Agriculture Committee on March 3rd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'll now move to Mr. Valeriote for five minutes.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I want to thank you all for coming to speak to us today.

Penny, I want to thank you and your organization for raising the level of conversation. At some point you can tell us how to subscribe or better connect to that source of information. It's very important. But my questions will be for Jerome and Christie.

I subscribe to Jerome's proposition that there is no one magic bullet to feed the world; it will have to be a combination of a number of things. This biotech study is being undertaken because we want to help the biotech industry to the extent we can. For me that's particularly in areas of non-food agricultural products and those areas with biodiesel, plastics, and God knows what else will come from it in the future.

I've heard time after time about the threat to biodiversity when we're talking about GMOs. I believe there's room for GMO crops, particularly with the environmental changes we're undergoing and global warming. But I also believe in the right of organic and non-GMO crops to exist. I've heard time after time about the threat that GMO poses to that right to exist, even with a zero level of presence. I want your opinions on whether or not there are solutions.

I come from a court system where judges used to say to me, “Mr. Valeriote, you guys will be able to produce your own solutions in a much better way, and more sensitive to your sensitivities, than a court will impose.” I believe that in the case of regulations on biotechnology, particularly GMO crops, the same applies: it's better if you come up with your solutions.

I'd like to hear from each of you what you think those solutions might be, and whether common ground can actually be reached.

[Christie Young]

Are we specifically talking about GMOs?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes.

[Christie Young]

Do you mean the ones that are currently on the market, ready to be released?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I mean the ones currently on the market or the prospective ones coming out, like alfalfa or wheat.

[Christie Young]

I think as has been acknowledged, biotechnology isn't limited to GMOs.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes, I understand that.

[Christie Young]

So if you're talking just about genetic modification, I think the question that remains is how any genetically modified organism will interact with the environment once it's released. We don't actually know what happens in terms of protein folding or interbreeding or genetic mutation, which is essentially the framework for evolution. We don't really understand it. So I think we have to take incredible precautions when we release them. It's not that we haven't done things like this before. We've released animals into our environment. We've released invasive plant species we're still dealing with. It's part of humans' thinking that we can do whatever we want and carry things wherever we want to go. There are also things we can't control.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I want to know about coexistence.

[Christie Young]

But we know we can control these crops, and we know that once we plant them, they are out in the environment. There are some crops right now we have to accept coexistence with because they're planted, but there are other crops that are perennial and pervasive and that are much smaller and actually begin to have a life of their own. GE alfalfa is one. I think GE salmon is also an incredibly frightening prospect, because as much as we think we can control containment, we can't. Time and time again, we've proven that we can't.

So if we think the solution is containment, to me, as a farmer and as a person who lives in the environment, that is not a solution. If we think the kind of seed...corn is an example. We have to plant corn. It doesn't travel on its own inside animal bodies. The containment is perhaps more manageable, and we have to accept that it's out there right now. But we can prevent the release of crops not based on the idea of containment, if that makes sense.

[Jerome Konecsni]

One of the things I've learned is that the technology that is being developed and what has evolved from the first release of GM technologies 13 or 14 years ago has dramatically improved. With regard to the ability to control it and contain it, there are some very fascinating technologies that are available now--gene silencing, terminator genes. There are all kinds of things that can be done.

But one of the things people need to understand right now has to do with the proposition for developing a new GM variety. For canola, the companies we've talked to say it's going to cost $100 million to introduce a new GM variety. So the trait has to have huge economic impact in order for them to pursue it. That's why we haven't seen a lot of new varieties of GM being developed in new technology. Companies will say that you need 14 million acres of a trait to justify that kind of investment in it.

So there are all kinds of technologies that are available that will make it safer, but there's also a lot of biosafety research going on. Linda Hall at the University of Alberta has done some very good studies in terms of pollen flow and even understanding the probability. Zero just doesn't exist. Zero tolerance does not exist. If anybody tells you that it does, they're not being truthful. That's a reality you have to accept. But the containment can be improved, and it has been improved, I think dramatically, by new technologies that are being evolved. I think that by shifting an emphasis and a focus even more onto that, you could probably even take these to a whole other level from where they are today. But they've certainly made a lot of progress in the last 20 years. We see more and more people....

One of the things that Genome Canada has contributed to Canadian agriculture is that they insist on having a GELS component to their research programs, to look at the ethical, legal, and environmental implications of their research. That is a very interesting and I think very valuable approach, because while you're advancing the natural sciences, you're also looking at the social and environmental impacts. I think that's a very solid approach. I think because of that program there are a lot of researchers who have grown up and developed, and we have more expertise now in that kind of research, on the environmental impact and the biosafety side of things. I think that's one of the lasting contributions that Genome Canada has offered to Canadian agriculture.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, André Bellavance]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here today to share your expertise with us. We certainly appreciate it, and it's very helpful for all of us on the committee here.

