Science and technology are not value neutral. Advances in science and technology are often the results of human activity imbued with intention and purpose and embodying the perspectives, purposes and particular objectives of powerful social groups. Current technologies do not equally benefit all segments off society and are not meant to do so. To maximize public support for technological developments and to minimize opposition, technology proponents rarely acknowledge, for example, the distributional inequities and ramifications of what they are proposing.

- From Science and the Disadvantaged, Dr. Gregor Wolbring, Occasional Paper, The Edmonds Institute, 2000.

Legalizing Contamination as "Low Level Presence"

The Canadian Government is proposing to allow contamination of our food supply with genetically engineered foods that have not been approved for safe eating in Canada. Agriculture Canada calls it “Low Level Presence” or LLP.

Take Action

Click here to send your instant letter to the Minister of Health!

• Click here to read CBAN's submission on LLP to Agriculture Canada: "Low Level Presence Sacrifices Food Safety for Trade Policy: LLP is indefensible from a public health and safety standpoint"
• November 29, 2011 - Press Release: Federal Government Proposes to Side-Step Health Canada’s Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods: Trade policy would sacrifice safety, say groups.

Summary

The Canadian government wants to allow a percent, 0.1% or higher, of our food to be contaminated with genetically modified (GM) foods that have not been approved by Health Canada for safe human consumption. The GM foods will have been approved for safety in at least one other country but not yet evaluated as safe by our own regulators. The federal government calls this “Low Level Presence” or LLP and argues that this “low level” of contamination from unapproved GM foods is not harmful.

LLP is unacceptable and unjustifiable:

• LLP is trade policy at the expense of public health. The goal of LLP is to facilitate the free flow of goods into Canada, without the restriction of safety assessment.
• LLP overthrows public health policy. LLP rejects Canada’s “science-based” regulation of GMOs because LLP assumes that GM foods are safe before evaluating the available data.
• LLP makes safety regulation irrelevant. LLP establishes an exception to the (already highly criticized and woefully inadequate) process whereby government regulators review scientific data to determine human health safety. The introduction of LLP will further undermine our international reputation for food safety as well as the confidence of Canadians in our food system.
• If LLP is introduced, it will be clear that the Canadian Government has no interest in protecting the health and safety of Canadians.

Comments on LLP from Groups

From the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network: "Low Level Presence Sacrifices Food Safety for Trade Policy: LLP is indefensible from a public health and safety standpoint"

Government Consultation Documents on LLP

Click on the links below to download the government consultation documents, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada:

• Executive Summary: LLP
• Full Consultation Document: LLP
• Frequently Asked Questions: LLP
• Glossary: LLP

More Info on LLP

Click here to read the article on LLP "Legalizing Contamination from Unapproved GM Food: Regulation? Who Needs it!" by Lucy Sharratt, CBAN Coordinator, November 2011

What is “Low Level Presence”?

“Low Level Presence” (LLP) is the proposal to allow our food to be contaminated by a percent of genetically engineered foods that have not been approved for safe eating by Health Canada, but that have been approved for human consumption in at least one other country. LLP would change Canada’s existing “zero-tolerance” policy for such contamination. LLP is different from “adventitious presence” which is the industry term for contamination of our food by experimental GM crops and animals that have not been approved anywhere in the world.

Which other countries have LLP?

Canada would be the first country in the world to adopt LLP for GM foods. Every country has “zero-tolerance” for contamination by GM foods that they have not approved as safe. In July 2011, the European Union allowed up to 0.1 percent of animal feed could be contaminated by GM grains that are not approved in the EU

What is the Canadian government’s rationale for LLP?

The grain industry operating in Canada wants other countries to establish LLP so that exports from Canada that are contaminated by GM foods are not rejected: “In the industry’s view, Canada could serve as a model to influence countries with trade-restrictive LLP policies by adopting alternative domestic LLP policy approaches.” (Agriculture Canada Power Point on LLP) Agriculture Canada also says that, “The potential for low-level presence to enter Canada is expected to increase in the future.” (FAQp5) As yet, no GM foods have been approved anywhere in the world that are not already approved in the US or Canada.

