 |
|
|
| |||
         |
|
The following transcript is protected under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License. Link to Audio and Episode Info Here
Show Transcript Deconstructing
Dinner Kootenay
Co-op Radio CJLY Nelson, B.C. Canada April
10, 2008 Title:
Monsanto's Product Release Form / Mandatory Labeling of GE-Foods (Bill C-517) Producer/Host: Jon Steinman Transcript: Rosanne Winter Jon Steinman: And welcome to Deconstructing Dinner - a
syndicated weekly one hour radio show and Podcast produced in Nelson, British
Columbia at Kootenay Co-op Radio CJLY. I'm Jon Steinman. On
the show today, and as promised, we hear a brief continuation of our analysis
on the recent Percy Schmeiser versus Monsanto small-claims court case. I'll be
sharing with you some more detailed information that came out of my dialogue
with Monsanto's Trish Jordan. And
on a similar topic, and continuing on with our ongoing coverage on the
controversial presence of genetically engineered foods among us, we'll listen
in on segments of the April 3rd 2008, debate that took place in the
House of Commons with respect to Bill C-517 - a bill to legislate the mandatory
labeling of foods containing ingredients that have been genetically modified.
We'll hear the voices of Members of Parliament Gilles-Andrè Perron, Bruce
Stanton, Robert Thibault, Nathan Cullen and Marcel Lussier. And we'll also hear
clips from a phone conversation I had with Conservative MP Bruce Stanton
on why he believes mandatory labeling is not necessary. increase music and fade out JS: First on the agenda for today's
broadcast will be a brief revisiting of the recent story we covered here during
our March 20th broadcast when we heard from Saskatchewan Farmer Percy
Schmeiser. It was on March 19th 2008, when Schmeiser arrived at an
out-of-court settlement with global seed giant Monsanto - the world's largest
developer and supplier of genetically modified seeds. For frequent listeners of
Deconstructing Dinner, it's likely become pretty clear that the genetic
modification of life has, is and will continue to be a focused topic covered
here on the show, partly because the mainstream media seems to be doing a
pretty bang up job of ignoring this topic, and when they do choose to
cover it, articles turn up to most often regurgitate press releases. However,
this is clearly an important topic to Canadians - we have farmers taking
multi-national agribusiness to small claims court, we have organic farmers
attempting to file class action law suits against these companies, and we have
Members of Parliament debating the mandatory labeling of food containing such
genetically engineered or GE ingredients. Now
in the case of the latter and according to up-to-date directories of print
media in the country, it appears not one, not one Canadian publication has yet
covered the debate that took place in the House of Commons on April 3rd.
On the other hand, Canadians should not be so surprised with how most media
seems to cover this topic. Following the recent case between Schmeiser and
Monsanto, I entered into a dialogue over email and over the phone with
Monsanto's Public Affairs Director Trish Jordan, and that dialogue provided a
pretty enlightening exposure into the type of information journalists seem to
be receiving from these multi-national seed companies. soundbite JS: For any listeners who have not yet heard
of this most recent battle between Percy Schmeiser and Monsanto, here's a rather
roundabout way to describe why this case is so important. Imagine
you walk out of your house one morning, only to find a rusty old car sitting on
your lawn. The vehicle appears to also have arrived there by someone who chose
to drive it in circles a few times on your lawn - digging up your entire front
yard and leaving the unwanted vehicle sitting there in front of your house. You
walk outside, take a look at the damage, and lo and behold, the idiot who drove
the car onto your lawn, left his wallet sitting on the front seat. You open the
wallet, and there it is his identification, name, address, phone number, and
even a pile of empty beer bottles on the passenger seat. So,
naturally, you call him up, and his name, is Michael Monsanto. You tell Michael,
listen, your property is sitting on mine and given I run a home business, the
damage you've caused to my front lawn is driving my customers away. Michael
Monsanto embarrassed that he stupidly left his id in the car that fateful night
driving home drunk, agrees to come over and assess the damage. An hour later he
shows up on your doorstep, and you tell him, Mr. Monsanto, take the car, repair
the damage and just get out of here. Mr. Monsanto agrees to the request because
he fears a lawsuit may be on his hands, but first he pulls out a single sheet
of paper. No problem, he says, I'll remove the car just so long as you sign
this release document. You
look at the document, and two things stand out; number one the document
indicates that if he takes the unwanted vehicle and repairs the damage
to your property, you have to agree to never tell a soul about what
happened and the second clause that catches your eye, are a few paragraphs of
very convoluted legal terminology that seems to suggest that if he
cleans up the mess, you can never, at any future date, take any legal
action against him. So in other words, if next year, Mr. Monsanto drives home
drunk, yet again, destroys your lawn, scares away your customers from your
home-based business, and leaves the rusty old vehicle sitting on your property,
and this time, leaking gasoline into your soil, you would, if the
release was signed, be unable to take any legal action. Now
needless to say, Mr. Monsanto would likely have received a fist in the
face, and the release form shoved down his throat. Now it's this very same
incident that happened to Percy Schmeiser in 2005, when Monsanto's genetically
engineered Roundup Ready Canola, appeared growing on his farm, root, stalk and
flower. Now
Schmeiser did not punch out Mr. Monsanto in this case and instead,
demanded the company remove the plants and leave. Mr. Monsanto refused, and
long story short, it took until March 19th 2008, for Monsanto to
finally pay Percy the $660 it cost him to remove the unwanted plants. As part
of that settlement, it was ensured that Percy could take the company to
court in the future, and was
able to share the story about the incident. And so here is where this story begins to get far
more interesting, because in my follow-up with Monsanto's Public Affairs
Director Trish Jordan, she stressed to me over the phone that, "we are not the
instigator here." Now Schmeiser, of course, believes such a statement to be
ridiculous because it was Monsanto's property that trespassed onto his. Here's a quick clip of Percy Schmeiser last heard
on our March 20th broadcast when he responded to the efforts of
Monsanto, to dictate the terms of the removal of their patented plants from his
fields. Percy Schmeiser: And they want to dictate the orders, I said you people have done the
damage to me I dictate to you want I want done, not you cause you've done the
damage. Jon Steinman: And
this is Deconstructing Dinner. Now the reason why Monsanto's Trish Jordan was
so comfortable telling me that it was Schmeiser who was the instigator in this
latest small claims court battle, is because the company does actually employ a program that offers to farmers the option of
the company removing the plants. It was Schmeiser's refusal of
this program that leads Jordan to believe that Schmeiser was the instigator.
Her position was made quite clear in the press release she issued immediately
after the company paid Schmeiser the $660. As mentioned during our March 20th
broadcast, one sentence in particular from this press release, made its way
into the few mainstream media sources in the country who chose to cover this
story, and the sentence again was this, "Although we are pleased Mr.
Schmeiser finally approached us and agreed to settlement terms, it is
frustrating that he essentially accepted the same offer we put before him in
2005 at the time we visited with him and offered him solutions to address the
presence of unexpected Roundup Ready canola volunteers on his land." Now this is where the research that we put into
this case continues from our last broadcast, because as was raised during that
March 20th show, such a statement seemed patently false given the
initial release form and the settlement terms seemed completely different. Now
it was this that sparked some more in-depth research into whether such a
seemingly misleading statement was an effort by Monsanto to protect themselves
from something they appear to be rather fearful of. I will first note that the actual release form
presented to Schmeiser in 2005 is linked to from
the Deconstructing Dinner website, and you can check it out there. Now the first clause listed on that statement was the
one that Schmeiser indicated, had he signed, would have prevented him from ever
taking legal action against Monsanto in the future. When canola seeds can stay
dormant in soil for in some cases up to ten years before germinating into a
plant, such a restriction should not sit well with any
farmer. And so, to confirm whether Schmeiser's interpretation of this clause
was correct, I contacted his lawyer Terry Zakreski who had also defended
Schemsier during the precedent-setting and internationally acclaimed case which
ended in 2004. In reference to my question, Zakreski's response
was as follows, "The release form is difficult to make sense out of as it
appears to be a Release intended for situations where a farmer is settling a
complaint about the performance of products purchased
from Monsanto." And he continues "The release was ill-suited for the purpose it
was being used and raised legitimate
concerns about whether it could cover future
contamination events, particularly those occurring on the same field." Now to be quite honest, I know if I
was Monsanto, I too would want to ensure that farmers don't continually
keep calling me up and asking me to remove my plants from their fields. As
Monsanto or any company
creating such technology, this would be especially concerning knowing that, and
as just stated before, canola seeds can live in the soil for 7, 8 maybe 10
years before germinating. Percy Schmeiser, is the first
farmer to take exception to this release form and raise this concern, and it
appears that Monsanto's unwillingness to clean up his fields in 2005 without
him first signing the release form, does suggest that perhaps this clause is
indeed designed for that purpose. Now when I spoke over the phone with Monsanto's
Trish Jordan, I immediately asked her if this was true, did this clause prevent
farmers from ever taking the company to court again in the future. While I was
hoping for a yes or no response, she instead insisted that Schmeiser had
misinterpreted the form. In perhaps the most aggravated tone I have ever
experienced in the over two years producing this show, Jordan told me,
step-by-step, Monsanto's recollection of the events that had unfolded between
2005 and 2008. Now between that conversation and an email dialogue prior to
that conversation, here is some of that dialogue. In one question I asked, is the use of the word
land within the clause in reference to the entire farm
or to a staked out area where plants were removed by the company. Jordan's
response over email was this, "The land in question is clearly defined by
coordinates and acres commonly referred to as the legal land description." Now
taking a look at this release form, nowhere is there any space allocated for an
indication of the legal land description as mentioned. And again, this form is
linked to from the Deconstructing Dinner website. soundbite JS: Now
another comment sent to me by Jordan throughout our email correspondence was
this, "We have used what we call a product inquiry release since 1997 and Mr.
