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

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.

New Report! 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%.

The World's Top 10 Seed Companies

The top 10 seed companies account for $14,785 million - or two-thirds (67%) of the global proprietary seed market.

Company - 2007 seed sales (US$ millions) - % of global proprietary seed market:

1.Monsanto (US) - $4,964m - 23%
2.DuPont (US) - $3,300m - 15%
3.Syngenta (Switzerland) - $2,018m - 9%
4.Groupe Limagrain (France) - $1,226m - 6%
5.Land O' Lakes (US) - $917m - 4%
6.KWS AG (Germany) - $702m - 3%
7.Bayer Crop Science (Germany) - $524m - 2%
8.Sakata (Japan) - $396m - <2%
9.DLF-Trifolium (Denmark) - $391m - <2%
10.Takii (Japan) - $347m - <2%
Top 10 Total - $14,785m - 67% [of global proprietary seed market]
Source: ETC Group

The world's largest seed company, Monsanto, accounts for almost one-quarter (23%) of the global proprietary seed market.

The top 3 companies (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta) together account for $10,282 million, or 47% of the worldwide proprietary seed market.

ETC Group conservatively estimates that the top 3 seed companies control 65% of the proprietary maize seed market worldwide, and over half of the proprietary soybean seed market.

Monsanto - the world's largest seed company - accounts for more than one-fifth of the global proprietary seed market. Click here to see more information about Monsanto including the new documentary "The World According to Monsanto."

Other Resources

ETC Group publishes reports on major trends in corporate agendas to control nature.

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 so-called "Enviropig™" could soon be the first genetically modified (GM) (also called genetically engineered or GE) food animal on the market.

Enviropig™ is the trademarked industry name for a pig that has been genetically engineered to excrete less phosphorous in its feces. Enviropig™ was developed by researchers at the University of Guelph in Ontario.

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.

April 17, 2011: International Day of Peasant's Struggles

"Bury the corporate food system! Peasant agriculture can feed the world!"

Join our Global Day of Action! The global peasant movement Via Campesina has declared the 17th of April as a special day. People around the world celebrate the struggle of peasants and rural people to survive and continue feeding the world. This day commemorates the death of 19 farmers in Brazil, assassinated in their struggle for land and dignity. Contact CBAN Coordinator Lucy Sharratt to organize events in your area 613 241 2267 ext 25 coordinator@cban.ca

From Via Campesina:

The dominant corporate food system has failed. The promises of the 1996 World Food Summit, echoed by the Millennium Development goal of reducing hunger by 2015, will not be fulfilled.

Today hunger and food insecurity are increasing. Roughly one billion people currently suffer from hunger, another billion are malnourished -- lacking important vitamins and minerals -- and yet another billion are over-fed. One global food system = 3 billion victims!

Food policies implemented over the last 20 years have been heavily biased against peasant agriculture, which nevertheless continues to feed more than 70% of the people of the world.

Land, seeds and water have been privatized and handed over to agribusiness. This has pushed members of rural communities off the land and into the cities, leaving fertile land behind for transnational companies to grow agrofuels, biomass or food for export to consumers in wealthy countries.

Neoliberal policies are based on the assumption that the invisible hand of the market will divide the pie in an efficient and fair way. And in Davos this year the governments of the world talked about concluding the Doha round of WTO negotiations in July 2011 precisely in order to save the world from recurrent food crises. In reality the current, endemic food crisis, shows that more liberalization of agricultural markets does not help to feed the world, rather it deepens hunger and pushes peasants off the land, so the governments are wrong.

What has happened is that food has massively entered speculative markets, especially since 2007. In these markets food items are commodities in which investors can suddenly invest billions, or withdraw them, inflating bubbles that later burst, spilling misery everywhere. Food prices are high, out of the reach of poor consumers, but the prices farmers get are low, making them ever poorer. Large traders, supermarkets, and speculators keep increasing their profits from people's hunger.

The time has come to radically change the corporate food system. La Via Campesina, a movement representing more than 200 million farmers around the world - women and men - proposes Food Sovereignty as a effective and fair way to produce and distribute food in every community, every province, and every country. Implementing food sovereignty means defending small scale farming, agroecology and local production whenever possible. It requires that governments support this new paradigm by giving farmers access to land, water, seeds, credit and education, and by protecting them from cheap imports, creating public or farmer-owned stocks and managing production. Defending food sovereignty would provide livelihoods to billions of people and reduce poverty, the majority of which is a rural phenomenon. Of the 1.4 billion people who suffer from extreme poverty in the developing countries today, 75 per cent live and work in rural areas.

