Sure.
I just want to thank the committee for inviting me here this morning. It's a pleasure to speak about my work.
I'm currently a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Victoria in environmental studies. The project I'm currently working on is on Inuit knowledge and climate change. In the new year, I'll be the Canada research chair in human dimensions of environmental change at Mount Allison University.
My work couples social and ecological systems, and I'm interested in holistic analysis of issues related to climate change, food security, and--the focus of our meeting--biotechnology.
My Ph.D. research, which took place between 2002 and 2008 at the University of Manitoba, is the largest farmer-focused study on genetically engineered crops that has ever been conducted. It was publicly funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council and Agriculture Canada through their Manitoba Rural Adaptation Council program.
The project involved 2,500 farmers from across the three prairie provinces. We were specifically interested in their local knowledge--their experience with genetically engineered crops in the fields at the farm level. I studied genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant canola in a post-release fashion and genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant wheat, specifically Roundup Ready wheat, in a pre-release fashion.
Once again, this is farm-level data collected through surveys and interviews spanning six years, as my Ph.D research. The research has been peer reviewed and published, and that forms the basis of my expert opinion and the written submission to this committee.
In Canada, the release of genetically engineered crops is an ongoing ecological and regulatory experiment with tangible impacts on human systems, specifically farmers. This living experiment, if you will, provides useful information about the benefits and risks of biotechnology and about how regulation can and should evolve.
Advantages associated with genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops are well known. My work further demonstrates their production benefits, specifically easier and better weed control for farmers choosing to use this technology.
Risks are less well understood, and this is where my research really provides new information. For both genetically engineered canola and genetically engineered wheat, the main risks, ranked in order of importance by farmers themselves, included markets, which were the top risk for farmers. They were concerned about loss of income. They were concerned about problems in the segregation system, that biology would leak into a segregation issue, which would lead to market harm.
The second issue of greatest importance to farmers was corporate control of agriculture. They were concerned about seeds being privatized and the associated lawsuits.
The third risk was agronomic “volunteers”--genetically engineered crops migrating across the landscape--and increased use of herbicides leading to weed-resistant varieties, which we are seeing in Canada today.
Fourth was contamination--gene flow. These crops move around the landscape, and they pose risks for farmers not using the technology. The key finding of my research is that gene escape from genetically engineered crops escalates into other risks, such as the agronomic, corporate, and market impacts that I just spoke about. Indeed, biology and socio-economics are inseparable when dealing with ag-biotechnology.
Importantly, the top two risk categories, as identified by prairie farmers, are market and corporate impacts, which fall outside of Canada's current science-based regulatory system.
The proposed introduction of Roundup Ready wheat showed the flawed nature of evaluating biotechnology using only narrowly defined scientific determinants, and thus put Canada's $4 billion to $6 billion annual wheat market at risk because of the unwillingness of international buyers to purchase genetically engineered wheat from any country growing it.
My research shows that over 83% of prairie farmers do not want to see Roundup Ready wheat introduced despite renewed industry interest in commercializing this very crop.
At the height of the controversy with Roundup Ready wheat, I was invited to numerous Canadian Food Inspection Agency meetings. Although they had knowledge of the socio-economic risks associated with this very crop, regulators were not allowed to consider these in their assessment.
Indeed, parliamentary intervention is required to expand CFIA's mandate to regulate biotechnology more effectively in Canada.
These market issues were identified by the Canadian Wheat Board officials in a 2003 presentation to this committee entitled “Closing the Regulatory Gap”, which proposed adding cost-benefit analysis to GE crop regulation. I highlight the need to include socio-economics in Canadian regulation for you again today.
Importantly, cost-benefit analysis and the farmer-focused risk analysis method that I have pioneered are quantitative scientific approaches that can be incorporated into the existing regulatory framework. Canadian farmers deserve holistic regulation that seeks their input and thus ensures their livelihoods are not being put at risk due to the introduction of GE crops and other types of ag-biotechnology. Arguably Bill C-474, currently being debated in Parliament, offers an opportunity to expand the regulatory framework and ensure market impact is considered. I believe this is an important and much-needed evolution in Canadian regulation.
I've spoken a lot about market harm, given its importance; however, farmers are also concerned about corporate control over biotechnology and how this affects their lives and agriculture as whole. This, as I have identified, is also outside of the current regulatory framework. Most notably, numerous non-GE and organic farmers who participated in my study had their land and crops contaminated by GE varieties. Some were sued by industry, and others attempted to sue the company for damages.
The corporate control over seed, the very basis of our food supply, is controversial and is something that should be given more attention by this committee and Parliament as a whole. Indeed, our food security as a nation is at risk if farmers are no longer able to freely use and exchange their seeds and plants due to contracts and patent laws. This corporate control is especially problematic when enforced over genetically engineered crops that move easily across the landscape, cross-pollinate in other genetically engineered and non-GE crops, and expose farmers to unwanted and unexpected risks. Indeed, it is now impossible to grow non-genetically engineered canola in Canada because of the widespread cross-pollination of GE varieties. This canola crop, developed with public funds, has become largely privately owned by the biotechnology industry.
Given the findings of my Ph.D., I believe genetically engineered crops are substantially different from their conventionally bred equivalents. Loss of markets, patented genes triggering lawsuits, organic farmers losing crops in their crop rotation due to cross-pollination: these are all differences that did not exist before ag-biotechnology. These impacts are real. Recognizing this in regulation is important and is of value to farmers, government, consumers, and industry. Indeed, updated regulations, based on our living experiment and associated experience, will ensure that ag-biotechnology is released appropriately and safely in the future. A safer food system with accountability, responsibility, and awareness of the costs and benefits of introducing new technology is innovative and good for Canada and the world.
It is my expert opinion that scientific and social impacts regarding biotechnology are inseparable and weave around each other metaphorically, like the DNA molecule itself. Canada's regulations must evolve like a genome in a way that holistically recognizes that ag-biotechnology has both ecological and social impacts that must be assessed. As both a social and environmental scientist, I assure you that both strands in this double helix of regulation, if you will, can be evaluated scientifically and with some modification will fit into the existing framework.
I look forward to discussing this with you. I appreciate your time this morning, and I would be pleased to assist you now and in the future. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.