Schmeiser, not surprisingly to us, is the only farmer who has raised an issue
with it." Now jumping back to the phone conversation just
referred to during which Jordan laid out, step-by step, Monsanto's side of the
story, I asked her the same question as before, however, more directly; "Does
the release form that was given to Schmeiser by your company in 2005 contain a
clause that would have restricted him from ever taking legal action against the
company in the future." And this is where the tone of the conversation
changed, and it's truly
unfortunate that this interview was not
recorded, because it was asking this unexpectedly direct question, that caused
Jordan to pause, and her response, "well, I don't know, I don't know what form
he has, we issue many different forms to farmers." Quite a surprising response, given it was her email
to me the day prior, the one I just read, when she indicated that she knew very
well which form he had, the standard "product inquiry release used since 1997."
Now given how involved Jordan has been in this case since 2005, it was quite
shocking to hear her insist that she didn't
know what form he had, the very
form that founded the 2.5 year dispute between Schmesier and her company. soundbite JS: And
this is Deconstructing Dinner where we are wrapping up a story we first ran
back on March 20th on the most
recent battle between farmer Percy
Schmeiser and multi-national seed giant Monsanto. Now the discrepancies between the story that
Monsanto and Schmeiser both say unfolded, does not stop at what appears to be a
rather concerted effort by Monsanto to divert media and the public away from
this case. In her first email response to my questioning,
Monsanto's Trish Jordan also expanded on her frustration with Schmeiser's
persistence, by writing the following, "We had previously offered to amend the
release to something that would be suitable for Mr. Schmeiser in 2005 and again
at a mediated case management hearing over a year ago. Our offer was always
open to rework our standard release." I
called up Schmeiser yet again and asked him if this was indeed true, had
Monsanto offered to rework the release in 2005. He responded with an adamant
NO! And
so, in my following phone conversation with Trish Jordan, I asked why the
company dragged this on for so long instead of just settling with Schmeiser
back in 2005, and her response was, "Schmeiser didn't tell us about his problem
with the confidentiality clause." And so I asked Jordan this, "but you wrote in
your email to me, that you had discussed reworking the statement with Percy in
2005." Jordan's response, "no, there was never any discussion in 2005." And
again, here is a completely different story than what Jordan had told me in her
email the day prior. soundbite JS: To wrap up this segment, the big
question is of course why, why is there clearly an effort being made by
Monsanto to cover this story up. Well the answer seems to lie in the February
2007 Mediated Case Management hearing presided over by a judge. This was the
meeting between Monsanto and Schmeiser whereby the judge made attempts to have
both parties settle the dispute without having to drag it into a courtroom.
Trish Jordan shared with me what she observed in that room, "At the case
management conference presided over by a judge in February 2007, we previously
offered to amend the release for him in an attempt to rectify this matter. At
the time, he said he would not sign any release. While the judge tried several
times to get Mr. Schmeiser to accept reasonable terms, he was unsuccessful and
a court date for the small claims hearing was set." Now
Schmeiser on the other hand, observed something else at a mediated case
management hearing, when the judge asked Monsanto, why don't you [Monsanto]
just settle this with Schmeiser, and their response was, "this case is too
important to us, to settle." soundbite JS: And
in closing out this segment, and as also mentioned on our March 20th
broadcast, I'll end with this final quote from my conversation with Trish
Jordan. As listeners might recall, it was in Jordan's press release that it was
suggested Schmeiser essentially accepted the same offer on March 19th
2008 as was offered to him in 2005. When I suggested to Jordan over the phone
that it seems as though the first settlement offer and the one agreed
upon this week are not anywhere close to being the same, her aggravated
response was, "I never said anything like that. Why Don't you Read my Press
Release!" And
her press release again, "it is frustrating that he essentially accepted the
same offer we put before him in 2005." And
again, a link to the actual release form offered to Schmeiser in 2005 will be
linked to from the Deconstructing Dinner website, including a selection of
quotes from my dialogue with Monsanto's Trish Jordan. And you can expect more
in the near future on this story, when we will hear what other farmers, farmers
unions, legal professionals and academics think about the opportunities to
farmers now that it is becoming clearer, that Monsanto is beginning to publicly
accept liability for the damage that their technology is causing farmers around
the world. soundbite Jon Steinman: And this is Deconstructing Dinner, a syndicated
weekly one hour radio show and Podcast produced in Nelson, British Columbia at
Kootenay Co-op Radio CJLY. I'm Jon Steinman. You can learn more about this show
and listen to our archives at cjly.net/deconstructingdinner. In the next segment of today's broadcast, we remain on this heated
topic of genetically engineered food, but move from Saskatchewan to Ottawa,
where on April 3rd 2008, an important debate took place in the House
of Commons among Members of Parliament of all political parties. This segment
may be familiar to those of you who access our show through the Internet, as it
was last week, when we released an unedited audio recording of that debate
through our Podcast and website. The debate was in regards to Bill C-517, which
was first introduced in the House on February of this year. The bill is, like
many that have come before it, calling for the mandatory labeling of foods
containing genetically modified ingredients. Now this is an extremely
controversial issue, as it was in Europe, when following the legislating of
such labeling requirements, that processed food manufacturers there, chose to
instead of label their products, remove genetically engineered ingredients altogether. It
seems that those companies, many of whom produce the very same products here in
North America, recognized that by instituting such labeling consumers would
then refrain from purchasing such products. So needless to say, this is an
important bill to pay attention to. On the other hand, it does not yet seem
important enough to Canada's mainstream print media, who have to this date, not
mentioned a word about the debate that took place on April 3rd. Bill C-517 was tabled by Bloc Quèbècois Member of Gilles-Andrè Perron.
