Agriculture Committee on Sept. 27th, 2016

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

We'll wrap up with that.

Mr. Breton, go ahead for six minutes, please.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for their enlightening presentations. Thank you as well for being here today.

I must admit that you're influencing me more and more with regard to the use of GMOs in beef. Still—and I want your opinion—some studies, such as the Quality of Life study conducted by Entransfood, state some harmful effects of GMOs on our food. They refer to the risks of toxicity, antibiotic resistance, allergenic effects, and the impact on our ecosystem and environment.

Ms. Brocklebank, I want to hear your view on these points raised in various studies.

[Andrea Brocklebank]

I'm not familiar with the study you specifically spoke of, the quality of life study. However, I think in terms of the negative impacts of GMO, we've invested in a lot of science as an industry along with government and universities, and we're seeing improved animal health outcomes.

Our industry has done a lot of work around antimicrobial resistance, and we don't see it increasing in many aspects. We're monitoring it closely in those risk categories for cattle where we do see concern.

The fact that we've been feeding GMO-based feed for a very long time and we're not seeing negative consequences, I think, demonstrates how industry is doing. We do absolutely need ongoing monitoring, especially when you look at gene insertion across species. That's something you have to be very rigorous about in terms of your product approvals. Industry agrees with that, in the sense that we also need the long-term sustainability in the industry.

Many of the producers behind me produce not only cattle but also grains. There are concerns in terms of alterations that could affect the biosystem, but I think generally, as it was explained to me by one of our scientists, you don't see DNA just floating in the air and pollinating across species. That's why these things don't happen in nature, where you just see improved alfalfa varieties because they have cross-pollinated with another species. These things take a long time.

We do need the rigorous approval processes, but at this point in time, we're not seeing those negative impacts. In terms of human health, the research we've done has shown no negative impact on human health connected to the consumption of genetically modified food.

We look at that, but obviously our industry is not focused primarily on that, because our product itself is not necessarily being directly genetically modified. Monitoring and surveillance are fundamentally important, but we also need to make sure we're looking at the outcomes and truly believing in them.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you for your enlightening answer.

I will share the rest of my allotted time with Mr. Longfield.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

I had a question I wanted to ask but I ran out of time.

In Guelph, I was driving by an A&W last weekend, and I saw a big sign that said “no GMO”. I always shake my head. Does that mean it's better to have antibiotics and drugs and chemicals in your meat than to have GMOs? That distinction between genetics and GMO is something that.... I'm wondering about the push-back we as an industry or as a country could do regarding the importance of responding to climate change by increasing grain production and forage production through genetics, and regarding the really negative effects of having chemicals in your food. Is there a no-chemical equivalent of no GMO?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

I think the one interesting point, and I'll let Bryan speak a bit on this, is that when you look at genetically modified corn or some of the other products, in many cases you have to use far less pesticide and herbicide on that crop. You're actually improving the end product and what's going on because, based on the breeding, they are more disease-resistant.

I'll be honest: unfortunately marketing is marketing. It's not fact-based, and it's having a huge negative impact on industries like ours. We need to move forward in working with those end-users more proactively, as we have with McDonald's and others, who are coming to the table and asking how we can do this together. It's not fact-based at this point. I will say that in terms of genetic modification, there are positive outcomes in some cases like that, where it's actually resulting in lower pesticide and herbicide use.

[Bryan Thiessen]

I guess the other side of that is that we have to trust in the science showing that the chemicals have been dissipated out of those plants. As long as users follow the effective dates provided by the chemical companies, which are determined through research, the chemicals will have been removed by the plants. It's probably not the right terminology, but in animals they would be metabolized by that point. We have to trust that research. We have to believe in that science.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

That science provides better reactions to carbon footprint and climate change, changing crop-growing seasons, and new pests in the market.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield.

Now we're at the end of the second round and into our last one, so Mr. Anderson will likely be the last questioner.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to take time away from the witnesses, but I do want to read a notice of motion that we'll bring forward at another date.

