Thank you very much.
I'm an associate professor at Wilfred Laurier University in Waterloo. I'm here because I do research and teach about the global food system, and in this capacity I'm here to talk about biotechnology and the agrifood sector in Canada.
As a professor, I am wont to go off on tangents, so you are going to have to excuse me. To constrain my tangential nature, I'm going to read mostly from my notes today.
I'd like to thank you, first of all, for inviting me to provide comments on this very important matter. I appreciate your efforts to understand this incredibly complex issue and your recognition of the fact that there are multiple factors.
I'm glad to hear that health is becoming more of a consideration as you move forward; I think that's really positive.
It is up to you as parliamentarians to protect Canadian farmers, consumers, and our food industry. Part of this involves safeguarding our export markets. The agrifood system in Canada, as we all know, is critical to the economy. It represents one in eight jobs, and about 8.1% of our GDP, according to Agriculture and Agri-food Canada.
Within this context, there are three points I'd like to make to you today. The first concerns the cost of losing agricultural export markets; the second is the risk of being held responsible, if we do indeed lose those markets; and then I'd like to talk to you a little bit about the benefits of retaining non-GE crops for export.
First of all, with respect to cost, in the last decade there have been significant financial repercussions as borders have closed to products that were refused because of actual or potential contamination. As a result, taxpayers and farmers have suffered losses, from the flax contamination that Arnold just spoke about from Triffid seed, and also from feed contamination and the resulting BSE crisis.
These two cases are important to consider, as they raise relevant precedents for GE innovations going forward. While clearly the mad cow crisis is not related to GE technology, I'm raising this incident because it is instructive with respect to costs assumed by the Canadian government and its responsibility to protect agricultural markets and farmers' livelihoods.
With regard to cost, farmers lost over $4 billion because of increased processing costs and losses from reduced net exports; it cost taxpayers over $550 million as a result of federal and provincial recovery programs; and finally, there's a $7 billion class action suit on behalf of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Ontario farmers against the federal government and a Winnipeg feed company, based on assertions that the federal government could have prevented BSE had it designed better feed regulations, had better safety reviews, and provided better oversight.
In the case of flax, the detection of GE content threatened the $320 million Canadian flax market into the EU for Canadian farmers. So far this oversight has cost us $1.9 million to implement a sorting and verification system. And this was due to contamination, as Arnold said, from seed that was destroyed over a decade ago.
There are similar cases in other jurisdictions. For example, if we look at the United States, it is estimated that StarLink cost U.S. corn producers up to $290 million in lost revenue, while LibertyLink GM rice market damage has been estimated at between $741 million on the lower end and up to $1.3 billion on the higher end.
Given these precedents and associated expectations, it would be reckless to ignore the economic cost of inappropriate agricultural policy decisions that allow the introduction of another crop, such as GE wheat, into the Canadian foodscape without detailed analysis of all the risks that need to be considered.
From here on out, for the rest of my presentation, I'm going to use GE wheat as an example of the potential downside for biotechnology crops. I'm focusing on wheat because it raises issues that we haven't yet confronted in agri-biotechnology in Canada.
The first is the size of the market. The cost for farmers in lost markets, if GE wheat were introduced, would be substantial. Using data from the Food and Agriculture Organization, I calculated the value of Canadian wheat sold to Japan and those EU countries that are either 100% GE-free or have regions within their countries that are so declared. The value of this market in 2007 totaled $738,111,000. If we include all of the EU countries, the market value jumps to $784,204,000.
If we take a worst-case scenario, based on a USDA survey of countries who said they would not accept GE wheat, the losses exceed $4 billion, based on 2007 numbers, and the only market that would be left to our farmers would be $288 million versus the potential $4.36 billion.
Our farmers could lose access to these secure markets if GE wheat is grown in Canada. As Furtan and Gray at the University of Saskatchewan put it, “there is no first adopter--rather GE creates a market for 'lemons', in this case, what the market would perceive to be inferior GE wheat”.