Perron represents the riding of Riviére-des-Mille-Îles. Bill C-517 is similar
to others that have been introduced by the Bloc in 1993-94, and 1999, by the
Liberal party in 2001, and by the NDP in 2001-2002 and 2007. Weighing in on the
one hour debate was Conservative Party of Canada's MP Bruce Stanton and
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health Steven Fletcher, the Liberal
Party's Robert Thibault, the NDP's Nathan Cullen, and the Bloc Quèbècois Marcel
Lussier. The full one-hour unedited debate is again,
available on our website, but let's listen in on some segments from that
debate, and you can also stay tuned for a follow-up interview with Conservative
MP Bruce Stanton who opposes this bill. But first, here's Bloc Quèbècois MP,
Gilles-Andrè Perron. Gilles-Andrè
Perron:
Orders of the day. Private members
business, first time debating, a second reading Bill C-517 Act to amend the
Food and Drugs Act mandatory labeling for genetically modified foods, in
the name of Mr. Perron. Marcel
Lussier: Seconded by Mr. Lussier, moves that Bill C-517 the
Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act mandatory labeling for genetically modified
foods, be now read a second time and referred to the standing committee on
health. Gilles-Andrè
Perron:
Mr. Speaker, good evening. I am
somewhat moved and somewhat pleased to speak with you and to my colleagues here
in the house to discuss and to express my viewpoint on genetically modified
food or GM food. To begin with Mr. Speaker, I would like you to indulge me, I
have a little aside before my speech. I would like to salute to young people
from my riding, Claire and Norbert, who on December 11th sent an
email to me encouraging me to make genetically modified foods or GM foods
labeled. And this will probably surprise you too, Mr. Speaker, I went to Coeur à
Coeur alternative school in Saint Eustache, and these two young people, Claire
and Norbert, who I met they were around twelve years old. I was really struck
to see young people that age concerned about food that we eat. JS: The actual text of Bill C-517
is linked to from the Deconstructing Dinner website, and providing he details
of the bill, here again is MP Gilles-Andrè Perron. Gilles-Andrè
Perron: Mr. Speaker the summary of this Bill says this
enactment amends the Food and Drugs Act to make the Minister of Health
responsible for establishing that a food, or one or more of its components, has
been genetically modified. If it has been established that a food or one or
more of its components has been genetically modified, the Minister shall cause
the name of the food to be published in the Canada Gazette. The Minister shall
also prepare a list of all such foods and cause a copy to be sent at no cost to
anyone who requests it. Third, no one may sell this food or product containing
this food in a package unless a label is affixed to the package containing the
following notice: This product or one or
more of its components has been genetically modified. In addition, no one
may sell this food or a food product containing this food in a package unless a
poster in the prescribed form has been placed near the food containing the
following notice: Genetically Modified. JS: Now one of the important distinctions
that must be made when engaging in such debates over the mandatory labeling of
genetically engineered foods, is between the role of MPs to represent the
interests of their constituents versus attempting to debate the pros and cons
of GE-foods. The fact of the matter is that, and according to polls, the
majority of Canadians are demanding that foods containing such
ingredients be labeled, and regardless of what kind of information
Canadians are receiving, the information that is available, appears to
be leading Canadians to make such a demand. It's this that Bloc Quèbècois
Gilles-Andrè Perron stresses, that GE-foods are not so much on trial with this
bill, but instead, democracy is. Gilles-Andrè
Perron: The purpose of this Bill, first and foremost, is
not to put genetically modified foods on trial, the main goal is inform
consumers, to let them know what they are eating what they are consuming, and
to give consumers the choice "yes, I am okay with eating genetically modified
foods" or "no," it's a democratic choice. This Bill is a Bill that will be very
popular and I would encourage all members from all parties here in the House,
to read their local newspapers in their region to see what is going on. To see
what people in their ridings want because between 73 and 93% of Canadians, this
is an average, 83% of Canadians want GM foods to be labeled. In Quebec, it's 86%
of the nation that want this mandatory labeling and 80% of farmers support
mandatory labeling. Mr. Speaker, when I was young, there was an old saying
"what the people want, God wants." That's what I like to say now, what the
people want, we, members of parliament want. We want that, we want what the
people want. JS: And that was Bloc Quèbècois Member of
Parliament Gilles-Andrè Perron, who on April 3rd 2008, was recorded
debating Bill-C-517 in the House of Commons. The Bill is calling for the
mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients.
