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.