Agrofuels or biofuels?

The term “agrofuels” describes liquid fuels derived from food and oil crops produced in large-scale plantation-style industrial production systems. These agrofuels are blended with petrol and diesel for use primarily as transport fuel. The term biofuels is used widely for any fuel derived from biological material in contrast to fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) but where plants are cultivated in agricultural systems for the purpose of fuel production, the term agrofuel is more appropriate to include the specific context and problems such as monoculture plantations and the competition with land for food production.

Summary

Agrofuels are speeding us towards climate change: Agriculture already contributed at least 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Corn for ethanol, and soy and canola for biodiesel, are industrial monocrops that take fertilizers, pesticides and water to grow - and these three are also the major genetically engineered crops grown in the world (most owned by Monsanto). It is estimated that in 2010, 1/3 of the US corn crop will be dedicated to ethanol production instead of food. Production of agrofuels, primarily palm oil, is now the largest cause of deforestation in South East Asia - and deforestation is responsible for 20% of global carbon emissions. The race to access crop land for fuel and food production is now resulting in a global "land grab" where foreign countries and companies are buying or leasing land. 86% of global biomass is located in the tropics and subtropics, a simple fact driving an industrial grab that threatens to accelerate the pace of forest destruction and land acquisition in the South in order to feed the economies of the North.

• Read the "debate" on agrofuels between CBAN Coordinator Lucy Sharratt and Gord Quaiattini of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association in the July/August Costco Connection.
• Listen: Bioethanol and biodiesel not a green alternative, Interview with CBAN Coordinator Lucy Sharratt, Vancouver Cooperative Radio va Rabble.ca October 2010
• Read "Biofuels Backfire: hasty approach will impact environment, food production" from Common Ground magazine, July 2010 by Lucy Sharratt
• Click here to download a background document from Food Secure Canada.

Updates

August 2012: There's growing pressure on the Obama administration to end support for corn ethanol. The worst drought in 50 years has not only condemned this year's (mostly GM) corn crop but threatens next year's too. The US government mandate requires unleaded fuel to be approximately 13% ethanol, regardless of supply.

August 2012: Growing demand for African palm oil for biofuels and as a key ingredient in cosmetics and processed foods is fuelling deadly land disputes in the Honduran countryside, pitting large landowners against landless peasants. At least 78 people have been killed over the past three years as a competition for land In Honduras heats up.

February 2012: A new study from the George Morris Centre shows that Canadian ethanol production policies are responsible for increasing costs for the Canadian livestock sector by $130 million per year.

Europe's world-leading $13 billion biodiesel industry is on the verge of being legislated out of existence after studies reveal indirect impacts cancel out most of its benefits. See Reuters story, July 8, 2011: Climate impact threatens biodiesel future in EU

ETC Group Report, October 2010: "The New Biomassters - Synthetic Biology and the Next Assault on Biodiversity and Livelihoods" exposes the emerging global grab on plants, lands, ecosystems, and traditional cultures as industry shifts industrial production feedstocks from fossil fuels to the 230 billion tones of 'biomass' (living stuff) that the Earth produces every year - not just for liquid fuels but also for production of power, chemicals, plastics and more in the new "bioeconomy".

Earth Grab

Podcasts from the “Earth Grab” events:
English: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5F4EBC94BF80D270
French: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIkTO_mStFM&feature=channel

The rush to grow ‘biomass’ for fuels and industry will be worth $1/2 trillion – but won’t feed people, or stop climate change. Farm leaders from the Global South describe the reality and propose alternatives: Iderle Brénus, leader/organizer, Mouvement paysan Papaye, Haiti; Ibrahim Coulibaly, farm movement leader, COPAGEN, Mali.

Biofuels in Canadian fuel

The Conservative Government is implementing the "Renewable Fuels Regulations" to require 5% of fuel should come from biofuels like corn ethanol, even though a study from Environment Canada found that the ecological footprint could not reliably be determined. The highly controversial new regulations was passed (Bill C-33) in June 2008 in the midst of the new food crisis. The Bill allows the federal government to develop and implement regulations requiring 5% average renewable content in gasoline by 2010 as well as require 2% average renewable content in diesel and heating oil by 2012. The Canadian government rushed the "Renewable Fuels Regulations" to require biofuels in our gas but there are new reports all the time about serious environmental and economic problems with biofuels.

What's Wrong with Biofuels Regulations in Canada?

There are many new studies and the verdict on biofuels is not looking good:

• The promised economic benefit to farmers will not be seen. The government’s own "regulatory impact statement" now reveals that farmers will not benefit from the production of grains used to make the biofuels. The statement says more corn will be imported from the US to meet the biofuels regulation in eastern Canada!
• The impact statement also shows that consumers will bear most of the costs associated with the biofuel expansion - to a total of $2 billion. This is because the ethanol-blended gas has a lower energy content so consumers will need to buy more fuel! The statement also says: “Assuming all industry costs are passed on to the consumer, regional average cost over 25 years range from 7 cents in Ontario to a relatively higher impact of 30 cents in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces”.
• The promise that air quality would get better and thus improve the health of Canadians also didn’t pan out as a recent 2009 Health Canada report concluded that “there are no substantial differences in predicted health effects between use of conventional use (gasoline) and E10 (ethanol-blended gasoline).”
• The Federal Government still says the new biofuels mandate will be good for the environment, even though their own research indicates no statistical difference in Greenhouse Gas Emissions at the tailpipe between vehicles using ethanol and vehicles not using ethanol. <http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2007/03/30/ethanol-emissions.html>

When the Senate passed Bill C-33, it also suggested that, “any new information that is available prior to regulations being proposed is taken into consideration before such regulations are promulgated.”

Development & Peace says the regulations "make no sense whatsoever".

Global Conflict Over Agrofuels

The corporate "agrofuels" gold-rush has ignited a major global conflict. Find out why...

Click here to hear Pat Mooney on biofuels

"At the World Forum on Food Sovereignty, held in Mali in Africa, we and other delegates discussed how capital has manipulated terminology by adding the prefix “bio”, which signifies life, to renewable plant-based fuels. This is ridiculous, because all living things are “bio”. We could call ourselves bio-people, bio-John Smith, bio-soya, etc. Companies use the prefix “bio” to encourage the public to see their products as a good thing, as politically correct. So, at the international level, Vía Campesina has agreed to use more accurate terminology. These fuels and energy are produced from agricultural crops and so the correct terms are agrofuels and agro-energy." - João Pedro Stedile is one of the leaders of the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST), Brazil’s Landless Movement

August 2010, Friends of the Earth Europe and Africa report: Africa Up For Grabs: Africa is increasingly being seen as a source of agricultural land and natural resources for the rest of the world. National governments and private companies are obtaining land across the continent to grow crops for food and fuel to meet growing demand from mainly overseas countries.

Click here to read how agrofuels is pushing destructive GM soy monocropping in Latin America.

Agrofuels and GE Trees

Biotechnology corporations are seriously promoting genetically engineered trees and new GE crops for use as biofuels (agrofuels). The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) Pacific Rim Summit on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy September 10-12, 2008 in Vancouver was all about genetic engineering and new technologies for biofuels - including, and explicitly, GE trees. The conference included the session “Cellulosic Ethanol from Softwoods Around the World” and the presentation “Biotechnology in Purpose-Grown Trees to Make Bioenergy Production" by ArborGen, the leading company researching GE trees.

This corporate link with agrofuels was a major reason why Brazil, Canada and the US defeated the attempt by African governments to establish an international moratorium on GE trees at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in 2008.

“Fast growing, purpose-grown trees are an ideal feedstock platform for second generation bioenergy production…Producing renewable energy from purpose-grown trees is the latest step in the evolution of trees’ long and fruitful history and critical to meeting global bioenergy development needs.”
– from summary to BIO Conference presentation "Biotechnology in Purpose-Grown Trees to Make Bioenergy Production" in the session "New Feedstocks for Biofuels", a presentation from Barbara Wells of ArborGen.

Click here for more information on GE trees.

