Agriculture Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2011

[Dr. Andrew Schmitz]

I believe there's a huge payoff from getting back to the organizations we had in the nineties. For example, if I had a committee with my colleagues in there--including the people from the U.S., Florida, etc.--I think we could come up with an interesting report or consensus that might have a big payoff on how to move forward. But as long as we work independently and in different places, the results are always diffuse and we never come into some coalition that can move the process forward. But I think it would have a huge payoff.

Just as an example, years ago we set up an international trade consortium meeting, and now we also set up a society of benefit-cost analysts, and it's had huge payoffs in terms of getting together twice a year to talk about trade issues and how you do this kind of benefit-cost work.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Anyone else?

Kofi, I'd like to know more about the terminology you raised: genomics. I don't know a lot about it. Do you see that as a substitute for...? Clearly it isn't, but could you tell us more?

[Dr. Kofi Agblor]

It started--was it in the eighties--and it finally cost about $2 billion to sequence a human genome. It was a global effort. I think we were part of that, led mainly by the U.S. and the EU.

Essentially, genomics takes a very good look into the DNA makeup of an organism, whether it's a bacterium, a plant, or an animal.

The first point is to sequence that DNA. Essentially, it's like breaking it into its constituent parts. But knowing where the genes are and the location of those genes we believe gives you an understanding of whether there is a gene we know that is conferring resistance to a major disease, for example. Maybe it's present in a related species or in the wild. If it is, then you can work to bring it in. The tools are being developed so you don't have to cross it into a cultivar it and do it backwards. It takes you forever to clean it up. You can bring it in, in a much more efficient way.

We think it will increase the rate at which we can adopt traits. Also, the kinds of traits, like GMOs, may not be very good in terms of a single gene trait when you have a multiple gene effect, especially on diseases, which is what breeders say. Most diseases have a multiple gene effect.

It will also help with biodiversity. If we have species out there today in labs, in our gene banks, we cannot use them because we don't know how to make effective use of the trait. Genomics will be the way to go.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Before that, Éric, I do have another question on.... You mentioned GMO labelling. I'm not a proponent of it, nor an opponent of it. But I'm curious, what would that look like?

Richard or Andrew or anyone.... If any product has any GMO in it at all, do you just say it contains GMO?

Has anyone envisioned a labelling system?

[Éric Darier]

Very briefly, I think the European legislation is now enforced and has been enforced for several years. It has set the standards internationally in terms of what could be done. Because Canada is a developed country at the same level as Europe, it could be done as well. It exists in Europe, so it could be done as well.

To answer the question very briefly on genomics--and it's a very difficult question that you asked my colleague on the panel, to explain genomics in three minutes--I want to say that environmental groups are in favour of genomics and want to understand how plants and genomics function. The problem and the confusion that lots of people have is that the Canadian legislation is much broader than international definitions. If you look at the biosafety protocol, it refers only to genes that actually transfer from one organism to another one. The Canadian description is a “catch-everything”, which creates huge confusion, and it's damaging for everybody. We have some growers there who are actually suffering from that confusion. It confuses the public. We put biotechnology and everything in there.

For example, my own organization, Greenpeace, is not necessarily opposed to marker-assisted selection. That has to do with the element that is important because it's different. I'm not saying there's no problem or that we do not need to study it. But I think we should also look at that aspect.

If you ask me what kind of improvement I think we could make, it would be to adjust Canadian regulations to match internationally recognized standards of the definition of a GMO. That would really resolve some of the issues--not all of them, but I think it would be one point.

[Dr. Andrew Schmitz]

I have one comment.

I'll send you some literature on some other work on genomics. Some of my colleagues in Florida have made huge breakthroughs now on genomics for tomatoes, celery, and other crops. It's unbelievable what they do at the present time. There's an example of other crops, not just what you're talking about. There are huge breakthroughs. I'll send you those papers.

Also, some of my colleagues have studied the labelling issue. It's a mess. It's like the case against Canada on beef trade. The U.S. imports beef, and now we need country-of-origin labelling under the U.S. Farm Bill. You heard about the arrangement in front of the WTO. I'm one who really believes they can do all they want about labelling of American or Canadian beef, but the consumers I've talked with at the present time say they don't read those labels, and if they do read them, they make no sense. If anything, they figure Canadian beef is superior. This labelling is like organics and everything else. It's a hot subject, but nobody really knows where it's at at the moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

I'll now move to Mr. Bellavance for seven minutes.

