by Lucy Sharratt

Bill-C474, a concrete proposal to solve one of the major problems created by genetically modified crops (GM or GE) was rejected by Members of Parliament. After a full year of debate that included Parliamentary hearings, the Bill was voted down on February 9 by both Liberals and Conservatives. Although the Bill itself was lost, it sparked the first real debate in Parliament over genetic modification and led directly to a motion for a moratorium on GM alfalfa.

Bill C-474 exposed the economic harm that some GM crops can cause farmers. The Bill would have required “an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.” The one-line Bill narrowed in on the problem that GM crops may be approved in Canada even if they are not approved in our export markets, often resulting in costly market rejection. It shone a light on the reality of GM contamination of non-GM crops and the fact that it is the farmers, not biotech companies, who pay the price.

Bill C-474 was introduced by NDP Agriculture Critic Alex Atamanenko and was supported by the NDP and Bloc Quebecois, with both Party leaders voting in favour of it. The Conservative Party was solidly opposed to the Bill and although two BC Conservative MPs voted to allow the Bill to be debated by the Agriculture Committee, no Conservative voted for the Bill to become regulation. The Conservative Party remained unyielding in its opposition to Bill C-474, echoing industry rhetoric that the Bill would create red tape and put a chill on innovation. In the House of Commons, Minister of Agriculture Gerry Ritz called the Bill “an ideological stance that is basically non-GM, non-trade.”

After 15 years of experience with GM corn, canola, soy and flax, there is enough evidence to show that each new GM crop may, at the very least, have a specific negative impact on markets for certain farmers. For example, organic grain farmers in Canada lost canola due to GM contamination while flax farmers are still testing to eliminate unexpected GM contamination from 2009. As Colleen Ross, vice-president of the National Farmers Union said, “Our government has been supporting genetic engineering at any cost.

But we refuse to accept their willingness to sacrifice some farmers and some crops for the sake of the biotech industry.”

The industry association CropLife, representing Monsanto and other biotech and pesticide companies, told MP Alex Atamanenko it did not want Bill C-474 debated in the House of Commons Agriculture Committee. Despite the heavy corporate lobby to prevent the debate from happening in the first place, Committee hearings on Bill C-474 began in early 2010 and ultimately led to Committee hearings on biotechnology. This was a major victory for critics of GM.

Every industry attempt to prevent and shut down the debate on the Bill was defied. That the debate happened at all was due to the tens of thousands of Canadians who mobilized to support the Bill. The strength of the public response, including the response from farmer organizations, has changed the debate over GM.

On January 27, following protracted legal cases, the US Department of Agriculture approved plantings of Monsanto’s herbicide tolerant GM alfalfa, despite widespread opposition from farmers and consumers. Canada is only one step away from allowing GM alfalfa to be planted here, despite the fact that both conventional and organic farmers agree that crop contamination by GM alfalfa is an urgent threat.

Liberal Agriculture Critic Wayne Easter has now proposed a motion for a moratorium on GM alfalfa, catching up to the NDP and Bloc Quebecois who support the motion and have long advocated for action. This Liberal motion is a major step forward, though the true test of Liberal commitment is yet to come.

Conservatives now also agree that GM alfalfa is a problem even as they actively block action. While he delayed a vote on the motion at a Committee meeting on March 10, Conservative Saskatchewan MP Randy Hoback stated, “The concern I have isn’t necessarily with the motion itself… When I go to my farmers in my area – we have a lot of alfalfa production – they’re concerned about Roundup Ready alfalfa… I don’t want to defend it [GM alfalfa].”

About his motion for a moratorium on GM alfalfa, Easter said, “The federal government should ensure that the relevant questions and concerns are addressed prior to approval – not afterwards, as was done in the United States.” This description applies not just to GM alfalfa, however, but to the whole system that approves GM crops.

Ritz recently told the Western Producer newspaper, “We look at a number of factors including net benefit and so forth but having said that, there has been no demand for it [on GM alfalfa] so we have no intention of moving forward.” The Minister and other Conservatives are attempting to allay the fears of farmers and consumers over GM alfalfa being introduced soon, but it is just a ploy to deflect intense public pressure. And their statements are incorrect. Current regulation does not include looking into “benefits and so forth,” something Bill C-474 tried in part to address. Additionally, when they opposed Bill C-474, Conservatives slammed the idea of considering economic impacts or other considerations that are not “science based.”

Unless the Minister of Agriculture is prepared to take action, Monsanto will move forward with GM alfalfa regardless of what Ritz says his intentions are. With GM alfalfa and now with GM pork and GM salmon on the horizon, time is running out for a political solution. While all political parties are scrambling to propose a national food policy, they should understand their careful work to court votes from the new food movement in Canada will be swiftly undone if they will not deal with this problem of GM crops and animals. The controversy over Bill C-474 educated Parliamentarians about genetic engineering and exposed them to consumer and farmer concerns. With continued and increasing public action, this unprecedented political opportunity should lead to concrete, fundamental change.

--

Lucy Sharratt is the Coordinator for the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. www.cban.ca