Ottawa, Montréal, Washington, Canberra – Monday, June 1, 2009. Farmers, consumers and civil society organizations in Australia, Canada and the U.S. released a joint statement confirming their collective commitment to stop commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) wheat. (1) In 2004, global pressure prevented biotechnology company Monsanto from pushing GE wheat onto an unwilling market.
The statement “Definitive Global Rejection of Genetically Engineered Wheat” was released to counter a May 14 “Wheat Commercialization Statement” released by industry lobby groups in the three countries. (2) The industry pledged to “work toward the goal of synchronized commercialization of biotech traits in our wheat crops.” Today’s statement was released by 15 groups in Australia, Canada and the US, including the National Farmers Union, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, the National Family Farm Coalition in the US and the Network of Concerned Farmers in Australia, and counters the six stated industry arguments in favour of GE wheat.
“GE wheat is a potential disaster of huge proportions,” said Terry Boehm, Vice President of the National Farmers Union in Canada, “We refuse to allow Monsanto and industry groups to restart any campaign to commercialize GE wheat.”
The group statement centers on the pledge: “In light of our existing experience with genetic engineering, and recognizing the global consumer rejection of genetically engineered wheat, we restate our definitive opposition to GE wheat and our commitment to stopping the commercialization of GE traits in our wheat crops.”
“Genetic engineering for wheat would be a calamity for all wheat farmers. Consumers across the world have already rejected the idea of GE wheat but corporations are intent on controlling this crop through their gene patents,” said Julie Newman of the Network of Concerned Farmers in Australia.
In 2004, Monsanto withdrew its applications for approval for GE wheat in Canada and the U.S., due to intensive consumer and farmer protest. The wheat is engineered to be tolerant to Monsanto’s brand-name herbicide Roundup.
“Monsanto needs to accept defeat.” said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, a coalition of 18 groups. “The industry groups in our three countries are promising to force this product on all of us but today we reiterate our pledge to stop them.”
“Monsanto and industry groups in our countries need to abandon their agenda
of forcing GE wheat onto a market that doesn’t want or need it,” said Katherine Ozer, Executive Director of the National Family Farm Coalition in the U.S.
The groups signing the statement have also asked groups around the world to sign on at www.cban.ca/wheat before August 31, 2009.
Notes:
(1) The “Definitive Global Rejection of Genetically Engineered Wheat” statement was signed by the following organizations: National Farmers Union, Canada; Canadian Biotechnology Action Network; Union Paysanne, Canada; Union Biologique Paysanne, Canada; Réseau Québécois contre les OGM, Canada; Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, Canada; Network of Concerned Farmers, Australia; Organic Federation of Australia; Biological Farmers of Australia; Greenpeace; Gene Ethics, Australia; National Family Farm Coalition, USA; Western Organization of Resource Councils, USA; Center for Food Safety, USA; Organic Consumers Association, USA.
(2) The industry “Wheat Commercialization Statement” can be viewed at www.cban.ca/wheat
“No GMO” image courtesy examiner.com. For more information: Terry Boehm, National Farmers Union, Canada (cell) 306 255 7638 or 306 255 2880; Julie Newman, Network of Concerned Farmers, Australia, 08 98711562 or 0427 711644: Katherine Ozer, National Family Farm Coalition US (cell) 202 421 4544 or 1 202 543-5675; Lucy Sharratt, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, 613 241 2267 ext 5.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
What’s the difference between GE and genetically modified? Isn’t there loads of genetically modified corn on the market?
Hi Lindsay. Good question. GE and GMO are the same thing. “GMO” is the standard industry term. “GE” is a term not normally used by industry. My guess is that the “modified” in GMO sounds like only minor changes have been made, whereas the “engineered” in GE sounds like a much more fundamental change and may sound scarier to the consumer. I prefer the term GE because I think it is much more descriptive of the fundamental changes that are made to these crops (some MUST be sprayed to survive, for example). I would say it would be similar to the oilsands/tarsands argument where industry prefers one over the other more proper descriptive term.
And yes, there’s lots of GE corn out there. Check out previous post on the topic.
Wow- just found your blog from Theresa’s “Pondering the Myriad of things” blog- Fantastic!! I’ve been looking for more Canadian blogs
I have a lot of interesting reading to catch up with! (I especially love the table on the “corn” article you linked here- awesome!)
I am pleased to see that so many influential organizations are fighting against GMO/GE crops. It’s heartening.
Blessings!
