AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 30, 2000

• 0902

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)): I see a quorum. That means we can get down to business.

We're continuing our discussions on the topic of mandatory labelling of genetically modified organisms. Today we're going to hear from a couple of groups: the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, with Suzanne Hendricks and Norma Burlington; and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, with our old friend André Gravel, who has been here many times before, and Bart Bilmer, also from the agency.

Are you going to go first, Mr. Gravel, or is it ladies first?

Madam Hendricks, why don't you start? You don't have to touch the microphones. We have all these high-priced employees to do all those things.

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks (Member, Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee): That's wonderful.

Good morning, everyone. I'm very happy, on behalf of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Council, to be with you this morning. I thank you for the invitation.

I'd first like to—probably for most of you—provide you with a brief overview of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee and its work plan before we go into a little more detail about our specific work with respect to the regulation of genetically modified food. I believe all of you have received a copy of our work plan by now. I would urge you, as we'll be talking about genetically modified food, to move to page 7 and the few pages that follow.

Just as background, the federal government, in announcing the new Canadian biotechnology strategy back in August 1998, also announced at that time that central to this strategy was the creation of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. It stated that this independent expert panel would advise the new Biotechnology Ministerial Coordinating Committee, which is comprised of seven ministers, on the ethical, social, economic, scientific, regulatory, environmental, and health aspects of biotechnology. It will advise on policy directions, but will not arbitrate regulatory decisions.

It will also give Canadians an ongoing forum to voice their views and participate in an open and transparent dialogue on biotechnology issues. I think this is very innovative, in a way.

• 0905

Dr. Arnold Naimark was named as chair in May 1999. The 20 members who make up CBAC were announced in September of last year. We've been drawn from such fields as science, business, nutrition, law, environment, philosophy, ethics, and public advocacy.

In terms of the GM food issue, several of our members have expertise as lawyers, nutritionists, scientists, regulators, ethicists, agricultural economists, and environmental and consumer advocates. We serve on a part-time volunteer basis. Last fall we developed our work plan, which is the document you have and which we made public on February 21, 2000. In relation to the GM food issue, you may want to know that all members of Parliament were provided with our press release and our work plan on its release.

You will see by our work plan that we have divided our activities into two categories. We have some general activities, which include ongoing monitoring and reporting on key developments in biotechnology with significant public policy implications, and special projects. The GM food issue fits into the category of special projects.

We have five special projects that will be undertaken during the plan period. The first will focus on regulation of genetically modified food. The second will focus on the protection and exploitation of biotechnological intellectual property, including the patenting of higher life forms. Other projects to be initiated in the plan include incorporating social and ethical considerations into biotechnology, the use of novel genetically based interventions, and, finally, genetic privacy.

Additional special projects will be initiated as required to reflect the changing needs, input, and interests of Canadians. CBAC will also produce an annual report to the Biotechnology Ministerial Coordinating Committee that will summarize our activities during the preceding year and identify emerging biotechnology issues in Canada and around the world.

We have organized ourselves into a management structure to carry out our work plan. In this structure, I co-chair the project steering committee on the regulation of genetically modified food with my CBAC colleague, Peter Phillips.

You will also find on page 7 of our work plan the background, objectives, and research topics of our work on this issue. You will see that in our research we are studying two aspects in particular in regard to GM food: the governance and regulation, and the social, ethical, legal, economic, and environmental aspects of genetically modified food.

In that respect, as far as the GM food project is concerned, we have started to get our work underway. As a first step, we have commissioned three studies that I would like to briefly outline for you.

The first one is to be conducted by Paul Thompson, who is an ethicist from Purdue University and who has written extensively on ethical issues related to agriculture and agricultural policies, including biotechnology. Dr. Thompson's work will provide a framework to understand the range of concern and appreciate the value judgments that underlie conflicting judgments and ethical responsibilities with respect to food and agricultural biotechnology.

He will analyse such arguments pertaining to the use of biotechnology as the natural border between species, the religious arguments, the ethical significance of the environment, the uncertainty issue, social justice locally and globally, the science agenda, and the concept of consent and consumer choice.

• 0910

This last point should be of particular interest to your group, because he will undoubtedly provide some valuable insight on the labelling issues that your committee probably will want to consider.

We're expecting the first draft of Dr. Thompson's paper by the end of June, and hopefully a final draft by August.

Another paper we have commissioned is designed to take a critical look at the various methods used to make information available to the public. The effectiveness and cost-benefit of various methods will be addressed. As part of that exercise, public information programs about biotechnology that have been undertaken in the European Community, the U.S., or Australia will be examined.

In that framework, labelling will be considered in terms of its effectiveness as an information tool and in several other areas, of course. This paper is being prepared by Dr. Edna Einsiedel, a professor of communications studies at the University of Calgary.

Dr. Einsiedel, as some of you may know, convened the first Western Canadian Citizen Conference on Food Biotechnology in Calgary in March 1999. We're expecting the first draft of Dr. Einsiedel's paper by mid-June, and the final draft hopefully by mid-July. I see this perspective as being of probably great value to your committee.

The third project that has been commissioned is related to the governance issue. It will involve, as a first step, the documentation of one or two case studies looking thoroughly at the various steps that have been followed for the approval of some products that are currently on the market. These case studies could—and I underline “could” three times—potentially address some aspect of labelling, because we haven't yet decided which products we'll be focusing on.

For instance, the allergenicity of the product could be addressed if it was considered as part of the product we'll be looking at, or if, for instance, in the case of specific products, labels have been submitted, as could have been the case with the Bt potato, where specially labelled bags were designed as part of the launching of the product in the Maritimes.

This paper will be prepared by Bruce Doern from Carleton University. These case studies may form the basis for assessing how our regulatory processes compare with those in other countries, or will help benchmark best practices.

I've outlined here three studies we have currently commissioned, and we might be looking at some more. We're just launching our projects. We have a meeting of CBAC scheduled for June 22. We'll bring together the total committee as well as our special committee.

In the coming months we're going to make available on our public website the studies we are commissioning as part of our research to inform our consultation documents. As you will understand, the views expressed in these papers will be those of the authors. These studies will be posted to raise public awareness of the issues.

You will also see in our timelines that we expect to have our research completed by the end of this summer and to carry out public consultation on the issue of GM food in the fall or early winter of this year. It is therefore very difficult for me at this present time to give you the view of CBAC on labelling or any other aspect of genetically modified food, since we are just launching our own review.

• 0915

One thing I'd like to point out is that these CBAC consultations are timed to take into account the work of the Expert Scientific Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology, which has been commissioned to the Royal Society of Canada, and the work of the Canadian General Standards Board on voluntary labelling.

Both of these exercises are to be completed, or to be very near substantive completion, by October 2000. We took that into account when we made our own plan. We certainly wanted to avoid duplication of efforts, so we are currently restraining from addressing the issues that will be studied by these committees.

Our position is that once their reports are released, we will integrate their findings into CBAC's report. If we should judge that there are gaps or that there's a divergence of opinion, then we will address them by further input.

Currently CBAC is the only body that is going to consult with the Canadian public on genetically modified food. We will then provide our analysis and recommendations to the Biotechnology Ministerial Coordinating Committee in spring of 2001.

Obviously we would be very pleased to share with your committee the papers we have commissioned and the input we will receive through our public consultation. We would urge you to consider these documents in your deliberations, and would welcome the opportunity to meet with you again to discuss these further.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

By the way, how are any costs incurred by the committee covered? Where do you get your money?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: Maybe I'll ask Norma to answer that.

We get it from the secretariat, right?

Ms. Norma Burlington (Director, Advisory Committee Secretariat, Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee): Yes.

When the Canadian biotechnology strategy was approved and announced by the government in August 1998, they also set up the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy Fund, which is a fund of $9.6 million annually. Up to $3 million of that is to support the Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat and the work of CBAC.

The way we've divided that $3 million is that essentially $1 million goes to the secretariat to cover salaries and O and M, and $2 million goes to CBAC to carry out its work.

The Chair: So it's all public funds.

Ms. Norma Burlington: That's correct.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we're going to go to Mr. Gravel for his presentation. Then we'll go to rounds of questions.

