Topic
Love The Tyee? Become a Tyee Builder for as little as $5/month.
We're forcing GMOs on people who fear them.
French anti-GMO activist Jose Bove.
Challenging Europeans over their right to choose what food they grow and eat seems like a lousy way to make friends across the Atlantic. But this is exactly what Canada has done by giving the European Union a deadline of Feb. 11 to change its policies on genetically modified foods.
Canada wants to open up the European market to imports of Canadian genetically modified products, particularly canola oil.
The big stick Canada can wield is a November 2006 World Trade Organization ruling. The WTO decreed in a complaint brought by the U.S., Canada and Argentina that the EU had violated its WTO obligations by creating "undue delays" in the approval of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
If the EU does not comply with the WTO ruling, it could have to pay the price in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars in trade sanctions. Europe has been given what is considered a reasonable period to comply, but time is now running out.
Europeans won't be bullied
This is no minor issue in Europe. The European Commission has been surveying attitudes towards GMOs in all member states for 15 years now, and despite intense marketing efforts by international agribusiness, the opposition to GMOs only seems to be growing. The EU's pollsters have discovered a "striking" decline in acceptance of GM foods over recent years even though Europeans are expressing support for other uses of biotechnology.
Helen Holder, GMO campaign coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe, told The Tyee that a triumphalist "We won!" North American attitude over the WTO decision will not wash in Europe. Holder argued the panel's narrow ruling on technical grounds did not mean Canada and the U.S. could bully Europeans into accepting GM food. She pointed out that the WTO never concluded that GMOs were safe.
Holder said that if the spirit of the era was "the market must decide," then the answer seemed clear: the European market had largely decided against GMOs. She pointed to consumer-driven decisions by major European food chains such as Tesco to not stock genetically-modified foods.
Sarkozy sides with Bove
The depth of feeling in Europe over this issue and the strange bedfellows it makes were evident in a surprise move by French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Jan. 10. At the very time EU and North American trade officials were working out how Europe could conform with the WTO decision, Sarkozy's government came up with a new ban on a Monsanto corn variety that had previously been approved for cultivation in France. Trade bureaucrats on both sides of the Atlantic must have felt like they were trying to herd cats.
Remember this is the same Sarkozy -- nicknamed "Sarko the American" -- who came into office as the right wing candidate promising to improve relations with the U.S. Yet there he was, apparently siding with the radical anti-GMO campaigner Jose Bove and throwing gas on the fire of a transatlantic trade dispute.
Sarkozy's decision allowed Bove to end his eight-day hunger strike against cultivation of GM corn in France. It means the only GM crop currently being grown in France is now banned, a tremendous victory for Bove and France's GM-free campaigners.
New studies, more European GM bans
Sarkozy's ban came on the heels of a report by the French government's scientific authority on GMOs. This report cited new scientific evidence that the GM corn might have a negative impact on insects and its pollen could be dispersed further than previously thought. The report also said new studies suggest it is impossible not to have cross-pollination between GM and non-GM fields.
The scientists advising the French government did not all agree with the conclusions the report drew from the new studies. Sarkozy acknowledged this scientific uncertainty but said "with the principle of precaution at stake, I am making a major political decision to carry our country to the forefront of the debate on the environment."
Canada and U.S. trade negotiators working to expand markets for GMOs don't only have a problem with individual European Union states like France. Although they can get a sympathetic ear from European Commission trade officials, the environment commissioner Stavro Dimas is proving to be a major headache for them. On Jan. 21 Dimas was accused of snubbing the U.S. trade representative when he declined to meet with her to discuss the GM dispute.
New science, leaked fears
Dimas is the EU's point person in getting individual member states to conform with EU law on GMOs. That means in theory Dimas should be working to overcome existing bans on GM crops in Hungary, Austria, and now France. He seems headed, though, in the opposite direction. Dimas has proposed European-wide bans on two GM corn varieties that the European food safety authority had recommended for approval in 2005.
