Agriculture Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[Nigel Smith]

I'd like to thank the committee for having the National Farmers Union represented here. We represent 6,600 family farmers across the country and we work toward advocating farm policies that enhance farmers' economic power in the marketplace, promote environmental sustainability, and strengthen our rural communities.

We had a little background earlier on what fusarium is, but I'll gloss over that a bit more. It's also known as a scab, and it affects not only wheat but barley and other small grains in temperate and semi-tropical areas. Fusarium is a plant pathogen that has particularly serious implications for farmers, crops, livestock, and the general public. Scientific journals around the world are reporting increased fusarium damage in crops; it's not only happening in Canada. It wouldn't be inappropriate to compare this world-wide phenomenon with H1N1 or other pandemics that are spreading. It's something that everybody is going to have to deal with here.

We don't want to only look at what it is, but also how we can prevent it and lower the incidence of it within our crops. Once fusarium is in the soil, it's there for good. There's no getting rid of it, though there are various measures we can take to mitigate its effects on the crops. These kinds of things include tillage management, and residue management using tillage. The NFU has also seen public research from Canada come forward with information that shows there could be linkages between the use of glyphosate, which is a very popular herbicide in Canada, with the incidence of fusarium.

One of the main things we'd like to see come out of this would be more research into the area of this correlation. There's been a dearth of public research into this and is one of the things we're looking for most, particularly on the glyphosate issue. We feel that we need public research into this, because private research will probably have more to do with fungicides rather than actually addressing the root cause in the same way. As Mr. Hewson mentioned earlier, fungicides come with additional costs per acre as well and don't serve farmers that well.

We've been writing letters on this issue since 2003, looking for some answers and for some direction from the Government of Canada. At the same time, we're concerned about the tightening of standards on this issue, as the complications for farmers would arise there. As we already heard, the effects of the mycotoxin that develops, or is a consequence of fusarium, can really affect the bottom lines of farmers. The price of wheat can be downgraded by 40% if the grain is seriously affected by it.

The most obvious course of action would be to do more research on this. We haven't seen a whole lot of research done on this issue, particularly on glyphosate. We'd like to deal with it at the farm level and try to minimize it there. If we could get more information out to farmers on the possible effects of this, then I think we'd be headed in the right direction.

I'll just make one more point. The Farmers Union would like to see a suspension of further registration of glyphosate-resistant crops until the linkage is further understood and we see more research on this. We need a sober second thought on moving ahead with further registration of crops that could, in fact, be making this problem a lot worse for farmers.

I'll stop there.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks very much, Mr. Smith.

I understand the Atlantic Grains Council and the Island Grains and Protein Council each have a presentation. Is that correct?

[Allan Ling, Chairman, Atlantic Grains Council]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

I'm Allan Ling. Actually, what we're going to do is make a joint presentation by the Island Grains and Protein Council and the Atlantic Grains Council.

Can you hear us in Ottawa?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, everybody can hear you.

[Allan Ling]

Again, good afternoon.

We do apologize for not being there in person, the reason being that Mr. Mol and I are both farmers, and we're running about three weeks behind in our soybean harvest because of all the rain we've had in October. We could not take the chance of being away if today happened to be fine--which, of course, it isn't again.

Anyway, the reason we're doing a joint presentation is that the Island Grains and Protein Council is a full member of the Atlantic Grains Council, so we wanted to make the presentations together. David and I will be going back and forth as we go through this.

My name is Allan Ling. I'm a farmer from the central Queens area, and chairman of the Atlantic Grains Council. We grow a variety of crops on our farm, milling wheat being one of them. Of course, in the last two years, none of our wheat has made grade because of the DON-level fusarium head blight.

With us today is our executive director of the Atlantic Grains Council, Monique McTiernan. She is bilingual, so if there are any questions in French, that's fine. She's our executive director who works out of Moncton.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to present our case on this very important disease that has hit our region as well as other parts of Canada.

I'll just give you a little bit of history on the Atlantic Grains Council. It was incorporated back in 1984. Basically, it's the only regional voice to lobby and represent grain and oilseed producers in the region. The council is run for producers by producers. We're made up of some five full members and a bunch of associate members. We have been involved in a little bit of research and in the production and marketing of grain and oilseeds.

For the last 30 years, the council has been working together with farm members in building a strong grain and oilseed industry for the Maritimes. We take great pride in having redeveloped the milling wheat industry, which at one time in this region was quite stagnant—quite dead, actually—but has come back quite well. We have local mills, including Dover Mills in Halifax, with a capacity in excess of 100,000 tonnes a year, which we would like to be able to fill with a lot of our products.

