Stop the Biofuels Regulations in Canada!

July/August 2010: All our fuel could soon contain a required level of biofuels if the new "Renewable Fuels Regulations" go ahead. But Environment Canada doesn't even know what the ecological footprint will be! They are currently doing a study and have not released the results. The regulations are going ahead unless the Minister of the Environment decides otherwise...

The official public comment period is over but you can still take action:

Click here to send an instant email to the Minister of the Environment to ask for more study first!

• Read "Biofuels Backfire: hasty approach will impact environment, food production" from Common Ground magazine, July 2010 by Lucy Sharratt
• Read the government's own "regulatory impact statement"
• Development & Peace says the regulations "make no sense whatsoever".

Summary

The highly controversial Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, was passed in June 2008 in the midst of the new food crisis. The Bill allows the federal government to develop and implement regulations requiring 5% average renewable content in gasoline by 2010 as well as require 2% average renewable content in diesel and heating oil by 2012.

The Canadian government is now rushing in these "Renewable Fuels Regulations" to require biofuels in our gas but there are new reports all the time about serious environmental and economic problems with biofuels - including a study on the ecological footprint of Canada's biofuels industry commissioned by Environment Canada that is not yet released!

What's Wrong with Biofuels Regulations in Canada?

The federal government is hiding a new reporton the ecological footprint of Canada's biofuels industry, before the regulation gets passed. Earlier this year Environment Canada awarded a contract to conduct an environmental assessment and baseline of Canada’s biofuel industry. Wouldn’t it make sense to wait until after the report is completed before adopting the regulations ?

There are many new studies and the verdict on biofuels is not looking good:

• The promised economic benefit to farmers will not be seen. The government’s own "regulatory impact statement" now reveals that farmers will not benefit from the production of grains used to make the biofuels. The statement says more corn will be imported from the US to meet the biofuels regulation in eastern Canada!
• The impact statement also shows that consumers will bear most of the costs associated with the biofuel expansion - to a total of $2 billion. This is because the ethanol-blended gas has a lower energy content so consumers will need to buy more fuel! The statement also says: “Assuming all industry costs are passed on to the consumer, regional average cost over 25 years range from 7 cents in Ontario to a relatively higher impact of 30 cents in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces”.
• The promise that air quality would get better and thus improve the health of Canadians also didn’t pan out as a recent 2009 Health Canada report concluded that “there are no substantial differences in predicted health effects between use of conventional use (gasoline) and E10 (ethanol-blended gasoline).”
• The Federal Government still says the new biofuels mandate will be good for the environment, even though their own research indicates no statistical difference in Greenhouse Gas Emissions at the tailpipe between vehicles using ethanol and vehicles not using ethanol. <http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2007/03/30/ethanol-emissions.html>

When the Senate passed Bill C-33, it also suggested that, “any new information that is available prior to regulations being proposed is taken into consideration before such regulations are promulgated.” See here for details on what the Senate said.

Click here to download a background document from Food Secure Canada.

So why is Canada still implementing a costly biofuel mandate that will subsidize Suncor Energy, Greenfields Ethanol and Husky Oil?

Take Action

• Click here to write an instant letter to the Minister of the Environment.

• You can also write to the members of the House of Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to request that the regulations be halted and brought back to Committee for further study:

• Bob Mills: mills.b@parl.gc.ca
• Bernard Bigras: bigras.b@parl.gc.ca
• Geoff Regan: regan.g@parl.gc.ca
• Mike Allen: allen.m@parl.gc.ca
• Nathan Cullen: cullen.n@parl.gc.ca
• Luc Harvey: Harvey.l@parl.gc.ca
• Marcel Lussier: Lussier.M@parl.gc.ca
• David J. McGuinty : mcguinty.d@parl.gc.ca
• Anthony Rota: rota.a@parl.gc.ca
• Francis Scarpaleggia: scarpaleggia.f@parl.gc.ca
• Maurice Vellacott: vellacott.m@parl.gc.ca
• Mark Warawa: warawa.m@parl.gc.ca

To see details about these MPs, check http://www.parl.gc.ca

Global Conflict Over Agrofuels

The corporate "agrofuels" gold-rush has ignited a major global conflict. Find out why...

