Agriculture Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2009

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

As you wish, we have all the interpreters we need.

[Devlin Kuyek]

Interestingly enough, I was at a meeting in March with the organic producers of Quebec. They were looking for ways to develop their own seeds and to produce their seeds at the farm because they cannot find varieties without GMOs, especially varieties that are not contaminated.

More and more so-called non-GMO varieties are contaminated because they come from the same source. So these producers are looking for ways to make their own seeds and they want to work with public breeders.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I give notice that I will be sharing my time with Ms. Meili Faille.

However, I have another short question. We have a huge problem regarding the labelling of GMOs. The government made it voluntary and we know what this means.

How do you feel about compulsory labelling of GMOs in order to give people a choice between natural and genetically modified products?

[Devlin Kuyek]

First of all, there are too many risks associated with GMOs to justify their release in the market, end of story.

However, since the government decided to allow the marketing of GMOs, I believe it has a responsibility to ensure a minimum of protection and transparency. So why not require labelling? Why not require accountability? That is the minimum that we should expect from our government which is presently promoting GMOs.

If they want to market those, why not ensure a minimum of consumer protection?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I also have a question on labelling.

Unless I am mistaken, as of now — and maybe Mr. Andrée would like to answer also — there is no conclusive study to say that GMOs are safe, whether for the environment or for human health. Is that correct?

[Dr. Peter Andrée]

Yes.

It is interesting. I mentioned the report produced by the scientists from the Royal Society of Canada in 2001. I always refer to them because it was the first time that scientists from all over Canada submitted an independent report on this issue. These were university scientists. They too called for labelling. They said that if all 63 recommendations they made were included in the regulations, there would likely not be a problem. But I found over the last 10 years that there still are problems, for example with substantial equivalency.

It might be time to look again, from a scientific perspective, at labelling. I believe that Charles Caccia called for a vote in the House of Commons in 2001. The very same day, a letter from Health Canada stated that there was no need for a vote since they would deal with it. But nothing has happened.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

The Bloc Québécois has also tabled a bill on GMOs. People agree with us. If you knew how many letters we have been getting in our ridings. I believe that in Quebec we produce quality food. We have made improvements with our organic products.

I know that in Saskatchewan, if I remember correctly, some time ago farmers launched a class action suit against Monsanto and Aventis-Bayer. Could you tell us more about it? Could you tell us what arguments could be used if this action does not succeed?

[Terry Boehm]

Unfortunately, my French is very poor. Therefore, I will answer in English.

Unfortunately, the action launched was initiated by the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate. It was an attempt to establish issues of liability in regard to the introduction of GM crops and the consequences that occurred as far as organic producers' actually losing the ability to grow GM canola at all, because the cross-contamination issues are so large that it's impossible for them to plant canola without losing their certification.

They attempted to launch an action under the legislation in Saskatchewan, a class action on behalf of all producers. They went through various levels of the courts, but it was denied. They have since withdrawn in this action. However, currently they're confronted with another extremely harmful prospect: genetically engineered alfalfa. Alfalfa is a major soil builder and rotational crop for organic farmers. This indeed could totally destroy a sector that's growing in the prairies, particularly in Saskatchewan, quite rapidly. We have an increasing number of acres under organic production in Saskatchewan.

I would also add that the issue of GE alfalfa would likely extend beyond the organic industry if questions start to be raised about the consumption of such in our dairy herds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you. Your time is expired. You were actually way over. I was very lenient.

Mr. Atamanenko, please. You have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Thanks to all of you for being here for this very timely debate in the history of our nation. There's so much to talk about and so much to discuss. I'm going to try to zero in first on regulations.

Dr. Andrée, I was at your talk the other night. As you may know, I finally have a chance to do something with a private member's bill, which will be coming up in the beginning of February. It would require an analysis of potential harm to export markets to be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

That sounds good, and the intent is to prevent what's happening to alfalfa and wheat, what happened to flax. What kind of mechanism should be used? What should we do?

That's the first part, and I'll give one last question to other members of the panel. Ultimately, our goal is to feed the world and ensure that farmers make a profit so people don't go hungry. I'd like opinions from all of you on this. What stands a better chance of protecting and improving the genetic diversity within plants, aquatic species, and livestock to withstand extreme weather events, new pests and diseases, and changing climates? Is it biotechnology, or is it traditional agricultural methods?

I'll just leave you with one opinion that I got from Dr. Hans Herren, who is president of the Millennium Institute and co-chair of International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development, which did a report. Most of us have an executive summary of that. I asked him point-blank in a meeting I was at last week if he felt we could feed the world organically, and he said yes. I'd like some comments on that, maybe starting with Dr. Andrée.

[Dr. Peter Andrée]

On the first question, the bill you are bringing forth is important for Canadian farmers. There needs to be some mechanism in place for evaluating that kind of harm before a product gets out, because it spreads in unexpected ways, as Terry has talked about.

There are two levels. There are products that are developed in Canada, and it's easier to bring in this kind of regulation for products developed here. As soon as you're dealing with products that would be sold into Canada, you have to start worrying about trade disciplines--WTO and NAFTA obligations.

I don't have a simple answer for this, and I knew you were going to ask me. In fact, it's the kind of research that people like myself, as political scientists who are concerned about these issues, really need to move into more. There are certain countries in the world where they do this kind of examination of social and economic harms and benefits, but it shouldn't be in the safety regulation system. Even though we have many problems with the health and environmental regulation system in Canada, it should be separated from questions of economic and social impact. But there is still room for analysis of economic and social impact.

