Agriculture Committee on Dec. 14th, 2010

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

That's not a point of order, Chair.

[An hon. member]

What's the relevance?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Okay, we're going to go to Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Yes: it would be the first time ever that Mr. Easter would ever think he was wrong—in his own mind, anyway.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You only have a couple of minutes, Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Certainly I do appreciate all of you being here today.

I'm actually going to go back to the very simple basics here. When I talked to farmers and others about the fact that we were going to be doing this study on biotechnology, people would say, “Well, what is biotechnology? Tell me a little bit more about exactly what it is you're going to study.”

Obviously, I think I have a pretty basic understanding of what biotechnology is. I mentioned GMOs to them, innovation in crops, and things like that. Really, though, I found that I actually struggled to explain, in about 30 seconds, what biotechnology was.

I've been listening to the three of you this morning, and I think if anyone could answer that question succinctly and wisely in about 30 seconds, it would probably be each of you three gentlemen.

So that's what I want to ask you: can each of you define for me, in about 30 seconds, what biotechnology is?

[Dr. Rickey Yada]

I'm probably the least qualified to answer that question, but in the eyes of a food scientist, it would be the use of a biological system to produce a product.

Now, that process may be through genetic manipulation of a product, through genetic engineering, or it may be through traditional crossing or breeding. I go back to my point about cheese and beer and wine. We used a biological system, in that case a yeast or a bacteria, to produce a product.

In my mind, that's what biotechnology is.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

[Dr. Gord Surgeoner]

And that's the general overall: the use of biological organisms for the betterment of humankind. Within that, it's how we have a good environment and all those other things. There are many, many tools, as I'm trying to explain, that can be used to do that.

[Dr. Ian J. Mauro]

That's like a question from my Ph.D. defence. Thank you.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Dr. Ian J. Mauro]

I published on this with an article for a definition of biotechnology and ecological risk. The terminology is muddled. Effectively you have biotechnology as an umbrella term that means different things to different people. As my friends here have said, biotechnology can include fermentation and beer-making all the way through to genetic engineering. Clearly those are not the same processes.

Academics have tried to discern them. So you have traditional biotechnology, which includes things like conventional breeding, and then you have modern biotechnology, which would include genetic engineering and other forms of precise gene manipulation using modern scientific techniques.

So within the broad term “biotechnology”, there are sub-domains: that kind of conventional biotechnology and the modern biotechnology.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Very good.

That now ends the time for the Conservatives.

We're going back to the Bloc.

Ms. Bonsant.

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

Thank you, gentlemen.

I would like to go back to what Mr. Mauro was saying about GMOs. Just like you, I am in favour of GMOs, but only if they are smart choices. Some GMOs are good and some are not.

I've recently read in scientific literature that GMOs have become stronger and stronger over the past 10 years. Some children are born with respiratory problems, and allergies to peanuts, milk and cheese are on the rise.

In your post-doctoral study, have you looked at the impact of GMOs on the life of a fetus and on the first 10 years of a child's life?

[Dr. Ian J. Mauro]

My work is focused more on social and environmental research as opposed to health research, although I am familiar with the literature--and it's an emerging literature around associated health impacts.

Initial studies indicate that there could be potential issues. Allergenicity is one that has been looked at. I have heard of these respiratory issues specifically in communities growing Bt products. The bacillus thuringiensis appears to, in some of these initial studies, have potential respiratory impacts, but all of this stuff is not conclusive. I think it points to the need for more research around health issues related to the introduction of genetic engineering.

Once again, this is a new technology. The way in which we regulate it says that these crops are substantially equivalent to conventionally bred crops. The national research centres in the U.S. are saying that even for conventionally bred crops, as well as genetically engineered, we need to reassess how we study these things, because there can be these additional health issues associated with any type of biotech, traditional or modern, and it requires a whole new way of thinking around this. It empowers the research community to go out and ask those hard questions and try to find out more information.

[Dr. Gord Surgeoner]

I would indicate that allergenicity is one area that's always put in a toxicological evaluation. Now, that does not mean something can't.... But people should be aware that one of the key theories right now as to why we're seeing more allergenicity is that we're living in such a clean society. Our children aren't exposed to the sandbox and the dirt and all those kinds of things that we tended to be, so their immune systems don't get properly set. There's strong evidence if you look at East Germany and West Germany.

There are many theories on allergenicity and what happens. You know, I'd never disagree with good science, but those areas of allergenicity are tested with these crops as one of the absolutes that they have to look at.

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

Just recently, companies have tried to add scorpion venom to a tomato gene to prevent it from freezing during the night. Personally, if I were to drink scorpion venom, I would get some sort of reaction. That's why I asked you this question.

A conference took place in Nagoya on biodiversity. It says here that the new Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur protocol has established a liability scheme for GMO producers and a redress scheme for environmental damage.

Do you know what happened? The newspaper doesn't give us all the details. What is the impact on the environment of all those pesticides and those things that are not natural and are released into the soil? Do you know what the actual impact is on biodiversity, on arable land?

[Dr. Ian J. Mauro]

I'd be happy to talk about that.

My work spans agricultural communities but also Arctic communities. When I live in the Arctic, work in the Arctic, and study the Arctic, I see that the Arctic is the world's dumping ground for chemical pollution. A huge amount of chemicals that are used in agriculture in the south migrate on dominant winds, get locked into the Arctic because it's cold, get into the food supply, and right now, if you want to talk about health impacts, breast-feeding women are giving huge contaminant loads to their babies. And it's affecting all sorts of well-documented studies showing all kinds of neonatal problems associated with chemical loads being passed on through the food chain to women, all the way to their babies, and a lot of it has to do with agriculture and the use of chemicals in the environment.

So when we start talking about herbicide-tolerant crops, for me as an ecologist, my thinking is that we need to get away from using herbicides. Herbicides have well-known impacts. As my friends have said, there are health issues associated with obesity and all kinds of things, but there are also well-linked studies to cancer and whatnot. And so modifying life forms to make them more susceptible to herbicides and resistant to herbicides, it makes no sense from an ecological perspective.

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

What do you have to say about what's happening to the bees? They are dying off. In Quebec City, they are keeping bees in the Château Frontenac to pollinate the flowers on the balconies, because there are fewer and fewer pesticides in the city and more and more in rural areas. Do you think that what is happening to the bees is the result of all the pesticides some farmers use?

[Dr. Gord Surgeoner]

I'm pleased to say I'm an entomologist by scientific training, and I've worked with my bee people at the University of Guelph for a long time.

The number one reason is actually biological organisms. There's a number of mites, actually tracheal mites, that get into the respiratory systems, that have been introduced. And I would emphasize that the honey bee is not native to North America either. So it's primarily biological organisms.

The other one is actually maybe things like climate change, where the bees aren't setting down as well. We get very mild winters, so they use up a lot of honey because it's warmer, and then they get weaker because they're more active, whereas they were supposed go into suspended animation, per se.

So there are many factors. To my knowledge, pesticides is not one of them. It's mainly biological organisms like tracheal mites and varroa mites that are causing the problems.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much.

We're getting lots of good questions today, and good answers.

Now we're going to go back to the government side.

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses.

We've been talking to a number of people in agriculture, and I think this has been one of those critical points. My colleague asked about biotechnology and the definition of it. But I think the complexity of it actually lays out the format in which agriculture is, I believe, in one of those incredibly opportune times in history right now.

This brings us forward to the point, though, that as we move ahead in terms of development, whether it's nanotechnology, biotechnology, or all the things that come together, there really has got to be a transparency and an evolvement of industry in, industry out, markets, the health issues, and all those things that come along.

One of the concerns obviously that will come about is that when those organizations or people have the input, we sometimes get—I'm not sure that this is the right word—“trapped” by some very small, powerful, special interest groups that actually are looking out for a particular interest rather than the best interest of an industry or of Canadians as a whole, that being in the assessment of benefits and risks.

I agree totally that this part of the analysis has to be both sides. It doesn't matter...it's just as urgent as you said. You're jumping on a plane on a crappy day today. I'm assuming you're going to get on the plane. The assessment of risk comes because of all the science and technology that has gone in ahead.

We're committed, I believe, as a country into GM and mutation and, quite honestly, many people don't understand the difference between a GMO and a mutation, and I might ask you that in a minute. You talked, though, about novel traits. Would you put a recommendation forward, and at what time? You said, well, you know, we've been doing these since 1998. But when you have the huge amount of product that is used, when does that become a novel trait, and when doesn't it? Can I have your thoughts on that?

Second, a lot of research is done, obviously, whether it's on GM foods or mutated foods and on organics. Is there actually scientific data that comes forward that says if you're going to have foods that are GMOs, you're going to have foods that have been changed—this will sometimes come from our organic producers, and I have a lot of respect for them because I have enough of them in my riding—if you've got these trait-changed foods, actually now we've created a number of issues around health?

Those are the two questions.

[Dr. Gord Surgeoner]

The first question was on novelty. Again, I have to emphasize flexibility, because you could have something that's registered that has very small use in a very minor area. You can't suddenly say, even though it may be a long time, and something is very widespread.... You don't have to look just at Canada. Look at the U.S. Look at Brazil. Look at other nations where this has been occurring for a long time. In my opinion, it's based on animal feeding and a whole analysis; time is one factor, but there is exposure, and all those other things. Not finding any documented, validated risk is a key thing.

One other point that I think needs to be made when we talk about this technology is that a lot of it is actually at the analytical stage. I'm not sure if you're aware, but right now, the way we're selecting our Holstein cattle is by their genomes. We look at their entire genomics, and we say that these are the genes related to milk production, and those are the ones related to health. We can now select the best calf or the best bull not by rearing it out and doing all those records but by looking at its genes. Canadian companies are leading in that as well. It's also very much a tool for progress rather than, necessarily, a product. I think that's important to talk about.

On your next question, I'm sorry, novelty...?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

In terms of the modified crops that end up becoming food, whether it's for livestock or human use, is there scientific evidence that it actually becomes a health concern because it has now been changed?

[Dr. Gord Surgeoner]

To my knowledge, there would be no health concern. That's why we have a regulatory system. It goes through all kinds of studies. In my opinion, it would not be a health concern.

Again, I have to emphasize that I'm very much for supporting organic food, but as for proving that it has better health benefits for a person, I can't find documented evidence. I can see all kinds of studies that say there is no difference, which is fine, but there is very much a difference in the process.