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

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony, Messrs. Nault and Darier.

In your brief, you talk about a point that we from the Bloc Québécois also think is important: the Cartagena Protocol on Biosecurity. I am having a hard time understanding why Canada is not among the 160 countries that have signed this protocol.

For the benefit of those who will read the testimonies and for the benefit of my committee colleagues, I would like you to explain why it is important to sign this protocol, what that would imply and why most world countries have signed, but not Canada. Have the United States or some European countries signed this protocol? Why do you think Canada is still refusing, even today, to sign the Cartagena Protocol on Biosecurity?

I would like you to summarize this issue.

[Éric Darier]

Thank you for this question, which was very much to the point. I hope that my answer will be as concise.

An interesting fact is that the biosecurity protocol was signed in Montreal in 2000, and that the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity is based in Montreal. It is somewhat ironic that the host country of the secretariat has not ratified the protocol. In fact, the biosecurity protocol is part of and originated with the Convention on Biological Diversity.

A major environmental concern is cross-border GMO contamination. The main objective of the international protocol is to make transfers between two countries transparent. Transparency means that the country receiving GMO products will be aware of this fact. The protocol also aims for transparency with regard to studies conducted and sets out a compensation mechanism in case of a disaster, which makes it possible to decide who will be paying out compensation.

So far, 160 countries have signed this protocol, but Canada has not. I try to follow the Canadian delegation during negotiations, and I find it somewhat surprising that Canada is always boasting that its biosecurity standard is similar or even superior to that outlined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosecurity. If that is indeed the case, there is no reason why Canada should not ratify the protocol. My question is: Why has it not done so?

The United States cannot ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosecurity because it has not ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity. This is the reality our colleagues to the south are facing. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed, we have been part of a free trade space with Mexico, which has ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosecurity.

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

I have to stop you there, Mr. Darier. Does the fact that Canada and the United States, unlike Mexico, have not signed the protocol create disagreements?

[Éric Darier]

Yes. For instance, it is absolutely necessary to prevent the contamination of corn in Mexico, where the plant originated. Some contamination occurred in this country as a result of the exportation of American corn, which was largely subsidized by American taxpayers. Corn dumping took place in Mexico in the early 2000s. This was very well documented by the International Joint Commission, regarding the NAFTA and the environment. So, this is an issue.

However, other issues will arise, and we could discuss them later if you like. GM salmon could be produced in Canada and exported to Panama, which is about to ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosecurity, and then possibly be exported to the United States. Something like that would have consequences.

Canada should ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosecurity, act in a more transparent manner in its dealings with the international community and meet its global responsibilities.

[André Nault]

Owing to, among others, the close ties between the biotechnology industry and governmental and regulatory agencies, we suspect that Canada will not sign the protocol.

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

What do you mean?

[André Nault]

There is some secrecy surrounding the presentation of issues where there is, to use the term Richard used earlier, misapplication of science principles. We, as environmentalists, are concerned about the interpretation of science principles. I believe that companies have an in with the government that the general population does not.

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

Mr. Schmitz, I have a question you're better positioned to answer because you came from the United States to testify.

You talk about consumer acceptability of, reactions to, attitudes and opinions on GMOs. Out of curiosity, I would like to know whether these concerns are present in the United States. You talked a little bit about labelling. Here, we are advocating mandatory GMO labelling—at least our party is. Consumers need to know what they're buying; they must be given the right to choose. GMO presence must be indicated on products, as is already being done in Europe, even though there is some flexibility, which is completely understandable.

Do you have the same concerns in the United States?

[Dr. Andrew Schmitz]

That's pretty interesting.

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

If we're talking about all Americans, I understand.

[Dr. Andrew Schmitz]

In our book, we actually have a little section on that question. The answer to that is that I really don't know, because the consumer seems, at the moment, to be very confused on this topic.

You think that consumers really read labels. In the U.S., most consumers never look at labels. That's the issue. If you ask people if they look at the label for where the beef comes from when they buy it, they say that they have no idea. They don't look at the labels.

