Agriculture Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The testimony that we heard last week.... I want to make sure that when we talk about GM products, it is a science-based approach. Are there scientific studies that you've read that are causing concerns for you?

[Lucy Sharratt]

We have discussed, in one of our reports, the question of scientific consensus in the scientific literature, which does not exist. We see in the public that there's a discussion back and forth about what the science tells us, and there's controversy. We also think there's the issue of what Canadians tell us about what they want in agriculture and food. In addition to the science-based questions before regulators, there are also economic and perhaps ethical and social questions to be asked.

On the science, the answer is not concluded. The questions continue to be explored, and that's the scientific process.

There are many issues in Canadian regulation that point to the problems of science used in Canadian regulation. It is not, for the most part, peer-reviewed science, for example.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Last week we heard from Health Canada and Agriculture Canada, and they assured us that their scientists are well educated and have the proper training to do the analysis. When companies come forward, it takes about 10 years to put a product to market, and then Health Canada and Environment Canada will do an analysis of this. It's a science-based approach. Are you saying that you're not confident in that system?

[Lucy Sharratt]

What we heard from regulators was an implication that the regulators are performing the function of peer review in the absence of peer review. What's happening is that corporations are providing data packages to Canadian regulators. Those data packages are kept as confidential business information. They're not available to the public. That equally means it's not peer-reviewed science. There are some exceptions with one or two studies.

Systemically, the lack of transparency in Canadian regulation is also attached to this question of whose science it is and whether that science is peer-reviewed.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

But we've also heard from Health Canada that they collaborate with other governments and with the WHO. Don't you think the WHO or other health organizations would have issued major health concerns if GM products did have specific health concerns for human consumption?

[Lucy Sharratt]

I think it's really important that we look to regulators in terms of what they're examining, which is product-by-product regulation. The question of GM food safety is actually about the GM trait and its application, and each product is different and requires its own regulatory process. That's where these questions come into play. Then there's also an ongoing controversy over different risk questions out there in the global scientific literature.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

That brings me to my next point, about GM labelling.

I'm concerned about legitimate health concerns for somebody who has, let's say, diabetes. If we're doing this for purely marketing reasons, labels don't have all the space in the world. They're very tiny, and somebody with diabetes needs to know how much carbohydrate and sugar they consume. If we're including something for purely marketing reasons, then we're sacrificing something else.

That's where—in my personal view—I don't think the government has a role to play. If it's only for health and safety, government plays a role, but if it's for marketing, don't you believe that the government shouldn't be involved?

[Lucy Sharratt]

I do think that if Canadians are asking to know whether genetically modified foods are on our shelves so they can decide whether to put that product in their grocery basket or not, I think it's incumbent on the Canadian government to provide that information. I think part of the study that could be done is on whether that sacrifices space. I would hope it doesn't. There are a lot of competing labels and pieces of information that belong on products, and 80% of Canadians want this other information to be on that product label as well.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I wonder if you believe the poll results would be the same if we asked the question, “If we include GMO labelling, are you okay with us sacrificing legitimate health concern labelling on product labelling?”

[Lucy Sharratt]

Yes, I think we would need those facts in order to ask that question.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have a question for Mr. Prouse.

Can you talk to me about what your industry does in terms of ensuring that legitimate health concerns are addressed before a product hits the market?

[Dennis Prouse]

You talked a little bit about the length of time. It goes through the lab, it goes through field trials, and then it finally goes in for submission. That's a very lengthy piece.

We often hear, “You can't trust corporations; you can't trust their science.” The question I would ask people is if there is any corporation that would spend $150 million and seven to 10 years of development time on a seed in which they have no confidence. When not one seed submitted over a 20-year period has ever been shown to have health or safety concerns, either in Canada or anywhere globally, I would further suggest that the track record is very good. I think the proof is in the track record and I think safety for Canadians is tied within the record of CFIA and their collaboration globally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Prouse.

Thank you, Monsieur Drouin.

Mr. Gourde, you have six minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to talk about the cost-benefit ratio, and I want to know whether the consumer or the producer benefits. It's well understood that, in the past 15 to 20 years, biotechnology has dramatically improved plant and grain yields. Take soya, for example. About 15 years ago, in my region, we were very happy when one tonne of soya was harvested. Today, that's considered a poor yield, since each acre now provides 1.35 to 1.50 tonnes. The seed companies have made great strides.

Reseach results in costs that are transferred to the producers. If a company develops a seed that cost $150 million to research, in the next 10 years, the seed companies will undoubtedly transfer the cost of the research to the producer. However, the producer won't necessarily be able to obtain a price for the grain that differs from the market price. Sometimes, things are going well, the prices are good and everything is fine. But when global prices drop, the price of seed doesn't decrease. In general, the price increases by 2%, 3% or 4% a year, and this doesn't affect the sale price of products on the market.

In the future, do you think the pendulum will swing in favour of producers, or will the price of seed keep increasing? The producers risk being caught in a no-win situation.

