Letter to a mayor

A letter to a Mayor: We are writing letters to all mayors and councillors of all municipalities of British Columbia, requesting them to vote favourably towards declaring the province as GE/GMO free in the Annual General Meeting of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) come september.

I personally have written to six municipalities, one email to each mayor and each councillor of these places. I intend to send many more. There are other volunteers also engaged similarly. We sometimes get a response from them, sometimes not.

Here is a sample:

Dear xxxx,

This letter requests your support for the resolution on genetically engineered (GE, also known as GMO) crops and animals at the 2013 UBCM Convention. The resolution reads:

that UBCM ask the British Columbia government to legislate the prohibition of importing, exporting and growing plants and seeds containing genetically engineered DNA, and raising GE animals within BC, and to declare, through legislation, that BC is a GE Free area in respect to all plant and animal species.

Serious concern has been expressed across BC about genetically engineered crops and animals. To date: 12 municipalities have passed individual resolutions declaring themselves a GE Free zone (Powell River, Salt Spring Island, Denman Island, Nelson, Kaslo, New Denver, Rossland, Richmond, Saanich, Metchosin, Telkwa, City of North Vancouver). At the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities meeting in April 2013, the same resolution as above was adopted by 51 municipalities.  In addition the UBCM has endorsed four resolutions expressing concern about genetically engineered crops in 1999 concerning monopolization of our food supply, 20006 and 2009 concerning mandatory labeling, and 2012 concerning the GE apple.  

My concerns about genetically engineered crops and animals are as follows:

Safety Questions

  • GE crops are not an extension of traditional breeding methods (or hybridization), they are created by inserting new gene sequences into organisms, often from unrelated species. 
  • GE crops have not been demonstrated to be safe; the standards for judgment by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Health Canada are lax. When the CFIA reviews an application for a novel food, its “evidence” comes from the corporation making the application and this data is kept secret. There is no independent testing of GE crops or animals in Canada, so the bottom line is we don’t know if these crops are safe or not
  • Unlike 166 other countries, Canada, has not ratified nor put into effect the articles of the Cartagena Protocol which provides guidelines to be adopted for placing rigorous safety checks before GMO is introduced into a region and an environment. As a result, there are insufficient safeguards at the federal level against damage to health and environment through GMO.

Corporate control

  • GE crops are about making profits for companies, often large multinationals. Five agricultural biotechnology corporations now control most of the technology needed to develop GM crops, as well as the agrochemicals and crop germplasm and seeds.  
  • GE seeds are patented which allows companies to take control over living organisms. 

 

Pollen drift

  • Contamination of non-GE crops by GE crops is inevitable
  • Some species, such as canola, cross-pollinate more easily than others. If you are next to a farm growing GE canola it is impossible to grow non-GE canola because of contamination from GE pollen.  
  • The same is likely with some of the GE crops that have recently been approved or are now being developed, for example the GE alfafa (recently approved) GE apple (under development). This will lead to significant economic loss for organic farmers, who use alfalfa as a rotational crop.
  • Now GE alfalfa has been approved it will make growing conventional and organic alfalfa impossible over the long term.

There is consensus across British Columbia that we urgently need to consider other possibilities than GE crops, and to support farmers transitioning away from growing GE crops to sustainable farming practices.

May I recommend three important sources of information on GE crops and animals?

  1. The first is GMO Myths and Truths, a synthesis of 600 scientific studies carried out by three geneticists, and published in 2012. http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58
  2. The second is a TED talk given by geneticist Dr. Thierry Vrain, who formerly worked as a Federal spokesperson for GE crops but, after analysis of recent studies, is seriously concerned about their health and environmental impact, which can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQkQXyiynYs
  3. The third is an expert panel report prepared by the Royal Society of Canada on request received from Health Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada, on the future of Food Biotechnology. The report stresses on the need for precaution and conducting rigorous and independent testing of GMO for health and environmental effects before they are to be approved. These recommendations are not being followed. http://rsc-src.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/GMreportEN.pdf

I hope I can count on your support in this crucial matter. Should you have further questions, I shall be more than happy to answer them on phone or face to face.

Sincerely,

Tony Mitra

No need to follow USA on GMO issues:

I have been observing the unfolding situation in Canada with regard to GMO for some years now. Initially, I used to sign petitions and consider that as the discharge of my civic duty. I have seen how those discharge of our civic duty failed to stem the rot.

Of late, I have been questioning myself, ourselves, and the methods used so far to keep the Canadian environment clean and our food healthy and our lives less contaminated by unnatural substances. Along with that, I have come to question the deep link Canadians have with Americans, on the issue of GMO.

