Agriculture Committee on Feb. 17th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We'll call our meeting to order.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here today. With no further ado, we're going to move into presentations.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, could I make a suggestion that the more we do this study, I do think we should consider inviting somebody from Health Canada who is involved in assessing GMO products and non-GMO products, and have them as a witness at some point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

That's not a problem, Wayne, but what I'd suggest is just submit that. That's no problem. I would be surprised if they weren't already on the list.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, they are not.

Good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We'll move to the first presenter, Greg Patterson, president and chief executive officer of A&L Canada Laboratories, for 10 minutes or less, please.

[Greg Patterson, President and Chief Executive Officer, A&L Canada Laboratories Inc.]

Good morning.

I'm going to have most of the presentation done by Dr. Lazarovits, who is going to talk about our new initiative with A&L Biologicals.

I will first describe briefly who we are. We are an independent, Canadian-owned agricultural laboratory located in London, Ontario. We cover Canada coast to coast and other places around the globe.

The A&L Biologicals is a new biotechnical lab that we put together to study soil health.

I'm basically going to turn it over to Dr. Lazarovits so he can explain what we're doing and what it all means to production agriculture.

[George Lazarovits, Research Director, A&L Canada Laboratories Inc.]

Thank you very much. We really appreciate being invited here.

A&L Canada Laboratories was primarily an organization that dealt with the examination of chemical constituents used in agriculture: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Over the years there has been a lot greater demand from growers as to things like diagnostics of plant diseases. With molecular technologies, these can be done now very accurately and very rapidly, so in our biologicals of primary interest will be rapid diagnostics of crop diseases where growers consider these to be threatening to their crops. In addition, we will try to offer knowledgeable advice on treatment of these diseases and what they can do to mitigate crop losses.

The second area of business that we will be doing is research. A large number of grower groups come to us complaining about things like tired soil. We can't recommend vacations for their soils, but we're hoping to find out why soils get tired. This really means that for their soils, even though they are using conventional levels of fertilizer at the recommended rates, the yields keep coming down and down. Growers often call these areas in their fields hot spots. One of our efforts will be to find out how to increase the productivity of the soils over a uniform area in the farm production zone.

What we are focusing on is the microbiology that's present in soil, an area that's been overlooked for about 100 years in agriculture. What is present in a soil that makes it a healthy system?

This is becoming very important in humans too, of course--the probiotics movement. Instead of using chemicals, you use good bacteria, which we still don't understand in agriculture, but this would be the focus. For this we are using molecular technologies, because there are hundreds of millions of bacteria in the soil, and to understand who they are and what they do, you need this kind of technology.

Last, we are looking at companies that are underrepresented in Canadian agriculture. There are many companies that have small products available to them; that is, they have one or two organisms that maybe are useful but they don't know how to reach the growers. A&L has a huge reservoir of growers who would love to use these products, but these people don't have salesmen. They don't know what the market is, and we're trying to link their products to the growing industry, and hopefully with the benefit of all of our work we will reduce grower cost.

To give you an example of some of the things we will be doing, we will be testing soils using grafted tomato plants now to look at the tomato and vine decline in southwestern Ontario, which services the ketchup industry. What we are finding is their yields have been declining consistently over the last decade, and we don't know why. By using grafted plants, in conjunction with the University of Guelph, we are finding that we can increase yields by up to 40% or 50% just by changing the root system, so our efforts will be to look at how we can change the root systems.

All of this work, as I said, will involve molecular technologies because that's how we can follow things that occur in soil. We are trying to find lines that say your soil is getting better or worse based on the microbial fingerprinting that we are about to undertake.

I will leave it at that, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

I'll move to the Canadian Organic Growers and Mr. Arnold Taylor. Ten minutes or less, please.

[Arnold Taylor, Past President, Canadian Organic Growers]

Mr. Chairman, I hope you don't start the clock quite yet.

I had a brief put in on Bill C-474, which I'll call Bill XYZ. I know it has not been passed, but David has copies available if anybody wants them. I won't be referring to that bill in my presentation, but there are references in there that you may want to look at. You can distribute them now or after. It's entirely up to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, I was aware that you had submitted it, but that bill is no longer being looked at by the committee, Mr. Taylor.

[Arnold Taylor]

Yes, I realize that. It isn't a sneaky way to get more debate in there. It's available to you, and you may find it useful. We could distribute it after, perhaps. If anybody wants it, he has copies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'll leave that up to individual members if they want to ask for it, but that isn't before the committee. So if you want to continue on biotech, you have ten minutes, please.