“If trace amounts of such unapproved genetically modified product are found in import shipments, in a country where the genetically modified crop is not approved, often times these imports will be rejected.” (FAQp5) “The unpredictability of rejection of such imports is a growing concern, given the potential economic impacts low-level presence will have on global trade.” (FAQp5)

What is the consultation process?

On September 7 2011 Agriculture Canada launched a targeted call for participation of “stakeholders” in a consultation over three proposals to introduce “Low Level Presence”. Agriculture Canada invites comments by email to Kathryn McKinley, Agriculture Canada, kathryn.mckinley@agr.gc.ca, by Nov 25, 2011 (this deadline was extended from an Oct deadline). Consultation meetings were held October 11 Ottawa, ON; October 14 – Montreal, QC; October 24 – Toronto, ON; October 31 – Halifax, NS; November 2 – Winnipeg, MB; November 3 – Saskatoon, SK; November 4 – Richmond, BC. CBAN and organic farming organizations are participating to share their position that LLP is indefensible.

Background: Human Health Risks

We do not know what, if any, impacts eating genetically engineered foods will have on our health. There are many indications that we do not know enough to be integrating GE foods into our diets. Additionally, there is no mandatory labelling of GE ingredients in Canada and there is no post-market surveillance to help us determine if there are already impacts. In the interests of public health, the precautionary principle needs to be applied in relation to introducing GE foods.

"We are performing a massive experiment. The results will only be known after millions of people have been exposed to (these foods) for decades…Any politician or scientist who tells you these products are safe is either very stupid or lying. The hazards of these foods are uncertain. In view of our enormous ignorance, the premature application of biotechnology is downright dangerous."
- David Suzuki quoted in The Globe and Mail, October 20, 1999.

GE foods are approved for human consumption based on industry-produced science that is not peer-reviewed and cannot be accessed by the public or independent scientists. Peer review is the process whereby independent scientists assess the work of others – it is a fundamental and defining practice of science. As the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology states, “peer review and independent corroboration of research findings are axioms of the scientific method, and part of the very meaning of the objectivity and neutrality of science.” (p. 214 ) Without peer review, the data used to approve products cannot be assumed to be good science, or indeed “science” at all.

There is only one independent human health safety assessment of a GM food (a potato that is not on the market) that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. This is the study by Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen that was eventually published in The Lancet. In 1998, Pusztai found that the genetically engineered potatoes he was testing severely damaged the immune system and organs of rats, showing these potatoes were significantly different from non-GE potatoes and indicating that they may be toxic. After being interviewed on British television saying that it was “very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as guinea pigs” he was suspended and was silenced with a lawsuit.

There are many scenarios for risks to human health given the lack of certainty involved in the science of genetic engineering. Genetic engineers continually encounter unintended side effects -- plants create toxins, react to weather differently, contain too much or too little nutrients, become diseased or malfunction and die.

• See Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods by Jeffrey Smith for a summary of studies thus far. 2007.
• For an introduction to the issues involved see Genetically Engineered Food and Child Health, Lucy Sharratt, 2003

Summary: There is no mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods in Canada, despite intensive campaigning and 10 years of polling that show over 80% of Canadians want these labels. Instead, a national standard for voluntary labeling was established - but this is voluntary and no company has yet labeled their products as containing GE ingredients! At least 40 countries around the world have labeling laws including Europe, China and Russia.

Consumer rights victory as US ends opposition to GM labeling agreement

July 5, 2011

• Twenty year struggle within global food safety body ends with ‘consumer rights milestone’
• Move clears way for greater monitoring of the effects of GM organisms

Canada was an obstacle to the labeling guidelines until public pressure changed our government's position. Thanks to your action and years of work (16!) with many groups around the world, there are international guidelines on GM labeling.

More than 100 countries agreed on long overdue guidance on the labeling of genetically modified (GM) food. The Codex Alimentarius Commission of the UN, made up of the world’s food safety regulatory agencies, has been labouring for two decades to come up with consensus guidance. In a striking reversal of their previous position during the annual Codex summit in Geneva, the US delegation dropped its opposition to the GM labelling guidance document, allowing it to move forward and become an official Codex text. The new Codex agreement means that any country wishing to adopt GM food labelling will no longer face the threat of a legal challenge from the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is because national measures based on Codex guidance or standards cannot be challenged as a barrier to trade. This will have immediate implications for consumers. Click here for analysis from Consumers International.

