First, I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to appear.
Before we start, I would like to introduce our delegation from the Réseau québécois contre les OGM. You've already met Mr. Nault, from the AmiEs de la Terre de l'Estrie. I remind you that you should have a written copy of our brief. My presentation today will be slightly different, so that I don't go over our 10 minutes.
The purpose of our network is to bring all GMO opponent groups together into a strong network that works together to address certain issues and, in particular, facilitate the exchange of information and ideas for a GMO-free future.
We represent some 20 organizations working mainly in the fields of the environment, consumer rights, agriculture and health; a full listing is available on our website. We also work very closely with the Canadian Biology Action Network.
Our network is here today to contribute to your study on agricultural technologies. Our oral presentation will focus on at least one element, that is, the 2001 report by the Royal Society of Canada. We hope that your campus visits next week will be very fruitful. We also hope that, as the public, we will have access to the account of these meetings, so that we can see what you are studying and what people have to say.
The reason I want to focus on the Royal Society of Canada report is because today, or very soon, is a historic date, the 10th anniversary of the 2001 Royal Society of Canada report, which is titled “Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada.” You can have a look at the copy I have brought with me. The French version is about 280 pages long. I will provide you with some background. The report was commissioned by the federal government and was drafted by 14 “arms-length” experts who were not members of our network, but rather scientific experts from the whole academic community. The report lists 58 recommendations. As the title suggests, the report really focuses on precaution.
Reading the 58 recommendations is out of the question, but I would like to at least read a few, to add to the comments of my predecessor:
7.1 The Panel recommends that approval of new transgenic organisms for environmental release, and for use as food or feed, should be based on rigorous scientific assessment of their potential for causing harm to the environment or to human health. Such testing should replace the current regulatory reliance on “substantial equivalence” as a decision threshold. 7.2 The Panel recommends that the design and execution of the testing regimes of new transgenic organisms should be conducted in open consultation with the expert scientific community. 7.3 The Panel recommends that analysis of the outcomes of all tests on new transgenic organisms should be monitored by an appropriately configured panel of “arms-length” experts from all sectors, who report their decisions and rationale in a public forum. 8.1 The Panel recommends the precautionary regulatory assumption that, in general, new technologies should not be presumed safe unless there is reliable scientific basis for considering them safe. The Panel rejected the use of “substantial equivalence” as a decision threshold to exempt new GM products from rigorous safety assessments on the basis of superficial similarities because such as regulatory procedure is not a precautionary assignment of the burden of proof. 8.2 The Panel recommends that the primary burden of proof be upon those who would deploy food biotechnology products to carry out the full range of tests necessary to demonstrate reliably that they do not pose unacceptable risks. 8.3 The Panel recommends that, where there are scientifically reasonable theoretical or empirical grounds establishing a prima facie case for the possibility of serious harms to human health, animal health or the environment, the fact that the best available test data are unable to establish with high confidence the existence or level of the risk should not be taken as a reason for withholding regulatory restraint on the product. 8.4 As a precautionary measure, the Panel recommends that the prospect of serious risks to human health, of extensive, irremediable disruptions to the natural ecosystems, or of serious diminution of biodiversity, demand that the best scientific methods be employed to reduce the uncertainties with respect to these risks. Approval of products with these potentially serious risks should await the reduction of scientific uncertainty to minimum levels.
There are 58 recommendations, so I will stop here. I am not going to bombard you with the recommendations made by the Royal Society of Canada, which, I remind you, is the highest scientific authority in Canada. It does have a certain credibility in this field.
Unfortunately, the recommendations set out in the Royal Society of Canada report were mostly ignored by the government. The government simply threw the report away.
In 2004, three years after the report was submitted, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development published a Canadian Food Inspection Agency audit, which confirmed and gave more details on what the Royal Society of Canada report covered three years earlier.
Almost nothing has changed since 2001. What's worse is that GM plants with multiple gene insertions, such as StarLink corn, have been authorized without a specific assessment. GM animals, especially the GM pig, are on a fast track to becoming authorized. GM salmon could be marketed soon.
Canada has still not ratified the United Nations Biosafety Protocol, while 160 countries have done so. Consumers are still waiting for the mandatory GMO labelling that some 40 countries have already adopted.
The approval of GM alfalfa will lead to a crisis, which I hope you are aware of.
So, what can your committee do? We have formulated five basic recommendations.
First, your committee should encourage all MPs to vote in favour of Bill C-474. The bill will not solve all of our problems, but it will at least enable us to protect farmers from the economic impact of a poor biotechnology management policy.
Second—