We would now like to discuss two sources that we believe are at the origin of the problem of the environmental drift of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
The first is the unrestrained development of genetic modification technology. Figure 1 contains a diagram illustrating this aspect.
Over the years, four stages of GM plant development have been observed. Stage 1 is the introduction of a transgene into a plant. That transgene can allow the plant to produce an insecticide or to tolerate an herbicide. That practice was authorized in Canada in 1996. Stage 2 came about the following year: the introduction of two transgenes into a plant, either to produce the Bt insecticide or to tolerate an herbicide. Stage 3 is the introduction of three transgenes into a plant, two insecticides and one herbicide, or vice versa, two herbicides and one insecticide.
In 2011, all of that culminated in the authorization of SmartStax by Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. SmartStax is a plant containing eight transgenes, with six producing insecticides and two tolerating herbicides. We believe the unrestrained development of GMOs is cause for concern.
The other source of the environmental drift is inadequate risk assessment. We have a table that summarizes everything. It shows two approaches to the risk assessment of GMOs. The first column shows the precautionary principle, which is used mainly in Europe, and the second column shows substantial equivalence, which is used mostly in Canada and North America.
We feel that risk assessment in Canada is clearly inadequate. There is a major difference between Europe and North America in terms of the assessment of GMO-related risks. In Europe, assessment systems based on the precautionary principle attach much greater importance to environmental impacts, whereas in North America, risk management emphasizes the commercial interests of the industry.
A bit further on in the document, we've included a quote from the Quebec government's science and technology ethics commission. As early as 2003, the commission was warning of the potential risks of GMOs to the environment. It said the following:
In terms of the environment, however, harm to biodiversity, the contamination of other crops or wild flora, the development of resistance to pathogens, and toxicity to wildlife are potential risks that cannot be ignored, particularly because we must be aware that if they come to pass, they could result in irreversible evolution for nature or transformations that will be difficult to remedy if required.
That comes from a document the commission released in 2003.
So 10 years ago, we were already being warned of the potential dangers. And today, there are studies that show those dangers are no longer potential but very real.