Agriculture Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I thought you indicated at the beginning of the meeting that we would set aside time to deal with these.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We just did, Mr. Valeriote. In order for them to stray from the order in which they come in—I thought I explained this clearly now—you need unanimous consent.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Are we now going to deal with all these motions?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

No, we're not. That wasn't the request to start with, at the beginning of the meeting. The plan is to deal with them on Thursday, or at the next meeting; that was quite clear. There was a special request to deal with these two motions. We had the request, and they were turned down. Don't blame that on me.

Is there a point of order?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to say again that I am not trying to jump the queue with my motion. It is only because there was a date when Mr. De Schutter was available. Out of fairness, I want to make sure that on Thursday, the committee will have time to deal with everyone's motions and that that will be included in the agenda. Can you assure me of that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I have no issue with the business. As is normal, we usually try to save time for the end of the meeting. Is that fair enough?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

My motion cannot be dealt with after October 27. That is my concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I understand. If we have witnesses, we can let our witnesses go at five o'clock and move to committee business.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Can we have it on the agenda that we will be discussing motions, please?

Thank you for your cooperation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, and we also have a housekeeping budget item that I don't think will be debated long. It's just another thing we have to deal with. There was just no urgency to deal with it today, as the clerk informed me. That's why it wasn't on the agenda.

Can we move to our witnesses?

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

A point of clarification, for the record.

This Thursday we will take the last 15 minutes at committee, as we usually do, to make sure we look at Mr. Bellavance's motion. Is that what we're committing to do right now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, we're committing to that at the end of the meeting.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

And just so everybody is clear, we'll be dealing with them in the order they came in, unless I have direction to do otherwise.

I thought our witnesses were moving to the table. Sorry for the delay, ladies and gentlemen.

We have, from the Department of Health, Mr. Godefroy and Mr. Salminen; from the CFIA, Mr. Paul Mayers and Mr. Charlebois; and from the Canadian Grain Commission, Mr. Cam Dahl and Mr. Norm Woodbeck.

Rather than stick right to the order here, who's ready to go first?

Mr. Godefroy.

[Dr. Samuel Godefroy, Director General, Food Directorate, Department of Health]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, honourable members.

Given the time allotted for our discussions, we have elected to restrict this brief introduction to providing the honourable committee members with a brief overview on how Health Canada sets safety standards for contaminants, such as those naturally occurring toxins that have been discussed by the committee this afternoon, in foods that are destined for human consumption, and the way we operate in collaboration with the CFIA to protect Canadians' health vis-à-vis food contaminants.

Health Canada is the federal health authority that is responsible for establishing policies, setting standards, conducting health risk assessments in the context of food safety investigations, and providing advice and information on the safety and nutritional quality of foods available for sale in Canada. The department's role in setting food standards is driven by our mandate to ensure that the safety of the Canadian food supply is, and continues to be, a major contributor to protecting Canadians' health. Health Canada standards are the main reference for the enforcement and compliance activities undertaken by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Part of the work that is undertaken by Health Canada scientists is to ensure that chemical contaminants, including naturally occurring toxins, are not present in the food supply at levels that would pose an unacceptable risk to Canadians' health.

The procedures we follow are those of international authorities, namely, the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the World Health Organization. The procedures include three main components: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication.

Risk assessments are conducted using all available scientific data, including epidemiological data, analytical and exposure data, and toxicological data. These assessments must be based on exposure scenarios, which, despite being hypothetical at times, are also as realistic as possible.

It is crucial to take into account the Canadian context in terms of the consumption patterns of all age groups. Where relevant, exposure estimates may also take into account population groups considered susceptible, especially children, infants, pregnant women and anyone who may be at high risk as a result of acute or chronic exposure, meaning long term. These estimates may take into account cumulative and/or combined adverse health effects, as well.

As a result of these science-based assessments, various types of risk management activities can be used to protect Canadian consumers from potentially high levels of contaminants in food. These may include corrective action at various stages of the food production process, including at the farm level, the removal of certain products from the retail market, or, if required, the development of maximum levels for a contaminant or a toxin in a specific food.

