Evidence of meeting #21 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 products.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Alaina Lockhart Liberal Fundy Royal, NB
I don't know if you're able to speak to this, but this is the first animal product. We've heard from the cattlemen that this isn't an area where they're looking at doing any amount of investment right now, but are there other industries that are considering this?
9:20 a.m.
Director General, Sector Development and Analysis Directorate, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
In general, it's very expensive, so I think they're looking at some of these traits and they're looking at it from more conventional breeding. On the pork side, they're looking at better feed utilization to reduce methane emissions. They looked at it awhile ago in genetic modifications, but decided that the marketplace wasn't ready for genetically modified animals like pigs.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Alaina Lockhart Liberal Fundy Royal, NB
When you say the market's not ready, what factors make the market not ready?
9:20 a.m.
Director General, Sector Development and Analysis Directorate, Market and Industry Services Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
As consumers, we all decide what we prefer. They're looking for choice. It depends. They have to find the retailers who will want to put it in the marketplace and sell it, so they would have to do some market awareness studies to determine willingness and appetite from consumers in what areas and in what regions. It's all about market acceptance and understanding where the consumer is coming from, and then they'll make the determination whether there is enough acceptance in order for them to sell it.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Alaina Lockhart Liberal Fundy Royal, NB
I guess that ties back to the idea that there's a need right now for education in respect to the science behind the regulatory process. Okay, thank you very much.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
Thank you very much, Ms. Lockhart.
We'll now go to Ms. Brosseau, please, for six minutes.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for their presentations this morning on this study on genetically modified animals for human consumption.
When the announcement came that GM salmon was accepted in Canada, I think the media and the Canadian population were divided. A lot of Canadians were worried, and there were some people who were interested in this.
I read that in 2010 there was a government-commissioned poll that talked about the concerns of Canadians. The poll showed that 58% of Canadians surveyed did not approve of the genetic modification of fish, 74% disagreed with the development of GM fish that grow faster than non-GM fish, and 58% had little or no confidence in the safety and the regulatory approval system for GM fish.
As it is right now, in Canada, we do not have labelling for genetically modified organisms and animals. We do have a bill that's coming out in the House shortly. My colleague has tabled Bill C-291 for the mandatory labelling of GMOs. We tend to think that Canadians have a right to know what they're eating. When it comes to GMO animals and fish like salmon, I think it's important that when Canadians go to the supermarket, they're aware of what they're buying. This salmon is mixed with eel. What is it mixed with exactly? It's a pout? What percentage of it is salmon and what percentage is pout? The ocean pout is supposed to make it grow twice as fast, correct?
9:25 a.m.
Vice President, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
I'll start, and my colleague from Health Canada can elaborate further.
In terms of the makeup of the product in the marketplace, as noted, the product in the marketplace is not different from Atlantic salmon. The issue is not about the percentages in the makeup, because the product is equivalent to the product in the marketplace. Genetically speaking, the growth hormone is from the chinook salmon, but the ocean pout genetics have to do with how that gene is expressed in the salmon. With the chair's permission, I'll ask Ms. McIntyre to elaborate on that specific issue further.
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
It's a promoter gene that has been genetically engineered into the Atlantic salmon from that species. I'm wondering if your question is whether this actually changes the species.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
No.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Okay, so it's just an additive that will make it...because generally, I think it takes three years for salmon to be ready to be eaten, but with this modification, it will take 15 months. Is that right?
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Yes, it will grow to its normal size in half the time, so instead of two years, it will grow to its normal size and weight in one year.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
I think there have been some concerns that maybe this GM salmon will get out, and it could endanger our wild salmon. There have been some studies and some articles talking about that fear, but from what I understand, for the most part, these salmon are sterile.
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
That's correct.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Is that 100% the case? I've read some things saying that possibly 5% of them might not be sterile. I know we're still in the hypothetical, because it's not here yet, but there is still a concern that it might not be 100% sterile.