Click here to hear Pat Mooney on biofuels

At the World Forum on Food Sovereignty, held in Mali in Africa, we and other delegates discussed how capital has manipulated terminology by adding the prefix “bio”, which signifies life, to renewable plant-based fuels. This is ridiculous, because all living things are “bio”. We could call ourselves bio-people, bio-John Smith, bio-soya, etc. Companies use the prefix “bio” to encourage the public to see their products as a good thing, as politically correct. So, at the international level, Vía Campesina has agreed to use more accurate terminology. These fuels and energy are produced from agricultural crops and so the correct terms are agrofuels and agro-energy. - João Pedro Stedile is one of the leaders of the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST), Brazil’s Landless Movement

Click here to read how agrofuels is pushing destructive GM soy monocropping in Latin America.

Agrofuels and GE Trees

Biotechnology corporations are seriously promoting genetically engineered trees and new GE crops for use as biofuels (agrofuels). The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) Pacific Rim Summit on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy September 10-12, 2008 Vancouver, British Columbia was all about genetic engineering and new technologies for biofuels - including, and explicitly, GE trees. The conference included the session “Cellulosic Ethanol from Softwoods Around the World” and the presentation “Biotechnology in Purpose-Grown Trees to Make Bioenergy Production" by ArborGen, the leading company researching GE trees.

This link with agrofuels was a major reason why the bid by African governments to establish an international moratorium on GE tree plantings was defeated at the United Natioin 2008.

“Fast growing, purpose-grown trees are an ideal feedstock platform for second generation bioenergy production…Producing renewable energy from purpose-grown trees is the latest step in the evolution of trees’ long and fruitful history and critical to meeting global bioenergy development needs.”
– from summary to BIO Conference presentation "Biotechnology in Purpose-Grown Trees to Make Bioenergy Production" in the session "New Feedstocks for Biofuels", a presentation from Barbara Wells of ArborGen.

Click here for more information on GE trees.

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.”

The Bill passed second reading in the House of Commons. It is now subject to House of Commons Agriculture Committee hearings and will be debated and voted on when Parliament resumes in September 2010.

Click here to view the information and action page on Bill C-474.

Join the action!

The top 10 seed corporations account for 55% of the commercial seed market worldwide (based on 2006 revenues). (Source: ETC Group)

The World's Top 10 Seed Companies - 2006
1. Monsanto (US)
2. Dupont (US)
3. Syngenta (Switzerland)
4. Groupe Limagrain (France
5. Land O' Lakes (US)
6. KWS AG (Germany)
7. Bayer Crop Science (Germany)
8. Delta & Pine Land (US) (acquisition by Monsanto since approved)
9. Sakata (Japan)
10. DLF-Trifolium (Denmark) $352
Source: ETC Group

Monsanto - the world's largest seed company - accounts for more than one-fifth of the global proprietary seed market. Click here to see more information about Monsanto including the new documentary "The World According to Monsanto."

The top 3 companies - Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta - account for $8,552 million - or 44% of the total proprietary seed market.

Other Resources

ETC Group publishes reports on major trends in corporate agendas to control nature.

Once genetically engineered organisms are released into the environment, they cannot be recalled and they cannot be controlled.

Canadian farmers are currently suffering through a crisis of GM contamination of flax - Click here to read about the case of GM flax contamination.

You can also take action to stop the introduction of GM alfalfa and read about how inevitable contamination will impact conventional and organic farmers.

• June 2009: CBAN Briefing Note: Genetically Engineered Crops: Irreversible harm to natural ecosystems

Write to the Minister of Health instantly by clicking here!

New! June 2010: "Enviropig™: A piggy you hope to never meet at the market", Common Ground magazine, by Lucy Sharratt, June 2010.

The so-called "Enviropig™" could soon be the first genetically modified (GM) (also called genetically engineered or GE) food animal on the market.

Enviropig™ is the trademarked industry name for a pig that has been genetically engineered to excrete less phosphorous in its feces. Enviropig™ was developed by researchers at the University of Guelph in Ontario.

The company Aquabounty has genetically engineered Atlantic salmon to grow up to 4 times faster than normal and has submitted the fish for regulatory approval in the United States but not yet in Canada. The fish could be approved anytime but the company says they should get approval in the US in 2009.

