Evidence of meeting #135 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was organic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
That's how you ensure that you're providing consumer trust at the end of the day.
Executive Director, Canada Organic Trade Association
Absolutely.
Every time that something comes up around consumer health, etc., and organics I would say that we shy away from that because it's so conditional on what product and where it's grown, etc. We want to make sure that there are never over-claims, and be sure to be very specific and quote the science that backs the claim. Essentially, where we build the trust is being honest and humble where we don't have enough research. That is why we have the organic science cluster that's getting funded by the federal government. It's to bolster Canadian organic research.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you.
My next question is for the representative from the Vigilance OGM network.
Mr. Rehn, you made some comments about peer-reviewed studies that are not published. Are you saying that there are no scientists working for Health Canada or the Pest Management Regulatory Agency?
Coordinator, Vigilance OGM
No. What I'm saying is that there are fewer and fewer scientists because of the major cuts by the Conservatives, and unfortunately that is having an effect on independent research.
One of the fundamental pillars of science is that scientific studies must be transparent and verified by independent scientists. Unfortunately, this is not the case in Canada's regulatory system for GMOs and pesticides. This is also true in the United States and Europe.
To regain public trust, transparency is a must. That is what we would like to achieve.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
The scientists who work at the Pest Management Regulatory Agency work for the Government of Canada, not for industry. So I have trouble understanding what you're saying. Are you saying that those scientists work for industry?
Coordinator, Vigilance OGM
No. What I'm saying is that Health Canada has made mistakes before. This has happened in the past and it is still happening today. Many products, such as the pesticide known as DDT and the herbicide Lasso, were approved by many scientists at Health Canada. As a result of subsequent studies, since science is evolving, they realized that they had made mistakes.
Coordinator, Vigilance OGM
We would like a transparent system so that our society is protected from these errors.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I understand but, in my opinion, the system is transparent. It's normal that not all studies are published since there may be commercial reasons for non-publication. A system is still in place, although it may not be perfect. This is a conversation that must be held between scientists. I certainly am not equipped to have this kind of conversation, but I still have confidence in scientists. They are professionals.
Do you recommend hiring more scientists at the agency? Is that what you're getting at?
Coordinator, Vigilance OGM
Yes, it's clear that reinvesting in public research is one of our fundamental arguments. Currently, public research centres in the agricultural sector in Canada are being closed. This opens a door to investment in private research, and the companies involved have interests other than those in the public domain, unfortunately.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
My next question is about the role of Health Canada. I have read several scientific journals. A group reviewed 900 scientific studies on GMOs and, according to these studies, GMOs don't have adverse effects on human health.
If not to protect the health of consumers, do you think Health Canada's role in labelling should be to provide consumers with more information on GMOs? Where does Health Canada's role end?
Coordinator, Vigilance OGM
In Canada, there is already labelling that is not related to health. It may, for example, be a matter of religion. Think of kosher food prescribed by Jewish laws. Uses may or may not be imposed in other cases.
Today, you ask us how it is that the public has lost confidence. They have lost confidence because there is no transparency, either in terms of regulations or labelling.
Mr. Drouin, 80% of your constituents asked you to regulate labelling, and you voted against it in May 2017. This is a problem of democracy and a problem of transparency that undermines the public's trust.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
What is the role of your organization? If you say that GMOs aren't safe for human consumption, don't you think you have a role to play as well?
Coordinator, Vigilance OGM
I can't tell you if GMOs are good or bad for your health. There is no acute toxicity, otherwise this fact would have been observed. Unfortunately, since traceability can't be tracked, given the impossibility of conducting research, it isn't known whether there is long-term toxicity.
Our role, at Vigilance GMO—
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Scientific studies show that GMOs aren't currently harmful.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. Drouin and Mr. Rehn.
We will continue the conversation with other speakers.
Mr. MacGregor, you have the floor for six minutes.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I thank all the witnesses for their opening statements.
Dr. Vandelac, I'd like to start with you. You talked about pesticides, and about glyphosate in particular. I remember a case that also had a lot of public debate on it, and that was when Health Canada was dealing with safety code 6. There was a lot of back and forth over the wireless radiation limits and whether or not they were safe. Ultimately, because people didn't trust Health Canada and didn't trust all of the scientific studies out there with all the competing viewpoints, Health Canada went to the Royal Society of Canada and asked them to do an extensive literature review and come out and talk about it.
