Canada's Bill C-517 killed, Canadians denied mandatory labelling of GM foods

Well, after receiving no attention whatsoever in the mainstream media, it looks as if the private member's bill, Bill C-517, An Act to Amend the Food and Drugs Act (mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods) was kicked to the curb before even getting to the second reading stage to determine whether it should be passed on to a committee. Those who voted it down include Convervative MPs Preston Manning and Peter MacKay, as well as Liberal MPs Michael Ignatieff and Paul Zed (from Saint John, NB) and if you click on the link above, you'll get a complete list of which MP thinks you shouldn't have a right to know what goes into your food. There were 101 ''yays'', 156 ''nays'' and 18 paired votes. That's close enough that all it would have taken was a bit of reporting on this to get people's attention so that they'd pressure their MPs to vote to push it forward. Greenpeace Canada has more about it here.

Taylor Clark's ''Meatless Like Me'' and some ramblings on it

Tricia Woolfendon from The Grand Rapids Press' MLive.com wrote a short opinion piece about vegetarianism in response to Taylor Clark's recent piece for Slate called ''Meatless Like Me''. (Actually, if you do a line count, around a third of her piece is actually just a quote from Clark's.)

Woolfendon agrees with Clark's point that vegetarians don't really judge meat-eaters for eating meat. I agree with this to a limited extent. I mean, I don't see how most vegetarians or vegans could walk around in the world, otherwise. All of us are parts of social networks -- friends, family, coworkers, et al. -- that consist mostly of people who consume an omnivorous diet, and regardless of this, we love and like them for the sum of the individuals they are. We deal with it every single day and it's the status quo; that being said, it doesn't mean that we have to like that it's the status quo, or that we should even resign ourselves to it. And it shouldn't have to mean that not liking it or not resigning ourselves to it makes us ''bad'' vegetarians and vegans. It's especially disheartening to me to see vegetarians judging and shaming other vegetarians for having ethical convictions and for not pretending that they don't process and filter life around them (to a certain extent) according to what they value.

Woolfendon also takes it further by saying that she doesn't really care what meat-eaters consume. I think that anyone with real ethical concerns about animal consumption, whether willing to admit it or not, does indeed care about the big picture. We do wish that people would minimize their meat consumption. Less meat consumed means less animals spending lives of suffering until they're slaughtered; less meat consumed means less water and cropland wasted, and less havoc wreaked on our environment. And when it comes to family members, whose health and longevity we cherish, less meat consumed means lower cholesterol, lower rates of obesity and less cancer. You don't have to be preachy to care, and not being preachy doesn't mean that you don't care; not judging does not equate not caring. And although Woolfendon may think that bringing this out in the open (see her link to PETA's factsheets) means you're wagging a finger at others, it doesn't; it just means that you're stating facts. When PCRM publishes an article about the negative health effects of eating meat, they're not judging; they're reporting findings from scientific studies.

Woolfendon does take issue with Clark's assertion that vegetarians '''know' that meat tastes good''. I second Woolfendon's exception to that. I get this from one of my well-meaning omni friends all the time -- her voice takes on a complicit purr and she tries to elicit a confession out of me that surely I must have overpowering memories of the mesmerizing deliciousness of this or that piece of meat and that I just don't want to admit it. The thing is that I really don't. Many vegetarians or vegans find the very sight or smell of meat repulsive, just by virtue of having come to terms with the realization of what's done to animals to serve them up on a plate. It's called association. (And even Clark ends up touching upon this in his Slate article, mentioning how certain types of meat have become gross to him after years of vegetarianism; he only does so, however, after overstating his visceral attachment to the smell and taste of bacon.)

Clark brings up the existence of so many meat analogs on the market as some sort of proof that other vegetarians also crave the taste of meat. Sure, there are a lot of fake meat products on the market, but the thing is that there are actually a lot of non-vegetarians buying them, too. For instance, I have friends who feed their kids soy-dogs rather than meat-based hot-dogs, because of the sodium, preservatives and fat content of the meat-based ones. I try to avoid meat analogs, since although some of them are nicely fortified with vitamins and minerals (like B12), most seem to be high in sodium and are often made using GMO soy. I ate more of them while living with my omni spouse (who adored them).