Just to give you a bit of history of our milling wheat industy, you have to bear in mind that the Maritimes region is very small compared with Saskatchewan; but at the same time, it's very, very important to this region, to our industry, and to the economy of the region as well. Since the demise of the livestock industry in the Maritimes, particularly the last two or three years, producers have been looking at another crop to work into a rotation rather than, let's say, barley. So the milling wheat looked like a pretty good example. Thus our industry has grown from 2004 to 2009 by approximately 50%. We came from 14,400 acres up to in excess of 28,000 acres in 2009.

The problem we're facing now is that producers are going to be turning away because of the problems we've had in trying to make grade. One of the problems producers are facing is a bit of inconsistency in the testing of the finished product. We send a result or test, let's say, to the P.E.I. Grain Elevators Corporation, and then the same test could go to another company, and different results come back.

So we have some pretty major problems that we want to get to work on. The Atlantic Grains Council, we think, has been leading the way in that.

At this point I'm going to stop for a few minutes and turn it over to David, and I'll let David introduce himself.

[David Mol, President, Island Grains and Protein Council]

Thank you, Allan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity as well to make this presentation.

I'd also like to thank Mr. Smith for referring to our area as having a semi-tropical climate. We have yet to see that here, but it would help to dry my soybeans, I'm sure.

I have 35 years of pedigreed seed production, as well as a close relationship with the plant breeders in the area. I grow 1,500 to 1,600 acres, of which about 800 acres are in wheat. A cornerstone of my seed business is milling wheat. I'm also no stranger to fusarium head blight. In the mid-1980s, I had my storage quarantined by CFIA. At that time, it was a new problem. Standards were not well established, so with toxin levels above one parts per million, I had 700 tonnes held back. The following year, tests of Ontario wheat crops showed significant levels above the one parts per million level. Because a much larger amount of wheat was involved, a more in-depth analysis of the problem was made. The result of that analysis was that two parts per million were determined to be safe, and product flowed at that standard into the system.

Here we are today, 20 years later, with all the resources available to this great country, and we're still debating the issue. The reality is that science has not provided products to eradicate or adequately control these pathogens, particularly in a moist climate. Either that or we've not received the varieties that would be considered totally resistant.

This problem, as I see it, is part of a larger problem facing Canadians and world agriculture: climate change is forcing new environmental problems on our traditional cropping practices as well as more pressure on the existing varieties. We're going to have to be more versatile with types of crops. If we want to continue to grow wheat in eastern Canada—by which I mean parts of Manitoba east—then standards that are realistic yet safe should be established.

I am happy to see that this is receiving national attention. Only when we come up with standards will I be able, in my own operations, to plan future variety selection and investments.

Just last week, I had a friend over from Scotland who's intimately involved in the milling industry there. The EU is also having discussions about new standards. He told me that if the proposed standards were adopted, most of the milling industry in Scotland would disappear. So it's not a local problem. It seems to be a problem that is evolving in a lot of areas of wheat production, and we need to get down to business on it.

I'll turn it back to Allan.

Thank you.

[Allan Ling]

Thank you, David.

As we move forward, we believe our best method of long-term control will be through variety breeding to develop new varieties that are resistant to some of the problems we face. However, we all know that this takes a long time.

We would like to acknowledge the work being conducted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada across the country on this major national issue. The council strongly urges that this work continue and that it be strengthened significantly, with consideration given to regional variation in resistance and environmental conditions, to name two factors that may have an impact on disease suppression between regions. However, the council has monitored the erosion of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada support services in the Atlantic provinces. We have gone from having seven to ten scientists, with adequate technical support, working full time on grain and oilseed issues at our three research stations to having one scientist on site. Work is conducted only in Charlottetown. This issue has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture by the council in the past.

Grower education is also key to fusarium head blight control. Growers are and have been using good seed, crop rotation, fungicide application, timely harvest, combine adjustment, and storage at safe moisture levels. However, the impact of each step is limited by weather conditions during the growing season that can have a significant impact on disease development, despite the use of good agricultural practices.

We also need to be on a level playing field with our American counterparts. We sometimes feel that we don't have the same crop protectants as the Americans. In this region, we certainly have to pay more for our crop protectants than they pay even in some places in this country.

The Atlantic Grains Council wants the regulatory authorities to recognize that the amount of fusarium head blight, as well as DON, that may be present in a particular crop is not directly under the influence of the grower. It is not intentionally or unintentionally introduced into the grain supply; it's a naturally occurring toxin.

