Agriculture Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2011

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

And it's not realistic to expect that--

[Dr. Andrew Schmitz]

Right. But at the present time, that's what you've got. So people are promoting or moving toward having products where you don't have zero tolerance, where you may move to a 2% or 3% tolerance of GMOs. But the segregation cost really became an issue there, and they're highlighted again in the StarLink case. The Japanese didn't trust the Americans any more, so they also did their own testing at the border of corn shipments going into the Japanese market. They turned back huge shiploads of corn on the basis of the StarLink corn, yes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'm going to go over to you, Mr. Gold, and just talk a little about the patent side of things and new technologies. Biotechnology just isn't GMO, and I want people to really focus on the fact that GMOs are just one of the tools in the chest. Dr. Agblor, you talk about the pulse industry. You've been very successful in bringing forward new traits using genomics, I believe, which is probably the best way you've been addressing that.

So how do we go about allowing industry to have security in their research, and marketing the products they develop in such a way that it still doesn't...? I'm trying to figure out a way to say that they feel secure that they can have proper returns on their investment, yet the farmer doesn't feel he's getting shafted paying over-the-counter, through-the-nose rates for the seed.

[Richard Gold]

Thank you for that question.

Actually, I think Mr. Agblor's comments at the beginning partially answered that. It was a consortium between those growing it, researchers, and industry to develop the technology. That really seems to be the way of the future. If you want to have the right biotechnology--and you're quite right, it extends to tools that identify what kinds of plants or animals, country of origin, or GMO--with the whole gamut of technologies that actually are suited to the farmers, and ultimately consumers, you need these consortia.

Anything we can do to help fund them gives security to everyone. Right now when universities develop technology, they often have to give them away at a very early stage. No one can value them. No one knows whether they're appropriate or not. They sometimes have difficulty figuring who to license to, or even.... As I said, sometimes only large companies have the ability to take on that technology.

So anything we can do to help build consortia, with links between universities, the growers, and the industry so that they develop products, will create stability. We'll create better enforcement in the end, because we're developing a community that believes in the technology. The only way to find out if someone is violating your patent is if someone lets you know. If you have a good community and everybody is supportive of the technology, you have a much higher chance of enforcing your patents when they exist.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I know that in the manufacturing sector--I used to work with Flexicoil, and then Case New Holland--we used to have a joke that your patent was only as good as your wallet.

Is that similar in the grain sector and in the seed sector...or not even in the seed sector, but in the biotech sector? Seed is just one part of the biotech sector.

[Richard Gold]

I think that's a cynical way to look at that. Most patents are never enforced, and they're not designed to be enforced. They basically are a sign to the world, “I have developed something, come work with me.” That's the best way to use a patent, not to enforce it. If you actually go to court, it costs about $1 million to $2 million a side in a patent dispute.

So people generally accept patents. They don't violate them, or they don't violate them more than any other type of rights. They're useful as commercial tools to set up negotiations, to build relationships. Those companies that adopt those types of strategies do better than those who go out and just try to enforce their rights willy-nilly.

So yes, smaller companies will have more difficulty in enforcing them just because of the cost, but when you have a clear-cut case, you will still win in a Canadian court.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay.

I'd like to turn now to segregation and new crops.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Very briefly.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'll be as quick as I can.

One of the concerns that have been brought up by some of the plant breeders or in the public is that if we put in a trait that makes it no longer a for-use crop--for instance, with a crop like canola--but one used only in industrials such as plastics, what kind of process do you guys think should be in place for handling that type of crop? It will never hit the food chain theoretically, yet realistically it possibly could.

Maybe that's more than a one-minute answer, so maybe it's not a fair question. I'll have to leave the question hanging right now, but maybe I'll get you to think about that a bit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Does somebody want to respond to it?

Mr. Darier.

[Éric Darier]

I think the issue of what's called PH farming is a big issue. It's a very challenging issue, because if you have a food crop that can also produce industrial products or pharmaceutical products, it will be virtually impossible to actually properly segregate unless you do it in a totally hermetic way, and for economic reasons you cannot do that; you're not going to seal those crops.

So that's a huge issue. At least one thing that has been done so far is that we haven't gone fast on this issue, and rightly so, because if a food chain is contaminated, it's a huge issue.

To go back to my Royal Society report, I think there were some interesting recommendations that this committee should revisit. I think they were there at the time, and unfortunately this issue is still there. I thank you for raising this, because I think indeed it is a big threat, and the U.S. is not as cautious as we are here.

[André Nault]

Could I make a quick comment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'm sorry, sir, I have to move on. You can get a chance to comment later on.

Ms. Bonsant.

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

Mr. Nault, I will give you the opportunity to answer.

[André Nault]

Should we be using food to produce plastic or fuel if a food emergency is looming? We must decide what to do as a society. If the prospect of a food emergency is looming on the horizon, we need to keep food for consumption, and not for making fuel or plastic.