Welcome, Mr. Gravel, and good morning.

[Translation]

Mr. André Gravel (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the members of this Committee on the question of the labelling of genetically modified foods and to respond to the question that you have asked.

As you are aware from your session on May 18th, Health Canada is responsible for the administration of those aspects of the Food and Drug Regulations that relate to food safety and human nutrition, including the regulation of food additives, nutrient fortification, nutrition labelling and related claims.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, on the other hand, is responsible for all aspects of federal food legislation relating to the control of misrepresentation and fraud in food labelling and advertising, the provision of basic product-related information such as the listing of ingredients, product common name, net quantity declarations, grade and quality designations, compositional and identity standards and for the regulation of non- health related claims. These provisions assist consumers in making effective product choices.

In addition, as the single federal food inspection agency in Canada, the Agency is also responsible for the enforcement of all federal food regulations, including those established by Health Canada. In carrying out these responsibilities, the Agency protects consumers from food safety hazards, as well as from product misrepresentation.

• 0920

[English]

The CFIA's strategies to achieve compliance comprise a range of activities, including product inspection, the investigation of potential health hazards and fraud, and follow-up of consumer and trade complaints. The agency also routinely conducts compliance audits and product sampling in order to assess food safety. This includes testing for microbiological, chemical, and physical hazards, as well as the control of allergens.

The CFIA also provides educational tools to assist and encourage industry to understand and take responsibility for issues related to regulatory compliance, and to establish control procedures to prevent violations. The agency employs 2,800 staff across Canada, who are involved in the inspection of food and agricultural products, including products that are labelled and packaged at the retail level, and the inspection and certification of producers and importers. These activities can lead to recalls of products or general warnings to consumers, when serious health hazards are uncovered.

As is the case for all foods, the CFIA and Health Canada also share responsibilities for labelling for foods derived through biotechnology. Mandatory labelling of foods, including those derived through biotechnology, would be required by Health Canada if their food safety assessment determined there were health and safety questions.

Further, as with all foods, foods derived from biotechnology would be labelled to indicate any significant changes from the corresponding existent foods that might have occurred with respect to their composition or nutritional value.

In Canada, voluntary labelling is an approach that is frequently used by food manufacturers or retailers who may wish to make a claim, either on the label or in advertisements, or provide information to consumers that their product does or does not contain certain elements. Examples are “fat-free” and “kosher”. However, under the regulations, all food labelling, whether voluntary or mandatory, must be understandable, truthful, and not mislead consumers. Accordingly, the voluntary labelling of foods from biotechnology is permitted under current legislation as a viable option for food companies that want to respond to marketplace demands.

As you've already heard, the Canadian General Standards Board is facilitating the development of a national voluntary labelling standard for food and food ingredients obtained and not obtained through genetic modification, an initiative being led by Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors. As it has from the beginning of this process, the CFIA will continue to be an active participant.

There are a number of questions associated with developing and implementing any effective mandatory labelling scheme. These include the scope of products to be labelled under that scheme; testing methods to detect these products for compliance purposes; and the development of meaningful labelling statements. In this regard, many of the questions raised by your committee, Mr. Chairman, have also been raised internationally in the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, to which Health Canada referred in its presentation on May 18.

Some of these questions have also been raised in national discussions on the development of national voluntary labelling standards, referred to by the Canadian General Standards Board in their presentation of May 18. I would also like to take a few minutes to briefly speak to some of these questions.

[Translation]

The first question relates to the scope of the products to be labelled. But before a discussion of scope can take place, we should first point out that there is no single internationally- accepted definition of a food obtained through biotechnology or GMO. Having such a definition is crucial in that it would determine the number and scope of products that would be labelled or not labelled.

As you heard on May 18th, legislatively, Health Canada defines both novel foods and novel foods derived through genetic modification. Also noted on May 18th, the Canadian General Standards Board is in the process of developing a definition, as is the Codex Committee on Food Labelling.

Other countries such as Japan and the European Union also have or are proposing different definitions. Japan's proposal indicates that main ingredients should be labelled whereas the European Union's legislation exempts those products that have no detectable protein or DNA, such as canola oil.

• 0925

Clearly, international agreement on common definitions such as this one is critical. Otherwise, the labelling of these foods moving among countries would not only be incapable of providing consistent and credible information to consumers, the information could well be potentially misleading. In respect of these definitions, it is hoped that the Codex process will contribute to their evolution and acceptance over the next year. In the meantime, here in Canada, in terms of the CFIA's role in enforcement, we follow Health Canada's definition.

[English]

The second key question relates to testing. This is another question essential to the effective implementation and enforcement of any labelling regime and to the accuracy of a label's statements.

There are considerable difficulties in testing for the presence of GM food in both processed and raw foods. At this time, there is no one single test method that would detect all GM foods. In processed food, it is often the case that the protein or DNA that you wish to detect is no longer detectable. None of the current detection methods that are available have been internationally validated. In fact, the use of the same tests in different laboratories around the world has yielded vastly different results.

Countries such as Japan, Australia, and New Zealand have announced the intention to pursue mandatory labelling, and indeed the European Union is still studying the difficulties associated with implementation and enforcement of a mandatory labelling approach.

[Translation]

Thirdly, and of considerable importance to the CFIA is meaningful, understandable label statements. In this regard, valid questions have been raised as to whether a food label is the best vehicle to provide information to consumers on these foods, and, if not, where consumers could best get such information.

As you know, the National Institute of Nutrition published a study in 1999 on consumer attitudes and opinions regarding sources of information on foods derived from biotechnology. The study found that labels may not be the best way to educate consumers or to provide them the information that they want. The study determined that consumers want information in understandable terms, they want that information about the regulatory system and the benefits of foods derived from biotechnology, and they want information explaining the links between foods from biotechnology and traditional production processes, such as growing crops and farming.

The study also helped to identify difficulties with some terminology proposed internationally for mandatory labelling. For example, consumers indicated that they did not understand and reacted negatively to the scientific terminology that has been suggested. Numerous labelling messages that were suggested where considered to be too complex or confusing.

[English]

Overall, the study determined that labelling is seen as being important, but it is not viewed as a comprehensive solution. Other ways of providing information were identified as possibilities, such as point-of-sale literature, brochures, magazines, the Internet, a toll-free number, and television.

The fourth question to address is the issue of Canada's international trade obligations. I've been advised by my colleagues at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade that from a trade point of view, mandatory labelling of products based on their method of production, such as genetic modification, is an extremely important and sensitive trade issue.

This type of labelling is covered under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, and generally WTO members view mandatory method-of-production labelling as inconsistent with their WTO obligations, which hold that like products—that is, products with similar characteristics—should be accorded the same treatment, regardless of how they were produced.

It should be noted that mandatory method-of-production labelling is not limited to the issue of biotechnology, but could have an impact on many Canadian industries such as fisheries, mining and manufacturing, and could even have a serious impact on other agricultural sectors.

• 0930

The committee may wish to address more detailed questions on the trade perspective to officials from DFAIT at an appropriate time.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, when considering the very important question of a possible labelling scheme for foods, there are a number of key issues that must first be addressed.

To date, the foods derived through biotechnology that have been approved for sale in Canada have been found to be safe. At the CFIA, we believe we need to build on this foundation and continuously develop and improve a labelling system that is credible, meaningful for consumers, and enforceable. Together, governments, consumers, and industry are working to achieve an approach that is right for Canada and will work effectively for Canadians, both nationally and internationally.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gravel. We appreciate your presentation, and also that of Ms. Hendricks.

We are now ready for questions. As usual, we'll start with Mr. Hilstrom for seven minutes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is a gigantic, broad subject, and obviously the scope of your hearings is going to be even more than what we're trying to do in agriculture. Obviously we're not going to try to deal with the privacy issues related to human genetics here, but I see that is a part of your study.

Just in the overall framework and set-up, Ms. Hendricks and Ms. Burlington are part of the CBAC committee. You are administrators. Has that been your career history, or are you scientists? Just what is your background? Is it in business, government or whatever?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: I'm a member of CBAC. I'm one of the voluntary members. Norma is a permanent member of the CBAC secretariat. My background is as a nutritionist.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Good.

