Agriculture Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Bill.

Mr. Allen, for seven minutes.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, everyone, for being here.

I would like to start with either Michelle or Jim.

I read through your presentation earlier. I'm going to nitpick with words, but don't take offence to it, because you're not the only ones who do this; it comes from all over the place. When folks talk about “science-based” and “non-science-based”, the words get thrown into the conversation but never actually get defined.

Let me just quote from one of your presentations: “If approval systems in foreign and domestic markets deviate from science-based processes...”. So the first thing that comes to mind is, which science-based processes are you actually alluding to? There's nothing footnoted.

You're not the only ones who do this, by the way. It happens all the time. People just say it's science-based, and where they're actually saying something about someone else who doesn't agree with them, they say it's non-science-based.

That's all well and good to have an opinion, but, to be honest, if you actually want to convince me about the non-science or science of something, then footnote it for me. Tell me exactly where it's coming from, let me know what it is you're actually alluding to, which regulations, for instance, you're alluding to that are actually science-based, and where the study was done.

I say this just as a way of trying to make me understand where these things come from. And you're not alone. You just happen to be here today and I happen to be filling in for Alex, so I get to say that today. You could have been someone else. I'd be saying the same thing to them.. Quite frankly, if you wrote this paper at the university level, your professor would simply hand it back to you and ask, “Where exactly did you get that from, and what are you alluding to?”

I'm not suggesting, Jim, that you don't have a wealth of experience of doing things, but biotechnology, as Mr. Easter pointed out earlier, covers a gamut of things, and folks have actually been doing it for a long, long time. Long before they actually knew what a gene looked like, folks were actually doing biotechnology. They just didn't know it was called biotechnology. It was grafting or splicing or blending seeds, and trying to find things that were producing in a better way. We've got better tools to do it today. The issue now becomes, did the better tools give us a better product?

As an electrician, I can buy better screwdrivers. Does it make me a better electrician? Some would debate whether I was ever a good electrician, but that's neither here nor there.

Let me ask you this. You talk about what's called a low-level protocol, in the sense of how you keep it at a certain level, and you're looking at 5%. What if your market that you're trying to sell that to says to you that it does not want 5%? What do you do? What if it says it wants less, and you can't meet it? Or can you meet it? Maybe it's a two-part question.

[Michelle McMullen]

To answer your question, I'll answer from the industry standpoint and then let Jim answer as a producer.

One of the things we've done, as the Canadian soybean industry, is that we take a whole industry approach. I'll give Japan as an example of an export market.

Japan is the Canadian soybean industry's largest market. It's a premium market for Canadian soybeans. It currently has a 5% threshold. As the Canadian soybean industry, we work together with our researchers who develop the varieties, as well as the exporters who are the ones on the ground, making the sales, and determining what the customers want.

That 5% is a base. Many times in Japan our customers will request higher specs than that. So we actually will supply varieties or product based to the exact specification of our customers, whether it be for natto production, whether it be for tofu production, whether it be for miso production. We will produce and we will ship the beans in a way that is usable by our customers. So we will meet their needs. It's not hard for us to meet those thresholds as long as the biotech trait is approved; we have that. If it's an unapproved event, we can't guarantee zero.

So that's something that's very important to us: to ensure that the approval processes are harmonized to ensure that our growers and our industry can take advantage of those opportunities in Japan and in the EU, where they're more sensitive to biotechnology.

[Jim Gowland]

As a grower and producer, certainly we recognize that we need that low-level-presence side there—and I'm talking industry-wise, as we were starting to come into. We all recognize that as things come down the pipes—and we're going to see accelerated amounts of biotech that seem to be coming down the pipes—as Michelle said, the event approval side of things needs to be harmonized globally. We need to have policies and positions in place in Canada here. We just can't point the finger at the international community; we have to take charge of our own issues as well.

For a grower, knowing what those limitations or thresholds are, certainly that becomes a management aspect of growing that crop. At the end of the day, if there are dollars and cents, if there's profitability to do that, we will do our utmost to make sure we are inside those parameters. And 5% is kicked around as a number in Japan. There's lots of product that goes off our farm. If it's approved events, we're likely under that 0.1% that we've probably been able to work with.

At the same time, as a grower I look at utilizing that as a competitive advantage against some of the other competitors in the world. If we can have a tolerance level that's fairly acceptable to the consumer, and if we can meet that as a producer, there are a lot of other countries, and if they don't do their homework and have the management systems in place, that's where we have the advantage and that's where we pick up premium.

Basically, we work hard in the Japanese, European, and Asian markets so we can do those types of things, and we've been able to prove it. That's the success of the Canadian soybean industry to date, that we are able to manage those systems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You just have a few seconds.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you.

