Canada's Regulators and Genetically Modified Foods: The Public's Protection?
Canada's Regulators and Genetically Modified Foods: The Public's Protection?
Canada's Regulators and Genetically Modified Foods: The Public's Protection
Canadians want to know the food they eat is safe and if it is derived from a natural process. This is a logical demand because the only true exercise of power a consumer has in the liberal free market system is who they give their money to. Canadians have been unable to exercise due diligence on foods before they purchase them. Furthermore, Canadians' concerns for the protection of the bio-diversity of their environment, as well as their health concerns, have fallen on deaf ears of laissez-faire politicians. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not safe for the release into our environment nor are they without hazard to human health. Health Canada's mandate is not being obeyed, and Environment Canada's authority to exercise its mandate has been usurped. There must be a moratorium put on the sale and production of foods that are, or contain genetically modified organisms.
<Tab/>Health Canada's website clearly identifies its mandate as "to be responsible for helping the people of Canada maintain and improve their health. Health Canada strives to improve the health of all Canada's people, while respecting individual choices and circumstances and therefore seeks to put Canada among the countries with the healthiest people in the world."(Canada, About Health Canada). Environment Canada's mandate is "to preserve and enhance the quality of the natural environment, including water, air and soil quality; conserve Canada's renewable resources, including migratory birds and other non-domestic flora and fauna; conserve and protect Canada's water resources; carry out meteorology; enforce the rules made by the Canada - United States International Joint Commission relating to boundary waters; and coordinate environmental policies and programs for the federal government" (Canada, Mandate Vision and Mission).<Tab/>
<Tab/>The origin of the genetically modified organisms is relevant to this argument. President of the International Centre for Technology Assessment Andrew Kimbrell documents the history of the litigious battle for the right to patent a living organism. The history starts in a laboratory in India that belonged to General Electric (GE) and with an Indian scientist working for GE who developed a bacterium that would consume oil. In 1971 GE filed to receive a patent on the bacteria they discovered. They were turned down after many years of deliberation because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office could not perceive the idea that a patent on a living organism was just. Immediately after the decision was reached GE sued and won (Diamond vs. Chakrabarty) for the right to patent their discovery. The Federal Court in the United States of America decided, in five-to-four margin, that it was just to patent a living organism. The reason was this particular organism was manmade and therefore was not natural. This cleavage in the law was the starting gun to commence a triathlon of patenting, of developing and of marketing living organisms by capital rich corporations. After reading Kimbrell's article the impression is left that man has legally conquered nature; man can own it if he changes it. It is by lawsuit that GMOs received their birthright (Kimbrell, Breaking the law of life). This proves the development of GMOs did not stem from idealistic hopes of feeding the worlds hungry as its proponent's claim it was.
Canada's Regulators and Genetically Modified Foods: The Public's Protection
Canadians want to know the food they eat is safe and if it is derived from a natural process. This is a logical demand because the only true exercise of power a consumer has in the liberal free market system is who they give their money to. Canadians have been unable to exercise due diligence on foods before they purchase them. Furthermore, Canadians' concerns for the protection of the bio-diversity of their environment, as well as their health concerns, have fallen on deaf ears of laissez-faire politicians. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not safe for the release into our environment nor are they without hazard to human health. Health Canada's mandate is not being obeyed, and Environment Canada's authority to exercise its mandate has been usurped. There must be a moratorium put on the sale and production of foods that are, or contain genetically modified organisms.
<Tab/>Health Canada's website clearly identifies its mandate as "to be responsible for helping the people of Canada maintain and improve their health. Health Canada strives to improve the health of all Canada's people, while respecting individual choices and circumstances and therefore seeks to put Canada among the countries with the healthiest people in the world."(Canada, About Health Canada). Environment Canada's mandate is "to preserve and enhance the quality of the natural environment, including water, air and soil quality; conserve Canada's renewable resources, including migratory birds and other non-domestic flora and fauna; conserve and protect Canada's water resources; carry out meteorology; enforce the rules made by the Canada - United States International Joint Commission relating to boundary waters; and coordinate environmental policies and programs for the federal government" (Canada, Mandate Vision and Mission).<Tab/>
<Tab/>The origin of the genetically modified organisms is relevant to this argument. President of the International Centre for Technology Assessment Andrew Kimbrell documents the history of the litigious battle for the right to patent a living organism. The history starts in a laboratory in India that belonged to General Electric (GE) and with an Indian scientist working for GE who developed a bacterium that would consume oil. In 1971 GE filed to receive a patent on the bacteria they discovered. They were turned down after many years of deliberation because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office could not perceive the idea that a patent on a living organism was just. Immediately after the decision was reached GE sued and won (Diamond vs. Chakrabarty) for the right to patent their discovery. The Federal Court in the United States of America decided, in five-to-four margin, that it was just to patent a living organism. The reason was this particular organism was manmade and therefore was not natural. This cleavage in the law was the starting gun to commence a triathlon of patenting, of developing and of marketing living organisms by capital rich corporations. After reading Kimbrell's article the impression is left that man has legally conquered nature; man can own it if he changes it. It is by lawsuit that GMOs received their birthright (Kimbrell, Breaking the law of life). This proves the development of GMOs did not stem from idealistic hopes of feeding the worlds hungry as its proponent's claim it was.