Ms. Norma Burlington: I'm a career civil servant. I'm an economist in terms of background.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay, great. You're certainly off to a really good start here. I was just interested in that.

I intend to ask every witness that comes before us this question, and each of you can reply: Do you personally have any concerns, or have you ever heard of anybody getting sick from GMO foods? Is there any question about the safety of the food supply on our food shelves here in Canada? Have you ever heard of anybody who consumed a GMO product, like canola oil, ultimately becoming sick or ill? Could you each just quickly answer that? Just yes or no would be good.

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: I can start—lady's privilege. To that specific question, I have never heard of anybody getting sick from a GMO food.

Ms. Norma Burlington: I haven't either.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Gravel.

Dr. André Gravel: Absolutely not. The agency currently reviews everything in scientific literature, and there's been no such report.

Mr. Bart Bilmer (Director, Office of Biotechnology, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): I would agree with that.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay. Mr. Bilmer, you're associated.

There's another thing we have to cover a little bit here. The provinces are very concerned about this, and Saskatchewan in particular. We have a gigantic biotechnology industry related to agriculture there. The Saskatoon research station is at the university, as you well know.

Where does provincial participation come into this process that the federal government has started?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: In terms of representation on the CBAC committee, besides making sure there is a variety of expertise on the committee, one of our concerns is to make sure we have regional representation. There isn't official representation from the provinces, but there is regional representation.

I mentioned that my co-chair is Peter Phillips. He's an agricultural economist based in Saskatchewan. We report directly to that interministerial committee, which is a federal committee. They would liaise with the provinces. We don't have any direct link with the provinces.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'm questioning whether regional representation is good enough, because Alberta has some different concerns than does Manitoba. Let's talk about my province of Manitoba. Which provincial ministers are you in touch with?

• 0935

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: We're not in touch with any provincial ministers. But if you go back to our process, I think it was mentioned that one very important part of CBAC would be its public consultation. The first step, for instance, is that all our papers will be made available on our website. As part of the consultation, there will be an outreach to the provinces in the same way as there will be an outreach to other groups of Canadians.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I would just make a suggestion from the Canadian Alliance that you formally set up something with each of the provinces, as opposed to just an outreach, to have that direct contact.

Mr. Gravel, you really hit the nail on the head when you asked, is a label on food the best way to inform consumers? Here we have GMO plants that are producing food and whatever. The tolerance level that some countries have accepted is 0.1%. The countries haven't actually accepted it, but they're promoting it from within the food industry, grocery stores, and whatever. That's what they're advocating. Why couldn't the tolerance level be 0.5%?

The point is that even if you have 0.1%, there is some component in there of GMO products. Is it not a question that either it's free or it isn't? Either it's totally free or it's not. I know the problems of detectability. But are we not misinforming the public who go into a store and say, this is 0.1% and this other one is 0.5%, so the 0.1% is better, and we'll get this kind of battle? What do you have to say about that? Is there any possibility of a totally GMO-free food and putting a label on saying we guarantee that to the nth degree?

Dr. André Gravel: That's probably one of the most difficult questions. With regard to the issue of an acceptable tolerance for GM food, there is no international standard for it. Codex is addressing the issue. The CCGD Committee on Voluntary Labelling will have to face that as well. The EU has sort of proposed a tolerance. The U.K. has zero tolerance, absolutely.

How do you verify that? For a regulatory agency, it's a nightmare. When you consider a seed shipment, there are methods that could allow you to detect some gene modification. But if that seed is processed into oil, flour, a composite food, or anything else, how do you find out whether there is GMO in there? In some cases the protein that the GM modification has triggered is not present. You can't detect it.

So it's a whole field of investigation that we need to be investing into in terms of research before we can with confidence say that product is free of GMO.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Alarie.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): I will first make the comment I make each time I have the opportunity to do so.

On June 23rd, 1999, I asked the Canadian Food Inspection Agency what was the approval process for GM foods and I still don't have an answer. I did it through the Access to Information Act and it cost me a lot of money. I was sent boxes of paper, which were full of petitions. I got the petitions with the letter that is sent to petitioners. It's always the same letter; the petitions are always the same. I was patient enough to look through the content of the three boxes. So don't tell me that this is just in my mind. I still don't have an answer. The question is still pending. I don't want to have to pay another $1,000, but I am waiting for the answer.

I will first speak to the representatives of the Agency because I am under the impression that there are two somewhat different jurisdictions there. I sense some inertia or a lack of will to get quick results, even if preliminary.

• 0940

We are told that there is no definition, but Codex did arrive at a definition that suits me well to start working. We are told that there is no tests. Well, how come the Germans could detect, last week, in a shipment products that contained 0.5% of GMOs, which is below the 1% level? That means that somewhere, people have testing methods and that those methods are recognised since four countries reviewed the case. I don't want to go into the substance of the matter. I am talking about testing methods that already exist. I think that we make things very complicated. We could make a first move and start working, but we don't. And I am not incriminating the Agency directly. I am incriminating all the people who are above you.

The other day, I started listing the ministers who are directly involved in this issue. I could not believe it: I found eight ministers. So here we are dealing with one minister and one agency and we cannot even get answers. When you have eight, the problem is compounded and multiplied by eight. I do not have the same feelings as my colleague from the Alliance. I do not think I will die from those products, at least not right away because I feel quite strong, but I am wondering what avenue agriculture will take in the short term and what damages we will see if we do not act before problems appear. I'm not talking about fine tuning here, but if we do not act right away to establish some sort of labelling, what damages will consumers and our international market endure?

What happened last week did not make me happy at all. Nobody is responsible. Nobody can be charged. I heard the Minister of Agriculture say that it was a contractual relationship. Well, we could say the same thing for all the products that are in Canada. The Agency has the obligation of testing those products and if somebody is caught, we're told that it's not important because it was a contract. To me, this is quite serious.

I'd like to hear your comments, Mr. Gravel.

Mr. André Gravel: My first comment will be concerning the tests that we can use on GM foods. Madam Alarie, we will provide you for free—

Ms. Hélène Alarie: For free... Thank you!

Mr. André Gravel: —with a document that I asked the scientists of the Agency to prepare and that explains how products from biotechnology are tested. There are three ways of going at it: first, through a direct determination on the DNA that was modified; second, through research on the proteins that are produced through this modified DNA and third, through bioassays. We grow a plant and we test its resistance to Roundup. In the document, we outline a little the various approaches scientists used around the world, the sensitivity level of the tests, the specificity level, the advantages and the drawbacks and in the end, as an appendix, we give a list of 150 to 200 tests that are presently available on the market.

The main problem is that none of these tests has been validated internationally. You know very well, for instance, that if Canada exports dairy cattle to a foreign country and that the country asks for negative results to tests for tuberculosis and brucellosis, we can be confident that the International Office of Epizootics has validated the method that enables to test those animals. One can say that if the method is used, the test is recognised.

As for GM foods, none of those methods has been approved. As I said earlier, in some cases, the detection is very easy when it is a simple product such as seeds, but it is very difficult when we are dealing with more complex products such as a pizza, a loaf of bread or a raspberry pie, because we do not know what we are looking for. This is what is most difficult.

You also made a comment on responsibility. The Agency clearly has the responsibility of checking if the certification given at the time of export is done un compliance with certain standards which, in the case we are talking about, are OECD standards. If certificates or tags affixed to the seeds say that the product meets the standards, this can be checked. Those products met the standards and were performed even better.

• 0945

For us, the presence of 0.1 % of GM seeds is not a dangerous level for public health. Those products were reviewed and accepted in Canada. So basically, the certification met the Canadian standards and the OECD standards. If the customer that buys the product in Europe, whether it be in Germany or England, has higher requirements, then there is a problem, and the minister explained it quite well: it is a contractual relationship. The government certification people test the product for safety, which was done, and whether the product meets the international standards for seeds, which was done. If the customer wants to make sure that the grains are blue, white and red, for instance, it's not our problem. It's up to the company that sells them to make sure that other specifications are well accepted.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Is my time over?