Dimas, like Sarkozy, is pointing to new science about the risks of GMOs to justify bans. In his leaked recommendations to the European Commission, Dimas refers to studies that suggest potential negative impacts of the GM corn varieties. These include risks for species like Monarch butterflies, problems for stream ecosystems, and variations in toxin concentrations that "may lead to unpredicted interactions with the environment."
The European biotech industry immediately responded to Dimas's recommendations, claiming that the studies he relied on actually favoured GMOs or involved "sloppy" research.
Canadians equally opposed
Despite the relative lack of news coverage of GMOs in Canada, the most recent survey done for the federal government on Canadian attitudes shows they are remarkably similar to those of Europeans. The 2006 Decima survey found: "The main aspect of biotechnology that engenders concern is GM food. Overall attitudes toward GM food tend to be more negative than positive."
But unlike Europeans, Canadians have not had national governments willing to reflect their views in legislation. In sharp contrast with the EU's tough regulations, Canada's labelling standard for GM foods is voluntary, and has proven to be as ineffective as critics warned it would be. This despite the 2003 Decima poll showing 88 per cent of Canadians surveyed wanted mandatory labelling.
As well as the WTO case and other trade action Canada has taken to expand markets for existing GMOs, Canada is notorious internationally for trying to undermine the de facto moratorium on "terminator seeds" in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Terminator seeds have been hugely controversial because they are deliberately designed to be sterile after first harvest.
Ag Minister Ritz: 'Terminator' friendly
Gerry Ritz, Canada's current agriculture minister, seems to be favourably disposed to Canadian approval of "genetic use restriction technologies," the form of GMO that includes "Terminator" seeds. Ritz has responded to concerns about the technology by echoing the arguments made by the biotech industry. He has written that while it is true that this technology "could impact farmers' ability to save seed for cultivation the next year" he argues that on the positive side "the same technologies could prevent the unwanted spread of seeds and pollen in the environment."
Ritz dismisses worries about the monopolistic control the technology would transfer to transnational seed companies by saying anti-competitive behaviour could be dealt with by Canada's Competition Bureau. Given the bureau's track record this is truly faint hope.
Although it is a tough slog in this country, Canadians concerned about GMOs have found some champions for their cause. Some examples of organizational efforts are: CBAN, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, Greenpeace Canada's campaign for mandatory labelling, and RightOnCanada's online campaign for federal legislation to ban terminator seeds.
In Parliament last year, the NDP introduced Bill C448, which would have banned terminator technology. Despite this attention and Canadians' convictions, both the Liberals and the Harper Conservatives are right where you would expect them to be: on the side of big business.
Related Tyee stories:
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
22
Login or register to post comments
Michael OCallaghan
5 years ago
Canada's covert GMO campaign in Europe
The Canadian Government is waging a covert campaign to stifle public debate and political discourse on GMO food and farming in Ireland and the UK.
EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS -- TYEE MODERATOR
Canada's interference in EU affairs has been condemned by five Irish Senators and 26 British MPs.
Kathy Sinnott MEP (Member of the European Parliament) said “this covert interference by the Government of Canada is an affront to Irish and UK sovereignty and to the Precautionary Principle which is a cornerstone of EU policy on GM food and farming. I am calling on the European Parliament to investigate this scandal, as we have done regarding the CIA’s violation of European airspace for illegal torture flights. We need a full investigation into the extent of covert influence by foreign governments and corporations on the GM policies and decisions of the Commission, EU member states, and their regulatory bodies.”
For details see: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/morris
Frank
5 years ago
Ashamed
Our governments should be tarred and feathered and run out of town until we get one willing to do what the people want.
And one thing I'm pretty sure about is we don't want to be telling other people what they have to eat.
The WTO is an outdated organization, shut it down.
Mooney
5 years ago
Food Fight
"But unlike Europeans, Canadians have not had national governments willing to reflect their views in legislation."