I used to live in the US for many years before I migrated to Canada. While being fond of both, I have one critical comment to make about the US when it comes to GMO. By far the majority of the corporations producing GMO and agricultural toxins are from the US. US has, again, by far the most number of GMO being grown there. US has been feeding GMO to its people for the longest time and in the widest scope. Americans have been exposed to GMO more than any other nation on the planet. USA has not yet allowed GMO to be labelled in the food stores, nor set up mandatory independent tests on the safety of GMO. USA has systematically refused to sign or ratify any of the international conventions of protocols when it comes to GMO and its potential hazards.

For all these reasons – USA is the very worst place to be in this entire planet, if one wishes to keep GMO away from his/her dinner plate.

And, American people, with all due respect, have not been able to do anything worth bragging about – when it comes to pushing back at the corporations that enjoy total control of the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of the Government as well as the media.

And Canada of late has been busy trying to swallow the “Copy Americans” pill in many ways, particularly on GMO.

In the process, Canada has tarnished its stellar image of the past of being environmentally and socially conscious nation. Things have gone so bad that the rest of the world now laughs at Canada as an insignificant poodle of USA when it comes to GMO, climate change and such.

Therefore, taking example from USA, in my mind, is trying to reproduce the failures of the American people of keeping their lands free of dangerous chemicals and transgene crops.

The solution cannot be found by copying somebody. The solution has to be found by sitting outside of the box and thinking Canadians. Americans cannot solve Canada’s problem, not that the US is at all interested in it. Likewise, Europe, or even Ottawa, cannot solve these problems. It is a problem that needs involvement of the people, and novel methods to deal with.

I often hear, in Canada, with regard to motions to label GMO – about waiting for Americans to first label it. Without that, Canada has no chance of getting its GMO labelled. I find this statement not only unacceptable, but tantamount to capitulation to American hegemony.

If labeling is desired by the people – they must follow this up with their respective governments regardless of what the people of US do.

Canada does not, and should not, wait for the US, or any other country, to take the lead in food security.

Canada is supposed to be a free and independent country. Its people need to mull over the definition of “independence”.

Think outside the box. Observe what is happening in the US, but give much more weightage to other nations that are doing a whole lot better than the US on this issue.

If you have to follow examples – at least try to find the best example to follow, instead of the worst one.

This is not to disrespect either American or Canadian or any other people.

LINKS:

Monsanto’s GMO Killer Seeds: Profits Above Human Health. This is a recent article from Global Research, dated May 26, 2013. Click on the image for the link.

The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices. Shared belief is that everyone deserves an informed choice about whether or not to consume genetically modified organisms.

Genetically modified (GM) crops are promoted on the basis of a range of far-reaching claims from the GM crop industry and its supporters. They say that GM crops:

  • Are an extension of natural breeding and do not pose different risks from naturally bred crops
  • Are safe to eat and can be more nutritious than naturally bred crops
  • Are strictly regulated for safety
  • Increase crop yields
  • Reduce pesticide use
  • Benefit farmers and make their lives easier
  • Bring economic benefits
  • Benefit the environment
  • Can help solve problems caused by climate change
  • Reduce energy use
  • Will help feed the world.

All these are false claims – as explained in GMO Myths and Truths.

Thanks.

Hudson, Quebec sets legal precedence in banning federally approved pesticide at Municipal level

Hudson is a township sandwiched between the city of Montreal, to the east and the farms and forests to the west, in the province of Quebec, Canada.

And through the last decade of the last millennia on to the first years of this one, she created history of a kind – she withstood several levels of high profile legal challenges, all the way till the supreme court of Canada, on its Municipal level ban of cosmetic and other lawn pesticides.

This became a precedence making event, and the cascading effect was various other provinces ended up enacting bans on cosmetic lawn pesticides at the municipal level as well as initiatives taken at provincial levels to ban harmful pesticides.

A full length documentary video has been produced named “A Chemical Reaction – The story of a true green revolution” whose web description goes as – “

A Chemical Reaction, is a 70 minute feature documentary movie that tells the story of one of the most powerful and effective community initiatives in the history of North America.  It started with one lone voice in 1984.  Dr. June Irwin, a dermatologist, noticed a connection between her patients’ health conditions and their exposure to chemical pesticides and herbicides.  With relentless persistence she brought her concerns to town meetings to warn her fellow citizens that the chemicals they were putting on their lawns posed severe health risks and had unknown side effects on the environment.”

Jennifer Dumoulin

To learn more about the case, and to understand how Canadian law works with regard to Municipalities jurisdiction in banning what it might consider to be harmful to its residents and environment, I tried to call the persons involved. The key person was Ms June Irwin, who as a doctor first noticed the link between ill health and exposure to pesticides in her own patients, and single handedly pushed the issue through the Municipality of Hudson, which eventually, through initiatives and efforts of the then mayor, environmental agent and councillors, ended up in an enforced by-law that banned application of all pesticides in the town without specific permit, and where violators were subject to heavy fines.

