Agriculture Committee on Feb. 17th, 2011

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thanks to all of you for being here.

Professor Blay-Palmer, you mentioned that the state has a responsibility to intervene and ensure that we get a price premium for farmers. I'd like to get some comments from you and others on that.

Mr. Taylor, the research I've done basically says that in genetic engineering, when you transfer genes, it does not really increase the yield. Any increase in yield, the good things that we're having from canola and other crops, has been through the biotech industry and traditional breeding, not genetic engineering.

Where would the canola industry be today had GE canola not come into play? What would it have meant to the organic industry? It's a question that keeps coming into my mind.

[Arnold Taylor]

That's an important question. We had a lawsuit and there was a cross-examination of Dr. Peter Phillips, whom I think many of you know because he presented there. He's a scientist at the University of Saskatchewan. I happen to have a copy of the cross-examination, which is a very good read. I can get it to anybody electronically. It talks about how they segregated canola at the start, step by step. And this is Dr. Peter Phillips under oath, cross-examined by our lawyer. It was a friendly cross-examination. It wasn't hostile at all.

I just want to quote a couple of short sentences. Terry Zakreski was our lawyer. He's talking about a peer-reviewed article by Dr. Phillips in Nature Biotechnology, and this is about 2002-03. Dr. Phillips's article says, “The introduction of transgenic herbicide-tolerant canola in western Canada destroyed the growing, albeit limited, market for organic canola.”

And Dr. Phillips, in his answer, confirmed the reference.

Terry Zakreski continued:

And you also state further on down that “this lost market amounts to be between $100,000 CDN and $200,000 CDN annually, but the calculation promptly underestimates the opportunity cost of a market that many thought had significant potential for growth over this period.

So that's Dr. Phillips in a peer-reviewed article stating that there was a huge opportunity that was missed. I asked Allison if we could quantify how much that would be in the ten years since 1995, how much was lost. What was lost was not lost to organic farmers only; it was lost to Canada, because most of those markets were in Europe, and Canadian canola was not allowed into Europe all those years. Organic canola probably would sell. Years ago I was selling flax for $38 a bushel when it was $10 on the conventional market. Canola would probably be double what it is in the conventional market. So probably right now we would be selling organic canola into Europe at $25 a bushel. All the transportation value-added, all the processing—that's all been lost to Canada. It wasn't picked up by the conventional market—they're locked out of Europe because of the GMO. How much, I don't know. It's millions.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Could the conventional industry have survived without GE?

[Arnold Taylor]

Absolutely.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

I had the feeling when I started discussion on my bill that this was an issue of control. I was told point blank by a Croplife executive that they didn't even want this discussion going on here in Parliament. We're looking at the whole idea of contamination discussed by Monsanto. They think there can be a buffer zone, when studies and research have shown there cannot be.

[Arnold Taylor]

First of all, the technology is flawed in the sense that it's patented. It's a life form that's patented, and it's allowed in the U.S. Canada didn't allow it until the Schmeiser decision. The Supreme Court reversed their decision on the Harvard Mouse. They allowed the patent. It's patented. Patents should never have been issued on that. It's like patenting a motor you can't shut off. They can't control it. It runs amok. And that's what's happened.

And it's not about feeding the world. It's about selling Roundup. It's the value chain that they tap into on whatever company it is. That's what it's all about. And our government has acquiesced in that endeavour.

We grew canola for years successfully before we had Roundup. There are some benefits, for sure, like the direct seeding. But we use direct seeding systems too. My air seeder is as big as anybody's. So there are systems.

You talked about the research. The research has all been focused on this type of technology to the exclusion of all others, because there's value in being able to get a technology use agreement or sell a herbicide.

But to get back to your other question, the increase in yield is mostly owing to hybridization, which is a conventional technique. They're the same in corn and canola. It's easier to farm with a big sprayer. But it's not necessarily better food. It's probably not as good.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Larry, I have a question for you.

Is there any demand among the people you talk to for GM alfalfa?

[Larry Black]

Absolutely none. The forage council has representation from all the commodity groups, and there was absolutely no desire for it. In fact, everybody would rather it went away.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Professor Blay-Palmer, you said we have a responsibility to intervene. If there's no demand for this, what is our responsibility here?

Obviously we have to do something to ensure this doesn't get released into the environment, because it's already been approved. We've seen what's happened in the United States; they've approved unconditional release of alfalfa. I didn't know this before, but I've learned today that conventional farms like to have regular alfalfa because they can kill it as a weed. It seems there is something not right happening here.

If we still have time and you have any other comments on this, I'd appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You're out of time, but I'm going to allow the answer.

[Arnold Taylor]

Wayne, you mentioned a moratorium, and I'm not sure what that would entail with alfalfa. But a little example that came over the e-mail is about the U.S. approving a corn modified for ethanol. They've approved a corn that's modified for ethanol. It breaks down its own enzyme, or whatever. It's going to be put out there, probably on a confined release basis, and it could contaminate the conventional and sweet corn we're all eating. They have no way of stopping it because the regulatory system has no mechanism to stop that.

The processors are finding that even a few seeds of this stuff in the corn they're processing for taco shells, or whatever, causes problems in their process. I mean, we could all be sideswiped by giving these companies licence to do whatever they want.

I don't know what mechanism you have; it could be legislation or in the regulatory system, but it has to be different for each crop. I don't think we should assume we have to have that stuff. I think we can put a moratorium on all GMO crops until these things are in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Richards, seven minutes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate all the witnesses being here today.