[English]

The Chair: We're out of time. Thank you very much.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Chair, I asked Mr. Proctor if I could go ahead of him. I have to go to the House for 10 o'clock to speak to a supply day. I wonder if I could ask one very quick question. I have to leave. I wonder if the Liberals would allow me to do that.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you. I promise I won't even take my full five minutes, Mr. Chairman, because I do have to leave.

I have two very quick questions, one to the new agency, CBAC. It says that you're an independent agency. However, we just found out through the chairman's questioning that in fact the funding and the financing is totally public. It also indicates that your agency will be reporting to a coordinating committee made up of seven ministers. Is that correct? Is that whom you report to? Can you just give me some comfort that you are in fact a totally independent agency; that information that will be coming forward to this committee will not be vetted first; and that in fact your recommendations, information, and reports will be totally independent of any government influence?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: I don't know if I'm going to give a satisfactory answer.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I hope you will give me a satisfactory answer.

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: I think the best answer is our will to be independent and our mandate. The mandate that was given to us by those seven ministers is to be an independent committee. I think all efforts have been made in the selection of the committee and in the balance in the committee to ensure that people who were brought in on the committee would be on that wavelength. The committee has reaffirmed—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can the committee add members, or do they have to be appointed?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: The members have to be appointed. But there was a very long process of selection, I understand. In the appointment of members—and I wasn't part of the process—different groups could submit different names. There was an—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But ultimately they were appointed by the government.

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: Yes, they were appointed.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. Thank you very much for your answer. You didn't, unfortunately, give me a lot of confidence in the answer. I'm sorry, but we'll wait and see exactly how the independence is.

The question from the opposition was, has there ever been anybody getting sick from GMOs? I think we recognize from the canola case that nobody can be proven to have gotten sick from canola oil. I appreciate that.

But I think the question is more than just that. I'll ask each of you. You're involved in a very complex issue here. We trade internationally the majority of what we produce, and our trading partners are questioning the components of GMOs. Regardless of whether or not they're getting sick, do you believe the awareness of consumers has heightened over the last number of months with regard to GMO? Do you believe that's going to go away simply by saying, no, based on science, you are not going to get sick? Is it as simple as that? Do you stick your head in the sand, as some would hope to do, and simply say that we're not going to get sick and therefore it's going to go away? Or are consumers at the point now where they want more than just that reassurance that they aren't going to get sick?

I know you have a lot of good studies coming up between now and June, July, and August. If you believe that consumers aren't going to be satisfied with being told, no, you're not going to get sick, what will consumers and our trading partners be satisfied with?

That's addressed to the two major speakers, Ms. Hendricks and Mr. Gravel.

• 0950

Dr. André Gravel: You're raising a very important point that has to do with consumer education. It is indeed a very complex field. Your committee will be, I understand, reviewing witnesses until late in the fall. That gives you an indication of how complex this field is.

In my opinion, you're right about the heightened perception of the consumers of biotechnology and the questions they have. It seems to me that indeed there's a need to invest in more consumer education. The problem is that the science literacy of the normal consumer is not very good. People don't understand complicated science. So it's a matter of finding the tools to make the public in general understand what the technology is all about.

The brochure that the agency and Health Canada have distributed to households in Canada was a gesture that partly addressed the issue with some information about food safety, a few tips if you cook products, and something on biotechnology that was easy to understand and probably would allow people to make some connections. If they're connected to the Internet, they mentioned a few addresses in there, so they could get more information about it.

But I agree more information is needed to be given on the issue. And CBAC, as Madam Hendricks has mentioned, will be going out probably this fall for consultation with the public—public fora, etc.—so I think all that will help.

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: I think you've raised a very important issue, and I think certainly the members of CBAC recognize that simply saying the products are safe is not a satisfactory answer. Although I think it's important that consumers be made aware of that fact, there is no doubt a citizens' confidence or trust issue here.

That's why I think the emphasis of the work of CBAC will be very much in the sense of linking with citizens, developing a dialogue and transparency. We see all the ethics issues that we will be addressing, which are in fact very important to citizens, to be key in our efforts to build that trust, and this is where we will be putting our emphasis. So I think we certainly recognize your point.

The Chair: Thank you.

Rick, you got your five minutes plus one.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: And to boost your comfort level, you should know—and I'm sure you do—that the chairman of the advisory committee is a respected Manitoban by the name of Dr. Naimark.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I know him well. I have a personal pipeline to him, Mr. Chairman. That won't give you any confidence, I know.

The Chair: And I can assure you that no one that I know of has accused Dr. Naimark of having close ties to the Liberal Party.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Anything for Joe.

The Chair: Did you hear that?

A voice: I got it.

The Chair: Madam Ur.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank you for your presentation this morning.

Ms. Hendricks, in your presentation you outlined that there were 20 members in the CBAC committee. Could we have a list of those members and their bios?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: Well, they are on our website.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay, that's fine.

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: And the list is in the back of the—

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I just got the book this morning, and I haven't gone through it.

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: Okay.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: One thing I did notice is that you've listed the expertise in this committee, and you have nutritionists, regulators, and agriculture economists, but I haven't seen per se a medical person other than a nutritionist.

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: There are some medical people.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay, good.

Another concern I have is about serving on a part-time volunteer basis. Would you happen to know the ratio of the volunteer versus the full-time paid personnel on this committee?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: On the committee, everybody is a part-time volunteer. Now, we have the support of the secretariat that Norma represents.

You may want to indicate how many people in the secretariat....

But as to the members of the committee who are ultimately going to make the decision and sign the recommendation, all 20 of them and the chair are voluntary.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It's very important that the public see that this is a genuine, open process. How long has biotech been around? All of a sudden this has become a major issue. I think it's really important that the public see this that is really open and transparent. We can't show anything different, because we'll be getting off on the wrong foot again.

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: I agree.

The Chair: Madam Ur, did you notice that Dr. Naimark is the director of the Centre for the Advancement of Medicine?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay, I haven't gone through all that. When you're given about six envelopes—

The Chair: I know, but I'm just saying that the chairman is from the medical field.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: But what I'm saying here is that the consumers out there are looking at the agriculture aspect as well as the health aspect, so we have to make sure we have a balanced team. That's all I was getting at.

• 0955

It was stated here earlier this morning that there doesn't seem to be the political will or there's a lack of will to move on this issue. I don't think it's that at all. I think the issue is so massive that people don't know where to start.

I think one of our major problems regards how we really reach a consensus. We need to have international standards. Every country is walking around trying to decide on the ultimate definition and criteria for coming to a consensus. Now, if we're dealing on an international basis and we're all doing this individually, we're never going to accomplish anything. I think the thing is for the countries to come together and decide first what the international criteria that we can work together on will be, and then each country would submit its case to the particular criteria it has reached.

I think it's just a facade we're chasing after here, and we're not going to accomplish anything. Let's be constructive.

I don't know if you agree with me on that or not.

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: I would agree, and I think Mr. Gravel has pointed out the work of the Codex committee, for instance, if you're looking at labelling.

If I look at CBAC's work, it's been one of the criteria that, in whatever work we undertake, we are making an effort to look at what is happening on the international scene. We think it's very important. When we're looking at those case studies, we want to compare them with what is happening internationally so we're not working in isolation. When we look at information for the consumer, we will again look at what mechanisms are used internationally so we can see what is out there and what the best practices are.

So I would certainly agree with you that we have to work in that spirit.

I don't know if Mr. Gravel would like to comment.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: If you're looking at the international scene, I'm sure you're well aware of what they're asking the farmers to do in England regarding their grain in the field. It's a total and vast difference in the scene in England compared to what it is here in Canada. So here again, it's really going to be hard to get to a balance when you're dealing with such vast differences applying to GMOs.

You're saying you're going to dialogue with Canadians on this topic. Are you going to every province? How are you picking who you're speaking with? How are you coming to a decision on that?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: This plan has to be elaborated on. I think we now have a proposal out to get various firms or consultants to be eligible to support us in the work we will undertake, but the specifics of that exercise has not been mapped out yet. It is my feeling we will probably go about it on several fronts.

