Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I guess it's a historic meeting.
I am joined, as you referenced, Mr. Chair, by Janice Tranberg, who is our vice-president for western Canada out of Saskatoon, our innovation office at the University of Saskatchewan, and who also leads our plant biotechnology file.
As the president of CropLife Canada, the trade association representing developers, manufacturers, and distributors of plant science technologies, including plant biotechnology, I'm always happy to speak about our industry's place in Canada's future.
Both large- and small-scale developers of agriculture biotechnology as well as distributors of these products all play an important role in the Canadian agricultural sector. As governments seek to maintain or attract investments from these companies, it is important to understand what drives their decisions.
Ours is a highly scientific industry that contributes significantly to international research. Each new biotech trait takes about ten years and costs between $100 million and $150 million to bring to market.
With annual global research expenditures of over $5 billion, our industry accounts for one-third of the world's total agricultural research and development investment. This represents about 11% of total sales, and puts our industry in the same league as the pharmaceutical industry in terms of overall reinvestment in R and D, which I think speaks directly to our commitment to innovation.
As you explore the future of agricultural biotechnology in Canada, let me be unequivocally clear about what our industry will be looking at when it contemplates the very same thing. Our industry will be asking whether Canada has upheld its commitment to science-based regulations. Without a solid, science-based regulatory system, our industry will not be able to invest in this country to the same degree it has in the past, particularly when there are options to invest in countries where the criteria for success are clear and predictable. Where these plant biotechnologies are supported, there are benefits on three very important fronts: benefits to farmers, benefits to the environment, and benefits to consumers.
As you can imagine, biotech would have fallen flat if they did not deliver economic benefits to our customers, the Canadian farmer.
Various studies tell us that the net global economic benefit from plant biotech crops at the farmgate level was $10.1 billion U.S., to use 2007 as an example. The direct and indirect economic value of GM canola is $300 million Canadian a year. Biotech applications decreased the environmental impact—and costs—from herbicide and insecticide use by 17.2%, when looked at through the period 1996 to 2007.
It's no surprise then that Canadian farmers are voting with their seeders in favour of biotechnology. In fact, Canadian farmers choose genetically modified options for approximately 90% of the canola they plant, 85% of the corn, and 65% of the soybeans. Globally, this makes Canadian farmers the fifth highest adopters in the world of the technology in terms of acres planted.
Much of today's research is focused on developing ways to enhance, protect, or adapt to the changing environment. In the coming years, we expect to see new traits that offer tolerance, that can withstand drought and other stresses like cold and saline soils, new disease resistance, better nitrogen utilization, and a range of healthier foods.
The prospect of drought-tolerant crops is particularly exciting given the high demand agriculture places on water supplies, because the United Nations estimates that by 2030, one in five countries will experience water shortages. We need drought-resistant varieties before that time if we are going to weather the food security challenges that such a significant water shortage would cause.
One in six people in the world is already undernourished. What happens if one in five countries ceases to have the water required to grow food?
Drought-tolerant crops can initiate natural drought defence mechanisms earlier in the moisture deprivation stage, and as such, they stand to have a significant impact on Canadian farmers as well as farmers in developing parts of the world.
Corn and canola, with improved nitrogen utilization, are also on their way. Reducing the amounts of inputs required saves farmers both time and money. It's something they clearly appreciate.
By improving the ability of crops to use nitrogen, we reduce the amount of money farmers pay for fertilizer, the amount of fuel they burn applying it, and at the same time it increases their profitability. From our perspective—and I would dare say it's a perspective many farmers and consumers share—these innovations are worth pursuing.
The question then becomes what is Canada's vision for the future of agriculture, for ensuring Canadian farmers are competitive into the future? Are investments in innovation and agricultural biotechnology things this country wants to see happen and happen here? If so, what needs to be done to attract investment and ultimately the commercialization of these new technologies here in Canada?
As I said earlier, first and foremost it's science-based regulations. A predictable, evidence-based regulatory framework built on science is essential. As an industry, we accept that the technology is and should be highly regulated to ensure public safety and environmental protection. But we believe this should be done on the basis of sound science, not public opinion polls, not personal anecdotes but solid, evidence-based, peer-reviewed science.
Secondly, Canada needs to take a leadership role on global modernization of regulations. Foremost, this means Canada must develop and adopt a low-level presence policy for genetically modified crops and then advocate for other countries to do the same. The fact of the matter is that detection technology has become so incredibly sophisticated that one flax seed, for example, in a sea of ten thousand is detectable. As you've heard from other members coming before this committee on this study and others, zero tolerance is simply not practical, and trace levels of safe and approved GM crops should not be impeding the movement of commodities around the world.
Other regulatory and policy areas of importance that I do not have time to elaborate on this morning include a clear policy statement on plant-made industrial products, the Canada-EU trade agreement, asynchronous approvals, product discontinuation protocols, and regulatory efficiency timelines.
Also related to regulations and Canada's ability to attract innovation will be the appropriate funding, training, and human resource allocation to regulating agencies and departments as well as the country's continued alignment with like-minded industrial nations. Plant biotechnology innovations are gaining momentum, and the number of submissions will be escalating. Canada must be ready and prepare for an explosion of activity on this front.
Let me explain. Whereas in the past ten years there have been 33 biotech approvals sought worldwide, we anticipate there will be 125 approvals sought in the next five years alone. And close to half of these will come from Asia.
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, this is the new competition. It's the Chinas of the world that are spending 1% of their GDP on research, and a big chunk of that is dedicated to agriculture biotechnology. If you think there's an issue today around low-level presence policy and the nimbleness to make sure our farmers have the tools, wait until some of this competition starts to come online.
Improved efficiency and performance of the regulatory system, both within and between regulating departments and agencies, is essential for coping with some of that, so that one department's lag does not create a drag on government's overall performance.
Canada can, in part, help decrease the pressure it comes under by increasing synchronization of approvals, using common approaches to risk assessment, and doing joint reviews to avoid trade issues related to asynchronous approvals for plants with novel traits and low-level presence. Also, it can recognize regulatory decisions of other countries, particularly in North America, while Canada conducts its own risk assessments. And it can pursue regulatory bilateral and multilateral agreements to increase predictability and efficiency.
Our industry is excited about the future of agriculture innovations. For decades our innovations have been helping to feed people here and around the world by providing farmers with tools that help them grow more food on less land. We attract some of the brightest minds in research and business. And one thing we all share is pride in the solutions we generate for challenges that exist today and challenges we expect will develop in the future.
Our provincial and federal governments need to talk about the regulatory approach in a way that will reinforce public confidence. Alignment across the country and a willingness to defend the rightfulness of science-based polices will be absolutely essential to attraction of investment and further innovations.
We believe biotechnology can play a pivotal and transformational role in that future for Canada and for the competitiveness of Canadian farmers. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we hope you will come to that same conclusion as you explore this topic further. We ask you to join with us in helping to grow Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.