Such maximum levels are developed for those foods that are considered to be significant contributors to total exposure to the consumer for that specific contaminant. These levels are also considered as systematic references for enforcement actions undertaken by the CFIA.

Now, if it's concluded that the development of maximum levels or standards is the most appropriate risk management strategy, then a number of steps must be followed. Those steps include the scientific assessment of the risk to human health that focuses on the Canadian context, the assessment of the impacts of the proposed standards on the food supply chain, including the farming community, broad consultation with industry and other stakeholders, and also consideration of trade implications based on Canada's international commitments.

It should be noted that, like other food regulatory agencies around the world, Health Canada has not established maximum levels for all contaminants, or, if you will, for every combination of a contaminant in a food commodity. The absence of a standard or the absence of a maximum level does not, however, mean a lack of oversight or a lack of accountability. Similarly, the absence of a maximum level or a guideline does not imply either a zero tolerance or that a standard from another country should be applied.

In the case where there is no established maximum level or a standard, the results of regular inspection and surveillance activities conducted by the CFIA are provided to Health Canada scientists for assessment. This is particularly important if these results indicate elevated levels of a particular contaminant in a specific food commodity, which immediately triggers an evaluation to assess the potential risk for the case in question.

It is important also to note that the approach used in these risk assessments is not arbitrary but also follows internationally established processes. The outcomes of these assessments guide the development of the appropriate risk management measures to be followed by the CFIA, under the authority of the Food and Drugs Act.

We would be happy to answer any questions that the honourable committee members may have on how these processes are followed with respect to managing risks to human health associated with some of the natural toxins that were brought before the committee today, like ochratoxin A or deoxynivalenol.

I'll turn it over to my colleague from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for his introduction.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Salminen, you have nothing to add to that? Okay.

We'll move to CFIA, to Mr. Charlebois and Mr. Mayers.

[Robert Charlebois, Executive Director, Food Safety and Consumer Protection Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Robert Charlebois, and I am the Executive Director of Food Safety and Consumer Protection at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I just want to take a few minutes to explain to the committee what fusarium toxins are and why we test for them. I will also let you know what the allowable limits are for these toxins as there are different thresholds depending on what the end product is to be used for. Finally, I will try briefly to bring some clarity to the recent report in La Presse about grain being rejected in Prince Edward Island.

Deoxynivalenol, or DON, commonly referred to as vomitoxin, is a toxin, as we heard, that may occur in a variety of grains--wheat, for sure, but barley, oats, rye, and maize. It could develop in humid and warm conditions during the flowering season.

Health Canada, as we just heard, sets the standard for food safety in Canada, so they have set the allowable threshold for these toxins in food. Current guidelines permit a maximum of two parts per million of vomitoxin or DON in uncleaned soft wheat. So that's the current guideline set by Health Canada. That type of soft wheat is used for the manufacture of food products such as cake, cookies, biscuits, and cereals.

The threshold for using infant food, however, is lower, at one part per million. These standards have been in place for more than 20 years and have not changed recently.

For grain intended for feed, this is a bit different: CFIA sets the level. Current action levels for vomitoxins are at one part per million in complete feed for the diets of swine, young calves, and lactating dairy animals, and five parts per million in complete feed for cattle and poultry because they are more resistant. These standards have not changed for over a decade as well.

Levels of these toxins are monitored by the CFIA because they can cause serious health problems in humans and animals when ingested, even at very low levels, specifically, parts per billion to parts per million. In humans, DON and other mycotoxins can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, severe hemorrhaging, immune suppression and even cancer. The effects on livestock can include feed refusal, vomiting, impaired reproductive function, reduced fertility, lung disease, cancer and, in some cases, even death.

The CFIA conducts targeted inspections and sampling at the milling level if the grain is intended for human consumption. Compliance levels are typically high. For feed, the CFIA has tested for these types of toxins and mycotoxins for many years, including random and targeted sampling.