They don't have a choice. They need to get their seed from somewhere, and practically all the seed is genetically modified. This generates costs, and they can't predict the market price in the coming years.

[Dennis Prouse]

You're talking about the availability of seed to farmers. I'll say a couple of things very quickly.

First, I think if you asked all of the different grower groups and all of the different agricultural groups, I think they'd say the selection of seeds that they have available for purchase every year continues to be very good. There's a wide variety. The Canadian Seed Trade Association could respond to that as well.

There's one other interesting development that I think is instructive for the committee. In the last couple of years, the first generation of GM seeds has come off patent. That was a new development, obviously. The question was what impact that would have on the industry. Frankly, it hasn't had very much of an impact at all, because the demand from farmers is for the newest generation of seeds. The demand for seeds that went off patent was exceptionally low. It's interesting to watch how the marketplace moves and how the marketplace works. We think that there's great choice available for farmers. That global marketplace is going to evolve, and Canada is just a very small part of it.

[Lucy Sharratt]

We're very concerned that the price of seed continues to rise, as does the price of all agricultural inputs. Seed prices are rising faster than most. With the potential merger of Bayer and Monsanto and the increased consolidation of not just six top seeds and pesticide companies but three, controlling perhaps 60% of the seeds and pesticide market, there will be more pricing power in fewer hands. The trend is increased cost for farmers. It's farmers who are paying for that. Farm debt is not being alleviated.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Given the concentration of the large companies that will control both seed production and pesticide products, do you think any practically exclusive seed could be rented or loaned to farmers? Do you think the large seed companies will take these products and create other products destined for widespread human consumption, and the farmers will become mere intermediaries in terms of production and their land's contribution to humanity?

[Lucy Sharratt]

Already in the major crops of corn, canola, and soy, farmers are in some cases having a difficult time finding non-GM seed. Given the investment in genetic engineering by the big seed and pesticide companies in whichever crops they decide to focus on, whichever traits they decide to focus on, one of the outcomes of the increased corporate concentration is perhaps this disincentive to innovate and focus on a diversity of products for farmers.

[Dennis Prouse]

I would simply encourage you and other committee members to hear directly from grower groups on this issue. The grower groups are here. They're represented in Ottawa. They're represented more broadly. There is a seed trade association and a seed growers association. I'm very confident that you'll find that they feel they do have a wide selection of seed available to them and that they do have choices. Again, I would encourage you not to take my word for that. There are grower groups available that could speak to that question directly.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

On Saturday night, I sat down with the pork producers in my region. They seemed very worried about the future, because there appears to be a vertical concentration between the geneticists that give them the genetics and the agri-food companies that provide the food. They take the same pork in their own slaughterhouses to export to niche markets.

So, the producer is at home. Basically, he provides his time, buildings and land for a set amount, from $16 to $22 for pork. The producers have little choice left but to keep pork. It's a way to keep people paid, but they are self-employed workers who give more of their time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde. Your time is up.

Peter, if it's okay with you, we might have to do a three-minute section because we're going to be short of time.

Thank you.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Sure.

I'm not a member of this committee. I'm sitting in for a colleague today. I am very interested in agriculture because I have a huge interest in the developing world. The United Nations says that 795 million people, or 10% of the world's population, are chronically undernourished.

Don't we need to look at ways to grow food faster, more efficiently? I know there are animals that are resistant to disease or that have an increased nutritional value for the consumers. I know there are studies in place on cattle that don't get mad cow disease or transmit it and on goats that produce milk containing an enzyme that could prevent deadly diarrhea in a million children each year.

Ms. Sharratt, could you comment on that? There seems to be a great deal of potential in terms of genetically modified animals for dealing with some very severe problems of poverty, and specifically undernourishment, in the developing world.

[Lucy Sharratt]

Thank you.

Certainly the issue of malnourishment is in fact the product of poverty. It's less a problem of agricultural productivity and more an issue of wealth distribution, access to land, and access to the tools to work that land. This is an important question when we look at genetically engineered livestock that would be bought. These are patented organisms, just like genetically modified crops. Farmers would pay a price for accessing seeds and genetics. Right now, small-scale farmers across the world feed their communities with livestock that they control. If we look to the future role of genetic engineering in these really important social questions, we also need to look and see how impracticality would work as a dynamic in small communities.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I have less than a minute left.

A two-year review recently completed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine examined 900 studies. It found “...no differences that would implicate a higher risk to human health from eating GE foods than from eating non-GE counterparts” and “...little evidence to connect GE crops and their associated technologies with adverse agronomic or environmental problems.”

That's a noted organization commissioning a study that looked at 900 studies. When we examine this issue, we have to do so from the basis of what the evidence says. What do you say when we have a study that seems so robust?

[Lucy Sharratt]

I would say that it's excellent that such studies are done and that there continues to be investigation in the international community. That includes the continued safety studies that, unfortunately, there are not enough of—that is, long-term independent studies on different GM products. We need to review all of those studies, certainly, but we also need to continue doing the experiments that would allow us to investigate all of those questions as well.