I normally put a lot of trust in our public institutions, but I'm just wondering; with glyphosate, Health Canada has come out and said they follow a “transparent and rigorous science-based regulatory process” when making decisions on this. We have, of course, the statement by Bayer that it's a perfectly safe product. But this study is on public perception and trust. When Canadians are bombarded by all of this competing information, and they're not quite equipped to sort out the different competing views, then ultimately do we need something like the Royal Society of Canada to weigh in on this, to do something similar to what they did for safety code 6?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Are you still with us, Ms. Vandelac?
I guess we're having reception problems.
Would you like to wait or would you like to transfer your question? I'm not directing you in any way.
Director, Full Professor, Université du Québec à Montréal, Collectif de recherche écosanté sur les pesticides, les politiques et les alternatives
Could you please ask your question again?
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I'll repeat the question, but I'll try to be a bit faster.
In your opening statements, you made some comments about glyphosate. I was talking about how Health Canada dealt with a similar controversial issue before, with safety code 6, dealing with wireless radiation. There was a lot of controversy over that. Ultimately what came out as a recommendation was for Health Canada to pursue a fully independent study of it. They got the Royal Society of Canada to weigh in on it. They did a full literature review and independent study apart from Health Canada.
When it comes to glyphosate—and I'm someone who normally has a lot of trust in our public institutions—Health Canada made a very public statement that they followed a “transparent and rigorous science-based regulatory process” when looking at it. We know that the manufacturer has provided a lot of documentation. At the same time, when we're talking about Canadian public trust and perception, and they are bombarded with competing views on this subject, do we ultimately need Health Canada to maybe employ the services of the Royal Society of Canada to look at this? What steps will we need in order to put this debate to bed, so to speak?
Dr. Vandelac, did you hear my question?
All right. Mr. Rehn, perhaps you're able to offer some comments on that. You've heard the question twice now.
Coordinator, Vigilance OGM
Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.
I heard your question correctly.
I may not have the expertise that Ms. Vandelac has on this issue. All I know is that the Royal Society of Canada, where you bring together your best scientists in one field, already studied the issue of GMOs in 2001 and made 52 recommendations to the government to implement, including labelling and more transparent science, exactly the same messages I'm repeating to you today. However, since 2001, the Canadian government has implemented only two of the 52 recommendations. Yes, I think it would be beneficial for the best scientists in Canada to look at this issue, but you still have to listen to them.
In the case of GMOs, they haven't been heard and that's why we're now facing a lack of trust on the part of Canadians and why you are inviting us to appear.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I'm one of those people who has supported and continues to support labelling of genetically modified products. I ultimately believe that the consumer has a right to know. I'll always believe in that. People can make their own decisions, but I'm one of those people who believes that the more information we have on the product, the better.
However, when it comes to genetically modified organisms—food and what have you— when you talk in your research about public perceptions, what are the primary concerns that people come forward with? Are they concerned with ingesting the product? Are they concerned with how it's grown or how it's raised? How would you separate some of the top reasons people list for their concerns?
Coordinator, Vigilance OGM
The primary concern is health, but that doesn't depend solely on plant modification.
Currently, after 25 years, 88% of all GMOs on the market worldwide are designed to resist or tolerate a herbicide. The medium- to long-term consequence is that the use of herbicides in these crops is greatly increased. As Ms. Vandelac said, these herbicides are found on our plates and in our fields. Their effects are well documented, and this is a major concern.
There is also the whole issue of trust. As noted, the regulatory system does not require traceability or labelling. So all we have left is our perceptions. But it's difficult to play on perceptions. However, we are here today to find solutions and, once again, we believe that transparency would be the best solution.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
For my final questions, I'll go to Ms. Loftsgard. Thank you for coming today. I appreciate the efforts that your organization is making to reach out and speak with conventional farmers. I ultimately think we need to stop talking at each other and start talking with each other.
I know that you talked about the high degree of public trust that comes into the organic brand because of your traceability and your accountability. There are measures put into place.
One of the things that our committee recently looked at—and we've had our conversation about GMOs.... During our technology and innovation study, we learned that the new technology that's coming on is gene editing. They're not introducing any foreign genetic material but they're looking at, say, the genome of a wheat plant to see if they can make it more resistant to drought-like conditions, if they can increase its protein content and so on.
When we're looking at public perception and trust and if we're able through that gene editing to produce a plant that needs less input to be grown, I'm wondering what the Organic Association's views are with regard to gene editing. Is there a way for your organization and organizations involved in gene editing to start talking to each other and to see if this is maybe a way forward, a compromise where we can reduce fertilizers and pesticides?