Agriculture Committee on Oct. 18th, 2016

[Ruth Salmon]

It's a good question. Here in Canada, we've been farming shellfish for a lot longer but we've been farming salmon for about the last 35 years. In that time, the industry has certainly grown in Canada, though not at the same pace that it has worldwide. Our competitors in Norway, Scotland, and Chile have grown at a much faster rate. The demand for the product is there worldwide. We've been actually stalled in production in the last 12 or 13 years, and as I mentioned to your colleague, that's basically because of regulatory challenges. In terms of when we began production, it's about a 35-year-old industry here in Canada.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

When the industry began, did you face challenges as well with consumer acceptance, looking at farmed salmon versus wild salmon? What were consumers looking for at that point?

[Ruth Salmon]

It's an interesting question, because there are certainly pockets of the population that are critical of the industry simply because it's new and unfamiliar. I mean, 35 years isn't a long time compared to agriculture. Certainly, there has always been a very quick acceptance in the marketplace, because the product is high quality, and that was received positively very early on.

In reference to the last question, we still have a job to do and continue to focus on consumer information about our industry: how we farm, the best practices we use, and the fact that our industry is well grounded in science and that all our salmon farming companies in Canada are certified to a global standard, so they have gone beyond the regulatory bar and meet a global standard.

We are still involved in getting that information out because, as you say, a 35-year period is actually quite fast to have consumers embrace a new industry, so we continue to do that consumer information education piece.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

It would be key from your perspective that consumers need to be informed about the product they are consuming—

[Ruth Salmon]

Absolutely.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

—and that the onus is on the industry to provide that education, to a degree.

[Ruth Salmon]

The industry will always have a role to play in informing about the products. We take that seriously. Others may have a role to play too, but you are absolutely right that when any kind of new technology or industry moves ahead, consumer information is part of that.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Okay.

During your process, obviously labelling must have come up in discussions on how you differentiate between wild salmon versus farmed salmon. Has there ever been any labelling requirements or has the industry taken any measures in regard to labelling?

[Ruth Salmon]

That's an interesting question.

It's been our perspective that there's a demand for both wild and farmed in the marketplace. Up until the approval of the genetically modified technology, were the two types of salmon available in the marketplace coming from aquaculture and not from the traditional fishery? Our perspective has always been that we want consumers to eat more salmon and that there's a place for wild and farmed. Health Canada is suggesting that we should be eating two servings of salmon a week. In Canada we don't even eat two servings a month. Our competitors aren't the wild salmon. We want to do more to get people to eat more seafood.

Does that answer your question?

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

I think so. I'm just trying to track the experience with aquaculture, and trying to compare that to where we are on the timeline with GMO salmon, and some of the reasons that aquaculture is a growing industry. I think those are good points.

[Ruth Salmon]

Exactly. As I say, we've not been able to meet the demand. Our members often say to me that they could sell double the amount of salmon that they have if they had access to it, if they could produce it. Our challenge hasn't been to try to defend against the wild industry. It's been to encourage people to eat more salmon and work with our politicians and our federal government to improve our regulatory and legislative framework so that we can grow sustainably and responsibly to meet that demand.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Ms. Lockhart and Ms. Salmon.

Ms. Brosseau, you have the floor and you have six minutes.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the two witnesses who are appearing before the committee today.

Mr. Rehn, thank you for your presentation.

Several countries have already brought in measures making the labelling of GMO foods mandatory. The European Union, for instance, has already adopted policies on this. In Canada, the labelling of these products is not mandatory because the Canadian government considers that they have no impact on health or nutritional quality.

This is not the first time that we have seen private members' bills on this matter come before Parliament. During this session, my colleague Pierre-Luc Dusseault tabled Bill C-291, which concerns the mandatory labelling of GMO foods. I think this is important. You explained well in your presentation that we are entitled to know what is in our plates and what we are eating. This is not just for reasons of health, since it also raises ethical and environmental issues, as well as religious ones.

According to your studies, would the cost of a basket of groceries increase if Canada brought in mandatory GMO labelling?

[Thibault Rehn]

That is a question we are asked often.