I have been describing the regulatory limits for these toxins and inspector programs for soft wheat. For hard wheat, Health Canada has not yet established a regulatory standard or limit for the presence of DON or vomitoxin. Thus, the levels of 2 ppm and 1 ppm are for soft wheat.

Given the potential health risk of vomitoxin, the CFIA is conducting monitoring, albeit limited, for this contaminant in hard wheat. This is done in accordance with section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act, which presents a general prohibition on the sale of unsafe food. Even where no specific standard or guideline has been established by Health Canada, section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act must be taken into account.

Where vomitoxin is present in a sample, these results are submitted to Health Canada for a health risk assessment. Based on that assessment, CFIA will consider enforcement action--where warranted only, for sure. That is the general approach that we're using.

To go back to the P.E.I. issue, recently some articles were published in the media that CFIA had suddenly changed the threshold for these toxins. This is not accurate. As I mentioned earlier, the standard for food is not set by CFIA. The soft wheat standard is established by Health Canada and it has not changed. Nor did CFIA change the allowable limits for these toxins in animal feed. We have not been engaged in any recent enforcement actions related to this risk in Prince Edward Island.

I also want to make it clear that, contrary to media reports, CFIA did not instruct mills to refuse wheat from P.E.I. farmers. The more recent report suggests there was a miscommunication from the wheat buyer that led producers to believe they would have to meet higher or altered standards than the ones set by Health Canada or the CFIA in the case of feed. The error was acknowledged at a later date.

The Canadian government's policies around vomitoxin are all established in the international context of shared sound science. Canada actively participates in the work done by the Codex Alimentarius Commission on additives and contaminants, which puts a focus on vomitoxin.

This body is responsible for developing the code of practice for the prevention of mycotoxin contamination in cereals. The Codex Alimentarius Commission is an international body established under the joint auspices of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization. It develops food standards, international guidelines and texts, such as the code of practice I just mentioned.

Canada's participation in such bodies is consistent with the high priority the Government of Canada places on protecting the health of consumers. Monitoring for vomitoxin is an important element of our overall food safety program.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would be happy to answer any questions the committee may have for me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to the Canadian Grain Commission with Mr. Dahl and Mr. Woodbeck.

[Cam Dahl, Commissioner, Canadian Grain Commission]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is a privilege for me to be in front of you again today.

I have a very good ten-minute presentation, but I'm not going to give it to you today. You have a handout that highlights some of the Canadian Grain Commission's activities in fusarium and fusarium-damaged kernels as well as some of the history of fusarium infection in both eastern and western Canada.

I would like to take a couple of minutes to highlight a couple of points from that handout. Then Norm and I would be happy to answer your questions.

First, I'd like to emphasize that grain safety is part of the Canadian Grain Commission's mandate, along with the requirement or mandate on maintain grain quality and grain quality assurance.

You will see in your handout some tables that show the fusarium tolerances for both eastern and western wheat and how those tolerances have changed over time.

Since about 1980, the Canadian Grain Commission has employed the grading system to manage the flow of DON, which appeared in eastern Canada in the early eighties, into the food and feed chain. These tolerances started out very tight, but as the understanding of the relationship between DON and fusarium-damaged kernels grew, we were able to relax those tolerances.

I'd also like to highlight that we do not arbitrarily set the tolerances for fusarium-damaged kernels in the grading system. These are set in consultation with the eastern and western standards committees. These committees include all parts of the value chain, from farmers to processors; they also include the scientific input from the Grain Research Laboratory. So the standards that are set and reviewed over time are science-based and arrived at through consultations with people representing the entire value chain.

We have some interesting information on the history of our findings on DON. It's important to note that the grading system has been effective in managing the flow of DON into the system. Also important is some of the ongoing research. I know some of the previous witnesses have remarked on the need to move to DON-testing at the elevator or on the farmer's field. That is something we are actively working on.