The six major companies developing and selling GE crops are:

1. Monsanto
2. Dupont
3. Syngenta
4. Dow
5. Bayer
6. BASF

• Collectively, they control 59.8% of seeds and 76.1% of agrochemicals globally.
• They also account for 76% of total private research and development in seed and agrochemical sectors. At least 70% of this R&D is devoted to biotechnology and GE crops.

These six companies accounted for 98% of all biotech acres in 2007. Monsanto’s GE traits were in 85% of the total acreage planted with GE crops (in 13 countries).

Since the first GE seeds were introduced in 1996, the market share of the world’s three largest seed companies – Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta – has more than doubled, from 22% to 53.4% of commercial seed sales.

These six companies regularly cross license to each other, reinforcing their market power. About half of all commercial GE seeds with stacked traits are the result of cross licensing between companies.

Monsanto is the world's largest seed company and, as of January 2013, had filed 144 seed patent infringement lawsuits involving 410 farmers and 56 small businesses in 27 states in the US. Click here to see more information about Monsanto including the new documentary "The World According to Monsanto."

The above information comes from the March 2013 ETC Group report Gene Giants Seek "Philanthrogopoly"

Reports

ETC Group, March 2013Gene Giants Seek "Philanthrogopoly" The report takes a look at how the 6 multinational Gene Giants control the current priorities and future direction of agriculture research worldwide.

ETC Group, December 2011:Who Will Control the Green Economy? The 60-page report connects the dots between the climate and oil crises, new technologies and corporate power. The report warns that the world’s largest companies are riding the coattails of the “Green Economy” while gearing up for their boldest coup to-date – not just by making strategic acquisitions and tapping new markets, but also by penetrating new industrial sectors. DuPont, for example, already the world’s second largest seed company and sixth largest company in both pesticides and chemicals, is now a powerhouse in plant-based materials, energy and food ingredients. Other major players like Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, BASF and Unilever are making strategic investments in risky technologies in hopes of turning plant biomass into products and profit.

ETC Group, October 2010: Gene Giants Stockpile Patents on “Climate-Ready” Crops in Bid to Become Biomassters: Patent Grab Threatens Biodiversity, Food Sovereignty. Under the guise of developing “climate-ready” crops, the world’s largest seed and agrochemical corporations are filing hundreds of sweeping, multi-genome patents in a bid to control the world’s plant biomass. ETC Group identifies over 262 patent families, subsuming 1663 patent documents published worldwide (both applications and issued patents) that make specific claims on environmental stress tolerance in plants (such as drought, heat, flood, cold, salt tolerance). DuPont, Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Syngenta and their biotech partners account for three-quarters (77%) of the patent families identified. Just three companies – DuPont, BASF, Monsanto – account for over two-thirds of the total. Public sector researchers hold only 10%.

Other Resources

ETC Group publishes reports on major trends in corporate agendas to control nature including new patent grabs.

The early warnings of environmentalists about the negative impacts of genetically engineered plants are, unfortunately but inevitably, being proven correct. In addition to ongoing concerns about the impact of GM insect resistant (Bt) crops on soil ecosystems and non-target insects we see the following serious problems:

• Contamination: Contamination from GM plants is having ecological and economic and social impacts.
• Superweeds: In 2010 the development of herbicide tolerant (HT) weeds became a serious problem in the U.S and in HT weeds are now becoming a problem in Ontario and Alberta.
• Superpests: In 2011 insects that developed resistance to GM Bt (insect resistant) plants were being observed.
• Increased Pesticide Use: GM insect resistant (Bt) crops produce their own toxin and do not reduce or eliminate insecticides, but simply change the way that pesticides are used, from sprayed on, to built in. US and Latin American data show that GM herbicide tolerant crops have increased overall pesticide use, and have dramatically accelerated the emergence and spread of resistant weeds.

Contamination

Once genetically engineered organisms are released into the environment, they cannot be recalled and they cannot be controlled.

