Evidence of meeting #33 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was standards.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you.
Then, in the short term, as far as the farmers that are harvesting the crop this year are concerned, there should be no penalty, because there are no guidelines. Basically, to be fair to them, they haven't had the ability to know what the goals should be.
President, Canadian National Millers Association, P & H Milling Group
I would support your statement that there should be no sudden change in the regulatory environment that would cause producers financial harm. The fact of the matter is that we have new oversight. Things have changed with CFIA. CFIA has an active compliance and enforcement program that we take issue with. Mills are faced with new constraints that are being done on an ad hoc basis.
The mill in New Brunswick has a directive that's all its own. It's unique among all the milling industry. It has been told to adhere to a certain standard based on something in the U.K. I can't tell you how frustrating and difficult it is. That mill is very small, very close to producers, very regional.
I've shared documents with the committee through the clerk—a couple more are being translated—that I hope will give you a fuller picture, but things definitely have changed for the industry and for producers because of CFIA's compliance and enforcement activity. There's no getting around that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Your time has expired, Mr. Hoback.
Mr. Valeriote, you have five minutes.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Hewson, I'm going to sum up what I understand to be the problem, and you can correct me if I'm wrong.
As I understand it, there are no written standards with respect to DON or fusarium; there is a standard of two parts per million that is more a voluntary one or a custom that has arisen that people are following; suddenly, someone somewhere—I presume at CFIA—has imposed a standard without any scientific evidence to back it up; there are producers who are suffering as a result of the imposition of that standard; and that standard, whatever it may be, is stricter than that in the United States, which is also causing problems.
Can you tell me where I'm wrong in that summary?
Vice-President, Saskatchewan, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
I think I may let Blair answer that question.
Executive Director, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
You are correct that there are no DON standards, regulatory standards, in place in Canada, not officially, but as the millers have spoken to today, there is this ad hoc approach to compliance that is certainly impacting their members--
Executive Director, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
I'm not in a position to confirm or not confirm what the standards are that they're being asked to comply with. It sound like they're variable.
Most of the examples they've referenced relate to Atlantic Canada. I'm not familiar with mills in western Canada or whether the Canadian prairie farmers have been affected to the same extent from this--
October 20th, 2009 / 4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
But I'd like to get to the point here.
You're nodding your head no.
Somebody said two parts per million. Is that fusarium or is that DON? Is that the blight or is that DON that is two parts per million?
President, Canadian National Millers Association, P & H Milling Group
Two parts per million of DON in uncleaned soft wheat, one part per million in uncleaned soft wheat destined for baby foods or infant foods. Those are guidelines that are labelled as under review on Health Canada's website. They've been around for years. Their origins date back to the early 1980s with the Ontario situation and Health Canada is taking on board, we understand, what's going on within Codex, multilateral examination of this, and will be bringing forward proposed new guidelines for DON.
The issue is that CFIA, in trying to exercise its obligations, is searching for thresholds that would be a significant finding for DON in flour or bran, for example, or a breakfast cereal, and they are looking at breakfast cereals as well as other things. In the absence of those, CFIA has said on more than one occasion that they're referencing the EU limit or proposed. On more than one occasion they've said we're taking a zero tolerance approach, so when we find a level we have to ask Health Canada for a risk assessment, which is a standardized procedure that Health Canada has applied. We've seen examples of it, but that too is a discipline, it's not a science.
So what we're wrestling with--there's a whole supply chain--is this transition period in which regulators internationally are saying we need to exhibit more oversight on this, and while we have sympathy with CFIA's difficulty in not having the appropriate benchmarks, we have huge frustration with this act of compliance and enforcement. Our view is that the CFIA should be in research mode. This is the issue. They should be in research mode, not in enforcement mode, and we would support that research mode.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
And do you all agree? Somebody mentioned a moratorium right now on making any changes to the current standards that are being followed. Do you all agree that this moratorium should exist until CFIA and others have completed their research and established standards?
Vice-President, Saskatchewan, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
Yes.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
When we speak of research, are we talking about research just into what standards ought to exist or are we talking about research into creating new varieties by crossbreeding or whatever other process might be applied? Can you tell me what kind of research would be helpful and would that be done at the university research level? Would that be done at your level? What kind of help are you seeking with respect to research?
President, Canadian National Millers Association, P & H Milling Group
I think Nigel said that they're looking for active research, publicly funded research, in particular into varietal development. This is what growers have said in P.E.I. as well as here. We need to have research into methods of detection and quantification. Producers do not have the ability at farm level to quickly and accurately assess the levels in their crop, in their bins. There is not, for either DON or for ochratoxin A, the other mycotoxin we're talking about, readily available technology that can be applied, and processors have no analytical capacity for ochratoxin A whatsoever.
So we need research on a number of fronts, but probably the principal one would be in varietal development, resistant varieties. That will assist tremendously, and whether that's achieved through conventional breeding or, as some would advocate, through rDNA or biotechnology, is really ultimately not terribly relevant in my view. What we need are resistant varieties, and significant work is going on.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
And there has been no incidence of death or ill health, given the current voluntary standards that are being followed.
President, Canadian National Millers Association, P & H Milling Group
It's a question I would put to Health Canada, but I have an e-mail from Health Canada to that effect, that in North America no acute adverse human health outcome is associated with acute sudden intake levels. But Health Canada could speak to that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Your time has expired, Mr. Valeriote.
Mr. Storseth, five minutes.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to compliment Mr. Valeriote on his increased knowledge. He sounds more and more like the agriculture critic from the opposition, so congratulations.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I would like to start out by thanking all the witnesses for coming forward. This is a very important issue, a growing issue, obviously, in western Canada, more and more so. And it's something I wish we could dedicate more than two and a half hours to.
For those of us who have done a lot of research on this, and obviously live in farm producing areas, it seems to me that....
Maybe I'll start with Mr. Harrison, or Mr. Jamieson, or Mr. Hewson; they could all answer this question.
I think it was Mr. Hewson who said it exactly right, that it's susceptible varieties plus increased humidity. The right conditions create more significant problems when it comes to fusarium.
Now, it seems to me that the answer to that--we may look at some of what may or may not be causing it--is more research and development into genetically modified crops and finding varieties that are less susceptible to this and stronger. That seems to be where our biggest gains have been over the last 10 to 15 years, and we should continue to push that avenue so we can continue to have better and stronger varieties.
Can I have your comments, perhaps starting with Mr. Hewson and moving this way?
Vice-President, Saskatchewan, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
Like Blair, I'm certainly not a scientist, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Conservative
Vice-President, Saskatchewan, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association
I'll use that power wisely.
In terms of traditional wheat research and plant breeding—I'm not an expert on that either--you find a variety, whether it be a wild grass, whatever it is that shows resistance to fusarium, and you crossbreed it with existing varieties. It's a very haphazard approach. You're trying to get an end product that growers will want to grow, agronomically grow. Obviously if it has a terrible yield, then it doesn't matter if it's the most resistant to fusarium variety in the world; farmers won't grow it.
Where biotechnology offers solutions to that is in the ability to target specific genes and only switch them over, whereas if you're crossing, say, more of a grassy species with a milling wheat species, you may be getting all kinds of undesirable characteristics. Hopefully the process would be sped up because of the precision of only spreading the genetic characteristics you want.
I definitely feel it has a fit. Definitely private industry, different companies have certainly invested research into this, and there's more to come from that. Obviously there is the intransigence of a lot of our customers to buying genetically engineered wheat, and that has to be overcome before any of these varieties can be brought to bear because it's no use having wheat that you can't market.
Blair, do you have anything to add to that?