says Sam Gibara, the former CEO of Goodyear, when asked in the film about the massive layoffs he oversaw in the late 1990s. “Sometimes, if you really had a free hand, if you really did what suited your personal priorities, you’d act differently. But as a CEO you cannot do that.”

Gibara’s not entirely correct; Ray Anderson, CEO of the carpetmaker Interface, emerges as the soft-spoken hero of the film, for pushing his company to embrace principles of environmental sustainability. But as “The Corporation” points out, such conversions are rare, because one-half of all stock in publicly traded U.S. companies is owned by the wealthiest one percent of the population.

If there’s any criticism to make of the film, it’s that the barrage of such facts is relentlessly depressing. It also tends to lose its focus in the latter half of its 145-minute run time, by detailing even more alarming case studies of corporate malfeasance, such as Fox News suppressing its own reporters’ investigations into Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone, or IBM’s collaboration with Nazi Germany, each of which deserve an entire documentary on its own.

But like a Hollywood blockbuster, “The Corporation” does manage to end on an upbeat note. Co-directors Achbar and Abbott turn their lens on citizens’ movements around the world that are discussing and protesting corporate power, and in some cases initiating petitions and court proceedings forcing governments to revoke the charters of particularly malevolent companies.

After all, as Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman says onscreen, the corporation is merely a legal structure. And to filmmaker Abbott, that leaves room for hope. “We created the corporation, and we can change it,” she says. “We want people to emerge from the film feeling there are things we can do.”

Ross Crockford is a freelance writer who lives in Victoria, British Columbia.

2004-10-29 American Patriot Act overrides Canadian laws. B.C. Privacy Commissioner’s Report, 2004.

Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials) No Responses »

Oct 292004

By my reading of it, the B.C. Privacy Commissioner’s Report (2004) (below) establishes that the American Patriot Act overrides Canadian Law.

Under the Patriot Act, Lockheed Martin and all other American corporations and their subsidiaries in other countries including Canada, are legally required to hand requested data over to the U.S. government (the U.S. military).

The Canadian Government is NOT advised when there is such a handover of information on its individual citizens.

NOTE: I noticed a TD Bank (Toronto Dominion Band merged with Canada Trust) ad on American TV. The advertisement said that “TD Bank” is an American company.

The gun registry is run by an American corporation.

Earlier, unions in B.C. challenged the out-sourcing of their health records to an American company. It sparked the B.C. Privacy Commissioner’s enquiry into the Patriot Act (below). I don’t know the situation now with the B.C. health records.

There are many, many data bases with personal information of Canadians that are now contracted-out to American corporations.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 29, 2004

REPORT ON PRIVACY IMPLICATIONS OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT

Victoria—

In releasing the report, Loukidelis expressed his appreciation for the significant contribution to the report of his special legal adviser, The Hon. Gérard V. La Forest, C.C., Q.C., retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, “an eminent privacy expert and expert on international law”. Loukidelis added that, “Our report benefited greatly from his wisdom, especially in relation to privacy under the Charter and the implications of US law for compliance with BC’s privacy law.”

The OIPC’s report follows a ten weeks of research and analysis triggered earlier this year by a BC Government & Service Employees Union lawsuit that raised concerns about personal information in the custody of a US linked outsource provider located in Canada being vulnerable to secret disclosure to the FBI under the

The report concludes that outsourcing of public services to the private sector is not prohibited by the

These are examples of the report’s 16 recommendations:

• Legislation should be passed to make it an offence for a public body or a contractor to disclose personal information or send it outside Canada in response to a foreign court order, subpoena or warrant, with violation being punished by a fine of up to $1 million or a term of imprisonment, or both;

• Public bodies should be required to ensure that outsourcing contracts contain provisions designed to preclude control by a US company over records containing British Columbians’ personal information;

• The British Columbia government should adopt a litigation policy under which it will initiate or participate in legal proceedings abroad, including the US, to resist demands for personal information of British Columbians made by a US or other foreign court or agency;

