Agriculture Committee on Sept. 29th, 2016

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Welcome, everyone, to our second meeting of the agriculture committee as we study genetically modified animals for human consumption.

At our first meeting we had the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. Today, for two hours, the department people are going to speak to us.

First we have Paul Mayers from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, vice-president, policy and programs branch.

Second, from Department of Health we have Karen McIntyre, who is the director general, food directorate, health products and food branch.

Third we have Andrea Johnston, who is the director general, sector development and analysis directorate, market and industry services branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Is there an acronym for that?

[Andrea Johnston, Director General, Sector Development and Analysis Directorate, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Yes, MISB.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

I want to welcome my colleagues back. We have a couple of fill-ins this morning, Randy Hoback, who is not very familiar with the agriculture committee, and Mr. Erskine-Smith, who is also joining today.

I welcome you. We will start off with 10 minutes each from the department heads, starting with Mr. Mayers.

[Paul Mayers, Vice President, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning to the committee. It's a pleasure to be with you again.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this study, and I would like to explain the CFIA's role when it comes to genetically modified, or GM, animals. The CFIA is a science-based regulatory agency dedicated to safeguarding plants, animals, and food. Our work promotes the health and well-being of Canada's people, environment, and economy. The first priority is the health and safety of Canadians.

In the case of GM animals, the CFIA works closely with Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada to thoroughly assess that GM products are safe for food, feed and the environment before they are introduced into the Canadian marketplace.

Let me provide some background before I provide a specific example. Essentially, a GM food is one derived from an organism that has had some of its inherited traits changed. This can involve traditional techniques of crossbreeding; using chemicals or radiation to alter the genetic makeup of the organism's cells in a process called mutagenesis; and applying recombinant DNA or genetic engineering techniques, for instance, introducing a gene from one species into another species.

We use the term “novel” to cover products that have not been previously available for sale in Canada such as those produced through genetic engineering. We have a rigorous, science-based assessment process in place to make sure that these products are safe for humans, livestock, and the environment. Typically it takes a company seven to 10 years to research, develop, and test a GM food before it has compiled enough data to submit an application for market access to the Government of Canada. The company is required to submit detailed information to Health Canada outlining exactly how the product was developed. This information is reviewed by Health Canada scientists with expertise in areas such as molecular biology, toxicology, chemistry, nutritional sciences, and microbiology.

GM foods are becoming more common every day and are part of the regular diet of Canadians. GM foods that have been approved by Health Canada have been consumed in Canada for many years and are as safe and nutritious as their non-GM counterparts.

I also mentioned livestock. The CFIA evaluates and regulates all feed ingredients, including novel feeds derived from GM organisms, in the same manner as food assessments.

Any feed ingredient that is new, or has been modified such that it differs significantly from a conventional ingredient, is required to undergo a pre-market assessment and approval before being allowed into the Canadian marketplace.

Now let me address the specific example — AquAdvantage Salmon. This is the first genetically engineered animal to be approved in Canada for use as food for human consumption or animal feed.

The AquAdvantage salmon is a GM salmon developed to promote rapid growth during early life. This was achieved by introducing a growth hormone gene from the chinook salmon to an Atlantic salmon. The AquAdvantage salmon has undergone separate safety and nutritional assessments by Health Canada for use as food, and by the CFIA for use as livestock feed. These reviews both found the salmon to be as safe and nutritious as conventional salmon.

Health Canada and the CFIA conducted the safety assessments based on guidelines developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission as well as principles from the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The CFIA and Health Canada assessments complement a regulatory environmental and indirect human health risk assessment that was already completed for AquAdvantage salmon. Environment and Climate Change Canada in collaboration with Fisheries and Oceans Canada conducted that assessment in 2013.

Following all of the assessments, Canada approved this product on May 19, 2016. However, Canada is not the first country to approve this product for use as food and livestock feed. In November 2015, the AquAdvantage salmon was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration following that agency's scientific safety review.

Still, the decision to market this product is up to the company. It's our understanding it could take up to two years before the first GM salmon products would be made readily available in the Canadian feed or food markets.

For this salmon, the company has advised that GM salmon eggs are to be produced in a contained facility in Prince Edward Island and then shipped to Panama for growing. Neither the eggs nor the live fish will be released into the Canadian environment.

If this salmon product enters the market, it will need to comply with all Canadian laws and regulations just like any other feed or food product, and this includes meeting standard labelling requirements.

