Agriculture Committee on Feb. 9th, 2011

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Derek wanted to add to that.

[Derek Penner]

I have a couple of comments.

First of all, we do need a level presence policy in place. Mr. Van Acker alluded to zero not being realistic, and it is crystal clear that's not realistic along the supply value chain.

The one thing I would like to make mention of, which Mr. Van Acker also alluded to, is China. There are one billion people in China. China is investing 1% of its GDP in R and D specifically around biotechnology around the world. We in Canada and even North America are leaders in the regulatory and scientific approval process and in bringing forth biotech trades. We've been in the industry for 20 years, commercially for the last 15 years, and we need to take a leadership role in developing those policies.

At least from my viewpoint, a lot of the countries from around the world look to Canada as a leader in developing policies and procedures. With China coming on board, we really need to have something in place to have a nice dialogue with them. As Mr. Van Acker said, what are we going to say when these AP or LLP come into place when exports from China come to Canada? We need to have a solution and be ready, not be reactive.

That's my comment on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

We'll move to Mr. Bellavance.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I would first like to turn to Professor Raizada.

Since I know how perceptive Frédéric, our Library of Parliament analyst, is, I am sure that you will be quoted in the report that the committee is going to write. Your position is completely balanced. In fact, I have never personally seen groups opposed to biotechnology. But we have seen groups opposed to genetically modified organisms. So we have to look at things from both sides.

When you tell us, for example, that insulin is a genetically modified organism, as are a whole bunch of medications like whey and so on, I don't think that anyone at all familiar with the area will suggest that everything should stop because they are GMOs. So I am swayed by that kind of balanced opposition. I'm sure that I can also speak for my party, the Bloc Québécois, in that sense.

But you are also telling us that we do not have enough data yet. That means that we do not know all the effects on health and on the environment that genetically modified organisms can cause. So it is entirely healthy for this debate to be taking place. It is wrapped up in the whole question of social acceptance.

That being the case, I would like to turn to Mr. Penner.

In previous testimony to the committee, we have heard about the importance of communication and of information. For large companies, that very often means propaganda done by highly paid public relations people using all the means and resources at their disposal. They want to drive the idea into people's heads that their products are good.

What is important to me in communicating information is transparency, and I feel that the public wants that too. Consumers want to know exactly what is on their plate. Agricultural producers want to know what kinds of seeds they are using and what effect and economic impact those seeds have. The approach is different, but it is clearly vital.

With regard to Monsanto, I won't go right into your area because I am not sufficiently familiar with it. I would rather have your reactions to what is public, to what we know, without necessarily responding to each and every matter I'm going to briefly mention. Are you aware of the whole area of social acceptance?

Scientists have talked to this committee about contamination. It is a recognized fact, as is release. The monopoly you have is clearly causing problems in a number of countries. The United States Department of Justice is conducting hearings on this at the moment. In West Virginia, there are lawsuits against you about soya. You are also involved in a dispute with India, specifically about problems with parasite resistance.

We don't have to go very far to find issues of contamination. We have just come from Saskatchewan, where a 72-year-old farmer called Mr. Schmeiser lives. I'm not a Supreme Court of Canada judge, and I know he lost at the Supreme Court. But all the resources and money you used against that 72-year-old farmer could perhaps have been better used developing buffer zones, for example, zones protecting against the release of genetically modified seeds.

A 72-year-old man who had developed his own variety of canola found himself facing a giant like you in court. In terms of social acceptance, there was certainly a lot of media buzz about that. A huge multimillion-dollar company attacks a 72-year-old farmer who developed his own variety of canola, takes him to court and crushes him.

That is very much the tone of the debate. The history of large companies that make GMOs increases public concern. All your communication, all your information, however valid it may be, can be tarnished by examples like that, examples that people see, not only around the world, but also here in their own backyard.

Are you aware of that?

[Derek Penner]

Thank you, Mr. Bellavance, for your question. You loaded it up quite a bit; you addressed quite a few issues there.

First of all, I would say that Monsanto's policy, globally, is that we are transparent with what we're bringing to the market. We've always said that we work very closely with our stakeholders, both industry and consumers. If I take an example in Canada, we have a grower advisory council, which includes growers across Canada--western and eastern Canada stakeholders. We have the wheat growers association, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Canola Council of Canada, the Ontario farm grains association, which are all part of that. We work with them and we listen to the issues and concerns, because it is the farmers who are the centre of attention.

On addressing the monopoly issue, I think it's one of those things you think about back when biotechnology was first introduced in 1996. Yes, I would argue that Monsanto was an innovator and brought technologies to the market, but we sit here 15 years later and there are numerous competitors out there with competitive traits. Farmers not only have choice in technology and biotechnology, but they also have a choice in genetics they can purchase.

With regard to the Percy Schmeiser case, quite honestly I wasn't expecting that particular question to come up. I would say that Monsanto's position.... I don't know whether Mike has any further comments on this, but he did not develop his own traits. It was clear in the ruling and the evidence that was presented to them.

