[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: agriculture canada promotes unsafe biopharming



It was pointed out to me that the site advertising contacts between
third world farmers and producers of transgenic biopharmaceutical crops
may not be a part of the Canadian government agricultural bureaucracy. I
accepted the relationship to agriculture canada from the layout and
graphic on the site and the direct links to the government site.
However, I may have been fooled but appreciate any help on this matter.
Hi Lucy Sharratt,
Thank you for pointing out a perplexing aspect of the relationship
between  between Agriculture Canada (the Ministry of Agriculture) and
corporate and commercial interests. The site with the following address:
http://www.agcanada.com/ and the Canadian government site:www.agr.gc.ca
The agcanada site directly links the government site Agri-Food Canada's
bi-weekly reports Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's market analysis
division  and is designed to strongly resemble the government site, for
example :
http://hahtext.agr.ca/agriweb/default.htm
The relationship between the Canadian Agricultural Bureaucracy and
corporate and commercial interests is so close it is not clear whether
the agcanada site is a clone site of the Ministry or a commercial
enterprise aping the government site in layout and content. However, my
years of dealing with Agriculture Canada makes me believe that the
agcanada may pretend to be independent of the ministry of agriculture
but the aping of the ministry would not continue long were it not a
ministry front.
Sincerely, Joe

Lucy Sharratt wrote:
> Hi Beth and Joe,
>
> This is a terrifying site that you found Beth, thanks for making sure to
> send this to us at Polaris. I note commentary also on the Ban-GEF website
> that mentions Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada but I am wondering
where they
> appear as a sponsor of the ad? "AgCanada" which hosted the classifed
ad and
> appears in the partner/link section of the Molecular Farming site is an
> industry site I believe and not connected to the government
department - as
> far as I know, all govenrment email sites should have URLs that end
in gc.ca
> (Agriculture Canada is at www.agr.gc.ca). Was the government department
> connected in a way that I am missing?
>
> I will be sure to send your news on this on to others.
> Thanks for helping me clarify, Cheers, Lucy
>
jcummins wrote:
February 17, 2003
Prof. Joe Cummins
e-mail: jcummins@uwo.ca
“The Canadian Government  is promoting unsafe biopharming  both at home
and in the third world”
       Biopharming is the use of transgenic crops containing human or
other animal genes to produce  expensive pharmaceutical proteins  and
vaccines at reduced cost. Biopharming has been promoted by universities,
the biotechnology industry and by the United States and Canadian
governments  with little thought given to the consequences of
contaminating the crop plant gene pool with genes that have profoundly
toxic side effects on healthy humans, farm animals and wildlife. The
production of pharm crops has  been  promoted and farmers recruited  to
participate in field production of the valuable crops  with marginal
concern given to the consequence of food crop gene pollution.
Inevitably, field production led to at least one detected  instance of
food crop pollution by a biopharmaceutical gene and its product, the
catastrophe was recounted by Ho (1). The problems associated with
biopharming of  crops producing vaccines and cytokines  was reported by
Cummins (2,3,4). Any biopharmaceutical crop grown in the open
environment must be carefully monitored  regarding spread of pollen to
nearby cropland or to weedy relatives , surface and groundwater should
be monitored for the biopharmacuetical protein and airborn dust and
debris from the damaged plant parts should be monitored but it is clear
that monitoring has been very perfunctory. Growing plots  should be
well isolated from human habitation to avoid random contact leading to
human exposure.
       Even though the pollution  of a food crop following the field
release of  a pharm crop (the pharm crop was transgenic corn modified
with a gene  for a vaccine for pig diarrhea) in the United States  was
widely reported worldwide most Canadians are unaware of the extensive
creation and field testing of biopharmaceutical crops in Canada. The
government bureaucracy maintains secrecy over the actual pharm crops and
the locations of their field testing by designating the operations
confidential business information (CBI). At the same time Agriculture
Canada (Canadagriculture) actively promotes  biopharmaceutical crop
production both in  Canada and in the third world.
The Emonds Institute recently  uncovered efforts to solicit farm plots
and growers for pharm crop growing and promised that there would be
extraordinarily rich returns for participants (5).Agriculture Canada’s
website (7) was used to circulate the following promotion:” Wanted:
Contract growers Asking Price: $0 Ad Placed On: 12/2/02 Contact: brian
marshall (agcan@molecularfarming.com)
We need more contract growers to join the 30,000 acres we already have
from Canada on our Global Database. Our aim is the Environmentally SAFE
growing of new NONFOOD Molecular Crops. More information by visiting
http://www.molecularfarming.com/database.html”;
The molecular farming data base includes the following applicants for
pharm crop production: The data base lists a number of interesting areas
of proposed biopharmaceutical  production based on isolation and
