Agriculture Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Unfortunately, time has run out.

I want to thank Ms. Sharratt and Mr. Prouse for being here today. It is a very interesting debate. I think the idea is to bring in different opinions, and I really thank you for appearing before this committee.

We shall now break for two minutes to change the panel for our second hour of testimony.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

For the second hour of our committee hearing we have with us BIOTECanada, Andrew Casey, president and chief executive officer; also, from AquaBounty Technologies, Inc., we have Dave Conley, director of corporate of communications.

Welcome, gentlemen, and thank you for your presentation here today.

We will begin with an opening statement of 10 minutes by each of you.

Mr. Casey, perhaps you want to start.

[Andrew Casey, President and Chief Executive Officer, BIOTECanada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you as well to the committee for giving us the opportunity to share our view on this important matter.

Thank you very much for this important opportunity. I am with BIOTECanada.

As a way of introduction, BIOTECanada is the national trade association representing Canada's biotech industry. We have over 220 member companies in our association. They are spread across the country in pretty much every region, usually centred around clusters in all of the provinces and usually centred around clusters where there is an expertise. Our members include large multinational pharmaceutical companies, but the vast majority of our members, about 85% to 90% of the members, are small precommercial companies that are in the throes of taking an innovation and moving it forward. As an example, to my left is AquaBounty, one of our member companies, but we also have a number of other companies.

One is a company called Agrisoma. Agrisoma works with a version of a mustard seed that has been genetically modified. It can be grown in fields that are unusable for other plants because either the soil is not nutritious enough or there is not enough moisture or nutrients.

They take that mustard seed, they crush it and extract the oil from it, and they turn it into jet fuel. The jet fuel can be used in jet engines without adding any fossil fuel to the mix. The plane has flown and the plane does not have to be altered in any way, shape, or form. The plane that has flown is the NRC plane that is out by the airport. It has gone up in the air. Of course, what they do is send along a little sniffer plane right after it to see what emissions come out, and because there is no fossil fuel in the mix, the emissions are greatly reduced.

The story gets a little bit better, because when you go back to that mustard seed that's been crushed, the meal that comes out of it after the oil has been extracted can go back into the food chain. In a world where we're dealing with those pressures, there is an amazing solution to handle some of those pressures.

We have other great examples. In the health space, BIOTECanada has members that are developing new vaccines, new medicines. As an example, there is an individual out in New Brunswick who has figured out that there is a paralytic quality in the shrew's saliva that has a peptide. He is looking at turning that into a cure for a rare form of ovarian cancer. Out in Vancouver there is a company that has figured out that in the malaria-bearing mosquito there is also a protein that can be used for attacking cancer. These are the types of innovations that we're seeing across this country.

Another company that was referenced this morning is a company in B.C. that is taking an apple and turning off one part of it, so that the apple does not brown when it's cut or bruised. These are phenomenal innovations. What I'd like to do with my time today is explain why it's important.

You talked a bit about this in the earlier session, but we have a planet that has around seven billion people right now. It's rapidly moving to nine billion people. That's bringing with it some very significant challenges. We have new mouths to feed, and by a number of estimates, 50% to 70% more food is going to be required to feed those people. That's important. It's also a fact that the rapid increase in population is putting enormous pressure on this planet. We need to adjust the way we produce and manufacture. There's no question about it. We need to not only mitigate against future impact on the planet but we also have to adapt to what is already a changed planet.

That is the solution that biotechnology represents. Addressing those challenges is absolutely a social imperative for us as a population, as a society, and we need to get at it as quickly as possible. For Canada, that represents an enormous economic opportunity. We have a long history of biotech innovation in this country, dating back to some earlier developments of vaccines, whether it be in the polio space or in the development of insulin.

In our more recent world, and certainly part of this discussion today, we have canola. This is one of the greatest crops this country has ever had. The China deal underscores exactly how important it is, an estimated $2.5 billion. There is a huge economic opportunity in addressing the challenges that are coming with global population growth. Canada is very well positioned to address those challenges. As I said, the ecosystem that's across the country and found in every province is very healthy and diverse There is lots of innovation coming out of our universities and being driven forward.

The history that we have in this country of developing this innovation has also led to another very important strength for this country, which is our regulatory process. Canada is among the world leaders at regulating innovation, at making sure that products are safe and efficacious for human consumption and also for the environment. Adding more problems to our already challenged environment is not really good for anybody.

