Tag Archives: GE foods

Bill C-474 moves forward!

Leave a reply

Chock one up for the little guy!

Thanks for everyone who wrote to their MP’s regarding this important issue. There is a long fight ahead but the vote last week is an important step in the right direction. It is heartening to see that once in a while our voices can be heard over the hollering (and big money) of the agri-industry.

Keep writing and sharing information about this important issue. The best offense we have against this kind of insanity is to arm ourselves with knowledge and to speak out.

First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win.                                        - Ghandhi

Here are a couple of press releases from the NFU and CBAN:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 15, 2010

PASSAGE OF C-474 IMPORTANT VICTORY FOR FARMERS

SASKATOON, Sask.—“Yesterday’s vote to send Bill C-474 forward to the Agriculture Committee for detailed analysis and debate is an important victory and major step in trying to protect farmers and the Canadian economy from the economic disaster that GM crops can create,” said NFU President Terry Boehm.

As the text of the Bill states, C-474 would “require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.”

Boehm said: “Triffid flax has demonstrated the serious consequences GM contamination can have.  It is time now for the Agriculture Committee to make the Bill a functional reality in our regulatory system—it is not time to kill the idea of market harm assessment.”

“This bill will not impede innovation,” said Boehm.  “Instead, it will make innovators conscious that their work needs to benefit a broad cross-section of society—not just the company selling the product.  This is only logical for a healthy society and economy.”

Boehm urged MPs not to be swayed by pressure or threats from biotech companies.  “The biotech industry has threatened Canadians before; companies said that they would pull out and shut down research when citizens overwhelmingly wanted their food labelled for GM content.  MPs bought that bogus argument at the time.  Let’s hope that MPs do not accept it with regard to C-474.  Unfortunately, most Conservatives MPs have already bought that argument—with the exception of two brave Members from that party.  Let’s hope the rest of our minority-Parliament MPs act for farmers and citizens and do not accept the threats of the biotech industry. We will all be stronger and better off if they stand up to these threats,” said Boehm.

Boehm dismissed arguments that our system must be guided solely by so-called “science-based” calculations.  He said: “There is an almost superstitious belief that ‘science-based’ means infallible or beyond question—that someone has ‘proven’ food A or B is 100% safe.  In reality, so-called science-based assessments are largely based on data submitted by companies seeking to sell products.  The data is the result of limited testing.  And there is little independent verification done in government labs.  Most important, so-called science-based assessment of human-health safety or ‘substantial equivalence’ is largely a simple risk assessment—primarily a mathematical calculation of probability.  Once we realize this, it is only rational to ask: In what way is this mathematical probability assessment of human health harm superior to a mathematical assessment of market harm?  Why should an economic analysis which is also mathematically based be so scary to the biotech industry?”

“All farmers and Canadians should act promptly to ensure Bill C-474 becomes law,” concluded Boehm.

—30—

For more information:

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

Darrin Qualman, Director of Research:         (306) 652-9465

MPs listen to Canadians ahead of industry on GM Crops

Groups applaud MPs for moving Bill C-474 to Committee for study

For Immediate Release

Ottawa. Thursday, April 15, 2010 – Last night, Parliament passed Private Members Bill C-474 through second reading, in spite of intense pressure from the biotech industry. The Bill, which would require analysis of potential harm to export markets before the sale of new genetically modified (GM) seeds, will now be studied by the House of Commons Agriculture Committee.

“Finally MPs are taking steps to protect farmers from the economic chaos that GM crops can cause,” said Terry Boehm, President of the National Farmers Union, “GM contamination has already seriously damaged major export markets for Canadian flax farmers and would threaten the markets for our alfalfa and wheat growers.”

The NDP and Bloc Quebecois supports the Bill and last night Liberal Party MPs voted to allow the Bill to go to this next stage. The Conservative Party strongly opposes the Bill, though two B.C. Conservative MPs voted in favour. The Bill was introduced by Alex Atamanenko, NDP Agriculture Critic and MP for B.C. Southern Interior.

“Last night, the majority of MPs listened to Canadians instead of the biotech industry,” said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, “MPs will now have the opportunity to study and debate this Bill. We are witnessing the first substantive debate in Parliament over the negative impacts of GM crops.”