Organics they know, because that's a huge, growing field in the U.S., just as it is here. There's huge growth in the market for organics. But of course the stores sell organics to those markets separately, so when you buy organics, they're actually on a shelf with everything that is labelled as organic food.

On this whole question of biotech, they've asked people those questions. And the people say that they have no idea even what biotech is or what you're really asking and why you're asking that question.

So at the present time, it's not clear where we're headed, again, in the U.S. with respect to biotech and more biotech with respect to labelling of these products. And I'd say a lot of the companies will block it.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mark Eyking]

You have half a minute, if you want it. No, that was good? Okay.

We'll move on to the NDP and Alex.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thanks to all of you for being here.

Not too long ago we had testimony before committee by Dr. Ian Mauro from the University of Saskatchewan. In his testimony he said that he had done a project involving 2,500 farmers across the three prairie provinces. He asked them what their concerns were in regard to the technology. I'm just going to bring up some points from his speech and ask you to comment on them. He said:

Risks are less well understood, and this is where my research really provides new information. For both genetically engineered canola and genetically engineered wheat, the main risks, ranked in order of importance by farmers themselves, included markets, which were the top risk for farmers. They were concerned about loss of income. They were concerned about problems in the segregation system, that biology would leak into a segregation issue, which would lead to market harm.

We have had that same point given to us by the representative of the Canadian Wheat Board when he spoke, that it was very difficult to contain or separate, especially in bulk handling, genetically modified organisms from non-modified.

Then farmers were concerned about corporate control of agriculture, seeds being privatized, lawsuits. And then he talks about agronomic “volunteers”—in other words, migration of crops across the landscape—and then, of course, it tied in with contamination.

We've recently seen that the United States has approved the release of genetically modified alfalfa. We've seen three organic organizations state that they would have supported that if there was confinement, which is hard to understand.

As you comment on this, I'd like to know if it is really possible to contain any genetically modified crops so that there's no cross-contamination. There seems to be a lot of evidence in regard to alfalfa that it is not. My concern in the way we react to it is that many in the industry say we have to be science-based, although it's often their science.

Dr. Schmitz, you talked about consumer acceptability and producer profitability. Mr. Agblor, you talked about the fact that you folks are watching very closely market acceptance. Is there room for guidelines, developed by government in conjunction with the industry, which is specifically what my bill would target?

I'll leave it there and maybe we can have some comments before we're out of time.

Dr. Schmitz.

[Dr. Andrew Schmitz]

I am actually a farmer, and we farm on a fairly large scale in Saskatchewan. We farm out of the city of Regina. Our daughter farms north of Saskatoon and they've been very successful with canola. If there are any issues with respect to canola, on their farm, etc., they think it was a wonderful idea to grow the canola they can. It's been a cash crop and a saviour for their farm, the canola area.

We're too far south, but fortunately we've diversified into the pulse crops. There was a time when we were large barley and wheat growers, along with our cattle operation, but we've shifted into the peas and lentils. That's been a saviour for us compared to the people who haven't adopted it and in the last two or three years stayed with the conventional wheat and have a rotational threat.

To answer your question about the issues of segregation, etc., the farmers in our area really don't bring up the GMO stuff. In our area, with respect to the wheat and barley that's grown, the issues, they never think about them, I don't think. That wouldn't be true for all farmers, but I think the issue of biotech.... The topic is so complicated, they likely don't even know what the word even means. There are a lot of people still farming out there who have never heard of it and wouldn't know how to define biotechnology or a GMO.

I think the big issue in our area is structural change and the huge growth of farm size. That concerns people: the rapid change in technology in the last ten years, which is also machine equipment, farm-size-related, which may be or may not use GMO products. That's my feeling.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Anybody else?

[Dr. Kofi Agblor]

I would just say that we do that now in lentils. I think there are at least ten different types of lentils grown. There is the red, the green, Spanish brown, and French green. Then, in the red and green we have the large, medium, and small sizes. They are sent out of the country with a specification. If it's a large grain, it's a large grain. And typically.... I know of a farmer last year who grew red lentils and green lentils. He was able to ship them out to a processor.

[Dr. Andrew Schmitz]

We did that.