If we do introduce GE wheat, a 2010 study in the United States estimates that market prices would be between 41% and 57% lower than non-GE wheat. Given this example, there is no question that due diligence requires detailed knowledge with regard to the value of all export markets at risk.
Second are the actual product profile, premium, and marketing issues. Wheat is one of our largest export crops. In many ways, it defines Canada in the international marketplace. Canadian international food identity and food safety are linked to wheat. The Canadian Wheat Board encourages its farmers to identify their wheat as Canadian, and as such it commands a price premium of up to $3.36 extra per kilo over generic varieties.
Variations on the “Grown in Canada” labelling are repeated on packaging used by processors, including Archer Daniels Midland, for product destined for Asia, including China, and by other food processors and retailers in countries including the United States, the U.K., Mexico, Poland, and Japan.
Third is the nature of the issue. Wheat is not like canola, soybeans, or corn. GE wheat will be the first minimally processed GE food sold for human consumption. Unlike corn, soybeans, and canola, which often end up as highly processed food ingredients or as animal feed, wheat would be turned into flour for bread, pasta, or other products in which it would be the primary ingredient. Therefore, wheat puts us into a new realm with a huge potential downside. The same could be assumed for other foods such as fruit, like plums, which are being exported for GE technologies right now, and also vegetables, calling to mind, for example, eggplant.
On a more general level, the whole rationale for GE crops needs to be considered. With respect to the “GE will feed the world argument”, genetically engineered crops have been available for 10 years and we have more hungry people now than we did a decade ago. While we have seen the introduction of herbicide-resistant and pest-resistant crops, there are no GE crops on the market that address any issues related to world hunger.
In terms of production, there has been no perceptible increase in yields for farmers using GE crops. A 2009 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group of internationally recognized scientists and business experts from respected institutions, including Harvard, Yale, and MIT, found, and I'm quoting here from the report:
No currently available transgenic varieties enhance the intrinsic yield of any crops. The intrinsic yields of corn and soybeans did rise during the twentieth century, but not as a result of GE traits. Rather, they were due to successes in traditional breeding.
Weighing some hypothetical, very marginal yield gains--and here reported as non-existent--against catastrophic market losses, it is hard to justify putting more farmers at risk through the adoption of more GE crops. At this point there is no reason to allow more GE seeds to be used in the Canadian agrifood system. Objective science finds no yield benefits, and the downside is huge.
The agrifood system in Canada is critical to the economy. In such a competitive environment, why would we add the GE risk to the mix?
Finally, it's worth noting that GM crops, crop varieties, and the people who use them to make food acknowledge the marketability risks associated with GM. They have consistently lobbied against product labelling that would advise of GM content. It will not be possible to eliminate or even downplay GM content when wheat grain or other key ingredients are the primary and sole ingredient in food staples such as bread and pasta.
In approving additional GE seeds and products, you are accepting the burden of assessing economic risk on behalf of farmers who have absolutely no way of minimizing their market risks. The farmers themselves are unable to act completely collectively on this, and individual refusal to use GM seeds accomplishes nothing. In the case of contamination, markets will be closed. They have been before to Canadian farmers. The widespread and rapid movement of genetic materials means that only the state can intervene, so you as parliamentarians are the only people who are in a position to act and make something happen here.
That said, you either act or decide not to act. Either way, you've made a policy decision. If a sound case, based on objective third-party assessments, can substantiate that there are economic, environmental, and community benefits to adopting more GE food products, then wouldn't we? But in the meantime, why subject such a vital part of the Canadian economy to this added risk?
In fact, let's flip this around. Let's look at the upside of maintaining high standards of traditional product quality and purity. As has been shown with the examples of premium product labeling for export markets for existing Canadian wheat, Canada can and does differentiate our crops in a highly crowded marketplace. Having GE-free crops could allow our farmers to command a price premium.
GE-free crops will not only guarantee the markets farmers have worked hard to create over many decades, but could allow them a further advantage in expanding those markets. Why would we want to compromise our market position and our reputation?
Thank you very much for your time and attention.