Canada is now well known around the world as having one of the best regulatory systems for oversight. This is a huge, global competitive strength for the industry. I think without it the industry would not be as globally competitive, so we advocate that we keep pace. The innovations are happening at a very rapid rate, and we need to keep pace with those innovations. Our science has to be as rigorous as possible; there's no question about that.

Some of the emerging challenges, such as Zika and Ebola, require very rapid responses. There's a company in Quebec City that's taking tobacco leaves and growing vaccines. They're able to close the gap. A normal vaccine can take anywhere between 12 and 18 months to develop; they are able to grow that vaccine in weeks. We can respond very quickly to these emerging challenges with that. That doesn't mean we can just let everything happen without any regulatory oversight. It's very important that our regulatory oversight continue.

We have a great opportunity. It's a great economic opportunity, but we have to make sure we're doing it right.

I will now turn the microphone over to my colleague, who can explain in a bit more depth how strict our regulatory system is, as well as the benefits of the company and how it can be commercialized in this country.

I look forward to the questions.

Merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Casey.

[Dave Conley, Director, Corporate Communications, AquaBounty Technologies, Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to speak to the committee today on this issue that you're studying, genetically modified animals for human consumption.

I'm the director of communications for AquaBounty. By way of background, I have a Master of Science degree in parasitology from McGill University; a Bachelor of Science degree in agriculture, majoring in renewable resources development, also from McGill; and a diploma in agriculture technology from Kemptville College, which was part of the University of Guelph until it was let go.

I've served as communications adviser to Yves Bastien when he was appointed by a previous Liberal government to be Canada's first and only Commissioner for Aquaculture Development at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. That was from 1999 until 2004.

I joined AquaBounty on July 1, 2013, after working in the aquaculture industry as a senior consultant and a founding partner of the Aquaculture Communications Group, where I worked for nine years. My career in aquaculture began 31 years ago in 1985, while I was a mature student. I was 31 when I went back to university at McGill. I followed the development of AquaBounty almost from its founding in 1991. When I first heard of their fast-growing salmon, I thought it was the most innovative advancement ever in the field of salmon aquaculture, and I still believe that today.

The AquAdvantage salmon is an Atlantic salmon. It has one extra gene added to its almost 40,000 genes. That extra gene is from a chinook salmon, and it produces a growth hormone, the same growth hormone that Atlantic salmon produce. The expression of this gene is controlled by a promoter sequence that acts as an “on” switch. That enables the additional growth hormone gene in the AquAdvantage salmon to function year-round instead of only during the spring and summer, as is the case with other Atlantic salmon. This is a seasonal thing. They basically grow in the spring and summer and they stop growing in the fall and winter.

As a result, AquAdvantage salmon grow to maturity in approximately half the time that Atlantic salmon do. Simply put, AquAdvantage salmon grow faster, but not larger. Consequently, AquAdvantage salmon reach a market weight of four to five kilos in 16 to 20 months versus 30 to 36 months for Atlantic salmon in sea cages.

AquAdvantage salmon are produced from certified disease-free eggs from broodstock in our certified disease-free hatchery in Fortune, Prince Edward Island. Shortly after, the eggs are fertilized with the sperm from AquAdvantage salmon males, and the eggs are subjected to a pressure shock that results in sterile fish from those eggs. All AquAdvantage salmon for the production of food are triploid—three sets of chromosomes—and they're all female, so the fish can't breed with other fish and they can't breed with themselves. We have produced a video on this, and that will be something you can look at later.

We have precautions to prevent escapes. These are all female fish, so they can't mate with each other. They're sterile, so they can't mate and reproduce with wild Atlantic salmon. They're farmed on land in closed containment facilities with multiple and redundant physical barriers to escape. The water is pumped from wells on the property. The fish are not exposed to pathogens, parasites, or contaminants in service waters. Land-based farming facilities are biosecure, with stringent biosecurity protocols. The Fortune, P.E.I., facility is surrounded by a chain-link fence, with a locked steel gate, video cameras, alarms, and staff living on-site. The local RCMP detachment routinely patrols the surrounding area. All management staff are equipped with mobile phones linked to security-alert programs in case of equipment failures or other operational issues.

You met with the regulatory people, and you heard what they had to say last week, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on that. What I wanted to do was give you some highlights encapsulating 25 years of AquaBounty.