For instance, I mentioned that we have a website where we will post our papers and people will be invited to comment. That's one mechanism of consultation. It's by no means the only one. I just use that as an illustration to tell you that we will most likely use several avenues to reach different communities or stakeholders and the public.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I guess maybe I'll rephrase my question, and put it as a statement: I hope you will go to every province to make sure you have the perspective of all provinces.

This may be after the fact, but in your opinion, should we have a mandatory system of labelling foods or should we not? What are you starting off as?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: On behalf of CBAC, I don't think we're starting out as anything. I think we're looking at it with an open mind and we think there are several points, which Mr. Gravel brought up, that have to be considered.

At this point in time I would refrain from making any recommendation from CBAC, because I think some of the information that will be coming to us in the ethical discussion on freedom of choice and consent will be very important in seeing how we can respect that freedom of choice or that desire for consent within a framework, either voluntary or mandatory, for instance. I think this is just one perspective, but it's a most important one.

• 1000

The Chair: Mr. Proctor, five minutes.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I will begin by expressing a teensy bit of frustration. These meetings were set up to talk about labelling—strictly labelling—and we have a group here this morning that says in their document that they cannot at this time present us with the views of CBAC on labelling as it relates to genetically modified food. I'm not trying to embarrass anybody, but I would hope in the future that we have groups here that do have a position one way or the other and could express something other than to say, sorry, but at this time we don't have a position on the topic.

I start with that, and then I would direct a question to Dr. Gravel. On your website, Dr. Gravel, the CFIA website, that is, it says that a manufacturer may choose to highlight an improvement to the food, such as a new flavour, and such a claim implies that the food has been modified. Could you give us an indication of what the take-up rate on that by Canadian food manufacturers is? Are some folks doing it, or almost nobody? Can you express a view on that?

Dr. André Gravel: Are you talking specifically about the possibility of voluntarily identified GM food?

Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes.

Dr. André Gravel: I don't know, because in all cases except for meat products and processed food and vegetables, we don't review and approve and register labels. These labels for other products are done on the basis of the manufacturers having to comply with the Food and Drugs Act and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and regulations. So it's very hard for me to indicate the level of uptake on that voluntary labelling scheme. I don't know if anybody here from the agency would know.

Mr. Dick Proctor: One of the criticisms we keep hearing about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is that, if it was analogous to a sporting event, the CFIA is trying to be both the referee and one of the players and it's a very difficult act to perform. How do you respond to that?

Dr. André Gravel: It's a strange analogy because in fact the agency is a regulator, not a promoter. I can't see why the agency would be in a conflict of interest when the standards for food safety are done by another minister, and that's the Minister of Health. The agency is responsible for enforcing these regulations and the agency is also subject to verification of effectiveness of delivery from Health Canada.

So I think the system as it is has quite a few checks and balances. The agency is also subject to reviews by the Auditor General, and I know there have been a few reviews, for example, on the creation of the agency, and on cost recovery and on disease surveillance, that this committee was invited to comment on. The issue of conflict of interest, to me, is a non-issue. It's a red herring. There are checks and balances in place. The agency is subject to the scrutiny of another department. We can't do what we want in there. There are standards that are set, and our role is to monitor whether they're implemented. Somebody will be looking over our shoulder to make sure this is done.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we go to Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We certainly appreciate all the information. It's going to be an ongoing topic. Education seems to be the key, and yet on main street Canada at this moment people believe what they want to believe. The rumour—and “perception” seems to be the word in politics, if I've learned nothing else in seven years—is out there still and running rampant that there are genes from fish in tomatoes in North America. I've asked this question at other meetings, and/or about there being genes or DNA, whatever, from animals in certain products. I'd like to ask you to put on the record whether such products exist, Mr. Gravel.

Dr. André Gravel: As far as I know, the agency has and Health Canada have reviewed 42—or 43, I'm sorry, I forget the number exactly—plants with new traits. None of those plants have animal genes in them. There may be research being done by some companies to get these things on the market. None of it has been approved for distribution or sale in Canada.

• 1005

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

I've heard that Europe has a system for labelling, and I have a two-part question on this. If I walked into a supermarket in Europe today, would there be labelling on the products? Or is that in the future?

In the second part of that question, let's pick on McCain—they're large enough that they can stand a lot of publicity, which will probably make them even stronger and a great Canadian company—and their recent action on seed potatoes regarding GMOs. Could they label their products this fall GMO-free? At one meeting someone said they would have to prove that. But could they label it? And why could they not label that product?

Dr. André Gravel: With permission, Mr. Chair, I would ask Bart Bilmer to provide some information on that.

Mr. Bart Bilmer: You're correct in your comments about there being a position on labelling in Europe. They have a system for mandatory labelling with a number of exceptions. They accept—

Mr. Larry McCormick: And that's happening today?

Mr. Bart Bilmer: It's in force. I'm not saying you're going to see a lot of products in the supermarket labelled. It's our understanding that there are not very many products on the market. For those products that are on the market, I think we may ask the same questions as we may ask of products that could be on the Canadian market. Is the label statement true, first of all? Is it misleading? Can they prove that what the label says is true?

So if a product says its product contains a genetically modified soybean, can they prove it? If it says it does not have a genetically modified soybean, can they prove it?

Mr. Larry McCormick: There are a lot of questions, that's for certain.

But let's use the example of McCain again. Could they put that label on their products this fall, on their french fries or whatever?

Mr. Bart Bilmer: They could put the label on, but we may ask them questions as to whether that label is actually true, is the product in the packaging.

Mr. Larry McCormick: You have the means of detecting or telling whether it's GMO if it's a straight grain or canola or potatoes, but then we get into the processing end of it. There is no test at this moment for much of that. Is that correct?

Mr. Bart Bilmer: If the potatoes, if we're using that example, are highly processed, likely you would have difficulty detecting anything, no matter what test you had.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I'm really glad to hear you, and I respect what you're saying, but that key word—and it's all we have here in Canada today—is “likely”. Taking nothing away from where your department will be, it's going to be quite a long trip before we arrive.

Dr. André Gravel: For your information, Mr. Chair, the agency will be leaving behind the article that I mentioned about GMO testing. I see that the annex is missing, so we'll send that over.

It does provide very solid scientific information about how we test for products and what are the limitations. And what Bart was saying about the difficulty of testing in products that have been processed, submitted to heat treatment, etc., will really come out of that.

So it's an offer, Mr. Chairman, if you want.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Yes, I'm sure we would all like to have that.

The Chair: We'd like it in both languages, of course.

Dr. André Gravel: We'll get it to you in both languages, of course.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I have a last question on something I want to clarify. And I apologize for coming in late. I was at another committee.

I want to get back to the old story that we've had technology and biotech for a couple of thousand years or more, and we keep using the examples of beer and cheese. I may have missed any comments you might have made on cheese and whether we today would call that GMO food or not. And I would appreciate any comment from either group on that.

Dr. André Gravel: Again, it's a very good question.

It relates to the absence of consensus on the scope of what is a product of biotechnology and what is genetic manipulation. The Europeans, as an example, do not consider mutagenesis as being genetic modification. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But if you submit DNA to irradiation or ultraviolet light or bacteria, the product that comes out of there will be mutant from the original bacteria. Contrary to what biotech does, it's sort of a random process; you irradiate and you hope that something will happen. You pick it up and play with it and it's a new product. Genetic engineering is a little different from that because you insert a gene in a specific location and you're watching for a specific trait to appear.

• 1010

Again, it's an issue of what we put under the labelling of GMO, and whether we consider that process as one or not.

Mr. Larry McCormick: And that's why we're here today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

By the way, Mr. Proctor, I think your point about whether an organization has a position one way or another on labelling is a good point, although I suppose it could be argued that even though the organization hasn't arrived at a policy position with respect to labelling, it still might be able to make some kind of contribution to the arguments or the discussion around the issue. But I'll be asking staff to keep that in mind.

Mr. Casson.

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to get back to the rights we have as a country and as a government with regard to consumer awareness and what we can and can't do. Did you say that if somebody feels their product is GMO free they can voluntarily, right now, put a label on it stating that?

Dr. André Gravel: That's correct.

Mr. Rick Casson: And it would be up to you to disprove it.