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
I'm not aware of that, but I know that all of the studies that are out there have been considered in terms of the assessment that has been done, and it has been determined to be safe.
Again, I think it's important to remember that it is not approved for release into the wild. There are a lot of controls in place to ensure that it doesn't go into the environment, and that includes the fact that it is sterile as well. There are a number of things involved, a number of safeguards in place.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
What role does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans play in the evaluation of GM salmon?
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
Their role was to look at the impact of that organism on the environment.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
In the States, I think California and Washington have banned GM salmon. In Canada I think there have already been some supermarkets, Costco notably, that have expressed some concerns and have said they're not willing to sell it. When we're talking about marketplace acceptability and whether consumers and Canadians want this, is it the federal government's role to fact-check and demystify and explain the process better, the transparency and the analysis that goes into accepting genetically modified fish, or maybe other animals in the future, or even just grains? Is it the government's role to explain to Canadians, or is it really up to the industry that is pushing for these products in the marketplace in Canada?
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
I think absolutely that the government does have a very important role in terms of explaining the safety assessment process and how decisions are made, and in making that information public and transparent. As I mentioned earlier, we publish very detailed scientific assessments of how any decision we reach has been made and how we considered each of the aspects or each of the criteria, including things like nutritional composition, potential for allergens, or potential for toxins.
We go through and we publish a very thorough scientific review, and we also do a complementary plain-language summary, which is less technical and can be understood by somebody who doesn't have a technical background in biotechnology.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Bev Shipley
Thank you very much, Ms. Brosseau.
We'll now move to Mr. Drouin, please, for six minutes.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I too will repeat Mr. Hoback's comment, although I won't comment on his choice of movies. I do want to congratulate you for your work on the canola file and on the beef file. I think it's tremendous news for our farmers. As Ms. Johnston said, by 2050 food production has to increase by 50%, so I think it's important that we have access to those growth markets.
I'm going to continue with the line of questioning of Mr. Hoback and Ms. Lockhart in terms of consumer confidence.
Mr. Mayers, you've mentioned that it typically takes a company seven to 10 years to research, develop, and test the GM food before it has compiled enough data to submit an application to the Government of Canada. Here's what I want to understand. Is the government involved in the process in that seven to 10 years? Is there a back and forth with a department? I think you mentioned that.
9:30 a.m.
Vice President, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Yes, and thank you very much for the question. Also, thank you for the kind words with respect to the work in terms of market access.
During that period, typically at the early research stage, there is little interaction, because the company at that point is finding out if they have something that will have mileage. Once they believe they do, that's typically when interaction starts. We encourage that interaction, but it isn't mandatory.
It's entirely possible for a company to go through all of that process and come to us only when they're ready to come to market. It's not the wisest decision in the world, and the reason for that is that when we have questions during the review process, the review stops. We go back to companies with questions in terms of deficiency letters, and, in essence, if they haven't had a lot of interaction with us, it can sometimes take them almost a year to compile the necessary data just to answer those questions.
For the efficiency of the system, we would rather reduce that cycle time, because if a company is coming to us with what they believe to be a legitimate market opportunity, then we're interested in carrying out the due diligence in a time frame that can give some predictability for market entry. That's why we encourage that interaction.
That interaction typically takes place less in the pure development end of the research and more in the market preparation end as they are compiling the regulatory data, as opposed to the research to develop, for example, the AquAdvantage. As they move to something that they think is going to work, what do they need to do to be able to demonstrate that it's safe? It's not whether they can get it to to grow at an accelerated pace, but rather, now that it seems to be working, what do they need to do to get it into the market? That's where the significant interaction helps.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
With regard to the scientists and the microbiologists that you hire, have they worked there for a long time? The reason I ask is that sometimes you'll hear claims out there that these scientists are all corrupted because they come from the industry. Well, they might have industry knowledge, but they've had long-term careers with Heath Canada and the CFIA.