AGRI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 28, 2002

0910

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.))

Mr. Paul Hetherington (President, Baking Association of Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Harrison (President, Canadian National Millers Association)

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Harrison

The Chair

Mr. Paul Hetherington

0915

Mr. Gordon Harrison

0920

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Hillard (Vice-President, Issues and Policy, Consumers' Association of Canada)

Ms. Gail Lacombe (Past President, Consumers' Association of Canada)

0925

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

0930

0935

The Chair

Mr. Brian Trueblood (Executive Member of the Board, Grain Growers of Canada)

Mr. Terry Daynard (Chair of the Biotech Committee, Grain Growers of Canada)

0940

Mr. Brian Trueblood

The Chair

Mr. Ken Hough (Director of Research and Market Development, Ontario Corn Producers' Association)

0945

0950

0955

The Chair

Mr. Ken Hough

The Chair

Ms. Janet Lambert (President, BIOTECanada)

1000

1005

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Terry Daynard

1010

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Ken Hough

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Ken Hough

Mr. David Anderson

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

Mr. David Anderson

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

Mr. David Anderson

1015

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

Mr. David Anderson

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

The Chair

Mr. Duplain

Ms. Gail Lacombe

Mr. Duplain

Ms. Gail Lacombe

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

1020

Mr. Duplain

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon--Souris, PC/DR)

1025

Mr. Paul Hetherington

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Paul Hetherington

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Paul Hetherington

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Paul Hetherington

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

1030

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Janet Lambert

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Janet Lambert

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Ms. Janet Lambert

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton--Kent--Middlesex, Lib.)

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

The Chair

Mr. Terry Daynard

1035

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

The Chair

Mr. Ken Hough

The Chair

Mr. Calder

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

Mr. Calder

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

1040

Mr. Calder

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

Mr. Calder

Mr. Gordon Harrison

The Chair

Mr. Ken Hough

The Chair

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Gordon Harrison

Mr. Anderson

Mr. Gordon Harrison

The Chair

Mr. Brian Trueblood

1045

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Terry Daynard

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Terry Daynard

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Gordon Harrison

1050

The Chair

Ms. Jennifer Hillard

Mr. Paul Hetherington

Ms. Janet Lambert

Mr. Brian Trueblood

1055

The Chair

Mr. Ken Hough

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Harrison

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

NUMBER 053

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)): Good morning, everyone.

Pursuant to standing order 108(2), a study on the labelling of genetically modified foods, the impacts of voluntary and mandatory labelling on agricultural producers and the rest of the agrifood industry, we have a number of witnesses this morning from five different organizations.

I guess the table isn't quite big enough for ten people, but rather than having all ten, if you would like to have your confrere with you when you're making your presentation, feel free to have him or her come to the table at that time.

Our first witness on the list is, from the Canadian National Millers Association, Paul Hetherington.

Paul, with you today, I understand, is Gordon Harrison, your president. Is that right?

Mr. Paul Hetherington (President, Baking Association of Canada): No, we have two organizations represented here.

The Chair: Oh. Gordon, you're with...?

Mr. Gordon Harrison (President, Canadian National Millers Association): The Canadian National Millers Association.

The Chair: Oh, I see. It's under a different heading. Let me just get this straight now.

Gordon, you're the president of the Canadian National Millers Association, and Paul is the president of the Baking Association of Canada.

I was reading this morning that great part about the baker and Joseph's dream. Sometime maybe read that good book of Genesis about the baker. In any case, we welcome both of you here.

Gordon, would you like to be first, then?

Mr. Gordon Harrison: Actually, Paul would like to speak first. Would that be all right?

The Chair: Oh, Paul is going to speak first.

Mr. Paul Hetherington: Good morning, everyone. I'm here this morning on behalf of the members of BAC, who produce more than 75% of our nation's baked foods, ranging from breads and rolls, to sweet goods, to frozen doughs and par-baked products. And on behalf of these members, I wish to express our concern and frustration with the position they have been put into regarding genetically modified ingredients.

