Thank you very much.
I work in Ottawa as the coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. The network is a collaborative of 16 organizations across Canada, including international development organizations like InterPares and USC, farm associations and grassroots coalitions like the Society for a GE Free B.C., and the P.E.I. Coalition for a GMO-Free Province.
Our network is a testimony to the ongoing concerns of Canadians about the introduction of genetically engineered crops and foods. Our network is also highly concerned about the livelihoods of farmers in Canada. We want to make sure that consumer choices and government regulations support the ability of farmers to see a return on their investments and labour.
We are also, as are you, deeply concerned about finding a way to stop dangerous climate change. For example, we know that climate change already puts farmers at risk and threatens farmers' yields.
Finally, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network is concerned about the welfare of farmers in other countries, particularly those small-scale farmers in the global south. We're also concerned about the impact of rising food prices on global hunger and malnutrition.
So it is that we come to the issue of biofuels. The same debate as we're having here this evening is currently happening in countries the world over. In the rush to see the creation of a biofuels industry, many of the true consequences have not been anticipated, and we're only now beginning to understand how dramatic some of these are.
Mandating the use of biofuels opens the possibility that we may be committing in the long term to support feedstocks and technologies that are not carbon neutral, but will in fact increase greenhouse gas emissions. A major problem is that in the biofuels equation agriculture itself is a major contributor to greenhouse gases. The hope was that biofuels could be a win-win scenario for farmers and for the climate. Unfortunately, this mandate could in fact be a lose-lose investment, one that will dramatically change land use across the globe and jeopardize the biodiversity that we in fact need to face climate change.
In the United States and Europe, civil society organizations are calling for a moratorium on incentives for agrifuels-- biofuels--including a suspension of all targets. In Quebec, we understand there is a suspension to the construction of new corn ethanol plants. The U.K. government announced last week that its Renewable Fuels Agency will study the so-called indirect effects of biofuels, which are a grave concern for countries that will rely on importing biofuels from developing countries. These effects include human rights concerns, labour rights abuses on plantations, and the displacement of indigenous peoples and farmers from their land. For example, there are already documented cases of forceable removal in Colombia for oil palm plantations; destruction of forests, including critical habitat; increased pesticide use; and overuse of water. These concerns are also our concerns.
We're greatly concerned that government regulation to make biofuel content in fuels mandatory in Canada will have a number of immediate, but also long-term, effects and unintended consequences. A priority for the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network is our concern that biofuels will increase the acreage of genetically engineered crops. We're also concerned that the biofuels rush will be used to push open the door to new genetically engineered crops, including genetically engineered wheat and genetically engineered trees.
Increased acreage of genetically engineered canola, corn, soy, and now even possibly genetically engineered sugar beet will increase the contamination risk to organic and non-GE crops, as well as other environmental risks. Serious consequences for Canadian farmers have already been seen. For example, farmers have given up growing canola organically, except in very isolated geographical locations.
We're also concerned that the rush to establish a biofuels industry will be used to push through the introduction of genetically engineered wheat, despite the fact that Canadian consumers and our export markets have already rejected this product outright. And we do see that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is preparing the way for faster approvals of genetically engineered crops through proposals to change seed regulations, the seed program modernization.
Already corporate power in the seed sector will only grow stronger as crops are dedicated for biofuel production. This corporate concentration will, as always, translate into higher input prices for farmers and less choice in the marketplace.
There is a new case that illustrates very clearly the way in which biofuels are being used to open up markets to otherwise unattractive or irrelevant genetically engineered crops. In Prince Edward Island there's a company seeking provincial government subsidies to set up a biofuels plant that would rely on sugar beet, and in this case the biofuels plant is expected to be fuelled by Monsanto's new genetically engineered sugar beet--entirely by this sugar beet.
Finally, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network is extremely concerned about false promises for second- and third-generation biofuels that we see are propelling the industry forward. Like the unfulfilled promises for genetically engineered crops, the launch of government supports for the biofuels industry is predicated on faith and assumptions that new genetic engineering and synthetic biology technologies can make up for current shortcomings in feedstocks and the technologies to process them.
What we see is a pie-in-the-sky picture for a future that relies on technological fixes that do not yet exist. This is not a sound basis for moving ahead with expensive policy. These justifications are, we believe, dangerous because they rely on a promise that is unlikely to ever come to fruition. Instead, and more importantly, this reliance may actually lead to the release of genetically engineered crops and trees despite their extreme dangers.
This false and dangerous promise for the next generation, whatever generation that is, is why we now see a massive investment in the United States to genetically engineer poplar trees for cellulosic ethanol. In the U.S., universities and corporations and the United States Department of Energy are investing millions to genetically engineer poplar for biomass. Field tests in the United States of genetically engineered poplar, in particular, already post a clear and urgent threat to Canada's precious forest ecosystems.
There are already field tests in the United States of fast-growing trees genetically engineered to be low in lignin. These are engineered expressly to make the production of cellulosic ethanol cheaper and more efficient. Lignin is an important structural polymer. It's what holds the tree up. Lignin is significant in defending the tree from insects and disease. So while these genetically engineered trees may make processing wood for ethanol cheaper and easier, the environmental impacts of such a trait spreading through forests could be severe and would be irreversible.
The Canadian Forest Service is also conducting field tests of genetically engineered trees in Quebec. These Canadian government tests may feed directly into this project of genetically engineered trees for ethanol and they again pose immediately contamination threats.
Just last week a global protest of agrifuels, or biofuels, and genetically engineered trees was launched at a meeting of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network stands with these communities, and we hope that the desperate need to stop dangerous climate change does not translate into a dramatic misstep that would not only fail to stop climate change but would actually worsen various environmental problems, especially by opening the door to dangerous technologies, a door that should remain shut.
Thank you.