Canadian regulators are not prepared to evaluate GE fish properly. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has abandoned its own work to develop policy on GE fish (see the Auditor General's report).

Did you know that there are already GE-Free Zones in Canada?

• In 2004, Powell River in BC became the first GE Free Zone in the country.
• The Village of Kaslo (January 13, 2009), the City of Rossland (May 11, 2009) and the City of Nelson (November 3, 2008) in BC have all passed GE Free Resolutions.

The Society for a GE Free BC with GE Free Kootenays, and GE Free Yukon are working hard to secure GE Free Zones.

City of Rossland, B.C. Adopts G.E. Free Resolution

May 11, 2009: “Moved by Councillor Charlton / Seconded by Councillor Spearn

THAT the City of Rossland oppose the cultivation of genetically engineered plants and trees, by using transgenic engineering, in the municipality; and that the City of Rossland will not purchase genetically engineered plants and trees for its own use; and that the City of Rossland agrees to revisit the resolution as pertinent new information becomes available that affects this resolution; and the City of Rossland shall forward copies of this resolution to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Interior Health, B.C. Ministry of Health, B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, B.C. Provincial Health Officer, the Prime Minister of Canada, The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada, CropLife Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, local MLA and MP offices and any interested and related groups. “

City of Nelson Passes GE-Free Resolution

November 3, 2008: "The City of Nelson does not support the cultivation of genetically engineered plants and trees in the Municipality of Nelson and further that council will not purchase for its own operations GE plants or trees. The City of Nelson agrees to revisit this as pertinent new information becomes available that affects this resolution and further that the City of Nelson shall forward copies of the resolution to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Union of BC Municipalities, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada, CropLife Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, local MLA and MP offices and any interested and related groups for comment."

CBAN is a Steering Committee Member of the North American STOP GE Trees Campaign and is working with groups across the world for a ban on GE trees.

Groups Sue U.S. Dept. of Ag Over GM Tree Field Tests Approval

July 1, 2010: An alliance of conservation organizations today sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture over its approval of open-air field tests of a genetically engineered (GE) hybrid of eucalyptus tree across the southern United States. The permit, issued to a company called ArborGen, which is a joint initiative of International Paper, MeadWestvaco and Rubicon, was approved May 12 with minimal environmental review. It authorizes the experimental planting and flowering of a new, genetically engineered hybrid on 28 secret sites across seven southern states — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas.

ArborGen hopes its GE “cold-tolerant” Eucalyptus will become widely planted for pulp and biomass. But eucalyptus trees are not native to the United States and are known to become invasive, displacing native wildlife and plants in various areas around the country and increasing wildfire risk. Click here for more information on the case.

U.S. government approval of GE eucalyptus trees sets a dangerous precedent to allow other experimental GE forest trees, including poplar and pine, that would inevitably and irreversibly contaminate native trees with destructive GE traits, devastating forest ecosystems and wildlife. Once GE trees escape, there is no way to call them back. The only way to stop genetic contamination of native forests is to ban the commercial release of GE trees before it is too late.

Take Action

Groups can sign on to the demand to ban GE trees in Canada: Click here to sign on

47 groups signed the letter to the Government of Canada with the following demands:
Click here to see the full letter
Click here to just view the list of 47 groups.

For the health and future of Canada’s forest ecosystems and those around the world:

1. We, the undersigned, ask for an end to existing field trials in Canada and an end to approvals for field trials of genetically engineered trees in Canada.

2. We ask for an end to the use of public funds for field-testing and an end to field-testing at government research stations.

3. We call upon the Canadian Government to support a global moratorium on field testing, planting and commercial use of genetically engineered trees because of the serious risks they pose to biological diversity and to forest ecosystems in Canada and across the world.Sign on here.

Background

Field Trials in Canada:
o In Canada, there have been only one or two field trials in any given year since 1997.
o Since 2000, open-air field tests have only been carried out by government researchers at the Canadian Forest Service, not by private companies.
o Currently (2008) there is only one open-air trial in Canada, on a genetically engineered poplar, at the Laurentian Forestry Centre in Quebec.

