Subcommittee on Food Safety Committee on May 27th, 2009

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

You said that reaction to this among producers was quite mixed and that the livestock obviously isn't affected by E. coli when it's alive. However, there's also an aspect to consider—you somewhat put your finger on that—for consumers, who always want to be reassured about what's on their plates. When you look at the statistics, you see that there are roughly 12 million cases of food poisoning in Canada every year and that most of those cases are mainly our responsibility, as regards what we do at home in our kitchens when we handle our food, and so on. Unfortunate things can happen in a processing plant. There was the listeriosis outbreak, for example. That can result in deaths, unfortunately. In general, however, poisoning cases are more attributable to our handling of food in the home.

I was considering the following question. I know you're part of the pharmaceutical industry and that it's your interest that takes precedence, which is normal. However, when we talk about prevention and food traceability for the purpose of monitoring food as it moves on to the shelves and subsequently onto our plates, and about the importance of adequate inspection in processing plants, don't we manage to achieve a very decisive result at some point with regard to the safety of our food? Furthermore, the addition of veterinary medications and food additives could trouble consumers somewhat. I know that when I eat something, I want it to be as natural as possible. You live with that reality as well. Consumers may be troubled by the fact that vaccines are given to an animal that will probably wind up on their plate.

[Rick Culbert]

That is a common concern, but there's not a scientific basis for a fear of a harmful residue from a vaccine. Vaccines, as a category, are not drugs. They are not pharmaceuticals.

All cattle are vaccinated routinely against common cattle diseases. Vaccinating cattle against E. coli 0157 simply stimulates the animal to produce its own immune defences against that strain of bacteria so that it won't live in them. There's no chemical residue in their bodies, and there's no harmful substance to be concerned about at the consumer level.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Could you quickly wrap up, Mr. Culbert? We have to go to Mr. Shipley.

I'm sorry, it's Mr. Allen.

[Rick Culbert]

I think that was it.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You're going to be left out again, Mr. Allen.

Go ahead, Mr. Culbert.

[Rick Culbert]

I think I was done, unless there was some other element of your question I didn't answer .

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

You're telling us it's to immunize the animal. Could this vaccine be compared to the flu vaccine that is given to human beings?

[Rick Culbert]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Mr. Allen.

I'm sorry about that, sir.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Culbert, you talked about the value chain in the sense that the primary producer doesn't see a value, because the animal is not affected in any sort of harmful way, if you will. It doesn't necessarily do anything positive for the primary producer in the sense of marketing that particular animal. At the other end, at the fork end, the consumer is saying, “I don't expect that it should make me sick in the first place.” I'm not sure how you can add value somewhere in that chain that's going to actually make it marketable, because I think if consumers start hearing that this group over here is the one you ought to eat, because that group over there probably has E. coli and you ought not to eat those, if you follow where I'm heading....

[Rick Culbert]

Absolutely.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

That is really the market piece of value-added, which leaves, on the other side of the coin—there are always two sides of a coin—the regulatory side.

Should we be looking at this from a regulatory perspective when it comes to these sorts of initiatives? That would be after the pilot program, obviously, has run its course and we can prove.... I want to hear how many times people talk about science-based initiatives. If indeed it's proven to be effective and leads to a better animal that ultimately is not spreading E. coli and if it diminishes it throughout the entire system, is a regulatory approach something we should be looking at versus the market?

I'll be honest with you. Somewhere in that value chain, I don't see anybody paying for it except the primary producer, who ends up saying, “It's three bucks an animal, and why should I do it, because no one really cares?”

[Rick Culbert]

I share many of your concerns.

To speak to the value chain, you're right, the primary beneficiaries would be in the middle of that value chain. The people who are sourcing live animals as a commodity to turn into beef would like to know that their risk of bringing E. coli through the packing plant door is reduced. Whether they're willing to pay a premium for it or just dictate preferential supplier status, saying that if this farmer vaccinates and this farmer doesn't, I'd rather take his cattle because there's less risk for me, that's one part of the value chain that sees some value to this. But again it's hard to monetize it.

The other elements--and it's certainly more common with our colleagues here from the U.S.--is the threat of litigation and brand liability when a contaminant shows up in your product and has caused a consumer illness. That can very much devastate companies and has put some out of business.

But you're right, our consumers rightfully expect the product they buy to be safe. As I'm sure the committee understands, inspection is not going to do it. As Mr. Hodges said, we have to come up with more ways to prevent it. Even though the risk by some could be regarded as minimal, it's still very real and it still happens. You still can't sample every microscopic portion of meat.

So what can you do to reduce the risk? Here again, we come back to where the source is, and we know that. What can we do to mitigate at the source? Whether it's through regulation is a question to be answered. I guess the same thing is true: until we have even more data on field use of it, which is hard to do without government help, for the reasons you mentioned, then maybe public health has to look at it and say that from a public health perspective, just as with other public health vaccines, this should be done and we'll pay for it, as we do with some other public health vaccines.