This is a position that includes a substantial level of consumer distrust about GM ingredients and therefore their products and possible exposure to costly labelling requirements, whether they be voluntary or mandatory.

There has been much said about GM products, about their potential and possible negative implications for environmental and consumer health. The Baking Association of Canada does not offer an opinion on this; for that we look to science and the Government of Canada's regulatory bodies. And if I may, it is our opinion that it is here that leadership on this important matter has been sadly lacking.

We in Canada have a long history of the use of science in our regulatory systems. As I am sure you are aware, the regulatory system for food manufacturing, defined predominantly by Health Canada and enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, provides a very complex framework of regulations and guidelines that food manufacturers must follow. These regulations and guidelines are science based, whether they are for nutrition or food safety purposes.

Let me take a moment to outline some of the existing labelling requirements for food manufacturers.

With regard to food composition, food labels must include a list of approved ingredients by order of their presence in the finished product.

For nutritional composition, there's a standard format in which manufacturers indicate the food's nutritional content per serving size. While nutrition labelling is currently voluntary, Health Canada is in the process of making nutritional labelling mandatory, and we expect implementation of this regulation within the year.

A point I would like to make is that neither of these labelling requirements is directly related to food safety as all of the food ingredients used are recognized as being safe for the entire lifetime of consumption. If ingredients are not safe for a lifetime of consumption, they're simply not approved for use in Canada. We rely on science and our regulators to make the determination of this safety.

The food industry is also responding to growing consumer concerns about allergen ingredients. Currently Health Canada has identified a list of 10 major allergens that can cause life-threatening reactions with allergic consumers. Food manufacturers are required to list these allergens and Health Canada is currently proposing new regulations that would require listing of not only the primary allergen ingredients but also when they are used in components of minor ingredients.

The point I would like to make about allergens is that it is fair to say that there's agreement between health professionals that not all allergens are the same from the perspective of causing an allergic reaction. But science has of yet not been able to differentiate at what thresholds various allergic ingredients become a danger to allergic consumers. Therefore our regulators require all allergens to be treated the same and aggressively enforce a no-tolerance policy. Indeed, in the case of allergens, our regulators have erred on the side of caution, based on currently available scientific information.

Food manufacturers are also eligible to make claims about products they sell to consumers. We are able to make claims about nutrient content of our products, such as no fat, if scientifically verifiable.

In some cases we have come up against situations where science would appear to support one conclusion, but our regulators have erred on the side of caution and refused to support a particular claim. As an example, under our current regulatory system, my members are specifically prohibited from making a health benefit statement or health claim, as they are called, on food labels. I'm sure you are aware that Health Canada is reviewing the issue of health claims yet decided against a claim for folate or folic acid, as it's otherwise known, even though this claim could be scientifically proven.

I believe it's important to take a moment to review this issue, because I believe it relevant to the reliance on science by our regulators in their decision-making process.

In 1997, Health Canada requested and received support from the food industry, including the Baking Association of Canada and the Canadian National Millers Association, to fortify flour with folic acid as a means to help reduce neural tube birth defects in children. The most common of these, spina bifida, is a result of the malformation of the spinal cord, and about 400 babies are born each year in Canada with this condition.

It is a scientific fact that women who eat enough folic acid are far less likely to give birth to a child with a neural tube birth defect. In recognition of this, the United Sates approved a health claim for folate. However, in Canada this is one of the three claims for cereal-based foods that are approved for use in the United States but not in Canada.

¿ (0915)

The rationale we receive from our regulators is that there is a lack of scientific information. My intent throughout my remarks has been to demonstrate that our regulators use a science-based decision-making process when it comes to our labelling regulations and guidelines. Indeed, when the science is lacking--of course, in their opinion--they err on the side of caution.

It is in the face of this history of a scientific approach that my membership, a provider of a staple to the Canadian diet, is left confused by the current discussion on the safety of GM products. Wasn't this question already addressed by Health Canada when they approved the products? If there are questions about the safety, why are these products still on the market?