Weighing in on the debate from the Conservative Party was Member of Parliament
Bruce Stanton. Stanton represents the riding of Simcoe North, which comprises
the areas in and around Orillia and Midland Ontario. We also hear a response to
Stanton's comments from Gilles-Andrè Perron. Bruce Stanton: Mr.
Speaker and I enjoyed the Members presentation here this afternoon. I must say
Mr. Speaker that I fully admit with him that consumers and Canadians are very
interested in fact, in food labeling and the importance of food labeling as it
relates to information that helps them make their choices about food. Mr.
Speaker I really question and I ask the member in consideration that there are
some fifty products that have been approved by Health Canada in respect, and
have gone through rigorous assessments in terms of these products health safety
and it is only when these assessments have been completed that these products
go on the market, why should he be concerned that GM products need some
additional labeling? Gilles-Andrè
Perron: I'd like to thank my colleague for the first
question. In fact, he attended the Veterans Affairs Committee I believe this
afternoon, it was the first time he was there and he did a good job. Mr.
Speaker, it's like burying your head in the sand because how can we rely on
something when a department, when others have shown that the government does
not have the means or does not have methods to assess these products they
simply rely on the companies like Monsanto for example. They take a look at the
tests and they say "well that looks good," it makes no sense. There is no
second opinion or they don't seek out expertise elsewhere. It is like closing
your eyes and relying on the industry, can we do that? Remember Monsanto, and I
am not the one who is saying this, it's the former American Secretary for
Agriculture who said that he had been subjected to a great deal of pressure to
approve GM products, in fact President Bush Senior had been pressured to accept
this. I am sorry Mr. Speaker; I get really carried away when this subject is
raised. JS: And this is Deconstructing Dinner. Now I
did catch up with MP Bruce Stanton over the phone shortly before today's
broadcast went to air, and you can stay tuned to hear segments from that
conversation during which I probed into his assurances that labeling is
unnecessary thanks to Health Canada's "rigorous assessments." Following
Stanton's comments in the house, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of
Health Steven Fletcher spent some time expanding on Stanton's comments, and you
can listen to those comments on our website where the unedited debate has been
archived. But next, we hear yet another Member of Parliament weighing in on the
debate - The Liberal Party of Canada's Robert Thibault - representing the
riding of West Nova which comprises the communities of Digby and Yarmouth Nova
Scotia. Robert Thibault: Thank you Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure for me to rise and take part in this important debate, but I do take
exception in some cases with what he said. I agree with him that Health Canada
does quite a good job, I would say even a very good job, to ensure that foods
on the Canadian Market are safe according to the best international scientific standards.
Of course there could always be errors. Some will say none-the-less, that after
these evaluations GM organisms could have negative effects on Canadians,
especially because we don't know what can occur especially among growing
children. We should find someone who is better versed in organic biology or
chemistry than I am. However, we have a responsibility in this regard, I agree
with the Member for Riviére-des-Mille-Îles
that if the consumer can be better informed he can make better decisions as he
deems appropriate according to whatever they see on the label. Today we see
young people take an interest in these issues and they discuss them. But
it does present some difficulties; I think the Parliamentary Secretary raised a
few valid points. On the market in Canada we already have about fifty
genetically modified products that are accepted, that are in circulation that
can be consumed individually or as an ingredient in a processed food. That can
have some consequences when it comes to marketing or for parents and consumers
who want to know the level of risk. Now the fact remains we have to find
solutions. I agree with the Members Bill because I agree with the intent of the
Bill. I think there could be some amendments; I recognize the need for the
Member to present certain positions in a Bill before the House. With regard to
the actions taken by the Member I plead the same rule as the Parliamentary
Secretary and explaining some provisions and some actions taken by the
government and why we don't proceed with labeling. That's not a reason to not
consider it in the future. "We
have to recognize that there is in the four chains some problems. If we say
that all products that have genetically modified components in it that we must
label, we will be labeling so much on the shelves of our stores that the
labeling with become meaningless. Canola oil is a GMO it's omnipresent in the
production of other foods. You can have it in the instance of agriculture, you
may have to feed the entrance part of the feed being an animal or plant that
was partly produced using some GMO that might be 1000th of 1% but if
you don't define that in your regulations then that can become a problem so
that you over label and you end up not labeling enough and that is not defined
in the Bill as presented by the Member so I think it is subject for debate and
subject for questioning. What is it, is it a product that is 100% GMO is it a product that is at a certain percentage? How do
you define that, how do you do it? I think at the Health Committee we can hear
from experts who perhaps can help us. The ideal (this isn't the ideal), the