It states:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food conduct a pre-budget study on concerns around debt in the agriculture sector and the effect of debt on 1) young farmers and generational transfer of farms, 2) start-up farms operating for 10 years or less and 3) the ability to expand farming operations; that departmental officials be in attendance for at least one meeting; that this study be comprised of no less than four meetings to be held at the committee's earliest convenience in order that the Committee may report its findings and recommendations to the House prior to Parliament being adjourned for Christmas break on December 16, 2016.

We will bring that forward at a later date.

I still have a couple of questions for the witnesses.

We've had a traceability project going on for quite a while in beef, and it has been a great source of frustration to beef producers. I don't know if it could be messed up any worse than it is.

I'm just wondering if you can talk a little bit about traceability and the development of these new technologies, as well as the importance of a good system that doesn't put us at a disadvantage to other producers.

[Andrea Brocklebank]

Traceability is even less my file, and I know there are a few individuals behind me itching to talk about this. I think the biggest thing in our focus on traceability is ensuring that our market continues to operate in a competitive manner.

The way cattle are marketed will not change substantially any time in the future, and there's a good reason for that. We're conglomerating small cow/calf production, through auction systems, into feedlots and those types of things, and the industry fundamentally supports moving forward with enhanced traceability, but as the technology allows. The biggest reason here is that if we impose extra costs on our producers to scan animals to ensure they're there, in some cases, if the technology can't operate at the speed of commerce, extra costs that the U.S. system is not seeing will be imposed, and as a result, exports will occur.

It's not just a matter of the technology and procuring it; if you have to run animals through a chute multiple times, especially those who are on grass and moving, there's a huge impact, not only on the animals in terms of stress but also in terms of costs, shrink, and those types of things. Our approach with traceability is to make sure that it can be done at the speed of commerce and to make sure the technology is available prior to trying to implement things that cannot be successfully or credibly done.

[Bryan Thiessen]

I'll just add to that very quickly.

I want to point out an example of a regulatory burden, and I wish the gentlemen in the back could speak to this. As an example, we have a CCIA tag that has been proven to be better for use out there and to have a better backing, but one of the problems with these tags is that they fall out of animals quite easily. There's an improvement, a better tag out there, but in order for this tag to be utilized, the company that manufactures it has to take its current tag out of the system for one year to prove that this other tag works better. It is not willing to do that because it could lose market share, which I fully understand. There's a regulatory issue there if we can't just utilize a better product and quickly implement it into our system.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Okay. So, again, this notion that approval processes need to be undertaken quickly and that they can't make us uncompetitive with other countries is critical to success in the future.

[Bryan Thiessen]

They can't disrupt commerce, and some of the issues being pushed right now would significantly impact cattle commerce.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Can we go back to one thing you mentioned very early on? You talked about some of this GMO impact on organ rejection. Maybe this is closer to your heart and to what you've been doing, but can you talk a bit about that? What is that and how is that working? Do you have any specifics on that?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

Basically, genetically modified cattle have been developed to produce antibodies to help treat rheumatoid arthritis, cancer, and organ rejection in human medicine by drawing these antibodies out of the cattle and basically using them to assist. Using these types of things through livestock and then using it in human health is something that has been done for many years, and this is just one example. I think we've tried to portray that genetic modification has huge potential for food safety, human health, and all of these things. The average public person doesn't understand that these technologies are very far-reaching in terms of their potential, and this is just one example.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Do you have any other examples of where there might be potential in that same area?

[Andrea Brocklebank]

I think the biggest thing—and I'll focus more on the animal health side—is to have panels to test for things like bovine respiratory disease, which is the largest single animal-health issue in the feedlots. Previously, the tests were very time-consuming and they could only test for one kind of parasite or bacteria, and those types of things. Now the panels being developed through biotech can test for five or six. That's of huge benefit, because, first of all, because it reduces the amount of testing time but also because it better isolates the cause such that new vaccinations can be developed more quickly. Basically, if we're able to develop vaccinations around this, we're able to reduce antimicrobial use in these areas.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson.

I want to thank our witnesses for taking their full time with great presentations and great answers, and my colleagues for having really good questions that are going to help us as we move through this study.

We have the ministry coming on Thursday, so we look forward to that.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.