Health Canada requires labelling for food products where clear, scientifically established health risks or significant changes to the nutritional qualities of the food have been identified and can be mitigated through labelling. For example, if there is an allergen present in a food, it must be labelled to alert consumers. In this case, given that no health and safety concerns were identified, there are no special labelling requirements for AquAdvantage Salmon.

However, Mr. Chair, there is a Canadian national labelling standard for genetically engineered foods that can be used when companies choose to make claims. This standard was developed through extensive consultation with industry and the public.

The voluntary labelling and advertising of foods that are or are not products of genetic engineering was first adopted by the Standards Council of Canada in April 2004. It provides guidance to food manufacturers that choose to make claims regarding genetically engineered foods so that they are in compliance with the labelling requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act.

Products can be voluntarily labelled based on the national standard, provided conditions are met and the claim is understandable, informative, accurate, and not misleading. The CFIA is responsible for enforcing these labelling requirements. The decision of whether or not to proceed with voluntary labelling rests with the company.

Thank you again for this opportunity to provide insight into the CFIA's role regarding genetically modified animals.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayers.

We'll now turn to Ms. McIntyre from Health Canada for 10 minutes, please.

[Karen McIntyre, Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak with you this morning about Health Canada's role in regulating genetically modified foods, including GM animals intended for human consumption in Canada.

Health Canada's mission is to help Canadians maintain and improve their health. In order to fulfill its mission, Health Canada develops appropriate regulatory frameworks and guidance to help ensure that the food products Canadians purchase are safe and nutritious.

Within Health Canada, the food directorate is the federal authority responsible for establishing policies, setting standards, and providing authoritative advice and information on the safety and nutritional value of all food sold in Canada. In support of this role, the food directorate conducts scientific research as well as health risk and benefit assessments. We also conduct pre-market reviews for products including food additives, infant formula, and novel foods.

In the 1990s, Health Canada established new regulations under division 28, part B, of the Food and Drug Regulations, also known as the novel foods regulations. These regulations capture any GM micro-organisms, plant or animal, and require food companies to notify the department prior to making them available for sale in the Canadian marketplace. This allows Health Canada to determine that the product is safe for use as a food.

To support the pre-market safety assessment process, the company wishing to sell the product must submit detailed scientific data to support the safety and nutritional value of the genetically modified food. Only once Health Canada is satisfied that the data provided demonstrates that the food is safe and nutritious will it be allowed for sale on the Canadian market.

These regulations address any new GM product because they are triggered by the addition or change in a trait of a product as opposed to the technology used to produce it. In order to evaluate the safety of GM foods for food use, whether a GM crop or a GM animal, Health Canada uses a rigorous process that is consistent with internationally established scientific principles and guidelines developed through the work of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, and the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

This assessment is conducted by Health Canada scientific evaluators, who have expertise in molecular biology, toxicology, chemistry, nutritional sciences and microbiology. They review how the food was developed, compare its compositional and nutritional profile with conventional counterparts, and look at the potential for the food to be toxic or to contain a toxin or allergen.

If in any area of the assessment Health Canada scientists determine that the data provided is not sufficient, additional information and/or testing would be required and requested in order to fully demonstrate the safety of that product. Only when all the scientists evaluating a GM food agree that there are no safety concerns is the food permitted into the Canadian marketplace.

It should also be noted that Health Canada scientists also consider other published data, in addition to that provided by the company, that is relevant to the product in question when it is completing the safety assessment.

Under the current regulatory framework approval, no single government body is responsible for making a final decision on these products. Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Environment and Climate Change Canada all have a role to play in the overall approval process that allows for a GM food to enter the Canadian marketplace.

While each department or agency makes its own independent decisions regarding the authorization of a GM food according to its own regulatory authorities, Health Canada and the CFIA have a “no split” approval policy that ensures the coordinated communication of positive decisions. This is aimed to prevent unapproved GM foods, feeds, or seeds from entering the Canadian marketplace.

Historically, most GM food submissions have been related to foods derived from GM crops. However, Health Canada and the CFIA did receive a GM food submission from AquaBounty for its GM salmon. This product was modified using recombinant DNA technology to grow faster and thus reach market weight sooner than a non-modified farmed Atlantic salmon. This was the first submission for approval of a GM animal for food and animal feed use in Canada.