ideal would be that you would do this through regulation rather than through
the Bill, that you would do some minor amendment through the Act so that it
forces or compels the Minister to create the regulations and the regulations
can be modified as market conditions change or scientific conditions change,
and that is faster than bringing it back as a Bill into this House and
modifying it. So I think that is a problem but I recognize the point of the
Member, that if we don't do it through a private member's Bill we may not do it
at all. So that would be a question that I think will have to be debated at the
Committee to see if there is a way to do it within the current regulations that
would meet the desired effects of this Bill without creating stand alone
legislation to do that during the regulatory process." JS:
And that was Liberal Party MP Robert Thibault, who
represents the riding of West Nova. We're listening to segments from the April
3rd debate that took place in the House of Commons in Ottawa with
respect to Bill C-517, which is calling for the mandatory labeling of foods
containing genetically engineered ingredients. Entering into the debate following
Thibault was the NDP's Nathan Cullen - who represents the riding of
Skeena-Bulkley Valley, which comprises the communities of Prince Rupert,
Terrace and Smithers BC. Nathan Cullen and the NDP support this bill. Nathan Cullen: To recount the history of how
this Bill has been making its way through this place steadily, parliament after
parliament. It seems clear to me and to many others that it is a response from
politicians representing different parties, of a need expressed by Canadians. And
I think if we take a fundamental view of what this is attempting to do, is to
allow people a greater certainty of the products that they are buying for their
families, the food that they are consuming, with as much information as
possible because there are many that approach me, and I am sure approach many
of our colleagues in this house, confused and concerned about what it is they
are buying in the stores, what it is that the chemicals that they read the
ingredients that they read on the back of products actually mean because most
folks are not organic chemists, most folks do not spend a great deal of time
researching through the internet what each chemical additive added to the
products that they are buying actually mean. And certainly there are very few
even of the specialty class, those in organic chemistry and that interaction
with humans can understand about what all these chemicals come together mean
for the consumer for the human form, for our environment in general. And it
seems that when we step into the realm of genetically modified foods and
products, we step into an entirely new conversation, a conversation that has
not been properly had in this Parliament and in many of our legislatures and in
the homes of Canadians as to what the consequences are Mr. Speaker; the ability
to understand the ethical, moral, and environmental implications of what it is
to genetically modify foods. JS:
Nathan Cullen introduced a number of important points, many
of which have been shared by other guests here on previous episodes of
Deconstructing Dinner. But one point in particular that I'll play for you here
was with respect to the powerful influence that industry has on the approval of
genetically engineered foods. Nathan Cullen: There is another topic here
that is very important, and that is a reverse onus. It should fall on the
industry that profits from genetically modified foods. It is up to them to
prove that their products are safe before they are introduced on the market,
not the opposite. The onus of responsibility somehow is reliant upon government
to prove a thing safe, to run the tests. And we know that in Health Canada and
we know that in Environment Canada, and it is not only this administration but
with the previous administration as well, have brought forward concerns about
genetically modified products. They have said that in certain circumstances
they have had some scientific concerns. We know a number of things have
happened to them, and promotion has not been one of them. They have been
terminated. They have been threatened. They have been muzzled. This goes beyond the ideology of one party or another. This
goes to the safety of Canadians and the freedom of science to conduct itself in
a rational way, to provide advice and guidance to the government of the day. We know in recent magazines the government has been noted as
a so-called enemy of science, fearful of the science. That was in relation to
issues around climate change and the resistance to meet the preponderance of
evidence saying the climate science was in and that we needed to conduct
ourselves in a different way. JS: And that was the NDP's Nathan
Cullen, the MP for Skeena-Bulkley Valley, speaking during the April 3rd
debate on Bill C-517 in the House of Commons. Now Cullen
referred to instances when Health Canada scientists were either muzzled or
aggressively encouraged to approve genetically engineered products and so I did
follow up over the phone with Conservative MP Bruce Stanton to hear his
thoughts on these comments. We did hear Stanton assure the House that Health
Canada undergoes rigorous assessments of such products. His Conservative Party
colleague Steven Fletcher expanded on these comments insisting that labeling
foods containing GE-foods is therefore not necessary. Bruce Stanton spoke to me
over the phone from Ottawa. Phone
conversation with Mr. Stanton JS:
Now in the case of maybe some of the comments that came from
NDP Member of Parliament Nathan Cullen, he had made one comment that does sort
of illustrate some of the fears that Canadians have and that is in regards to
the sort of influence that some corporate bodies as well as industry has some
of these decisions on some of these approvals. In one case he referred to
Health Canada scientists being muzzled. What's your response to these fears
because you know I mean these are the fears that really a lot of Canadians have
had for quite some time. Bruce
Stanton: Well again, I would say again, you
know product testing is really the core of this and we will not allow any
products to go on Canadian shelves unless they've met the most rigorous of
tests and the public - this is a transparent process. When products are before
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for example, those types of products that
are under review are even right on the CFIA website. I mean the public can go
on there, they have an opportunity to input and provide comment and even from
the scientific community, there's opportunities to input into that so people
have the ability to express those concerns. And you know, Health Canada I know
is striving to do the very best they can to make sure that these are products
that are safe for Canadians. And you know people will raise these kinds of
concerns from time to time but at the end of the day, we've got to put our
stock in the science on this and when it has gone through that scientific
examination and come up with high marks and we know that it's safe for
Canadians, then and only then can it be put on store shelves. JS:
Now MP Bruce Stanton insists that the process of approvals
in Canada is transparent, however Nathan Cullen was not lying when he made
reference to the muzzling of and influence on Health Canada scientists. It was
after all in 1998 when Veterinary scientists from Health Canada's Human Safety
Division testified before the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry that they had been pressured to approve the genetically engineered
rBST growth hormone that was designed by Monsanto to boost milk production in
dairy cattle. Dr. Shiv Chopra who was terminated from his job in 2004, said in
that meeting that, "We have been pressured and coerced to pass drugs of
questionable safety, including rBST." Also in the room was Dr. Margaret Haydon,
also terminated in 2004 and who shared with the committee an incident when
officials from Monsanto offered her and her team between one and two million
dollars, which she could only interpret as a bribe. Haydon also shared yet
another incident when a locked filing cabinet in her office was broken into.
Stolen from it were notes and files that were critical of scientific data
provided by Monsanto. Senator Eugene Whelan was quoted responding to this
information, "What the hell kind of a system have we got here?'' The hormone
continues to be unapproved in Canada. Now examples such
as these propelled Lucy Sharrat of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network to
insist that much of the arguments made against Bill C-517 during that debate were
"the same tired old arguments." - CBAN is one of a handful of organizations
closely monitoring this bill. Sharrat also pointed out the "misleading"
information presented by the Conservative Party and Liberal Party that 50 crops
have been approved. She states that, "While it is true that over 50 Plants with
Novel Traits and Novel Foods have been approved, not all of these are GE and
there are only 12 GE crops approved for eating or growing and only 4 of these
are grown in Canada. I referred to Sharrat's first comment in my conversation
with Conservative MP Bruce Stanton. Phone
conversation with Mr. Stanton JS: Now maybe just take in a comment from
the Canadian Biotechnology Action's Network Lucy Sharrat. She also listened in
on this debate and she sort of recognized some of the sort of arguments that
well the testing is there and we should confident in that testing. She sort of
referred to those as being somewhat dated. And this is something I think a lot
of Canadians have heard is that yeah, testing is rigorous and there should be
trust within this testing. However what we're seeing, we're seeing Bill after
Bill after Bill, I think it was almost six Bills cited within that debate that
have kept reintroducing this topic as well as we now have these polls. What's
your suggestion then to Canadians who still remain concerned and not convinced
that there should be faith within these tests. And regardless of whether
there's faith or not it seems as though Canadians at least just want to know
whether or not these ingredients are in their food or not. What sort of
alternatives do you think are out there for Canadians if labelling is not going
to be something that's legislated. Bruce Stanton: Well I think they should be
welcome to examine all of the information that is out there and information
from reliable sources and I would point them even to our own website to Health
Canada website which has a very thorough, a very complete and comprehensive
description of the process that's involved in the evaluation of Novel Foods. As
I mentioned in my remarks there's been numerous products that have already been
approved and others continue to come before Health Canada for that kind of
evaluation and I'm sure that's going to continue. We owe it to ourselves to
understand that in the world where food is in our ability to make sure that
we're going to feed people from across the world and get the very best use out
of our agricultural land in a sustainable way, developments in biotechnology
can be a great assistance. And just because we look at some of these food
products and process them differently, in no way makes them unsafe, provided
again that they meet the highest of standards as they do here in Canada. JS: And so, I did what Stanton suggested, and
took a trip to the Health Canada website. I selected the page titled
"Genetically Modified Foods and Other Novel Foods," and from that page I
selected "Approved Products" where there was a listing of all approved GE and
Novel foods in Canada. And so here is what Canadians will find. On the top of
that page are four links to "examples of how past safety assessments
proceeded." One of the products was the Flavr Savr™ Tomato, which was approved
for the Canadian market in 1997. Mentioned within the conclusion of Health
Canada's safety assessment was this, "Health Canada has determined that there
are no health or safety concerns that would warrant special labeling of the
Flavr Savr™ tomato." Now
here's the part that should perplex any Canadian who is looking to find trust
in Health Canada's process of approvals, because the Flavr Savr™ tomato was one
of the first approved genetically engineered foods, yet it only lasted on the
market for a few years - why, because it proved to be an absolute failure in
its purpose - which was to extend shelf life. Yet Health Canada uses this as an
example on their website as a successful evaluation. What Health Canada does not
mention on the site, is some other vital information regarding the Flavr
Savr™ tomato. Author and opponent of genetically engineered foods Jeffrey Smith
has lent his voice to Deconstructing Dinner on many occasions, and he refers to
this tomato on an ongoing basis. Among the many failures surrounding this
transgenic tomato, Smith often refers to the comment from the then Chief
Executive Officer of Calgene (creator of the Flavr Savr™) who said, that even
if you were Chef Boyardee, the rats we tested the tomatoes on were not
going to eat their GM tomatoes. The company instead force-fed the rats the
tomatoes and several of them developed stomach lesions and seven of twenty died
within two weeks. Documents now available to the public show clearly that the
United States Food and Drug Administration (the FDA) was willing to let that
product onto the market as is, and it was Calgene who voluntarily chose
to release a different line of this tomato. Smith uses this example
frequently because it captures quite well how ready the FDA was to turn a blind
eye to these results. Smith also refers to the comments by one of Calgene's
scientists who told Smith that her team had been asked to evaluate the results
of the rat experiment, and she admitted that the study was totally out of their
field and they could easily have overlooked the appendix and its implications.
Yet, Health Canada stands by their approval of the Flavr Savr™ tomato, so much
so, that this product which doesn't even exist in Canada's food supply, is used
as the example on their website to stress, as Bruce Stanton puts it, "rigorous
assessments" of such products. It's also important to note that Canada's Conservative
government is, through the Security and Prosperity Partnership, seeking to
better harmonize the approval process of such foods here in Canada with that of
the United States. soundbite JS: In closing out today's broadcast, I do
want to leave you with one more segment from the April 3rd 2008
debate. Again, in the latter half of today's show we've been listening to a
debate on Bill C-517, tabled by Bloc Quèbècois MP Gilles-Andrè Perron. The bill
calls for the mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically engineered
ingredients, and the impacts of such a bill can be huge, as it was in Europe,
when following a number of countries there implementing such labeling, that
virtually all of the major food manufacturers removed GE foods from their
products altogether. The companies clearly feared lost revenues due to such
labeling requirements. And I will also mention that the entire unedited debate is
available on the Deconstructing Dinner website alongside the actual text of the
bill, the transcript of the debate and a short video of the press conference
hosted by the Bloc Quèbècois. That website again is
cjly.net/deconstructingdinner. And
so this last segment from the debate is of the comments made by Marcel Lussier,
also of the Bloc Quèbècois. Lussier is the MP for the riding of Brossard-La
Prairie. Lussier added to comments made by both Nathan Cullen and Gilles-Andrè
Perron, that children are now concerned with the presence of genetically
engineered ingredients in their food. Listeners might also recall a recent
guest on Deconstructing Dinner - ten year old Kodiak Morasky, who has too
become worried about the risks of GE-food. And here, is Marcel Lussier. Marcel Lussier: And I'm really surprised to
see how interested young people are in primary schools. It is a very important
period in their lives, before high school and they're getting interested in
these health issues. I think we should pay close attention to these young
people and tell them yes, we're going to hear your request, we're going to listen
to you when you talk about GMOs and that's what C-517 is. It's a bill that's
forward looking. It looks to the future for future generations so that these
young people can have so that they have the right to healthy food to give them
the right to consult labels to find out what's in what they are about to eat.
When you're 12 years old I think you can make choices and the young people from
Notre-Dame-de-Saint-Joseph school in La Prairie want to make that very
enlightened choice. Some might say that you can consult government websites
where the 50 products are listed but when you're shopping or when you're eating
a chocolate bar, it's very important to know what's in it. And if it says right
on the chocolate bar that there are genetically modified organisms in the
chocolate bar, well then the young person will be in the position to make a
free choice about what kind of food he or she wants to eat. ending theme JS: That was this week's edition of
Deconstructing Dinner, produced and recorded at Nelson, British Columbia's
Kootenay Co-op Radio. I've been your host Jon Steinman. I thank my technical
assistant John Ryan. The
theme music for Deconstructing Dinner is courtesy of Nelson-area resident Adham
Shaikh. This radio program is provided free of charge to
campus/community radio stations across the country, and relies on the financial
support from you the listener.
Support for the program can be donated through our website at
cjly.net/deconstructingdinner or by dialing 250-352-9600.
|