While we may accept approved genetically modified crops and ingredients as being safe, consumers have demanded a choice as to whether they consume such products. The Baking Association of Canada has responded by passing a resolution that likewise demands that our members have the choice as to whether they use genetically modified ingredients or not.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, just to read that resolution even though a copy has been provided to the clerk:

BAC members recognize their unique responsibility in providing a nutritious staple to the daily diet of Canadian consumers. Furthermore, BAC recognizes and supports Canadian consumers' rights to choose foods they purchase and consume. BAC also respects the right of producers to grow crops that have been approved and certified safe by Canada's regulatory bodies.

Therefore, in order to meet our obligation to provide consumer choice, Canada's baking industry requires choice throughout the grain value chain.

The Baking Association of Canada therefore insists:

1. That should genetically modified wheat [in this case] and ingredients made from GMO wheat be introduced to the Canadian grain system, insurance must be provided that GMO and GMO-free wheat are segregated throughout the value chain.

2. That as non-GMO varieties are the current norm, any cost (both direct & indirect) associated with the introduction and segregation of GMO wheat varieties must be borne by the new GMO varieties.

Mr. Gordon Harrison: Mr. Gordon Harrison: Thank you.

I'm here on behalf of the Canadian National Millers Association. Our association represents 14 member companies that operate 25 flour mills across Canada, from B.C. to Halifax.

Our relevance to this issue, and indeed to producers, is that our industry purchases about 10% of all wheat grown in western Canada, and approximately 40% of all wheat grown in eastern Canada. Our members manufacture wheat flour, semolina, wheat bran, and mill feeds, and of those ingredients, the first three are all used as food ingredients, as we trust the members of the committee know.

You probably realize wheat flour is the number one ingredient in in-store bakeries and in the biscuit and cracker section of the grocery store. What you probably don't realize is that wheat flour is used very broadly. It's used in soups, salad dressings, sauces, prepared mustards, breakfast cereals, confectionery products, and processed meats. You'll even find wheat flour in canned dog food and in dog biscuits.

About 90% of all flour manufactured in Canada is used as an ingredient in this range of products. The remaining 10% is sold at retail level for home cooking.

I'm making a point of this because if labelling is required for genetically modified flour manufactured from genetically modified wheat, this will mean there will be thousands of products that will require labelling. We believe that's the case whether it's a voluntary system of positive and negative or a mandatory system of positive and negative.

Paul mentioned that members of the CMNA and the baking industry do support labelling that helps consumers deal with health, safety, and nutritional issues and those kinds of things, but the issue of labelling to declare genetically modified ingredients changes the equation dramatically.

Our friends at the Food and Consumer Product Manufacturers of Canada are partners in the task force on foods and biotechnology. They have sponsored consumer research that reveals that when labelling is there, consumers will see it as a warning statement. A significant percentage of consumers will never buy foods that are labelled as such, and a majority will try to avoid them at all cost. With this knowledge, we think it's unlikely that member companies of the Baking Association of Canada and the other food processing industries that are among those I mentioned in the grocery aisles will actually continue to use genetically modified food ingredients if labelling is a requirement.

We've taken notice of the Baking Association of Canada's resolution, and it's quite clear that when they say they want choice, it's with the option of turning away from labelling, reformulating their products, or finding other suppliers, and if they can't do that because of the necessity of the ingredient, we believe some manufacturers will actually withdraw certain products from the market rather than label them and put them on the shelves.

As ingredient suppliers to the food and beverage processing sector, we don't feel we should be forced to provide them with something they want. Therefore, it is our view, as you've heard from others in the grain handling and transportation system, that since the system is not yet prepared to deal with genetically modified wheat on top of all the other things that are already in the marketplace, it's important and necessary that we ask producers not to grow genetically modified wheat until such time as the system can handle it and can provide us, our customers, and consumers with that choice.

We'd also like to bring to the committee's attention something you probably haven't heard yet. It is a fact that Canada's publicly funded cereal-breeding community, under the auspices of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, is devoting a significant portion of resources to developing genetically modified wheats. This is normal course. They've tooled up. They've teched up. And they're a couple of years down the road in doing so.

