Agriculture Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone.

Our committee meeting, pursuant to the standing order, is on the study of genetically modified animals for human consumption.

I want to thank Mr. Shipley. Last week, apparently, you had a great time with him. Now we have to get back to business. I'm just kidding. I know he did a great job.

Again, welcome everyone. With us today for the first hour are the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network and Lucy Sharratt, coordinator, as well as CropLife Canada, with Dennis Prouse, vice-president, government affairs.

Usually we give each member up to 10 minutes for an opening statement, and then we'll proceed with questions.

Maybe we can start with Ms. Sharratt.

[Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network]

Thank you very much for the invitation to present. Thank you for taking a look at this issue. We appreciate the opportunity to be before you.

I work with the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, also referred to as CBAN, which monitors, researches, and raises various concerns and critiques to encourage and engage democratic discussion over the introduction and use of this technology in food and farming. We provide information to Canadians. For example, in the absence of mandatory labelling, we provide a list of genetically modified foods that are on the market.

CBAN brings together 17 organizations on the shared platform of Tides Canada. We are composed of environmental groups, farmer associations, international development groups, and regional coalitions of grassroots community groups. Together CBAN membership raises diverse types of concerns over the use of genetic engineering and brings together a wide and rich range of perspectives and expertise.

How close GM animals, products, and technologies are to the market is actually difficult to determine. The pipeline of GM animals is difficult to monitor because the research is most often owned by private companies, and the majority of research in the lab actually never leads to working products.

We heard last week from regulators that they discussed the product pipeline with companies, but this is not information that the Canadian public is privy to. In Canada, however, we already have two concrete examples of GM animals we can use to discuss the issue and the policy challenges that are raised, in particular the GM salmon.

Canada approved the world's first GM food animal. As you know, that is the GM salmon, which could make its way to market in the next two to three years. The company's initial plan, or stated business plan, was to produce the GM salmon eggs in Prince Edward Island, ship the eggs to Panama, and grow out and process the fish in Panama for the U.S. and Canadian markets; however, the company actually has approval to grow both the eggs and the salmon in Prince Edward Island. The ministers, in their decision to allow commercial production, had approved commercial production anywhere in Canada of eggs and salmon as long as it was in a contained facility on land. There's an ongoing court case, and in December 2015 that production was restricted to P.E.I.

In Canada we have the additional concrete example of the GM pig from the University of Guelph, called the Enviropig. The pig was approved by Environment Canada—because, of course, CFIA has been approving the environmental release of crop plants, but it's Environment Canada that approves GM animals for release. However, the review by Health Canada was halted after the project was removed after pork producers withdrew their support.

I did want to bring your attention to the six reports that CBAN has produced. I think these were sent to you in file format. A lot of the comments I'll provide today are based in our most recent research, looking at the impacts of GM crops and foods after 20 years in Canada.

In the interest of time—although much has passed already—we've structured our comments on five specific policy recommendations and a further final, broader proposal.

First, there needs to be an assessment of economic impact before any GM product is approved for release. The release of some GM products poses economic risks. These risks are not assessed by any department before a new GM product is released. Economic risk-benefit analysis is not part of Canadian regulation. This also means that farmers are not consulted before GM products are approved. In the case of GM fish, fishers, the aquaculture industry, and aboriginal peoples and local communities were not consulted. There is no assessment of risks, but there is equally no assessment of benefits before or after commercialization.

We need only look at the $29-million cost of GM contamination to Canada's flax industry to see a little of what could be at stake. This problem of the costs to some farmers is not new. It was articulated by farmers over the possible commercialization of GM wheat in 2004 and it continues to be heard in the objections to GM alfalfa by Alberta forage groups and 15 farm groups together earlier this year.

The economic risk manifests itself in at least two ways. One, the introduction of a GM product, especially in the absence of mandatory labelling of GM foods, can undermine the market for an entire commodity. This was the concern of apple producers: that the approval of the GM apple would undermine consumer confidence and damage the entire market. Two, if a new product is released and contamination occurs, the result can be market closure.