The United Nation's Codex guidelines on GM food labelling are voluntary and so the guidelines themselves do not compel countries to label (so this will not result in labelling in Canada for example).

Your Actions Worked! UN Codex Provides For Labeling

May 11, 2010: Thanks to your letters, the Canadian government delegation to the UN Codex meeting last week did not support the U.S. position against GM food labeling. The U.S. failed in their attempts to stop the negotiations.

The Canadian government did not speak up to support the nonsensical position from the U.S. that GM foods are no different from foods produced through conventional methods. Though not yet actively supporting a positive position on GM labeling, Canada did not obstruct the meeting and the U.S. was not able to put an end to the negotiations. Out of the over 50 countries at the negotiations, the U.S. was only supported in its position by Mexico, Costa Rica, and Argentina. The U.S. was trying to put an end to the UN Codex negotiations on GM labeling but the negotiations will continue.

May 10, 2010, Consumers Union Press Release:U.S. Stands Nearly Alone in Opposition at Recent International Meeting

April 30, 2010 - Press Release: Canada to oppose the right of countries to label GM foods?Regroupement québécois contre les OGM (RQcOGM), Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN)

April 30, 2010 - Read CBAN's letter to the Minister of Health.

Developing countries want support from Codex for their right to label GM foods. The US and Canada want to make sure this doesn’t happen because Codex recommendations on GM labeling could protect developing countries from challenges at the World Trade Organization. Developing countries are pressing for recommendations on GE labeling from Codex to assist their efforts to provide information to consumers.

What is Codex?

Codex Alimentarius means “food code”. The Codex Alimentarius Comission is a UN process established in the 1960s by the United Nationals Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Through Codex, national governments meet to negotiate and harmonize guidelines for food safety assessments and other standards including food labeling. Codex guidelines are voluntary and non-binding but are an international reference point for countries. Codex standards are now the benchmarks against which national food measures and regulations are evaluated in the event of trade disputes brought forward by countries through the World Trade Organization.

Consumer organizations are able to register to participate in Codex meetings and can also submit written comments for consideration. Click here to go to the Codex website.

May 5, 2009: Canada Must Support UN Negotiations on Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods: Codex meeting in Calgary could suspend work on GM food labeling. Update: Despite US and Canadian objections, the Codex meeting agreed to continue their work to develop guidelines for labeling GM foods.

Monsanto Quick Facts

Monsanto

• is the largest seed company in the world (accounted for 23% of the world’s commercial seed market in 2007). (ETC Group)
• Owns the seed planted on approximately 90% of the GE crop acres in the world
• Sells the top selling global herbicide Roundup (glyphosate).
• Owns the patent and research on Terminator technology (Monsanto bought Delta & Pine Land in 2006) - Terminator seeds are genetically engineered to be sterile after first harvest to stop farmers from saving and reusing seed.
• Monsanto now accounts for over 57% of the US cotton seed market. (ETC Group)

Risks of Monsanto's SmartStax Eight-Trait GM Corn Remain Unexamined

June 28, 2011 - Press Release: Report Exposes Unstudied Risks of Monsanto's Genetically Modified "SmartStax" Corn: EU Member State critiques and leaked industry documents reveal safety questions

Background:

• Selected Comments from EU Member States and Listing of Studies Recommended
• Summary and Background on SmartStax corn and risk questions, CBAN.

Health Effects of Monsanto's Herbicide Roundup

From the Greenpeace International Report July 2011: Herbicide tolerance and GM crops
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in many herbicides sold across the world, including Monsanto's formulation brand "Roundup" which is twinned with its GM Roundup Ready crops.