The implication is that many wheat varieties that would be captured under the CGSB labelling standard or the definition that had been proposed in the private member's bill would be subject to this kind of labelling. If there is no market in Canada for genetically modified wheat, we question why this should continue.

In summary, I want to say the requirement to label changes everything for the agrifood sector--the entire value chain in the grains industry, certainly. If consumers will not buy these products, processors will not use the ingredients. They will reformulate. They'll find other suppliers in other countries if need be, and they will indeed be forced to withdraw products from the market rather than have those brands deemed to be genetically modified and therefore perceived as unsafe or something you should be warned away from consuming.

If processors won't use it, food ingredient manufacturers such as flour millers will not buy genetically modified crops to make those ingredients. And if the ingredient manufacturers will not buy those genetically modified crops, producers should be fully prepared to provide choice to the ingredient manufacturers, and they should recognize that if they grow these crops legitimately, crops that are approved under our regulatory system and deemed to be safe, there may not be a domestic market.

¿ (0920)

I want to thank the committee and members for listening to our views. We will file a translated written brief with the committee clerk by the middle of the month. We apologize for not having our materials translated today.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Gordon and Paul. You've staked out some territory there, and I guess the consumers were listening.

From the Consumers' Association of Canada, we have Jennifer Hillard and Gail Lacombe. Who is to present, both of you?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard (Vice-President, Issues and Policy, Consumers' Association of Canada): It takes two people for us to be bilingual.

[Translation]

Ms. Gail Lacombe (Past President, Consumers' Association of Canada): Bonjour.

The Consumers Association of Canada was created in 1947. It is an independent non-profit organization that mainly relies, for its operation, on volunteers throughout Canada.

Its mandate is to inform and educate consumers on marketplace issues, to advocate for consumers with government and industry, and work with government and industry to solve marketplace problems in beneficial ways.

CAC focuses its work in the areas of food, health, trade,standards, financial services, communications services, industry and other marketplace issues as they emerge and impact on consumers.

[English]

I will now turn it over to the other half of the bilingualism, Jennie Hillard, vice-president, policy and issues, at CAC.

¿ (0925)

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: Thank you, Gail.

CAC's interest in biotechnology, its food, health and industrial applications and related consumer issues has spanned the last 15 years, beginning with a policy seminar in 1988. CAC always strives to provide a balanced perspective on consumer issues, therefore our policy is neither blanket opposition nor total support for biotechnology. We recognize that biotechnology is a powerful technology that is progressing at an amazing rate outside of a publicly acceptable overall policy framework.

CAC believes that biotechnology promises a number of potential benefits for consumers, but to take advantage of these we need to be able to manage the risks, including the current vocal opposition to the technology in general and GM food in particular. Before Canada proceeds further with food biotechnology applications, there's a need to identify where the public believes the line falls between what is and what is not acceptable according to social, ethical, economic, and scientific considerations. A public policy framework should be established to enable this technology to deliver maximum benefit to consumers in a manner that is acceptable to the Canadian public.

Much of the negative publicity surrounding GM food has little to do with the technology, but GM food is an easy focus for opposition to globalization, industrialized farming, and increasing concentration in the international agricultural chemical industry, the major marketers and distributors of food applications of biotechnology. Few consumers can even begin to understand the various types of technologies used to genetically modify food or the Canadian system used to regulate modified products that appear on Canadian store shelves. Media stories that include pictures of the fruit and vegetable aisle of grocery stores reinforce the impression that this is where the GM food can be found rather than in multi-ingredient products. These images further stir up opposition to GM food as they suggest that someone has made changes to the food products that are generally seen as the most wholesome and nutritious.

The right to choice is a basic consumer right, and it's impossible for consumers to make choices without adequate, accurate information. CAC has always supported consumers' right to have the information they need to make informed decisions, and we're very serious about the education and information dissemination part of our mandate.