Second, there is a need to strengthen environmental risk assessment, including a need to assess the long-term system-wide risks of each GM product and the use this technology as a whole. Unfortunately, the risk of contamination is not necessarily diminished with GM animals. There have already been two contamination incidents with GM pigs in Canada, on two separate occasions, at two different institutions, with two different experimental pigs—pigs that were not approved for human consumption. In both cases, GM pig carcasses were rendered for animal feed instead of being incinerated as biohazard. Both contamination incidents were caused by human error. These two incidents highlight the problem of contamination even with large organisms, not just small flax seeds or pollen from flowering alfalfa plants. If we can't contain GM pigs, how can we successfully contain GM salmon or salmon eggs—or alfalfa, flax, or wheat, for that matter?

Third, Canada needs systems for tracking and tracing all GM organisms. Statistics Canada does not track all GM products on the market. Regulatory agencies do not track which products are commercialized and being grown. The government only knows what GM traits have been approved, not where they are or how much are on the market. This means that the government does not have the tools it needs to assess risks and benefits in the long term, or even answer your questions about the market status of the GM apple, for example.

The committee has already heard about the challenges of tagging from the Cattlemen's Association. The seafood industry already struggles to track seafood. It is too common that seafood in the food market is actually mislabelled.

Fourth, Canadians need transparency in regulation. CBAN examined this issue very closely in our GM inquiry. Transparency is missing in almost every step of regulation. In a few cases, there is partial transparency. For example, GM animals are not covered by the voluntary agreement between CropLife and the CFIA that allows the CFIA to post notices of products under review if companies agree. This is called the Biotechnology Notices of Submission Project. This means that at any given time, Canadians do not know what GM animals, if any, are under government review.

Finally, Canadian consumers need mandatory labelling of all GM foods in the grocery store. Lack of transparency is most obviously manifest in the lack of labelling. The issue of GM animals makes labelling an even more urgent issue for Canadians. The issue of GM animals also highlights the range of concerns that could bring a consumer to want GM food labelling, to want to choose. For example, some Canadians have specific ethical concerns.

Twenty years of polling in Canada consistently showed that 80% of Canadians want mandatory labelling of all GM foods. The most recent is 88%. Mandatory labelling needs to be in place before the GM fish hits the market.

In conclusion, the specific proposals that I've outlined are all needed to get regulation and policy close to what it needs to be to address the challenges of GM animals. We could also refer back to the Royal Society of Canada's expert panel report of 2001, which had 53 recommendations for regulatory change. We have articulated these specific proposals because the first GM food animal has already been approved and could be on the market really soon.

But there is a more fundamental need. We need to step back and ask if genetically engineering animals is ethical. Is it acceptable to Canadians? Is it necessary? It is Canadians who need to answer these questions. It is Canadians who need to be asked. There needs to be a moratorium on the introduction of GM animals until Canadians have a chance to be heard and until changes are made to increase the government's ability to regulate GM organisms and food, including tracking and traceability and transparency, including mandatory GM food labelling.

Canada has two decades of experience with GM crops and foods, but they have not yet been evaluated. We need to step back so that we can also evaluate the impacts of GM crops. We need to do this, and then learn and apply any lessons from the release of GM crops and foods before we consider allowing GM animals into our environment and food system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Sharratt.

We're right on the time. That's great.

Now, from CropLife Canada, we have Monsieur Dennis Prouse.

[Dennis Prouse, Vice-President, Government Affairs, CropLife Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm Dennis Prouse, vice-president, government affairs, with CropLife Canada. I very much appreciate the opportunity to present to you today and the invitation you have given us.

CropLife Canada represents the manufacturers, developers, and distributers of plant science innovations, including pest control products and plant biotechnology for use in agriculture and urban and public health settings. We're committed to protecting human health and the environment and to providing a safe, abundant food supply for Canadians.

We believe in driving innovation through continuous research. CropLife Canada is a member of CropLife International, a global federation representing the plant science industry in 91 countries.

As this committee completes the study on one element of biotechnology, it is useful to look back at the success of plant biotechnology, with which Canadians might be more familiar. It's now been over 20 years since the commercialization of the first genetically engineered crops in Canada, and we can look back on where this has led us, what the process was, and what the path might be going forward.