• Canadian farmers are currently suffering through a crisis of GM contamination of flax - Click here to read about the case of GM flax contamination.
• You can also take action to stop the introduction of GM alfalfa and read about how inevitable contamination will impact conventional and organic farmers.
• Article and videos about how contamination is affecting communities around the world - and what people are doing to stop and reverse it. GRAIN 2009 "Fighting GMO contamination around the world"
• Worldwide Contamination Registry: Click here to see the on-line registry of GE contamination incidents. See details of all the known cases of GM contamination of food, feed, seed and wild plants that have taken place worldwide (hosted by GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace). The Register has documented more than 216 cases of GM contamination in 57 countries over the past 10 years, including 39 cases in 2007.

The genetically modified (GM or genetically engineered) pig called “Enviropig” has been shut down thanks to CBAN and your action. Thanks to your support and actions we have stopped the GM Pig!

June 22, 2012 - Press Release:GM “Enviropigs” Meet Dead End: Remaining GM pigs euthanized at the University of Guelph

April 2, 2012 – Press Release: Genetically Modified Pig Shelved

The hog industry group Ontario Pork has stopped funding the GM pig research at the University of Guelph. The university has now closed down its active research and ended its breeding program of GM pigs. The pig was engineered with genetic material from a mouse to reduce phosphorous in its feces and could have become the first GM food animal approved in the world.

April 3, 2012"I had the feeling in seven or eight or nine years that transgenic animals probably would be acceptable. But I was wrong. It’s time to stop the program until the rest of the world catches up" - Dr. Cecil Forsberg, "inventor" of Enviropig. Read the full New York Times article.

Analysis

Circulate the full CBAN email "GM Pigs Shut Down: Major victory in the struggle against genetic engineering" April 2, 2012

This victory comes at a critical moment

The first GM food animal could still be introduced in North America if we do not stop the small U.S. company AquaBounty from getting approval for its GM Atlantic salmon. Just like the GM pig, the GM salmon is designed to support factory farming. It is not wanted by consumers or the aquaculture industry. If a GM fish is introduced, it will also be harder for us to stop other GM foods, crops and animals.

There are key fights before us in Canada. We can still stop GM alfalfa – a crop that was introduced in the U.S. but not yet in Canada. We need to stop GM alfalfa to protect organic food and family farms that are at the frontlines of GM resistance in North America and are central to the economic revival of our farm sector.

Corporations are seeking to genetically engineer staple crops such as wheat and rice but they are meeting formidable global resistance.

Our victory over the GM “Enviropig” shows that Canadians are prepared to fight genetically engineered food, crops and animals – and we will win. We can stop genetic engineering. We are already succeeding.

You can help us build our movement - join us now! Donate today.

Article, May 2013:"GMOs: Fooling – er, "feeding" – the world for 20 years", GRAIN. Debunks the myths summarised in five points: GMOs will feed the world; GMOs are more productive; they will eliminate the use of agrochemicals; they can coexist with other crops; and GMOs are perfectly safe for humans and the environment.

"The food crisis is not a scarcity problem; it’s an access and distribution problem, fundamentally linked to the way our food is produced. Simply put, our global food system is unfair and no longer works. It needs a dramatic transformation. How we grow our food matters."
- From USC Canada's 2012 Primer on the Global Food Crisis

• 85 % of the world’s food is currently grown and consumed within national borders
• 90% of the 525 million farms in the world are still less than 2 hectares in size and occupy 60% of global arable land.
• 1.4 billion people still eat from farmer saved seed.

- From the March 2013 ETC Group report Gene Giants Seek "Philanthrogopoly"

To date, agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80 per cent in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116 per cent for all African projects. Recent projects conducted in 20 African countries demonstrated a doubling of crop yields over a period of 3 to 10 years.
- “Agroecology and the Right to Food”, Report presented at the 16th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, March 2011. Olivier De Schutter, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food

Peasants Feed the World

Eighty-five percent of the world’s food is grown and consumed within national borders and/or the same eco-regional zone. Most of this food is grown from peasant-bred seed without the industrial chain’s synthetic fertilizers. Peasants breed and nurture 40 livestock species and almost 8000 breeds. Peasants also breed 5000 domesticated crops and have donated more than 1.9 million plant varieties to the world’s gene banks. Peasant fishers harvest and protect more than 15,000 freshwater species. The work of peasants and pastoralists maintaining soil fertility is 18 times more valuable than the synthetic fertilizers provided by the seven largest corporations.