[Arnold Taylor]

Okay.

I'm Arnold Taylor. I'm past president of the Canadian Organic Growers. I got out of that job a couple of months ago. I'm an organic farmer from Saskatchewan, and I work with my son and daughter-in-law. We have 3,500 acres, certified organic, and 100 certified organic beef cows.

As president of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate in 2001 and 2002, I oversaw the organization's effort to launch a class action lawsuit on behalf of all Saskatchewan-based organic farmers against Monsanto and Bayer CropScience for economic and agronomic damages caused by their GE canola. Our organization was seeking compensation for the loss of organic canola, which was at a premium and is a high-value crop that was important in our crop rotations, which is a main method for weed control in organic systems, which prohibit synthetic herbicides.

In the mid-1990s, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency approved GE canola for confined release. I emphasize that. It was confined release and it was initially segregating GE and non-GE varieties in an effort to ensure safe marketability. Shortly thereafter, CFIA carelessly allowed unconfined environmental release, and GE canola cross-pollinated across the landscape and contaminated the germplasm of other non-GE and organic canola cultivars.

Studies indicate that virtually all canola in Canada has been contaminated with GE traits, and at that time, only six years into the production, the certified seed stocks were contaminated as high as 7%. This has adversely affected organic farmers and their markets. Globally organic standards, including Canadian ones, prohibit the use of GE as a method, and this has put our industry on a collision course with the introduction of GE technologies.

Ultimately, our proposed class action suit was rejected, largely because it was difficult to establish who was responsible for the damage caused by cross-pollination of GE crops and organic cultivars.

That is why Parliament must enact some appropriate measures to ensure that new GE crops do not adversely affect farmers and their markets. Had appropriate measures been in place prior to the release of GE canola, farmers and their markets, and Canadian agriculture as a whole, would have been spared much hardship and financial loss.

Enacting appropriate legislation to protect the rights of non-adopters of GE technology is long overdue in Canada. Currently our national regulatory system is deeply flawed and is arguably designed to benefit corporations that develop GE crops at the expense of organic farmers, non-adopters, and consumers as a whole. Market impact must be included in the overall assessment of this technology.

Indeed, history has shown us the dangers associated with a regulatory system that is solely science-based, and we now know that the current system is too narrow to properly evaluate the multitude of potentially adverse socio-economic impacts associated with this technology.

One of the flaws within the current regulatory system is that a number of federal departments oversee the regulation of GE crops in Canada. Although the CFIA plays the lead role, CFIA does a paper review of GE crops based on data submitted by the technology developer, peer-reviewed literature, and expert advice, but with no independent testing on the GE crops themselves because they're deemed substantially equivalent to non-GE varieties.

Regulatory approaches like the CFIA's, which are based on substantial equivalence, have been widely criticized as being pseudo-scientific because they presume GE crops' safety without any scientific basis and are largely based on industry data alone.

I'd like to read you just a short quote from a Dr. Millstone from Sussex University in England, talking about substantive equivalence. He calls it an anti-scientific test. He says:

Substantial equivalence is a pseudo-scientific concept because it is a commercial and political judgement masquerading as if it were scientific. It is, moreover, inherently anti-scientific because it was created primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests. It therefore serves to discourage and inhibit potentially informative scientific research.

After the commercial release of GE canola, Canadian experts now agree that this pre-release risk assessment failed to anticipate hazards associated with contamination, weed problems, and market harm. Indeed, a review of the Canadian experience with GE crops concludes that very little research has been carried out on the socio-economic impacts associated with this technology and that the Canadian regulatory system disregards the idea that GE crops will have well-known local and international market impacts as irresponsible and embarrassing.

We need to introduce a mechanism to assess and safeguard against adverse market harm caused by GE crops. I'm going to touch a little bit on GE wheat and flax. The proposed introduction of GE wheat is a perfect example of how the so-called science-based regulatory approach, which excludes such socio-economic factors as market harm, can put Canadian farmers and the agriculture industry as a whole at risk.

Between 2002 and 2004, Monsanto was pushing to introduce the world's first herbicide-tolerant variety of GE wheat. However, there was widespread opposition from consumers and Canadian export markets. Over 80% of the Canadian Wheat Board's buyers said they would not purchase GE wheat because of consumer concern over the crop, as Canada's so-called science-based regulations had no way to include this potential threat to export sales, valued between $4 billion and $6 billion annually.

Ultimately, due to the strong consumer and environmental backlash, Monsanto deferred the release of GE wheat, but it now appears that there is renewed interest to bring this crop to market, despite ongoing consumer and farmer resistance. GE wheat exposed the crisis in Canada's biotechnology regulations and almost cost Canadian agriculture billions of dollars in lost revenue.

With GE flax, our organic markets were also adversely affected by the variety GE Triffid flax, which was never commercially released in Canada but ended up contaminating seed supply and shutting down our markets in 35 countries worldwide. Flax is one of our highest-value crops, and as a result of confirmation of the contamination, our prices have fallen by 32%. Now, we have to test our crops, both at harvest and at seeding time, to maintain organic certification. This example demonstrates how GE crops can contaminate seed, conventional, and organic crops, causing risk and financial losses for farmers while adversely affecting the marketability of these crops.

Dr. Ian Mauro testified before this committee earlier. I encourage you to inform yourselves about Dr. Mauro's work, because he can tell you about a science-based way to assess market harm.

I have some final thoughts. I have spent most of the past ten years of my life fighting in the courts to protect organic farmers and my farm from GE crops. I should not have had to do this, as my government should have introduced adequate regulations to ensure that organic farmers are not adversely affected by the introduction of GE crops. We have lost the ability to grow canola. We could have lost flax because of the introduction of GE varieties. We could also lose our ability to grow wheat because of the introduction of GE varieties.

Now the industry is trying to introduce GE alfalfa. Arguably, the threat to organic alfalfa is the most significant yet, because it is a soil builder that fixes nitrogen and other essential nutrients. Were it to be contaminated with GE traits, this might destroy our way of farming entirely. GE alfalfa is not needed in agriculture, as it really offers no benefits for conventional or organic farmers and really is only designed to sell herbicides. As these new varieties are introduced, they basically remove that same crop from organic systems, which is detrimental, because we rely on this biodiversity in our crop rotations to ensure healthy and productive soil and crops.

Furthermore, as GE crops out-cross into organic systems, they destroy our ability to market our crops. Ironically, consumers the world over are demanding organic foods, and it's a fast-growing sector in the agriculture industry. Yet our opportunities for growth and farm-level prosperity have been adversely affected by the irresponsible manner in which GE technology has been introduced without proper regulation into the marketplace.

I encourage you to inform yourselves on the severe risks associated with leaving the current regulatory system regarding GE crops as it is. It is inadequate, it is causing harm to farmers in the food system, and Canada's reputation for offering exceptional food safety has been tarnished by experimenting with GE crops.

I encourage you to correct this. Appropriate legislation or appropriate measures need to be enacted to correct the mistakes of the past. It will also help to ensure that organic agriculture will continue to thrive, offering present and future generations the opportunity to access safe and healthy food that requires less in the way of inputs.

Increasingly, the importance of organic agriculture in creating a sustainable future for global society is being recognized, and it must be protected.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to a professor from Wilfrid Laurier University, Ms. Alison Blay-Palmer, for 10 minutes.

[Dr. Alison Blay-Palmer, Associate Professor, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University]

Thank you very much.

I'm an associate professor at Wilfred Laurier University in Waterloo. I'm here because I do research and teach about the global food system, and in this capacity I'm here to talk about biotechnology and the agrifood sector in Canada.

As a professor, I am wont to go off on tangents, so you are going to have to excuse me. To constrain my tangential nature, I'm going to read mostly from my notes today.

I'd like to thank you, first of all, for inviting me to provide comments on this very important matter. I appreciate your efforts to understand this incredibly complex issue and your recognition of the fact that there are multiple factors.

I'm glad to hear that health is becoming more of a consideration as you move forward; I think that's really positive.

It is up to you as parliamentarians to protect Canadian farmers, consumers, and our food industry. Part of this involves safeguarding our export markets. The agrifood system in Canada, as we all know, is critical to the economy. It represents one in eight jobs, and about 8.1% of our GDP, according to Agriculture and Agri-food Canada.

Within this context, there are three points I'd like to make to you today. The first concerns the cost of losing agricultural export markets; the second is the risk of being held responsible, if we do indeed lose those markets; and then I'd like to talk to you a little bit about the benefits of retaining non-GE crops for export.

First of all, with respect to cost, in the last decade there have been significant financial repercussions as borders have closed to products that were refused because of actual or potential contamination. As a result, taxpayers and farmers have suffered losses, from the flax contamination that Arnold just spoke about from Triffid seed, and also from feed contamination and the resulting BSE crisis.