security. The offerings included the following countries: Zimbabwe,
Pakistan, Panama, Romania, Tunisia,  Indonesia and Guinea among many
others. Canada had a number of offerings the most interesting being 100
Acres - { Toronto }. There is nowhere in metro Toronto where there is a
reasonable expectation of isolation from random human contact  and the
millions of inhabitants pose a huge target for released
biopharmaceutical pollution.
       Agriculture Canada seems to have lost a sense of responsibility
to the human population and recklessly promotes the interests of
pharmaceutical corporations. The actual testing or production of pharm
crops  seems to be lost in a bureaucratic “black  hole” and extracting
truthful information from the bureaucracy is a nightmare. The testing
and production of hirudin transgenic canola illustrates the fundamental
problem.
Hirudin  is an anticoagulant drug  obtained from a blood leech, it is
capable of producing internal bleeding if it is consumed
inappropriately.  The leech hirudin gene was used to create transgenic
canola in which the drug protein was accumulated in the oil bodies of
canola seeds(7).  An article by Giddings et al (8) stated “Oilseed rape
transgenic for hirudin is now grown commercially in Canada  by SemBioSys
(Calgary, Canada). That comment was quoted by reviewers in other
authoritative journals  and farm newspapers reported that production was
commencing  near Kamloops, British Columbia. I began  trying to obtain
concrete information on hirudin production  in Canada  January 2003, Dr.
Yarrow of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (cfia) commented: “Thank
you for your earlier e-mail and please accept my apologies for not
getting back to you sooner.  The concern you have raised is a very
important one -  we will be actively investigating.  Notwithstanding our
investigation, to our knowledge, there is no commercial production
of hirudin in the outside environment in Canada.  The CFIA (or rather
AAFC at the time, prior to the formation of the Agency) authorized
confined research field trials of this nature in the mid-nineties, but
has not done so since.  To our knowledge, the proponents of these field
 trials did not pursue the hirudin production initiatives, which were
characterized at the time as proof of concept activities. Once I have
more information about the source of the journal's  information, etc, I
will e-mail you again.”
Dr. Yarrow passed the investigation to Dr. Finstad of CFIA who replied :
“Thank you for your email inquiring about commercial production of
hirudin in canola.  Dr. Yarrow has asked me to investigate this claim.
I have confirmed with SemBioSys Genetics Inc. that they have not engaged
in any commercial production of hirudin in canola.  The statement in
Nature Biotechnology 18:1151-1155 is incorrect.  Although SemBioSys did
undertake authorized confined research field trials of this plant
material in Canada between 1994 and 1997, they have not continued this
project.  The company is aware of the inaccurate statement in Nature
Biotechnology and has publicly confirmed that the statement is untrue.
I hope this addresses your concerns.”
The CFIA did not really address all of my concerns because I had earlier
and repeatedly asked “where were the confined field trials conducted” In
Canada confined field trials  are never confined, they are just
surrounded by crops CFIA thinks  will not be pollinated by canola. The
location of the field trials might be useful to any farm family whose
members experience untoward internal bleeding.
       Finally,  Agriculture Canada and its small sub-department CFIA
seems to have grown fully schizophrenic They faithfully and fanatically
support creation and dissemination of transgenic food crops, they also
faithfully and fanatically support creation and dissemination of
transgenic biopharmaceutical crops. However, gene pollution from the
biopharmaceutical crops will eliminate the market for the transgenic
food crops.  The Agriculture Canada  remedy  for this fundamental
problem is to be sneaky and underhanded about the testing and production
of  biopharmaceutical crops  and to promote the dangerous
biopharmaceutical production in third world countries. The Canadian
bureaucrats seem to believe that a  genetically modified Ponzi game is
the remedy to fundamental problem of the coexistence of transgenic food
crops and transgenic biopharmaceutical crops . [A Ponzi Game is one in
which managers pay out early dividends from the intake of investors in
the game, the managers normally “fly the coop” before the subterfuge is
uncovered, in the transgenic Ponzi game the participants may have to
finally pay heavy costs to those they injure].
References
1.Ho,M. “Pharmegeddon, Science in Society 2003, 17, 23-24
http://www.i-sis.org.uk
2. Cummins,J. “ Poison pharm crops near you”, Science in Society 2002,
15, 16 http://www.i-sis.org.uk
3. Cummins,J. “.Risk of edible transgenic vaccines “Science in Society
2003, 17, 24 http://www.i-sis.org.uk
4. Cummins, J   “ Pharming Cytokines in Transgenic Crops”  31st January
2003
http://www.i-sis.org.uk
5. Burrows, B. “Taking dirty industry south” Feb, 12,2003  Edmonds
Institute Alert
6. Canada Agriculture Online “Wanted: Contract growers”
http://www.agcanada.com/ClassifiedAds/Wanted/Contractgrow
7. Parmenter DL, Boothe JG, van Rooijen GJ, Yeung EC, Moloney MM.
“Production of biologically active hirudin in plant seeds using oleosin
partitioning.” Plant Mol Biol 1995 Dec;29(6):1167-80
8. Giddings,G.,Allison,G.,Brooks,D. and Carter, A. “Transgenic plants as
factories for biopharmaceuticals” Nature Biotech. 2000 ,18,1151-55


.