Dr. André Gravel: That's exactly it. It would come from complaints of competitors.... As an example, if McCain were to put “GMO-free potatoes” or “GMO-free french fries” on their labels, another company might say they don't believe it. Then the onus is on the agency to demonstrate that indeed it is or isn't that product.

Mr. Rick Casson: In the meantime, the label is on and it's on the shelf.

Dr. André Gravel: Yes.

Mr. Rick Casson: There has already been a number of GMO-altered crops or foods approved by Canada for sale. We were told that in order for mandatory labelling to be put into place there has to be a proven hazard to the consumer. If there is no proof that there is a hazard to the consumer, you have no legislative power to act. So if we are indeed going to look at mandatory labelling, what changes do we have to make in legislation or what do we have to do to enable us to do so?

Dr. André Gravel: I have just a slight comment about what you said about hazard. There are two circumstances that would trigger mandatory labelling. The first one is the presence of an allergen, which is considered to be a hazard, and the second one would be that the product does not meet the nutritional specification that a similar product would meet. As an example, if you had a potato that, through genetic modification of some sort, would have less of an essential vitamin or nutrient, in that case as well the product would have to be labelled.

As for your question about what we can do about legislation, my understanding is that Health Canada, when they were here at this committee—and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chairman—indicated that they have some doubts about using the Food and Drugs Act for that purpose, for the reasons I just quoted.

I don't know, maybe it's something we have to look at again. There are not too many pieces of legislation at this time that would allow us to have mandatory labelling of a product that is derived through a process without health and safety considerations. It's something that needs to be looked into.

As well, keep in mind the concerns expressed by our colleagues from DFAIT about our international obligations, the WTO, and the fact that if Canada is going to do it then Europe may say, well, from now on it's an accepted practice so they're only going to be accepting chicken that has been raised free-range. It's a method, a process, where it has to be identified as such, so there are other implications beyond what we're discussing here today.

• 1015

Mr. Rick Casson: Even with free-range chickens, you'd have to make sure that the range they're on, the grass, was not produced or altered to grow more quickly.

The trade issue is just huge, because the vast majority of our agricultural products are exported, and if we can't come to some kind of worldwide understanding on what the definition is, we could be placing ourselves in the soup here.

I'd like to ask Ms. Hendricks a question. It seems we have to go back farther in this process. We're talking about labelling foods, but we have to back up. We have to back up and do the research to prove or disprove that there is anything wrong here. How much of that is going on that you're aware of? Is there any targeted effort to take a certain number of products and get right back to do the research to find out if there are any harmful side effects?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: I think the major effort right now, the one we're looking at very closely, is the work of the committee that is functioning under the Royal Society. It is currently looking at what methods are used to evaluate genetically modified food, whether those methods are the best, and whether there should be a different approach to the evaluation of GM food.

That committee under the Royal Society is supposed to be coming out with its own report in the fall. I think that basically it's taking a critical look at scientific evaluation of GM food and what our approach should be, especially with the new products that will be coming down the line. I think this is the first step to having a good scientific perspective on that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was wondering why the agency would have to prove whether McCain potatoes were GM associated or not. Why wouldn't McCain have to prove that?

Dr. André Gravel: Good point.

However, in that case McCain would be put in the position of being judge and party. The agency has, to a certain extent, an enforcement role in terms of the Food and Drugs Act and regulations and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and regulations. This would be dealt with as an unsubstantiated claim. So if we were to, as an example.... I'm not saying we would do this, but if we were to find that there was a problem and we brought McCain to court, we would have to do our own tests.

The agency would, of course, as a first step, say to McCain, “Well, that statement is on your label. How do you ensure that this is the case?” They may have records of production, affidavits, etc., but the ultimate test of that, if we were to go to court, would be the judge saying “Well, you have all of this as circumstantial evidence, but where's the proof? Give me a test that will do it.”

So your question is right. McCain has something to do and the agency also has something to do.

Mr. Joe McGuire: I see.

There was an article on the CBC a few weeks ago about a group of medical researchers, in Calgary I think, that is developing a concoction that will stimulate cells in the pancreas, which was hailed as the cure for diabetes. This type of work is going on with a lot of diseases. We can't wait for these developments to occur, yet if there's a rice developed that is fortified with certain vitamins or whatever that people in the third world would need for nutrition, the same media outlet would hail it—and has—as frankenfood, and everybody is terrified of it. Or let's say if canola lands in England, the forces that assemble have been likened to those rallying around a nuclear explosion, and all their governments and everything stop to find the GMO seeds in canola.

How is this ever going to change the attitude we have towards advances in medicine or cures and advances in food technology that could help vast numbers of people around the world?

• 1020

Are labels going to change this? What do you propose, Ms. Hendricks?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: Well, I'm not sure I'll propose anything, but I'd like to comment. I think your point is very well taken.

How will that change? In a myriad of ways. One, people have pointed to education, and education is important, yes, but I would come back to the fact that you're dealing very much with an issue of trust.

When you're dealing with drugs, say, you trust your doctor to prescribe the right drugs. There might be exceptions, but I think as a rule this is a relationship of trust. I think this has been eroded, and whatever we put in place has to be a system that will rebuild full trust in the food system.

I think the idea of getting the citizen more involved in the decision-making process, and making the process transparent, would be very important. I think you should look at labelling partly as an issue of building trust with the public.

Mr. Joe McGuire: It must go beyond trust. I saw the results of a survey yesterday by the independent business council that ranked farmers as the top of the line. People trust farmers.

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: I don't know if you're suggesting—

Mr. Joe McGuire: They're growing this food.

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: —that we should sell GM foods in drugstores.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Joe McGuire: But is there something beyond trust? Is this something that Europeans are innately against and North Americans are more open to? Is it a cultural thing?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: I think all of those aspects should be considered. When I outlined some of the issues that will be looked at in, for instance, our ethics paper, it's basically a question of values—that is, what are the values in a given society? There's no doubt that the values in North America are slightly different from those in a European environment, or Indian, or what have you. As a society we have to take into account what are the values of our citizens and act accordingly.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Thank you.

The Chair: Just before we go back to Mr. Hilstrom, I have a question for either Madam Hendricks or Mr. Gravel.

It may be that the question I have really has to do with the relevancy, to laymen, of labelling. I'm very much a layman on this issue. It seems to me there is this ongoing argument around what a GMO is, what is the acceptable level of GMO, and, whatever the level is, whether it's safe when it comes to human consumption. It seems to me that as long as that argument continues as to what a GMO is and its level of tolerance, it really won't matter whether we have labelling or not; the argument is going to continue.

On the other side, let's take water as an example, which has been very much in the news of late, unfortunately, because of a certain tragedy. The scientists, it seems to me, have agreed as to the level of contamination in water. We all know, even us laymen, that there is no such thing as absolutely contamination-free water. But scientists seemingly have agreed as to what the level of tolerance should be, and as long as it doesn't exceed that, the water is safe.

So that argument with respect to water and other things has been settled. You could give me, after that argument is settled, a label that the water has this level of contamination. To me, as a layman, it means absolutely nothing. You could tell me that this water contains 0.000001 contaminants per one million or trillion or whatever, and it would mean absolutely nothing to me.

I guess my question is, as long as the scientists cannot come to an agreement on what is safe, isn't the whole labelling argument, at least for us laymen, almost moot?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: Speaking as a nutritionist, you're right, a label has a lot of limitations. It's a mechanism for information, but it gives you just one piece of the information.

• 1025

Now, I think you're absolutely right, we all accept that water is safe even though it doesn't have zero bacteria. It's an accepted fact. In the same way, even if there was a label that a product was “GM-free”, for instance, if along with the labelling process there was a process of public information that told the public, “In the case of Canadian standards, GM-free means x, y, z”, then the public would accept that it could not be zero, that we have determined that GM-free is x, y, z.

So you cannot just stick on a label. Along with labelling, you have to recognize that you have to have an information-type program that will tell the public what is the meaning of the label.

That's very well illustrated by nutrition labelling. It's been on for many years, but a lot of people have difficulty interpreting it even though there has been a lot of effort to help people understand the meaning of the labels.

You have a precedent, too, in terms of “fat-free” on labels. It's fat-free as long as there's no more than 0.0 x, y, z of fat, because we say it's not significant. This is public knowledge for those who are interested in that area.

