Can you imagine municipal bylaws in your community with disclosure statements like.
We Quebec agree with Health Canada and other OECD Countries that 2,4-D is safe to use and safe in the environment , but we are going to ban it based on a gut feeling.
Local food bans have teeth
Langley Advance
I am part of a large group of concerned people of B.C. who have been directly and indirectly, collectively and singly working towards seeing that more and more municipalities declare themselves as GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) or GE (Genetically Engineered organisms) free.
Sixty-two such communities in B.C. have already declared themselves GE free, the latest of which was North Vancouver. It also passed a resolution to work towards passing a by-law that bans production or sale of any GM item, whether food crop or animal or tree.
We have, through scientists such as Genetic Engineer Dr. Thierry Vrain, Ex Health Canada Scientist Dr. Shiv Chopra, genetic Engineer Dr. David Suzuki, and many others around the world, that the very science used in Genetic Engineering is based on a backdated and now proven to be false idea about how genes work. The collateral damage of GMO technology to the entire genomic ecosystem is a dangerous game of roulette that has multiple levels of potential harmful side effects that are not fully studied, and not clearly understood yet.
Therefore, there is a need for precautionary principle to be used, and GMO should be rigorously tested by independent labs that cannot be influenced by corporations of politicians, towards safety of humans, of ecology and safety of natural bio-diversity of a region, not to mention aspects of food freedom and seed independence.
Meanwhile, we have been checking what legal avenue might be available for citizen groups to legally challenge introduction of potentially harmful and yet untested and unverified (by any independent Canadian organization) GMO on the public that could have possible long term and irreversible harm to health and ecology.
We are aware of the case of Hudson versus Canada, where the Municipality had passed a by-law banning sale of cosmetic lawn pesticide, and was challenged by the lawn sprayers and producer group in successive levels of regional courts in Quebec and then at the Supreme Court of Canada. All those challenges were overturned and the Municipality retained its ban. We take this is a precedence setting event proving that Municipalities and communities could in effect ban the production and/or sale of a product that it considers harmful, even if it might have been approved by Health Canada.
There is an uncertainty and confusion in the mind of the public, as to how far a ban can have legislative teeth, and where provincial and federal jurisdiction can override and nullify wishes of the people of communities, towns, districts, and municipalities.
Wally Martin, Murrayville