I want to go to Jodi about this issue around who actually controls the research. I know Mr. Van Tassel touched on it in his actual presentation, but from the organic producers' perspective, it seems to me that we see more research actually held in the hands of those who are actually looking to derive profit from the research rather than what one might call, when one went to school, basic research that's available to the general public, if you will.

Could you comment on that?

[Jodi Koberinski]

There are two things to that. Clearly, one of the things that's held back research in the organic sector is that there's really nothing to commercialize. No input is going to come out of that. There are no pesticide or herbicide regimes. So recovering the dollars that went into the original research in a private-friendly investment environment for research isn't possible.

So unless that research is being done at the farm level, we're not seeing the kinds of productivity results we'd like to from new technologies such as, for example, the dimple tiller. We have a process whereby we have essentially no-till agriculture, because we use a tiller that breaks the weeds when they're emerging above the crop you want. It breaks the weeds, and it creates a cover crop.

But that research isn't being conducted using public dollars; it's being done by farmers with universities. So it's a huge problem for us, because it means there are seed varieties we're not exploring, and there are technologies we're not exploring that could benefit both the organic sector and the broader agricultural sector.

In terms of the science generally, last week we heard Derek Penner, the president of Monsanto Canada, say that his company believes in transparency and sound science. But Greenpeace and researchers in France had to sue Monsanto over a ten-year period to release what was supposed to be public data, which was the basis for the original Bt corn approvals. When the scientists got their hands on the data and ran a comparative study, they found that Monsanto didn't even follow its own study protocols. it missed by a 40% factor a chance for a medium-to-major health impact.

So this is the basis of our sound science. And I think it's a concern as well that we've left the safety science in the hands of the same folks who have an interest in commercializing a product. That is a huge regulatory oversight. We're not saying don't innovate and don't research and don't allow the companies to commercialize, but without disengaged research that's third-party and that has no benefit to the commercialization, we run the risk of having problems.

I'll use the example of rBGH for that. If Shiv Chopra, who was a whistleblower in Health Canada who ended up losing his job and his career over it, hadn't stood up and said there's something wrong with this science, we'd be drinking rBGH right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Shipley, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you also to all of the witnesses who have taken the time to be a part of this review we're doing. It's quite an intriguing area that this committee has chosen to look into, because it's actually what agriculture and farmers are all about, quite honestly. It certainly meets our mandate, and it is something the agricultural community is interested in.

Jim, it's interesting, because we have an organization here and then we actually have a farmer who has his feet on the ground who is actually producing GMO and non-GMO. I don't know if you do any organic or not. One of the issues that come to light from time to time is that--following a little bit on what Jodi has said--maybe we, as producers, don't have the access now to other types of seed, non-GMO seeds, because they aren't there.

Is it a fact that non-GMO seeds are now not available to farmers or that there isn't any research on the conventional seeds that are out there?

[Jim Gowland]

With soybeans--and I think Michelle talked about the numbers---we're looking at production in Canada being 65% biotech or GM types of soybeans and 35% non-GM.

I guess, as producers, we certainly are exposed to quite a number of different varieties that are being developed both in the private sector and in the public sector to a certain degree. Certainly I think there are areas in public research that complement the seed production even in the private sector with regard to elements, traits, resistance, and those types of things, which are very important, and they do come through with some very good varieties as well.

But as far as numbers of varieties go, Bev, I think we certainly have quite a number of varieties available to us. I think the choice of those varieties is great when we are trying to identify what adds profitability in our farm operations.

I think there are some producers who just aren't cut out for producing the non-GM side of things. They have said they have some agronomic issues and that type of thing and that the biotech crop seems to work best.

I think all of us as business operators look at the bottom line and at where can we derive profitability and whether there are opportunities. That's the key to being competitive in the industry, plus it's key to being competitive on the back road as a farmer as well.

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

It seemed to me you said that you were growing both GM and non-GM, that obviously you're making a business decision on what you want to do based on your farm.

I have some great organic farmers in my riding, and obviously there is a concern. I'd have to have that discussion about all the fault goes with the conventional farmer and none of the responsibility goes in terms of cost and compensation with the organic. I think that's part of what we have to resolve, quite honestly. It's like a zero tolerance. There is no such thing as zero tolerance. So we have to work on some sort of low-level presence.

Actually, I'm very much interested, because in the soybean industry in Ontario, they're 65% GMOs and 35% non-GMOs. We have been successful in hitting very competitive markets that are very stringent within their criteria.

Jim, you had mentioned, actually, that you would likely be comfortable at 0.1%, or if you had to meet it, you could do that. Is there an attitude change? Is there some change that's happening in terms of country perception of GMs outside of conventional product? We heard the other day that actually the EU now is considering and will accept feed coming into their country with GMOs in it. Does there seem to be a shift in attitude towards that? Is it driven only by the large companies, the Monsantos or whatever of the world? Have they had that big of an impression on these countries? Or do they see this is something they have to adapt to? And the communication gap to the general public has to change away from perception to a reality, if that's in fact what the case is.