For this reason, contrary to many reports, we have never opposed the labelling of food derived from biotechnology. However, we have fought long and hard over the years for all labels and claims to be supported by accurate data that is available to consumers on request. We have opposed labelling that is misleading and have attempted to get government control in places where voluntary initiatives have either failed or proven inadequate. CAC is one of the few non-governmental organizations that have been an active part of the Canadian General Standards Board committee to create a voluntary standard for labelling of food derived and not derived from biotechnology.

CAC opposed the Caccia bill on mandatory labelling, not because we oppose mandatory labelling but because the draft bill included a statement that would have narrowed the Canadian definition of genetic modification to include only products of rDNA technology, and this would have undermined the novel food regulations used in Canada. We believe that regulating products that have a novel trait, regardless of how that trait was achieved, is more effective than just regulating one technology and allowing modified products of other technologies to enter the market without that second layer of health and safety regulation.

Mandatory labelling schemes for GM food that are being proposed in other countries are proving unworkable. Implementation is so difficult that some countries are delaying the start of their programs. Few consumer groups are happy with the details of mandatory schemes. Countries that have tried implementation are finding that mandatory labelling schemes are serving to keep products out of the market rather than to inform consumers. This is of course the intent of many groups that are opposed to GM food but are using the call for mandatory labelling as a way of eliminating these products from the shelves. The discussion of whether or not these products should be on the market should be kept separate from the labelling discussion in order to enable that debate to take place in an appropriate manner.

CAC does not believe that labelling is an adequate substitute for safety. If a food is not safe, it should not be on the shelves. There is already a regulatory requirement in Canada to label food products that have changed composition in nutritional qualities or that present a risk to consumers through increased allergenicity. A simple solution early in this debate might have been to add a requirement to explain how the changes that triggered these mandatory labels were made. The labelling debate has likely become too polarized now for this to solve the problem.

CAC does not believe that a logo without explanation is an adequate label for GM food, and we share the concern of industry that this might be interpreted as a warning or hazard symbol. We have also vigorously opposed “may contain” labels as we feel these do not provide adequate information for consumers and only serve to protect processors from liability.

Any labelling scheme must satisfy both the consumer's need for clear, meaningful, and accurate information and the need for labels to be verifiable. This means that the scientific and audit data to support the claim must not only exist, it must be available to those requesting it.

¿ (0930)

CAC believes it's critical that the government control negative claims, foods claiming to have no GMOs. We have argued for at least 15 years for control of claims like “organic” that enable products to charge a premium by implying that regular food is not safe, which suggests that low-income consumers can't afford to eat healthy food. The opportunity for economic fraud based on negative GM claims that cannot be substantiated is enormous. With the addition of a “how” explanation to the labelling that is already required and some control on negative claims, the marketplace might sort itself out very quickly.

CAC has not lobbied for mandatory labelling. Our greatest concern is with the accuracy of any labels in the marketplace. We applaud the efforts of the retail sector to prevent the market becoming flooded with misleading labels before an acceptable scheme could be developed for Canada.

GM food was the main topic of our 2001 annual general meeting, and our members sent a strong message that no labelling was better than inaccurate labelling. Our ideal situation would be a good standard and a reference to that standard in legislation. This would not force mandatory labelling but would ensure a level playing field for Canadian products and imports, and less consumer confusion. Unfortunately, CAC was not able to vote in favour of the CGSB standard because it allows products regulated as GM under Canada's novel food regulations to make negative claims.

Whether this committee will be able to reach agreement and produce an acceptable standard is still uncertain. However, consensus was reached on a fair number of important points. We do not believe these two years of work will be wasted. The many issues that have been discussed and debated at the CGSB meetings would have to be considered at some time, whether we're moving to a voluntary scheme or a mandatory scheme for Canada. All of these complex details have been subjected to much more in-depth stakeholder discussion and analysis than in any other country, and this work will provide a sound basis for any decision taken by the government on GM labelling.

CAC agrees with the retail and processing industry that there will be market impacts from the introduction of positive GM claims into Canadian stores. However, we believe that as consumers find that products taste and cook exactly the same as those that were unlabelled the previous week and, more importantly for many consumers, that they cost the same, the temporary negative market impact will be reversed.

