Subject: GDR - COMPLIANCE - Canadians are learning .. CONTINUED -
CFIA de
Sent to PCO - Privy Council Office
Dear Daniel, Samir, and
Ben,
RE: GDR, This email follows: (1) REGARDING
SELF-CENTREDNESS (submitted to you Nov 25) (2)
COMPLIANCE background (submitted Nov 28) (3)
REGARDING THE STATE OF COMPLIANCE, Canadians are learning non-compliance
(Submitted Nov 29). --------------------------
(4) COMPLIANCE,
THE CFIA (CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY) DESERVES
SPECIAL MENTION
The previous email set out the growing problems with
COMPLIANCE. "You achieve compliance without force IF people embrace the
laws and regulations. The draft GDR states "Regulations are a form of law -
they have binding legal effect ...". As the gun registry and 2006
census reveal, this statement is vacuous if a large number of people choose
non-compliance."
Perhaps I was saving the example of the CFIA for
individual attention because this one entity embodies everything that is
wrong with governance (regulation), and hence compliance in Canada. The
CFIA was talked about a few times at the Saskatoon public meeting on the
GDR. I suspect that you - Daniel, Shamir and Ben - don't know enough
about the CFIA to appreciate its role here.
You have only to be the
tiniest bit curious about inconsistencies, and then seek to understand, in
order to appreciate the role of the CFIA in the creation of
non-compliance. This goes back a few years: how can it be that,
in spite of monolithic opposition to "roundup resistant" wheat,
the Government pushes forward with it? How can it be, when roundup
resistant wheat doesn't make ANY sense, - for Canadian consumers, for
farmers, for Canadian markets, for the environment - that the Government
pushes forward with it and funds its development? How can it be that
the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan, through
Government fronts such as Biotec Canada and Agwest Biotec are interveners in
the Supreme Court, on the side of Monsanto? A bit fishy??
... The Patent Act was designed to be applied to mechanical
devices. It was not designed for application to life forms. How
can it be that when the Supreme Court of Canada has told the Government, both
in the Harvard Mouse case and then again in the Monsanto vs. Percy Schneider
case, that the Patent Act needs to be updated, that the Government doesn't
change the Patent Act, but it puts forward changes to the "Plant Breeders'
RIGHTS Act" (note: not Plant Breeders'
RESPONSIBILITIES Act)??
When you piece together the answers to the
questions, you see the CFIA for what it is.
Most of the people in my
network, and the people to whom they pass along information, are familiar
with the story of the CFIA. Just as we learn about the PMRA when we
fight to shield children from exposure to pesticides, we learned about the
CFIA when we fought long, hard and relentlessly against the introduction of
herbicide-tolerant wheat. The fight is back on now. (This time the
application is from the chemical company BASF, not from Monsanto.) Have you
any idea of how much anger re-surfaces? Only this time it's
more.
This is not the recipe for a "compliant public".
François
Guimont is the President of the CFIA, 613 225-2342. My letter to him is
appended. It tells you about non-compliance. It is this that the GDR
must openly address, somehow.
The Government's "pilot project" to be
"transparent" in the re-introduction of herbicide tolerant wheat does NOT
address the root of the problem at all. "Currently, the CFIA and Health
Canada post decision documents on the Internet after a product has been
approved. They have not previously posted information about products that are
under review, as will be the case in this pilot project."
The problem
is that the Government does not know that its responsibility is to citizens,
not to corporate interests. It does not know that its job is to protect
the commons.
To the email, "REGARDING THE STATE OF COMPLIANCE, Canadians
are learning non-compliance", Nov 29, I would add that the CFIA
plays a large role in the under-mining of Canadian democracy and the rule of
law.
Regarding remedy: can the GDR (Government Directive on
Regulating) help to find solutions? ... more in another
email.
----------------- (REFERENCE: If you do not know the story
of the CFIA, it is well enough told in the movie THE FUTURE OF FOOD, an
American movie with Canadian content. What is described about the U.S.
situation is true of the Canadian. For more information about the
film: http://www.thefutureoffood.com/
"Already
playing to packed houses in the U.S., this award-winning documentary offers
an in-depth investigation into the alarming changes happening in the
corporate-controlled food system. With beautiful and haunting images, it
reveals the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically
engineered foods that have quietly filled grocery store shelves for the past
decade. Released in the States in September, THE FUTURE OF FOOD opened in
Calgary on Nov. 18th, Vancouver on December 1 with a special benefit
screening in Saskatoon on December 2.""THE FUTURE OF FOOD has inspired food
and farming communities all over the world," says Producer-Director Garcia.
"We are very pleased that audiences across Canada will have the opportunity
to see the film and educate themselves about what is happening to agriculture
today.") -----------------------
Best wishes, Sandra
Finley
==================================== Canadian Food Inspection
Agency Accepting Comments on Submission for Approval and Release of Herbicide
Tolerant Wheat
By the thousands, Canadians have
told you that we do not want our food supply developed by the criterion that
it be resistant to chemicals. Our food supply is to be developed
according to the criterion: - is the seed more nutritious than
other varieties (of wheat, in this example)? Does it make a positive
contribution to the nutritional value of our food supply?
We fought
for months and months to put a stop to herbicide-resistant wheat developed
jointly by Monsanto and the Government of Canada. Now here it is back
again, only this time from BASF.
You have 4 issues to address: -
GOVERNANCE (In whose interest are these undertakings?) - HEALTH (Our food
supply. Health is dependent upon food supply. What is the criteria for seed
selection?) - ENVIRONMENT (Introduced species do not have enemies. They
proliferate and become weeds. Common sense, science and experience ALL
reinforce the fact that crops engineered to be resistant to chemicals bring
about an increase in the use of chemicals. Farmers now apply a round of
glyphosate to kill the plants they don't want, and then turn around and apply
2-4D to kill the plants that are resistant to the glyphosate. I
know. I am from Saskatchewan. We have 10 years of experience with
RR canola which is now a weed growing in shelter-belts, gardens and in other
unwanted places. Roundup won't kill it. You, the CFIA, has no
credibility here.) - OWNERSHIP OF LIFE FORMS. The Patent Act was never
meant to apply to life forms. It was intended to cover mechanical
devices. In at least 4 different places in the Schmeiser decision the
Supreme Court of Canada told the Government that the legislation had to be
changed. Has that been done? The earlier "Harvard Mouse" decision also
pointed out to the Government that the Patent Act required an update.
Has it been done? Have YOU, François Guimont, done anything to insist
that the Patent Act be changed? Whose interests do you
serve?
Transnational corporate interests more and more determine the
food that is grown. They do not develop seed using the selection criteria of
nutritional value. And they attempt to appropriate that which belongs
to the commons. You, the CFIA, are party to the attempted
appropriation.
The Government almost shut down a whole industry (cattle)
when it was suspected that just ONE INDIVIDUAL's food production might be
injurious to the public good (health). What do you do when it is
suspected that crops developed with the criterion that they be resistant to
chemicals, crops that serve a corporate interest, might not be in the public
interest?
The health of the population, and therefore medicare costs, are
dependent upon the nutritional value of our food supply.
According to
a Globe and Mail report, the nutrition found in fruits, vegetables, and other
food crops has declined significantly since the 1950's. That is YOUR
responsibility.
CRITERIA USED: The licensing process for new varieties
of wheat, barley, oats, etc. uses criteria such as disease resistance, yield,
and now, resistance to chemical applications.
CRITERIA NOT USED:
nutritional value, taste, impact on environment, contribution to the common
good.
Plant Breeders do not have Rights. They have
RESPONSIBILITIES.
The purpose of the Government and its Legislation is to
defend THE COMMONS. Seeds are an essential part of the commons; they form the
basis of our food supply. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of ANYONE who is tampering
with the food supply to use the following selection criteria.
Before
any seed is released into the environment or licensed for use:
-
NUTRITIONAL VALUE (in the case of seed that becomes food): is the nutritional
value of the seed superior to that of hallmark original varieties? If the
seed (food) does not make a improved positive contribution to the value of
the food, therefore to the health of the citizens, it will not be licensed
for use. It is well documented that the nutritional value of food has
significantly declined over the last 50 years. That does not bode well for
public health. There is a connection between our food supply and escalating
disease rates (health).
- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: will it perform
like an "introduced or invader species" such as wild oats, purple loosestrife
or zebra mussels? If so, it will not be licensed. Anyone who releases such
organisms into the environment must pay the "external costs" of
eradication. Do you know how many millions and millions of dollars are
spent, year after year, to try and control wild oats (an introduced
species? Do YOU pay for it?)
- TASTE: Food that contributes to the
healthfulness of the citizens must be appetizing, or it will be shunned in
spite of its nutritive value. SO: What is the taste performance of the
proposed seed: it must at least be as tasty as hallmark original
varieties.
- COMMON GOOD: WHOSE INTERESTS ARE YOU SERVING? THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT. Visionaries implemented a seed development
process in Canada which used public money for the common good (e.g.
Agriculture Canada Research Stations and scientists). They understood that
allowing inferior seed from producers to enter the food production system
undermines the value of the crop for citizens collectively.
They
understood that: ~ the goals of the individual or corporation (minimize
costs, maximize revenues) can be at odds with the interests of the
community, ~ use of inferior seed by some individuals promotes use of
inferior seed by everyone because those with higher costs will be driven out
of production if they don't adopt the same lowest-cost production. (The
common good (health) and the environment are the losers.) ~ the role of
Government is to serve and protect the public interest. Historically,
Agriculture Canada did that well, up until the 1980's when Government POLICY
changed.
TODAY, the Government is WRONG in its understanding of its role.
A necessary criterion for deciding whether a new seed will be introduced is:
whose interests will be served by the introduction? Seeds are part of the
commons. If it cannot be demonstrated that the society at large will benefit
from the seed, then it must not be licensed. (The very name of the Act -
PLANT BREEDERS' RIGHTS - states a bad situation, a serious
misunderstanding.)
Canada has a long history of exemplary seed
development based on community interest. The evidence is that we HAVE
floundered by succombing to private, commercial, interest-based seed
selection criteria.
From John Kenneth Galbraith's "The Economics of
Innocent Fraud - Truth for our Time", published in 2004 : "... As the
corporate interest moves to power in what was the public sector, it serves,
predictably, the corporate interest. That is its purpose. ...One obvious
result has been well-justified doubt as to the quality of much present
regulatory effort. There is no question but that corporate influence extends
to the regulators. . Needed is independent, honest, professionally competent
regulation ... This last must be recognized and countered. There is no
alternative to effective supervision. ."
Tax-payers provide salaries
for Government employees to perform work that is in the public interest. ANY
Government employee whose work is in collaboration with an industry,
ESPECIALLY if the employee's official work is related to the regulation of
that industry, MUST resign their Government position.
I am very angry
that I and others must expend so much time and energy to try and force you to
do your job.