If I look across Canada and around the world, we have 60,000 growers in Canada alone. We don't go out and specifically target people to go after them. In the case of Percy Schmeiser, it was someone, a grower, who appreciated the patented technology we brought forth and the benefits the farmer received from that technology, and who alluded to us that he was actively stealing our technology.

So we take that case seriously. We need to protect our investment. We spend $1 billion a year, and the 59,999 farmers across this country also respect that.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

As I told you, Mr. Penner, I do not intend to go back over the…

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You're actually over time, unless it's just—

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I certainly didn't want to go back over the Supreme Court decision. What I want to emphasize is the public perception when a huge company goes after one farmer. That is why I brought it up.

I am talking about public perception. As I said, I am not a Supreme Court judge.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. Not to put words in Mr. Penner's mouth, but I think he understands where you're coming from. He was just commenting.

Did you have anything further to add?

[Derek Penner]

Mr. Chair, I think I alluded to the fact that we have a number of growers, and you look at, statistically speaking.... We understand the perception people have of Monsanto. But if you did a sample with the growers across Canada and the U.S., where biotechnology is accepted, I think even as you start going into the Latin Americas—Argentina and Brazil—the demand and the willingness to pay for that technology is there.

It's unfortunate that...we live in a free market society, and we have a large company that's grown over the past number of years. But that's the reality we live in. We understand that issue and we have to work with those perceptions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

We do have to move on. We're going to be tight for time.

Mr. Shipley, seven minutes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to clarify to my good colleague, I think we really need to understand that Bill C-474 did not bring this issue to the top. Bill C-474, as you know, is being debated. It is a bad bill because it is incomplete. I know we're the only ones who didn't support it, but it did not bring this to the....

And I really appreciate everybody taking the time to be here. I've been in agriculture all my life, and in biotechnology since 1996, which 15 years later leads me to this question. The biotechnology we see now—it was talked about in a study—is emerging. I just want to understand a little bit about it. Is this seen as emerging technology, or is it a technology that I see is about to burst—and maybe I'm wrong—wide open?

I'd like your comment. Where is it for agriculture and the consumer? What is this doing for both of those? I agree it's one of these tools, but I think things are happening so much in agriculture. As I said, I think those in agriculture right now, in the industry, are in one of the most fantastic and resourceful times the industry is ever going to experience.

Mr. Raizada, your comments, and Mr. Penner also, and then Mr. Ingratta.

[Dr. Manish N. Raizada]

What we have now that we didn't have 10 years ago is the entire genetic codes of many, many organisms—bacteria, plants, animals—so that we have a much better ability to take genes that we have a lot of information about from one organism to another. Because of that, the technology is going to explode. In other words, the suite of genes that are out there as tools is about to explode.

The balanced view on this would be that, so far, if you look at crop improvement around the world, GMOs have played a minor role, and I say that as a molecular geneticist. It's the traditional breeders who have had a much bigger impact on yields.

The reason is that basic yields have to do with many, many genes. You have to make minor modifications to many genes, generally speaking, to increase yield. That's called primary metabolism. Where GMOs will have a significant impact is on what's called secondary metabolism. That's how an organism interacts with its environment, such as insect disease resistance.

GMOs can have a big impact, but it's going to be limited to a certain area. The other area in secondary metabolism has to do with interesting traits like nutraceutical traits. It will have a major impact.

There are traits where a single gene, or one or two or three genes, can have a major impact. And there are other traits where that's exaggerated.

[Derek Penner]

I'm not a scientist, but I would argue, based on the data that I've seen, that GMOs have played a significant impact on crop yields over the past 15 years. I'll allude to a couple of examples and then I'll pass it over to Mike.

One example comes from here in Ontario. If you look at years prior to the introduction of GMO corn to Canadian farmers, farmers were realizing about 112 bushels an acre, on average. Back in the 1930s, you were looking at 30 or 35 bushels an acre. So yes, you saw a lot of improvement. But if you look at the last 15 years, and you look at it proportionately, now farmers are getting nearly 160 bushels an acre with GMO varieties.

Also, there is a European example with Bt corn. These are Monsanto's studies, so we had U.S. third parties. We looked at data over the last 10 years of various Bt corn versus conventional varieties. And it was clear that on average over those 10 years there was a gain of half a metric tonne per hectare over the conventional GMO varieties.

So I'm not a scientist by background, but those are data points that I see as working well.

[Mike McGuire, East Sales, Marketing Lead, Monsanto Canada Inc.]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I bring the perspective of a decreasing demographic—those who have lived pre-biotech and post-biotech. There are fewer and fewer people who have been able to see the pre-biotech era and the post-biotech era. I can comment on both.

One of the biggest advantages we've seen in the biotech on growers is that growers work in an environment where there is total risk—weather, crop prices, and other risks—in an uncertain environment. One of the things biotech has brought to growers is more certainty.