The biotech industry lobbied vigorously to stop the upcoming debate at Committee. Yet the strength of public and farmer concern over GM crops was apparent to MPs. Over 9000 thousand letters were sent from constituents in the past month asking MPs to support the Bill. At least 6 MPs were also presented with petitions.

Bill C-474 was supported by the National Farmers Union, which urged Parliamentarians and all Canadians, to support the Bill. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture took a cautious stance in favour of moving the Bill forward, to encourage debate at Committee.

“The current GM flax contamination crisis shows the value of this Bill. And the threat of GM alfalfa has made the Bill an urgent necessity,” said Sharratt. Canadian flax export markets closed in October 2009 when GM contamination was detected.

“We will not stand by and watch farmers struggle alone against the corporate juggernaut of biotechnology,” said Sharratt, “The time when Canadians are expected to accept GM crops without question, is over.”

-30-

For more information: Terry Boehm, National Farmers Union, 306 255 2880;  Lucy Sharratt, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, 613 241 2267 ext.6.

franken-pork on your fork

Leave a reply

Is this what they meant when they said “the other white meat”???

Seriously, this article had my mouth hanging open over my morning coffee. You know our thinking about food has really crossed over into the realm of the ridiculous when we turn to genetically engineering food animals to solve a problem we shouldn’t have in the first place. Rather than abolish the unsustainable, inhumane process of factory farming, we would rather screw with the genetic code of living beings – the outcome and consequences of which we cannot even begin to predict.  All so that their lakes of shit are slightly less toxic. So bizarre.

I’m sure that if this goes through the industry will make sure you or I never know that the meat on our plate has been genetically engineered. As far as I know we’re still miles away from mandatory labeling of GE foods. Once again our best vote is with our wallet. Well managed, integrated farms who pasture their animals don’t have to worry about the toxicity levels of their lakes of shit – because they don’t have them. Easy peasy. No university science lab necessary for that one. Phewph.

Sometimes I think we should just cut to the chase and just take the plunge to soylent green. If you don’t know what that is – go watch the movie.

Our crops are already being contaminated by GE genes and now we are moving into the realm of animals . . . When will this end??

Please, read and then write, write, write – people cannot make informed choices without the information. So tell your friends. Then call your local organic, pastured-pork producer for your very own franken-free supper.

It’s time we demand some sanity in our food systems.

Will This Little Piggy Go to Market?

Genetically modified pork a step closer to Canadians’ dinner tables

By Joan Delaney
Epoch Times Staff
Feb 23, 2010
Genetically engineered pigs developed at the University of Guelph have passed the first of several regulatory hurdles on the way to being approved for human consumption.

Environment Canada has determined that the university’s transgenic Yorkshire pigs—so-called Enviropigs—are in compliance with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and can be produced outside of the research context in controlled facilities where they are segregated from other animals.

Developed in 1999, the Enviropig is the first transgenic animal created to solve an environmental problem—phosphorus pollution of surface and groundwater in areas of intensive pig production.

Depending on its age and diet, manure from the Enviropig contains 30 to 70 percent less phosphorus than that of regular pigs. Enviropigs are able to digest a form of phosphorus in feed grains that regular pigs cannot, producing manure that is less environmentally damaging.

Steven Liss, associate vice-president of research services at the University of Guelph, says researchers have been working to develop an animal that has “less of an impact environmentally and can be produced in a more sustainable fashion.”

“I think there’s a great deal among our community and population that would applaud efforts to reduce the environmental impact of animal production, and I think this would go a long way to increase the sustainability and lessen the footprint that pig production sometimes yields.”

Submissions have been made to Health Canada and other federal agencies including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to have the pigs approved for human consumption and commercialization. Liss declined to speculate how long it could take the various agencies to reach a decision.

Currently, no country has approved products derived from genetically modified animals for human or animal consumption.

Lucy Sharratt, coordinator with the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, doubts that Canadians are ready to embrace genetically engineered pork. She also questions whether Health Canada “has the tools to assess the safety of the Enviropig.”

“If the so-called Enviropig is commercialized, the first major concern is the safety of Canadians who are consuming products from those animals,” she said. “Health Canada does not have the trust of Canadians to approve this product or assess it for safety.”

Regarding the risk of contamination, Sharratt notes the recent crisis in the flax industry after genetically modified seeds entered the regular seed supply, causing the European Union—Canada’s largest flax market—to turn away shipments of Canadian flax. The EU has a zero-tolerance policy on genetically modified organisms.

