Evidence of meeting #43 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 products.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
First of all, gentlemen, I want to thank you for having the patience and the time to stay. I apologize for the performance we had before your presentations, which was unfortunate. It's the nature of politics around this table, which is also unfortunate.
I'm going to start off with the benefits of GMO. Mr. Yada, you talked about some of the benefits, for example, reduced tillage and reduced fuel costs. Do you want to highlight some of the other benefits to the consumer of the different GMO products?
4:35 p.m.
Department of Food Science, University of Guelph
Further to those discussions, I think the fact that you can possibly reduce the acreage of the crops you're growing because you get less damage to those crops would be an advantage, so as I was indicating, the carbon footprint would be an advantage.
I think the whole issue around the nutritional quality of products that can be enhanced through genetically modified technologies is a real benefit, given that many parts of the world are suffering from nutritional deficiencies. Mr. Valeriote indicated that we are facing world food shortages. GMOs are part of that strategy. We need to improve the way we transport some of our commodities to parts of the world.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
It's interesting. I grow GMO canola, for example, and looking at my crop yields from probably 10 years ago, if we got 25 bushels an acre, we were excited; we always dreamed of 40 bushels an acre. This last year we pushed 45 bushels and were disappointed we didn't get 55. If you go to the corn industry, it's probably threefold or fourfold that.
What also excites me in the canola industry is the end product from the GMO side—for example, the IMC canola that Cargill brought out and how it's adding healthy oil into the food system, reducing cholesterol and the like.
Mr. Ellis, you talked about there being no credible reclamation. We hear stories that this is not safe, and we have this study here and that study there. Is it true, though, that there has been no positive peer review on those studies to say that they're credible?
4:35 p.m.
Professor, Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia
Are you asking whether those studies that have reported deleterious effects have not been—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Professor, Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia
I haven't seen any studies that have confirmed deleterious effects on human health or animal health.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Looking at making sure our food is safe is the main responsibility of government, is it not?
4:35 p.m.
Professor, Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia
It's presumably one of them, yes.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
So the government should have no role in marketing of a product, whether it's GMO or non-GMO. Is that correct?
4:35 p.m.
Professor, Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia
The government presumably wants to do what the citizens ask.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Okay. And presumably our role in this case would be wanting to ensure that when a consumer takes on a product, it's safe.
4:35 p.m.
Professor, Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia
Yes, but you have to realize that the safety record is the result of 10 years' of deployment. It's a historical record, not a projection forward.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Nothing is guaranteed, and you can't project with 100% certainty; I think we would all agree with that. But you have to look at practicalities and use reasonable forecasting, to the best of your abilities. I feel the industry has done that. Would you not agree?
4:35 p.m.
Professor, Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia
I think the industry could do a better job, and I think the regulators could do a more transparent job. I'm not faulting the regulators for what they do, however. I think they do it well.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
You're just suggesting there are new tools they can maybe look at? I think we'd all agree on that.
4:35 p.m.
Professor, Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia
Yes.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
When it comes to labelling, is there legislation preventing you from marketing as non-GMO?
4:35 p.m.
Analyst, Agri-food, Option consommateurs
Yes, there is the voluntary code. People who want to sell a product without GMOs have to comply with the voluntary code. People who want to sell a product that contains GMOs and indicate that fact on the product use the warning “contains GMOs“. They must comply with the voluntary code. As soon as you want to say “GMO“ on your product to indicate that it does, or does not, contain any, the voluntary code becomes mandatory.
Is that the question you were asking?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Yes. But the voluntary code is just ensuring your statement is actually true, is it not?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
If it were organics, you'd have a voluntary code you would have to meet, would you not?