Independent scientific studies are underscoring the call for an urgent reassessment of glyphosate and its related products. These studies associate exposure to glyphosate with a number of negative effects on human and animal health, including long term or chronic effects:

• Birth defects in the Argentinean state of Chaco, where GM soya and rice crops are heavily sprayed with glyphosate, increased nearly fourfold over the years 2000 to 2009. Similar defects were also found in woman from Paraguay exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides during pregnancy. These defects were compatible with those induced in laboratory experiments at much lower concentrations than normal commercial glyphosate concentrations.
• Glyphosate is a suspected endocrine disruptor. This means it could disrupt production of vital reproductive hormones, such as progesterone and oestrogen. Published studies demonstrate various endocrine effects in animals and human cells associated with glyphosate.
• Studies of illness patterns human populations (epidemiological studies) have linked glyphosate exposure to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (a type of blood cancer) whilst laboratory studies have confirmed that glyphosate and/or its associated products exhibit characteristics typical of cancer causing agents (i.e. genotoxicity or mutagenicity) in animals and both human and animal. Together, these studies suggest that glyphosate may contribute to cancer. Evidence that glyphosate may also affect the nervous system and may even be implicated in Parkinson’s disease.

June 2011: Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?

The report concludes that industry and European regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s-1990s that Roundup, the world's best selling herbicide, causes birth defects but they failed to inform the public. Authored by a group of international scientists and researchers. Published: Earth Open Source, June 2011. The report shows:

• Industry (including Monsanto) has known from its own studies since the 1980s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses.
• Industry has known since 1993 that these effects also occur at lower and mid doses.
• The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations.
• The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations.
• The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year it signed off on the current approval of glyphosate.

Lawsuit Filed: Farmers vs. Monsanto

March 29, 2011: Today over 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations in Canada and the US, including Mumm’s Sprouting Seeds Ltd. of Parkside Saskatchewan in Canada, filed a lawsuit against Monsanto Company to challenge the chemical giant’s patents on genetically modified (GM) seed. The plaintiffs were forced to sue pre-emptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s GM seed.

• Press Release, March 30, 2011: Farmers and Seed Distributors Sue Monsanto to Protect Themselves from Patents on GM Seed
• Arguments filed: Court case document

Monsanto's Falling Fortunes

October 2010: In 2008, Monsanto’s stock peaked at around $140 a share. Since the beginning of 2010 however Monsanto’s shares have fallen 42% and on October 4 2010 the company's stocks were worth $47.77. Monsanto has abandoned its profit goal for 2012.

Haiti's Farmers Reject Monsanto's Seed "Donation"

10,000 Haitian peasant farmers marched Friday June 4, 2010 to protest Monsanto's donation of hybrid corn and vegetable seeds.

Click here to see photos from the march in Haiti and the solidarity action in Montreal.

The farmers asked groups around the world to “Struggle Against Monsanto and its associates.”

Union Paysanne, Action SOS Haiti, and the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network called on people in Montreal to gather outside the Haitian Consulate to express solidarity with Haitian peasant groups who are rejecting Monsanto’s donation of hybrid corn seeds. A delegation delivered a letter to the Haitian consulate in support of the farmers’ concerns and met with the Consul General for half an hour.

Solidarity actions were called for by the Haitian Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP) and supported by La Via Campesina.

Chavannes Jean-Baptist of the Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP) in Haiti called Monsanto’s donation “a new earthquake.” MPP called on all of Haiti’s farmers to burn Monsanto’s seeds. “If people start sending us hybrid seeds that’s the end of Haitian agriculture,” said Chavannes.

So far, Monsanto has said that the donated corn seeds are not genetically modified but are hybrids, which means that they may not be suitable for replanting in the subsequent seasons. By cultivating Monsanto’s corn, Haitian peasant farmers will be forced to make annual purchases of seeds.

After the earthquake, much of Haiti’s seed stocks were used to help feed people who fled to rural areas from devastated towns and cities. In a message to Haitian farmers, Chavannes said, “Monsanto is taking advantage of the earthquake…to open the country’s doors to this powerful company. We cannot accept this.”

• Press Release June 3: Haitian Farmers Say “Burn Monsanto’s Seeds”: Canadian groups support Haitian rejection of Monsanto’s seed donation
• Read the call for solidarity from the Haitian peasant movement
• Read the article about what Haiti's peasant leaders are saying
• Read what Monsanto says about their "donation".