The flax industry is currently scrambling to figure out how the so-called Triffid seed—developed by the University of Saskatchewan in the 1990s but ordered destroyed 10 years ago after farmers raised concerns that the EU would reject it—found its way into commercial crops.

In 2002, the University of Guelph had its own contamination incident in which the remains of 11 genetically engineered piglets were mistakenly sent to be rendered and wound up in feed for chickens and turkeys on Ontario farms.

After an investigation, Health Canada found that the security lapse posed no risk to either humans or poultry.

Cathy Holtslander, community organizer with Saskatchewan-based Beyond Factory Farming, says rather than risking the unknowns inherent in commercializing the Enviropig, a safer way to address the problem of phosphorus pollution would be to reduce the concentration of hog-confinement facilities and the numbers of animals in them.

“The problem isn’t with the pigs. The problem of hog operations polluting the water has to do with the whole industrialization scale that has been developed to raise hogs.”

Holtslander cites the current crisis in Canada’s hog sector in which the government is paying millions of dollars to help farmers exit the hog industry as an example of why commercializing the Enviropig may not be such a good idea.

“The model of high-intensity large-scale hog production hasn’t worked even from the point of view of profitability and survival of the hog industry,” she says. “So it’s a failed model, and introducing a genetically modified pig to a failed model is not going to be beneficial, it’s not going to solve that problem, and I really wonder about the impact.”

She adds that the Enviropig is “yet another in a long series of technological fixes . . . and what generally happens when you do this is you create another problem that requires another technological fix.”

According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), new products such as the Enviropig are “subject to a rigorous, science-based review process” by Environment Canada, Health Canada, and the CFIA before being approved for use in food or feed or for release into the environment.

Should the product receive full regulatory approval in the future, “other essential considerations such as consumer and market acceptance have to be made before deciding if commercialization should proceed,” the agency said in a statement.

The U of G’s Enviropig research is funded by both government and industry, including Agriculture Canada and Ontario Pork.

Sharratt is critical of universities that use public money to develop genetically engineered technologies “without a mandate from the public.”

“One of the deep problems with genetic engineering is that there’s been no public consultation, and the spectre of the Enviropig signals the immediate need for public consultations on genetic engineering,” she says.

“Health Canada and Environment Canada should be responsible for actually consulting Canadians on the future of genetic engineering instead of pursuing a costly assessment of safety for a product that I don’t think Canadians will want at all and will in fact vehemently reject.”

beyond factory farming speaks on GE alfalfa

Leave a reply

Here’s the latest from beyond factory farming:

Here is what Beyond Factory Farming submitted to the USDA in response to
their call for public input on the Environmental Assessment of
Glyphosate Tolerant Alfalfa. In the States, when they approve a GMO for
environmental release and sale they “deregulate it”. Glyphosate Tolerant
(GT) is Roundup Ready. There are serious implications for sustainable
agriculture in Canada if it is grown n the USA. Read our submission to
learn more.

The USDA’s comment period closes on March 3. You can find out more about
the issue and submit your own comment using the Canadian Biotechology
Action Network’s handy web page at http://www.cban.ca

Numbers of submissions will make a difference, so please take a few
minutes to put in your own.

Thanks!
_________________

Glyphosate Tolerant Alfalfa and Sustainable Livestock Production
Submission opposed to the deregulation of gylphosate tolerant alfalfa.

Submitted to the USDA on behalf of Beyond Factory Farming, Feburary 2010.

The USDA is considering deregulating genetically engineered glyphosate
tolerant alfalfa (also known as Roundup Ready Alfalfa). This would lead
to the unconfined release of the plant into the North American environment.

Beyond Factory Farming is a national organization in Canada that
promotes socially responsible livestock production. Socially responsible
livestock production ensures that the costs of livestock production are
not externalized onto neighbours and the public, and also ensures that
livestock production promotes positive social values such as health,
biodiversity, water quality, community economic development, animal
welfare and fair livelihoods for workers and farmers.

The deregulation of glyphosate tolerant alfalfa in the United States
threatens socially responsible livestock production in Canada as well as
the United States.

Beyond Factory Farming supports certified organic farming, particularly
mixed farming that includes livestock, as well as the certified organic
production of feed crops. Beyond Factory Farming also promotes grass-fed
livestock production, also know as pastured beef, pork and poultry.

