I enjoy writing to MPs to test their willingness to engage in discussion, as a measure of how accountable they seem to feel to their voting public. I have gotten personalized (and personal) responses from the NDP and Liberal Agriculture critics, as well as the lone Saskatchewan Liberal MP. My success has not been so great with my own MP.
What follows is the text of emails we exchanged on the issue of Bill C-474, a private member's bill from the NDP's Alex Atamanenko that asks for a market assessment of harm before any approval of new genetically engineered crops. My first email each time is a modified version of a form email from C-BAN. My MP's responses... may be his own. You be the judge. If you make it to the end, that is.
Me on Mar 17, 2010:
Dear Anon., MP
Thank you for your responses to my earlier emails. I appreciate the time you take to consider constituents' concerns. I am writing again with another agriculture-related concern to ask you to support Private Member Bill C-474, when it is debated at second reading in mid-March.
The Bill would support Canadian farmers by requiring that “an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.”
This Bill is really important because, as we know from experience, the introduction of new genetically engineered (GE) crops can cause economic hardship to farmers. Since Saskatchewan farmers primarily produce crops for export, this is a crucial concern.
Farmers are at risk when GE crops are commercialized in Canada without also being first approved in our major export markets.
Flax farmers in Canada are now paying the price for this exact problem. Late last year, Canadian flax exports were discovered contaminated with a GE flax that is not approved in Europe or any of our other export markets.
Flax farmers actually foresaw that GE contamination or even the threat of contamination would close their export markets. This is why they took steps in 2001 to remove GE flax from the market. Despite this measure, flax farmers were not protected.
The GE flax contamination has created market uncertainty and depressed prices. Farmers are also paying for testing and cleanup and may be required to abandon their own farm-saved flax seed and buy certified seed instead. These costs are an unnecessary and preventable burden.
We cannot allow our export markets to close like this again. It is the government’s responsibility to protect Canadian farmers from predictable problems caused by the introduction of new GE crops that have not yet been regulated in our export markets.
Anon., please support Bill C-474 and protect Canada’s farmers and our markets.
Yours Sincerely, etc.
Thank you for your responses to my earlier emails. I appreciate the time you take to consider constituents' concerns. I am writing again with another agriculture-related concern to ask you to support Private Member Bill C-474, when it is debated at second reading in mid-March.
The Bill would support Canadian farmers by requiring that “an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.”
This Bill is really important because, as we know from experience, the introduction of new genetically engineered (GE) crops can cause economic hardship to farmers. Since Saskatchewan farmers primarily produce crops for export, this is a crucial concern.
Farmers are at risk when GE crops are commercialized in Canada without also being first approved in our major export markets.
Flax farmers in Canada are now paying the price for this exact problem. Late last year, Canadian flax exports were discovered contaminated with a GE flax that is not approved in Europe or any of our other export markets.
Flax farmers actually foresaw that GE contamination or even the threat of contamination would close their export markets. This is why they took steps in 2001 to remove GE flax from the market. Despite this measure, flax farmers were not protected.
The GE flax contamination has created market uncertainty and depressed prices. Farmers are also paying for testing and cleanup and may be required to abandon their own farm-saved flax seed and buy certified seed instead. These costs are an unnecessary and preventable burden.
We cannot allow our export markets to close like this again. It is the government’s responsibility to protect Canadian farmers from predictable problems caused by the introduction of new GE crops that have not yet been regulated in our export markets.
Anon., please support Bill C-474 and protect Canada’s farmers and our markets.
Yours Sincerely, etc.
MP's reply on 26 March:
Dear Ms. Blogger,
Thank you very much for your email regarding Bill C-474, a Private Members Bill, an Act respecting the Seeds Regulations introduced by Mr Alex Atamanenko of the NDP.
The Government of Canada has always regulated for food safety and health and will continue to examine new products with that as the guiding principle. We are confident that environmental and economic interests are best protected in this fashion.
It is unfortunate that Bill C474 has so many negative consequences. If this Bill had been previously passed by Parliament, there would be no canola industry in Canada - the $12.2 billion dollars that is generated annually in Western Canada would be lost. Bill C-474 adds more regulatory burden on the entire value chain without contributing to our ability to innovate, compete and provide valuable crops to feed and fuel a growing world.
Bill C-474 would also have hampered the ongoing development of the soybean industry. Over half of the soybean production in the world is GMO and these products have revolutionized soybean production. Millions of people around the world benefit from this technology which (NDP MP) Mr. Alex Atamanenko and his party oppose. Mr. Atamanenko uses the past years flax challenges as his reason for why we need this Bill. He is playing games with Triffid flax - that specific example has nothing to do with this Bill.
