These are some of the principles adopted by Canadian Unitarians that inform the position of our denomination regarding biotechnology, or more specifically, the genetic engineering of plants and animals. The business aspects of biotechnology are now referred to as "The Life Sciences Economy" by government and the genetic engineering industry.

After almost twenty years of promotion and generous financing by governments, a number of characteristics of genetic engineering are of concern to Canadian Unitarians:

1. Genetic engineering (GE) has provided no benefits to consumers.
2. The Canadian regulatory system as it pertains to the products of genetic engineering is inadequate to safeguard the well-being of Canadians, according to the report of an Expert Panel established by the Royal Society of Canada.
3. Benefits to farmers range from slight, for large operators with serious weed problems; to seriously negative for many farmers through lower yields, contamination of crops, and loss of markets.
4. Growing domination of food production by five trans-national "Life Sciences" corporations is rapidly diminishing the biodiversity of farm crops. This has serious implications for global food security.
5. Seeds, the common heritage of humankind and the basis of life on earth, are being patented and privatized by corporate interests. This process violates the rights of indigenous farmers around the world, and appropriates crop varieties developed by public institutions in Canada.
6. A great increase in corporate influence over the science agenda of our public universities and research institutions has turned out to be a serious consequence of government encouragement of GE development. This emphasis on GE has also greatly diminished public interest research related to agriculture and food. Minimal funding is now devoted to research and extension related to sustainable or organic food production.
7. Government information services related to genetic engineering are devoted entirely to its promotion, with no reference to its drawbacks. This lack of balance seriously reduces citizen confidence in information related to food and agriculture supplied by government.
8. The genetic engineering industry is based on the patenting of living organisms, first legally permitted by the US supreme court in 1980 and subsequently imposed on the rest of the world. Patenting of life forms is adamantly opposed by many leading scientists for the shackles it places on the free exchange of scientific information, and for the corporate takeover of life sciences it facilitates. Many people find the patenting and privatization of life to be morally repugnant.

1. Immediate adoption by the Government of Canada of the Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology, prepared by the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) at the request of the Government of Canada. This panel of distinguished scientists found the regulation of food biotechnology in Canada to be seriously flawed. Implementing its recommendations will benefit all Canadians.
2. That consumers be fully informed on all aspects of the safety of GE foods, and provided with sufficient information to enable them to make intelligent choices. Labelling all products of genetic engineering will facilitate such consumer choice.
3. That a moratorium be imposed on the licensing of all new GE products until a redesign of the regulatory system is in place assuring the safety of these products for long-term consumption, as prescribed by the RSC Expert Panel report.
4. That licensing of GE products be restricted to those that respect and protect the rights of farmers who do not wish to use them, for citizens who do not wish to consume them, and for the environment, which must not be compromised by them.
5. That the autonomy of farmers and the promotion of sustainable, community-based agriculture adapted to local ecosystems be recognized as the cornerstone of a stable food supply around the world.
6. That public funds at least equivalent to those invested in genetic engineering be invested in research into and encouragement of sustainable agriculture and organic farming.
7. That GE research funded in whole or in part by public funds must include investigations into the implications of GE products for farm and community sustainability and the preservation of natural ecosystems.
8. That debate be encouraged into the scientific, moral and economic implications of patenting and privatizing living organisms.

June, 2001