If glyphosate tolerant alfalfa is grown commercially in the United
States it will inevitably cross-pollinate with non-genetically
engineered alfalfa which is grown on conventional and organic farms, as
well as with feral alfalfa which grows wild in ditches, wilderness areas
and abandoned fields. Alfalfa is insect-pollinated by both domestic
pollinators (leaf-cutter bees, honeybees) and wild pollinators. Cross
pollination will occur as a result of foraging activities of
pollinators. Seed produced as a result of cross pollination will carry
the DNA of glyphosate tolerant alfalfa, and will confer the trait on its
progeny.

The contamination of non-genetically engineered alfalfa crops will
result in the eventual contamination of alfalfa seed stock, through
cross pollination and/or admixture. Since the use of genetically
engineered seed is prohibited in certified organic agriculture, it will
become increasingly difficult to impossible for farmers to find seed
which does not contain genetically engineered DNA. Further, the farmers
will risk cross-pollination of their crops from neighbouring
contaminated stands and roadside plants. Organic certification rules
require that farmers take measures to eliminate any contamination from
genetically engineered plants that may occur on their farms. In
practice, this will mean that in order to maintain organic
certification, alflafa will not be able to be grown on organic farms.

Without alfalfa being grown on organic farms, there will be a severe
loss of feed for certified organic livestock and dairy production.
Alfalfa is an important, nutritious feed, particularly in northern areas
where feed must be stockpiled as hay for the winter months. The alfalfa
plant is able to fix atmospheric nitrogen and convert it into a form of
nitrogen useable by plants through a symbiotic relationship it has with
certain soil bacteria that colonize its roots. Alfalfa is thus able to
increase soil fertility, which improves productivity of farmland. The
nitrogen that alfalfa makes biologically available is also converted to
plant protein within the plant itself. This is why alfalfa is such an
important feed crop for meat and dairy animals which have high protein
requirements.

Canadian consumers are increasingly turning to certified organic foods.
The growth in the organic sector is approximately 20% per year. Organic
meat and dairy is an area poised for even greater growth as processing
capacity is developed. In addition there is a high proportion of
imported organic food from the USA. The introduction of genetically
engineered alfalfa will reduce volume and the range of products that can
be sold organically, as the loss of organic alfalfa will have a severe
impact on the viability of organic dairy, beef, and pork production.

Canadian consumers of grassfed beef and pork are health conscious and
environmentally conscious. The strong points for pastured meat include
its higher proportion of healthy fats and its environmental benefits,
such as biodiversity, erosion-prevention, and carbon sequestration
resulting from year-round cover – all of which occur when land is grazed
rather than cultivated. The infiltration of glyphosate tolerant alfalfa
into these lands would compromise the product’s health claims, reduce
the sector’s customer base, and lead to a smaller market and smaller
land base for this type of environmentally friendly animal husbandry.

Canadians are concerned about the impacts of deregulation of glyphosate
tolerant alfalfa in the United States for two main reasons:
contamination of alfalfa through imports to US hay and seed, and
simultaneous deregulation of genetically engineered alfalfa in the
Canadian jurisdiction.

Canada’s process for approving (deregulating) genetically engineered
crops has several stages. Health Canada must approve crops for food and
feed safety, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) must approve
crops for environmental release. Canada requires crop seed varieties to
be registered through the CFIA before they can be sold or used to grow a
commerical crop. No variety of glyphosate tolerant alfalfa seed has yet
been registered in Canada, so it is still illegal to grow or sell
glyphosate tolerant alfalfa in Canada.

Canada’s regulatory system has been strongly criticized by farmers for
not taking into account the impact of genetically engineered varieties
upon markets. There is a strong movement of farm organizations seeking a
reversal of Canada’s environmental release of glyphosate tolerant
alfalfa. Monsanto and Forage Genetics International have stated their
intention to commercialize glyphosate tolerant alfalfa in Canada and the
United States simlutaneously. Therefore, it is important to us to ensure
that deregulation does not occur in the USA, as it would promote the
fast-tracking of variety registration, leading to deregulation of the
crop in Canada as well.

