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.
Conservative
Bloc
Jean-Yves Roy Bloc Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
My question is for Ms. Steinbrecher.
Co-Director, EcoNexus
May I briefly also say that I agree that at a certain stage field testing is required if one wants more data, but we do not have enough data yet in order to actually have a scientific reason to do field testing. We need greenhouse trials first. That is the sequence. That's where we are at, then we can see later....
What you're saying is very interesting in terms of seeds actually having the capacity to be drought resistant. If you go to Ethiopia and use the test they have...actually, it's a plant that, because it is not uniformly monoculture-bred--it has all the different variations--actually has the capacity to withstand drought as well as heat, as well as too much rain. It's all in there, and the plant knows very well when a situation arrives to switch its own genes on in order to defend itself. Plants have hundreds of chemicals to defend themselves against insects.
The problem is if you have a uniform crop, where all the plants have the same vulnerability, and then if one disease comes, they all go. That is the problem. If the attempt, then, is to change that by genetic modification techniques, then I think your question is right. Could we do the same thing by just breeding differently again or by looking for seeds that are already available? It's a question of which route one wants to take. Genetic modification in itself introduces mutations. Transformation techniques to clone a plant up again from cells...you would need a lot of chemicals. It's actually used by breeders to create mutations and new varieties.
So the methods we are using are mutagenic. That is also why, in order to have genetically modified organisms safe again, you need a lot of back-crossing before you can actually use it. So I think we have to also understand that there is an urge in the scientific community to understand plants better, and I would support that. Genetic engineering is a really beautiful research tool. So I would like us to be able to use it, and the information we find is going to be helpful for breeding and improvements.
Yet it does not mean that all the ideas that come up...that one can use a drought switch. There is not one gene for drought resistance. It's a very complex system. There are probably 10 or 12 different genes and mechanisms involved for drought, so sometimes these work like, okay, we have this resistance or that resistance--say, salt resistance. Although it appears as a trait, there are so many genes involved in it, and quite often it's just illusory that we might ever be able to control it or use that as a switch.
Conservative
December 7th, 2006 / 11:45 a.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank everyone for coming in today.
I'm having some difficulty in the analysis that Dr. Steinbrecher brought to the table today, that GURT technology is not comparable to seedless fruits or to hybrids. I'm a farmer and I represent a large constituency of farmers in my riding. They're making a lot of use of hybrid crops--hybrid corn, hybrid flax and soybeans. I know for a fact that those hybrid crops in most cases do not reproduce. I look at hybrid flax; it doesn't have the ability to reproduce itself. The technology is there just through simple plant breeding, without having to go through genetic modifications.
We still have an enormous number of varieties out in the marketplace. Farmers can pick and choose what they want to use, what best suits their farming practices, what suits their environment, and if it's a GURT technology that works, they should be allowed to use it to maximize their profits. The reason they are using hybrids right now is that they're getting higher yields, and their goal is to sell that entire product. It's either going into the food industry or it's going to end up in the biofuels industry.
My comments are directed to Dr. Steinbrecher and Madam Dewar, so that you can enlighten us a little bit more. I really cannot correlate the information that was presented with what's actually happening out in the field and what we, as farmers, need to do to be more profitable.
If you can keep it short, I will split my time with my buddy Larry.
Executive Director, Plant Biotechnology, CropLife Canada
That's a great point. That's the comparison we're using, that these tools are already available in conventional breeding.
GURTs are a recombinant DNA technology; they are a new way of using seed sterility. But essentially the outcome is the same. Seedless grapes and seedless watermelon are not genetically engineered, but the outcome is the same. They don't reproduce, but they still have value. They still have benefit to the farmer, whether it's increased yield or sale of melons, whatever that may be.
Our message is let us move forward and work on the science. We think there are some pretty interesting applications here that could have benefits to agriculture. Certainly, the research is still in the laboratory phase. It's not yet in the field. It's not yet in the commercial marketplace.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
This technology isn't going to replace the varieties that are already out there or the plant breeding that's happening at Agriculture Canada research stations. It's not going to be all this privatization and control of the gene pool.
Executive Director, Plant Biotechnology, CropLife Canada
No, certainly not. Our members are all about farmer choice. We supply farmers with GM seeds. We supply farmers with non-GM seeds--also with herbicide tolerance in them, but they're non-GM. We supply farmers with conventional pesticides. Our members also sell organic pesticides.
Farmers are our customers. Our industry is really all about making sure they have choices to use whatever is most appropriate for their farm.
Co-Director, EcoNexus
Thank you for the clarification. Hybrid seeds are not defined as producing sterile seeds, but for some of them, of course, the seeds will not be able to be used. I am not knowledgeable enough on this, and that's why I would need your help. What would happen if those hybrids you were mentioning were out-crossing? Because the flax will produce pollen, I presume.