The writer has put his finger on the major problem with all our governments and political parties, Provincially and Federally.
They've sold and are selling us out to business lobbyists and cronys and have more in common with criminal organizations than legitimate governments.
The major question is of course how do we deal with these criminals.
alda
5 years ago
How do we deal with these "criminals"?
How do we deal with these our sleazy politicians? We keep voting them in, of course.
Until the masses open their eyes, watch the news on TV with scepticism, voice dissenting opinions in public without embarrassment and fear -- but instead with courage and conviction -- the corporate cannibalism will continue.
Let's face it, kids: It's all about the media.
G West
5 years ago
The pressure for food labeling
The pressure for mandatory food labeling, both for nutritional, dietary, source of origin and GMO content is going to be irresistible.
As is so often the case, the people we elect (and it's absolutely true that there is no fundamental difference between Liberals and Conservatives) are on the wrong side of this issue and they're simply going to have to yield: If Canadians keep putting the pressure on the people who are, democratically, supposed to be doing THEIR bidding.
Time to ramp up the pressure – exactly as Europeans have done.
Some of the concerned organizations should be taking them to court and using the Charter against them.
Citizens should be writing their members of parliament and consumers should be boycotting stores that don't give people a choice about whether or not they want to buy and eat this stuff or not.
Thank God for the Europeans.
NicS
5 years ago
Control for Profits.
There is only one way to deal with governments that enable corporate profiteers to control and poison our food supplies. Get politically active and vote them out of office!
The Provincial NDP have a new environmental vision for the party. A new document called "Sustainable BC" which includes within its framework "The Precautionary Principle". This type of stance by the NDP sets them in opposition to the stance taken by both the Liberals and the Conservatives who have both supported corporate initiatives.
alda
5 years ago
BUILDING A WALL AGAINST THE SPP
Agreed.
Unfortunately, the NDP doesn't have a hope in Hades of being voted into real power so its influence regarding GMOs and the SPP is severely hampered. Rumor has it, they've even had difficulty pulling the SPP committee together again.
IMHO, the only answer is for the NDP to coalesce with the Greens and the progressive factions of the Liberal Party - build a united left wall against the SPP- the same trick Harper used to unite Reform and the old Conservative Party. If not, the NDP and Greens will be spinning their wheels for another four years, yet again. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
The left is now in compartments: sliced, divided, and thus easily conquered (just the way the Cons and Libs like it), and it will hobble along in this state until the left's backroom boys see the problem with this strategy, or rep by pop is voted in (fat chance, I think). Political junkies can see that this is the main hurdle to power from a mile away. Why can't they?
There must be enormous political egos in these left-wing parties as they consistently ignore this obvious dilemna. Think of the news coverage and support they'd get for even attempting such a union. IMO, Layton should make a big, publicized, ad-campaign call publicly for it to happen - even if the administration in the Green Party says "no" - the Green Party voters and progressive Libs might just see wisdom in the light and say "yes, yes, yes."
alive
5 years ago
NDP needs INK
alda.
You agree that the NDP has the right agenda, but then you offhandely dismiss that party as not having a chance in hell.
Is that not a little presumpteous?
What NDP need is INK, media coverage!
People should be talking about the issue of GMO's.
The parties have made their stand, so the choice should be easy for anyone bothering to think.
To suggest that NDP and the Greens have much in common is much more unlikely than the merger of reform and the conservatives.
GMO's is not the only issue facing Canadians.
NDP is alone in representing the left wing as well as the environment.
Frank
5 years ago
alda
The Greens are not simply a left-wing splinter group. They agree with the NDP in general on the environment but that's it, otherwise they are no more "left-wing" than the Libs and Cons are.
And that's not name-calling or splitting hairs, its a fact. There needed to be a home for capitalist-environmentalists and the Green Party is that home.
I do agree about bringing left-wing Libs over to the NDP but for some strange reason it goes the other way at election time with NDPers supporting the Libs because they're scared of the Cons. Which only makes things worse for ideas of a progressive bent.
What this country needs is to follow Europe and bring in electoral reform en masse. Then you would see politics matter.
Jay Currie
5 years ago
Good for the Euros
Nothing better than a good food fight.
Being a market kinda guy I say label them and let the people decide. Simple and effective and requires government to do nothing more than provide information.
Me, I'd buy GM food if there was a particular price advantage or if it had proven health benefits - something which is coming, rather like Omega 3 eggs. My partner, and chief food shopper and label reader at our house, would buy organic and damn the cost. Crunchy cons live and all that.
Neither the WTO nor the EU should get in the way of well labeled food unless there is a proven health risk. While Sarko can blither on about principles of precaution, the reality is that he is playing politics with France's wonderfully archaic peasant class. There is a big and wildly inefficient farm vote in France and these folks have not seriously changed production strategies in a couple of hundred years. GM foods are a threat to the less efficient French farmer so they will be banned. And Sarko will make some new friends.
Jay Currie
5 years ago
Opps...
Forgot to close the italics
G West
5 years ago
Jay
Have you compared a French roast chicken with a Fraser Valley battery farm beast?
French heavy cream or fresh butter with the crap we get here?
C'mon, there is NO comparison.
You may think French agricultural practice is inefficient and archaic...but the results (for relatively little more than the cost of what we buy here labelled as ‘dubiously genuine’ organic produce) are more than worth it.
We should be so lucky. Efficiency has bugger all to do with it - it's about quality and taste. The French, including Sarko (who I despise btw) are justly proud of it.
alda
5 years ago
To Olive and Frank
Olive:
I certainly don't mean to offhandedly dismiss the NDP. They're the only party for me, and I'm not so cynical that I'd hold my nose to vote for a party I don't believe in. I put my weight fully behind the NDP; it's just that I'm a realist and past history shows they're not going anywhere in terms of real power, and that is both sad and disappointing. I just think that someone needs to figure out how they can get there; clearly their current tactics haven't worked.
As for the NDP needing more "ink," I totally agree, but there again it's a veritable Catch-22: Unless the NDP gets into power, the corporate media monopoly that currently makes sure it DOESN'T get ink, will never be broken up.
Ditto to Frank. I don't understand how electoral reform is going to happen unless the NDP is in power. I just don't see it, maybe you can explain to me how you think that can happen. I agree with your other points, but the reason I suggest a merger is that in addition to environmental matters, my Green Party Friends are against the SPP, suggesting that the gulf isn't, perhaps, as wide as as everyone makes it out to be.
Okay, maybe I'm being pie-in-the-sky, but in the name of the environment, don't you think that compromises HAVE to be made? I still don't see any other path to power. I just don't, and I've been monitoring the NDP's spinning-the-wheels situation ever since Ed Broadbent was head honcho.
G West
5 years ago
alda
Let's at least hammer out some kind of an agreement in ridings like Saanich and the Island so we can kiss-off twerps like Gary Lunn in the next election.
Worry about the details later - it's just mind-numbingly stupid to split the nominally 'progressive' vote in ridings where the majority would never vote for a turkey like Lunn.
If that means that the greens have to step aside in a number of ridings so be it - but the NDP shouldn't be so nervous about setting up other ridings (say on the Sunshine Coast) where they won't contest the election to make it easier to elect a greenie or two.
Then we'll see.
On past performance though, I have to concur with Frank's assessment of the 'general' philosophy of a lot of greens. Saying they don’t support the SPP and Tilma is really damning with faint praise.
As for electoral reform - I'm gonna hold my nose and vote yes for this stupid STV thing in 2009. Not because I like it and not because I think it's any damn good - it's just better than the current boondoggle and this may be the last chance for a while for the people to actually decide something for themselves. That, and because the bar is so high, we need more people to vote yes this time than last – thereby taking the decision out of the hands of our current not-so-benevolent dictator.
mopled
5 years ago
Splinter parties or even
Splinter parties or even major parties who refuse to form coalitions has been the way the wrong stuff,like the FTA, gets foisted upon us. Divide and conquer works as it always has. BUT!
Can you imagine the amount of electronic voter fraud possible with that STV thing?
Bad as "first past the post" is, it is at least checkable. Can you imagine the stonewalling that could go on if one tried to get a recount, and the expertise needed to find the mis-programing?
Imagine the possibilities of what could be accomplished during the time it would take to straighten it all out.
G West
5 years ago
I do agree with you about STV
Even so, it's better than FPP and it will allow other points of view to get some face time in the legislature and it'll make coalitions aboslutely necessary.
It's bad, but sticking with the current system is worse...I'm not actually sure how places like Ireland and New Zealand tally their votes with the single transferrable ballot. It's undoubtedly going to take more time to get a result without electonic voting though.
But, what's wrong with that - it isn't as if the turkeys get right to work when elected anyway?
mopled
5 years ago
You've forgotten
how much was changed in the first days of Gordo's first reign. For instance. the Hydro Act was changed to allow conflicts of interest in the executive and then we got the money making parts slipped into private control.
BTW it is now pretty obvious that T. Berman is being given lots of free publicity and will probably run in some election soon.
Getting back to GMOs. Both Chretien and Clinton gave Monsanto money for reseach.
The "turkeys" make us subsidize our anihilation...as usual.
G West
5 years ago
I don't think so
I've forgotten nothing Campbell did.
You need to read my comments a lot more closely and not just look at the ones which happen to disgree with yours.
Tzeporah should run - green or otherwise - I think a variety of voices, particularly ones that know what's happening to the environment, are important.
The last thing we need around here are more one-man (or woman) shows.
homegrown
5 years ago
Geography and Government Action
In my opinion, if Canada were a smaller geographical area, like the sizes of the European countries, it would be much easier to get a concensus of opinion and group action on matters. This could be Canada's downfall in the long run, this inability to organize and get together across vast geographical distances. And, although multiculturalism can be good, if not everyone can speak the same language or has an understanding of the cultural values, again, it is difficult to organize against an issue.
Frank
5 years ago
Such and such
On STV, you can do the counting without a computer. Ireland did it before Gary Kildall and Bill Gates were even born.
I'd like to see the results done on election night using a computer but I would certainly want to see a hand count done in the days afterward. With the hand count result trumping the computer if there was any difference.
alda, I know there isn't any chance of electoral reform at the federal level. And after Ontario and PEI voted down MMP its pretty clear that if the 2nd vote on STV here in BC fails, electoral reform will be dead and we'll be having the same conversation on here in 20 years.
As for the Greens, I'm sure there's lots of "NDPish" Greens out there that are hoping a party with the name "Green" might be able to save the whales but the party itself is mainly a vehicle for "free enterprise" environmentalists. In fact, the "new" Gordon Campbell could probably lead it, which is why I'll never vote for it. Its simply too right-wing (libertarian) for the most part on social and economic policies.
alda
5 years ago
Frank: Thanks for the
Frank: Thanks for the explanation.
Homegrown: I agree with you totally and don't see how this unwieldy hodge-podge of states and provinces in North America can serve their citizens better by getting bigger and even more complicated.
RickW
5 years ago
GWest
When it comes to doing the bidding of the general public, or that of people who can offer directorships, post-political life, the latter wins hands down everytime. Canadian politicos fear their corporate "sponsors" much more than they do the voting public -- because Canadians compulsively vote either Liberal or Conservative (or increasingly abstain from voting, rather than vote NDP or Green, or CAP - which amounts to voting for the Liberals or Conservatives), and as you have pointed out, the Libs and Cons may as well be joined at the hip.