• Genetically Engineered Trees: Basic Background
• "GE Trees, Cellulosic Biofuels & Destruction of Forest Biological DIversity Feb 2008 (pdf 10 pages)

“GE trees have the potential to wreak ecological havoc throughout the world’s native forests. GE Trees could also impact wildlife as well as rural and indigenous communities that depend on intact forests for their food, shelter, water, livelihood and cultural practices. As a geneticist, I believe there are far too many unknown and unanswered questions to be growing genetically engineered plants— food crops or trees—in open fields. GE trees should not be released into the environment in commercial plantations and any outdoor test plots or existing plantations should be removed." -- Dr. David Suzuki

Provincial Opposition:
o In Alberta: The Alberta Forest Genetic Resources Council “does not recommend the use of GMOs for reforestation at this time”
o In British Columbia: The Ministry of Forests and Range “has ensured that no genetically modified tree seed has been registered or used” on crown land.

“GE trees have the potential to wreak ecological havoc throughout the world’s native forests. GE Trees could also impact wildlife as well as rural and indigenous communities that depend on intact forests for their food, shelter, water, livelihood and cultural practices. As a geneticist, I believe there are far too many unknown and unanswered questions to be growing genetically engineered plants— food crops or trees—in open fields. GE trees should not be released into the environment in commercial plantations and any outdoor test plots or existing plantations should be removed." -- Dr. David Suzuki

The Canadian Forest Service is conducting field trials of GE poplar in Quebec – trials that may already pose contamination threats to Canadian forests. Even without these trials, the field trials currently underway in the United States could pose a significant threat to Canadian forest ecosystems. This is one reason why CBAN collaborates closely with our colleagues in the US.

GE trees pose a greater threat of contamination than seen with GE crops, largely because trees live for decades, have so many nearby wild relatives and their pollen travels hundreds of miles. The scenario of contamination from trees genetically engineered to be insect resistance via Bt (as in recent government field trials in Quebec), for example, warns of serious biodiversity impacts as Bt targets lepidoptera, a main food source for many birds.

Natural Resources Canada is discussing the use of “Terminator technology” (genetically engineered sterile seed technology) to contain genetic pollution from GE trees. This raises a new level of concern since Terminator would not function 100% but would create new risks from the spread of Terminator genes and sterility traits, for example.

Other News

May 4, 2010, Press Release - New Studies Expose Potential Risks of GMO Trees

April 5, 2010: Gone with the Wind: Far-flung Pine Pollen Still Potent Miles from the Tree

Claire Williams of the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent) in the U.S. and her colleagues have found that pollen from the loblolly pine can still germinate after drifting long distances. Williams and her colleagues used a hand-held device called a spore sampler to capture and analyze pollen found off the southeastern coast of the U.S. Sampling by helicopter and by ferry, they found viable pine pollen as far as 2,000 feet in the air and 25 miles offshore. "Until then, the highest pine pollen had ever been found in the atmosphere was 1000 feet," comments Williams. The research findings have been published in the American Journal of Botany.

GM loblolly pine has not been approved for commercial planting. GM varieties are planted in the U.S. in field trials, however. The researchers say heir finding means that it would be difficult to contain the pollen from GM loblolly pine trees. The long life span of pine trees makes it difficult to evaluate the environmental impacts of GM varieties, adds Williams. The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Report from the UN Meeting May 2008

Governments at the UN meeting in May 2008 failed to ban GE trees You can read the CBAN Daily Blog from the UN meeting in Germany to find out what exactly happened Read the Press Release from May 22: Canada Tries to Eliminate Moratorium Request on GE Trees

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity could have established an international moratorium on the field testing and commercial release of GE trees at the major COP9 meeting May 19-30 in Germany. But Canada, Brazil, and Colombia, with Australia and New Zealand worked against this proposal from African countries.

CBAN joined with international partners to present the potential negative impacts of GE Trees.

• Click here to read the CBAN briefing to the United Nations meeting. (6 pages)
• This briefing is a critique of the background document prepared by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (17 pages)
• CBAN has also signed the international open letter demanding a ban on genetically engineered (GE) trees.

CBAN is a Steering Committee Member of the North American Stop GE Trees Campaign and is working with colleagues across the world in the call for a ban on GE trees.