There is undoubtedly already consumer demand for food that does not contain GM ingredients. This will create the need for segregated identity-protected crops, and these will appear on the market, probably at a premium price. Mandatory labelling would either force identity protection and segregation of all crops or would cause processes to reformulate to eliminate the GM ingredients.

Obviously, either of these alternatives would come at a price that would be borne most heavily by the two ends of the market chain--farmers and consumers. There has been considerable debate and some studies on what this cost would actually be. A study done for the Australian market suggested that the additional cost would increase food prices by about 20%. This study was severely criticized and its credibility became very suspect.

CAC was asked to be part of an oversight committee for a similar study being done for the Canadian market. We chose to participate, but our initial advice to use a different consultant from that used for the Australian committee and to use consensus decisions already reached by the CGSB committee as baseline assumptions were ignored. The final study came out with numbers that, while not as high as those predicted in the Australian study, were grossly inflated due to the unrealistic assumptions on which the research was based. CAC refused to have its name attached to the final report, and we recommend that this committee carefully consider the assumptions on which this report was founded before putting too much credibility into the results it produced.

We would like to see a realistic and undistorted study done so that the debate on the cost of a labelling scheme that meets consumers' needs can occur with all the meaningful facts available.

Thank you.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Thank you, Jennifer.

From the Grain Growers of Canada, we have Brian Trueblood, the executive member of the board, and Terry Daynard, chair of the biotech committee.

Mr. Brian Trueblood (Executive Member of the Board, Grain Growers of Canada): Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing us to come before you today.

The Grain Growers of Canada is a relatively new organization representing grain and oilseed producers right across the country, from the Atlantic Grains Council right across to the B.C. Grain Producers Association. We include Quebec grain farmers, Ontario corn, soybean, the Ontario wheat board, the Manitoba Corn Growers Association, western Canada wheat and barley growers, the Alberta Barley Commission, and of course the organization I'm from, the Canadian Canola Growers Association.

Our members generally support genetically modified food and they've done so in quite a broad way. The number of acres sown to genetically modified crops has really grown, even though farmers have had many options. About 60% of the canola that's grown, 25% of the soybeans here in Ontario, and about 40% of the corn grown is genetically modified. Farmers have chosen to grow those crops for a wide number of reasons. Many of them have broad general social benefits to society, including soil conservation, less fuel use, and better value for the farmers. Farmers right across this country have seen the benefit of these crops and have adopted them quite quickly.

We believe in the future there will be a lot more benefits coming from this technology and we want to ensure that we have access to this technology down the road.

Mr. Terry Daynard (Chair of the Biotech Committee, Grain Growers of Canada): On a personal note, I farm as well in Ontario. All of my soybeans are genetically modified because it has enabled me to cut my herbicide bill by 80%. All of my corn, or 80% of my corn, is genetically modified. I got sick and tired of seeing corn leaving the farm that was damaged because of insects and loaded with a lot of microtoxins that were associated with that. I wish my wheat was genetically modified. I'm tired of having wheat being rejected due to high levels of fusarium and natural toxins in there that traditional plant breeding has tried to address without success. A lot of the research that's going on is trying to address that with biotechnology.

Those are known toxins at parts per million that can be very hazardous. That's in the system right at the moment. I think that when you're viewing this, you have to think long term in terms of what we want to achieve as well as some short-term concerns that we're addressing.

We're very supportive as an organization of the Canadian approach to regulation of genetically modified crops and foods under the novel food regulations of the Food and Drugs Act. We think it's the best regulatory approach and you should be proud of being associated with that. Whatever you do, you don't want to undermine that. It has a claim internationally. It has a claim from the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organisation, the OECD, and groups like that. It's a superior system. We recommend that you continue to regulate on the basis of that science-based system, and consistent with what Canada fought so hard a decade ago to achieve under the World Trade Organization, the sanitary and phytosanitary approach to regulation, you should make these decisions on good science and not market and other more subjective considerations. We're strongly supportive of that.

