The Editor,
Open letter to council, I offer a few observations that will be helpful in making decisions that have far-reaching consequences.
Some of the claims you will undoubtedly hear and questions related to them:
1. Probable Claim: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are safe.
Questions: Safe for whom? How is safety defined? How has safety been established? Has use of GMOs or supporting products resulted in harm to humans, other crops, animals or the environment?
Observations: There are many reports of health problems for both animals and people arising from exposure to GMOs.
These reports describe a broad spectrum of adverse reactions. In Germany, Gottfried Glockner fed Sygenta's GM maize Bt 176 to his dairy herd.
Twelve died and the rate of milk production in the surviving herd decreased (ISIS Report 13/01/04 "Cows ate GM maize and died").
2. Probable Claim: The adoption of GM crops will increase crop value through better yields and improved quality.
Question: Can you provide citations from independent researchers?
Observations: There are many reports of exactly the opposite: reduced yields and decreased nutritional content. A study conducted by the University of Kansas found GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent ("Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years, November 2009" by Charles Benbrook).
3. Probable Claim: The adoption of GM crops will decrease dependence on pesticides.
Question: Can you provide citations from independent researchers?
Observations: Experience over many years in both the United States and Canada suggests that repeated use of glyphosate leads to the evolution of superweeds, weeds that are resistant to glyphosate.
Attempts to control these superweeds often involve decreased application of glyphosate and other more toxic herbicides. Palmer pigweed has reportedly colonized large tracts of farmland in the southern U.S., leaving it unfarmable ("We are having a Palmer pigweed heart attack," from AG Professional, March 8, 2012).
4. Probable Claim: Use of GMOs will add value to growers' crops.
Questions: How has the European ban on imports of Australian canola and Canadian flax and canola affected the price of these crops? (Third World Network Biosafety Information Servce, September 20, 2002; RealAgriculture. com, November 29, 2011).
Observation: When GM Triffid flax was discovered in Canadian shipments, European markets banned importation of all flax causing considerable economic devastation to this Canadian industry.
Although Triffid was deregistered and ordered destroyed it has apparently 'escaped' into the countryside and will remain as a source of contamination for the foreseeable future.
One could easily spend years looking into the benefits and threats of GMOs. But, I have another question that I hope will be helpful and offer some guidance to you in this difficult decision-making obligation:
What will be the effects on the seventh generation?
How will your decision affect the children of your grandchildren's children?
This admonition to consider the welfare of future generations in all decisions originates with The Great Law of the Iroquois.
I suggest it would be difficult to state a more appropriate guiding principle.
Further questions include: What is the safe distance between a GM crop and an organic, or even conventional crop, to ensure cross-pollination does not happen?
Could a decision to allow GMOs be effectively reversed at a later date when more has been learned?
How could the possible botanical effects of GM contamination in our ecology be reversed should we decide to ban GM crops at some later date?
Will the supplier(s) of GM seed and related products indemnify the city and its citizens against any and all harm arising from use of these commodities?
Larry Tolton Richmond