These two cases are important to consider, as they raise relevant precedents for GE innovations going forward. While clearly the mad cow crisis is not related to GE technology, I'm raising this incident because it is instructive with respect to costs assumed by the Canadian government and its responsibility to protect agricultural markets and farmers' livelihoods.

With regard to cost, farmers lost over $4 billion because of increased processing costs and losses from reduced net exports; it cost taxpayers over $550 million as a result of federal and provincial recovery programs; and finally, there's a $7 billion class action suit on behalf of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Ontario farmers against the federal government and a Winnipeg feed company, based on assertions that the federal government could have prevented BSE had it designed better feed regulations, had better safety reviews, and provided better oversight.

In the case of flax, the detection of GE content threatened the $320 million Canadian flax market into the EU for Canadian farmers. So far this oversight has cost us $1.9 million to implement a sorting and verification system. And this was due to contamination, as Arnold said, from seed that was destroyed over a decade ago.

There are similar cases in other jurisdictions. For example, if we look at the United States, it is estimated that StarLink cost U.S. corn producers up to $290 million in lost revenue, while LibertyLink GM rice market damage has been estimated at between $741 million on the lower end and up to $1.3 billion on the higher end.

Given these precedents and associated expectations, it would be reckless to ignore the economic cost of inappropriate agricultural policy decisions that allow the introduction of another crop, such as GE wheat, into the Canadian foodscape without detailed analysis of all the risks that need to be considered.

From here on out, for the rest of my presentation, I'm going to use GE wheat as an example of the potential downside for biotechnology crops. I'm focusing on wheat because it raises issues that we haven't yet confronted in agri-biotechnology in Canada.

The first is the size of the market. The cost for farmers in lost markets, if GE wheat were introduced, would be substantial. Using data from the Food and Agriculture Organization, I calculated the value of Canadian wheat sold to Japan and those EU countries that are either 100% GE-free or have regions within their countries that are so declared. The value of this market in 2007 totaled $738,111,000. If we include all of the EU countries, the market value jumps to $784,204,000.

If we take a worst-case scenario, based on a USDA survey of countries who said they would not accept GE wheat, the losses exceed $4 billion, based on 2007 numbers, and the only market that would be left to our farmers would be $288 million versus the potential $4.36 billion.

Our farmers could lose access to these secure markets if GE wheat is grown in Canada. As Furtan and Gray at the University of Saskatchewan put it, “there is no first adopter--rather GE creates a market for 'lemons', in this case, what the market would perceive to be inferior GE wheat”.

If we do introduce GE wheat, a 2010 study in the United States estimates that market prices would be between 41% and 57% lower than non-GE wheat. Given this example, there is no question that due diligence requires detailed knowledge with regard to the value of all export markets at risk.

Second are the actual product profile, premium, and marketing issues. Wheat is one of our largest export crops. In many ways, it defines Canada in the international marketplace. Canadian international food identity and food safety are linked to wheat. The Canadian Wheat Board encourages its farmers to identify their wheat as Canadian, and as such it commands a price premium of up to $3.36 extra per kilo over generic varieties.

Variations on the “Grown in Canada” labelling are repeated on packaging used by processors, including Archer Daniels Midland, for product destined for Asia, including China, and by other food processors and retailers in countries including the United States, the U.K., Mexico, Poland, and Japan.

Third is the nature of the issue. Wheat is not like canola, soybeans, or corn. GE wheat will be the first minimally processed GE food sold for human consumption. Unlike corn, soybeans, and canola, which often end up as highly processed food ingredients or as animal feed, wheat would be turned into flour for bread, pasta, or other products in which it would be the primary ingredient. Therefore, wheat puts us into a new realm with a huge potential downside. The same could be assumed for other foods such as fruit, like plums, which are being exported for GE technologies right now, and also vegetables, calling to mind, for example, eggplant.

On a more general level, the whole rationale for GE crops needs to be considered. With respect to the “GE will feed the world argument”, genetically engineered crops have been available for 10 years and we have more hungry people now than we did a decade ago. While we have seen the introduction of herbicide-resistant and pest-resistant crops, there are no GE crops on the market that address any issues related to world hunger.

In terms of production, there has been no perceptible increase in yields for farmers using GE crops. A 2009 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group of internationally recognized scientists and business experts from respected institutions, including Harvard, Yale, and MIT, found, and I'm quoting here from the report:

No currently available transgenic varieties enhance the intrinsic yield of any crops. The intrinsic yields of corn and soybeans did rise during the twentieth century, but not as a result of GE traits. Rather, they were due to successes in traditional breeding.