[Jim Gowland]

I'll answer part of it. I'm going to let Michelle do some of it too.

We look at world demand and supply, and certainly we're in a situation that supplies are tighter and the demand still keeps growing. Certainly in the soybean industry globally we have seen huge, huge demand over the last 20 years. How selective, as a country, do you become on what you're going to accept? In the situation, are you going to short your market if there's a demand there? If the consumer needs these products, are you going to short yourself? And I think there's probably some acceptance. The fact is that, look, we have a situation here where demand is ramping right up there with supply. I know we have variations from year to year, but for the most part we've seen huge demand and supply that's keeping up to that. And of course a lot of that supply is from biotech as well.

I'll let Michelle maybe move forward with a couple of other comments on it.

[Michelle McMullen]

Just in regard to your question, when we look at Japan it's consumer-driven. The consumers are asking and demanding the non-GMO product. They want to ensure that the products are not from biotech. In saying that, however, the Japanese government's approval processes are a little bit slower than North America, but they have approved a number of the traits that are found in some of the biotech crops in Canada, which allows us to meet those thresholds.

I don't see in the next ten years the consumer preference changing, but I do see that they will continue to do their evaluations of the new traits coming forward and ensure that they're approved and allow us to be able to meet those thresholds.

We've actually initiated a unique process similar to the canola consultations that happened between Japan and Canada. We have an industry exchange meeting between the Japanese soybean industry and the Canadian soybean industry, where every two years we can have a discussion with the Japanese industry and have representatives present from the Canadian industry, where we can discuss these issues to ensure that both of our countries can continue to be competitive and profitable. It really helps us, because we involve our whole value chain to ensure that we can address any situations or issues that arise and ensure that our farmers and our exporters can take advantage of those exporting opportunities.

So it really is a whole value chain approach to ensuring that we can continue to meet that demand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'll move to Mr. Valeriote for five minutes.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you for coming up. I have four or five questions that I will include in this statement.

One of the things about Bill C-474 that made me think this investigation was necessary was that it didn't deal with the issues of corporatization and monopoly. It didn't deal with the right to maintain and own your seed.

Frankly, what I thought about during that discussion and this one was that if at some point Europe okays a low-level presence of 0.5% or 1%, what would happen to the organic industry? Then the analysis that's being done will take that into consideration and will say “Okay, this could be released to a certain degree because they're accepting a low-level presence now”. I'm concerned, because I believe that the organic and the GMO need to co-exist. I don't know how we'll do that.

What would happen if there were an acceptance of low-level presence? I would ask that of Jodi.

The second question would also be for Jodi. You talked about the organics people having a conversation about low-level presence, and it seems that you're conflicted within your own industry. I'd like to know why there is a conflict within your own industry. Are some saying they can accept the low-level presence? Are others saying they won't accept it because they need to be 100% GMO-free at all times?

My third question is with respect to the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. I'm hearing wonderful suggestions. Jodi, I heard the suggestions that you made at the end of your presentation, most of which I agree with. I've heard suggestions from others.

Last week Manish N. Raizada, who presented in Guelph, came up and gave me and the clerk a number of regulations. In the first prescription, it says that a company that applies for a licence to sell GMO must also agree to sell the exact same crop without any GMO transgenes in order to give real choice to farmers and consumers. Then it addresses different levels of acceptance, depending on risk.

My third question is, when are you guys going to come together? What does it take? Will it take Minister Ritz to put you in a room and tell you to start talking and having these discussions? Will it take a member of Parliament or two to try to gather you together to have these conversations so that you can self-regulate? You talked about self-regulations, Jim, but I don't see it happening.

Can you address those three issues? Jodi, please go first.

[Jodi Koberinski]

Did you want me to deal with the low-level piece or the corporatization? Or was that more of a statement?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

That was a statement.

[Jodi Koberinski]

With respect to the low-level presence, a number of things could happen in organics. We're being very speculative here. In the quotes that are going around about the European Union considering low-level, we're not talking about the people of Europe considering low-level acceptance. We're talking about the bureaucracy, and folks have to deal with the complex international agreements that Europe has made with the rest of the world.

It's in that realm that the conversation is happening. We don't believe the European consumer is going to accept low-level presence. So what we could see is markets drying up for crops that are imported into Europe, in favour of zones that maintain some level of commitment to a GE-free policy. Markets that exist today for Canadian, American, and South American producers may in the future go to other regions of the world that are committed to growing GMO-free crops.

This is a huge issue across the board for our sector. The reality is that we don't know what will happen. We could see the evaporation of the organic sector to some degree. One of the key premises for eaters is that this is their way of avoiding a technology they don't believe in. It's a paradigm difference. There is no amount of education that's going to convince our existing eater base that GMOs are something they want to be eating.