The Canadian Grain Commission recognizes this and for this reason has established grades that limit the amount of fusarium head blight allowed in a particular grade. For example, in No. 1 Canada Eastern Red Spring wheat, the maximum of fusarium head blight is 1%. Grain grading is helpful in that it allows for the rapid assessment of wheat and allows the placing of wheat into various grades of known quality.

Increased concern on the part of the wheat processing industry concerning DON has significantly changed how wheat is handled in Atlantic Canada. While the levels of fusarium head blight and DON in the region have varied over the years, approximately eight of the last 30 years could be described as severe. What has changed in the last two years are the increasing requirements for DON testing that are in place. For wheat to be accepted for processing, the established cut-off line for DON is two parts per million. The council was not involved in any consulting concerning DON levels, so it can only speculate that the indication provided by Codex agreement to move to a 0.75 parts per million DON level in flour has influenced how regulatory authorities in Canada are approaching this issue.

As farmers, five years ago we hardly knew what the word vomitoxin meant, because it was all fusarium head blight. We looked visually at our wheat when it was taken to the elevators.

We understand that this is a very important health and safety issue for the general public, and under no circumstances are we suggesting raising the acceptable levels. But we have not seen any sound science to justify lowering the current levels of DON. These levels appear to have provided safe and healthy food to Canadians for many years. If Health Canada changes these levels, the bakers will change their contracts, which will force millers to do the same. This again will fall on our producers' shoulders. Grains will have to be destroyed or left in the field.

Our producers are just trying to make an honest living. Let's not pull the rug from underneath them. And I guess I would echo the wheat growers' idea that if any changes are to be made the whole industry be fully consulted and be able to participate in any changes that may be coming at us.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the council would like to challenge you to hear from Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency concerning their approach and intent on regulating DON in food. If there are any changes in levels of approach, the council would urge that such measures be in step with our major trading partner, the U.S.A., and emerge from a base not only of sound science but what is also practical in the real world of crop production, storage, and handling.

Mr. Chairman, AAFC has been a valuable partner and has played an immense role in the development of agriculture in the region. We want to see this continue. The Atlantic Grains Council, in conjunction with the Grain Growers of Canada, believes it is for the public good that work continue and are presently asking the federal government to double A-base research dollars for Agriculture Canada over the next ten years towards field crops. We urge the committee to ensure all those knowledgeable on the issues of fusarium head blight and DON are consulted and their views are developed into workable solutions.

The council appreciates the opportunity to make this presentation and hopes that by working together we can build a strong Atlantic agriculture industry for the benefit of the whole country.

Thank you.

I don't know if you could hear that last few minutes or not, but our TV went dead here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Ling, we can hear all of you on this end. Can you hear me?

Obviously they can't.

We'll continue on. Maybe we could have our people try to get hold of them.

I've had a suggestion from Mr. Easter to go to five-minute rounds.

Is everybody agreeable to that?

Okay.

We'll start with Mr. Easter for five minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

They can't hear us in P.E.I., I guess. I had some questions for them.

To explain, what seems to have happened in the P.E.I. experience in this new crop is there was confusion with Dover Mills on the parts per million allowed. As a result, a lot of the crop wasn't even allowed to be used for feed, because the...for whatever agency, the regulators look that you might feed 100% wheat. Nobody feeds 100% wheat. They wouldn't look at the tolerances in the mix. So a lot of wheat has been dumped in gravel pits in P.E.I., and some of it, in fact, has gone to burners to be used for heat.

I think, Mr. Jamieson, you had mentioned that you're alarmed and concerned about the guidelines that do not exist.

Mr. Hewson, you noted that there's an apparent disconnect with the grading standards for milling wheat.

What I find here on all this, as we tried to check it out in P.E.I., is there seems to be a lot of confusion. You've got the Canadian Grain Commission that has a certain standard. You've CFIA that is imposing certain rules. You have the millers, and at the end of the line it's the farmers who are taking the brunt of it all. They're either dumping their wheat, they're getting a lower price, they're not able to sell it according to grade, or whatever.

So what I'm asking you is what has to happen here? I think we're all in agreement with the longer-term approach—we have to find resistant varieties, maybe new crop protection products, whatever. But what has to be done in the short term to take out, as Mr. Jamieson says, this lack of guidelines so that producers on the ground and millers are all dealing from the same rule book?

[Gordon Harrison]

Producers and processors need clarity and a thorough examination of the health risks. The health risks that we're supposedly trying to address need to be explained in layman's terms that we can all understand. We certainly need to get it right the first time. We can't decide five years from now that we didn't get it right and stand the whole grain supply chain on its ear once again.

So the members of the Canada Grains Council, and others at the table here, have recommended a two-year delay in the adoption of guidelines for ochratoxin. We've also asked that Health Canada bring forward proposed guidelines for DON so the industry, the whole supply chain, can look at these together.