If you look at average yields, the traits we're bringing in biotechnology are taking out the effects of dry weather, bug infestations, and weeds. So one of the great things about biotech is that growers aren't having as many down years. The dry year, the year where weeds are a problem, a year where pests happen—these misfortunes are offset by the insurance policy built into the crop.

When farmers have a bad year, it takes five or six years to recover. When you speak with growers, one of the things they speak about time and time again is that biotechnology has taken some of the risk out of farming, which is a major improvement over the pre-biotech era.

[Dr. Frank Ingratta]

Your basic question is, has it exploded or is it going to explode? I think it has exploded on the agricultural scene. When you look at the acreages and the productivity increases in the acreages that are planted with genetically modified organisms, it's already happened. The explosion has happened.

But I think the real explosion, as in the digital technology era, will be when the consumer apps come to the fore. Everybody has a home computer now because of their ability to access the Internet. When all you could do was control the temperature in your house or small things, it was not a big deal. When the consumer apps happened, it exploded. And I think that's what we're going to see in the future. It's not so much the impacts on the farmer as the potential impacts of food products on consumers, especially in the area of health.

There is a lot of promise. There are not a lot of hard examples today, but there is a lot of promise, and that's where the explosion is going to be. That's why you talk about the need for the regulations to be current so we'll be able to deal with that explosion. Other than the issue that's here today, there is a future issue that's going to be even broader.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Van Acker, very briefly.

[Dr. Rene Van Acker]

Yes, there are just two things. One, I hope we can be clear that we're talking about GM in agriculture and not industrial biotechnology. That's very important here.

Two, there's a good paper by Thijs Tollenaar and Liz Lee put out on cross-science in 2007 that is a detailed analysis of yield increase in corn over the last 100 years. Thijs currently works for Monsanto in the RTP and was formerly a professor in corn physiology here at Guelph. I can get you that paper if you want. It points out and backs up Manish's assertion that it's a polygenic issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We are going to have to move our last round to five minutes, Wayne and Randy.

You have five minutes, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That's not a problem.

Thank you, folks, for coming.

I want to start where Mr. McGuire left off, and that was talking about the improvements that are there with biotechnology. What is clearly obvious to us is the tremendous...and maybe it comes from the Frankenstein foods that Michael mentioned earlier. But there is such a misunderstanding that biotechnology is exclusively GMOs and it's not. I guess it's one component in the tool chest.

The other area that relates to that, and what I'm really coming at, is how do we get a better understanding out there in the general community, not only on GM but on biotechnology? We're getting over Bill C-474. Bev, you're wrong. We didn't support Bill C-474; we supported the discussion, and we'll be voting against it today.

Frank, you said the potential bias to biotechnology--I think you meant companies--has to be overcome, or that perception that there's a potential bias there. How do we do that? I hear some horror stories on corn strains in Mexico as a result of GM corn moving into Mexico. It's the reality. There's a lot of power by Monsanto, Syngenta, and others...farmers always having to go back to get their seed stock. There's certainly economic profitability in doing that, I will admit.

But how do we get to a transparent system that's not overly cumbersome for companies that want to make the investments but is understood by the public that it is based on science, that it is based on safe food and the protection of the environment?

[Dr. Frank Ingratta]

When I was referring to the issue of bias, so often we hear the lament...and even in recent days the University of Guelph has been charged with being unduly concerned with the positive aspects of biotechnology, and some would argue it's because dollars do flow in certain programs from industry to support their research. So it automatically makes them biased. It always annoyed me that this was even publicly stated. I have a great deal of respect for the integrity of the research community, but as soon as they're funded by a multinational, there's a perception of bias.

My argument is around transparency, making it very clear that, yes, that financial support is there, but also making it very clear what the intents and the outputs of those programs are so that people can examine it and not have this grand conspiracy theory that the researchers and the multinationals are coming together. That's why I talked about transparency. I think the regulation needs to be transparent in the development. By that, I mean involve the input from all parties. Eventually you're going to have to make a decision, but input from all parties and the access to the information that's developed...I think that's critical.

I know that's a bit of a wishy-washy response, but I think constantly ensuring that this information is available will help the general public understand, and again, example after example of where there are positive impacts, and when we start having examples where there's a positive impact on individuals, not just on producers' ability to improve their profit here....

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

One of the problems here, though, is that we depend on company data. There's not a public institution that doesn't have perceived benefit, I guess, that is there. We depend on company data for some of this analysis, and that certainly doesn't lead to transparency. Is there an area we can move there?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Touch on that very briefly because we're--

[Mike McGuire]

I think the way Monsanto looks at it is that we create the data, but we don't write the test. There are certain things we need to deliver up to get regulatory approval. We don't get to decide what we submit, but we do have to submit a robust data package for all the technologies we propose be advanced. Those are scrutinized. People come back with questions. They ask us about our data and how we obtained it. I like to think of it as our having to incur the cost of creating the data. We don't get to pick what we submit. We submit what's required, and we're obligated to commit to a full regulatory approval. So I think a distinction needs to be made there.