Monsanto and Propsition 19: GMO Terminator Cannabis

April: Here’s a post that may elicit a fair amount of “comments”. I warn you, this is loooooong….  It goes over, in detail, the “who’s who” in this scandal, and speaks of corporate control issues (we all know this by now). It also suggests that Monsanto may be bringing the Terminator Technology out of the closet, after paying almost $2Billion (if you add up the interest since 07) for the technology. Regardless of a world-wide moratorium in place, Monsanto is not letting Terminator go, and will surely try to recoup that money somehow, somewhere. And what better way to start than with hemp. But what interested me was the relationship to Guelph University: “Multi-national companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayor Crop Science, and Semex have set up in Guelph because of the ability to closely interact with research and the ease of access to human, capital, and government resources, as well as the ability to attract investment.” Enjoy…

radicaljusticeman | September 9, 2010

PROPOSITION 19, MONSANTO, AND GMO TERMINATOR CANNABIS

An article by D.M. Murdock written in August 2010 and entitled “Why hemp could save the world” states:

Terminator Technology and GMO: Van Dusen Gardens, September 2010

Conservative Party makes huge blunder in GMO email

Written by April Reeves, Director, GE Free BC

I was forwarded this email today from a colleague. It’s a response from Conservative MP Alice Wong regarding their stance on Bill C-474. This response clearly states how little the Conservative party thinks about our rights, freedom, and intelligence. Read on:

Dear Alice Wong, MP, Richmond, Conservative Party,

On April 28, 2010, you sent a response to a fellow named ‘Bruno Vernier’ regarding Bill C-474. I would like to remind you of this email, and I have a few comments about your response you should hear. Your email:

Dear Bruno,

You are absolutely correct that we are to represent the citizens of Richmond,

and that most of the e-mails we received asked us to vote for C-474. However,

our Parliamentary system isn’t totally based on referendum or constituency

majority wishes.  An MP isn’t just elected to a “puppet” of the electorate.

They are elected for their ability to lead as well as for their willingness to

follow consensus.  Yes, a good MP works hard at listening to his or her

consitutents and representing them well.  But by electing an MP, constituents

are also placing on them a mantle of authority, a “trust quotient” if you

will, to go to Ottawa and vote as they see best on issues of national

importance.  This may not always be the “popular” position and ultimately each

MP faces accountability for that at the election booth.  But they will also

run for reelection on their expertise and skill, not just on being a “puppet”

of constituents’ wishes. Parliamentary democracy has a lot of nuances to it

and there are some grey areas in how it plays itself out on the daily

political arena. The main objective of both sides was to support Canadian

farmers, and we listened to the large number of farmers who asked the

government to defeat this bill.

Voting against the C-474 was not an attempt to stifle debate over the issue.

Back in October 27, 2009, the Agriculture Committee passed a motion to study

genetically modified organisms, and the first hearing on the subject was held

on December 3. We agree that we should have a debate on the issue of GMOs in

committee; approving the substance of the bill in principle was not necessary

to facilitate that debate.

Although we have two differing opinions on the issue, I wish to thank you for

your civility and sharp grasp of the issues you advocate. We receive many

generic e-mails asking for support for different issues, but only a few take

the time to share their personal views and articulate them so well. Thank you

for dialoguing with us.

All the best,

Micah Au, Constituency Office of Alice Wong, MP for Richmond

– – –

Lets start at the beginning.

First off, you DO in fact work for the people who voted you in. It’s called Democracy, a term the Conservatives have forgotten about.

Terminator seed – What’s Canada’s true position?

Alert! Correct the Minister on Terminator!

By Lucy Sharratt, CBAN

Nov 18 2009

Contact Gerry Ritz today about Terminator

Minister of Agriculture, Gerry Ritz: Incorrect and alarming statements about Terminator in Canada

Our Minister of Agriculture has made incorrect statements on Terminator technology to Chinese officials – he stated that Canadian canola is Terminator! But this is absolutely wrong as Terminator has never been field tested or commercialized anywhere in the world.

On November 5th, the Manitoba Cooperator reported that the Minister said he told Chinese officials that they need not fear Chinese farmers growing Canadian canola because the seeds will not grow: “I assured
them that with the varieties we have now, it’s not going to work  because they all have Terminator seeds in them…”

Apparently Canada’s Minister of Agriculture does not know what Terminator technology is, does not know that there is an international moratorium on Terminator, and has not paid attention to the thousands of letters and postcards opposing Terminator sent by Canadians over the past 4 years.

The Minister’s statement leads us to ask: Why is the Minister not correctly informed about this highly controversial GM technology? What is the Government’s true position on Terminator? Would the
Conservative Government support the use of Terminator seeds if the technology was available?

We need to demand that the Minister correct his statements to Chinese officials and state the Government’s opposition to Terminator.

TAKE ACTION: