Agriculture Committee on Feb. 26th, 2013

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

It would be—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Sorry to interrupt.

Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thanks for coming today.

Ms. Brosseau asked one of my questions about numbers and what you're looking for. It leads to the next question I'm going to ask.

Is there any reputable science data that shows that GMO seed or foods negatively affect health? I'll ask both of you.

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

Maybe I could start with that.

As I mentioned in my presentation, the crops that have been genetically modified today have all gone through rigorous regulatory processes, at least in Canada. There have been no negative effects, whether it be environment, livestock feed, or human food-related issues.

To go back to this low-level presence policy, to reiterate again, it's a policy that's based on the fact that the product has been approved for food use in another country, and, again, a country that we trust has regulatory systems.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Ms. Abel, can you answer that question?

[Susan Abel]

I probably can't add anything to what Mr. Yarrow said.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Okay.

I understood that as well. To me, the health effects of it have been quite beneficial, if you look at it on a global basis.

What effect globally would a 0% policy have on Canadian trade and global food supply? How would that affect that supply if we developed a zero-based policy of export and import actually?

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

That's the status quo from a Canadian regulatory perspective and other regulatory organizations. It's very serious for the grain trade. It's unpredictable and it's risky from a commercial perspective.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

What I'm leading into is that we produce a lot of food in Canada for the world. If we're to develop that policy internationally we wouldn't be able to supply the world with the food it needs. That is what I'm saying.

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

Not with a lot of predictability, that's right. Absolutely.

[Dennis Prouse, Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada]

Mr. Zimmer, someone had to lead on LLP, and we're quite pleased that Canada is doing so. There is a large coalition of the willing, if you will, among major agricultural exporters, who very much want this policy. But the question was, who was going to lead? My running joke is that I call it the “penguin plunge”. No one would want to be the first penguin into the water.

The fact is that Canada is absolutely assured that major agricultural exporters want this. And what will that lead to? To some normalization of trade and some rules-based trade.

To go back to Madam Brosseau's earlier question, we think rules-based trade helps everyone. When there are no rules and when there's the possibility of unpredictable action, that hurts all trade. So we think the fact that rules-based trade is being advanced by Canada is a tremendous positive.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Sure, and I think the concern for producers is that when you acknowledge a low-level presence in some way.... Enacting a policy like this is in some way acknowledging that there is a bad health issue when LLP exists, and that's not what we're saying. That's the rope you walk. We're trying to establish some stability in the market for that reason.

To go back to the last question about organic producers: having an LLP policy in place, to me, would be a positive for organic producers because they would be affected by a zero-based policy as well. Zero is impossible, so they would be wrapped up in that zero-based policy. To me, a percentage-based policy would actually help organic producers in Canada. Is that not correct?

[Susan Abel]

I think it's the predictability that we need, and having a policy in place that clearly spells out what the rules are will help everyone, absolutely.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Stephen, can you comment on that as well?

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

I can't speak for the organic industry, but conversations I have had with organic farmers, who take biotechnology very seriously in terms of dealing with their customers.... By the way, as an association, CropLife Canada—speaking for its members—has absolutely no objection to organic farming. Our position is that everybody should be able to farm how they wish, whether they are using biotech products, organic products, or so-called traditional products. It's just that we need to figure out a way we can all coexist.

What organic farmers tell me is that it just depends on the customer. What does the customer want? Right now in Europe, it seems to be that a customer wants zero. Other markets have more tolerance, so it just depends.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Just following up on some things that Mr. Zimmer said, my impression of the organics industry is that it may not help them if it's above zero tolerance because there are a lot of principled people who, for their reasons, feel that there should be no presence at all of GM in their organic products—quite simply, a zero tolerance.

Mr. Zimmer says it'll make it easier for them to trade and make more money, but money is not always the object for the organics.

Again, Mr. Zimmer said something that I think is quite right. Susan, you said it's science based...you can't choose 0.1% or 0.2%. What's scientific about it? When you say it's scientific, it implies “Oh, we might be mixing some bad stuff with some good stuff, and there has to be a really low level of bad stuff, or it could hurt somebody”.

I don't think that's what you mean to say. I think it's politically based. I don't think it's science based. I think it's: what will the consumer tolerate? What will their organics segment tolerate? What will the GM sector tolerate?

Do you know what I'm saying? Quite frankly...0.1%, 0.2%, 0.5% in Switzerland, and 0.9% in the U.S. Surely we acknowledge the Americans' food safety system and they have authenticity, and the Swiss.

Can you tell, is it really science based, or is it just an arbitrary number we think people can live with?

[Susan Abel]

I'll answer, and perhaps you can jump in.

I want to just go back to the statement so that it's really clear to understand that we're talking about genetic modified events that have already been declared safe for human consumption by a competent authority. So we know this is safe. We know that what's there is safe.

One of our concerns that we voiced to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada was with regard to the actual test methods; there are some challenges there.

We're more concerned that they were setting the 0.1% level because right now, that's as good as our tests are. They'll get better with time. We didn't want to get chasing what zero means, because as our tests improve we will be able to test to lower and lower levels of presence. How do you then define how low is low for this first action level?

Also, remember, this action level is just the first check. This is just: do we have dust in here, or do we maybe have something a little bit more present?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Stephen, you were nodding when I asked that question.

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

Yes.

If I may add, I had a recent conversation with a different audience—same subject—on this proposal about low-level presence. Somebody asked why, if another country has already approved it, we are bothering with any number. Why can't we just approve it and let it in 100%?

It's a case of it being safe from a food safety perspective, because the other country has assessed it. We're comfortable with that regulatory system, but it's still against the law in terms of the Food and Drugs Act. This is all about navigating our regulatory system and providing predictability and confidence in the process.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Susan, I have a quick closing question on labelling.

Some say we don't need it because you can label yourself organic or non-GM, which by the process of elimination is knowing that you're buying something without GM. On the other hand, some on the other end of the spectrum think we should put labels on it. Heck, 80% of what we eat has GM.

For the record, what's the position of your organization on labelling, and why?

[Susan Abel]

I'm afraid that's not my area of expertise within FCPC.

Certainly this has been a big topic of discussion. Because GMOs have been recognized as perfectly safe food, when Health Canada approves that novel trait that commodity then becomes food. We understand Health Canada's position that once it's been declared a safe food it should not be labelled any differently because there's no risk when you consume it.

[Dr. Stephen Yarrow]

If I may add, I could reverse the question and ask you, or anybody who's asking these sorts of questions, what is GM? What does that mean? That's what I was trying to get across in my presentation.

There's a certain understanding of what GM means today and from the last few years, and that's going to shift very quickly over time. If we're going to put a labelling regime in place, it ought to be nimble to keep up with it all, and I don't think that's possible.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Sorry, Dennis, we get to talk to you all the time, so—

[Dennis Prouse]

I know.

I was just going to say that there are two discussions here. There's the health and safety of the crops, and of course we're quite happy to have that discussion, as you know. Then there's the discussion about trying to create trade rules. Creating trade rules is a fairly dry discussion. The health and safety of GM crops is a somewhat more lively discussion. I think that discussion bleeds into the trade discussion, and that complicates what we're trying to achieve here today.