Agriculture Committee on Dec. 1st, 2009

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

So moved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

It's so moved.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair--

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

There is absolutely no debate on it unless you have a distinct point of order, Mr. Eyking.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I thought I'd make a suggestion to you, Chair, and give you some assistance, because I faced this same situation three weeks ago. I was being flexible with the Conservatives at that time and I gave everybody a chance to give their opinion. But I think we also kept in mind the witnesses, so we brought it to a vote and got it dealt with, and then we brought the witnesses forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I don't believe that's a point of order, Mr. Eyking.

I'm going to call the vote.

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Bellavance?

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

Yes. I do not want my motion to disappear.

I think I explained why I had to introduce my motion at the beginning of this meeting, because it is very difficult...

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

That's not a point of order.

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

I want to ask for the clerk's opinion on whether we have to vote on...

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I already have, Mr. Bellavance, and there's no debate on the motion. I'm going to call the question. All in favour of the motion?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

To suspend debate...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, to suspend debate, hear the witnesses, and come back to business.

(Motion agreed to)

We will now hear from our witnesses.

First of all, we will hear from Mr. Arnold and Mr. Décary-Gilardeau. That's for five minutes or less, if you could, gentlemen. We would appreciate that. It is normally 10 minutes. I won't hold you right to the five minutes. It's just for questioning.

[Michel Arnold, Executive Director, Option consommateurs]

We will try to do it in seven minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks again for coming here today, gentlemen.

[Michel Arnold]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, I am Michel Arnold, the CEO of Option Consommateurs. I am accompanied by Mr. François Décary-Gilardeau, the agri-food analyst for our organization,

First, I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to share our thoughts on a consumer issue of great importance in the food chain, genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

At the very outset, I should like to introduce you to our association. Option Consommateurs has been in existence since 1983. The association's mission is to promote and defend the rights and interests of consumers. To do this, we employ a team of about 30 professionals.

Over the years, we have developed particular expertise in several areas, including budgeting and consumer indebtedness, financial services, health and food and energy. Moreover, we participated in the regulation of organic products and the development of the national standard on voluntary labelling and advertising of foods that are and are not products of genetic engineering.

Our guiding principles for consumer protection come from the United Nations. These principles emphasize that consumers should be protected “against risks to their health and safety“. They have the right to “access to adequate information to make informed choices“. This translates into simplicity, reliability and transparency in labelling. The information provided to consumers must be credible and verifiable.

For the last ten years, Option Consommateurs has participated actively in the discussion and debate on genetic engineering. Since 2000, we have produced eight research reports on specific issues related to GMOs, including food safety and the precautionary principle, Canadian readiness to provide traceability of food, and consumer participation in regulation. In short, over the years, Option Consommateurs has acquired a depth of expertise in consumer issues relating to GMOs.

The Canadian diet has changed radically in recent decades in terms of food consumption patterns and sourcing. Consumers have also become more demanding over the years. For example, since the latter part of the 20th century, the consumption of organic food in Canada has increased by 20% annually. More and more consumers want to eat healthy and good quality food.

Canadians want a real choice in matters dealing with GMOs. Approximately 80% of the Canadian population is in favour of mandatory labelling of GMOs. According to recent public opinion polls, in Quebec, it is 86% and in British Columbia, 79%.

Rightly or wrongly, consumers have many fears about GMOs. According to an Angus Reid poll, they worry about their health effects. They also wonder what impact this type of production has on the environment. We should note that Canadians know very little about methods of food production, whether it be in conventional agriculture, organic or genetically engineered food. Moreover, very few understand the regulatory process for GMOs.

[François Décary-Gilardeau, Analyst, Agri-food, Option consommateurs]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, given the level of consumer anxiety, Canada should have a great interest in formally adopting the precautionary principle. The widespread use of GMOs, including a significant portion entering the food chain, greatly increases the risk factor for this technology.

The adoption of the precautionary principle must be implemented through a strong operational approach. It must translate into a scientific approach characterized by a risk analysis in three stages: assessment, management and risk communication. Therefore, we encourage the consideration and implementation of all recommendations of the Committee on Ethics, Science and Technology of Quebec in its 2003 report entitled “The ethical management of GMOs“. The second recommendation addressed to the Government of Canada states that the approval of GMOs should be subject to a scientific assessment that takes into account the potential impacts of these organisms on human or animal health and the environment and that it not be limited to an evaluation of foreseeable risks.

It is impossible today to talk about food safety without mentioning food traceability. For example, the listeriosis crisis and the mad cow disease crisis have raised many questions about the ability of the food chain to track animals and foodstuffs throughout the production chain.