We've heard a lot of debate about GMO crops or non-GMO crops. We also have two individuals here from A&L Canada Laboratories who haven't had much of a chance to participate today. I'd like to give them more of a chance during my time.

There is obviously a lot more to biotechnology than GMO crops. I know you certainly have done some research in other areas, and I'm interested in hearing more about it.

A lot of your research is ongoing, but I'm specifically interested to hear about some of the applications of your research. You could take this opportunity to tell us a little about some of the benefits, with some examples of the application of your research and what it's been able to do for farmers to improve their situation.

[George Lazarovits]

Thank you for that.

I've had an opportunity to pretty well travel the whole world and look at issues related to agriculture, and one of the greatest threats we have coming in the next decade is global climate change. It's certainly going to be a major factor, as it is already happening in many parts of the world.

The second will be the increasing cost of production to growers, and this is in the cost of fertilizers, particularly phosphate and potash, and of course as oil prices go up, it will also be the nitrogen components.

So one of the areas we would really like to approach is how to make plants much more efficient in the use of these materials in soil and also how to create conditions so that plants are much more resistant to the stresses of environmental change. Believe it or not, a lot of this comes from the root systems.

Agriculture has undergone what we call the green revolution. That has occurred based on the selection of crop plants based on very high fertility inputs, because they were dirt cheap; they were really inexpensive. But as the prices increased, the cost to growers continued to go up.

Over the last 50 years, roots have never been considered as something breeders ever looked at. They were not looked at because they're underground and it was too much work to look at them. So we have created a perfect top part of the plant, but we lost everything below the ground, and our efforts will be to look at components in the root systems that will allow for much improved plant growth and at the same time reduce the input costs in the form of fertility. We're looking at biofertilizers. We're looking at those interactions between plants that make plants grow better. Just like in legumes, the only microbes we use extensively are the nodulating bacteria, which probably produce more fertilizer in one year than all the artificial fertilizers we have ever applied. So that's going to be the focus of our company.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay. So your research is more ongoing at this point. You've just started--

[George Lazarovits]

We're a year-old company, so we're just staffing and equipping, but we are ready to do diagnostic tests for growers as far as diseases and other factors that go along with that.

But as far as the research, we have about five programs. One is with Australia, looking at root-soil health as a factor in the production of potatoes; we have some work with the University of Guelph and the tomato growers of Ontario, and we're looking at some ornamental production with trees. Ornamental trees are a $1 billion industry in Ontario, believe it or not, and the flowers are another billion. These people have serious disease issues in greenhouses.

So those are the aspects we're looking at.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay.

Are you looking at other specific crops or plants right now, and where are you in terms of when you would be testing with farmers and pilot projects?

[George Lazarovits]

All our tests are on farmers' fields. Our program will be directly linked to questions growers bring to our company, and everything will be done in those situations where they're having crop losses. The idea will be to get an idea of the distribution of pathogens across the field and how they relate to A&L's business of looking at chemical fertility. We want to have a very good map of what is going on as far as these high yielding sites in the field versus those that are low yielding.

To some extent, the work is very much related to organic production. We call it ecological agriculture because we are looking at the scientific basis of what makes a plant highly productive versus one that's low in production. But our focus, believe it or not, will be on a healthy plant, not a sick plant.

Again, this is something that's very hard to get funding for. Nobody wants to study a healthy human and nobody wants to study a healthy plant.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I appreciate that.

I know your research does focus on other areas, but obviously there has been a lot of talk about GMO crops, and certainly the opinion has been quite widely expressed here today that the GMOs and non-GMO crops cannot coexist. That seems to be the opinion of the other panellists here today.

I don't know if you have specific expertise in the area or not, or if, because of your research background, you could offer us an opinion, but I would be interested in hearing your thoughts or your opinion on whether GMO crops and non-GMO crops can coexist. If so, how? And if not, why not?

[George Lazarovits]

The GMO crop, I think the panel here has said, has to be considered on a crop-by-crop basis. The place that I have seen the greatest impact on the benefits of GMO crops has been on GMO cotton. I have gone to places in Russia and the former Soviet Union where they used enormous amounts of pesticides. GMO cotton has eliminated a large proportion of pesticide use, and you've seen huge benefits to human health and to the growers. But it's not a crop that we eat; it's not a crop like a wheat species.

[Greg Patterson]

One of the projects that George talked about was an in-house project, where we're working with organic and conventional growers to look at soil health from the point of view of cultural practices, including the use of pesticides. We don't have anything conclusive at this time. But some of the grower groups say that these products are causing increased disease pressure, loss of yield, loss of productivity, and loss of markets.

When we do these soil health initiatives, we look at the biology of the soil—the good bugs, the bad bugs. We look at what we are doing in conventional agriculture or organic agriculture that's causing these issues. We try to solve the puzzle. We consider how to make a recommendation to a grower on what he should or should not do to maintain healthy soil. That's kind of an in-house, all-encompassing project that we have on the go.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I appreciate your answers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Valeriote.

Mr. Bellavance, could I ask you to take the chair?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I want to thank all of you for taking time out of your day to appear before us. It's much appreciated.

We are aware that CETA negotiations are going on right now. I'm hearing—it may not be completely accurate—that there may be an adoption of a low-level-presence approach to crops where a certain degree of contamination might be permitted. Could you explain what that would do to an examination of the issue through a market-harm approach? What would it do to the industry if the largest markets all of a sudden agreed to accept a low-level presence? We still have people in Canada saying they will only accept zero as the level.

Alison?

[Dr. Alison Blay-Palmer]

Can you clarify what you mean when you say “Canada accepts zero”.