In May 2016, Health Canada and the CFIA completed thorough and rigorous scientific reviews of the AquAdvantage salmon and determined that it was as safe and nutritious for humans and livestock as conventional salmon is. This completed the Government of Canada's scientific safety assessments required to let AquAdvantage salmon be allowed for use as food.

Under the Food and Drugs Act, Health Canada requires mandatory labelling for any food, including food derived from genetic modification, when there is a health risk or significant nutritional changes to the food that can be mitigated through labelling. In these situations, labelling is required to alert consumers or susceptible populations. Given that the GM salmon was determined to be safe and nutritious, there are no special labelling requirements.

As my colleague from CFIA has already noted, voluntary labelling is permitted to provide consumers with information that is not related to the safety of the product. The national voluntary standard allows companies to voluntarily label foods as GE or non-GE. Voluntary labelling is a marketing issue and does not fall under the mandate of Health Canada, which is related to food safety only.

We are also committed to ensuring openness and transparency in our evidence-based decision-making. So, to help inform Canadians on the regulatory decisions related to novel foods, including GM foods, Health Canada posts detailed decision documents along with plain language summaries of the safety assessment on our website.

I hope that the activities I have highlighted today help explain the science-based approach that Health Canada takes to regulating novel foods and, in particular, those that are products of genetic modification.

Thank you for your time today.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you, Ms. McIntyre.

We will now move to our third presenter, Andrea Johnston from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Go ahead for 10 minutes, please.

[Andrea Johnston]

Good morning and thank you.

It is my pleasure to appear before this committee today as you study the framework around genetically modified animals in Canada.

I would like to provide some context on this important issue with a high-level overview of: the importance of innovation to agriculture, including biotechnology; the approach of the Government of Canada to biotechnology; the applications of biotechnology in agriculture; and the international context around the regulation of genetically modified products.

AAFC's role is to support innovation and competitiveness within the sector, including through funding, as well as to facilitate coordination throughout the value chain and to undertake international advocacy to ensure a level playing field.

In terms of the importance of innovation to the agriculture sector,

the agriculture sector worldwide faces a major challenge: growing more food with fewer inputs.

It is estimated that the world's demand for food will grow by at least 50% by 2050. Meanwhile, producers face competing pressures on land, water supply challenges, demands for a reduced environmental footprint, and the effects of climate change, such as extreme weather events that are creating new risks to agriculture production.

To meet this challenge of sustainable growth, we will need to rely heavily on scientific research and innovation.

The government has a key role to play in fostering private sector investment and creativity through support for basic research and regulatory and trade regimes.

Science and innovation are core priorities for the Government of Canada, with a commitment to a new innovation agenda and significant investments in core economic sectors, including agriculture. The history of agriculture is one of creativity and innovation. Today, we're producing more food per acre and using less water, fertilizer, and other resources. Farmers today require half the amount of inputs that they did half a century ago in order to produce the same amount of food. That's thanks in part to investments in productivity growth.

Biotechnology, for example, has expanded the tool box available to develop a wider range of functional and value-added traits, while bringing those changes to the market faster than ever. Canadian producers rely on plant science technology to stay competitive and tackle a growing number of challenges, from climate change to plant pests and disease. Not only do these technologies help farm businesses and the economy, but they strengthen global food security as well.

Advances in biotechnology will continue to drive productivity and competitiveness in the agricultural sector in many ways. We are now moving beyond traits and benefits such as disease resistance and reduced pesticide use to benefits for consumers, such as improved nutrition and other attributes—for example, non-browning apples.

In terms of the Government of Canada's approach to biotechnology, our primary responsibility in an innovation-driven economy is to ensure its regulatory system protects the health and safety of Canadians, as well as the environment. The government follows a science-based approach in approving products by conducting environmental health and safety assessments.

There is also a need to create a climate that fosters investment in innovative technologies to drive the long-term viability of the industry. For its part, industry will need a level of certainty and predictability in the regulatory framework before investing in Canada and in these technologies.

Industry is best positioned to make non-health and safety considerations, such as the market's willingness to accept new technologies. This approach supports a wide variety of production methods, helping the sector supply the vast array of products needed to meet both domestic and international market demands and offer a wide array of choices to consumers. Indeed, in recent years we have seen a number of new consumer products brought to market, including organic, non-GMO, free-range, and sustainability certifications.