The plant biotechnology industry is a global research-based industry that invests significant amounts of capital and time into the discovery, development, and regulatory approval of a wide variety of plant breeding innovations. These innovations have produced new varieties of crops that are resistant to insects, diseases, drought, and certain herbicides, therefore delivering more predictable yields, improved quality, and access to more environmentally sustainable farming practices.

These innovations have delivered significant benefits around the globe for the environment, consumers, and farmers. In Canada alone, these improved crops raise yields by 32%. Fully $8.3 billion or 71% of Canada's trade balance in crops is directly attributable to innovations in crop protection products and plant biotechnology. These benefits are good for consumers as well as farmers, since without the use of plant biotechnology and pesticides, we would pay about 55% more for food—roughly $4,400 more per family and $60 billion more as a country.

We're very proud of the role that plant biotechnology is playing to improve sustainability. Reduced land use, less tillage, and limited equipment passes save Canadian farmers up to 194 million litres of fuel per year, saving 29 million tonnes per year of greenhouse gases. Without biotech crops and pesticides, farmers would need to use 50% more land than they do today to produce the same amount of food. That's more than the total area of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. Far from harming biodiversity, growing more food on less land promotes it.

For the future, research is under way to develop crops that can thrive in changing climate conditions, including drought, excess moisture, and salty soils. Modern agriculture is more sustainable than ever, thanks to innovation, and it's part of the solution on climate change.

The history of plant biotechnology in Canada has been one of tremendous success. That success has been made possible by one key policy pillar: a transparent, predictable, and science-based regulatory system. Canada's science-based regulatory system is world renowned, and since its official formation almost 20 years ago, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency of Health Canada has done outstanding work in safeguarding the health and safety of Canadians and in establishing a regulatory model in which innovation can be commercialized. This is not insignificant, as many nations have regulatory models that lack predictability and timeliness and are rife with political interference in decision-making. Needless to say, this is not a model that fosters investment and innovation.

My previous statements were specific to our experience in plant biotechnology, but I believe the remainder of my thoughts today apply to the path of success for innovation, whether in plant or animal.

In order for Canada to continue to be a leader in any area of innovation and remain competitive on the world stage in agriculture and to realize the benefits these products can provide, farmers require timely access to the latest agricultural tools. To do this, it is imperative that Canada's regulatory pathway for the commercialization of these innovations be timely, predictable, and transparent in order to create an environment that encourages investment.

The most critical element in the commercialization process impacting the development of these capital-intensive research-based innovations in Canada is the regulatory regime for safety approvals. There's a relatively small window for innovators to make a commercial success of a research-based innovation investment, so lengthy and unpredictable review periods are prohibitive for both large corporations and smaller start-ups alike.

Canada does have an opportunity here to be a leader. Canadian regulators are already involved in the international science community in tracking the discussions on these issues. For example, Health Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada just last week hosted an OECD meeting here in Ottawa, gathering international experts from around the world to discuss the wide-ranging benefits that new gene-editing technology can bring to plant and animal agriculture, aquaculture, the environment, and human health, and they discussed the associated regulatory requirements.

Given this pace of innovation, we believe it's very important for governments to periodically review their regulatory regimes. Such a review requires direct investment in those regulatory programs. For example, Mr. Chair, the Canadian Biotech Strategy Fund in the early 2000s resulted in the development of improved regulatory frameworks and processes that were more efficient for the government and the industry. We believe this played a great part in aiding Canada's success as a plant biotechnology leader. Currently, simply as a benchmark, we're number five in the world.

In the case of plant biotechnology, government would be reviewing the system in the context of two decades of safe and successful commercialization. In that time, there hasn't been a single product submitted for review that has been deemed harmful to either humans, animals, or the environment, in Canada or in any other country with a functioning regulatory system. Trillions of meals safely consumed and two billion hectares safely grown across the globe in that time attest to the high degree of safety inherent in these innovations for both consumers and the environment. For animal biotechnology, this review would be coming at a time when this long-standing area of science is seeing renewed interest in investment.

In support of these statements, CropLife Canada has two recommendations for the committee's consideration that are aligned with the Government of Canada's new innovation agenda, particularly the commitment to ease of doing business, which we believe has clearly signalled that the Canadian government has a desire to modernize its regulatory regimes to adapt and to capture the potential of innovative industries while at the same time maintaining Canada's high safety standards.

