Agriculture Committee on March 5th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for being with us today.

I have a question for the representatives from AmiEs de la Terre de l'Estrie.

It is clear from your presentation that you are not in favour of GMO use. But that isn't really what we're discussing today. GMOs are used, and that will not stop.

The real issue is this.

It touches on low-level presence. GM crops have been approved for animal feed. They've been approved for human consumption here in Canada. They're considered to be safe, as based on science. I understand the concerns you have, and it's good that you bring them up, but really we're just talking about a low-level presence, not whether GM crops should exist in the first place. They do exist; they're going to continue to exist. They've been deemed safe through scientific methods.

I was listening to Madame Brosseau on low-level presence in organics. My point of view would be that the organic sector would be in favour of low-level presence, not because that would necessarily imply you therefore approve of GM crops, but because an organic shipment can be contaminated not just by GM products but by non-organic products, through no fault of your own. The organic farmer may harvest his crops in an organic manner. He may store them in a silo that is perfectly clean, but then they go onto a truck and they go into another silo. They go through another handling system. His organic crop that he paid a premium to grow and to harvest has been contaminated, and it's not his fault. It's not a health and safety issue; it's just a very low-level presence of non-organic material. It might not even be GM.

I don't understand, really, the organic opposition to low-level presence when I think it would actually help the organic farmer, because it's quite reasonable. If there were one thousand grains of corn and one grain of wheat in that one thousand grains of corn, the organic farmer would ask, why are we rejecting my one thousand grains of corn for the one grain of wheat that was actually in a truck that I don't control, or on a conveyor belt that I don't control?

I'm not even talking about GM. If the organic sector accepted low-level presence, in no way does it mean they therefore accept GM. It's just talking about delivery of a product, provided it's fit for human consumption. As I said at our last meeting, we're not talking about arsenic or lead being in there; we're talking about the other product being fit for human consumption as well.

I'm wondering if you could comment on that. I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts.

[André Nault]

Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.

Your question has two parts. The first has to do with science. Science can be verified. And since that is true, it must be demonstrated to the public. And yet, all the research conducted by GMO companies is kept secret. It cannot be verified. A great many studies today are saying that GMO elements can be found in fetal blood. One such study was done here in Sherbrooke, at the university. It showed that 93% of fetuses in Quebec—

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

If I could just interrupt, I think you're arguing the GM part. I don't really want to get into that, because there are many countries that have approved it and there are many studies. Let's just talk about the non-GM product, the one grain of wheat or the one soybean that could find itself in one thousand grains of corn. None of it is GM. Why would the organic sector not be open to a low-level presence in that sense, in that case?

[André Nault]

I am convinced they would be just as open if they were to have a canola field with GM corn growing in the canola field or the soybean field. You will understand the reality if a certain level of tolerance is allowed as far as other products go. In the case of a weed, an organic farmer will no doubt pull it out. But the farmer can't do that in the case of a GM crop because it will give rise to contamination. That's the reason baseline studies are a bit distorted. The current discussion with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the public health agencies is not based on science. I have a letter from the health minister saying—

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I don't think we're talking about the same issue. I'm talking about non-GM product. You have an organic farmer who has one thousand grains or one million grains of non-GM corn. In there is 0.1% of something else: a non-GM soybean or a non-GM wheat kernel, something that is not the corn. None of it is GM. It's all fit for human consumption. It's not GM. Why would the organic industry be against low-level presence, based on that scenario?

[Laurier Busque]

Again, I'd like to come back to our flaxseed example, if I may. How do you explain the fact that GMO flaxseed production stopped in 2001 and yet, in 2009, flaxseed containing traces of GMOs was found in 34 countries? That is 8 years later. How do you explain that if there were no issues with GMOs spreading by way of the various seeds provided to farmers?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

If I may, I'm not talking about GM flax. You don't have to answer. I'm talking about if you have 1,000 grains of flax, non-GM, and there's one grain of corn in there, non-GM. That is contamination. You would say that's completely unacceptable: you cannot have one grain of corn, non-GM, in your 1,000 grains of flaxseed. You just cannot have that; that's low-level contamination.

I don't accept that. I'm saying it's all non-GM. Why would the organic industry be opposed to that if it's all non-GM and it's all approved? That is considered to be.... Contamination is not the right word, but you know what I mean. It's a non-flax product in a flax shipment.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Patty, André, and Laurier, for coming up here. Laurier, I like your first name.

I want to ask Patty this question. I'm going to read from an article that was written by Rene Van Acker for this committee. You may not have seen it. I'll give you a copy later. It's incredibly informative.

It says:

Relatively little research has been done on the nature of seed mediated GM material movement. What has been broadly acknowledged, however, in relation to seed mediated GM material movement is that it is often related to human involvement or human error in regard to handling or managing crops or seeds.... In terms of seed movement, certainly complete separation of operations (e.g. farming and grain handling) is acknowledged as a prudent means of working towards successful coexistence between GM and non-GM crop production and towards the goal of preventing GM material from ending up where it is not intended, expected or wanted. Starting with absolutely clean seed (seed free from GM material) is critical—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Can I interrupt for one second, Mr. Valeriote?

You're referencing a presenter who is going to present in the second hour.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes, I know that, but I want her opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I know that, but I think it's unfair to quote from a future guest's presentation. I'm questioning whether it's proper for you to bring another guest's presentation that we haven't heard yet into the discussion. I'm sorry. Could you go directly to the question?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'll stop quoting from it, Mr. Chair, but the point is that Mr. Van Acker and others are talking about the need to implement strategies and protocols to make sure that there is a zero-level presence. That's perceived by some. I'm not saying Mr. Van Acker is saying that. I'm saying that's the problem right now in the seed industry, and it's generally human error.

I know that Denmark has deployed strategies to allow coexistence with an almost, if not complete, zero presence.

I eat GM. I want to say this very clearly: I don't have any trouble eating GM foods. I don't. But I also very much believe in the right to coexistence and the separation of one from the other. Frankly, I think it's a matter of economics and convenience that we're now leaning towards this low-level presence.

My question is, is the cat out of the bag even in the seed industry? Is the toothpaste out of the tube in the sense that your industry can't deploy the same protocols in Canada as they do in Denmark to make sure that, at the very least, seed, which, as you said, is not the subject of these negotiations, it's other crops...? Is it not best at this point not to choose convenience and instead choose purity of your seed?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Townsend.

[Patty Townsend]

Thanks, Mr. Valeriote.

We have always chosen purity of seed in the seed industry. We have always had structures and regulatory systems in place to ensure that as much as possible we can keep seed completely separate; that it is pure; that it is true to its identity.

We have measures in place in the field. The fields are inspected. There are regulatory requirements around buffer zones and isolation distances in terms of seed and the presence of foreign material and other plants. The same thing happens in the laboratories. The same thing happens in the processing plants that package and handle and move the seed.

However, as I've said before, you're in a world where you have so many acres now of GM production—not necessarily seed production, because we also have to remember that grain can be planted and seed can be eaten—and where you have that many millions of acres, in that many countries, that are now planted commercially to GM or GE products. In Canada we're looking at over 29 million acres planted commercially to GE products. They're grain, mind you, and some seed.

I hate to make this rash conclusion that the horse has left the barn, but we are facing the reality that zero is not achievable in seed or in grain. You can have a shipment turned back for 0.00009%, and that can be a piece of dust that was on a glove that cleaned a piece of equipment that grain moved in first.

The other thing is that we have only so much land in the world. It could be that in a field, two or three years before, a GM crop was planted and grown, and then a seed got dropped out of the harvester and ended up in the seed crop.

So no, I don't think it's possible to go to zero.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Your presentation spoke of UPOV 1991—the written press document—and I've looked at a document that spoke to the seed industry, the Canadian Seed Trade Association. Perhaps you would like to make a comment here.

First, how important is it to your industry that we are one of only two developed countries that do not operate in accordance with the UPOV convention of 1991?

Also, would you tell us how the farmers would react if they knew they suddenly had to pay more than once for their seed? Because that's the impression I'm getting, that you need to recover some of your investments in your research.

[Patty Townsend]

It doesn't really relate to low-level presence. Is that okay?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I understand, yes, but I want to know.

[Patty Townsend]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Very briefly.

[Patty Townsend]

I'll be as brief as I can. It's been 20 years we've been working on UPOV 1991, but I'll try to do it in a few minutes.

UPOV 1991 is extremely important in Canada for our plant breeders and for our farmers. The majority of field crop farmers accept and acknowledge that it's extremely important. There are two reasons. One is that we need to create that kind of environment where our own private and public breeders can recover enough funds so that they can reinvest in plant breeding and research. The other is that over the last few years many countries that have traditionally sent varieties to Canada for us to test them and use them in Canada, for our farmers, are now refusing to do that because they can't protect their inventions the same way they can in other countries.

Most of the farmers, as I said, have acknowledged that.

The whole subject of paying twice is not quite correct. Under UPOV 1991, you have to first try to collect your royalty, if that's what you choose to do to exercise your right, on the propagating material. If you have not had the reasonable opportunity to do that, UPOV 1991 does allow for collection on the harvested product.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming.

I was following your presentation, Ms. Townsend, and there's a lot of information in here.

In one of your opening statements you mentioned that in 2012, 17 million farmers in 28 countries planted 420 million acres of GE crops.

I know that Canada is one, but could you name two or three other large producers?

[Patty Townsend]

The first largest producer is the United States, the second largest is Argentina, and the third...I can't remember. China and India are the big ones. It's growing around the world now. A lot of South American countries are moving into it, and also some European countries.