When we launched a campaign in Quebec in favour of mandatory GMO labelling, we asked Université de Montréal researchers what studies had been published on the consequences of such a measure on the cost of food. There are no studies that have shown that the cost of a basket of groceries would increase.

In the United States, the industry fought for years to prevent mandatory GMO labelling, because it felt that this would increase its production costs enormously and that consumers would suffer the consequences in increased food costs.

However, since Vermont introduced mandatory GMO labelling last July 1, companies like Campbell's and Kellogg's, who are giants in the food industry, have adapted and begun to change their packaging. In fact, they began this process even before mandatory labelling became law in Vermont. Company representatives told us openly that this was not more costly, and that they changed their packaging on a regular basis in any case to adapt to consumers' tastes, and that they would not see an increase in food costs.

In short, the cost of food has not increased since Campbell's and Kellogg's took those steps. Consequently we doubt that consumers would see any significant increase in the cost of food.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

People have said, among other things, that there is not enough space on the labels. Things are not always clear when we go to the grocery store and try to decipher the data on the nutritional value of certain products. It is sometimes difficult to track down certain products.

You also talked about the need to carry out studies and to consult Canadians so that they can be confident. We need studies on economic and environmental impacts. There are concerns in Quebec concerning alfalfa.

You said earlier that producers and other Canadians were not consulted on genetically modified apples. Could you tell us more about the need for in-depth studies, and especially, the need to consult Canadians in order to ensure that they will want to buy these products? I don't know if Canadians would be willing to buy GM salmon if they knew that in the United States 80 retail chains are refusing to sell this GM salmon.

Could you tell us more about the importance of having in-depth studies and consulting Canadians on this?

[Thibault Rehn]

As I was saying earlier, GMOs have been on the market for 20 years. The Canadian government spends enormous sums to try to convince people that these products are safe, but it still isn't working. Health Canada published a survey recently and its results were sent to the committee two weeks ago. People have overall doubts about the safety of GMOs. This is also why this committee was created.

Transparency is important when it comes to scientific studies. We would like to see more money allocated to Health Canada so that the department can do its own studies. If we tell consumers—as is the case currently—that most of the studies are conducted by industry—not all of them, but the majority of them—it is difficult for the consumer to trust these products, because they know that the organization that conducts the studies is the organization that wants to sell them. So there is a great lack of trust.

Moreover, how can we ask a consumer to trust a product when the objective of these companies is to hide the content of these products, since they don't want to label them? You can't ask someone to trust a product when the information about it is hidden. Labelling is also important and needs to be put in place.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

According to the surveys, for 20 years, a large majority of Canadians have been asking for mandatory GMO labelling. The position of processors may be mixed, but I think that Canadians want information on the products they consume.

Ms. Salmon, you said in your testimony that it's really important that Canadians know what they're eating, if it's farmed, if it's wild, and that you support—

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Madam Brosseau, we're out of time. I'll give you a chance to ask your question and hear a quick answer.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Is your organization for or against genetically modified salmon labelling? If the government were to go ahead with the labelling of genetically modified foods, would you support that decision too?

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Quickly, madam.

[Ruth Salmon]

Yes. We'll support whatever the government's decision is, for sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Pat Finnigan]

Thank you, Madam Brosseau.

Mr. Breton, you have the floor and you have six minutes.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am going to continue in the same vein as my colleague and discuss the issue of labelling.

Mr. Rehn, you are in favour of mandatory GMO labelling. You spoke about trust and informing consumers who want to know what is in their plate and what they are purchasing.

In your opinion, what are the main arguments being put forth by those who do not want to see specific labelling for GM salmon?

[Thibault Rehn]

One of the main arguments is the fear that consumers will reject the product. You probably know that the industry spends a lot of money to develop new products. If the market does not exist, it would have been a very unfortunate investment.

The second argument is that it will cost retailers too much. However, as we saw earlier, this does not necessarily entail enormous costs.

Those are the two main arguments. However, the issue is not just knowing whether this is bad or good for our health. Knowing what we eat is a fundamental right. In fact, labelling already exists in 64 countries. We often hear about the European Union, but India, China and Australia also have some degree of mandatory labelling. North America is really lagging behind on this.