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.
4:55 p.m.
Department of Food Science, University of Guelph
Thank you. As my colleague has indicated, Health Canada is responsible for setting up the criteria, the company will then supply the data, and then Health Canada will do the assessment.
I'll turn it over to my colleague Dr. Ellis.
4:55 p.m.
Professor, Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia
That's true for the health issues. Environmental impacts and the non-health issues are dealt with by CFIA. Then finally, all these recommendations come to an approval committee. They don't talk about approval, they talk about “not denying”--but it's an interesting turn of phrase.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC
Average people, who are not scientists and do not understand any of this, just want to do their shopping. They want to know whether the products they are buying contain GMOs or not. Young families, mine included, are less and less enthusiastic about having chemicals in the products they buy. More and more, they want natural products. Having labelling that is not mandatory complicates things.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Option consommateurs
At present, labelling GMOs in Canada is voluntary. It is really not mandatory.
I want Option Consommateurs' position to be very clear here: we are neither for nor against GMOs. In some cases, we might say they can have some beneficial effects for agriculture, and so on, but we also have to take a long-term view. That is not the issue. We do not have enough information to take a position for or against GMOs.
However, we are for consumers having information, such as whether the products they buy do or do not contain GMOs.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC
So you are in favour of choice: consumers can decide whether they will buy them or not. It is a bit like the people who are allergic to peanut oil. In their case, they have no choice, but at least there is a label on the products saying “may contain peanut oil“.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
That's okay. You were making a point, so I let you go on, Ms. Bonsant.
We'll now move to Mr. Lemieux for five minutes.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On the good discussion we're having on GMOs, I want to underline that food safety comes first--particularly health safety--when we're talking about humans and what they consume, as well as livestock and the impact on the environment. I think everybody has agreed on that. I don't know anyone who says that safety should not come first. I think it's an important point. Madam Bonsant was asking about that, and people are concerned about their health and whether something is safe. They want to know what's in the products. So I think it's fair to say that everybody has the health and safety of Canadians, livestock, and the environment in mind.
Second, it is important that we make science-based decisions. In fact, we are very open about putting pressure on other countries that don't make science-based decisions. So science-based decisions are a very important part of the regulatory process.
On the regulatory process, either Mr. Ellis or Mr. Yada said they felt that approvals were going to become much more difficult in the future, or almost impossible. Could you elaborate on why you think that is the trend?
5 p.m.
Professor, Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia
It's primarily because a lot of the products under development in the pipeline right now involve modifying the plant's natural characteristics. So you're basically pushing it in a particular direction using its internal machinery, as opposed to the products out there right now, into which what I would call an alien gene has been dropped. It does its job. It's sort of like a spaceship out there. But when you start to push the plant to become more cold resistant or to enhance its resistance to a fungal pathogen, you're really stretching the internal machinery. I don't think the tools we've been using until now to assess those plants are going to be as informative as they should be.
On the other hand, the bottom line in the assessment process is whether this thing grows, looks, behaves, and tastes like canola. As far as we can tell, it does. So that's probably still the criterion they're going to use. But I would argue that these more subtle changes that are being contemplated right now will be very hard for the regulators to deal with.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Does anyone else want to comment on that? No.
I'd like to know what sort of interaction you have had with commodity groups. There are the science-based arguments, to be sure, and then there are market considerations. One of the things I've noted is that market considerations tend to be made mostly by the actual groups and organizations that represent a particular commodity, because they're the ones trying to facilitate trade into other countries.
This is going to be interesting, because I think we're going to be coming back to GMOs in the future. Mr. Atamanenko has a bill that touches on it, and I think we're going to have a study on this when the bill comes in front of the committee for review. So I'm wondering if you've had any interaction with the commodity groups, and what kind of information you're receiving from them on GMOs.
5 p.m.
Professor, Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia
In my earlier career I worked with the Canola Council, and there's no question about how receptive they are to GM canola. It's been a real success story. On the other side of the coin, I have interacted with greenhouse growers in British Columbia, for instance, and with berry growers, and neither group wants to touch GM.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Is that based more on a scientific concern or a market concern?