There are 1.5 billion on 380 million farms; 800 million more growing urban gardens; 410 million gathering the hidden harvest of our forests and savannas; 190 million pastoralists and well over 100 million peasant fishers. At least 370 million of these are also indigenous peoples. Together these peasants make up almost half the world’s peoples and they grow at least 70% of the world’s food. Better than anyone else, they feed the hungry. If we are to eat in 2050 we will need all of them and all of their diversity. - From Who Will Feed Us? ETC Group, November 2009.

Resources

Watch the Presentation: "Is the GM Salmon Safe?"

"Is the GM Salmon Safe?: A look at the data on the health and environment risks" Featuring Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Consumers Union, US. International expert on the risk assessment of genetically modified organisms. Filmed May 13, 2013 in Charlottetown PEI.

1. Watch the Video:http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/FlyingPage/4931/Guardian-live-broadcast
2. View the Slides: (the slides in the video cannot be seen) Click here to download the accompanying PowerPoint slides.

What do we know about the GM salmon, proposed to come from PEI? The US government could approve the GM salmon any day. US company AquaBounty wants to produce all the GM fish eggs in PEI.

A biologist and ecologist, Michael Hansen Ph.D. is a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union in the US. He also represents Consumers International, a federation of more than 250 organizations in 110 countries, on issues related to genetic engineering. Dr. Hansen was appointed as an international expert for two different FAO/WHO Joint Expert Consultations: Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Animals, including Fish (2003) and Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant DNA Animals (2004).

• Media Backgrounder, April 10, 2013: Genetically Modified (GM) Atlantic Salmon in PEI
• Information for Codex delegates May 2013

January 2013: The US government has released its environmental assessment of the GE Atlantic salmon, a last step to approving the GE fish. The small U.S. company AquaBounty wants to produce GE Atlantic salmon eggs on Prince Edward Island, ship them to Panama to grow out and then ship the processed fish to the US consumer market. Environment Canada has not yet approved the GE fish or egg production in Canada.

Take Action

1. Write to the Minister of Environment instantly by clicking here: Halt any environmental assessment of GE fish! Why won't Environment Canada even tell Canadians if it has started an assessment?
2. Organizations can still sign on to the statement opposing GE salmon!: No GE Research, Production, Consumption in, and Export from, Canada. We invite environmental, conservation, health, consumer, and public interest groups, industry associations, and aboriginal peoples’ organizations in Canada to sign the following statement of opposition to genetically engineered (GE) fish. Sign on here.
3. Print and distribute this flyer - raise awareness in your community.

U.S. company AquaBounty is seeking approval for its genetically engineered Atlantic salmon. The company claims the salmon grow to market-size twice as fast as other farmed salmon. The salmon are engineered with a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon and genetic material from ocean pout (an eel-like creature).

A summary of AquaBounty’s environmental assessment released by the US Food and Drug Administration on September 3, 2010, revealed that the company is not requesting approval to produce the GE Atlantic salmon in the US but intends instead to produce all the GE salmon eggs on Prince Edward Island, then ship the eggs to Panama for growing-out and processing, for export into the US consumer market as “table-ready” fish. The company is assuming it will be granted approval by Environment Canada to produce GE salmon eggs on PEI. AquaBounty says it is now preparing to also ask Health Canada to approve the GE salmon for human consumption here.

House of Commons Motion: October 2011 - Mr. Donnelly (New Westminster—Coquitlam) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately: (a) provide greater regulatory clarity by identifying which government departments are responsible for the regulation of genetically modified salmon and other transgenic aquatic organisms; (b) prevent the introduction into the Canadian food system of genetically modified salmon destined for human consumption until further scientific studies are concluded by the relevant departments to determine the impact of genetically modified salmon on human health and on the health of marine species, ecosystems and habitats; and (c) direct the departments responsible for the regulation of genetically modified salmon to establish a practice of notifying the Canadian public of all requests and approvals and of any information and findings regarding genetically modified salmon and salmon eggs.