Given that industry decides whether and how it will develop and adopt new technologies following regulatory approval, biotechnology applications in agriculture have proceeded differently for grains and oilseeds, fruits and vegetables, and animals.

With respect to grains and oilseeds, Canada is a top-five producer globally of genetically modified crops. Grain producers have embraced the technology. Today, 95% of canola acreage in Canada is genetically modified. For corn it's 90% and for soybeans it's 85%. These crops have become well accepted in international markets, with grains and oilseeds comprising a third of all Canadian agriculture and food exports.

The use of biotechnology for animals and for fruits and vegetables has not progressed at the same pace. As a result, there has been a limited number of cases of genetically modified animals. The most notable, of course, is the AquAdvantage salmon, which was the first to be approved for food and feed use in Canada in May 2016.

The willingness of the marketplace to accept genetically modified animals continues to be a prime consideration for industry before moving forward with these technologies.

Within the international context, regulatory systems based on factors other than scientific evidence can create non-tariff trade barriers. Canada's long-standing and science-based approach to regulatory approval has helped all sectors of the Canadian economy, including agriculture and agrifood, to adopt innovative technologies.

This has given our economy a competitive edge, helping to position Canada as a top-five exporter of agriculture and agrifood products. It also fosters a high degree of confidence in the Canadian food supply, both domestically and internationally.

Canada's focus on science is consistent with our international trade obligations. It is also a pillar of our international market strategy, especially with products of biotechnology, which can often face unscientific restrictions in foreign markets.

The government continues to press for regulatory frameworks that are science-based, transparent, and predictable. This will not only facilitate trade but will also strengthen our ability to compete internationally and maximize economic benefits for the Canadian agriculture and agrifood sector. To support these efforts, we continue to work actively with countries that have adopted regulatory approaches comparable to Canada's, including the United States, Brazil, and Argentina.

Our common focus is to grow opportunities for our exporters, especially in key markets such as the European Union and China. The department continues to promote science-based international standards in the global trading community and to provide a predictable trading environment for our exporters.

To close, Mr. Chair, biotechnology and other innovative techniques are helping the agriculture sector become more productive, consume fewer resources, and help feed a growing world population sustainably.

Canada's commitment to sound, science-based regulatory decisions is essential to protect the health and safety of Canadians, as well as our farmed animals and our environment. Science-based regulatory decisions are essential in providing a predictable investment and trading climate. The marketplace, through evolving consumer demands, continues to work well, providing a vast array of choice to consumers in Canada and around the world.

Thank you again for this opportunity, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank each of the presenters for giving us very thorough presentations.

We're now going to open it up to our colleagues for questions.

I'll start with Mr. Hoback, please, for six minutes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

It's great to be back at the ag committee. If I could have both trade and agriculture, I would, there's no question about it. I love both committees.

I have to start off by thanking you guys for all the hard work you did in China in that canola market. I know you did the work in the background. I know you made this happen. A lot of people back out west and a lot of farmers who are sitting in combines today appreciate the hard work you did and really want to say thanks. I want to make sure that I relay that to you here in committee. If I get a chance to do it in the House sometime, I'll try to do that also.

I love B movies. I really do. On Sunday afternoons I'll sit and watch a B movie, and one of my favourites is Sharknado.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I don't know why, but maybe it's because I can turn my brain off and watch TV for a couple of hours.

You know, though, a lot of those B movies are based on fears about GMOs. Sharknado, I would assume, is based on that somewhere down the road. I'm going to go down that route to try to alleviate some of those fears.

You've talked about the processes you go through in improving these products. We've seen it done in canola. You've talked about the importance of that for the canola market. It used to be that if you grew a 30-bushel canola crop, that was pretty good, and if you grew a 45-bushel canola crop, you were lying, but now, if you don't grow a 55- or 60-bushel canola crop, then you're not a good farmer.

It's amazing how that new technology has increased our productivity and also has reduced our water consumption, our chemical usage, and soil erosion. The economic and agronomic benefits are phenomenal.

Now I see this in the animal sector. It is exciting, but it is a little nerve-wracking for people if they don't understand the science and what goes in behind the science, and if they don't have comfort in knowing that the proper systems have been put in place to make sure that when it hits the table, it's safe to eat.

Also, in the animal sector, I think people also want to know what the environmental implications are. I'll use the example of the fish that you brought up here. As they are being developed and produced, if one were to escape and get into the ocean, what would that mean? What would that impact be?