Local food production and direct sales from farmers to consumers guarantee that food remains outside of the capitalist monopoly game. It makes it less subject to speculation. Moreover, sustainable farming allows the environment and the soil to regenerate, protecting biodiversity and people's health. It is also more resilient to climate change and helps stop global warming.

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

Canada and the US could soon approve a genetically modified (GM or genetically engineered, GE) Atlantic salmon - the first-ever GM food animal in the world. The small U.S. company AquaBounty has asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve their plan to produce GM salmon eggs on PEI, to grow-out in Panama and sell to U.S. consumers. The company has plans to expand production across the world though they have not specified these plans to the U.S. FDA.

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. Write to the Minister of Health today, to stop the GM fish and the GM pig called "Enviropig". Health Canada is already considering a request to approve the GM pig (from the University of Guelph) for eating in Canada and the company AquaBounty says it will soon ask for approval for its GM salmon.
3. 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.
4. 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.

GM Salmon vs. GM Pig

The GM fish is in a race with the GM pig called “Enviropig” to become the first genetically engineered animal in our food system. The University of Guelph has already asked Health Canada to approve “Enviropig” for eating. Environment Canada has already approved reproduction of the GM pigs.

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.

Latest News

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.

Did you know that there are already GE-Free Zones in Canada?

• In 2004, Powell River in BC became the first GE Free Zone in the country.
• The Village of Kaslo (January 13, 2009), the City of Rossland (May 11, 2009) and the City of Nelson (November 3, 2008) in BC have all passed GE Free Resolutions.

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."

CBAN is a founding member and Steering Committee Member of the North American STOP GE Trees Campaign and is working with groups across the world for a global ban on GE trees.

May 2011: With shaken confidence over the commercial future of the technology, the genetically engineered (GE) tree company ArborGen, a joint project of timber corporations International Paper, MeadWestvaco and Rubicon, decided suddenly to change its plans and not sell shares in ArborGen publicly on the NASDAQ exchange.

Groups Sue U.S. Dept. of Ag Over GM Tree Field Tests Approval

July 1, 2010: An alliance of conservation organizations is suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture over its approval of open-air field tests of a genetically engineered (GE) hybrid of eucalyptus tree across the southern United States. The permit, issued to a company called ArborGen, which is a joint initiative of International Paper, MeadWestvaco and Rubicon, was approved May 12 with minimal environmental review. It authorizes the experimental planting and flowering of a new, genetically engineered hybrid on 28 secret sites across seven southern states — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas.

ArborGen hopes its GE “cold-tolerant” Eucalyptus will become widely planted for pulp and biomass. But eucalyptus trees are not native to the United States and are known to become invasive, displacing native wildlife and plants in various areas around the country and increasing wildfire risk. Click here for more information on the case.

U.S. government approval of GE eucalyptus trees sets a dangerous precedent to allow other experimental GE forest trees, including poplar and pine, that would inevitably and irreversibly contaminate native trees with destructive GE traits, devastating forest ecosystems and wildlife. Once GE trees escape, there is no way to call them back. The only way to stop genetic contamination of native forests is to ban the commercial release of GE trees before it is too late.

Take Action

Groups can sign on to the demand to ban GE trees in Canada: Click here to sign on

47 groups signed the letter to the Government of Canada with the following demands:
Click here to see the full letter
Click here to just view the list of 47 groups.

For the health and future of Canada’s forest ecosystems and those around the world:

1. We, the undersigned, ask for an end to existing field trials in Canada and an end to approvals for field trials of genetically engineered trees in Canada.

2. We ask for an end to the use of public funds for field-testing and an end to field-testing at government research stations.

3. We call upon the Canadian Government to support a global moratorium on field testing, planting and commercial use of genetically engineered trees because of the serious risks they pose to biological diversity and to forest ecosystems in Canada and across the world.Sign on here.

Background

Field Trials in Canada:
o In Canada, there have been only one or two field trials in any given year since 1997.
o Since 2000, open-air field tests have only been carried out by government researchers at the Canadian Forest Service, not by private companies.
o Currently (2011) there is testing on genetically engineered poplar at the Laurentian Forestry Centre in Quebec and at Queen's University, Ontario.