5 p.m.
Professor, Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia
It's absolutely a market concern. This gets back to the labelling business. Nobody in their right mind would put a GM label on a product in the marketplace right now if they didn't have to. So voluntary labelling will not work. It is so demonized as a technology, in the public's view, so why would anybody do it?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
On the other side, have there been any interactions with industry and local associations?
5 p.m.
Analyst, Agri-food, Option consommateurs
Yes, we have worked with organizations that deal with organic products, including oils. They are very concerned about cross-contamination.
At the moment, the organic sector is not asking for testing. Products are not tested to see whether they contain genetically modified material. The approach is rather to check whether the processes comply with the standards that are in place. So the checkers make sure the producers comply with the required standards and then let them use the seal that says that the product is organic.
I am looking 5, 10, perhaps 15 years down the road, because the pressure is now more and more on the product itself rather than on the process. The time will come when products cannot contain GMOs. As I said, it will not happen overnight, but it will happen eventually.
Some oil producers are running into difficulties because their organic products are contaminated. We have heard a lot about the contaminated flax that was found in Europe. Flax exports have been halted. Flax is considered a very promising health product because of its high omega-3 content. It is a major value-added market that is in great demand at the moment. This is literally a disaster for flax producers this year, since Europe is also part of their market.
These are not things that Option Consommateurs has studied a great deal. It is not in our research area. But some people we work with are afraid, perhaps with justification, perhaps not. But the fears are certainly to do with the market.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
The fears come from consumers. It is the consumers who can put pressure on the producers.
5:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Option consommateurs
Actually, the perception is that consumers get products that may be genetically modified.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.
Mr. Arnold, your last comment was on perception, and sometimes perception can be deceiving. Before I move to Mr. Eyking, I want to comment on something Mr. Décary-Gilardeau said.
I think you were implying that fear of the unknown should keep us from moving ahead. And I guess my comment is that a certain amount of testing has been done. Whenever you go to approve a new product, whether it's a pharmaceutical, a pesticide, a herbicide, or an animal drug, there's a certain amount of testing. I think you're saying there's not enough testing, and I don't think that's a fair assessment.
The fear of the unknown shouldn't stop us from going ahead. There'll always be debate about a reasonable amount of testing. Everybody has a certain opinion on it, and that's fine. I don't know whether you want to comment on that. But if there's that perception about something and both sides haven't been shown--or all of the truth--I don't think that's healthy, do you?
5:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Option consommateurs
With all respect, Mr. Chair, I say that the best way to change perceptions is with information—the clearer the information, the better. In our opinion, this is the only way to change perceptions. Yes, perhaps consumers may be prepared to get products labelled “GMO“ if they have enough clear and pertinent information. That is not the case at the moment.
5:05 p.m.
Analyst, Agri-food, Option consommateurs
I feel that we can do much the same as Mr. Yada has done. It is important to do things in an organized way and to do them well. We are hearing a lot about nanoproducts at the moment. Consumers are becoming more and more concerned because they do not know what they are. Once again, it is a matter of education, scientific education. They are complex questions.
There are consumers and other people who feel that things are being done backwards. At the moment, there are 2,000 products on the market that contain nanoparticles and they are products that are applied to the skin, that are in direct contact with the skin. Do we currently have the science we need to be able to say that they are safe? I do not know. But there is the perception that things are perhaps happening a little too quickly.
But, Mr. Chair, the questions you are asking are very good ones.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I will just carry that out, if I could. When individuals or organizations like yours put that out there and feed that perception, is that really fair? Is that really the direction they should take? That's how I see it, to a degree. You talk about wanting to get that information out there, but if you feed bad information into a computer, you're going to have bad information coming out.
5:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Option consommateurs
Once again, Mr. Chair, with all respect, I have to tell you that we are not feeding this perception that consumers have, we are just passing it on to you.
5:10 p.m.
Analyst, Agri-food, Option consommateurs
Our communications, in fact, are all about information. We have never been opposed to GMOs. We look at what people want and we communicate that. That is our modest contribution.