Background Information

October 2010, Article,"Biotech Gets Fishy with GE Salmon" Common Ground Magazine, Lucy Sharratt, CBAN.

What is the GM Salmon?

The U.S. company AquaBounty is asking the U.S. to approve its genetically engineered (GE, also called genetically modified or GM) Atlantic salmon for human consumption and says it will soon ask for approval in Canada. The company claims its “AquAdvantage” salmon grow to market-size twice as fast as other farmed salmon. That’s because the Atlantic salmon are engineered with a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon and genetic material from ocean pout (an eel-like creature).

The GM Salmon is from Canada

AquaBounty is headquartered in the US but the GM salmon is based on a gene construct patented by two Canadian university professors. The company also has research facilities in Prince Edward Island where it grows GM fish for experimentation and testing. The company recently revealed that it is not actually asking for approval to grow the fish in the US but plans to produce all of the GM salmon eggs on PEI, ship the eggs to Panama for growing out and processing, and then sell “table-ready” GM salmon into the US consumer market. AquaBounty does not yet have permission from Environment Canada to commercially produce its GM salmon eggs at its PEI facility. Environment Canada refuses to disclose if the department is already assessing a request from AquaBounty.

No One Wants GM Fish

The aquaculture industry does not support the commercialization of GM fish and has stated that there is no market demand.

Will GM Salmon Be On Our Plate Soon?

AquaBounty said it is asking Health Canada to approve the GM salmon for eating in Canada. This process could happen quickly, especially if the US government approves the fish. Health Canada refuses to tell the public if they are already looking at a request to approve GM salmon for eating in Canada.

After 10 years, the US government could be close to approving the GM salmon. In late 2010, the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the final stages of its process to approve the GM salmon, and made the preliminary conclusion that the GE salmon is safe for to eat and does not pose a risk to the environment. But FDA meetings in September 2010 did not conclude with a recommendation to approve the salmon. Instead, the FDA’s own committee members voiced serious concerns about the quality of the data and the risks.

The first GM Food Animal in the World?

The GM fish was in a race with the GM pig called “Enviropig” to become the first genetically engineered animal in our food system but the campaign led by the Canadian Biotechnology stopped the GM pig in March 2012. Will the GM salmon be the first GM food animal approved in the world?

Environmental Risks

Atlantic salmon are farmed in both the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean. The escape of farmed fish from either marine net pens or hatcheries is serious, reoccurring pollution that threatens species. For example, mature escaped Atlantic salmon have been recorded in streams in B.C..

To try to avoid a full review of these risks, AquaBounty is only seeking permission to raise the fish in a land-based facility in a “remote highland area” of Panama - even though they say they want to raise the fish in the U.S. and other countries. The company also says that all the fish will be sterile females, but admits they can only guarantee 95% of the salmon will be unable to reproduce.

Any risk of GM Atlantic salmon escaping into the wild is unacceptable, especially when Atlantic salmon are already in danger of disappearing.

Also, GM salmon could put even more pressure on marine ecosystems. The fast-growing GM salmon could consume up to five times more food than other farmed salmon - because salmon are carnivorous they actually eat large amounts of wild-harvested fish like anchovies and sardines, caught just to feed them.

Health Risks and Bad Science

Critics have long warned that the process of genetic engineering itself could possibly result in increased allergenicity and AquaBounty’s own data point to this potential in their GM salmon.

Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers Union US, says, “The FDA is relying on woefully inadequate data. There is sloppy science, small sample sizes, and questionable practices.” For example, the company used insensitive tests to try and measure the levels of growth hormone in the GM salmon and the levels of IGF-1, a hormone linked to a number of cancers.

News

December 16, 2011: ISA virus confirmed in AquaBounty’s genetically-engineered salmon: A 2009 memo from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) entered into evidence at Canada’s federal Cohen Inquiry into the collapse of Fraser River sockeye Thursday reveals that salmon at the AquaBounty facility in Price Edward Island have tested positive for the Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA) virus. Click here to watch Catherine Stewart of Living Oceans Society talk about what this means.

