Evidence of meeting #26 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gmo.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council
In a really truly greatly limited way, it would still exist.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Let me ask you this question. I was reading an article from The New York Times of May 14. It's not that I read The New York Times all the time, but somebody sent me this article. It's by Pamela Ronald, a professor at the University of California, and James McWilliams, a professor at Texas State University.
They talked about the incredible benefits of GE products: drought-tolerant cassava, insect-resistant cowpeas, fungus-resistant bananas, and virus-resistant sweet potatoes. All produce larger yields and help developing countries to deal with poverty. They talked about “golden rice” containing provitamin A, which is saving the lives of thousands of children in the Philippines.
They went on to talk about more regulations. They say they just got back from a tour of Canada where a lot of farmers said there were so many regulations—some of them inconsistent with those of other countries—that the standards have ceased to make their industry competitive.
They talk about competitiveness. They say that more regulations will make us less competitive to the extent that foundations and smaller companies that might otherwise be engaged in GMO are being forced out of the industry because they can't afford, or will not be able to afford, all the research that goes into meeting all of these regulations. They say that opposition to genetic engineering has driven the technology further into the hands of a few seed companies that can afford it, further encouraging their monopolistic tendencies while leaving it out of reach for those who want to use it for crops with low or non-existent profit margins.
Do you see the problem?
4:10 p.m.
President, Imperial Seed (1979) Ltd.
We agree that there's a lot of great new technology coming down the road. You have to realize that a lot of that technology is realistically 10 to 20 years away. That's good technology. That technology that you speak of, the golden rice, is improving the fitness of the plant. It is much different from the issue we're dealing with here.
We're talking about Roundup Ready alfalfa—the only technology there is that they can spray a herbicide on it. That's not consumer acceptance. If the fitness of the plant was really improved, then you would have marketplace acceptance. The plant would have been changed to benefit the world. Right now, the only change in that plant is benefiting Monsanto and putting money in their pocket, helping to create a monopoly.
If they came out with technology such as golden rice that the world would benefit from, I'm sure the Europeans would view GM technology very differently. So far, though, GM technology is just herbicide-tolerant crops, period. There are very few species we're growing—the corn, the soybeans, the maize—that have actually improved the fitness of the plant. The majority of these crops are just straight herbicide-tolerant, thus eliminating choices for producers and creating the monopoly.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you all for your testimony.
Mr. Einarson, you called Bill C-474 a first step. What do you see happening once the bill is passed? This bill requires an analysis of potential harm to exports. What do you envision after that?
You did not understand my question. I will ask it differently.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Can you hear the translation when I am speaking this time? Now I will switch to Spanish!
4:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh! Oh!
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you all for your testimony.
Mr. Einarson, I am speaking to you. In your remarks, you said you saw Bill C-474 as a first step.
If the bill is passed, if we go ahead with this analysis of potential harm to exports, what do you think the next steps should be? What would you envision happening next?
4:15 p.m.
Director and Secretary Treasurer, Manitoba Forage Seed Association Inc.
I would envision that in further steps we would perhaps have consultation with some of the producer groups throughout Canada to get their views and feelings on what we can do to protect the primary producer.
The Manitoba Forage Seed Association is a producer group. Our focus is on doing what is best for the primary producer. Right now we have little or no say in what happens to our industry; laws are made, but this is the first time I've ever had a chance to comment on a bill. What I would see as the next step after Bill C-474 is consultation with producer groups such as the Manitoba Forage Seed Association or the Manitoba Forage Council. There are various other groups across Canada that are producer-driven.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Lintott, you mentioned consumers. You sort of danced around this question, although you did not refer to it specifically: would you be in favour of mandatory labelling for any product on store shelves that contains genetically modified organisms?
I think that could also be an important first step. A little earlier, you said that consumers wanted the right to choose what they want but that you were not opposed to GMOs. That is very similar to our position. We do not want to ban GMOs, but we do want consumers to have the information and to be able to choose for themselves.
We also support this bill because I think we need to make the analysis more targeted, to ensure that what we sell to other countries does not harm us.
Do you think mandatory labelling could also be an important step? I am asking all of you.
4:15 p.m.
Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council
Mandatory labelling for GMO content in Canada hasn't become as great an issue as it has in other countries, but I'm involved in the production and marketing of some near-organic products and we have been astounded by the uptake. We produce both natural grain-finished beef and grass-fed beef. There are some production issues involved in that. As we worked our way through those production issues, we discovered that there was an amazing amount of demand for a product that we were actually having a hard time to produce, and that people were more educated than we had anticipated and more willing to pay a premium than we had anticipated.
When it comes to looking at the domestic requirement for GMO content labelling, I don't think it's something that we can say we don't need or do not want. The consumer base has a surprising amount of knowledge and would be more than willing to vote with its dollars and its feet to tell decision-makers like those in this room what it actually wants. That's an interesting part of labelling, in that it does allow you to make that vote every day with your dollars. That's important. I think there would be a lot of support for that in Canada, and as a producer I'm not against it.
I think everybody in Canada knows how we produce the canola oil that we put on our bread everyday. We look at canola oil as a desirable product. I think we're very proud of it as Canadians. We are quite aware of the advantages it has over other products in the marketplace.
I don't see that being an issue. I think that's a positive step and I think it could be a very interesting one in how it actually works out in the marketplace.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
The bill has been criticized by GMO industry stakeholders. They have told us that we do not really need to make regulations since the industry already has a program. In fact, the industry itself looks after approving new crops for export markets. But it is important to understand that the program is voluntary, and that makes all the difference.
Mr. Atamanenko's bill says that the government will now be involved, through regulation. It seeks to make an analysis mandatory under the regulations, not simply to have the companies do the analysis themselves. Those results are not always available, although there are examples to show that an analysis was really done. One example that comes to mind is that of a genetically modified beet that was marketed in 2009. It was ready in 2005. So it took four years before processors and the company were certain that introducing it would not have an effect on their markets.
Under Mr. Atamanenko's bill, however, we would not have to wait for companies to decide whether a product was worth marketing or not. That way, producers would not have to go through what happened with China, when it decided to ban North American canola, rapeseed and soya. The way I see it, this bill is like a safety valve. I would like to hear your thoughts.
4:20 p.m.
President, Imperial Seed (1979) Ltd.
I agree that it would be, like I say, a safety valve. You have to understand that when we start talking about alfalfa, we're talking about a perennial crop. To my knowledge, it's the second GM perennial crop that has been introduced, Roundup Ready bentgrass being the first, which has been banned for sale for 10 years to 12 years in the United States also, strictly due to contamination of unwanted seeds in undesired areas, in the public areas. Any way that we can assist Alex's bill is going to be a benefit for Canada and for producers.
On a second note, yes, I am in favour of GM labelling.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
June 7th, 2010 / 4:20 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Thanks again for coming and sharing your knowledge and expertise.
Before I ask a question, I just wanted to address something that Frank mentioned on the article he quoted. I think we have a misconception that any new potential breakthroughs in improving the quality of the plant have to be through GM. I would just like to note for the record that there are many non-GM breakthroughs.
For example, Australia has a new salt-tolerant wheat said to bring life to dead farmland. In Japan, non-GM drought-resistant rice is in the pipeline. Zambia has a better non-GM maize harvest. In South Africa, GM drought-tolerant maize is way behind non-GM. In the Philippines, there is new non-GM drought-resistant corn. New Delhi has indigenous rice that is better than GM rice for dealing with stress. The list goes on and on.
Sometimes we hear from the industry that although now we have just HT and Bt traits in our GM, we're looking at the future, and we're going to feed the world. I would just like to say that's not necessarily the case.
The other thing I'd like to address is the idea of competitiveness and regulations. It seems to me that in this case, after what you've told us, having regulations would ensure your competitiveness. By not having the regulations, you wouldn't be competitive. So that's kind of... You know, we're often given this spin that the more regulations there are, it's cumbersome, but in this case it seems that this would be the way to go.
It's my understanding from listening to you that contamination seems to be really actually more difficult to control with the perennials than the annuals. I would just like to get some comments.
Kurt, you sent a memo to me in March that I shared with members of the committee. In it, you quote some of the experience in the United States. I'd just like to get other comments on this. You mentioned that:
...Monsanto and FG International have not been truthful and have not followed their own stewardship protocol in the US or worse, they are proving now to be ineffective. FG International placed production acres of [Roundup Ready alfalfa] in all parts of the production area of the U.S. when they were limited only to a specific production area.