Woolfendon ends her article echoing Clark's call to chefs everywhere to provide more inventive (i.e. vegetarian dishes in restaurants that are more than leafy greens on a plate). I have to say that over the past couple of years, I've found more and more places -- even a lot of the local pubs in my small city -- offering a wider diversity of vegetarian options. It's not uncommon to find grilled or raw vegetable wraps, pasta dishes, stir fries or veggie-burgers anymore. Interest in meat-free products is on the rise in the mainstream, and this is being reflected in restaurant options. Vegan options are still a dismally altogether different story, however...

With regards to Clark's article itself, I was glad to see him address the issue with folks who refer to themselves as vegetarians, although they still eat fish or chicken. He points out -- and rightly so -- that ''unless we're talking about the kind of salmon that comes freshly plucked from the vine, this makes you an omnivore''. On the other hand, I was disappointed that he chose to marginalize vegans, limiting what he says about them to: ''they call themselves vegan, which rhymes with 'tree men' These people are intense.'' It's funny how an article that seems to diminish perceived differences between vegetarians and non-vegetarians would segregate one type of vegetarians in that manner.

The overall tone of the article seems almost apologetic. ''Hey guys, I'm just like you -- I even wear leather shoes! See?'' It's as if in purportedly attempting to demystify the relationship between vegetarians and non-vegetarians, Clark also attempts to portray an image of vegetarians as being indistinct from non-vegetarians, and although in most ways they are, I think that in some significant and more weighty ways -- the underlying reasons to what's on their respective plates -- they aren't. And although blurring that over may make dinner conversation a bit more light, it leaves me with a sense that the only good vegetarian is a closet vegetarian, or a vegetarian who shuts up and keeps his vegetarianism to himself, and I'm certain that won't benefit any cow or pig destined for the slaughterhouse in the long run and in a sense, I feel it's being a bit hypocritical in how one presents oneself to the world. As a lovely vegan friend once said to me when I'd mentioned my reluctance to out myself at work: ''There's no shame in being a vegetarian!'' I'm pretty well sure that lecturing and proselytizing aren't the way to go, but I'm even more sure that pretending that one's reasons for becoming a vegetarian should be kept private under fear of social ostracism. I think there's important gray area that should be explored when it comes to how we walk around in the world as vegetarians or vegans, without shame or fear of reprisal and least of all, fear or reprisal from your fellow vegetarians. And I can't help but feel an underlying sense of that from both of these aforementioned articles. Just a whiff of it...

Food, Peak Oil and global warming

Michael Pollan wrote a kick-in-the-pants piece for the New York Times Magazine a few days ago. In it, he tackles the ''why bother?'' mentality that seems to be the elbow rest for the majority of people responding to the numerous calls for changes in our consumer habits as global warming and diminishing fossil fuels start to take their toll. He refers to it as a ''drop in the bucket'' issue, where people feel that any environmentally beneficial action they could take would just be too little and too late to have a significant impact. Consuming and behaving responsibly to minimize your ''footprint'' in terms of personal virtue (i.e. doing the right thing, just 'cause you know it's the right thing to do) now seems to be mocked far and wide in the media. So what's a person to do?

According to Pollan, you suck it up and jump in. Climate change comes from years of our having developed (and thoroughly enjoyed) lifestyles where cheap oil has left us lazy, lazy, lazy and relying on experts and quick fixes (for instance, why boil a potato when you can get a box of flakes?). Whatever the environmental repercussions. Pollan mentions a scene in the closing credits of An Inconvenient Truth where Al Gore asks everybody to change their light bulbs; according to Pollan, Gore probably can't imagine people doing anything much more challenging than that. We've become complacent and have lost any sense of connection we once had to the earth, as well as to the living creatures that populate it. Convenience has gotten us used to not having to do anything for ourselves. Specialists grow our food, heal us when we're sick, entertain us when we're bored. Why change the status quo?