Because glyphosate tolerant alfalfa has been approved for health safety
and environmental release it would be possible for hay produced from
glyphosate tolerant alfalfa from the USA to be imported into Canada if
the crop is deregulated in your country. It is very important to protect
the integrity of Canada’s alfalfa, and thus our certified organic farms,
by preventing contamination by imported hay, which may contain viable
seed. If American hay contains genetically engineered alfalfa Canadian
farmers may need to implement a de facto boycott of risky imports.

We strongly urge you to deny the application to deregulate glyphosate
tolerant alfalfa in the United States. The negative impacts of
deregulaton are broad, significant, far-reaching, and irreversible. The
beneficiaries of deregulation are not disadvantaged, and their interests
should not be put ahead of those of the larger population and future
generations.

Sincerely,
Cathy Holtslander, on behalf of
Beyond Factory Farming
#200 – 416 22nd Street East
Saskatoon, SK
S7K 0C2

stop GE alfalfa

Leave a reply

Here’s the latest action from Beyond Factory Farming:

Protect Organic Food! Support Organic Farmers!

Stop GE Alfalfa! Take Action before February 16.

The U.S. will approve Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa unless we stop them. Organic food and farming in the U.S. and Canada is under immediate threat.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has released its draft Environmental Impact Statement on GE alfalfa and is accepting comments until end of day Feb 16, 2010.

They say:
-       Contamination of organic food from GE alfalfa will happen but it doesn’t really matter.

-       Consumers don’t care if organic food is contaminated with GE alfalfa.

-       GE alfalfa will result in fewer small farmers and fewer organic farmers but that’s okay.

Tell the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) you DO care about organic food and organic farmers!

Organic farming bans the use of genetically engineered organisms. Stop Monsanto from destroying organic farming in the U.S. and Canada!

1. A sample letter – for Canadian organic consumers to send – is below. You can submit your letter at (copy and paste the whole URL) :www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a6b7a1

2. We also invite all organizations, producer associations, companies and community groups to endorse the No to GE Alfalfa campaign by signing on the statement opposing GE alfalfa in Canada. Go here to sign on http://www.cban.ca/content/view/full/631

For more information, action and background: http://www.cban.ca/alfalfa

Sample Letter

Most of the organic food we eat in Canada is imported from the U.S.. I am deeply concerned that the U.S. may allow plantings of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa which I know will result in the contamination of organic alfalfa in the U.S. and Canada. I do not want to eat GE foods which is one reason why I choose to buy certified organic food.

The national organic standards in both the U.S. and Canada prohibit the use of genetically engineered organisms. This is a central tenet of organics. For example, animals used for certified organic meat, milk, eggs, and other animal products need 100 percent organic feed. Alfalfa is used widely for livestock feed, including for dairy cows.

The USDA claims that consumers will not reject GE contamination in organic alfalfa if the contamination is unintentional or if the transgenic material is not transmitted to the end milk or meat product. This is simply not the case. I am a Canadian consumer of U.S. organic foods and food ingredients and I care deeply about the integrity of certified organic foods, and GE is fundamentally not organic.

The GE contamination of organic alfalfa would severely impact the entire organic system in the U.S. and Canada, especially because many different types of organic farmers plant alfalfa to improve soil fertility. This important technique makes it possible to farm successfully without using chemical fertilizers. Contamination by GE alfalfa would eliminate this valuable tool, causing severe economic and agronomic costs to organic farmers.

I care about the livelihoods of small-scale organic farmers, and the future of organic farming in North America.

Farmers’ have a fundamental right to sow the seeds of their choice but this choice can be eliminated by GE contamination. This happened in Canada when prairie organic grain farmers had to stop growing canola because there was no way to prevent contamination by cross-pollination with GE canola during the growing season, even if farmers could find uncontaminated seed for planting.

Organic farming is a good environmental choice. It provides healthy food grown without pesticides or GE organisms, and it builds better soil. The future of organic farming is threatened by GE alfalfa.

As a consumer, I care about the contamination of organic foods from GE alfalfa.

The USDA should reject the deregulation of GE alfalfa to protect organic farming and food in the U.S. and Canada, and protect the U.S. organic food trade to Canada.

You can submit your letter (Docket No. APHIS-2007-0044) at: www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a6b7a1

For more information, action and background: http://www.cban.ca/alfalfa or contact Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) Phone: 613 241 2267 ext.6 coordinator@cban.ca
This action alert was produced by the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) and the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD) http://www.cban.ca/alfalfa