Without labelling, however, people don't know what they are eating. So this idea that people will accept GMOs is true only if you're not labelling it. I think we would see a fairly large consumer backlash in Europe. Would it subside? Potentially. Can we all go on with business as usual? Probably. I think it would be a real loss of choice for consumers if we accept it across the board, that is, adventitious presence in every foodstuff.

As to the second question—

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, André Bellavance]

Ms. Koberinski, I do not know if others wanted to make any comments, but Mr. Valeriote's time is already up. I would ask you to be brief.

[Jim Gowland]

I think the Canadian soybean industry really strives to coexist with all segments. Exporters, processors, growers, it doesn't matter what type of product we're growing, we certainly recognize that markets and consumer demands are very important for the success of our industry. That is organics as well.

Organics, as far as I'm concerned, is a growers' and other management choice that I can make on my farm operation. I evaluate it. Is it something I can make money at? You're darn right. We evaluate every type of opportunity.

I think we look at where there's growth and room in this industry, and it's been great. I think in the last ten years our exports of Canadian soybeans have moved from 700,000 tonnes to an anticipated 2.6 million metric tonnes of soybeans this year. It's tremendous value into Canadian growers' pockets.

It's a situation where, no matter what segment, we've risen to the occasion of what that consumer wants, and we're able to bring forward that product. I think it's a great success story that every individual--farmers, growers, companies--can participate in a value chain that can see a lot of growth and meet customer requirements.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We'll now move to Mr. Richards for five minutes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you all for being here today. I think there's a good degree of balance on the panel today, and that's certainly appreciated.

In that vein, I would say that certainly there's no question in my mind that there are opportunities for those who grow GMOs, non-GMOs, and those who grow organics. I think there are markets out there and there are opportunities, and I think there's a place for everyone here at the table. That's why it's great to see the balance we have here today.

Here in Canada and elsewhere there's an increased demand among some consumers for more local products, to see more local food. There is also a place for the new technologies, the biotechnology aspect of it with GMs, and ways we can reduce input costs for farmers through the technology that's available and ways we can create greater yields, etc.

I think there's a place for both. That's democracy at its finest. It's a choice for the producers to decide how they want to manage their operation, and the freedom to be able to choose what they want to put in and what they want to get out of it. That's really what we're hearing today.

It's all about freedom of choice. That's the same reason I believe there's a need to have dual marketing for wheat and barley in western Canada with the Wheat Board. There needs to be that choice. Farmers should have that opportunity to choose how they market their product and should also have the opportunity to decide what goes into their field.

It comes back again to things like Bill C-474 as well. The best I've ever heard it put was by Richard Phillips, who is at the back of the room here today, who said that Bill C-474 was not much more than an attempt to end all new technologies, in fact all GM technologies in Canada.

That was a very unfortunate piece of legislation, one that did seek to end the choice. So today I'm glad to hear a lot of talk about the idea of the farmers having the option to choose what they want to put into their fields and what they want to take out.

I think I was hearing from Ms. McMullen and Mr. Gowland and Mr. Van Tassel as well that you believe there needs to be choice and that there is a market for both types of growing. Is that correct? Is that what I've heard? Just a quick yes or no on that one.

[William Van Tassel]

Yes, I believe there should be, because agriculture in Canada is very diversified. So I agree with you. Some farmers will be organic; some others will grow otherwise.

I'll just answer one part about the low level, what I believe. We had a committee here in Quebec. Zero percent, zero tolerance now, is rather impossible when you can have testing at parts per billion. Now with the testing as stringent as it is, I think it's impossible to be at zero tolerance. That's just one part.

I'll go back to what interests me enormously. For the farmer to have the choice, he has to have the tools. So when I'm talking about wheat among others, you want to have the tools. And if the private isn't there then the public has to push in also to have tools for the farmers to be able to be competitive in the markets, to be able to have return on their investment, and to be able to be there, viable to be there, the farmers, long term.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I appreciate that.

So I would ask again Mr. Van Tassel this, and maybe Ms. McMullen or Mr. Gowland for the Soybean Council. Under the scenario of having a choice and being able to grow GM product or non-GM product, would you agree that there is still a place for organics? Can organics still function and thrive under that kind of an environment, and why or why not?

[Jim Gowland]

I'll go first.

Yes, I believe strongly there's room for organic production in Canada. As Jodi mentioned, there's the consumer demand for it. I think it comes down to a situation that if there's that much demand for it and if the management required for it has profitability for the growers, they're going to do it. The industry will do that; they'll step up to the plate. So yes, I think that if there's demand and the returns are there and those individuals who are in it are making it work, that's great. I think that's just a great opportunity for diversification at the farm level for income. Is it cut out for everybody? No, it's not, but I think it's a great income opportunity for growers.

Michelle.