I don’t even want to think about how many months we and many others put into the battle to stop the introduction of herbicide-resistant wheat.
Here it is back again, this time from the chemical company BASF (not Monsanto).
My letter to the CFIA is appended. I did not restrain myself. I am very angry. It is time that we know who the President of the CFIA is, and direct correspondence directly to him. He should not be anonymous.
On Monday I will be phoning François Guimont, the President of the CFIA, 613 225-2342, to tell him what I think.
Sock it to them. Hard and fast.
/Sandra
====================================
Canadian Food Inspection Agency Accepting Comments on Submission for Approval and Release of Herbicide Tolerant Wheat
November 8, 2005
Biotechnology Notices of Submission Project – Wheat (ALS1b) which has been bred for herbicide tolerance (URL no longer valid)
If you would like to provide comments on this submission, a feedback form is available from the web-site.
=======================
DEADLINE Jan 7, 2006.
======================
“Currently, the CFIA and Health Canada post decision documents on the Internet after a product has been approved. They have not previously posted information about products that are under review, as will be the case in this pilot project.”
================================
FROM:
Sandra Finley (contact info)
TO: François Guimont, President of the CFIA
Your job is in jeopardy. The leadership you provide does not serve to protect the Canadian food supply which is your mandate.
By the thousands, Canadians have told you that we do not want our food supply developed by the criterion that it be resistant to chemicals. Our food supply is to be developed according to the criteria:
– is the seed more nutritious than other varieties (of wheat, in this example)? Does it make a positive contribution to the nutritional value of our food supply?
I am losing my patience. We fought for months and months to put a stop to herbicide-resistant wheat developed jointly by Monsanto and the Government of Canada. Now here it is back again, only this time from BASF. You get paid an exorbitant salary, and are unsuccessful at protecting the Canadian food supply. We work day-in, day-out for what is right, for no salary and the costs come out of our pockets. It’s time you were fired.
You have 4 issues to address:
– GOVERNANCE (In whose interest are these undertakings?)
– HEALTH (Our food supply. Health is dependent upon food supply. What is the criteria for seed selection?)
– ENVIRONMENT (Introduced species do not have enemies. They proliferate and become weeds. Common sense, science and experience ALL reinforce the fact that crops engineered to be resistant to chemicals bring about an increase in the use of chemicals. Farmers now apply a round of glyphosate to kill the plants they don’t want, and then turn around and apply 2-4D to kill the plants that are resistant to the glyphosate. I know. I am from Saskatchewan. We have 10 years of experience with RR canola which is now a weed growing in shelter-belts, gardens and in other unwanted places.
Roundup won’t kill it. You, the CFIA, has no credibility here. In fact, I am antagonistic to you.)
– OWNERSHIP OF LIFE FORMS. The Patent Act was never meant to apply to life forms. It was intended to cover mechanical devices. In at least 4 different places in the Schmeiser decision the Supreme Court of Canada told the Government that the legislation had to be changed. Has that been done?
The earlier “Harvard Mouse” decision also pointed out to the Government that the Patent Act required an update. Has it been done? Have YOU, François Guimont, done anything to insist that the Patent Act be changed? Whose interests do you serve?
Transnational corporate interests more and more determine the food that is grown. They do not develop seed using the selection criteria of nutritional value. And they attempt to appropriate that which belongs to the commons.
You, the CFIA, are party to the attempted appropriation.
The Government almost shut down a whole industry (cattle) when it was suspected that just ONE INDIVIDUAL’s food production might be injurious to the public good (health). What do you do when it is suspected that crops developed with the criterion that they be resistant to chemicals, crops that serve a corporate interest, might not be in the public interest?
The health of the population, and therefore medicare costs, are dependent upon the nutritional value of our food supply.
According to a Globe and Mail report, the nutrition found in fruits, vegetables, and other food crops has declined significantly since the 1950’s. That is YOUR responsibility.
CRITERIA USED:
The licensing process for new varieties of wheat, barley, oats, etc. uses criteria such as disease resistance, yield, and now, resistance to chemical applications.
CRITERIA NOT USED: nutritional value, taste, impact on environment, contribution to the common good.
Plant Breeders do not have Rights. They have RESPONSIBILITIES.
The purpose of the Government and its Legislation is to defend THE COMMONS.
Seeds are an essential part of the commons; they form the basis of our food supply. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of ANYONE who is tampering with the food supply to use the following selection criteria.
Before any seed is released into the environment or licensed for use:
– NUTRITIONAL VALUE (in the case of seed that becomes food): is the nutritional value of the seed superior to that of hallmark original varieties? If the seed (food) does not make a improved positive contribution to the value of the food, therefore to the health of the citizens, it will not be licensed for use. It is well documented that the nutritional value of food has significantly declined over the last 50 years. That does not bode well for public health. There is a connection between our food supply and escalating disease rates (health).
– ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: will it perform like an “introduced or invader species” such as wild oats, purple loosestrife or zebra mussels? If so, it will not be licensed. Anyone who releases such organisms into the environment must pay the “external costs” of eradication. Do you know how many millions and millions of dollars are spent, year after year, to try and control wild oats (an intorduced species? Do YOU pay for it?)
– TASTE: Food that contributes to the healthfulness of the citizens must be appetizing, or it will be shunned in spite of its nutritive value. SO: What is the taste performance of the proposed seed: it must at least be as tasty as hallmark original varieties.
– COMMON GOOD: WHOSE INTERESTS ARE YOU SERVING? THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT.
Visionaries implemented a seed development process in Canada which used public money for the common good (e.g. Agriculture Canada Research Stations and scientists). They understood that allowing inferior seed from producers to enter the food production system undermines the value of the crop for citizens collectively.
They understood that:
~ the goals of the individual or corporation (minimize costs, maximize revenues) can be at odds with the interests of the community,
~ use of inferior seed by some individuals promotes use of inferior seed by everyone because those with higher costs will be driven out of production if they don’t adopt the same lowest-cost production. (The common good (health) and the environment are the losers.)
~ the role of Government is to serve and protect the public interest.
Historically, Agriculture Canada did that well, up until the 1980’s when Government POLICY changed.
TODAY, the Government is WRONG in its understanding of its role. A necessary criterion for deciding whether a new seed will be introduced is: whose interests will be served by the introduction? Seeds are part of the commons.
If it cannot be demonstrated that the society at large will benefit from the seed, then it must not be licensed. (The very name of the Act – PLANT BREEDERS’ RIGHTS – states a bad situation, a serious misunderstanding.)
Canada has a long history of exemplary seed development based on community interest. The evidence is that we HAVE floundered by succombing to private, commercial, interest-based seed selection criteria.
From John Kenneth Galbraith’s “The Economics of Innocent Fraud – Truth for our Time”, published in 2004 :
“… As the corporate interest moves to power in what was the public sector, it serves, predictably, the corporate interest. That is its purpose. …One obvious result has been well-justified doubt as to the quality of much present regulatory effort. There is no question but that corporate influence extends to the regulators. … Needed is independent, honest, professionally competent regulation … This last must be recognized and countered. There is no alternative to effective supervision. …”
Tax-payers provide salaries for Government employees to perform work that is in the public interest. ANY Government employee whose work is in collaboration with an industry, ESPECIALLY if the employee’s official work is related to the regulation of that industry, MUST resign their Government position.
I am very angry that I and others must expend so much time and energy to try and force you to do your job.
Yours truly,
Sandra Finley
(contact information)