First, CropLife Canada would recommend that the Government of Canada publicly commit to improving the efficiency of the approval system for products of both plant and animal biotechnology through direct investment in the regulatory departments involved in their oversight.

Second, CropLife Canada would strongly recommend that the Government of Canada build on its strong science-based regulatory system, leveraging the international scientific consensus on the safety of these products and their domestic history of safe use to develop a tiered risk assessment process which is founded in the principle of risk-based allocation of resources.

This would specifically address plant breeding innovations that have emerged in recent years, such as products of gene editing in CRISPR-CAS9, which are early indicators that the pace of technology development is increasing rapidly compared to the last 20 years. It's essential that a modernized approach to reviewing these innovations be based on a predefined and transparent process that is founded on a definition of risk that is consistent across all the departments and agencies involved in the regulatory regime.

To conclude, Mr. Chair, it's clear that plant biotechnology has delivered clear and measurable benefits to Canadian consumers, farmers, and the environment. These benefits have been facilitated by successive Canadian governments having the foresight to maintain a transparent, predictable, and science-based regulatory system. For both plant and animal biotechnology, we believe that maintaining the integrity of that system and respecting the scientists within it is critical to fostering future innovation in Canada. Equally as important to fostering innovation will be clear measures to improve the efficiency and timeliness of that regulatory system.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your time.

We look forward to answering any questions the committee may ask.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Prouse. Thank you both for your introduction.

We will now move into the question round in which we have six-minute questions, and I would ask each member to say if they want one or both of you to answer.

The first round will go to Mr. Shipley, for six minutes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming.

Mr. Chair, prior to the start of questions, I wouldn't mind reading into the record a motion. It is as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food conduct a pre-budget study on the effects that the recently-announced, Liberal Government carbon tax would have on the agriculture sector and producers; that this study be comprised of no less than four meetings to be held at the committee's earliest convenience; that departmental officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada be in attendance for at least one meeting; that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture no later than February 15, 2017.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I will start my questioning. For the most part, I'll identify who I want to answer.

It's interesting. We have two pretty much opposing opinions here.

Ms. Sharratt, it would seem that in Canada.... In particular, I can talk about my area. Soybeans in my area, or 90% of them, are GMOs. Likely close to 98% of the corn grown in the area is GMO. Many of them, a high percentage of them, are stacked for herbicide and pesticide traits, and yet you say that there are no better yields and there is no improved income and that it actually raises the price.

I'm wondering what you're telling my farmers, who are actually using these products. I can tell you that for the most part they are very successful, well educated, and well informed. They do their work, they know the bottom line, and they know what they need to grow. You're saying that because they're using these, there's no benefit to them. I wonder if you could help to explain that.

[Lucy Sharratt]

Thank you.

What you've referred to is a summary of some of the results of our report on the question of the benefits and impacts of genetically engineered crops on farmers, including farm income.

What we did find is that there's no evidence that the GM traits specifically are related to improved yields. We know that in canola, the best germplasm also has GM traits put on top of it, and there's no study in Canada specifically that shows the increased yields are specifically attributable to the GM traits, for example.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

So basically you're saying the farmers don't know what they're doing because—

[Lucy Sharratt]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

—they don't see a benefit.

I'm asking you, Mr. Prouse. You actually commented significantly, because we don't have the same background in terms of animal GMO yet, but certainly the background in terms of what agriculture has been able to benefit from, at least the farmers, but also.... Listen, if it's just the farmers and nobody else wants them, I would also suggest that the agriculture community actually has a pretty good idea.... If you grow something and you can't market it, then, to follow what Ms. Sharratt said, there actually is no benefit.

[Dennis Prouse]

I'll say a couple of things very quickly, Mr. Shipley.

Number one, our members would spend about $150 million and take about seven years to bring a product to market. That's from lab to seed. It would be about that length of a process and that much money.

I would also defer to Stephen Vandervalk, who is now the past president of the Grain Growers of Canada. He appeared before this committee a few years back and told the committee—I believe I'm quoting him correctly—that every spring, the most expensive seeds sell out first. I always leave it to a farmer to put it pretty succinctly and pretty directly.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I always thought that when you're buying something for the long-term benefit, sometimes the best quality is actually the best for an individual. I'm shocked, quite honestly, at the position taken by Ms. Sharratt and her organization, which quite honestly is funded a lot by Tides Canada and the Sierra Club, which oppose pipelines and any advancement in agriculture.