October 11, 2011 - Press Release : U.S. Rubber-Stamp of GM Fish Imminent? U.S. approval would trigger corporate plans to produce genetically modified salmon eggs in Canada, but Environment Canada remains silent

January 15, 2011: PEI groups met with Premier Ghiz and the PEI Minister of the Environment and secured a pledge that the Premier will seek information from Environment Canada. Environment Canada is currently refusing to disclose any information about a possible risk assessment to allow the production of GE salmon eggs on PEI. Read the story: PEI groups meet with Premier and secure pledge on GE fish.

December 6, 2010 Press Release: Groups Oppose Genetically Engineered Salmon: Demand Immediate Disclosure from Environment Canada

Sixty fisheries and oceans conservation, environmental and social justice groups revealed today that Environment Canada refuses to confirm or deny if the department has already started a secret 120-day risk assessment to approve genetically engineered (GE, also called genetically modified or GM) salmon egg production on Prince Edward Island. The groups today also released a joint statement of “categorical objection” to the raising of GE fish and fish eggs. Click here to see the statement opposing GE fish and the list of 60 groups signed so far.

November 22, 2010: Press release: PEI Groups request Premier Ghiz to press Environment Canada for disclosure on GE Salmon

Letter from Groups to PEI Premier

October 27, 2010: Newly Disclosed Government Documents Conclude GE Salmon Pose A Critical Threat To Marine Environments - Expert fisheries agencies prohibit growing engineered salmon in open-water net pens under the Endangered Species Act.

September 21, 2010 - Press Statement: Groups in the US and Canada urge the FDA to heed yesterday's warnings by scientists regarding the safety of genetically engineered salmon and reject company's request for approval -- Yesterday the FDA's Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee finished two days of public hearings in Maryland on the safety of genetically engineered (GE) salmon: "The committee could not avoid pointing to serious problems with the science. The FDA cannot approve the GE salmon after the committee has raised so many questions about its safety," said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. Many committee members raised serious concerns about the safety of the GE salmon and questions about the quality of the data used by the FDA to come to its initial conclusion that the GE fish is safe. The FDA will now consider the concerns raised by the committee before making a final decision to approve or reject the GE fish, or call for more studies. The FDA has agreed to a public comment period on an environmental assessment.

September 20, 2010 - Press Release: Critics slam “sloppy science” on GE Fish at FDA hearings: FDA overlooked evidence of allergy potential and accepted deficient data say groups

September 16, 2010 - Press Release: PEI Groups Denounce Plans for Local GE Salmon Production: PEI representative to attend US hearings on GE fish safety

September 8, 2010 - Press Release:As U.S. Decision on GE Fish Nears Final Stage, Company Reveals Plan to Produce GE Salmon Eggs in Canada

September 3, 2010: FDA releases documents for the first time prior to public meetings September 19-21:

• Environmental Assessment for "AquAdvantage" Salmon
• Briefing Packet: Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee

August 27, 2010 - Joint Press Statement: Coalition Demands FDA Deny Approval of Controversial GE Fish: FDA Considers Approval of GE Salmon--the First GE Food Animal--Yet Fails to Inform the Public of Environmental and Economic Risks.

More Information

Canadian regulation: Canadian regulators are not prepared to evaluate GE fish properly. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) abandoned its work to develop regulations specific to GE fish. Because DFO could not figure out how to regulate GE fish (Transgenic Aquatic Organisms), they have passed the task to Environment Canada under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Health Canada will evaluate the safety of GE fish for human consumption under the existing Novel Foods regulations. Health Canada is still developing particular guidelines for evaluating safety under these existing regulations.

On March 11, 2013 in Telkwa BC this resolution was passed: "Whereas the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's) in agricultural activities is inconsistent with the Village of Telkwa's Official Community Plan and Integrated Community Sustainability Plan; and whereas the nature of cross pollination is not limited by municipal boundaries; be it resolved that the use of GMO's for agricultural purposes is unwelcome in the Village of Telkwa"

On March 8, 2013 Cherryville became the 11th BC municipality to pass a resolution to ban GMO crops! Local volunteer group Bee SAFE, held a public meeting at the Cherryville hall to discuss how GMO crops affect other crops. “There is no co-existence possible between GMO crops and other crops – by not deciding to ban them, we're deciding to ban every other type of agriculture and to put the future of our food and our farms in the hands of corporations like Monsanto, who own patents on GMO seeds” said Huguette Allen. Congratulations Cherryville!