That's all I have to say, unless there's something else regarding regulation, Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I was interested in your comment about the market-driven value-added piece versus a regulatory approach. They're not diametrically opposed, but quite often they're on opposite sides of how you decide to go about doing this.

Mr. Hacault or Mr. Anderson—it doesn't really matter who takes this one up—you said that about 15% of farms nationally, I think you said, have what you would consider to be a comprehensive health and safety plan for their entire establishment. Some might have HACCPs and some might have this, depending on what they do. The comment you made, which I found interesting—and when you think about it in that context, it makes sense—was that a safe farm equals safe food. I am paraphrasing, of course, what you said. It talks about all the safe handling of all the things that could have caused cross-contamination, if you're using pesticides or chemicals of any description, or if your processes aren't such that they're safe for not only the animals or the things you do but for you yourself—or your employees, if you have them.

The question that comes to mind for me is, if it's such a small percentage, how do we get folks to understand that we need to get closer to the 85% that aren't versus the 15% that are? How do we approach that? Is it a voluntary thing we should be looking at, understanding that a farm operation is, in a lot of cases, private property but also their home? That poses, I think, a bit of a dilemma from time to time, when it's also your home and you have folks saying, I'd like you to act in a certain way within your home. Most of us don't necessarily like folks to come into our house and tell us how we should act.

How do you foresee that uptake going higher?

[Dean Anderson]

I think I'd like to start by saying that voluntary is the way we would recommend. Regulation, I don't think, is necessarily going to answer the problem any faster than voluntary action would. As the Canadian Agricultural Safety Association, which is now about 15 years old, we've been attempting to raise awareness as our primary method of operation. I work for the Farm Safety Association in Ontario, which is primarily funded through the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. Again, we would not recommend that we enforce that you must have the plans in place. But what we are attempting to do presently as a whole across the country and with our partners provincially is encourage producers to think of safety as a program. Having the program in place will have an economic benefit at the end of your annual year, at the end of your operation, at the end of your day when you go into your house or, as an employee, when you get in your car and you drive home.

So voluntary is definitely the way we go. Awareness is the issue. Complacency is probably our biggest enemy. Most injuries and incidents that occur on farms probably occur out of complacency, thinking that you've done it a hundred times that way. Our older farmer is the one who tends to be a huge risk. But it tends to be an unknown risk, because he's been doing it for 50 years.

The fear we have is that we have a large number of young workers. I would categorize a young worker as someone who has been on the job less than six months. We have a large number of offshore workers coming in and out of the farms program, primarily Mexicans and Jamaicans. Their education and awareness doesn't match that.

There are great benefits from projects like HACCP. HACCP did a wonderful job in some locations to raise awareness of food safety. And in generating the food safety issue, all of a sudden the cleaning of feed bins generated huge issues around why I have to have fall arrest, I have to change manholes, I have to change my washing procedures. Avian influenza and food issues that started from there raised huge issues around protective equipment on farms. So having an emergency preparedness plan as part of a business plan, as part of a safety plan, has actually had dramatic impacts on reducing our injuries in family and business farms across the country.

So we say voluntary but not regulatory. Does that answer the question?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll have to catch you next time. A very quick one.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I don't disagree about the voluntary versus the regulatory approach except for the fact that if I'm the individual farmer, then I guess that's my choice. But if I hire people, is it my choice not to train them?

[Dean Anderson]

The Occupational Health and Safety Act would probably say that it is regulated now. To what extent depends on the province and the jurisdiction.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

But you are--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I want to go to Mr. Shipley, Mr. Allen.

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you very much for being here.

It is my turn, though, Malcolm. I took his the last time, unfortunately.

I wanted to thank you for coming here, and I do want to welcome our friends from the States to be a part of this panel. Thank you for taking the time to be here.

Mr. Culbert, you raised a number of interesting scenarios by being here representing a pharmaceutical company. You're marketing your product by indicating that there's quite an issue around E. coli 0157. You must have tracked the number of people in Canada who have been affected or have died from what your product will stop. Can you tell me the number?

[Rick Culbert]

The estimated number is 28,000 Canadians each year who become ill due to E. coli 0157.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

And vaccinating the animal will stop those 28,000 from becoming ill.

[Rick Culbert]

It's not that absolute, in the same way as vaccinating for polio didn't totally eradicate it the first year. If the people are not exposed to that strain of E. coli, obviously they can't become ill. If our vaccine reduces or ultimately stops cattle from shedding it, then you're going to get to that point. But it's not all on, all off; no vaccine is.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I'm trying to learn a little more about it, because I'll be honest with you, through all of these discussions that we've had on food safety, this is the first time this has come up. We've had a lot of other issues come up, but not this one.

Can you tell me, when you do the vaccination...? I think you had indicated somewhere that the animal gets vaccinated two times?