Currently, the reason we use fusarium-damaged kernels in the grading system instead of DON is that the required tests simply take too long to be practical at the elevator or on the farm. These tests can take up to an hour to perform. But we are actively working with the industry and with private companies to evaluate equipment, with the goal of introducing DON tests on the driveway.

We also continue to work with the international community. The Grain Research Laboratory continues to work with the international scientific community on understanding the relationship between fusarium-damaged kernels and DON. These relationships might be changing over time, along with some of the types of fusarium infection. The relationship between DON and fusarium-damaged kernels is something our Grain Research Laboratory places a great deal of emphasis on.

Finally, I want to talk a little bit about the work we're doing with farm groups. We're happy to be able to work with the Atlantic Grains Council. Allan has mentioned problems on differences or variations in different tests from labs, and we're working to resolve some of those issues. We're also working with farm groups in Ontario to develop new scientific equipment.

That is a short version of my ten-minute speech. Norm and I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Cam.

As we all know, we're going to have bells go off here for a vote soon. Could we have just a two-minute round? I want to give everybody a question and move on.

Is everybody okay with that?

Mr. Valeriote, one question, please.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Godefroy, thank you very much for your presentation. As I understand it, your job at Health Canada is to determine what is or isn't unacceptable risk in this case of the presence of DON, and you manage a risk assessment, risk management, risk communication program. You look at, perhaps, world expectations and standards at the Codex committee and the WTO. You also indicated that you had to make sure you complied with agreements Canada may have with those organizations.

Is it of a current state, right now, this issue, that to live with the current standards—I think it's two parts per million that earlier witnesses had testified to—would we be in violation of any agreements or obligations if we put a moratorium on any changes right now until the passage of 18 months, until such time that you have completed your risk assessment and established a standard that, in communication with producers and millers, people could live with?

[Dr. Samuel Godefroy]

Thank you, honourable member.

The discrepancy with other standards does not really present itself in terms of violations of international agreements. Our work at Health Canada is to ensure that the standards that are in place are protective to human health. As was mentioned by previous witnesses, we have in effect two standards, the two parts per million for soft wheat and the one part per million for, again, soft wheat, destined for essentially baby foods.

Those standards, as was mentioned, are actually under review simply because they were set a number of years ago, over 20 years ago. We have new scientific evidence that is at hand for Health Canada scientists. The scientific evidence that is available both on the hazards associated with this toxin and also on the level of occurrence of the toxins in the Canadian food supply warrants such evaluation. The evaluation is actually right now under way, and that's what Health Canada, right now, has committed to doing as part of its program on microtoxins. We have, right now, a plan to complete the scientific evaluation during the course of 2010, and at that point we will be able to make a recommendation on whether the standards that were previously set are adequate and if essentially additional standards may be warranted for other food commodities—because again, those standards cover only two commodities, or a very narrow number of food products. That's what the assessment will help us determine.

In the meantime, when there is no standard, the previous explanation that I have provided to the committee on how we manage collectively with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, any type of health risk that may be inherent to the presence of contaminants, including natural toxins, that type of process would apply.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bellavance or Mr. Guimond.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Dhal and Mr. Woodbeck, you are aware that the government introduced Bill C-13. Obviously, it affects the Canadian Grain Commission. The relevance of visually inspecting grain is being questioned. Would discontinuing this type of inspection affect the detection of this toxin? Could you please explain, either way?

[Cam Dahl]

My understanding of the proposed legislation is that it would not see a change to the establishment of grade. Those are the grades that farmers receive when they deliver to primary elevators, and if they disagree with those grades, there's an opportunity to appeal to the Canadian Grain Commission. The fusarium-damaged kernels are a part of that grading system. There is no anticipated change to the establishment of that kind of grading system, and that would also apply to the grades that we give as the Canadian Grain Commission in the certificate final for vessels that are loaded for international customers. We provide assurances and a certificate final for our international customers on vessels that are going abroad. Again, my understanding of the proposed legislation is that would not change and neither would the establishment of the grading system itself, which includes the fusarium-damaged kernels that we're talking about today.