PATRIOT ACT RELEASED Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis today released his office’s advisory report on the privacy implications of the USA Patriot Act. USA Patriot Act. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, but that, because there is a “reasonable possibility” of unauthorized disclosure of British Columbians’ personal information under the USA Patriot Act, “rigorous other measures must be put into place to mitigate against illegal and surreptitious access.” Loukidelis added that the report contains “significant recommendations for protecting British Columbians’ personal information in the possession of private contractors from disclosure to the FBI under the USA Patriot Act.” He noted that, “A number of our recommendations go beyond the measures the government recently introduced through Bill 73”, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2004. Mailing Address: PO Box 9038, Stn Prov Govt, Victoria B.C. V8W 9A4 Location: Third Floor, 756 Fort Street Telephone: (250) 387-5629 Facsimile: (250) 387-1696 Toll Free enquiries through

In releasing the report, Loukidelis said, “We have considered the complex issues with great care and tried to offer as responsible and effective a set of recommendations as we can.” He went on to say, “Our review of the

He also added, “We received more than 500 submissions and they forced us to go beyond the two questions I’d raised about the

“Privacy risks don’t come only from the US,” the Commissioner noted. “Canada’s laws contain powers similar to those in the USA Patriot Act. When government enacts strong national security measures, it needs to make sure that human rights—including privacy rights—continue to be protected. In Canada, we have to be sure that national security powers are not used for ordinary law enforcement purposes. We have to watch for blurring of the lines between national security and ordinary law enforcement powers. This is why the upcoming Parliamentary review of the Anti-terrorism Act must ensure that the law properly balances public safety with privacy rights.”

The full text of the report can be found through What’s New at www.oipc.bc.ca.

Enquiry BC at 1-800-663-7867 or 660-2421 (Vancouver) website: http//www.oipc.bc.ca 2 •

• There should be an immediate and comprehensive audit of interprovincial, national and transnational information sharing agreements affecting all public bodies in British Columbia;

• There should be an immediate and comprehensive audit of all operational and planned data mining activities by all public bodies in British Columbia;

• Legislated controls should be passed to deal with information sharing and data mining activities, in order to better protect privacy and ensure transparency around these activities.

The British Columbia government and government of Canada should seek assurances from relevant US officials that they will not attempt to access, under the USA Patriot Act, personal information of British Columbians located in British Columbia; USA Patriot Act and the outsourcing of public services in British Columbia has caused us to confront the most challenging and important privacy issues my office has faced since I took this job just over five years ago,” the Commissioner stated. USA Patriot Act and government outsourcing. This is why some of our recommendations tackle wider issues, for example, information sharing between Canadian authorities and other governments.” For further information contact:

Judy Durrance, Review Officer/Coordinator, Intake

Phone: 250 387-5629

Fax at 250-387-1696

Email: info@oipc.bc.ca

2004-10-27 The disease side of the equation

Health No Responses »

Oct 272004

You have received the “chemical” half of the story. (Pesticides: Biggest battle in Canada is in Saskatoon – 36% of industry sales, etc.)

This is the disease side, circulated prior, repeated for newcomers.

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

– Furdale is a very small hamlet south of Saskatoon. 3 teenage friends from Furdale have died from cancer and a fourth is now diagnosed.

– my hometown of Luseland: small population, high incidence of cancer, MS and Parkinsons (details below)

– most rural people go to City hospitals for treatment. Their deaths are recorded by StatsCan as having occurred in the City (where the expense was incurred). The system masks what is happening.

– Dr. Stuart Houston, retired radiologist arranged for me to meet a radiologist who worked one year in Regina and the next in Saskatoon. In her opinion there is an epidemic of cancer coming, among farm men in particular.

– A Health Canada scientist in Regina has finished the first phase of a study of drinking water in the Province. It is not published. 13% of the drinking water samples contain chemical pesticides. The work is meeting resistance. The guy is just a scientist doing his work.

I have communicated this information, except for the last item, to the City of Saskatoon and to the Province. In July.

