Agriculture committee  The majority use of that standard in labelling has been for non-GM declarations, which is equally covered by the standard, as opposed to GM declarations.

Agriculture committee  Yes. It is quite low. We know that some companies have recently indicated their intent to label. They are multinationals, so this is not Canadian only. At present, that is a very small number.

Agriculture committee  You've now strayed into policy, which officials can't comment on, and so I won't because we can't. We have been watching the U.S. developments with great care. It's an important market, and we'll want to be in a position, as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, given our regulatory responsibilities for labelling, to support Canadian business for products going to the U.S.

Agriculture committee  Consumer confidence is a complex issue. It's always interesting when you contrast poll outputs with behaviour in the marketplace. I think this is one of the poster child issues for differences between what people say in polls and what they do in the marketplace. Beyond that, I'm not going to suggest that I have the answer.

Agriculture committee  Let me assure you that, in terms of addressing oversight in relation to food, that's the principal role the agency plays, so with respect to responsibilities in review, inspection, etc., that falls in our jurisdiction, absolutely, and I think the same would hold for my colleagues in Environment Canada as it relates to the enforcement with relation to CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Agriculture committee  My view, as it relates to biotechnology, would be that we're making progress. We've seen some really important developments in developing countries, which see that the use of the technology can contribute to their development. Panama is a good example. For a country that's strongly agriculturally based, that's not just development in agriculture; it's economic development.

Agriculture committee  We have done some really good work on the issue of low-level presence by collaborating with some of those countries that are like-minded. I know this committee is familiar with it because it represents a barrier to Canadian market access.

Agriculture committee  Perhaps I can start, and Karen will want to add. The reality is that there aren't big differences when we look at it from a safety perspective. I mentioned in my opening remarks that one means of modifying products genetically is mutagenesis. It's what we would call more of a shotgun approach.

Agriculture committee  I think the examples you point to are further examples of Canadian innovation, such as the Enviropig and its development as a GM animal, one that hasn't come to the marketplace, and also the work that was done in terms of goats expressing spider silk in their milk. The innovative capacity is there.

Agriculture committee  Thank you for your question.

Agriculture committee  Thank you. Perhaps I can take that. The international standard is actually quite good. The problem is uptake. Not all jurisdictions are ready to apply the international guidance in terms of safety assessment to these products in terms of GM animals. The standard is there. I think we and our colleagues in the U.S. have demonstrated that in using that standard you can reach a conclusion informed by the science.

Agriculture committee  You point to something that is perhaps the most significant challenge for us. As regulators, our role is confidence in the regulatory system and the decisions we take as opposed to promoting the product. As Karen noted, we share information, both technical and non-technically characterized, on the decisions we've made.

Agriculture committee  Okay, I'll start. Thank you for your question. There are risk considerations, and that's why the safety assessment process is there. If genetic modification didn't have any potential to introduce risk, then we wouldn't need it. We recognize that if in modifying an organism...because you are changing the heritable traits of the organism, if you introduce a gene associated with toxicity as an example, then you will be introducing risk.

Agriculture committee  Yes, and thank you very much for the question. Also, thank you for the kind words with respect to the work in terms of market access. During that period, typically at the early research stage, there is little interaction, because the company at that point is finding out if they have something that will have mileage.

Agriculture committee  Absolutely, though I'm not going to say that every person who works on the file has to have been in the agency for 10 years. These are career public servants. We're not drawing in hired guns just to carry out a review. These folks are carrying out reviews across the span of products that we look at, and not just in terms of GM products.