AquAdvantage salmon is the world's first precision-bred animal for human consumption. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on November 19, 2015, after a rigorous review process that began in September 1995. It was approved by Health Canada on May 19, after a thorough review that began in 2011.

Regulatory agency scientists in the U.S. and Canada concluded that the AquAdvantage salmon is the same as Atlantic salmon in every measurable way. It is safe to eat and poses no significant risk to the environment when grown as described in our approval application. AquAdvantage salmon is arguably the most studied food animal, with a research pedigree spanning 27-plus years. They have been conventionally bred for 12 generations, beginning in 1992. The gene construct was inserted in 1989. Since then the fish are reproduced naturally, eggs and sperm, the same as other fish. The genetic engineering was done once. Most people don't appreciate that.

The trait is inheritable, so it just continues. As long as we breed them, they'll continue to be. AquAdvantage salmon are farmed on land-based, recirculating aquaculture systems known as RAS. They recycle 95% to 99% of the water. The suspended solids are filtered out. The nutrient-rich sludge can be spread on farm fields or used by gardeners as a soil amendment. Locating land-based farms close to consumer markets reduces the transportation costs and the carbon footprint of producing these salmon. It produces a fresher seafood product, closer to the consumer.

Containment of AquAdvantage salmon is of paramount importance to AquaBounty, which has taken all the practical, rational, and reasonable precautions to mitigate this risk of escape. There has never been an escape from an AquaBounty facility in more than 25 years of operation. Because AquAdvantage salmon are isolated inside facilities that use treated well water, the fish are not exposed to pathogens, parasites, and contaminants normally found in the environment. Therefore, we don't need vaccines, antibiotics, or chemical treatments for diseases because we don't experience them. In taste tests, AquAdvantage salmon have performed very well when compared to other farmed Atlantic salmon, achieving “most preferred” by people in double-blind taste tests.

AquaBounty is extremely proud of its innovative AquAdvantage salmon, and we look forward to bringing it to the market for consumers to enjoy.

I will respond to some of the other things that have come up in questioning. Given population growth and the limits of the wild-caught fisheries, and the fact that Atlantic salmon are an endangered species, wild fisheries are not going to be able to supply the protein requirements of a growing world population, and aquaculture is going to have to fill that supply-demand gap, which is widening. Food security is an increasing concern for governments everywhere. Innovation to enhance aquaculture production is critical for providing environmentally sustainable protein for future generations.

I wanted to conclude with this: the approval of the AquAdvantage salmon was based on a weight-of-evidence approach, and as a result, both Canada's and the United States' regulatory agencies determined that AquAdvantage salmon is safe and nutritious for humans, the same as conventional Atlantic salmon. Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration require labelling for food products, including genetically modified foods, 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, an allergen present in food must be labelled to alert consumers. An example is peanuts. In this case, given that no health and safety concerns were identified, there is no special labelling requirements for our salmon.

I will finish with one thing that people are probably not aware of. AquAdvantage salmon was developed by Canadian scientists at a Canadian university, Memorial University in St. John's, Newfoundland, using the latest scientific knowledge of the time, in the 1980s. The fish was developed in 1989, and they did this to try to resolve a production problem that was affecting Atlantic Canada salmon farmers. The issue was superchill. This was when the temperature of the water dropped below the freezing point of salmon blood, and those fish in the net pens were instantly killed.

The original research was funded by the Canadian government to develop a way to protect those salmon from that problem. The development of the AquAdvantage salmon was the next thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Conley.

The presentations are over.

I will give six-minute turns.

We'll start with Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Anderson, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.

We've talked a bit this morning about obligatory or mandatory GMO labelling. This would be a move towards regulation for traits rather than for health and safety. I'd like to get both of your opinions on that. Is that necessary? We had the debate in the House a number of times. We voted on this bill, and I know I voted consistently on this issue.

Do we need to start labelling for traits, or is it adequate to be labelling for health and safety?

[Andrew Casey]

Mandatory labelling is obviously a very topical discussion.

There are a couple of pieces to this issue. One is that labelling can be done at any point in time. In fact, I looked at a bag of pretzels on my countertop the other day and it says, “Contains no genetically modified organisms”. If you look at the organic movement, you notice that we didn't label for non-organic food; instead, we allowed the organic movement to put on labels saying it's organic. That, I think, is the better way to go, because we know of no scientific evidence to show that GMOs are causing any harm. I would advocate that we keep labels reserved products that we know will harm you: tobacco, peanuts, alcohol. We know there is scientific evidence that shows that those types of products can harm you, and we should reserve the labelling for that. Otherwise, we get to a place where products start to look like NASCAR cars with stickers all over them, making it very hard for you to discern exactly what you're supposed to be worried about and what you should really pay attention to. There's probably a market discipline that needs to come into play that would allow for labelling to take place.

