Agriculture Committee on Dec. 16th, 2010

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

Those become a choice.

Quite honestly, you're going to be a part of biotechnology. If you're going to be a part of it then we have to do it right. There have to be proper assessments, safety assessments, risk assessments on the positive and benefits, and there has to be concern also about what negative issues may come with it. That, quite honestly, is one of the issues I'd be concerned about, because I'm not so sure that we always hear both sides of a balanced story when we're trying to communicate to the consumer, to the public, and in fact likely to many in the agriculture community, the people up and down the road. I'm hoping that at some point in time maybe we can talk about how to do that better, because we cannot be just having one-sided discussions on it.

We also know that biotechnology, in terms of agriculture, from my point of view, is one of the most exciting industries to be in right now and to be looking forward, as agriculture, because of what is actually happening and the prospects for what biotechnology is going to be bringing too.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Do you have a question? Your time is pretty well up. You're very interesting in what you're saying, but—

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

Thank you.

In your comments then, Mr. Hepworth, you talked about the importance of increasing synchronization of approvals, using common approaches to risk assessment. Could you just touch a bit on that before you leave?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

It has to be a very short answer.

[Janice Tranberg]

As an industry, we've made a commitment to seeking the approval in all the major countries where a product will be marketed. So for canola, for example, we seek approval in the major markets. We can make a submission at the same time, but if a country doesn't make an approval at the same time, that means we made a commitment not to move forward on the market and the commercialization of that product. So that could delay the commercialization of the product here in North America oftentimes by three to four years.

We feel it's very important that countries with likeminded science-based regulatory systems are able to share information and work together as they make these assessments and then also make the approvals, and that will minimize the impacts on international trade.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your lenience.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

I've given you an extra minute, Mr. Shipley, for your Christmas present.

We're going to move on to the Bloc now, Ms. Bonsant.

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

Mr. Hepworth, I would like to come back to the issue of choice for farmers. In my riding, 60% of the land is farmland, half of which are organic lands. So when you say that farmers have a choice, that is true, but when the wind blows on their organic fields or when the farmlands are situated alongside a river that floods the fields in the spring, they no longer have a choice. Why? Because the organic product that the farmer wants to sell can no longer be certified as such. Those farmers lose their land. Having a choice is not always a given.

Ms. Sharratt, there is something that I do not understand and which I would like you to explain. Why has Canada backed away from transgenic salmon, claiming that they are dangerous for the wild Atlantic salmon population? There is talk of extinction. What do these salmon do? Do they destroy the DNA of wild fish? Do they destroy their eggs? How do transgenic salmon compare to the wild variety, which is millions of years old?

[Lucy Sharratt]

Your question is what the risk questions are.

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

Why are these salmon not dangerous for humans when they are dangerous for Atlantic salmon? There is something not right there.

[Lucy Sharratt]

It's entirely possible that Canada could approve a genetically engineered Atlantic salmon for human consumption in Canada and approve the Atlantic salmon for production and export. It doesn't matter, in this case, if it's actually safe to eat. If it causes the extinction of wild Atlantic salmon, that's a problem.

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

Is it because they are stronger, because they eat the eggs? Or is it because fewer of the normal variety are produced and the other types of fish are declining? I have some difficulty understanding that.

[Lucy Sharratt]

There are many huge risk problems. These salmon are engineered to grow twice as fast. It's possible that they could out-compete wild salmon but also that they could be much more susceptible to disease. When you genetically engineer an organism, any number of changes could happen, and for the animals, disease susceptibility is one.

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

Can human DNA be altered from decades and decades of consuming genetically modified animals?

I see that the witness is shaking her head.

[Lucy Sharratt]

It would not change the DNA of humans, but certainly the consumer is very aware of these risk questions with respect to genetically engineered animals. It is a complex organism we're speaking of. We haven't yet regulated a genetically engineered animal for safety. It does raise new questions about what we would say are intrinsic risks in genetic engineering, which Canadian government regulation does not recognize. We only look at the product. From what we hear, the largest scientific rationale for the Enviropig being safe to eat is that as an organism, its organs seem to be functioning, and the animal itself is healthy.

Certainly many of the critiques or questions about health data that have been raised in the past do apply and are focused on genetically engineered animals, such as these questions of changes to genomes and the increase of allergenicity. On the question of long-term testing and consumption of the product, what does it mean?

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

No tests have been done to understand the consequences on humans of consuming genetically modified products. On Tuesday, I asked scientists a question. Over the past ten years, more and more babies have been born with more allergies, for example, peanut butter or lactose intolerance. Could scientists perhaps conduct studies on those impacts?

By changing what is normal, foetuses are also affected. Would you be in favour of such studies being carried out? In this day and age, I think that the Conservative government is more concerned by the financial health of corporations than human health. I am concerned by that.

[A voice]

[Editor's Note: Inaudible].

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

Yes, yes, sir.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

Madame Bonsant.

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

Yes?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You have to tidy up here.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Okay, she will answer.

[Lucy Sharratt]

Certainly one of the major problems we see with this question of health risks is the fact that there is no post-market surveillance. Health Canada set up a post-market surveillance project and hosted an international conference and then abandoned that project of tracing and monitoring GE foods in the food system, which is what you would do for population health studies or public health studies generally. And of course mandatory labelling would be necessary.