Ms. Park, in your opening comments you were discussing the role of your organization, and you mentioned there are a number of things that need to be discussed when we talk about biotechnology. You said that one of them was even what biotechnology is. I think that's actually a great point. I think it relates somewhat to what Mr. Hoback was saying earlier, about how some people have a very narrow definition of certain things, and others maybe struggle to know exactly what it means or what it entails. Early in our study here we had a panel of scientists and researchers from a variety of institutions, and I asked that exact question. What is biotechnology? It was interesting to watch them try to answer, because it actually is a very difficult question to answer.

So I'm going to pose that to the three organizations here today. I'd like to hear from each of you what you would say biotechnology is. How would you describe biotechnology, if you were asked to describe it in 30 seconds or a minute?

[Penny Park]

I feel like I'm on Jeopardy and I don't have the computer Watson with me to give me a hand.

[A voice]

Call a friend.

[Penny Park]

Well, I would say that biotechnology is the ability to.... You should be asking him first. Let me defer to the scientist, because that's what I would do.

[Jerome Konecsni]

I think biotechnology, the semantic definition, is the application of advanced technology--in other words, not average know-how or capability--to biology to develop new products, new processes, and new knowledge. I think one of the best examples and earliest examples of biotechnology is beer and the fermentation system used to generate beer. That biotechnology has been around for a long, long time. I can't remember now, but there have been some recent studies that found that the first beer was made 10,000 years ago, or something like that. That's an example.

So it's not just GM; it's the application of advanced knowledge of technology to biological systems.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

That's probably the best and most succinct description I've heard yet, and we certainly appreciate that application you used as an example.

Would either of the others like to give a short definition of what you would consider biotechnology to be?

[Penny Park]

No, I'd go with him.

[Christie Young]

I'm not sure that it would be a working definition for the biotech industry, but I think that understanding biological processes and how we use biological processes within our agricultural frameworks could be considered biotechnology. We've done that in a variety of ways over the lifetime of agriculture as humans. We constantly watch ecological systems and the interactions between different biological components, and we understand how they work and how they can benefit us, from grazing cattle to growing plants to adapting seed varieties. I think there is lots of potential for other kinds of biologically oriented technologies that use an understanding of biological systems to better allow us to benefit from interactions that already exist in ecological systems.

That's probably not what you were looking for.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I appreciate that very much.

[Christie Young]

An example is the growth of biological pest control in greenhouse management. They use certain pests to combat other pests. They'll bring in a box of some kind of parasitic pest, and that parasitic pest will target a certain pest they're dealing with within their greenhouse system. I would consider that a biological technology.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

It's always interesting, because I think we all have a different definition in our heads of what biotechnology is. And it may be from our experiences or our knowledge or our education. So it's always interesting to hear the variety of answers to that question.

I'm going to actually focus in now on one specific part of biotechnology, and that is on the GMO side of things.

Mr. Konecsni, I would like to ask you this question, because you've been involved with various types of research, and you have a varied background, a unique perspective, I think, because you have been involved in so many different perspectives and aspects of biotechnology.

Specifically related to GMOs, we've had a variety of viewpoints expressed at the committee, and on one particular panel, quite a wide variety. Often it has become a debate sort of for and against at some of these meetings we've held. So I guess I'm going to ask you to have that debate with yourself. I'd like to hear what you would consider the best argument for genetically modified organisms and what you think is the best argument against them.

[Jerome Konecsni]

I think the best argument for genetic engineering and use of transgenic technology is the ability to develop specific applications and products in a quicker period of time. When you look at the end product and the rigour of the approval process--safety testing and toxicity testing--I'll tell you there is no organic product on the market right now, and this comes from my experience of 10 years, that undergoes the scrutiny of safety and toxicity that a GM technology or product does, not even close.

The products that are sold in natural health and dietary supplements and organics...you don't have to invest $100 million in research to introduce a new organic product to the market. And the organic market is fraught with a lot of unsubstantiated claims and products. The clinical research to back up a lot of the claims isn't there in a lot of the natural health products area, and that is a concern for me.

So I think what we have to look at is what is the end. The end game is healthier, safer, more environmentally friendly food. I think that's the end game. And what we have to do is look at things objectively and dispassionately. Emotional arguments are not going to succeed with anybody.

The benefit of organic is that it's the choice of a lifestyle. But if you ask me--and I had this case. I have an 87-year-old father. He was buying flax seed, and I was producing organic flax seed. He asked if he should buy organic flax oil or conventional. I told him I sold organic flax oil and conventional and I told him to buy the conventional. It's not worth the 50% more you're paying for organic flax and the benefits aren't there. The impact on the safety...there is no scientific evidence to say there is more contamination in conventional flax oil. We can't even detect that...the same levels of detection. I told him because he was on a fixed income as a senior to buy the conventional flax oil and that he wouldn't experience any difference in the health benefits. That was my advice to my own father, and I was selling the product.