We need to have a reality check on whether we're dealing with an acute health risk or a chronic health risk. We understand it's a chronic, long-term dietary intake issue. I personally believe we have time to look at this rationally over a reasonable timeframe of 18 to 24 months. That has been our recommendation to Agriculture Canada and Health Canada. As I mentioned, they have accepted, in principle, terms of reference that will involve all of us here today plus many others, including research scientists and academics. So we need a fact-based examination of this.

The regulatory end point that regulators need in order to deal with human health and safety has to be achievable. We need to have guidelines that have the force of law so we know where we stand, guidelines that people can comply with so it's actually possible to comply. All of us are now dealing with an ad hoc compliance and enforcement approach. It's not possible to comply, and we've pointed that out.

We have an opportunity now to have a more rational discussion around that. But we need to have an end point that recognizes the limitations on producers, like the vagaries of weather and climate. We need a regulatory end point that recognizes that in the grain sector we need to blend grain in the handling and transportation system for many reasons; we need to blend grain in the milling process; and we need to blend grain in the feed manufacturing process. So we need to have a fundamental recognition of what goes on in agriculture for many reasons.

Lurking in the background is the European Union precedent set on prohibition of blending. If we try to go at this and include a general prohibition on blending, we're in serious trouble.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Your time is up, Mr. Easter.

I understand that our members are back from Charlottetown.

[Allan Ling]

Yes, we are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Technology being what it is, those things happen. We did hear the end of your presentation, just so you know, and look forward to some questions that may come to you.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I wonder if someone could ask them to explain the situation in P.E.I., because it was very serious and a big loss for the industry. We didn't get the opportunity to ask that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Certainly. Maybe you can explain that to one of your members. There will be time for that.

We'll move on to Mr. Guimond from the Bloc for five minutes.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure to sit alongside my colleague André for the first time and to attend this meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Trust me, I am very happy to be here, as today's topic is of interest to me.

I am a farmer, myself, a dairy producer in Rimouski, in eastern Quebec. I am glad to see farmers here standing up and talking about the fusarium problem, which is prevalent, even where I am from in eastern Quebec. I am a dairy farmer, and I produce barley and fodder for my livestock. Believe me, we have had a lot of problems because of fusarium in the past four or five years. Our animals have had health problems, which have cost our farm a lot of money.

As a farmer, I thought I was alone, the only one with this problem, but after talking with my neighbours in the area, I see that a lot of farmers are struggling with the same thing. It is encouraging to see that we can discuss it in a forum such as this one.

Mr. Smith, you talked about the issue with great emotion, and I fully understand. You represent some 4,000 farmers, is that right?

[Nigel Smith]

About 6,600.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Are you here today on behalf of all your farmers who are affected by this problem?

[Nigel Smith]

Of course.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

What do you want from the federal government in terms of addressing the fusarium problem? Do you have clear requests?

[Nigel Smith]

Yes, we do, for more independent research into the issue funded by the government. Basically, at the ground level what can we do to minimize the incidence of fusarium, and what cultural practices can we employ to deal with the problem that isn't going to go away anytime soon?

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Do you agree that guidelines are not enough and that we need a comprehensive plan to deal with this scourge?

[Nigel Smith]

Oh, yes. As I said, I think there are a lot of different ways we can go about combatting fusarium, but at the same time it's not going to be a quick fix. It's something that we have to deal with on the farm. It's something that we're going to deal with throughout the food chain.

The Farmers Union perspective is that one of the best things we can do is to study more linkages between our farming practices, such as how seed is sourced, what we're putting on crops, what we're putting on the soil, that can have an impact on fusarium.

We're trying to focus on glyphosate here, and the possible linkages. I didn't mention earlier that there have been academic studies that link use of glyphosate to the incidence of fusarium. We don't quite know exactly why this linkage occurs, but it's something we'd like to see more study into.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I have a more technical question. What do you do with the infected grain?

[Geoff Hewson]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Guimond.

There are many ways it's dealt with, depending on the level of severity. On our farm and on many farms, as the member from the Atlantic Grains said, it's by setting your combine differently, such as at a low level. The fusarium-affected kernels are typically lighter. If you set your combine in a certain way, increase the fan speed of your combine, it will blow the kernels out of the back of the combine. I suppose in the cleaning process as well, at terminal locations, more of the fusarium would be cleaned to a certain degree there. But it goes through the system, I guess, and the big thing is it is blended down to levels that are tolerable in the system.

That's my short answer. I'm not an expert on what happens to it after it leaves the farm gate.