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

July, 2004 EXCERPTS FROM COMMUNICATIONS TO MUNICIPAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVTS

What is happening in Saskatchewan

(1) Recently a memoriam for a teen-age daughter appeared in the Star Phoenix. The parents explained:

“It is very sad that as of last week another one of my daughter’s friends has been diagnosed with cancer. This makes 4 childhood friends who grew up together at our home south of Saskatoon.”

This is not a comprehensive list of the disease in this small community, just the cases of 4 friends. I am told of a young woman from the community who drowned herself after being diagnosed with cancer, rather than go through the ordeal of treatment, only to die anyway.

The area draws its water from the South Saskatchewan River after it has flowed through miles of agricultural land. Some residents don’t have sophisticated water treatment, nor an appreciation of what is in the water.

Chemical pesticides are used on the 4 golf courses in the area, and on the farm fields that run to the edge of the town. There are also high voltage transmission lines from the QE Power Station across the River. It is likely that the cause of the cancers (“bizarre forms”) is a combination of inputs.

(Note: The Town of Hudson, Quebec banned the cosmetic use of pesticides after a young boy appealed to the citizens: he lived adjacent to the Golf Course. There is enough evidence linking golf course pesticide use to cancers that the Town banned cosmetic use. Riding Mountain National Park Golf Course has not used pesticides for years now, out of concern for employees and golfers. There are obviously alternative horticultural practices that work.)

So common sense dictates that we should not be dumping more poisons, like vaporooter (chemical mixture used to dissolve tree roots in sewer lines) into our water supplies until we at least know what is happening.

This community of Furdale is not alone.

(2) My home town’s population is 650 residents plus farms. At Christmas over kitchen-table talk I was horrified by the recent cancer fatalities.

1. Farmer (XXJoe – surnames are deleted XX), died Dec. 17, age 63, cancerous brain tumor,cancer widespread, diagnosed in late summer.

2. Farmer (XXDon XX), prostate cancer metastasized to the bones, age about 68, diagnosed in December, dead in September.

3. Farmer XXLeland XX), funeral Oct/Nov, age 63, prostate cancer metastasized.

4. Farmer (XXHans XX), died Dec.27, age 86, lung to brain cancer, diagnosed in Sept.

5. Resident (XXFrank XX), bowel cancer, funeral in Sept.

6. Resident (XXDavid XX), age 38, treated for extensive bowel cancer.

7. Resident (XXRoxanne XX), malignant brain cancer, late 30’s or early 40’s, undergoing treatment, fighting for her life.

8. Resident (XXBetty XX), age 65 to 70, sinus cancer, on-going treatment, fighting for her life.

We listed these 8 people, all recent – it does not account for people who have moved away from the community, nor would we have known all the incidents.

As well, too many people in the community have died or suffer from MS and Parkinsons disease.

These facts support what I heard from a medical doctor.

(3) Dr. Stuart Houston arranged for me to meet a radiologist. Radiologists see diagnostic x-rays, ultra-sounds, scans, etc. from all departments of the hospital. The radiologist described how they inadvertently discover slow-acting, lethal cancer when they are examining, e.g. an x-ray for a broken leg. The cancers take 10 to 15 years to kill the host organism. In her opinion, there is an epidemic of cancer coming. (The epidemic may already have arrived (my home-town experience?).

(4) That there is definitely a problem is also substantiated by an article in The Montreal Gazette, one week ago:

“According to the Canadian Institute of Child Health statistics, cancer in Canadian children under age 15 increased by 25 per cent during the past 25 years.”

The report of this Institute also notes that Saskatchewan’s performance is among the worst of all Canada’s provinces.

Saskatchewan buys 36% of the pesticides sold in Canada.

It is not progressive to use vaporooter (chemical mixture used to dissolve tree roots in sewer lines). There is an alternative: augering.

Cost-benefit analysis do not address health effects. There is a relationship between cancers and accumulated pesticides. Cancer drugs and treatment are very expensive. The estimated average cost of treating a child with the type of cancer experienced by the daughter in the memoriam is $1 million dollars. Our medicare system is reliant on drug therapy, so a large portion of this million dollars for one child goes to the pharmaceutical companies, which own the chemical companies. The second highest cost in Medicare is for drugs. The child died in spite of the expenditure. In fact, these 3 children alone are dead in spite of the expenditures.