Can you give us some background? I'll start with you, Paul. As you go through the process, and as somebody presents an idea to you in terms of doing a GMO fish or a GMO cow, what are the prerequisites before they even get started in doing the science?

[Paul Mayers]

Thank you very much for the question, and indeed, let me also thank you for the kind words with respect to the work on continued trade with China in canola. That's incredibly valuable for the Canadian economy and I think a testament to excellent collaboration between industry and government in getting there, so I very much appreciate your words.

You raised, I think, an extremely critical point about fostering better consumer understanding of just how much care and effort goes in before a product ever even approaches the market. Industry members in Canada have been extremely responsible in relation to the development of GM crops and GM animals. They are encouraged to take part in, and all of the regulators are very open to, what we call pre-submission consultation. Companies avail themselves of that to have a conversation with the regulators about what's in the pipeline and about any issues with what's in the pipeline so that the regulators can be clear with companies about what the expectations are.

In support of business, we also have very clear and comprehensive suites of guidance documents that outline the requirements in order to enable each of the relevant departments to conduct a comprehensive safety assessment. Long before a company contemplates bringing forward a submission, it has the opportunity to get a deep understanding of what data it has to generate. It's critical to understand that the decisions are based on a comprehensive evaluation of data. It's not about whether something sounds like a good idea or a bad idea. We don't have a role in making a judgment in that regard. Instead, we focus on the data that demonstrates the product's nutritional and safety parameters—my colleague from Health Canada can elaborate further on that—and in CFIA's case, that demonstrates that animals fed products derived from it will be able to be successful, because farmers want to buy feeds that work. That focus on a data-driven scientific endeavour in order to provide assurance to Canadians is something in which we take great pride, in the work we do.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

As we see a product develop and as that data stream starts to develop, what do you do to audit that data? What do you do to ensure its integrity?

[Paul Mayers]

We expect data presented to us to come from an experimental design that's sound, because our own scientific experts are reviewing that data against.... We essentially go through the same process that would go into looking at information presented for a publication. As Karen mentioned in her remarks, in our review, we don't just say, “well, here's what the company's given us”; we're also looking at the wider scientific literature. Assessing their design and their outcomes against a backdrop of the entire scientific environment is an important consideration, and that doesn't just stop when an approval is granted. If anything emerges from the scientific literature, or if there's a new finding that is relevant, we'll go back and reassess if necessary.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

So if you point somebody—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Bev Shipley]

Sorry, we don't have enough time, Mr. Hoback. You'll likely get another chance.

Ms. Lockhart, go ahead, please, for six minutes.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you very much. We've been commenting down the way here that your presentations are very good and quite frankly they have answered some of our questions, so thank you for that and for being so well prepared.

Ms. McIntyre, you mentioned that there are three bodies involved in this process: Health Canada, CFIA, and Environment and Climate Change Canada. Could you speak a little bit about the work they're doing? I'm kind of tying that back to Mr. Hoback's question about consumer confidence and the environment.

[Karen McIntyre]

Paul mentioned a little bit about their role. There are three departments involved in looking at genetically modified organisms. Of course, the CFIA has the responsibility for the animal feed use. We look at human food safety, and Environment looks at the potential impacts of the organism on the environment.

You asked something more specific about consumer information and environment?

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Part of the concern is that if a GMO salmon product was released into the wild, what is going to be the impact on the environment? Is that something that you can answer, or do we need to talk to Environment as well?

[Karen McIntyre]

I would suggest that you speak to Environment, but I can say that if they wanted to do something different than what they've applied for, then they would have to resubmit an application to Environment Canada in order to have that approval.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

That's because the current application is to ship eggs to Panama, correct?

[Karen McIntyre]

That's right. It's specific to growing those in containment in Panama.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Ms. Johnston, you talked a lot about the advances in technology in the plant aspect of agriculture, and that from an animal perspective we haven't kept up. Can you give us some reasons as to why that is, and where we are in the timeline? Is this just beginning? Is it a lack of investment? What are the differences?

[Andrea Johnston]

I think a lot of it has to do with cost. Sometimes researchers find they can get the same output without using genetic modification or genetic engineering. The other issue is the marketplace and acceptance. Generally, when a proponent will bring something to a regulatory process, they will have taken into consideration where that product will end up. We're in early days with this technology in animals.