Certainly. Thank you very much for this opportunity to present and include the aquatic realm in your deliberations. We are in court on this topic this morning.
As you said, I'm the policy director for the Ecology Action Centre. Prior to working at the Ecology Action Centre, I worked for a time in the fishing industry. I also worked at the Huntsman Marine Science Centre teaching biology. I was there at a time when research into how to make salmonites more resistant to super chilling was occurring.
The Ecology Action Centre is an environmental organization founded in 1971. We endeavour to ground our work in science. Most of our staff have science backgrounds. We try to find solutions that integrate the economy and the environment. Prior to the engagement on the issue of GM salmon, we did relatively little work on this issue. We became involved because of the threat to wild Atlantic salmon. As we have become more familiar with this issue, it is the threat to species with wild counterparts that concerns us.
First, we are concerned about the risk to wild salmon should GM salmon escape. We are worried that GM salmon could outcompete wild salmon for resources, such as food, habitat, and mates. Second, and even more important, we are worried that these salmon could breed with wild salmon and change the genetic makeup of wild salmon forever. This would have unknown ecological consequences and economic consequences. I should note that research also shows that GM salmon can interbreed with wild brown trout.
You might be thinking, “but these fish are sterile and on land”. Our greatest concern is with the commercialization. At that point, you are talking hundreds of millions of fish being grown in numerous facilities and potentially close to some of our famous Atlantic salmon rivers in New Brunswick, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. At the commercial scale, the reassurances aren't so reassuring. We know that fish have escaped from land-based facilities before. We also know that triploid induction is not 100% effective. When you are talking about hundreds of millions of fish, 1% or 3% or 5% starts to look like a lot.
We are not looking for problems or windmills to tilt at. Atlantic salmon have enough problems without embedding them. It's an endangered species. Unfortunately, we see a problem that is underappreciated and downplayed by the industry. If these fish escape into Atlantic Canadian salmon rivers, they will put at risk a substantial recreational industry, which is particularly important in rural areas.
We are in court because we are upset by the current handling of this issue. AquaBounty received approval for commercial production in Canada without there being an assessment of commercial grow out. The export of eggs from one research facility is a very different matter from the production of millions of fish at numerous facilities. We are requesting that a strategic environmental assessment be carried out on the risk to aquatic systems from GM organisms.
There also has been no public consultation in Canada around the first GM food animal in the world, and there's been no consultation with stakeholders, be it the aquaculture industry, the commercial fishing industry, the tourism industry, or the recreational fishing industry. I would also point out that there has been no consultation with first nations and indigenous peoples. Atlantic salmon was and is a very important species for first nations in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. Altering the genome of this fish should trigger consultation.
When this fish was approved for human consumption in the U.S., there was a reaction from the Alaskan fishing industry. As a result, until the labelling issue is resolved in the U.S., it is my understanding that approval in the U.S. is on hold.
In Nova Scotia, our fisheries minister has spoken out against GM salmon. He is quoted as saying, “We're more interested in making sure we protect what we have. Until someone can prove to us and to the public that this will be a good idea—and I don't see much support anywhere for this—we're not interested.” Keith Colwell also said he is concerned about what the impact of accidentally introducing genetically engineered fish would have on natural populations from both an ecological and sports fishing standpoint. That was on May 20, 2016, following approval from Heath Canada.
I have spoken about some of the risks. Others have spoken of benefits. For Atlantic Canada, I don't see the broader economic benefits. Yes, the company stands to gain by controlling the broodstock, but I don't see the lift, including jobs, to the broader economy. I also understand that the growth rates of this salmon have not been independently verified.
The Ecology Action Centre does some work around seafood labelling. The trend in the seafood industry is toward traceability and transparency. Consumers want to know more, and they want consistency of information across product. As you know, other jurisdictions label for GM.
Finally, I understand that many of you represent constituents that are growing GM crops, and that places you in a difficult position. I would ask that you give special consideration to our wild Atlantic salmon and the risk to all wild species in your deliberations.
Thank you very much.