Agriculture Committee on Sept. 29th, 2016

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

To expand on that a bit, when we look at market access and international standards that this product has been developed under, are there any international standards that we need to be connecting to in terms of the Codex Alimentarius, in terms of labelling development? Are we behind the EU in any way in terms of market development for genetically modified animals?

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you. Perhaps I can take that.

The international standard is actually quite good. The problem is uptake. Not all jurisdictions are ready to apply the international guidance in terms of safety assessment to these products in terms of GM animals.

The standard is there. I think we and our colleagues in the U.S. have demonstrated that in using that standard you can reach a conclusion informed by the science. The reality is that just having a Codex standard doesn't mean that countries automatically adopt it.

It come back to the point that Andrea made in terms of that level playing field. We don't currently have it in the international context, and this isn't just for GM animals. The same applies for GM plants. There are many jurisdictions that are not yet at a stage where they are prepared to deliver approvals on a prompt basis and, in some cases, are not prepared to consider GM products at all at this stage.

On the development from a regulatory perspective, because Canada has the benefit of having had the years of experience that Karen pointed to, we've also been active in sharing that experience with other jurisdictions in terms of helping them build the technical capacity to carry out safety assessments.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

In terms of our policy framework going forward and making sure that you have access to the right resources, you were a witness here before, and I was pushing to ask if you needed more money, and you were saying that's a political decision. We need to take that up.

There are things like Dr. Moccia's “Enviropig”, as he likes to call the pork being raised at the University of Guelph. It uses less water and can be raised in drought-stricken areas. As climate change takes hold, we're going to be able to raise pigs with less water.

I'm running out of time, so just help me with any of this that we need to take forward on our study.

[Paul Mayers]

I think the examples you point to are further examples of Canadian innovation, such as the Enviropig and its development as a GM animal, one that hasn't come to the marketplace, and also the work that was done in terms of goats expressing spider silk in their milk. The innovative capacity is there.

The choice in bringing those to the market, however, as we noted earlier, really rests with companies. They're looking at whether they make the investment of trying to bring it to market against a backdrop of just having it in the Canadian market, where the regulatory regime is predictable in being science-based, or whether they need a bigger opportunity before they can make that viable.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

We've finished the second round, and we're going to go back to Mr. Hoback, please, for six minutes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I think I'll continue on with the path and just try to explain the path to people.

Previously, when I asked about the process, you talked about what they have to go through before they even start the research, then about developing the research on the processes that are in place, and also about keeping track of that research and making sure that it's being audited and safety-checked and stuff like that.

I think I'm going to go to the next stage. We've done the research. We've proven that this is a good product. It gets to Health Canada.

Karen, you probably would have been involved in the process before, but now you have to really look at it and say, “Okay, when I put this fish in front of my nephews, it's safe to eat.” You have a set of processes that are in play there. Can you give us a brief overview of what those processes would be?

[Karen McIntyre]

As Paul mentioned, we also do a lot of pre-consultation—pre-submission consultation—with companies. We encourage them to do so and to come in, especially the ones who are not as experienced or are bringing in products for the first time. We have that discussion with them so they're aware of what the expectations are and what kind of data we're going to be looking at, such as the criteria and the studies they're going to need to do in order to demonstrate to us that their product is in fact safe for consumption.

As I mentioned, we have scientists in a broad variety of disciplines: biology, chemistry, allergen specialists, molecular biologists, and so forth. Each of these is looking at the various components, individually, of a particular submission.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Is it fair to say that at that point that you're not really concerned about the production aspect of it, that you're just concerned with the food safety aspect and that it's actually safe to eat?

I'll use the example of organics versus non-organics. Really, that doesn't matter. I just want to make sure that plate of food is safe to eat. Is that correct?

[Karen McIntyre]

That's right, but in terms of production and development, for example, we do look at the molecular biology aspects of it. Although it's not a safety consideration on its own in terms of the final food, we do look at it for the potential to, perhaps, introduce a gene into the food that might be expressed into something else. We look at that, of course.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Again, it comes back to you having made those considerations. I wish we had a budget to promote that and show people just how thorough you are, because I know it's very thorough.

I'm going to you, Andrea. I hope you don't mind me using your first name. I'm a very informal person.

When you see a new product coming to the market here in Canada, how do you look at it and see what the impact will be on our trade partners around the world? Is it going to be mixed with other foods and food products, or used as an ingredient? How do you evaluate that process to ensure that we don't do something unintentionally?

[Andrea Johnston]

We don't necessarily have an evaluation role. We ensure that if they export, once it gets approved from the regulatory side, they understand the importing requirements of the country they're exporting to.

If we take the example of crops, over the years the grain sector has developed what they call “market acceptance policy”. Generally, they'll get approval in Canada and the United States first, because of our trading relationship, but they won't actually commercialize until they get market acceptance in their major markets.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

It doesn't make sense to go after that market if nobody wants it—

[Andrea Johnston]

Exactly. They have to understand.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

—and they haven't conditioned that market to accept it.

We've gone through market acceptance and looked at that. Obviously that's a corporate decision or the designer's decision. We've looked at aspects of the safety side of it and the environmental side.

I think you can see that there are a lot of processes these people go through with lots of expertise and professionalism before that food ever even makes it onto the table.

What do you do then to counter-attack? Maybe you don't. Maybe that's the industry's role. Maybe your role is just to tell us, “You can be safe in knowing this stuff is safe to eat.” Whether it's margarine or fish, or maybe beef somewhere down the road or another product, there's a process that's been put in place to do that. That's where I wonder, when I see organics out there, or promoting organics or natural food....

A lot of people say there are studies and research showing that a percentage of people don't like this or that, but I always say that's just a glimpse in time on that day, and it's showing who's doing the best marketing. Is that a role for government to be involved in, to try to promote one system versus the other?

Karen, do you feel you need to be there?

Andrea, do you think you need to be there?

[Andrea Johnston]

In general, the role of government isn't to promote biotechnology versus organics. We do the regulatory approval, and it's the marketplace.... The reality we're facing now in the marketplace is that there's a demand for many different traits such as local, organic, or non-GMO. That's just the reality of the marketplace.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

When we look at something like C-13, which is going through the House now, we see that it's just a modernization of regulatory rules which we are already using in most cases.

I think, Paul, you've talked about this. We need to help other countries recognize that science is the best way to evaluate these products. How successful are we with that outside of Canada?

[Paul Mayers]

My view, as it relates to biotechnology, would be that we're making progress. We've seen some really important developments in developing countries, which see that the use of the technology can contribute to their development. Panama is a good example. For a country that's strongly agriculturally based, that's not just development in agriculture; it's economic development.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Social development follows, right?

[Paul Mayers]

We have done some really good work on the issue of low-level presence by collaborating with some of those countries that are like-minded. I know this committee is familiar with it because it represents a barrier to Canadian market access.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hoback.

We'll now move to Mr. Erskine-Smith for six minutes, please.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you very much.

Perhaps you could speak to the difference between the kinds of GMO food. We often talk about GMO broadly, but I have to think there's a difference between what Norman Borlaug did and the Enviropig. Perhaps you could speak to the different kinds of genetically engineered food, different risk profiles, and what we're talking about when we talk about genetically engineered food, specifically.

[Paul Mayers]

Perhaps I can start, and Karen will want to add.

The reality is that there aren't big differences when we look at it from a safety perspective. I mentioned in my opening remarks that one means of modifying products genetically is mutagenesis. It's what we would call more of a shotgun approach. While genetic engineering might change a few genes, mutagenesis tends to change a lot of genes, and then you do the back-breeding to take away the ones that have had deleterious effects on crop production. This has been applied in crop production for decades. The issue isn't the technique; it's the outcome.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That's what I'm trying to get at. The short answer is that risk isn't a great deal of concern in different kinds of genetically engineered food.

Would you agree, Ms. McIntyre?

[Karen McIntyre]

Yes, I would, absolutely.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Perfect.

There was some mention, Mr. Mayers, about volunteer labelling and advertising of foods. There are standards. Do we have any information or evidence of the take-up rate? There are genetically engineered foods out there. To what extent are folks advertising that they're genetically engineered?