So I think with whatever labelling process you use, you have to think that there will be a need to inform and educate the public.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I happen to be, just for your knowledge, a farmer and a politician. I'm glad to know that my credibility rating is probably pretty high, then, according to Mr. McGuire.

I mention that because I do spend a lot of time sampling public opinion from the business point of view and from the political point of view of voter support, and I think this concern over GMOs is greatly exaggerated and overrated. I think it's coming from the people who get covered in the media and that type of thing.

Let's just talk about the confidence not only in your committee but in Canada's food supply generally. Your committee is not trying to reach a consensus amongst all Canadians on this issue. It's my understanding that your committee is exploring the science of this. There would be a consensus in regard to science, but there will not be consensus when you have detractors saying “No matter what scientists say, I'm against GMOs.”

Would you just clarify for me, then, what exactly you're trying to do? I think you're trying to bring out the scientific evidence. As a result of bringing that out, what will happen is that the public will become aware of the information you're providing, and the media....

I see the Western Producer and the Manitoba Co-operator here, but I don't know if any other media are here. Every media in this whole country should have a representative in here listening to this so they can write about it in the papers and Canadians can read it.

Do you consider—and I'd like an answer to my first question as well—that this committee's work is going to be beneficial in bringing forth information to the Canadian public on this subject?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: When you say “this committee”, which committee are you referring to, yours or mine?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'm talking about your Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee.

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: Okay.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: As well, do you think our committee holding these hearings gives you an opportunity to put your information forth, which you want to do, to Canadians?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: To answer your question, let me first point out that CBAC won't be looking strictly at the scientific issue. I think the scientific issue is one dimension of the GMO issue.

I think we have to stress that, for instance, when we're looking at ethical issues, when we're looking at informing the public, it goes beyond the scientific issues. It's not strictly a question of science. Although we'll be looking at scientific issues, we'll also be looking at such things as economic issues and other sociological issues. So our perspective is much broader. We want to make certain we bring that information to Canadians and we get their input.

• 1030

Will we reach a consensus? I would be very presumptuous to claim that we will have a consensus, but I think with the views of the public, with the transparencies of the process, we'll be in a position to recommend a line of action or policies or mechanisms that will satisfy most Canadian citizens. That's what we're aiming at: keeping the dialogue constant. Technology of any kind has a major impact on society, and it's very important that we get our citizens to express their views on how they think this technology should be used and monitored and regulated so that it helps them develop the society they want.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: An informed public is a public that can make the best decisions by voting for those that are best representing the truth of issues. At one time they burned witches. At one time they thought the world was flat. It's very important on this GMO issue that the science be brought out and that it has overriding power in regard to this whole thing.

McCain has been brought up and I'd like to bring up Seagram. Seagram has a big plant in my area, so we're quite proud of all that. Those two companies are doing a marketing thing here as opposed to any kind of scientific thing. It's strictly marketing. Seagram, for instance, produces alcohol. That's nice stuff. I enjoy their product. However, it's a proven fact that if you consume too much alcohol, it will kill you. It will give you a disease and kill you. Right?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: Right.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: So we accept that risk and use that product wisely by not overconsuming. The risk of alcohol is much higher than the risk of GMO foods. People are calling for mandatory labelling and scaring people on that when the scientific proof is that it is not even detectable in foods we consume.

This is just to the point of taking a position for reasons other than science, probably ideological or whatever. I guess I'm making a bit of a statement, but these points have to be brought out. We're trying to inform the public through these hearings.

The last point I'd bring out, and the reason I was asking about the importance of this type of committee work in spreading the message that you're trying to get out, is the fact that at one point the opposition members on this side of the table had to fight tooth and nail to get that side of the table to hold the committee hearings that we're having here today. That was a travesty, and I'm glad the chairman has seen the light and is providing this opportunity for us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I'm not going get into an argument with Mr. Hilstrom, but he knows as well as anyone else that what he just said is absolutely false.

Madame Alarie.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: When we say that nobody gets sick from eating GMOs, I think that we make the issue too simple because we do not have the research. This was one of the things we asked for. We do not have the research on the long term effects of those products. We do not even have it for their medium and short term effects.

Last week, when the representatives of Health Canada came before us, they told us that those studies were only commissioned to them in April. We are now in May and we still haven't had the time to get organised to assess those effects. We see more and more environmental diseases. Resistance to antibiotics maybe has no relationship with GMOs, but we cannot tell right now. We do not know. We are asking for that research.

My question will be on the food exchange concept. Our GM foods are accepted when that concept is met. However, that concept is challenged in several studies. It is being challenged in many countries. It was challenged at the time of the debate in Montreal around the Protocol on Biodiversity, and it has no scientific value at the present time. This is more of a qualitative assessment by the industry. In the various articles I read, I often see the term “silent genes”, the percentage of which is low—I think it is around 5%—, but we cannot see them with the food exchange concept because we see only what the eye can see.

• 1035

This worries me because we do not talk much about them and I think that this is really the crux of the matter. If we agree on the exchange concept or if we recognise that it is absolutely sure, this will be interesting because then we will be able to make headway. But at the start, this is not being recognised in the scientific community.

Mr. André Gravel: Good question. You are quite right. There is certainly no consensus on the way we should assess GM foods. Personally, I think that the exchange concept is what is best at the moment. Stephen Yarrow, who is sitting behind me, told me yesterday that if it walks like a duck, if it cries like a duck and if it flies like a duck, then it is a duck. This is what the exchange concept is trying to establish. It is more than the data provided by the industry. We are in fact making complex molecular tests to determine whether the product has the same traits as the normal non genetically modified product. It therefore includes the ratio of proteins, the nutritional data, the presence or absence of allergens, etc.

The silent genes are genes that cannot express themselves. Therefore, the silent genes are not producing proteins. Besides, this is something I submitted to the expert panel as a possible subject for research. These experts are the best scientists in the area of biotechnology in Canada and I asked them to suggest to the Agency and to Health Canada testing methods that could be more adequate to assess those products.

As time goes, the Agency, Health Canada and the other Departments must adjust their scientific knowledge. The $30 million the government recently provided the Agency in order to increase its capacity in the biotechnology field will certainly be used to do that kind of research. Those monies will be used to make those tests and to increase our assessment capacity. So this is a developing area.

When we approved DDT, for instance—I do not remember what year it was—, the scientific knowledge of the time did not allow us to assess its effects. We are now able to make more precise analyses. In the area of biotechnology, that is probably what is happening. We know about the scientific discoveries and we change our methods to be totally up-to-date.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Alarie. We can come back to you.

Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I just want to pick up on that last point. Perhaps the scientific advances aren't there to know about GMO foods. I agree with you about DDT. We know about DDT now, but what about some of the GMO foods that we don't know about yet because there perhaps hasn't been an adequate amount of time to do the testing and to see the results? Is there some possibility that science hasn't caught up with some of the GMO foods?

Dr. André Gravel: The science that developed these products is the same science that is used to evaluate them. The level of scientific knowledge progresses very rapidly around the world. When I was at university, it took 20 to 25 years for the level of knowledge to double. It's now five years. Clearly science is evolving at a very rapid pace.

I personally feel confident that what we're doing now is not putting the public at risk. You've heard Health Canada coming here to indicate how they proceed with the evaluation of these products. The agency also does its own evaluation in terms of environmental impact, etc. So we're using the best tools we have at our disposal. I'm not saying this is inadequate; on the contrary, I think it is fully adequate. But we're open to changing if there's something in the science out there that we're not aware of and that we should be investigating.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay.

Let me follow up on your answer to Mr. McGuire a few minutes ago on the potato and the fact that CFIA would have to.... If somebody challenged McCain, you would need to prove that, to verify it before a judge or a tribunal or whatever. What happens on the other side, if a label says that it may contain GMO food? What is the obligation and responsibility of the Food Inspection Agency at that point?

• 1040

Dr. André Gravel: If it may contain, that also means that it may not contain, so I would consider that to be a neutral statement. “May contain” means that today it has some and tomorrow it doesn't, so it would be pretty hard for us to nail that down.