• Genetically Engineered Trees: Basic Background
• "GE Trees, Cellulosic Biofuels & Destruction of Forest Biological DIversity Feb 2008 (pdf 10 pages)

“GE trees have the potential to wreak ecological havoc throughout the world’s native forests. GE Trees could also impact wildlife as well as rural and indigenous communities that depend on intact forests for their food, shelter, water, livelihood and cultural practices. As a geneticist, I believe there are far too many unknown and unanswered questions to be growing genetically engineered plants— food crops or trees—in open fields. GE trees should not be released into the environment in commercial plantations and any outdoor test plots or existing plantations should be removed." -- Dr. David Suzuki

Provincial Opposition:
o In Alberta: The Alberta Forest Genetic Resources Council “does not recommend the use of GMOs for reforestation at this time”
o In British Columbia: The Ministry of Forests and Range “has ensured that no genetically modified tree seed has been registered or used” on crown land.

“GE trees have the potential to wreak ecological havoc throughout the world’s native forests. GE Trees could also impact wildlife as well as rural and indigenous communities that depend on intact forests for their food, shelter, water, livelihood and cultural practices. As a geneticist, I believe there are far too many unknown and unanswered questions to be growing genetically engineered plants— food crops or trees—in open fields. GE trees should not be released into the environment in commercial plantations and any outdoor test plots or existing plantations should be removed." -- Dr. David Suzuki

The Canadian Forest Service is conducting field trials of GE poplar in Quebec – trials that may already pose contamination threats to Canadian forests. Even without these trials, the field trials currently underway in the United States could pose a significant threat to Canadian forest ecosystems. This is one reason why CBAN collaborates closely with our colleagues in the US.

GE trees pose a greater threat of contamination than seen with GE crops, largely because trees live for decades, have so many nearby wild relatives and their pollen travels hundreds of miles. The scenario of contamination from trees genetically engineered to be insect resistance via Bt (as in recent government field trials in Quebec), for example, warns of serious biodiversity impacts as Bt targets lepidoptera, a main food source for many birds.

Natural Resources Canada is discussing the use of “Terminator technology” (genetically engineered sterile seed technology) to contain genetic pollution from GE trees. This raises a new level of concern since Terminator would not function 100% but would create new risks from the spread of Terminator genes and sterility traits, for example.

Other News

May 4, 2010, Press Release - New Studies Expose Potential Risks of GMO Trees

April 5, 2010: Gone with the Wind: Far-flung Pine Pollen Still Potent Miles from the Tree

Claire Williams of the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent) in the U.S. and her colleagues have found that pollen from the loblolly pine can still germinate after drifting long distances. Williams and her colleagues used a hand-held device called a spore sampler to capture and analyze pollen found off the southeastern coast of the U.S. Sampling by helicopter and by ferry, they found viable pine pollen as far as 2,000 feet in the air and 25 miles offshore. "Until then, the highest pine pollen had ever been found in the atmosphere was 1000 feet," comments Williams. The research findings have been published in the American Journal of Botany.

GM loblolly pine has not been approved for commercial planting. GM varieties are planted in the U.S. in field trials, however. The researchers say heir finding means that it would be difficult to contain the pollen from GM loblolly pine trees. The long life span of pine trees makes it difficult to evaluate the environmental impacts of GM varieties, adds Williams. The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Report from the UN Meeting May 2008

Governments at the UN meeting in May 2008 failed to ban GE trees You can read the CBAN Daily Blog from the UN meeting in Germany to find out what exactly happened Read the Press Release from May 22: Canada Tries to Eliminate Moratorium Request on GE Trees

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity could have established an international moratorium on the field testing and commercial release of GE trees at the major COP9 meeting May 19-30 in Germany. But Canada, Brazil, and Colombia, with Australia and New Zealand worked against this proposal from African countries.

CBAN joined with international partners to present the potential negative impacts of GE Trees.

• Click here to read the CBAN briefing to the United Nations meeting. (6 pages)
• This briefing is a critique of the background document prepared by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (17 pages)
• CBAN has also signed the international open letter demanding a ban on genetically engineered (GE) trees.

CBAN is a Steering Committee Member of the North American Stop GE Trees Campaign and is working with colleagues across the world in the call for a ban on GE trees.