The Bill will clearly restrict technology and science. New technology holds the key to future prosperity. The clauses of this bill fail to deal with the challenges and opportunities presented by new scientific developments. Instead they would impose an impossible burden, requesting an unscientific 'analysis' that must be based on future prophecies and projections rather than on issues of food safety and health. The Bill also ignores producers - failing to ask for an analysis of the possible benefits of new varieties to our producers.
While I appreciate your concerns regarding what happened in the flax industry, I believe that this Bill is not the way to address those issues.
Thank you for taking time to express your concerns to me on this piece of legislation. Should you have any comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely, etc.
Thank you very much for your email regarding Bill C-474, a Private Members Bill, an Act respecting the Seeds Regulations introduced by Mr Alex Atamanenko of the NDP.
The Government of Canada has always regulated for food safety and health and will continue to examine new products with that as the guiding principle. We are confident that environmental and economic interests are best protected in this fashion.
It is unfortunate that Bill C474 has so many negative consequences. If this Bill had been previously passed by Parliament, there would be no canola industry in Canada - the $12.2 billion dollars that is generated annually in Western Canada would be lost. Bill C-474 adds more regulatory burden on the entire value chain without contributing to our ability to innovate, compete and provide valuable crops to feed and fuel a growing world.
Bill C-474 would also have hampered the ongoing development of the soybean industry. Over half of the soybean production in the world is GMO and these products have revolutionized soybean production. Millions of people around the world benefit from this technology which (NDP MP) Mr. Alex Atamanenko and his party oppose. Mr. Atamanenko uses the past years flax challenges as his reason for why we need this Bill. He is playing games with Triffid flax - that specific example has nothing to do with this Bill.
The Bill will clearly restrict technology and science. New technology holds the key to future prosperity. The clauses of this bill fail to deal with the challenges and opportunities presented by new scientific developments. Instead they would impose an impossible burden, requesting an unscientific 'analysis' that must be based on future prophecies and projections rather than on issues of food safety and health. The Bill also ignores producers - failing to ask for an analysis of the possible benefits of new varieties to our producers.
While I appreciate your concerns regarding what happened in the flax industry, I believe that this Bill is not the way to address those issues.
Thank you for taking time to express your concerns to me on this piece of legislation. Should you have any comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely, etc.
My response March 31:
Dear Mr. Anon.,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns. We seem to be at odds on certain points, so I would like to explain further a couple of key issues that were elided in your response.
First, the argument that there would be no canola industry in Canada with Bill C474 is a red herring. Canola was developed before widespread opposition to GMO's, and the current GM variety is opposed in countries such as Australia. As well, if we want to talk canola, it must be mentioned that canola was developed in a public university, not by a private corporation that siphons off the benefits. The case of GM soybeans, which you mention, clearly shows that the majority of benefits go to the owner of the patent. In this way, GM crops have very little benefit for farmers (many of your constituents) who must buy seed year after year instead of keeping it, and who must pay licensing fees, and many other nickel-and-dimed-to-death costs associated with GMOs. The NFU, on behalf of many farmers, has researched these issues and speaks on their behalf in calling for a ban. Your call for an analysis of cost-benefits to producers is reasonable, but I believe that if you look more closely, this has been done already by various organizations.
There are also doubts as to whether soy is benefiting millions of people around the world, as you have claimed. Primarily, it is used as cattle feed, and those who eat the majority of the beef are found in North America and Europe, struggling with an obesity epidemic, while many poor people have been pushed off their subsistence farms so soybean farmers can produce for export. I fail to see how those poor benefit from GM soybeans.
Finally, you claim that this Bill will "restrict technology and science" which "holds the key to future prosperity." Surely you do not dogmatically accept that all technology is good and inevitable? Perhaps a dramatic example: Nuclear weapons and thalidomide should be unregulated?
Thank you for your consideration, etc.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns. We seem to be at odds on certain points, so I would like to explain further a couple of key issues that were elided in your response.
First, the argument that there would be no canola industry in Canada with Bill C474 is a red herring. Canola was developed before widespread opposition to GMO's, and the current GM variety is opposed in countries such as Australia. As well, if we want to talk canola, it must be mentioned that canola was developed in a public university, not by a private corporation that siphons off the benefits. The case of GM soybeans, which you mention, clearly shows that the majority of benefits go to the owner of the patent. In this way, GM crops have very little benefit for farmers (many of your constituents) who must buy seed year after year instead of keeping it, and who must pay licensing fees, and many other nickel-and-dimed-to-death costs associated with GMOs. The NFU, on behalf of many farmers, has researched these issues and speaks on their behalf in calling for a ban. Your call for an analysis of cost-benefits to producers is reasonable, but I believe that if you look more closely, this has been done already by various organizations.
There are also doubts as to whether soy is benefiting millions of people around the world, as you have claimed. Primarily, it is used as cattle feed, and those who eat the majority of the beef are found in North America and Europe, struggling with an obesity epidemic, while many poor people have been pushed off their subsistence farms so soybean farmers can produce for export. I fail to see how those poor benefit from GM soybeans.