SO WHAT IS BEING DONE?

(1) Government of Quebec and Municipalities, 11 million people protected

The Governments stone wall when it comes to chemicals, with one exception.

The Government of Quebec has legislated a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides. The ban is province-wide. Because the Federal and other Provincial Governments refuse to act, municipalities such as Toronto, Halifax, and Vancouver, have legislated their own by-laws to protect the health of citizens.

The number of municipal pesticide by-laws has increased to a total of 66 across Canada. When the current regulations and by-laws come into full effect the total number of Canadians protected from unwanted exposure to synthetic lawn and garden pesticides will be close to 11 million or approximately 35% of Canada’s population.

The bylaws will help to lessen the amount of chemicals that enter water supplies in Canada.

(2) Rural deaths are recorded as having occurred in urban centres

Getting back to the communities here in Saskatchewan: the disease rate in these communities is alarming. You are asking, “how can the evidence be ignored?”.

If a person from a rural community dies from cancer in Saskatoon or Regina, which is what happens (most patients come to the Cities for treatment) Statistics Canada records the death as having occurred in Saskatoon or Regina. That is an incredible distortion which masks what is happening.

(3) “Senior” Government won’t act. Empowerment of Municipalities.

The Government is not going to act. The chemical industry has a great deal of money and influence.

Communities are, of course, not without power, as evidenced by the number of bylaws that have been passed. The failure to assume responsibility when it is your own children, relatives and friends who will suffer from inaction, is a sign of great decay in the society.

(4) The inane idea that it is okay to “get” the diseases, we’ll find a cure for you.

Why should Saskatonians know about the situation in rural communities?

One reason is that we all pay for healthcare costs which continue to escalate faster than Government revenues. We MUST REMOVE the CAUSES of disease before we run out of money for education. THE INANE IDEA that it is okay to “get” the diseases because we will find a cure to fix you, is extremely inhumane, especially when it is children who are the most vulnerable.

Pesticides contribute to developmental disorders, problems with cognitive functioning, etc. It is all well documented. The costs are not only to the medicare system; the educational and justice systems are impacted. The cost to families is very high.

Some of you are men. The rest of you have fathers or husbands. Sperm counts in males in industrialized countries are down by 40% since the 1950’

s. This is well-known in Europe, not so well-publicized here. The Dept of Fisheries and Oceans finally conducted research in Canada which was released in January 2003. They concluded that fish downstream from sewage treatment plants are “feminized”. It’s from the drugs that enter the water through urine, birth control pills, insulin, anti-depressants, who knows what, PLUS chemicals. Hormone disruptors. Saskatoon City Staff said there was no detectable vapo-rooter in the water coming out of the sewage treatment plant. Feminized fish and sterile men tell you that there are many contaminants in the water that are not detected.

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

(SENT TO PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT)

Thank you for your response on behalf of the Government to my communication of July 18th (copy below).

To seek yet more information is a recipe for inaction at a time when action is dictated by circumstances. So thanks, but I decline the Government’s suggestion to contact the Cancer Agency (copy below).

Further to the dumping of more chemicals into the water supply, I submitted additional information to the City of Saskatoon. The related TABLE OF CONTENTS is appended.

Taken in its entirety, the information is a condemnation of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries and those who collaborate with them. The issue is one of “in whose interests?”, whether we are talking about continued unnecessary use of chemicals or pharmacare.

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS: The material documents the unacceptable conflicts between the interests of the chemical industry (which is largely the same ownership as the pharmaceutical and transgenic industries), and the Governments (through such agencies as the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)). The consequence of the conflicts-in-interest is that the common good upon which we are all dependent for health (air, water, soil), is not being served or protected.

The material also documents the corrupt behaviour of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries.

REQUEST: Because of the compelling information, I call on you to allocate the new money for Medicare to the prevention of disease. The inanity, inhumanity and self-serving nature of the existing attitude, “it’s okay to get the disease, we’ll cure you” ensures a large and growing clientele for the medicare system. Also for the pharmaceutical industry. At tax-payers’ expense (both financially and in health).

The objective of healthcare should be healthy people. The indicators should therefore measure HEALTH, not a waiting list, or people’s “satisfaction“, or the number and kind of facilities. Those reflect how much money you spend, and the effectiveness of your advertising campaign (the spin doctors). They do not tell you whether the expenditures are effective – – what is needed.

Trends like a declining number of people with asthma or diabetes or migraine headaches, or childhood cancer, etc. will tell you whether dollars have been effectively allocated. The goals are achieved in the long term. If the medical profession in concert with the Government is incapable of reducing the trend whereby every year there is a 1% increase in the number of children with asthma, or with cancer, then they should be relieved of their responsibilities and their pay. They are not getting the “health care” job done.

The TABLE OF CONTENTS appended provides the broad picture.

Thank-you for your time and consideration. I will appreciate a response to questions:

1) Will new monies for medicare be allocated to the prevention of disease?

(There is the issue of cosmetic use of pesticides and others. I note that the Minister of Education in Ontario is mandating the removal of junk foods from schools. The President of Uganda will not attend meetings or conferences where alcohol is served as a matter of setting a role model (Addiction is behind large amounts of medicare spending.). Etc.)

2) What are the specifics of your agenda in this regard?

3) Will the Government implement yardsticks by which we can measure the actual effectiveness of dollars spent on the care of health? (We have the yardsticks: the number of children with asthma and cancer has increased by 1% every year over the last 25 years, the number of people with diabetes, etc. – but you don’t use them to evaluate your effectiveness, which enables you to perpetuate a system in which the amount of sickness increases. Someone is benefitting and it is not citizens. I urge REMOVAL OF CAUSE, especially if I’m expected to pay for the system.)

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

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

NOTE: should you wish copies of the documentation related to the effectiveness of the regulatory system (PMRA), the corruptness of the chemical/pharmaceutical industry, etc. please contact me. I am happy to supply. The sources of information are public documents.

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

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO MY LETTER OF JULY 19:

(Typed from hard copy)

September 1, 2004

File: 04-14725

cc: John Nilson, Minister Health, Pat Atkinson, MLA Saskatoon Nutana

Peter Prebble, Minister for SaskWater, David Forbes, Minister Environment

Lily Stonehouse, Deputy Sask Environment Jon Tonita, Sask Cancer Society

Dear Ms. Finley:

John Nilson, Minister of Health, has asked me to respond in follow-up to your correspondence with Ms. Lily Stonehouse, Deputy Minister of Sask Environment, regarding pesticides and their possible link to disease rates.

I am in receipt of your e-mail of July 18, 2004, to Ms. Stonehouse and her letter to you of August 4, 2004.

The Sask Cancer Agency has information on the incidence of various forms of cancer in the province. You can direct your inquiry to Mr. Jon Tonita, Director, Program Evaluation and Surveillance, Sask Cancer Agency (address) if you would like more information on the available data. Mr. Tonita would also be able to province you with information on the challenges of interpreting disease rates in small population groupings.

Sincerely,

John Wright

Deputy Minister of Health

2004-10-24 Our greatest fear is of our own power

Empowerment No Responses »

Oct 242004

“Our Greatest Fear” has been incorrectly attributed to Nelson Mandela in his inaugural speech of 1994.
Alice Walker said it this way: The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.

Our Greatest Fear

Marianne Williamson from her book A Return to Love

Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate,

but that we are powerful beyond measure.

It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us.

We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant,

gorgeous, handsome, talented and fabulous?

Actually, who are you not to be?

You are a child of God.

Your playing small does not serve the world.

There is nothing enlightened about shrinking

so that other people won’t feel insecure around you.

We were born to make manifest the glory of God within us.

It is not just in some; it is in everyone.

And, as we let our own light shine, we consciously give

other people permission to do the same.

As we are liberated from our fear,

our presence automatically liberates others.

Older Entries Newer Entries