Take Action

New! You can now order your "Stop Monsanto" buttons! For your charitable donation of $25 you can order "Stop Monsanto" buttons. Order by contacting Lucy Sharratt coordinator@cban.ca 613 241 2267 ext 6 or make your donation right now!

May 2010: Canada has banned nanotechnology in organic food production. An amendment was added to Canada’s national organic rules banning nanotechnology as a “Prohibited Substance or Method.” The section lists substances or techniques that are prohibited in organic food production, including genetic engineering, synthetic pesticides, irradiation, and cloned animals, among others.

Nanotechnology refers to the manipulation of matter on the scale of the nanometer (one billionth of a meter). Nanoscale science operates in the realm of single atoms and molecules. At present, commercial nanotechnology involves materials science (i.e. researchers have been able to make materials that are stronger and more durable by taking advantage of property changes that occur when substances are reduced to nanoscale dimensions). In the future, as nanoscale molecular self-assembly becomes a commercial reality, nanotech will move into conventional manufacturing. While nanotechnology offers opportunities for society, it also involves profound social and environmental risks, not only because it is an enabling technology to the biotech industry, but also because it involves atomic manipulation and will make possible the fusing of the biological world and the mechanical. There is a critical need to evaluate the social implications of all nanotechnologies; in the meantime, CBAN Supporter ETC group believes that a moratorium should be placed on research involving molecular self-assembly and self-replication.

"Intellectual property" refers to a group of laws - such as patents, Plant Breeders' Rights, copyright, trademarks and trade secrets - intended to protect inventors and artists from losing control over their intellectual creations/ideas. Intellectual property has become a powerful tool for corporations to create monopolies and consolidate market power. Monopoly control over plants, animals and other life forms jeopardizes world food security and threatens to increase the economic insecurity of farming communities. The World Trade Organization is one of a number of intergovernmental bodies that administer multilateral agreements or Conventions on intellectual property.

A great little 3-part series of videos about patents and the impact on North American farmers and seed industry concentration "Seeds of Domination" form the US Organization for Competitive Markets. April 2009.

Legalizing Contamination as "Low Level Presence"

The Canadian Government is proposing to allow contamination of our food supply with genetically engineered foods that have not been approved for safe eating in Canada. Agriculture Canada calls it “Low Level Presence” or LLP.

• Click here to read CBAN's submission on LLP to Agriculture Canada: "Low Level Presence Sacrifices Food Safety for Trade Policy: LLP is indefensible from a public health and safety standpoint"
• November 29, 2011 - Press Release: Federal Government Proposes to Side-Step Health Canada’s Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods: Trade policy would sacrifice safety, say groups.

Click for more information on LLP.

People's Food Policy Calls for GM Phase-Out

From “Resetting the Table: A People’s Food Policy for Canada” which is the result of a collaborative process in which hundreds of people devoted thousands of volunteer hours to create a food policy that genuinely reflects the perspectives of people across the country.

1. Democratize science and technology policy and integrate the precautionary principle into all stages of decision-making.

   

2. Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMOs) are living pollution that self-replicate. They cannot be recalled or controlled once they have been released and can spread and interbreed with other organisms, thereby contaminating ecosystems and affecting future generations in unforeseeable and uncontrollable ways. Genetically- Modified (GM) crops threaten agro-biodiversity which is fundamental to global food security, as well as threaten the future of organic food and farming through contamination. Existing GM crops should be phased out and there should be no further approvals of GM crops and animals. A just transition process, including financial and technical support, needs to be established to assist farmers to shift back to non-GM seed sources and to adopt ecological agriculture practices.
3. The power over seeds, and potentially breeds, represented by monopoly control has become a mechanism for transferring wealth from farmers and rural communities into the hands of corporations and their shareholders. Canada’s patent legislation should be amended to explicitly disallow the patenting of life, including living organisms and genetic sequences.
4. Protect and support the open and free sharing of non- transgenic seeds and breeds as a fundamental practice of agriculture.
5. Establish a national ban on “terminator” technology and actively support the existing international ban at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