Weighing some hypothetical, very marginal yield gains--and here reported as non-existent--against catastrophic market losses, it is hard to justify putting more farmers at risk through the adoption of more GE crops. At this point there is no reason to allow more GE seeds to be used in the Canadian agrifood system. Objective science finds no yield benefits, and the downside is huge.

The agrifood system in Canada is critical to the economy. In such a competitive environment, why would we add the GE risk to the mix?

Finally, it's worth noting that GM crops, crop varieties, and the people who use them to make food acknowledge the marketability risks associated with GM. They have consistently lobbied against product labelling that would advise of GM content. It will not be possible to eliminate or even downplay GM content when wheat grain or other key ingredients are the primary and sole ingredient in food staples such as bread and pasta.

In approving additional GE seeds and products, you are accepting the burden of assessing economic risk on behalf of farmers who have absolutely no way of minimizing their market risks. The farmers themselves are unable to act completely collectively on this, and individual refusal to use GM seeds accomplishes nothing. In the case of contamination, markets will be closed. They have been before to Canadian farmers. The widespread and rapid movement of genetic materials means that only the state can intervene, so you as parliamentarians are the only people who are in a position to act and make something happen here.

That said, you either act or decide not to act. Either way, you've made a policy decision. If a sound case, based on objective third-party assessments, can substantiate that there are economic, environmental, and community benefits to adopting more GE food products, then wouldn't we? But in the meantime, why subject such a vital part of the Canadian economy to this added risk?

In fact, let's flip this around. Let's look at the upside of maintaining high standards of traditional product quality and purity. As has been shown with the examples of premium product labeling for export markets for existing Canadian wheat, Canada can and does differentiate our crops in a highly crowded marketplace. Having GE-free crops could allow our farmers to command a price premium.

GE-free crops will not only guarantee the markets farmers have worked hard to create over many decades, but could allow them a further advantage in expanding those markets. Why would we want to compromise our market position and our reputation?

Thank you very much for your time and attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We now have Larry Black as an individual.

Larry, I think you appeared before us last spring in Manitoba.

You have up to ten minutes.

[Larry Black, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, I did appear before you then. I appreciate the opportunity to be here to address you today.

My name is Larry Black. I am an organic grain and dairy producer from southwestern Manitoba. I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee today on the subject of genetically modified organisms.

The recent approval of GM alfalfa in the U.S.A. and the threat of its release in Canada is of great concern to me for a number of reasons. For those consumers who really don't want to consume GMOs in their food, certified organic is the only avenue to ensure the purity of GM-free food. There is a zero tolerance to GMOs by the certifiers of the organic industry.

Shortly after Roundup Ready canola was introduced, pollen drift from those fields contaminated almost all other canola crops. It is impossible to grow organic canola in Canada today because of inadvertent cross-pollination with GMO crops. The same fate is guaranteed for organic alfalfa if GMO alfalfa is released. This would be catastrophic for the organic industry. Alfalfa is a widely utilized crop throughout organic agriculture, and it is used on grain, vegetable, and meat farms as a soil builder and as a livestock feed. On our farm, a full one-third of our acres grow alfalfa in any given year.

I spoke with Trish Jordan, a Monsanto spokesperson, to ask her their view on how our two industries could coexist. Ms. Jordan stated that Monsanto's intention is to recommend a half-mile separation between the GMO and other alfalfa crops to prevent cross-pollination. She stated that Monsanto believes organic consumers must accept a small level of GMO contamination.

The bees that pollinate crops have at least a two-mile radius for gathering honey. As well, a Manitoba forage specialist informed me that the wind can carry the pollen for up to 10 miles. You have to keep in mind that this is 10 miles in any direction, so we're talking about 20 miles around. I also have a thesis by a University of Manitoba student who was looking at the role that feral alfalfa in the ditches and so on would play in the pollen transfer. It would be something you'd be unable to control. That would add to your inability to have any kind of set-back distance and be confident in it.

When you consider this, it is obvious that there is no way to contain GMO contamination. Considering that Monsanto is recommending a mere 5% of the separation distance required to prevent cross-pollination, it would appear that Monsanto would like nothing more than to effect widespread co-mingling of their new technology.

How can anyone stop the contamination level from building from 1% to 5% to 25% and beyond? If it were no longer possible to grow organic alfalfa, that would be devastating to the organic industry. And what is the next GM crop to be introduced? One by one, all of our cropping options will be eliminated.