Mr. Dick Proctor: So you wouldn't bother doing a test on that if there was a label that said that.

Dr. André Gravel: We could test today and find that there is GMO, if it's possible. That would be okay because it says “may contain”. Tomorrow we could test again and find no GMO, and that would be okay again because it says “may contain”.

Mr. Dick Proctor: But isn't there something that's a little bit...? Let me phrase it another way. It seems strange to me that the CFIA would do a test to prove that something is non-GMO, organic free, or whatever is on the label but that you wouldn't do a test if it said that it might contain GMO.

What if it said that it does contain GMO? What would you do then? Would you test?

Dr. André Gravel: This has to do with whether people are satisfied that this is not a deceptive practice. If a company were to claim that there's GMO in there and that potentially it has better nutritional quality, better shelf stability, or it's safer, then of course in that case the agency would be in the same situation of asking that company to demonstrate that it's a true statement that they have on the label. So if it contains GMO or does not contain GMO, the onus is on them to demonstrate that it's true. If it comes to prosecution, the agency needs to prove it.

Mr. Dick Proctor: On page six of your presentation this morning you've said that the study determined that labelling is seen as important but is not viewed as a comprehensive solution. But in fact it is a comprehensive solution for those who are marketing GMO-free food or organic foods. It seems to me that we have a double standard at work here. You're going to test for a product that claims to be organic free, but you may or may not test for one that may or may not contain GMO foods. It just seems to me that it's a double standard.

Dr. André Gravel: If I may, Mr. Chair, that is not what I said. I said that in both cases the agency would be faced with the same situation. If there is a statement on the label that could be “misleading” to consumers, whether it contains or does not contain, the action would be the same.

I was reflecting in terms of the current climate in Canada and in Europe. I have a hard time seeing the consumer having some difficulty with the word “contains”. If you see “contains” and you don't want that product, you don't buy it. The “doesn't contain” then becomes the subject of—

Mr. Dick Proctor: But “may contain” is just sort of out there.

Dr. André Gravel: If you buy a pound of hot dogs, as an example, you will see in the list of ingredients “may contain pork/beef/mechanically deboned chicken”. That means that this operator is operating on the basis of the least-cost formula. If chicken is cheaper this week, there's going to be more of it. If beef is cheaper next week, there's going to be more of it. It's an optional type of labelling.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Ur.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: When the committee is travelling on these forums, are you going to be discussing biotech issues and paralleling it with labelling as well?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: At this point it's hard for me to say what we will be discussing in four months. I think the issue we bring to the table will be the key issue that emerges from the work we are currently doing. I would just say that I would be very surprised if labelling is not part of it, given its prominence in the public mind.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: How are we going to get to the bottom of it if that's not going to be a topic of discussion?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: It may very well be. It's just that at this point in time I'm certainly not in a position to be able to tell you what are going to be the main issues and the essence of our dialogue with the public. But I'm sure it will include many of the aspects of labelling. I think one of things we're going to bring to the table is a very major discussion on ethical issues, and I think that borderlines on labelling quite a bit.

• 1045

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Has your committee thus far given any advice on labelling to the government?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: Our committee has not given any advice to the government on labelling or any other aspect of biotechnology.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I think this is a question we should put to the chair rather than to you. Will the chair ever be able to present to this committee?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: Yes, he will be able to present to the committee. I think the only reason he was not presenting today is that he's out of the country.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: In the second paragraph of page two of your brief it says: “The second will focus on the protection and exploitation of biotechnological intellectual property, including the patenting of higher life forms.” If you give that phrase to someone walking by on the street, this looks like a lightning rod. I think this is one of the problems we're having with the GMOs. What exactly do you mean by that?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: I think of the patenting of the human genome, for instance. The intellectual property group has just undertaken their work, and they have commissioned a number of papers, which Norma could comment on. They will be looking at all issues of the patenting of higher life forms or maybe even plants. That has not been ruled out.

The Chair: You have time for one more question.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: That's fine.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Alarie, did you have another question?

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: There is something that I find very interesting and you said very little about it. It is the second part of your mandate which has to do with ethics, trade and environment. This could be of interest to us even if we are the Committee for Agriculture and International Trade. Do you intend to publish, for our next meetings, something like a committee report? Will we get something along the road?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: We will surely provide you with something. In the final report of the committee, if we just look at the GM food aspects of the issue, we see that, before having public consultations, a general report will be published. As I indicated, this comprehensive report should be published in the fall. But before we can do that, we identified a few issues that we want to study further.

I only mentioned three of the projects we have undertaken. The one on ethics is one of the projects where we will be dealing with some environmental issues. There is of course a scientific aspect to the environmental side of the question, but there is also an aspect which is linked to individual values and to the desire of Canadians to maintain some environmental balance.

We will therefore be delving into those issues first of all through the research that we will be commissioning or we will be asking for. I told you what we will be doing as a first step. We will then assess what we will receive and ask ourselves what other issues should be investigated further. In order to do that, we will be getting some expertise. There will be a comprehensive report which will deal with all those elements and which will serve, as a first step, as a reference document. We will then take into account the views we will get through the consultation process and we will integrate them into the final report of the committee which will be sent to the various ministers. This final report should be ready in March or April 2001.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Among the 20 people on your list—

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: There are environmental scientists.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I see that you have specialists from all areas, but there is nobody to represent consumers. Those people should be present during all the discussions you will have along the way.

• 1050

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: Obviously the question is who represents the citizens. The members of the committee are there as experts, but also as Canadian citizens and I think that each of them feels responsible and is speaking on behalf of all Canadian citizens. I am thinking of Ann Mitchell from the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy in Toronto. That organization represents first of all the view of the public. Even if it is specialized in one area, that organization has a wide community base.

[English]

The Chair: Howard, you have a short question.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We're an agriculture committee, and one of my big things is the primary producer—the farmer who's actually producing these crops. Do your studies and the inquiries you've set out in your booklet—and I'm a little bit like Ms. Ur, because we don't have a lot of time to read these things—look at the economic impact on the primary producer should a decision be made to recommend mandatory labelling, or even if it stays as voluntary labelling?

Loblaws and Sobey's are reported to have said that extra profits have come by putting a heavier squeeze on suppliers, who have in turn either tightened their belts or passed the squeeze back down the line. That's the reason for my question.

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: In answer to your question, let me comment briefly. I'll just outline for you what we have commissioned so far. We're currently looking at terms of reference to commission something on the cost-benefits of biotechnology, GM biofood, and that would include the point you just raised.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you.

The Chair: Can I just finish, Madam Hendricks, by asking you the following? Do you believe the skirmishing we've had around the issue of labelling is really secondary to the skirmishing involving scientists around the whole question of safety of GMOs, and that when the scientists finally settle the safety issues, the issues around labelling will disappear?

Let me raise this as a possible parallel. I'm old enough to remember some of the controversies around fluoride in water thirty and forty years ago. There was a famous Canadian TV personality named Gordon Sinclair, who used to call fluoride in water rat poison. I think it was a minority view. The main body of scientific knowledge didn't support that view. Ultimately the issue died away. I don't remember the last time I heard any great controversy around fluoride in water. I think the scientific community has just said it's basically safe.

Do you think the same thing could happen with GMOs? Once the scientists of the world—and it's not just Canadians here—can settle some of these safety issues, the issue of labelling will just fade away.

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: I wish I could tell you yes, but I don't believe so. I think the science might be 70% or 80% of the issue, but there is also another dimension to it. Maybe science will satisfy 80% of your citizens, but there are other dimensions there that will have to be addressed.

There is the question of the environment, which is not necessarily a question of a health effect or health safety. To take your example of fluoridation, the city of Montreal still doesn't have fluoride because a famous citizen, Jean Drapeau, believed the same thing as Gordon Sinclair.

The Chair: Has there been any great controversy in Montreal of late?

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: There hasn't been any. Nobody has brought the issue forward. We could go into a long debate on the state of dental health in Montreal compared to other areas. Those issues do not necessarily go away.

• 1055

The Chair: Thank you. I appreciate your comments.

Thanks also to Dr. Gravel, Mr. Bilmer, and Madam Burlington.

This meeting is over.