Science and Technology for Food and Agriculture

Challenges: Our food system is based on thousands of years of knowledge and innovation by indigenous peoples, farmers, fishers, and cooks. This rich and diverse knowledge is being marginalized as risky technologies facilitate greater concentration, industrialization and industry control in food and farming. Potential threats (often originally introduced as technological fixes for problems caused by previous technologies) range from the more widely-known platforms of synthetic chemicals and genetic engineering to the emerging applications of nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and climate engineering technologies. These are occurring in the context of a global land grab to feed biomass-intensive “green” technologies, and at the expense of food production and ecosystem health. The parallel erosion of biodiversity and community resilience severely undermines people’s capacity to strengthen local food systems, as well as respond to the increasing challenges posed by climate change.

Ways Forward: Decision-making processes regarding science and technology need to be democratized and guided by precaution and common interest if we are to strengthen our ability to feed ourselves, ensure sustainable livelihoods, and protect biodiversity and healthy ecosystems into the future. ‘Science’ should be acknowledged as including all forms of useful knowledge (codified and tacit) coming from diverse forms of learning and practice including indigenous and farmer knowledge and people’s everyday experience of food. By helping to strengthen and expand ecological agriculture, science and technology can play a particularly positive role in facing present and future challenges in food and agriculture.

Click here to see more of the People's Food Policy.

July 2010: Watch panel on the "risks and benefits" of synthetic biology from the US President's Bioethics Commission

May 20, 2010: The J. Craig Venter Institute and Synthetic Genomics Inc announced the laboratory creation of the world's first self-reproducing organism whose entire genome was built from scratch by a machine. Synthetic biology refers to the construction of novel life-forms using synthetic DNA made from off-the-shelf chemicals - a form of "extreme genetic engineering".

November 2009: Canada's Minister of Agriculture, Gerry Ritz, incorrectly told Chinese officials that Terminator seeds are used in Canada! This is false and leads us to question the Government's understanding of Terminator and commitment to the international moratorium. You can read CBAN's letter to the Minister.

On November 5th, the Manitoba Cooperator reported that the Minister said he told Chinese officials that they need not fear Chinese farmers growing Canadian canola because the seeds will not grow: “I assured them that with the varieties we have now, it’s not going to work because they all have Terminator seeds in them...” This is absolutely wrong as Terminator has never been field tested or commercialized anywhere in the world.

Apparently Canada's Minister of Agriculture does not know what Terminator technology is, does not know that there is an international moratorium on Terminator, and has not paid attention to the thousands of letters and postcards opposing Terminator sent by Canadians over the past 4 years.

The Minister's statement leads us to ask: Why is the Minister not correctly informed about this highly controversial GM technology? What is the Government's true position on Terminator? Would the Conservative Government support the use of Terminator seeds if the technology was available?

Write to Hon. Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to ask him to categorically state the Government's opposition to Terminator. Ask the Government to continue supporting the international moratorium and to establish a ban on Terminator in Canada.

Take Action

Canada-Europe Trade Deal (CETA) Attacks Seeds, Farmers, Food Sovereignty

CBAN has joined the Trade Justice Network to take action. CBAN supports The National Farmers Union's new campaign to stop CETA.

• Trade agreement with Europe threatens Canada’s farmers, by Terry Boehm, President, National Farmers Union, Common Ground Magazine, Nov 2010.
• Video Primer on CETA from the Canadian Auto Workers

Take Action

1. You can write to The Honourable Peter Van Loan, Minister of International Trade: Just click here to send your letter instantly!
2. Download the petition

What is CETA?

The Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA) - the trade agreement now being negotiated between Canada and the European Commission will impact on all aspects of our lives. The proposed agreement will jeopardize the ability of governments at all levels to procure goods and services that favour in any way local businesses thereby, for example, destroying arrangements that specifically source local food. Further this agreement is calling for the inclusion of UPOV91 a draconian form of Plant Breeders Rights legislation that will effectively eliminate a farmer’s or citizen’s ability to save, reuse, exchange and sell seed. This agreement is also calling for the inclusion of enforcement procedures to uphold intellectual property rights that would allow for the judicial precautionary seizure of movable and immovable property, and the freezing of bank accounts of the alleged infringer. A farmer could see his/her home, land, equipment, and crops seized and have bank accounts frozen for being accused of using seed (including their own) that has a gene patent or other form of intellectual property attached to it. This agreement is likely to have very negative impacts on our Canadian supply management systems for dairy, poultry and egg farmers as well as the Canadian Wheat Board.

The Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA) is already being negotiated! On May 6, 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper launched negotiations with Europe toward a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement that will go beyond NAFTA in ways that threaten public services and local democracy in Canada. On April 19, 2010, the Trade Justice Network leaked the draft consolidated text of the agreement to start a public debate on the effect the agreement would have on a number of public policy areas in Canada.

European companies see Canada's public services, including water treatment, transportation, energy and even health care, as ripe for privatization. Europe has already requested that GMOs be exempt from the trade agreement but the rights of farmers to save seed are under direct attack from the agreement. CETA would put powerful new tools into the hands of the biotech corporations.

How will CETA affect farmers?

National Farmers Union (NFU) President, Terry Boehm, warns this agreement will further intensify Canada's farm income crisis. "The CETA would mean many changes, but none more negative than its effect to extinguish farmers' rights to save and re-use seeds," states Boehm.

From the National Farmers Union:

Agriculture is a critical economic sector that will be severely affected by the proposed trade agreement with Europe. The trade deal will concentrate even more power in the hands of corporations, at the expense of farmers and food sovereignty.

Corporations Get Powerful New Tools to Control Seeds

The trade deal would give biotech, pharmaceutical, pesticide, seed, and grain companies powerful new tools to force farmers to buy seeds at high prices, on corporate terms. It would give corporations even more power to ultimately decide who farms and how.

Eliminate the Right to Save Seed?

The trade deal would almost entirely eliminate the rights of farmers to save, reuse and sell seed

Plant varieties can be protected as intellectual property through Plant Breeders Rights as well as patents on genes. The trade deal would give rights holders an unprecedented degree of control over seeds and farming by committing Canada to adopt UPOV'91, the draconian 1991 version of The International Convention for the Protection of New Plant Varieties. The inclusion of UPOV'91 in the deal is completely unnecessary and is excessively harmful to Canadian farmers. Seed breeders would have the right to collect royalties on seed at any point in the food chain!

The draft of the trade deal also says that biotech corporations could seize the crops, equipment, and farms - and freeze the bank accounts - of farmers who are deemed patent infringers, like farmers who find unwanted contamination in their fields.

End Supply Management?

The deal would commit Canada to reducing or eliminating agricultural subsidies and other government supports to farmers over time. Supply management systems that have allowed farmers in the dairy, poultry, and egg sectors to earn a decent living are under attack. The Canadian Wheat Board (a farmer controlled grain marketer) is very likely under also threat.

Click here to download the full draft chapter on Intellectual Property.

Other Trade News

November 2009: Contamination crisis deepens as reported GM flax contamination from Canada continues to be found. Canadian flax farmers face depressed prices and their European market is closed.

October 22, 2009. Press Release: European Consumers Warned that Trade Deal with Canada could be used to Weaken GMO Regulations

July 20, 2009. Press Release: Genetically Modified Food: Canada capitulates and abandons fight with Europe at the WTO.

Canada and Europe have signed a bilateral settlement which ends Canada's dispute with the EU at the World Trade Organization (WTO) over genetically modified foods - this leaves the US and Argentina alone in their WTO dispute with Europe over GM food and requires Canada to meet with EU officials twice yearly to discuss GM issues.

The Canadian Government is trying to spin this new agreement as improving market access for GM crops in Europe, but this access already exists and the obstacle for Canadian food exports to Europe is continued consumer rejection. According to Monsanto, by March of this year, the European Commission had already approved all of the GM seeds currently used in Canada.

April 21, 2010 - Press Release, National Farmers Union: Secret Text of Canada-EU Trade Deal Released: The agreement may be the largest single issue on farm-policy horizon

See the National Farmers Union and other unions discuss the impacts on YouTube.