June Irwin was not available, as she was on a holiday. So I got the next best person – the current Environmental agent in the town of Hudson – Ms Jennifer Dumoulin, to speak with me on record, for the purpose of creating this audio podcast, as an educational tool for the public and to raise awareness. There appears to be significant level of interest outside of Hudson and Quebec, and even outside of Canada, to learn how Municipalities might address such concerns from its residents, through actions taken initially at the level of Municipal Councils.

The audio podcast is just over 17 minutes long. It can be listened by clicking the player button at the bottom of this blog. Alternately it can also be downloaded and stored for listening at leisure, through iPhone or iPod and similar devices through iTunes store, free of charge. To find this Podcast and other episodes from me, search for Tony Mitra in the search field in iTunes Store and you should find it. The name of this specific Podcast is – Jennifer Dumoulin of Hudson Quebec on pesticide ban.

I hope this Podcast and information will be of value to the discerning listeners. My thanks go to Jennifer Dumoulin for agreeing to speak with me on record, for taking time out to do so, and for being patient with my questions.

Above is a recorded talk with Ms. Jennifer Dumoulin of the Municipality of Hudson in 2013.

Below is a link to part of the movie made on June Irwin.


Update on July 2, 2018

This is the story of June Irwin, the lone Canadian pesticide warrior that changed the face of Canadian law regarding rights of Municipalities with regard to controlling pesticides in residential areas.

June Irwin was a dermatologist that single handedly changed Canada, and strengthened the hand or ordinary citizens in protecting their neighbourhood from toxic chemical attack by pesticide peddling corporations.

Born in 1935, June was a doctor, a dermatologist, living in the town of Hudson, Quebec, Canada, back in the 1980s and 1990s. She noticed children coming to see her with rashes on their skin, that apparently developed after they played in the grass lawns outside their homes and in public spaces such as in schools and playgrounds.

After checking on the causes and noting the timing of herbicide spray (cosmetic pesticides application in residential areas) and almost synchronous ailments in children’s and pets skin problems, she came to the conclusion that lawn and other cosmetic pesticides were bad for human and animal health.

She contacted the town Municipality, and appealed that these pesticides be banned from residential and public areas. The Municipality declined to act, on the grounds that the pesticides and their application were federally approved and the issue is outside the jurisdiction of town Municipalities.

June disagreed. Undeterred, she appealed first to her clients, the parents of children and owners of pets that were getting sick while playing on the grass. Then she went door to door to meet everybody else.

June had a pleasant and helpful demeanour and was very well regarded in her town. She slowly started gathering the townspeople behind her on this issue.

In two years, the call to ban lawn and other cosmetic pesticides from the town became a political force that the Municipal councillors could no longer ignore. They were literally going to be kicked out of their office and replaced by a new breed, unless they worked to ban these pesticides and make the town safe for children to play in the grass.

The town of Hudson passed a law, banning use of cosmetic pesticides.

Hudson got promptly sued by the spraying companies, supported by the pesticide promoters, in the provincial Court, on the grounds that the Municipality had neither the scientific proof of harm nor the legal jurisdiction, to ban these chemicals.

The town fought the case and won the battle on two provisions of the law:
1) Even if a product or practice is approved federally, it may be restricted locally if it is deemed unsafe for the people.
2) A town did not need to provide absolute and irrefutable proof that a chemical is directly responsible for diseases. A town may have a reasonable suspicion of harm, for passing laws to protect its citizens from the suspected harm.

The chemical lobby did not give up, and sued the town in the Canadian Supreme Court. By then, the province of Quebec had risen to support its small but valiant little town of Hudson, championed by this courageous little lady. So the province of Quebec passed a province wide law banning the use of cosmetic lawn pesticides, and promptly inserted itself into the Supreme Court case, as co-defendant alongside the little town of Hudson.

A few years down the line, the town of Hudson and the province of Quebec won the Supreme Court case. Neither the town, nor the province, needed to produce irrefutable proof of harm. All they needed was a reasonable suspicion of harm, in order to ban these pesticides.

This provided the legal basis, the jurisprudence, for the rest of Canada to follow. Town after town passed these laws, and were never to be legally challenged again.

Today, in my own hometown of Delta, BC, Canada, lawn and residential area weeds may not be killed by any pesticides. The town corporation uses mechanical means and labour to control roadside weeds. Pesticides and herbicides are not only banned in residential and public spaces, but they cannot even be sold in local stores.

The only area the towns are yet unable or unwilling to push back at herbicides, is its use in agriculture, prairie, forests and marshes.

June Irwin showed the path and proved that just a single frail lady is all it takes to change your neighbourhood and the world.

I spoke with June Irwin time to time from some ten years ago, to learn more of her work in Hudson and to catch up on the story. About three years ago I learned she was unwell and might be battling cancer.

She passed away last year at age 83.

Margaret Meade was spot on when she said:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.

I love you, June. I shall never forget you.

Relevant Links: