Evidence of meeting #32 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was seeds.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
I'll call this meeting to order.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. If everyone can take their seats, we'll start. We're already five minutes late. That's just not on, right, Mr. Easter?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
This morning, in our meeting 32, I understand we're going to have a briefing on terminator seeds and a good dialogue on that.
With us today from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we have Stephen Yarrow, director of the plant biosafety office, and Glyn Chancey, director of the plant production division. We have an import from the British Isles. Welcome, Dr. Steinbrecher, co-director of the EcoNexus foundation. From CropLife Canada, we have Denise Dewar, the executive director of plant biotechnology.
Generally the format is 10 minutes for each group to give a presentation. We're actually going to stretch that for Dr. Steinbrecher, because of the distance she's travelled. She wins the award for furthest away from home, so we'll stretch that to 15. I will give you the one-minute high sign. Please adhere to that, because we will cut you off. We have a very limited amount of time for questions and answers. We'll shorten the questions and answers section to five minutes per member because of the limited time. We may do that all day today.
Having said that, we'll start off with Mr. Yarrow or Mr. Chancey. Who's going to lead off for the first 10?
Mr. Yarrow, go ahead, please.
11:05 a.m.
Dr. Stephen Yarrow Director , Plant Biosafety Office, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Today I would like to provide an overview of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's mandate as it relates to genetic use restriction technologies, or GURTs. You've made reference to the terminator technology as well. I and my colleague Glyn Chancey will do our best to answer any questions you may have after this.
As Canada's largest science-based regulatory agency, the CFIA is responsible for regulatory policy setting and the delivery of all federally mandated food inspection, plant protection, and animal health programs. As part of its mandate, the CFIA regulates the environmental release of plants developed through biotechnology, which are included in a broad category called plants with novel traits. Plants with these GURT-type traits would fall within that category.
GURTs are forms of genetic engineering technology. In theory, GURTs provide the means to either restrict the use of a plant variety or the expression of a trait of a particular plant variety, analogous to throwing a genetic switch on or off.
Our understanding is that actually there are two types of GURTs. One type, the type that is perhaps more controversial, would control a seed's ability to grow. This type is sometimes referred to as the terminator technology, as you mentioned. The other type, the type that's often overlooked actually, would allow a plant to express specific traits--for example, drought resistance or improved nutritional qualities--only after specific treatment, such as a spray application or something like that. This type of GURT would not affect a plant's ability to reproduce, at least as we understand it.
Mr. Chair, it is not the CFIA's responsibility to promote or oppose this technology. It is, however, the agency's responsibility to ensure that Canada has a strong and effective regulatory system that allows us to manage the potential risks associated with plants with novel traits in general, including those with these GURT-type traits.
Science is the basis of the agency's policy development, program design, and delivery. It is also an essential component of its regulatory decision-making and verification and enforcement activities. Laboratory science, risk assessment, surveillance, and research and technology development are the tools the agency uses every day to protect Canadians.
Before approving any plant with novel traits in Canada, the CFIA, in conjunction with our colleagues at Health Canada, conducts stringent assessments on the potential risks to our environment, livestock, and food. Our goal is to ensure that the products of biotechnologies available to farmers are consistent with approaches to sustainable agriculture.
It is important to note, Mr. Chair, that GURTs are still at the research stage. To our knowledge, to date there have been no commercial applications or even research field trials in Canada. However, given the complexity of this technology and the length of time it would take for a product to fulfill regulatory requirements, the CFIA does not expect to see a proposal for potential authorization for any plants with GURT traits in the near future. However, if and when we receive such applications, the agency would treat them they way it would for any other plant with a novel trait.
In addition, as you may or may not know, the issue of GURTs has been raised at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, where recommendations have been made related to the use of GURT-type technologies. Canada supports these recommendations, particularly because Canada is a party to this convention as well. These recommendations are to proceed cautiously, on a case-by-case basis, using science to guide all our decisions.
In closing, let me assure the committee that no use will be made of GURTs in Canada until such technologies have been demonstrated to be safe for humans, animals, and the environment.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Director , Plant Biosafety Office, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
It's Dr. Yarrow.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Glyn Chancey Director, Plant Production Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
No, I have nothing to add.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
All right.
We'll move to Dr. Steinbrecher, please, for 15 minutes.
11:10 a.m.
Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher Co-Director, EcoNexus
Thank you.
My background is as a genetic scientist, and at the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was just mentioned by my colleague here, I represent the Federation of German Scientists. In that way, I represent Germany and the U.K. a little bit in my nationality.
My concern is also with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, so I've been here in Montreal at the negotiations a number of times. It is also that expertise around biosafety and gene regulation that I bring to this meeting.
Briefly, with respect to GURTs, as we call it in the CBD, it is genetic use restriction technology, otherwise referred to as terminator technology, in respect to seeds that are sterile. And as we heard, we also have the other variety, which are seeds that will not express certain traits of plants unless sprayed. In addressing this topic, I want to proceed under four headings: the purpose of GURTs; the design of GURTs; the specifics of it in comparison, for example, to other GMOs or to seedless grapes or hybrid seeds; and the problems with GURTs, the risk scenarios and potential impacts on farmers.
Briefly, to the purpose, as I see it, it's twofold, according to its original design--I'm now talking about terminator technology or V-GURTs. According to its original design, it is intended as an IP protection--protection of intellectual property--or as it's called by those who are currently developing it, Delta and Pine Land, TPS--technology protection system. It is to protect the technology of those who develop it, meaning that the farmers cannot reuse any saved seed.
The second purpose is to protect the environment from contamination. If I have sterile seeds, then anything that escapes will not be able to multiply in the environment. It is predominantly under that heading that it is discussed by regulators, and I will go into that a bit more in a moment.
Just briefly on the design, it has three major components. The first component is to have a toxin gene, a gene that produces a toxin that is lethal to the cell, to the plant. It's not a toxin gene when it's consumed; it's just to kill the cell. A toxin gene is put into a plant that then is supposed to be expressed, activated, at the very late embryonic stage--that is, when the seed is already developed. Then the gene will switch on so that the seed can't sprout, and the embryo will be terminated.
The problem, of course, is that if I'm the seed multiplier, how do I multiply it if my plant doesn't produce fertile seed? I need to prevent this gene from being active for the multiplication purpose; therefore, I block this gene from being active by putting, literally, a block in front of it. Now, I need to be able to switch it on later. So what do I do?
I now take a next set of genes, which has something we could say is like a molecular scissors, an enzyme that will recognize this block that I've put in and cut it out so that the gene can then become active.
But you can see that I now have a problem. I have put in a set of molecular scissors. I need to regulate them because, at one point, I will want to give the seeds to the farmer and I want the whole mechanism to be activated. I need a third set of genes that now have a repressor built in to repress the molecular scissors.
It's what we often refer to as the gene switch or gene switch technology. It means we have a component that's often taken from bacterial background, because it's been well researched, which will then react to chemicals.
In the original design, for example, tetracycline would be the trigger for the whole mechanism. This is not used in the model any longer, but alcohol-triggered mechanisms are thought about now. It means the plants are treated or something is added to the seed coating, and the mechanism is then triggered.
From the scientific perspective and my analysis and that of many of my colleagues, the problem is that we can't look at whether a whole plant works or doesn't work. I can't give you that analysis. As Stephen Yarrow already explained, GURTs do not exist yet. No greenhouse trial data is available from Canada or from anywhere else. It does not exist, and it's therefore hard for us to now give you all the details of an analysis.
We can tell you about individual components, how they work when you put them into a plant, and whether or not they work 100% reliably. I don't want to go into the details here, but if you look through all the literature or at the experiments of colleagues, it's not the case that they work 100% of the time.
For example, we have a problem with gene silencing, which is a phenomenon mostly seen in plants that have been genetically modified, where plants switch off a gene that has been introduced. In this case, you can see that it's a very complex system. There are many areas where a plant can interfere, for example, by silencing a gene. It is a problem.
Another problem is the inducer. If the chemical I apply doesn't get to all the plants or all the cells at the right time and in the right amount, the trigger will not be switched. Again, the system doesn't work.
Another possibility is that mutations will occur. Of course, it's a biological system. Plants are alive. This changes, and everything changes, otherwise evolution wouldn't take place. But we also need to be able to adapt to other situations.
Mutations and gene silencing are part of the plants' ability to survive. Of course, genes can segregate in the multiplication process. If the genes don't stay together, the mechanism again doesn't work.
To put it in a summary, we have a technology in front of us that, by its design, is very vulnerable and will in all likelihood be unable to produce to 100%. The components don't, so there is no reason to believe the whole will. We therefore need to regulate and do risk assessments for both scenarios of when the terminator technology will work and when it won't work. We need to look at both.
Common to both is the fact they produce pollen that will be able to cross-pollinate. The idea of protection against contamination is only for seed of the second generation to regrow. Pollen can cross-fertilize into nearby farmers' fields or into relatives elsewhere and will therefore give rise to seeds that potentially contain all the transgenes out of the components produced by those genes.
Thirdly, quite a number of them also will be sterile. So if a farmer saves the seeds, that means he or she can't reuse them in the way they had before, because now there will be less yield because some of the seeds will not grow anything further. Therefore, a farmer can't rely on their own seeds any longer. That means that in a way it's undermining the capacity of farmers to save seeds.
Another area, of course, is that for a farmer who wants to sell their crops, let's say terminator technology was being used in order to grow crops with pharmaceutical compounds in them, which definitely you don't want to have in a food crop that you want to sell on the market--if it's contaminated, then you can't sell it. So terminator technology, in that sense, or V-GURTs, do not work as a biocontainment, because the genes can spread, and in some cases they are inheritable.
Just briefly, what is the difference between these and other technologies that we have? For one thing, there are other ideas about containment tools using other methods, for example, putting genes into chloroplasts. I will not go into these details. According to analysis done by various scientist groups, including the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S.A., none of the methods available to us so far, including GURTs, is able to really work reliably. So we don't really have a tool at hand.
The other aspect I said I would mention is what now makes it different from other genetically modified organisms or different from, let's say, hybrid seeds. The difference is, as I mentioned earlier, that it is a gene switch technology--it is designed to be controllable from outside--so that by application of chemicals either certain traits or fertility will be available only when the plant is treated, and in that it is a completely different category.
It is also a completely different category if you look at terminator technology in that it carries completely different risks. The risks, from the scientific perspective, include a false sense of security. If you think it works and then it doesn't work, what happens then?
For example, if you have seedless grapes or seedless melons, yes, you can't use them in order to grow plants, but you are not growing the melon in order to save the seeds in order to grow another crop. You're growing the melon in order to sell it on the market, and then the consumer enjoys not having to take the seeds out. So that's completely different. If that should go wrong, nothing actually can happen. Yes, you will find some seeds in your grape, but that is not a biosafety concern.
However, if terminator technology does not go right--that means if it goes wrong, and it will go wrong in quite a number of cases--then there is a serious problem. Therefore it should not be likened to or compared on the same level as seedless fruit. Can one liken it to hybrid seeds? Actually, one cannot, because you can still replant not the hybrid seeds, but the seeds from the harvest. They will not breed true, so you don't get a uniform crop, but the seeds are still fertile, and farmers in parts use exactly those for further breeding, whereas V-GURTs, terminator seeds, will actually not grow at all.
So if you want to compare, we actually have nothing that compares to GURTs. GURTs is a category on its own, and in that sense it needs to be regulated specifically. This is exactly what the CBD has done in its decision, following all nations' agreement on a moratorium on field releases until we have further scientific data. Also, there has been agreement on no commercialization until we also rule out that it is safe, until socio-economic risk assessments, impact studies, etc., have been done.
As background information for you, the Convention on Biological Diversity is looking at GURTs as a category in its own right.
Thank you.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
Thank you, Doctor.
We'll now move to Ms. Dewar for 10 minutes, please.
11:25 a.m.
Denise Dewar Executive Director, Plant Biotechnology, CropLife Canada
Good morning. My name is Denise Dewar, and I'm the vice-president and executive director for plant biotechnology with CropLife Canada.
CropLife Canada is the trade association representing the developers, manufacturers, and distributors of plant science innovations, pest control products, and plant biotechnology for use in agriculture, urban, and public health settings. CropLife Canada's mission is to support innovative and sustainable agriculture in Canada, in cooperation with others, by building trust and appreciation for plant science innovations. We stand for safety and innovation.
Safety is delivered to all Canadians by protecting human health and the environment through industry-led stewardship initiatives and a rigorous science-based regulatory system. CropLife Canada is a pioneer of industry-led programs through our stewardship's first commitment to responsibly manage the life cycle of all our products, both pesticides and plant biotechnology, from discovery to consumers. Our programs are recognized nationally and internationally for the results they deliver.
CropLife Canada members want to play an important role in enhancing the value of Canadian agricultural production by introducing innovations to agriculture. We recognize that Canadian producers have been experiencing enormous pressures, with border closures resulting from BSE, historically low commodity pricing, and competition from countries such as Brazil, whose agricultural production is growing at an extraordinary rate.
Our members have worked and continue to work toward bringing innovative products to Canadian agriculture, offering farmers new seed and trade technologies as well as the latest advancements in pest control for crop protection. These new tools provide farmers with improved yields, better pest control, higher-value crops, and lower production costs. In addition, the technologies currently in the research pipeline of the life science companies have the potential to revolutionize agriculture as we know it today. Crop plants will be the platform of the new bio-economy, which is estimated to reach some $500 billion by 2015.
We often hear the saying that oil is black gold. Well, the vision for agriculture from CropLife Canada member companies is that agriculture will be the new green gold. Plants will be used to produce renewable energy, plastics, fibres, new materials, nutritionally enhanced foods, and safer, more secure supplies of medicines. We believe that new technology is part of the solution to the current challenges facing crop agriculture. We want Canadian farmers to benefit from this tremendous opportunity by capturing their share of the growing bio-economy.
Today you are examining one type of technology that is still under development in laboratories, not yet in the field trial or in the marketplace. Some call it terminator gene, which is a catchy expression, but absolutely inaccurate and misleading. I would like to take a few moments to give you our perspective on this technology, how it works, and what it can deliver to Canadian farmers.
Our industry is all about delivering interesting and valuable traits to farmers through seeds and crop varieties. From traditional plant breeding to more recent advanced genetics, the aim is the same: to provide added value and improvements to the crops we grow through increased yields, pest and disease resistance, improved nutrition, and in the future, the ability to grow industrial products such as plastics, pharmaceuticals, fuels, and other materials from a renewable resource.
By exploring how plants can be used in novel ways, we have made new discoveries, as well as discovered new ways to improve upon known results. We call one area of discovery GURTs, or genetic use restriction technologies. It's not a catchy name, but it is scientifically accurate. One type of GURT can impart seed sterility. This is known as varietal GURT or V-GURT. Plant breeding resulted in seedless grapes and watermelon, and seed sterility, the inability for a seed to reproduce. This technology is no different.
We see real benefits to this technology in certain situations. For example, seed sterility technology prevents the unwanted transfer of genetic properties to other plants. Simply put, they block the possibility of engineered genes from ending up elsewhere. This is an advantage when growing crops that produce industrial products or pharmaceuticals in an area where there is also food production. This is also an advantage for neighbouring farms producing organic crops. There is no longer a concern about the potential for pollen flow. In addition to the already very strict rules governing the production of industrial products, including pharmaceuticals and plants, this technology is another tool that can provide benefits.
Critics say that this technology threatens farmers in the developing world by preventing the saving of seed from this year's crop for next year's planting, but these seeds are not designed for developing world farmers. These are designed, in part, for farmers who already buy new seed every year. Most farmers in the developed world buy hybrid, certified, or transgenic seed each year. These types of seed cost more but produce far better yields, protect the environment, or cost far less to grow, so the farmer gains in the end. Farmers in Canada have voted with their seeders by rapidly adopting these technologies.
Another type of GURT acts as a switch, similar to a light switch in your house, that only switches on when needed. This is known as a trait GURT or a T-GURT. Examples of this technology include enabling a plant to switch on its ability to withstand drought conditions only when a drought occurs. In non-drought conditions the plant would not express this gene, allowing it to devote its energy to the crop itself.
While we are developers of innovations for agriculture, we support farmers' choice in production systems, such as conventional, organic, or biotechnology-based agriculture. We also support farmers' choice in seed varieties to decide which varieties deliver the highest returns and benefits. As with all agricultural inputs, if varieties with this technology do not provide a significant financial benefit, farmers will remain free to use varieties that do not contain GURTs, and free to use farm-safe seed, as appropriate and allowed under local customs and laws.
We are asking you, as parliamentarians, to support the evaluation of GURTs and other technologies through a science-based regulatory system, and on a case-by-case basis, so the benefits and opportunities of innovation are made available to Canadian farmers.
Thank you for your interest in this topic. I look forward to answering any questions you might have.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
Thank you, Ms. Dewar.
We'll now move to the question round.
Mr. Boshcoff, five minutes, please.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Boshcoff Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Thank you very much.
Talking about biocontainment, gene silencing, genetic contamination, monocultural susceptibility, market control, and system sterility inducers kind of tells us the future is with us now.
I'll ask my questions and then you can answer them, perhaps in order.
For Dr. Steinbrecher, is there a need for a moratorium or a prohibition on the commercialization of terminator seeds? If there isn't, would that result in a world monopoly on all or most seeds that would be owned by a few essentially world monopolies?
For our friends from the government side of things, Canada signed off in Bangkok, and I think we would like to know why.
To CropLife, you mentioned the explicit benefits of the continuation of genetic alteration. They seem to be primarily financial. I think we're looking for the good of humankind here, so maybe you can address it in that way.
Thank you.
11:30 a.m.
Co-Director, EcoNexus
I'm afraid I will not be able to answer all your questions because some of them fall outside the frame of my expertise, but I'll try my best.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
11:30 a.m.
Co-Director, EcoNexus
You wonder whether there is a need for a moratorium. Reflecting good science and good scientific practices, the precautionary approach is part of that. That means if we do not have enough information but have enough evidence to believe there are risks—and some of the risks are severe—then it is good practice to say this should not be released until we have further information and knowledge. Exactly, that is a moratorium.
The Federation of German Scientists supports the moratorium as expressed by the CBD, and it's also my opinion.
Was your next question, what is the consequence if there isn't one and the technology is used?
11:35 a.m.
Co-Director, EcoNexus
If it should work, that is. I still haven't seen evidence of the technology actually working.
But from my understanding through working with governments and farmers in the south, there is a concern of loss of farmers' seeds and varieties and biodiversity. In two respects, there is a worry. One is the implications for health, because we also require a certain diversity in order to cover nutritional needs, but also in terms of farmers, that they can have their livelihoods.
My concern would be if seeds were only produced for sale, to give to farmers from the perspective of financial gain. If that was the only motivation to breed seeds, that would worry me. For example, IRRI or other institutes will actually research and produce seeds really with the needs of farmers in mind; they're not concerned with sales.
I feel this is something that really will need looking at, but that would exactly be the socio-economic implications that are required to be looked at by the CBD. But that is not my expertise, so I'll have to pass on that.
11:35 a.m.
Director , Plant Biosafety Office, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Thank you.
On your question about the Canadian government position in Bangkok, the meeting in Bangkok took place in early 2005. It was one of a series of meetings under the umbrella of the Convention on Biological Diversity. I will quote just part of the recommendation from that convention, which was actually set in the year 2000 but it gets revisited at these various meetings. It's a bit wordy, perhaps, because it's a UN recommendation. It states:
in the current absence of reliable data on genetic use restriction technologies, without which there is an inadequate basis on which to assess their potential risks, and in accordance with the precautionary approach, products incorporating such technologies should not be approved by Parties
--such as Canada as a party--
for field testing until appropriate scientific data can justify such testing,
We're just talking about field testing at this point.
In our view as the Food Inspection Agency, which oversees field testing of plants with novel traits, products of agricultural biotechnology, that is the context in which we work. We will not allow field testing to take place until there has been appropriate scientific data to justify the testing, justify the safety of the testing, justify the appropriateness of conducting these sorts of trials, and having a full scientific understanding of the traits being tested.
Generally speaking, I think most people would agree that in order to be able to understand fully these new types of technologies, one should allow field testing as long as that's done under very safe, stringent conditions. That speaks to the sorts of programs that the agency oversees. Without that field testing, how do we know what the risks are for new traits through biotechnologies such as GURTs?
I should add, just because hypothetically one would allow field testing of GURTs to take place, that does not necessarily lead to commercialization per se. That's just one step in the life cycle of a research project, as such.
So it is our view at the Food Inspection Agency and with other colleagues in other departments in the government that this recommendation of the convention is not per se a moratorium. It's not a blanket ban on research, but it is allowing such research to take place on a case-by-case basis using the precautionary principle. From an agency perspective, that mirrors what we do already, to allow these trials only when we're satisfied that they can be conducted under safe conditions.
I hope that answers that your question.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Executive Director, Plant Biotechnology, CropLife Canada
I think the question was, what are the advantages, other than intellectual property, in a more global context? Clearly, protecting intellectual property is an option for those of us in the developing world, where farmers buy their seed every year, but we do think this technology does bring opportunities to the developing world. Gene-switching technology is a very valuable technology, turning on drought tolerance in areas where drought is really a problem in the developing world, or disease and insect tolerance. Disease and insect pressure is much more persistent in developing economies. Where the temperature is higher, they have more disease infestation.
So we think these technologies can bring tremendous opportunity to the developing world when the time is appropriate and when the safety assessment has been done, as outlined. It can't be introduced before that time.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
I am actually going to have to move on. We've used eight and a half minutes in the first five-minute question. Mr. Boshcoff always gets three or four questions and then moves on. Good tactic on his part.
Monsieur Roy, five minutes, please.
11:40 a.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
I am going to ask you a question that you will be able to answer.
Given your statements, it is clear to me that today we have no assurances whatsoever that the use of the technology we are talking about here is safe.
It is my understanding that you hold doctorate in biology, but I am not sure. At one point, we learned that those seeds that are indigenous, that are natural and that have been strengthened by the use mankind has made of them, are most of the time much more resistant than these other seeds and much more efficient, especially in the case of developing countries.
Is there any point to developing this technology, given that all we really have to do is adapt the seeds we already have, which are natural, and to make them stronger naturally rather than through technology?
By engineering this type of seed, will we not be harming all of the work done over the course of 10 000 years to develop these seeds which are very performing, although they are perhaps a little bit less performing than what we would like?