Our farm has been a pioneer in organic agriculture, growing crops without chemical inputs for four generations. It seems odd to me that even though Black Family Farm has been able to build a business by giving consumers what they want and filling a market demand, the biotechnology industry is able to come along and destroy what we have built without any consequence to themselves.

The biotech industry is in it for the profit, yet it seems they are immune to paying the costs for the damage they create. If you own a dog, and even if that dog is licensed, if it bites the neighbour you are liable for the damages. Why is it any different for the biotech companies? Who will compensate the stakeholders who become collateral damage?

I was on the Manitoba Forage Council when this issue was being debated. Not a single commodity group had a desire for Roundup Ready alfalfa. Agronomically, alfalfa is a very competitive crop and requires no pesticides to control the weeds in the stand. At present, most conventional farmers use Roundup to kill their alfalfa fields in preparation for the next cropping option. Stakeholders were actually worried that Roundup Ready alfalfa would create a problem for farmers, because it would be resistant to the glyphosphate that they spray to clean the fields for competition prior to replanting. Instead, Roundup Ready alfalfa will become a persistent weed in farmers' fields, as it will be impervious to the glyphosphate. The seed industry also expressed grave concerns that they will no longer be able to guarantee the purity of their seed because of GMO contamination. If this happened, they would lose their organic markets and their lucrative export markets.

There is no demand for this technology at present. As far as I can see, the costs outweigh the benefits by far.

I'd like to draw your attention to this photograph. I apologize that the placard on the side of the truck is a bit illegible, but I'll tell you what says. It says, “It's a powerful insecticide, and it's harmless to humans”. It depicts the contemporary scientific wisdom of 1945. in later years, DDT was found to be so toxic that it was banned. The truly devastating effects of DDT were not suspected until the damage was done.

Tobacco provides a similar example. The tobacco industry denied any correlation between cigarettes and lung cancer for years. There are many other examples of approved substances later found to be harmful, including thalidomide.

My point is that we, as a society, need to understand that there are risks associated with genetically modified organisms. There has been no long-term independent research into GMOs. Any negative long-term effects cannot possibly be known yet. These effects may destroy organic farming systems and could profoundly affect the natural systems of our world.

The terrifying difference between the examples of DDT and tobacco, and that of genetically modified organisms, is the irreversible nature of GMO contamination. The infection will undoubtedly spread and be pervasive. If, in the years ahead, new evidence suggests a looming problem with GMOs, we cannot go back and rescind them. The cat will be out of the bag.

I believe that consumers would be more comfortable with GMO foods if the technology were subjected to long-term testing by independent researchers. There is a long list of GMO crops on the doorstep waiting for approval. If we proceed with no restrictions, in 10 to 20 years, what won't be genetically modified?

Can we afford to risk the balance of our natural world and the health of our own food supply? Our government is tasked with protecting food security for Canadians. It must employ independent research to ensure the safety of new agricultural technologies and to protect the public good. It is imperative that the federal government place a moratorium on Roundup Ready alfalfa test plots to protect us from the contamination threat they pose.

I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to express my concerns. I mentioned not having any recourse if Roundup Ready products deprive me of my ability to grow them and their counterparts. I would ask you to tell me what I should do when that happens.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you for staying well within the time.

We'll now move to questioning.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Could I raise a point of order?

I want to follow up on a point that came up in the last meeting. We had Jodi Koberinski here from the Organic Council of Ontario. In her testimony, she said she felt the sector was not well supported with public funding and she was encouraging the investment of public money for research. One of the comments she made was that the sector was able to achieve this kind of growth without financial support, regulatory support, or research dollars of any significance from the public. As MPs, we had better look into this. Mr. Easter had asked the analyst to put together a report for committee.

What I would like to tell the committee is that I've also gone back to the department and asked the department to report to me on this. I have information here in both official languages that I'd like to give to the clerk, who can then give it to the analyst, but you can also distribute it to members, if not today, perhaps for the next meeting.

I'm not going to read everything, but just for the record I want to highlight a couple of key initiatives. There is an organic value-chain round table that has been in existence for five years and has received about $500,000 from the government. Another important initiative is—

[An hon. member]

You must be keeping time, Chair.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

No, it's a point of order based on what was raised before.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Do you have a point of order?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I don't consider this a point of order. The information will be valuable, and I like the idea, Mr. Lemieux, of your providing it to the chair and to the analyst and to the clerk and to all of us. Perhaps it could be a subject of discussion later, but right now these witnesses have come from afar and we're losing valuable time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'm asking him to be brief.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

He is never brief.