Evidence of meeting #24 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 gmos.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC
Yes.
Out of the five large producer countries, two use labelling. That is what you said, and I believe I also read it in your report.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC
Still, there are three countries out of the five large producers who do not use labelling.
Do you have any information to give us about those three countries?
9:20 a.m.
Coordinator, Vigilance OGM
Yes.
In fact, the largest GMO producer in the world, our neighbour the United States, produces approximately 40% of all GMOs in the world. Then come Brazil and Argentina, who together also produce 40% of GMOs. There is also India and Canada, who produce approximately 6% each. As for India, the product is mainly cotton. There is mandatory labelling in that country, even if some might say that legislation is difficult to put in place there. Brazil also has mandatory labelling, although there are some gaps when it comes to consumers.
So there are five countries that produce 90% of all GMOs in the world. Consequently it is a myth to say that that technology has been adopted by everyone. We see that after 20 years, there are still only five countries producing 90% of all GMOs. Last year there were as many GMOs in Canada as in 188 countries in the world. So this is not a technology that has been adopted by everyone.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Salmon, my next question is for you.
Obviously, there are studies that show that the consumer will be much more interested in conventional salmon. I don't know if you agree with that. Perhaps you could tell us what you think about that and also what would ensure that consumers might be more interested in buying genetically modified salmon.
We know that it has been approved in Canada and the United States. So we are likely to see it arriving on store shelves in the coming months.
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance
Backing up to your earlier question, certainly our members are in touch with their customers both at the retail and the restaurant levels, and they're hearing the same thing, namely, that the customers are not interested in genetically modified salmon.
That's really critical because we feel the problem is that there's a gap in the amount of farmed salmon that's available on the marketplace today. We feel that we can fill that gap without utilizing genetically modified technology. That helps all Canadians. It helps industry. It helps Canada. It's something that the consumers and the marketplace demand.
From our perspective, we're not really interested in seeing genetically modified technology move forward when our customers are not interested.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Pierre Breton Liberal Shefford, QC
Similarly, we know that there is also some reluctance in the United States on the part of several retail chains to sell genetically modified salmon. We know of dozens, including Costco, which is one of the largest retailers in the United States. Do you have an idea about whether there might be a similar trend here, in Canada?
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance
Certainly, from talking to my members who are in touch with the buyers in Canada, it's exactly the same trend. Consumers in Canada and the U.S. are not interested in eating genetically modified salmon.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. Breton and Ms. Salmon.
In the second round, we will go with six-minute periods for questions.
The first one is from Mr. Longfield.
October 18th, 2016 / 9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thanks to both of the witnesses for coming forward.
We're really doing our best to have a balanced study here and you're giving us some information that contradicts earlier information we received. This is why we do these things.
Health Canada, industry, universities, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada are all saying that at a molecular level there is no difference between this salmon and the salmon we're consuming right now. Studies have been going on since the 1980s and we're now coming to the point of having this product enter the marketplace.
First of all, I have a question for Mr. Rehn in terms of the studies being done.
Health Canada has been doing studies. The universities have been doing studies, as has the CFIA. What studies are you looking for? What gaps do you see in the studies that we should be continuing with?
9:25 a.m.
Coordinator, Vigilance OGM
If you have access to Health Canada's long-term study on the impact for human consumption, I would be really happy to see it, because I think nothing exists.
There is no consensus on science, so it is not saying that there is a consensus and we need less science because everything is solid. We need more science. There was a letter signed by more than 300 scientists on biotech in Europe saying there was no consensus on the impact of GMO products on health.
The miracle solution is not to say at the last minute that we have already done enough scientific research and that everything is going well. Rather, the goal is to do more research to fully ensure that there is no impact on health.
As you say, it isn't just the impact of GMOs on health. Even if genetic modification had no impact, we know that GMO crops require a significant amount of pesticides and that, in scientific research, the impact of pesticides on health is well documented. There is a consensus on the matter, namely, that pesticides act negatively on plants and insects. Although there was a consensus from one day to the next that genetic modification has no impact, the fact that more pesticides are being used globally in GMO crops has an impact on the environment and on health.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Perhaps I could extend that a bit. The CFIA studies, Agriculture Canada studies, look for the impacts of pesticides to make sure they're not transferred into the food that we're eating and for other environmental impacts around pesticides. The scientists at the University of Guelph whom I've spoken to get very upset around the arguments about genetically modified foods being worse than other foods, because they say it takes chemicals out of foods, that it takes some of the negative environmental aspects out of food production. We're looking at feeding a hungry planet that's getting bigger all the time, and they see genetics as a way forward.