I want to talk about transparency in terms of being able to get these products ready for market. There's no involvement by the agriculture community. My understanding is that if you can't market it.... Does the farming industry not have any say in what has been produced and grown as a GMO? That isn't what we heard last week, but do they not have any say in terms of when it goes to market?

Look at the Enviropig, for example. It didn't go. It got stopped—actually, the pork producers.... I would suggest that it has a lot to do with market—maybe the naming—and with the market evaluation they saw. Would that have any influence? I'll ask both of you for a very quick response.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Answer quickly, please, because we have about five seconds.

[Lucy Sharratt]

The Enviropig was a unique situation because pork producers had invested in that research and then withdrew support.

Apple producers—the BC Fruit Growers' Association and the Quebec apple producers' federation— asked the Canadian government not to approve the GM apple because they feared for their market, and that wasn't considered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

We'll now move to Mr. Breton for six minutes.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Sharratt, I am particularly pleased to have an opinion that differs from the opinions we've heard to date as part of this study. People and groups have hesitations and concerns. It's our duty to hear what you have to say and to properly analyze the concerns.

Your spoke about regulation. We don't know where these products may be grown or what quantity can be found on the market. There is some degree of regulation once the products have been approved by the various government authorities. I'm delighted that you want stricter regulations and policies to ensure greater transparency in labelling. I'm happy that you're focusing on these aspects.

I want to hear your thoughts on regulation. You made 20 recommendations, and you weren't able to list them all. Can you elaborate on the regulatory aspect?

[Lucy Sharratt]

Thank you very much. Merci.

There are many steps within the regulatory process that all need more oversight. From seed to table, there needs to be traceability of genetically modified organisms. Even at the experimental research stage, we've seen contamination occur. There definitely needs to be more government oversight, even at the research stage, that includes providing information to Canadians about which genetically modified products are under review.

Once the products are approved, Canadians need to know if the Canadian government actually knows whether they're on the market or not, and if they are, where they are. Statistics Canada could pick up some of that work. Then of course there is the the matter of traceability through the food system, so that from farm to table, that genetically modified organism is traced and labelled.

Then there's the whole question of the regulatory system itself. The system has existed for 20 years. For 15 years, it hasn't been renewed as per the recommendations of the expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada. After 20 years, we have an opportunity. Especially now if we're going to talk about new techniques and new applications to organisms such as GM animals, we have a unique opportunity and, I would say, a necessity to look at the entire regulatory system and what's needed to be up to date.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

That's interesting.

Studies have been conducted in recent years. A Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources study was conducted by ENTRANSFOOD. I don't know whether you heard about it. The study concerned the risks associated with toxicity, antibiotic resistance and allergenic effects.

Are those things mentioned in your 15 other recommendations? Can you speak more about them?

[Lucy Sharratt]

The question of the use of antibiotics in animals is one that's very relevant to GM animals. In some cases, GM animals are discussed in relation to solving that problem, but we've already heard from other witnesses that management is most often what's turned to, and we already know what the management solutions are. Genetically modified animals like the GM fish could potentially increase the use of antibiotics, and that impact also needs to be part of an assessment of genetically modified products. Where do they fit into the management in any given sector? Where do they fit into the bigger picture of where our food system is taking us, and what are the other connected problems that exist?

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

There is a whole discussion about the labelling of genetically modified food. I know your stance is to ensure labelling. Can you elaborate on the labelling issue please?

[Lucy Sharratt]

Thank you.

It's been 20 years now that consistently over 80% of Canadians have said they want labelling. There have been many private members' bills brought forward. There have been opportunities to take up labelling.

We do have, as you heard, a voluntary labelling standard. It has not been put into use, because companies do not want to label their products voluntarily as genetically engineered. This is why we think there needs to be mandatory labelling. People want to know where that food is from. As I discussed, we think traceability is really important for a number of other reasons as well. The transparency lands, for consumers, in the grocery store shelves.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

I will now give the floor to Ms. Brosseau for six minutes.