This action demonstrates what their true intentions are, pollute the land everywhere, then the gene is out and let others worry about it.
So this speaks to the whole idea: can we really contain a GE alfalfa?
You've talked about the benefits to blueberries and hybrid canola with the bees and about feral alfalfa. Maybe I could get some comments from you folks on this.
4:25 p.m.
President, Imperial Seed (1979) Ltd.
I'll speak first.
The gene cannot be contained, period. It is a perennial plant. When that alfalfa is in flower and a pollinator comes and lands on that flower and then goes to a non-GMO plant, the seeds produced from that plant will be Roundup Ready.
As stated in the information packages that I've provided, Cal/West Seeds has approached me. They are a large co-op seed company in the United States that has been monitoring the Roundup Ready alfalfa situation, and I believe that in 2008 3% of their lots were contaminated, and in 2009, 12%; they openly admit that this is just a sign of the times, this is what we're going to do.
Because as this seed now becomes Roundup Ready alfalfa, there are going to be more plants slowly able to cross-pollinate and contaminate all of them. So it is impossible for the gene to... And I do speak my opinion when I say such things: I do believe that they recognize the issues, because in their stewardship protocol they addressed it, that there is going to be transfer flow, which you won't have Monsanto Canada acknowledge.
They recognize that there is transfer flow. They were given specific areas of production where they had to abide by those areas, but instead they turned around and produced it all over the place.
For a lack of terminology, I'll say that once the barn door is open, it's open; the gene is there. In Canada, we're already at great enough risk with the idea of low-level presence. They can legally have it in seed that has been brought up into Canada. From there, it's as we were talking about earlier, in that it's a very minute and slow process compared to the commercial release of their product, but it still puts us at risk.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
4:25 p.m.
Chairman, Manitoba Forage Council
I've spoken both to the canola producers and to the flax producers, and I've spoken to many dairy farmers in southeastern Manitoba. Even farmers who don't know much about the bill say when you explain it to them that it would probably be handy some days to have a Roundup Ready product, but they wouldn't want it because it would probably drive them nuts down the road with the other problems it would create. That's from farmers who haven't put more than a moment's thought into it, other than the moment when they were presented with it.
The most important and biggest thing I have found from everybody I've spoken to is “pass the bill”. That's number one. There's not much fear of the bill, although there's a lot of fear in the discussion out there. There's a very interesting discussion from a political point of view. There's a lot of discussion out there about the fear of what could happen. It's not about the bill.
What producers are really worried about is this point about our losing control of the regulations behind the bill: we want the bill and we want to be part of everything that goes behind it. A perfect example of this is the Canola Council.
The Canola Council has a group that approves all varieties for registration in western Canada. Included in that group are eight import countries. So they say on the one hand that the council should not give its rights and decision-making over to the other countries, but they have given it to eight of their import countries, which are their most important customers, and that is what you should be doing.
You should be going to your customers first and asking, “What is it that you want?”. The customer is always right. I don't care who you are. Eaton's proved that for half a century. The customer is always right. You must look after your customer first and then you deal with the negative issues out of that, going back to your own production systems and marketing systems.
But the customer is always right. You must focus on that and you must give producers the input they need, that they require, to make that a responsive and flexible system. The bill is perfect the way it stands. It's a perfect requirement. Why would you produce anything with no market for it?
The last thing I want in my farm is a bin full of something that there's no market for. What the heck would I want to produce that for? I must first have a market. That's why we have contracts. That's why there's so much movement in the canola industry for identity-preserved, value-added products that are pre-contracted all the way out.
In the foreign seed industry, Kurt does not sign a contract with any producer for seed production until he in fact has that production sold and the country importing that product knows who's going to buy that seed and why they're going to buy that seed. It's not speculative. We know exactly what our needs are in the industry and we produce to those needs.
And those needs change constantly. That's a moving target. Regulation must be there in the hands of the stakeholders to adjust to the moving target that is the marketplace. The bill must be there to force us to do that. But the criterion that we actually respond to has to be flexible. It cannot be part of the bill. The bill is perfect the way it stands. It's simple and we like it.
