Evidence of meeting #71 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was llp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Let's not even talk about GM. Let's talk about your harvesting of your non-GM soybeans: you pick up a weed that you were not able to root out of your field; that weed is not fit for human consumption—it hasn't been registered, hasn't been safety tested for human consumption—yet you have this weed that is now ground up in your rail car of non-genetic soybeans.
What would you do in that case?
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
Well, LLP is specific to genetically modified foods.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
No, I want to talk about the realistic principle of the matter. My guess is that you would accept the weed being chewed up. It hasn't been registered, not necessarily tested for human consumption, and yet here there are trace elements of it—one part per 100 million in a rail car of non-genetic soybeans. My guess is that you wouldn't say, “I'm sorry, but we are just going to have to destroy that rail car of soybeans”.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
Yes, because here we are talking about a qualitatively different issue, which is the safety issue about a genetically modified food. That's why Health Canada has guidelines for the safety assessment of novel foods.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
My concern with the discussion of this is that it immediately goes to GMO and then turns into—
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
That's because that's where our trade partners are going, which is why LLP is being discussed at all.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Maybe you'll agree with this or maybe you won't, but the point is that GMO products are here to stay. I'm not saying you have to agree with this and I'm not saying anyone has to agree with it, but if the countries that accept GMO products in whatever shape and form have subjected them to sound science and have approved them, I just don't see all of these countries stepping away from what they've said is sound science and saying that now they're shutting down GMO everywhere; that they're doing it because they were wrong. I don't see that happening.
I'm wondering whether you agree that GMO products are here to stay. If so, part of it is that if they are here to stay, then the principle is applicable when discussing low-level presence in the weed—when you are talking about low-level presence in even non-GMO type products—because it's not supposed to be there. It's not registered and it's not supposed to be there.
You are saying that it's not a health threat because it's not GMO. But I'm saying that if GMO has been based on sound science, and multiple countries.... I don't want to get into the sound science argument; I want to talk about the low-level presence. But your argument doesn't really line up, because in one case it's acceptable.... It could even be a non-food product that is in there at the level of one part per billion. That would probably be okay for you, as long as it's not GMO.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
Science recognizes that there's a difference between genetically modified foods and other foods. We have a novel food category that includes GMOs and others.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Sure, but sound science, for our government and for other governments, has said it's safe for human consumption.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
No, our government and principles of sound science have been used to say that a particular GM canola is safe, a particular GM soy is safe, but not to say that GMOs are safe. It says we have some science—
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
It's particular to each crop and each food, which is why—
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Right. What is your view on that, then, on approved GM products that have been deemed safe—
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
No, even by our country. What would you say about that? What would you say about the shipment that has Canadian-approved product, one part per one million in there? What would you say to that?
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
It doesn't matter what I say about it; it matters what our export markets have to say about it.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
You're here today. I'd like to know what you would say about that and what your organization would say about that.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
We would say that Health Canada's existing approval process is inadequate, that there's been no independent science done, that there's no transparency—
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Right. You're back into the GM argument again, and I'm—
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
No, I was talking about transparency and independent science, which is different.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Sure, but you're just trying invalidate GM products.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
No, I'm telling you our view of the regulatory system in Canada, which you asked about. Our evaluation is that it's inadequate.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
No, I'm asking, whether it's GM or non-GM, if you have something in a shipment that is not supposed to be there, whether you would in principle either accept a tolerance or you would not.
I'm advocating that zero tolerance is impossible. If it's below the threshold of detection, it doesn't mean it's not there; it just means you didn't detect it there.
Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
We would advocate that safety is the priority. So with a weed—
Conservative