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

Thank you, gentlemen. Such a varied and interesting group of witnesses is a welcome change.

There has been a lot of talk about GMOs in the sector of oilseed crops, lentils and wheat. In September 2010, there was much discussion about transgenic salmon. I know that the Americans have commissioned an independent study on the potential effects of transgenic salmon on human beings. Do you feel that the studies that have been conducted are sufficient to put a stop to the production of transgenic salmon? According to a report I watched, transgenic salmon and natural wild salmon are not the same size at one year old. This must have some consequences on humans.

I would like to know what you think about this, Mr. Darier.

[Éric Darier]

Thank you for your question. This issue has been around for a good 15 years or so, but I think that it will become more and more relevant, given the fact that a small U.S. biotechnology company based in Prince Edward Island is trying to get GM salmon approved.

I want to go back to the Royal Society of Canada report, which was very clear on this subject: if there is one thing that we must not do, it is run the risk of releasing GM fish, salmon or some other kind, into the environment.

The issue continues to be relevant. The FDA, in the United States, is looking into authorizing GM salmon for human consumption. What's quite interesting is that the American system is somewhat more transparent than our own. Some of these studies show that there could be concerns for human health. That is why additional studies have been requested. The FDA continues to conduct studies on the issue.

I am very afraid that, under all kinds of pressure, GM salmon will be approved for consumption in the United States. If that should happen, it will very quickly lead to a crisis in Canada, given the Canadian government's position.

I want to remind you that, following the publication of the Royal Society of Canada's report, the Government of Canada very clearly stated that it meant to establish regulations specifically for GM fish, owing to the specific risks involved. However, 10 years down the line, we are still waiting for these regulations.

If the United States authorizes GM salmon, a crisis will ensue in Canada. First, it will have to be determined whether Canada should produce GM salmon eggs. Second, if they are produced here, they will have to be exported in the context of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosecurity. Third, the consequences of consuming this product will have to be determined. Will we be able to prevent the accidental spread of eggs in water? This is a potential threat to a very important sector, that of salmon farming and the salmon industry.

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

In my constituency, there is a brook trout producer. Everything about his fish is natural; there are no transgenics involved. If the Americans end up supporting the consumption of transgenic salmon, which are 10 times larger than regular salmon, Canada will experience significant economic effects. All farmers of small natural salmon will go bankrupt.

[Éric Darier]

I don't know if your committee has consulted salmon producers or people working in aquaculture, but, to my knowledge, they are all very hostile to the idea of GM salmon or fish, for all kinds of reasons.

I wanted to point out that GM salmon is not larger, but rather grows faster. It matures in 18 months instead of three years. That's the reality of the matter.

The biological risks related to wild salmon contamination, which, among other things, poses a threat to biodiversity, are so great that the Royal Society of Canada was very clear on the issue: it called for a moratorium on aquaculture in oceans to prevent this contamination. This is something you should look into, in addition to the alfalfa and all the other issues. The recommendations made by the Royal Society of Canada must be implemented without fail.

This is also a matter of transparency. There has been a lot of talk about public and market confidence, but the confidence is also based on transparency. We must reassure outside markets that we are making the best scientific decisions based on the best independent expertise.

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

I see.

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Nault?

[André Nault]

All the independent studies that we've had so far, such as those conducted by Arpad Pusztai, Gilles-Éric Séralini and the Institute of Science in Society, have shown that transgenics have consequences. I want to point out that there is a huge difference between transgenes and working in genomics. The immune system of rodents was affected in every transgenics experiment. I am pretty sure that, if we were talking about a drug, it would not even get past the first stage of approval for human consumption. Even so, we are eating these products.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Just as follow-up on that, Mr. Darier, Ms. Bonsant asked you about the transgenic fish, and just so I have my figures right, I believe you said they reach full size at 18 months versus three to four years?

[Éric Darier]

Yes, that's instead of three years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

My question to that is, presuming those are all captive fish and presuming that in order to get that their feed is increased, if that were in the wild—and this is only hypothetical—what impact would doing that have on the food supply for those fish?

Do you have any comment on that?

[Éric Darier]

There are lots of studies and computer modelling on the impact of releasing some of the GE fish into the environment by accident. We could have an entire committee hearing on this one, and I invite you to do so, maybe later.

But some of the experts predict that even the release of only a few non-sterile GE fish in very limited or specific populations of wild salmon could eventually lead to extinction of the wild salmon. That's why the Royal Society was very specific. Why? First, because they compete for food. Second, they are also sexual predators. They compete for reproduction even if the next generation is less viable. Basically, there is a weakening of the wild salmon compared to the GE salmon.

I invite you and this committee, for time's sake, to look at some of the documentation of the European Free Trade Agreement and some of the experts who looked into that, and to do it quickly, because this issue is going to come up sooner than you think.