Obviously, your group is looking at that in terms of social impacts and other impacts. You're providing the other side of that argument.
9:25 a.m.
Coordinator, Vigilance OGM
Once again, I simply have to look at the Statistics Canada figures.
Since the introduction of GMOs in Canada, pesticides sales have risen 130%. How can we say that the use of pesticides has declined and that their impact on the environment has decreased? It's impossible.
In fact, there were empty promises that would have us believe that GMOs would help us feed the world, grow crops in dry habitats or increase productivity. However, these GMO seeds are in laboratories and are not being marketed because seed companies sell pesticides and have an interest in continuing to do so.
Unfortunately, they have been successful in doing so because sales of their products have increased. There is currently nothing in the world to feed people. There is everything you need, however, to sell pesticides.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Thank you very much.
Ms. Salmon, on the impact on the Canadian aquaculture industry, I'm listening to your testimony but thinking that the fish we're talking about coming back to Canada, the salmon coming back to Canada, are being raised outside of our industry. Do you see that as a major competitor to your industry that would be filling a gap that otherwise could be filled by Canadian businesses?
9:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance
I would like to be clear about your question. Do we feel that the genetically modified product coming into Canada would be a competitor?
9:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance
Again, we're making our growth decisions and plans for the future based on the current marketplace and the customers that my members have. They tell my members they're not interested in purchasing that product, so we don't see it as a major threat.
We don't oppose the approval of genetically modified salmon. It's just not a technology that our members are interested in pursuing.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
In terms of Health Canada, I don't think we would be allowed to grow that product in Canada.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Pat Finnigan
Thank you, Mr. Longfield.
I will now give Mr. Shipley the floor for six minutes.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Thank you to our witnesses for coming out.
I'm always interested in comments like what Mr. Rehn, for example, has made about the lack of benefit to the general public. Prior witnesses spoke about the lack of benefit to the producers. What we know now is that there are some 18 million farmers who actually use GMO in their business. What we've also found is that in the seed business, when you actually talk to the dealers out my way, those most technical seeds, which at the start tend to be the most expensive—it will cost you a hundred bucks or a little better an acre to plant, just for the seed—they're the first to go. I'm always wondering when I hear that what the thought is of the presenter who says there's no benefit to the farmer, when actually the farmer sees it as having a great economic benefit, a great environmental benefit.
Also, we have a report that came out by the American Council on Science and Health which was an analysis of 147 studies. The studies were not done just in Canada or the United States, but globally about the impact of GM soybean, maize, cotton crops, pesticide use, and farmer profits. What they found is crop yields increased 22%, farmer profit increased 68%, and they also found that GM technology has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%.
We're always going to have these discussions about the use, but what I can tell you from on the ground.... I'm assuming that when we're talking about aquaculture and GMO salmon, we're not talking about safety and those issues. It's already been determined that those products are safe. What we are concerned about is how we market that, because we clearly know the benefits, not only in profit.... Some will say that all the big companies are interested in is profit. Actually, it's about the farmer. If we don't have an economically sound farming industry, aquaculture industry, then we don't have safe secure food that is economical to the consumer.
With that, I just want to ask Mr. Rehn one question. Are there any GMO products that you actually approve of?
9:30 a.m.
Coordinator, Vigilance OGM
Yes.
The organization I represent is not against science. When people have diabetes, they use insulin that is derived from a genetically modified plan that secretes this substance. We totally agree with that. As long as it remains in a laboratory, and there is no possible contamination, and it is done in order to help people, we have no problem with this kind of technology.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Ms. Salmon, as I mentioned, I think the issue comes around to marketing. You said that there's a resistance among the retailers and consumers, and yet when we go through the regime.... You talked about the scientific regime or the approval regime, or some of it, in terms of conventional as opposed to GMO being very complex, or confusing, or frustrating maybe in terms of the conventional, and yet when we talk to Health Canada, Agriculture Canada, CFIA, the approval process for GMO is much more rigorous than for conventional, because it has to bring in those environmental and food safety issues.
I don't understand why a marketing agency or a retailer would not give options of conventional, wild, or GMO. We do that in conventional food products. We do it in terms of organic food products.
What are your thoughts about this? I believe this is an industry issue. How does an industry come together to meet the demand? You're saying two meals per week.