'Cause the status quo ain't the status quo anymore, kids. That cheap oil has run out and the polar bears need lifeboats.

In response to that nagging ''why bother?'', Pollan asserts: ''To set an example for others!'' To plant a seed, sorta. Well, literally, too. Pollan suggest that one thing we could -- and should -- do is get off our sofas and grow some food. Even just a little bit. In doing so, we lower our usage of fossil fuels, we get (gasp!) a bit of exercise, and we get in touch with the land and that sense of satisfaction that comes from having nurtured a plant from seedling to fruit.

Annie Leonard's The Story of Stuff

Annie Leonard's The Story of Stuff examines -- in a clever, clear and concise manner -- the cycle of consumerism that was kick-started around the end of WWII in the United States (although the same could be said for Canada or other Western countries). For a better version of it, as well as for more information on the video, go to the Story of Stuff website.

Meet your Meat

This short video, narrated by Alec Baldwin and produced by PETA, has been circulating for quite a spell. For those of you who aren't strangers to vegetarianism, veganism or animal ethics, you're likely already well aware of Meet Your Meat and may very well have seen it already. Regardless of what they think about PETA, most folks with whom I've spoken who have seen it agree that it's impossible to walk away from it without its somehow impacting your choices as a consumer.

If you've never seen footage before of the conditions in which animals are raised for human consumption, be forewarned that this isn't light viewing. I think, however, that it's necessary viewing if you're interested in living the sort of authentic existence life where you make your decisions as a consumer while keeping your eyes wide open.

The Ethicurean and rBGH

I love The Ethicurean. It's not a vegetarian blog, but it's one of my favourite blogs out there now dealing with the ethics of consumption, both in terms of the actual information that's presented, as well as how it's presented . There are different contributors and they discuss topics such as organic farming, food labelling, animal welfare, changes in legislation, the biotech industry, etc. It's definitely worth bookmarking if any of these areas are of concern to you.

Someone posted an open letter to Monsanto there yesterday, listing off the small roadblocks they've been hitting during the lobbying they've been doing in the US to prevent dairy farmers or producers from labelling their milk rBGH-free (rBGH or recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone is manufactured by Monsanto and marketed under the name POSILAC). I was grinning from ear to ear reading it. Monsanto's take on it is that having some dairy products labelled rBGH-free would invariably lead consumers to believe that there's something wrong with it, which would in turn lead to consumers avoiding dairy products coming from cows who've been injected with it.

The Organic Consumers' Association website has a section dealing with the rBGH issue, featuring everything from news stories about it to lists of rBGH-free producers and companies. They also spell out all of the reasons its usage ranges from problematic to outright dangerous, both to cows, as well as to the humans who consume the dairy products coming from cows injected with it.

Free Popcorn!

There's a non-profit media arts collective in Montreal that calls itself "überculture" that's kick-started a project called Cinema Politica, which they describe on their website as "a cross-Canada grassroots network of political cinema exhibition sites showcasing independent Canadian artists". Filmmaker/journalist Avi Lewis is quoted as calling it "a much-needed head-butt to the corporate movie machine".

For the past few weeks, while zipping around downtown on my bike, I've been seeing these posters up everywhere promoting various socio-political documentaries being screened at Conserver House on St. John St. on Friday evenings. I finally stopped and took note of the contact information and checked out the organizers' web page.

"Fredericton: Friday Night Docs" is the name of the weekly event. Donations are accepted in lieu of an actual admission, free popcorn is provided and after each documentary, discussion of the subject-matter covered is encouraged. I'm particularly excited about a screening of the documentary Earthlings they'll be holding on October 19. For anybody who's interested in viewing this documentary and who may be outside of the Fredericton area, it's available via Google Video. In a nutshell, it's about humanity's complete dependence on -- and disrespect of -- animals, through the pet and entertainment industries, through factory farming (and it's fur and leather production by-product), as well as through animal testing in the name of science and / or medicine The documentary's official website has much more detailed information about it.