I would first like to turn to Professor Raizada.
Since I know how perceptive Frédéric, our Library of Parliament analyst, is, I am sure that you will be quoted in the report that the committee is going to write. Your position is completely balanced. In fact, I have never personally seen groups opposed to biotechnology. But we have seen groups opposed to genetically modified organisms. So we have to look at things from both sides.
When you tell us, for example, that insulin is a genetically modified organism, as are a whole bunch of medications like whey and so on, I don't think that anyone at all familiar with the area will suggest that everything should stop because they are GMOs. So I am swayed by that kind of balanced opposition. I'm sure that I can also speak for my party, the Bloc Québécois, in that sense.
But you are also telling us that we do not have enough data yet. That means that we do not know all the effects on health and on the environment that genetically modified organisms can cause. So it is entirely healthy for this debate to be taking place. It is wrapped up in the whole question of social acceptance.
That being the case, I would like to turn to Mr. Penner.
In previous testimony to the committee, we have heard about the importance of communication and of information. For large companies, that very often means propaganda done by highly paid public relations people using all the means and resources at their disposal. They want to drive the idea into people's heads that their products are good.
What is important to me in communicating information is transparency, and I feel that the public wants that too. Consumers want to know exactly what is on their plate. Agricultural producers want to know what kinds of seeds they are using and what effect and economic impact those seeds have. The approach is different, but it is clearly vital.
With regard to Monsanto, I won't go right into your area because I am not sufficiently familiar with it. I would rather have your reactions to what is public, to what we know, without necessarily responding to each and every matter I'm going to briefly mention. Are you aware of the whole area of social acceptance?
Scientists have talked to this committee about contamination. It is a recognized fact, as is release. The monopoly you have is clearly causing problems in a number of countries. The United States Department of Justice is conducting hearings on this at the moment. In West Virginia, there are lawsuits against you about soya. You are also involved in a dispute with India, specifically about problems with parasite resistance.
We don't have to go very far to find issues of contamination. We have just come from Saskatchewan, where a 72-year-old farmer called Mr. Schmeiser lives. I'm not a Supreme Court of Canada judge, and I know he lost at the Supreme Court. But all the resources and money you used against that 72-year-old farmer could perhaps have been better used developing buffer zones, for example, zones protecting against the release of genetically modified seeds.
A 72-year-old man who had developed his own variety of canola found himself facing a giant like you in court. In terms of social acceptance, there was certainly a lot of media buzz about that. A huge multimillion-dollar company attacks a 72-year-old farmer who developed his own variety of canola, takes him to court and crushes him.
That is very much the tone of the debate. The history of large companies that make GMOs increases public concern. All your communication, all your information, however valid it may be, can be tarnished by examples like that, examples that people see, not only around the world, but also here in their own backyard.
Are you aware of that?