When Winnipeg resident Sara Peloquin was asked this spring to join Greenpeace protesters at an anti-GM wheat demonstration near Morden Man., she made the decision in a heartbeat.
“My mom grew up on a farm in western Manitoba and she’s always been really aware of where food comes from and how it’s produced,” said Peloquin.
“When it comes to genetically engineered foods, which I feel haven’t really helped farmers … it was an easy choice to do a demonstration like that.”
On June 5, Peloquin and a handful of other protesters travelled to the Agriculture Canada research centre near Morden, a town of 6,200 located 100 kilometres southwest of Winnipeg.
Read Also
Land crash warning rejected
A technical analyst believes that Saskatchewan land values could be due for a correction, but land owners and FCC say supply/demand fundamentals drive land prices – not mathematical models
They walked onto the grounds of the federal research facility and staged a mock quarantine to protest Ottawa’s role in researching and developing genetically modified wheat varieties.
Four demonstrators climbed onto the roof of an Agriculture Canada building and unfurled a banner urging Canadians to “Stop GM Wheat.” Another protester scaled a flag pole and displayed a biohazard warning sign. Yet another bound herself to the station’s front gates with a bicycle lock and remained there until emergency workers arrived with the Jaws of Life.
The local and national media were contacted and RCMP officers were called in to monitor the action.
Within hours of the protesters’ arrival, Morden, a normally quiet farming community in the heart of Manitoba’s wheat-growing region, was making international headlines as Greenpeace’s powerful publicity machine kicked into gear.
As Greenpeace actions go, the Morden demonstration, which involved 18 activists, was far from spectacular.
Greenpeace, which boasts 2.5 million members in more than 27 countries, is one of the most prominent environmental organizations in the world and has practically written the book on political activism.
Since its first campaign in 1971, a protest aimed at stopping nuclear weapon testing in Alaska, Greenpeace has spearheaded dozens of high-profile battles against organizations it considers to be the world’s worst environmental abusers.
Shell, Monsanto, MacMillan Bloedel, Suncor and Coca-Cola are just a few of the corporations that have locked horns with Greenpeace over the years. Agriculture Canada can now add its name to the list.
Holly Penfound, co-ordinator of Greenpeace Canada’s genetic engineering campaign, said the Morden demonstration was an opportunity to publicize the fact that Agriculture Canada is helping to develop a crop that will, according to Greenpeace, ruin Canadian wheat markets and have an unforeseen impact on the rural environment.
The Morden demonstration was significant for another reason, she said.
The anti-GM campaign has given Greenpeace an opportunity to join forces with
allies it feels are influential in agricultural policymaking, food production and grain marketing.
In July 2001, for example, when Greenpeace hosted a joint news conference in Winnipeg to voice concerns over GM wheat, it teamed up with representatives from the Canadian Wheat Board, the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskachewan, the National Farmers Union, Keystone Agricultural Producers and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities.
Later, when the House of Commons agriculture committee sought
public input on the issue, Greenpeace was among the groups that addressed Canadian lawmakers in Ottawa.
“We’ve been in solidarity with farmers on this issue for over three years now,” said Penfound.
“We will continue to send a strong message to the Canadian government in the variety of ways that Greenpeace operates, through scientific reports, through political work, through pressure on food companies, through consumer mobilization and through protests as well.”
In Canada, the list of activist groups fighting for animal rights and environmental protection issues includes dozens of organizations with agendas that range from the
benign to the extreme.
The Animal Liberation Front has taken animal rights issues to such an extreme that North American law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, have deemed it a threat to domestic security.
The ALF uses violence and destruction to influence companies that use animals for food production, medical research and other commercial purposes.
The loosely knit group is active in numerous countries and operates in clandestine cells to avoid detection.
In the past 20 years, ALF cells have claimed responsibility for a handful of so-called “animal liberation” activities in Canada, including the destruction of research facilities, trucks, buildings and retail outlets in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
In the United States and Europe, monetary damage caused by ALF members is valued in the millions of dollars each year.
A representative from the ALF declined to be interviewed by the Western Producer but in its most recent annual report, the North American ALF press office claimed its members had taken part in 48 illegal actions in 2002 including 28 acts of vandalism, eight captive animal releases, four cases of food tampering, three cases of document theft and three cases of arson.
“I believe the most successful way forward to an animal liberation is a multi-pronged attack on all fronts by different people,” said former ALF spokesperson David Barbarash in a recently published interview.
“While one group is lobbying government representatives for changes to legislation, another group is protesting and destroying labs, and at another time, the ALF will enter those labs to rescue the animals and destroy the implements of torture.”
Temple Grandin, an animal behaviour expert from Colorado State University, said it is important for agricultural producers to recognize the political influence that different groups exert on the food production industry.
Some animal welfare organizations have worked closely with producer groups to eliminate inhumane production methods that cause animal suffering and economic losses.
Animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have taken a more confrontational approach but have nonetheless been effective in influencing some production practices.
“I think pressure from animal rights groups starts things moving in a certain direction,” said Grandin.
“The (corporate) response to animal welfare issues has resulted in tremendous improvements over the past few years. But I think the livestock industry and food companies have been very proactive and very quick to respond as well.”
According to Grandin, food companies and the livestock industry have become attuned to the benefits of raising and slaughtering animals humanely.
Grandin also suggested that heightened consumer awareness and mounting concerns over food safety have convinced food companies and livestock producers to eliminate outdated production practices.
Concerns over so-called factory farming methods have also renewed interest in natural or traditional production.
“I think there’s going to be more and more people interested in animal welfare and there’s going to be more and more people interested in products like free-range eggs, organic beef, natural pork and those types of things,” she said.
“It all boils down to consumer demand and it’s not going to go away.”
It’s hard to determine how large a role animal interest groups have had in affecting food production techniques, but according to Susan Church, general manager of Alberta Farm Animal Care, animal rights groups like PETA were responsible for the formation of farm animal care groups in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta.
“AFAC was initially formed to counter what the animal rights movement was doing,” Church said. “But that actually became a secondary concern when we realized that the best way to counteract what the animal rights movement was doing … was to fix what needs fixing and to look for ways to improve.”
From PETA’s perspective, the corporate and industry response to animal rights issues has varied from one case to the next.
For the past 23 years, PETA has been waging war against individuals, companies and organizations that use animals for food, leather and fur production, medical research and any other commercial activity.
PETA spokesperson Dan Shannon said the organization, which has an annual budget of more than $15 million, uses the threat of protests to convince companies they should implement policies that reduce animal suffering.
For companies that refuse to co-operate, the consequences often include protests at franchises, negative publicity campaigns and attacks of the company’s corporate image.
He said even though PETA’s goal is to abolish livestock production, it recognizes that taking small steps toward its goal is better than taking no steps at all.
“We’ve been very effective as far as moving the McDonalds and Burger Kings of the world to change their policies and when we convince those companies to make changes, there’s going to be a trickle down effect,” said Shannon, who helped convince McDonald’s and other restaurant chains to ban practices such as debeaking hens and using farrowing crates for hog production.
“All their suppliers will be forced to make changes and the people below them will be forced to make changes as well.”