Co-Director, EcoNexus
That will go to neighbouring fields. If the neighbour then uses flax for which they keep the seeds--I'm not familiar with this--would the seeds that farmer collects be affected? Would they be sterile because you used the hybrids?
I don't think that is the case, but I do not know.
Conservative
Co-Director, EcoNexus
What I find to be the crucial difference is that you know the seed you are buying, how it performs. It's been tested, it's reliable, and you know what you have, and that is crucial for the farmer. That is what is lacking in the design of GURTs technology. It is not reliable.
Of course, research shouldn't be stopped in the laboratories. Greenhouse data is really welcome. Nobody is talking about that. But the illusion that it would offer a farmer a reliable seed and therefore farmers would ask for it because they feel it might benefit them is just not something I can give assurance to. I feel it's not going to be reliable at all--and that's what farmers need.
Conservative
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
And I will be very short.
I'm a farmer, just like my colleague here. And my problem with this whole thing is that I want farmers to continue to have the choice to keep their own seed. But at the same time, I recognize the importance of research and what have you to improve varieties.
Just so I'm clear here, Ms. Dewar, you say that the farmers will still have that emphasis. I want to be assured that the same emphasis and effort is going to be put in by the seed companies to keep up the research for new things, but that at the same time we will still have the quality being raised and the choices that I want to keep or don't want to keep as a farmer.
I'm getting mixed messages from you, Mrs. Steinbrecher, as well--or from the two of you--on cross-pollination. And I guess I'm having a hard time accepting that, because I know that for corn and, as James mentioned, flax, it isn't a problem. I would have to have something more that actually shows me as a farmer and as a politician that there is going to be negative cross-pollination. I just don't see it.
Co-Director, EcoNexus
Terminator technology, GURTs technology, as designed.... You can look at all the different patterns that have been described or at what is put forward by Delta and Pine Land, and--I am sure my colleague here will agree with me--there is no sterile pollen. Pollen is produced and will out-cross, and there is no design to prevent that from happening.
So I think you will agree with—
Executive Director, Plant Biotechnology, CropLife Canada
I think that's where the technology is today. That's where the science is today. That's why we're not yet in field trials. That's why we're not yet at commercial production.
I don't disagree that the technology has not yet proven itself, but the science continues. That's our request: allow us to continue with the science, to prove it, so we can find these mechanisms that will work on the farm in a reliable way.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Atamanenko, you have five minutes, the final five minutes, please.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I have the final five minutes.
Thank you very much for being here.
In the document I have in front of me that we talked about and that you left with me...and I'm going to address this question to Dr. Steinbrecher. You mentioned, and you talked about it today, that if varieties with GURT technology do not provide a significant financial benefit, farmers will remain free to use varieties that do not contain GURTs and will be free to use farm-safe seeds of these varieties as appropriate and as allowed under customs and law. So what you're saying is that if people have a choice, they can use either/or.
What I'm hearing, Dr. Steinbrecher, is that there might be a potential danger in this because of the pollination, and I'd like you to expand on this, if you could, please. Dr. Steinbrecher, is there a danger in farmers having a choice and using terminator seeds in addition to other seeds?
Co-Director, EcoNexus
I feel that this is exactly why we need the impact assessment, why we really need to look at it. I can point at risks. I cannot give definitive answers here. Scientists actually are the last ones one should ask for a definite answer to anything. They're constantly on the search for truth.
I feel that there is a risk, yes, definitely, that farmers could lose their own varieties if they grow their fields too close to a GURT crop. But then again, there are implications that need to be assessed. If there is the understanding that farmers should have the right to keep their seeds, if that is the understanding, well, then you need to look further into this problem. If the understanding is that farmers should not, that it's not a right, then you don't have a problem if the farmer can't save the seed.
Do you see what I mean? This is something I feel society, politicians, and farmers should come together on and ask if that's a risk you want to take, if that's where you want to go.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Thank you.
Dr. Yarrow, you mentioned that Canada is following the will of the global community in regard to the convention on biodiversity, and yet the convention does not support a case-by-case basis; it supports a moratorium. Yet Canada seems to be moving off by itself in a statement in which it says it does support case-by-case. And we're hearing that we need more studies, more evaluation.
Should we not be doing this together with the world community, and not just going off and looking at each case that may come up? I don't quite understand our position here vis-à-vis the world community.
Director , Plant Biosafety Office, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
I must admit that I'm a bit confused as to how some people interpret the recommendations of the UN in one way or another. Certainly our read is that we should be taking a precautionary approach to this. Field trials should not take place.
In other words, releasing these things into the environment should not take place unless there is scientific data to assure the regulatory authorities that to release them would be a safe activity. Without that information, speaking for the Food Inspection Agency, we would not allow their release.