When a government chooses to label genetically modified foods and implements a system of traceability and identification of those foods, it reinforces the allegations and, thereby, increases consumer confidence in this information and also in the entire food system. Traceability, however, must be controlled. And it must rely on a rigorous, consistent and reliable regime that is harmonized with international developments in the field.

Moreover, in light of our research, we can say that consumers want to exercise their fundamental rights to be well informed and to make informed choices through accurate labelling.

In April 2004, after three years of discussion within the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB), the Government of Canada created its own voluntary code on the labelling and advertising of foods that are and are not products of genetic engineering. The code is an effort to explore ways to identify those foods through labelling to help consumers make informed choices. Five years later, the CGSB was to conduct a mandated revision of the standards. We have observed that the code, unfortunately, has been highly inefficient. On the one hand, to our knowledge, no products appear voluntarily as genetically engineered. On the other hand, to our knowledge, only a few products were displayed without GMOs, and those that we have examined did not meet the voluntary code.

In 2004, Option Consommateurs had voted against this standard code because we believed it was inadequate. We were clearly right. In fact, the standard has not even fulfilled the intention of the code which was to better inform consumers.

The Canadian regulatory process for food crops and genetically engineered crops can be improved in terms of transparency, information and public participation.

In 2004, we conducted research that indicated that Canadians were concerned not only about GMOs, but the registration process. Five years later, nothing leads us to believe that the situation has changed. Instead, in a recent report published by the Government of Quebec, it is noted that, and I quote:The lack of transparency and information regarding biotechnology in general can have an impact on the ability to choose knowingly or, alternatively, the ability for consumers to enter freely and intelligently in contract. This limitation may affect the credibility of economic agents, regulators and affect the very functioning of the economic performance of the sector.

We believe that many steps can be taken to improve transparency regarding GMOs. In our 2004 research, we made 21 recommendations and, although some time has passed, we believe that a majority of them are relevant to this day.

In conclusion, we take this opportunity to invite the government to fund independent research on GMOs. We have noted that, since 2004, the Office of Consumer Affairs has not funded a single research project on this still-relevant subject.

[Michel Arnold]

In light of our research, we respectfully submit three recommendations. I will briefly conclude with them.

First, Option Consommateurs recommends the adoption of the precautionary principle in relation to genetically modified organisms for which conditions of application are clearly defined, and where the process of decision-making is structured based on detailed scientific and other objective information. The precautionary principle is framed by a scientific approach characterized by a three-step risk analysis: assessment, management and risk communication.

Second, Option Consommateurs recommends that Canada adopt legislation as soon as possible for the implementation of mandatory labelling of GMOs in food and for an adequate system of traceability.

Third, Option Consommateurs recommends that labels do not merely indicate the presence or absence of genetically modified organisms in the product (the product approach), but also indicate the manufacturing process of a food product (the process approach).

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Mr. Yada, from the University of Guelph.

[Dr. Rickey Yada, Department of Food Science, University of Guelph]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll keep to my five minutes or less.

The issue around GMO, I think, can be extended to any new technologies that face the food industry. We're seeing this with nanotechnology now, and some of the same kinds of debates that we saw with the GMO issue are arising. The issue is that we need to do a better job in educating our consumers. We need to give them balanced opinions about these issues. We need to have open and transparent debates about these issues.

Let me try to address some of the points the committee had sent us in a message on some of the issues it would like us to address.

From an agronomic point of view--and I'll raise issues more than solutions--there is the issue of herbicide resistance, which was the initial intent of some of the genetically modified products. But we've also seen now that there's the ability to enhance the nutritional quality of foods to portions of the community and to the world where they are nutritionally deficient. There are issues around tillage. One can debate the issue of lower tillage and of actually lowering the carbon footprint through lower tillage. There is the issue of a reduced reduction of exposure to herbicides and pesticides that can probably result.

But despite the benefits, there are some concerns. And the concerns are around allergens, the possible health issues around allergens through the introduction of genes. There is the issue of the escape of genetic constructs. My colleague Dr. Ellis is more well versed in these issues and he could address those.

Where's the research being conducted? Well, the research is being conducted by companies such as Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences. We've seen a number of those products on the market.

If members take a look at the website for Health Canada, there's a comprehensive list of products and plants that have been approved. They talk about a 7- to 10-year period for these products to come to fruition. During that process there is a pre-market safety assessment. And I'll speak to the pre-market safety assessment a little bit later on.

Some of the other benefits, as I've mentioned before, include the production of possible medicinal products such as antibodies and, as I said, the whole issue around enhancing nutritional quality.

With regard to trade issues, there is the issue globally, of course, of countries that do and do not accept genetically modified organisms or plants. I was in Japan just recently. The Japanese food industry loves Canadian agriculture for the quality of the product that comes from Canada. They also like the ability to source both non-GM and GM products.

Finally, I'll talk a little bit about the regulatory system. The regulatory system, as members realize, comes through the office of biotechnology and science, which is under the purview of Health Canada. And my colleagues referred to the labelling issue. This is an issue that we debated when I was part of a Royal Society panel back in 2000. Dr. Ellis was the co-chair of that, so I hope Dr. Ellis will speak to that point.

According to some of my colleagues who have looked at the regulatory system--and no regulatory system is perfect--they feel that the regulatory system as mandated by Health Canada is one of the best in the world. But I understand there is still debate around this.

Finally, I'll mention to members that there is a valuable resource right in the city of Ottawa, and that's through a Genome Canada initiative called VALGEN, which is value generation through genomics. My colleague Dr. David Castle, at the University of Ottawa, leads this, so I would refer members to Dr. Castle for some of the ethical and social implications of genetically modified organisms.

With that, Mr. Chair, I conclude my comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much for staying under the time.

Mr. Ellis, from the University of British Columbia.

[Dr. Brian Ellis, Professor, Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is a huge topic and there's no way we're going to do justice to even a part of it. I'll comment on a few issues, as well as some that I'm simply not qualified to comment on.

Of the ones I'm aware of, one is the regulatory process Dr. Yada has referred to. I think it is a good regulatory process. However, it is still founded on a general concept of safety that is decades old. From my perspective, I think there are better tools that could be used within that regulatory process. I say that simply because the original tools were as good as they had at the time, but science has moved on and we have much better tools these days for understanding where changes in crops—and eventually, I suspect, animals—have occurred and what the implications of those changes might be. So I think there is room for improving the regulatory process.

Another place that can be improved is in transparency. As far as I can see, the government has consistently hidden behind the commercial information privacy acts and said they cannot reveal information that has been disclosed to them as part of the approval process. That is true; at this point they are pretty much hands-tied on that issue. But that's something that could be modified relatively easily. When I talk to the biotech companies, they say that most of the information they release to the regulators is not sensitive information and they would be perfectly comfortable releasing it. As a matter of fact, in the United States they do release it. The same information gets made public in the U.S. and is retained under cover here in Canada.

I don't think this sets the right tone for the public to be confident in the accuracy and validity of the regulatory process. I'm not faulting the regulators, but I'm saying that, the way the process has been going, the public has retained a strong undercurrent of suspicion about the suitability of this technology and its acceptability in the marketplace. It's very unfortunate that we've gotten to this point, because the next generation of GM crops that one might like to see come into the marketplace to resolve issues that might be of more interest to consumers is going to find it very difficult to get through the regulatory process. It's just going to get harder rather than easier, I would say, over the next few years.

So I see some distinct problems coming. I think some of them can be resolved. There's certainly an opportunity to pull better science into this picture. And there is an opportunity for the government to establish a more meaningful dialogue, as Dr. Yada said, with the public and interested parties to try to build a consensus around this technology and how it should be deployed.

I'll leave it there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

I hope everybody is agreed on five-minute rounds, like we did last Thursday. Is that okay with everybody?

Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'd like to see you give the full hour, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'm definitely doing that. That's not what this is about. It's to go to five-minute rounds from seven.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Gentlemen, thank you so much for attending. I'm sorry you were delayed in your presentations.

I just got back from the FAO summit in Rome last week. We all know there are a billion starving and undernourished people in the world. We know our population is going to grow by another three billion by 2050, and we're going to have to increase food production by 70%. Frankly, in my mind, we need to deploy every strategy possible to do that in a meaningful way.

The problem with GMOs, of course, as you've noted, is that the public thinks there's a problem with them. And perception is reality. I've heard you say that transparency, research, traceability, and labelling are all things that will lead to a greater acceptance of GMOs, but I still sit and wonder if there's a problem with them. Is there a problem with GMOs? We know some countries are trying to resist the importation, etc. Yet I'm told that in Canada almost everything we eat has something GMO in it, right?

My question is this. After 10 years of transgenic varieties of canola, soya, and corn, do we now have reliable public data on the advantages and disadvantages of those GMOs from an environmental, agronomic, economic, and health perspective? You might debate this between you, if anyone has a differing opinion, which is fine with me.

Mr. Yada, can I ask you that first?