GE Free Zones in BC

1.Powell River (2004)
2.Nelson (Nov 3, 2008)
3.Kaslo (Jan 13, 2009)
4.New Denver (Sept 8, 2009)
5.Rossland (May 11, 2009)
6. Salt Spring
7. Denman
8. Richmond (May 29, 2012)
9. Saanich (Nov 2012)
10. Metchosin (Nov 2012)
11. Cherryville (March 8, 2013)
12. Telkwa (March 11, 2013)

May 29, 2012 Press Release: Richmond City Council Finalizes GE Free Zone

Richmond City Council (British Columbia) unanimously confirmed a decision to make the city a GE Free Zone. Following the initial unanimous decision by the General Purposes Committee on May 24, 250 Richmond residents turned out last night to support final approval at City Council. The biotechnology industry lobby group CropLife presented in a failed effort to dissuade councilors from approving the resolution. Instead, teachers, parents, farmers, high school students, and other ordinary citizens prevailed - they packed City Hall and spent almost 3 hours making 5-minute presentations to City Council.

The City of Richmond agreed to oppose the cultivation of genetically engineered (GE, also called genetically modified or GM) plants and trees in the City, making an exception for the 3 dairy farms that already grow GM corn. The resolution states, “no further GM crops, trees or plants should be grown in the City of Richmond. This also includes GM fruit trees, all GM plants and shrubbery, GM vegetables, GM commodity crops and any and all field tests for medical and experimental GM crops.” The City also agreed to send letters to all levels of government “requesting strengthened management of genetically modified plants, and including the introduction of mandatory labelling requirements, more transparent assessment procedures and enhanced communication with the public.” The Richmond Food Security Society and the Society for a Genetically Free (GE) BC introduced the resolution in 2010. Richmond is a municipality of almost 200,000 people to the south of Vancouver in British Columbia and has about 200 farms.

The Society for a GE Free BC with GE Free Kootenays, and GE Free Yukon are working hard to secure GE Free Zones.

City of Rossland, B.C. Adopts G.E. Free Resolution

May 11, 2009: “Moved by Councillor Charlton / Seconded by Councillor Spearn

THAT the City of Rossland oppose the cultivation of genetically engineered plants and trees, by using transgenic engineering, in the municipality; and that the City of Rossland will not purchase genetically engineered plants and trees for its own use; and that the City of Rossland agrees to revisit the resolution as pertinent new information becomes available that affects this resolution; and the City of Rossland shall forward copies of this resolution to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Interior Health, B.C. Ministry of Health, B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, B.C. Provincial Health Officer, the Prime Minister of Canada, The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada, CropLife Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, local MLA and MP offices and any interested and related groups. “

City of Nelson Passes GE-Free Resolution

November 3, 2008: "The City of Nelson does not support the cultivation of genetically engineered plants and trees in the Municipality of Nelson and further that council will not purchase for its own operations GE plants or trees. The City of Nelson agrees to revisit this as pertinent new information becomes available that affects this resolution and further that the City of Nelson shall forward copies of the resolution to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Union of BC Municipalities, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada, CropLife Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, local MLA and MP offices and any interested and related groups for comment."

Update 2013: The Museum in Ottawa has removed the goats from display after public pressure.

March 27, 2012, Press Release - Genetically Modified Goats on Display at Ottawa Experimental Farm: Family Outing Turns to Shock

“Seeing the transgenic goats gave me a horrible, sick feeling inside. I just think it’s wrong,” said Beatriz Oliver, who brought her four-year-old daughter and two-and-a-half-year old son to the farm on Saturday not knowing the GM goats were at the museum, “I was glad they’re too young to read the signs. I didn’t want to have to tell them that someone put spider DNA into these goats. It’s unethical and unnecessary.”