Finally, you claim that this Bill will "restrict technology and science" which "holds the key to future prosperity." Surely you do not dogmatically accept that all technology is good and inevitable? Perhaps a dramatic example: Nuclear weapons and thalidomide should be unregulated?
Thank you for your consideration, etc.
NO ANSWER
And me again on Oct 22 when the Bill comes up again:
Dear Anon., MP
I am writing again to ask you to vote in support of Private Members Bill C-474 in order to protect Canada’s family farms. I also ask that you vote, on October 27, for a 30-day extension to the Agriculture Committee debate on Bill C-474. This debate is essential to sustain the presence of
democracy in our government.
As you know, Bill C-474 would support Canadian farmers by requiring that “an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.”
It is imperative that our government assesses the possible export market impact of introducing new GE seeds. Bill C-474 would simply require the federal government to conduct such an economic analysis.
Farmers are at risk when GE crops are commercialized in Canada without also being approved in our major export markets. For example, flax farmers in Canada are paid the price for unwanted GE contamination that damage their export markets late in 2009. Flax farmers foresaw that GE
contamination would close their export markets.
It’s the government’s responsibility to protect Canadian farmers from predictable problems caused by the introduction of new GE crops that have not yet been regulated in our export markets. Bill C-474 would help our government meet this responsibility.
The House of Commons Agriculture Committee has already heard a strong message of support for Bill C-474 from Canada’s alfalfa growers. On October 27, please vote in favour of a 30-day extension to the Committe hearings, to allow this important debate to continue.
Anon., please vote for Bill C-474 to make sure that alfalfa growers and other farmers do not face the same market harm caused by GE contamination that continues to hurt our flax farmers.
Yours Sincerely, etc.
I am writing again to ask you to vote in support of Private Members Bill C-474 in order to protect Canada’s family farms. I also ask that you vote, on October 27, for a 30-day extension to the Agriculture Committee debate on Bill C-474. This debate is essential to sustain the presence of
democracy in our government.
As you know, Bill C-474 would support Canadian farmers by requiring that “an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.”
It is imperative that our government assesses the possible export market impact of introducing new GE seeds. Bill C-474 would simply require the federal government to conduct such an economic analysis.
Farmers are at risk when GE crops are commercialized in Canada without also being approved in our major export markets. For example, flax farmers in Canada are paid the price for unwanted GE contamination that damage their export markets late in 2009. Flax farmers foresaw that GE
contamination would close their export markets.
It’s the government’s responsibility to protect Canadian farmers from predictable problems caused by the introduction of new GE crops that have not yet been regulated in our export markets. Bill C-474 would help our government meet this responsibility.
The House of Commons Agriculture Committee has already heard a strong message of support for Bill C-474 from Canada’s alfalfa growers. On October 27, please vote in favour of a 30-day extension to the Committe hearings, to allow this important debate to continue.
Anon., please vote for Bill C-474 to make sure that alfalfa growers and other farmers do not face the same market harm caused by GE contamination that continues to hurt our flax farmers.
Yours Sincerely, etc.
His response on Oct 25:
Dear Blogger,
Thank you very much for your email regarding Bill C-474, a Private Members Bill, an Act respecting the Seeds Regulations introduced by Mr Alex Atamanenko of the NDP.
The Government of Canada has always regulated for food safety and health ... [see email from him, above]... Thank you for taking time to express your concerns to me on this piece of legislation. Should you have any comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Thank you very much for your email regarding Bill C-474, a Private Members Bill, an Act respecting the Seeds Regulations introduced by Mr Alex Atamanenko of the NDP.
The Government of Canada has always regulated for food safety and health ... [see email from him, above]... Thank you for taking time to express your concerns to me on this piece of legislation. Should you have any comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
My response on October 25:
Dear Anon.,
I addressed your points about canola, and the other arguments you raise, already in a previous email. I'm sorry to see that you did not take that into consideration when re-sending me this email. I would appreciate an explanation of the assumed correlation between protection of health interests and economic/environmental interests that you refer to in your second paragraph.
Sincerely, etc.
I addressed your points about canola, and the other arguments you raise, already in a previous email. I'm sorry to see that you did not take that into consideration when re-sending me this email. I would appreciate an explanation of the assumed correlation between protection of health interests and economic/environmental interests that you refer to in your second paragraph.
Sincerely, etc.
NO ANSWER.
I tend to call it as I see it, so these letters above are actually models of restraint and courtesy on my part, and that of my patient husband who edited all but the last for courtesy and restraint. I'm not sure why I put so much effort into them. Now I just send him letters to use up 2 minutes of his - or a staffer's - time cutting and pasting a response. At least he works for 2 minutes a day, right?