I would like to remind you and your readers that two weeks ago wheat grwoing groups from Canada, US and Australia formed the Biotech Wheat Coalition to promote the introduction of biotech wheat into the marketplace. Instead of just closing the door lets examine the issue and explore the opportunities that are possibl for farmers, end users and he environment. Second generation traits will bring characteristics like drought, heat and cold tolerance, as well as improved milling qualities and consumer benefits (nutritional benefits). Second generation biotech traits across all crops will create a pull mechanism through the system which will create more demand for farm production. I respect your aprhension towards biotech crops but please try to keep an open mind because pesticide application is a small piece of the biotech space.
Ecoyogini–thanks for the comments! Just checked out your site and I will have to explore it more!
Shaun–I would like to examine the benefits. I am (as is an organization like the NFU) open to GMO if it truly is the magic bullet that it has purported to be.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. The elimination of thousands of small farmers over the world, the patenting of life and seeds and the high energy input (and that used to create the product in the first place) cost makes GMOs a bad idea. Not to mention the potential environmental implications, which we can’t know unless we study them for 100 years.
While an alternate organization has appeared, I would like to see who makes up the organization. The Wheat Growers of Canada, for example are an industry lobby group. What are the benefits to the environment and consumers that you suggest, since industry groups (and Monsanto etc) would be primarily interested in how this would increase the bottom line? Would it truly benefit those in the Third World (who actually can feed themselves, given the opportunity) The Canadian Wheat Board, which (for better or worse) represents most prairie grain farmers in international marketing will only endorse GE wheat if there are adequate safety measures in place ensuring that non-GE farmers are protected from contamination. The reason being that they will lose the European market. The canola industry is virtually all contaminated with GE. Will we allow the same thing to happen with wheat?
Who are the interests in genetically engineered wheat? The NFU and the others are organizations exclusively devoted to the family farm.
Good comments Ryan.
Please note that the Grain Growers of Canada represents many different farmer organizations like the winter wheat growers. This is a group that works for the benefit of farmers to advance agriculture.
The vision as stated on Grain Growers website:
-Pursue a grower-driven, competitive agricultural trading environment based on comparative advantage and open markets;
-Act with integrity
-Government policies should be transparent, non-distorting, and subject to periodic review, if government involvement is warranted.
-Advocate policies that will attract investment in a competitive value-added processing industry and stimulate innovative research and development.
The consumer benefits of pull type traits to be potentially found in biotech wheat are fully explained in the following two links
http://www.realagriculture.com/2009/03/monsantos-application-for-drought.html
http://www.realagriculture.com/2009/05/biotech-wheat-coalition-is-formed-to.html
Shaun–Thanks for the info.
First of all, we don’t need to increase wheat production. There is already more than enough food to feed the planet. We have an access problem, not a supply problem. Not only that, but I see no need for GE wheat as wheat is already very healthy and in plentiful supply.
Second, I have no doubt that this group lobbies for its backers. My point is that their backers are not small, ecologically sustainable producers. I’m sure our views on this differ. The future of agriculture–which will be energy scarce and ecologically fragile–rests on healthy, resource efficient producers supplying a local market. I’m going to flat out say that one would be wrong to believe otherwise considering the evidence. What does a GE resource intensive future look like?
Third, the group is, I have no doubt, backed by large wheat producers, agri-food corporations and genetic engineers like Monsanto. I’m sure you must understand that profit is the main motivator for these groups and this informs the products they create and the information they send out.
Lastly, let’s talk about morality. What are the moral implications of all of this? Have you read any research on the potential environmental impact of these seeds? What about the patenting of organisms? I’m sure you’ve heard of Percy Schmeiser. How can one collect and save their own seeds when they will inevitably be tainted with GE seeds and be the property of a multinational entity? What are the rights of organic farmers in that case as well? What are my rights as a consumer when I don’t want to eat GE food, regardless of what the Biotech Wheat Coalition tells me?
I appreciate your reasonable tone in conversation. Yet, you have vested interests in the proliferation of genetically engineered food that will probably inform what your side.
I admit too, that I am biased towards solutions that don’t involve Monsanto. I hate to sound harsh, but one side has interests that don’t necessarily mesh at all times with the common good. It’s not a conspiracy, just an acknowledgment of the nature of the beast. Corporations–for better or for worse–exist for the benefit of the shareholders. As I said before, if there’s a magic biotech bullet that will solve all our problems, I’m for it. But there isn’t, so the choice for me and many around the world is very clear.