The other challenge with labelling is less about the cost—although we've heard that argument thrown around—and more about how you regulate it once you've put a label on it. It's very easy to say it contains nothing, but how do you scientifically demonstrate that there is no trace of GMOs in a product, as you could do with peanuts? In the peanut world, you see “may contain trace elements of peanuts” or it has absolutely no peanuts.

When I used to work for the forest products industry, it had a similar challenge. It's very easy when you have a piece of lumber that comes out of a tree. You could stamp it and say that it came from this forest and that it was certified to this level. When you get into the pulp world, where you're combining chips from a number of different sources to make the pulp that makes the paper, it's very hard to make sure that all of your upstream sources are certified to the same level.

In the food world, I think it would be the same problem. You could probably certify that steak came from a cow that came from a producer. When you get into things like chips and cereals, though, that involve a number of different sources, it would be very difficult to have any certainty that you could actually put a label on that.

[Dave Conley]

We don't believe that labelling really adds anything. The experts who have reviewed our salmon have found that it's equivalent in every way to an Atlantic salmon. Why would you label something that's exactly the same?

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

Just as a matter of interest, where else is the salmon approval taking place? Are you seeking approval anywhere else? You have it in Canada and in the United States. Are you looking for—

[Dave Conley]

Other markets? Yes. We have trials now in Argentina and in Brazil.

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

How does our approval regulatory process compare to some of these other countries? Andrew talked about it. He obviously felt that our regulatory system is strong right now. He was talking about how solid it is. Do you think that it's timely and predictable? We were told this morning that it's not transparent. Do you think it's transparent?

[Dave Conley]

I think the Canadian system is far superior to what we experienced in the United States.

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

In what areas?

[Dave Conley]

It's a very rational package. You submit all of your data at once, and you're going to get a response within a certain period of time. With the United States, it's more phased in, so it takes a little bit longer. In our case, we were the first to go through the process. We didn't really have a process, so a lot of time was consumed just figuring out what the data package was going to be. Our first data was only submitted in 2004.

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

I don't know if you can answer this question, because you haven't worked in the other areas, but what particular challenges do you think approval for genetically modified animals faces that are not faced by some of the plant products? Is there a difference or not?

[Dave Conley]

In my mind, no. The genetics are the same.

I think that with animals we don't have the same problems. We don't have wind pollination. We don't have to worry about these outside things. Plants would be in a field. They're out in the open environment. Ours are contained. They're basically going to be contained all their lives. The only time they come out of the facility is when they're harvested.

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

Does either of you have any suggestions for marketing approaches that either the industry or the government should be considering in terms of going towards the commercialization of these products? Social licence is a big issue in a number of other areas. Do you have any suggestions on what types of approaches we should be taking in terms of marketing in order to convince the public that these products are safe and are a good choice for them to be eating?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Answer quickly, please. We have five seconds.

[Andrew Casey]

The role of the government, in the industry's view, would be regulatory. Make sure that the regulatory science is as rigorous as possible. The other parts of it will be dealt with by the marketplace. Investors are the primary decision-makers as to whether or not a product will be commercialized. If you're not able to prove that there's going to be a marketplace for it, investors will not invest.

Investors do require that there be a proper regulatory process in place and that intellectual property be treated in a competitive way as well. Those types of hosting conditions that government is responsible for are probably paramount. That will drive investment, and then that will allow for the commercialization to take place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Casey and Mr. Anderson.

Ms. Lockhart, you have six minutes.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations today. I think they were both very interesting and helpful.

AquaBounty is an American company, correct? Is it based in the U.S.?

[Dave Conley]

Yes. Our head office is based in Maynard, Massachusetts.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Can I ask why the company chose to carry out the egg production facility in Prince Edward Island?

[Dave Conley]

As you know, the technology was developed in St. John's, Newfoundland. At the university, the research facilities are small. When we went looking for a facility, the one that met the criteria was the particular one that we purchased in Fortune. It was just a matter of how, when you go looking for property, you have to take where the location is.