The Canadian Wheat Board, back in 2003-04, really put forth a third pillar of cost-benefit analysis as part of the overall regulatory system and a way of hopefully catching Roundup-ready wheat before it was approved in Canada. There are certainly a lot of bodies in Canada that would see this as being in their interest--including some of these farm organizations--and can work with you to develop and answer exactly what that mechanism should look like. It would probably be related to the variety registration process, which is really where these kinds of issues were considered before.

Maybe I'll leave the other questions to these guys.

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

On feeding the world....

[Terry Boehm]

On the regulatory regime, one of the big problems—flax is particularly illustrative of this and I'll just briefly address it—is that we had the variety deregistered, making it illegal to sell for seed. But the problem was that it was still legal under the other regulatory aspects. It was approved for feed and environmental release. Even if you're doing test plots and extended test plots on an extensive basis you run into contamination issues, and once the genie is out of the bottle it's a problem.

There is a huge debate at the FAO and all sorts of places as to the appropriate technologies to feed the world, in light of upcoming problems. Central to this, looking at particular production technologies in isolation is probably not appropriate. The distribution aspects and the displacement that takes place from trade that displaces people out of the countryside in much of the agrarian south that has moved them into....

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, it's very disruptive when somebody is doing that when you're trying to compose your thoughts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I understand that, but it's getting to be a habit, Mr. Boehm. I appreciate your comment, but I'm just letting you know you are well over the time. Please finish.

[Terry Boehm]

Okay. Very good.

At any rate, the issue is much more complex than the particular technologies as to how we're going to feed the world. In the meantime, there is a reliance on the technological solution, and I would say our technical ability far exceeds our predictive ability and the consequences thereof. So the tried and true would be most appropriate in terms of a sensible precautionary approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Richards, you have five minutes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all for being here today as well.

The safety of our food supply is the first priority for the government, but ensuring that trade markets stay open is also a huge priority. We've been very successful as a government in opening a lot of new markets for our farmers and reopening markets. Obviously, we understand that these two things are often linked, and it's important that we consider both of them.

When we talk about GMOs, certainly there are some economic advantages that come with them—things like easier weed control, as an example. Dr. Surgeoner also pointed out some possible health benefits for Canadians, which can be seen as well. So there are obviously some very positive things they can accomplish for us, but of course there are some concerns as well. We certainly need to examine those. Of course that's exactly what we're here to do today. We're happy to be doing that. We appreciate your assistance with that, and we value your opinions.

I have some basic questions I wanted to ask first, and if there's some time when we're done with that, I would like to get a little bit more background on some of the organizations you're here to represent.

First of all—and if any one of you has the information, you're free to answer—does anyone have the statistics on the percentages in Canada of different crops and of GMO and non-GMO varieties of those crops? Also, I would like some information on the most common varieties of GMO crops in Canada.

[Dr. Gord Surgeoner]

I can start.

There are three main crops in Canada that are genetically modified. I'm not including, in any volumes, flax at this point. Those crops are corn, soybeans, and canola. Canola is somewhere above 80%. Soybeans are probably about 80%—and I would emphasize we have a large non-GMO market with all kinds of varieties.

One of my members, Hendrick Seeds--and I agree--can produce very high levels that exceed or match the traditional GM varieties. Soybeans are big. The other is corn, and about 50% of the corn is genetically modified.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Do you want to add something to that?

[Devlin Kuyek]

We don't actually have full statistics because the government doesn't keep track of them. The figures from the USDA, which are based on estimated plantings, were that 43.7% of the corn area was for GM varieties, but if you look at the variety registration for this year, about three-quarters of the varieties that will be on the market are GM corn varieties, meaning that in many cases the genetics that producers will want will only be available if you buy a GM variety.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

So the statistic you have there is quite specific—43%. Where did those stats come from?

[Devlin Kuyek]

That particular statistic comes from a USDA Global Agricultural Information Network report, looking at biotechnology in Canada.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay. I appreciate that.

Mr. Surgeoner, you briefly mentioned some health benefits. You talked about celiacs in particular. I have a staff member in my constituency office who's actually a celiac, so that was of interest to me. Could you maybe elaborate on some of those health benefits as well?

[Dr. Gord Surgeoner]

I should emphasize that I mentioned celiacs just to show that we need to check the safety on the basis of novelty. There's no GM association with wheat right now.

For example, we have done studies at the University of Guelph showing that if you give consumers choice, you can use Bt in corn through genetic engineering. If you have sweet corn, and you don't want to get worms on it, and you want the level of perfection that consumers demand today, you can tell consumers they have a choice: they can have this corn, which is genetically engineered, or this other one that you've had to put three insecticide sprays on. You can ask them which one of these two they want. That's the reality. It's not one or nothing at the level at which the consumer demands it or at the price the consumer demands it.

The other thing is if you reduce things like insects going into the ears of corn, you allow fusarium to get in and microtoxins to get in. Microtoxins can be very unhealthy to human beings and particularly to our swine industry as well.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Absolutely. Using a smaller amount of pesticides has not only health benefits but environmental benefits as well. That's a really positive piece of information.

Do I have more time?