We believe the Canadian regulatory system works well. We didn't have a StarLink problem here except for a couple of cases identified coming over the border. Other places have. It's a compliment to the regulatory system. You have to bear in mind that the numbers say anywhere between one million and three million Canadians become sick from food poisoning a year and not one of those cases has ever been identified with a genetically modified organism. So you have to keep these things in perspective in terms of your dealing with this.

We do support the right for consumers to know, to have choice, but it has to be put into perspective. We are strong supporters of voluntary. It's not an escape, an easy out; we think it's a better system. A voluntary system of labelling can be linked to no emphasis, no exemptions, the sorts of things in the rest of the world that the Consumers' Association just talked about. In an attempt to make a mandatory system work, the rest of the world has just filled it full of holes, loopholes, exemptions for this and that and everything else. If stuff has to be either yes or no and you don't know how to handle the stuff in the middle, you create exemptions. With a voluntary system, you don't do that. If there's a hint that anything in there is genetically modified, don't call it non-GM. That's the sort of thing we feel very strongly about.

If you have a system, it has to be backed up with an adequate testing program where you can identify the stuff in there or an identify preserve system where you can't. The corn off my farm goes to make high-fructose corn syrup. There is no way you can test for that to see if it's been genetically modified. A fructose molecule is the same whether it comes from Bt corn or not, so the only way you can enforce a system there is with an identity preserve thing, the sort of thing we have to do with organic. If people are going to label it as non-GM and not from non-GM crops, then it has to have that kind of system in there and the integrity.

And it's going to be associated with a cost. We agree with the Consumers' Association. We think some of the studies that are available have inflated the costs, but there still are going to be some costs of doing this and the consumer should have the choice if they're willing to pay that, just the same as they are for organic and an awful lot of other different approaches.

I think the final thing is that we do have some differences of opinion within our organization. We want to be open about that in terms of what should be included and we're going to tell you both sides of it.

¿ (0940)

From the corn and soybean side in particular, we believe it should be consistent with the novel foods regulatory approach in the definition. To be very precise, 47 crops have been registered in Canada as being novel and genetically modified. Of that, about 42 are the products of recombinant DNA. Approximately four or five are from other techniques, particularly mutagenesis. The Canadian regulatory system says that one is as much a hazard as the other, and they all have to be tested thoroughly. The Canadian approach works.

Consumer surveys show that their view of what's genetically modified includes a broader definition than the scientific community often needs to be there. We've done a survey, and the Consumers' Association, I believe, has done some focus groups on that.

You also have to be very careful. Those four to five that are the products of mutagenesis are not coming from small plant breeders working at a university lab; they're coming from large multinational chemical companies, the same as the recombinant DNA. If you pick on one definition or another, you're basically picking winners and losers in a multi-million-dollar game. We believe the approach should be broader.

We're not talking about seedless grapes, tangelos, or things like that. We're talking about four to five additional crops that have been called novel and are defined now under Canadian law as genetically modified. From the corn and soybean perspective, we believe it should be the broader definition.

But there's a difference of opinion, and Brian's going to present you with the alternate point of view.

Mr. Brian Trueblood: Certainly. The Canadian Canola Growers Association wants to be consistent as well, but we want to be consistent with our export markets and the Codex definition that exists out there in the world already.

We're concerned about what it says if we have a different definition in Canada from the rest of the world, especially with regard to the novel trades approach. What does it say if we begin to call things under a different label?

Again, if we want labelling to mean something, it must be verifiable. We believe that's easier to achieve with rDNA, so we support the narrow definition.

The Chair: Thank you.

Next, from the Ontario Corn Producers' Association--Ken, you're separate from Terry on this, I understand--we have Ken Hough.

Mr. Ken Hough (Director of Research and Market Development, Ontario Corn Producers' Association): Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the committee about the potential impact of labelling of GM and non-GM foods in the agrifood sector.

First, let me indicate that the Ontario Corn Producers' Association is highly confident in the capability of Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to assure that there are no significant adverse health or environmental safety risks associated with novel traits. Thus we view the labelling of GM or non-GM foods and food ingredients as strictly an issue of informed consumer choice, not one of health, food safety, or environmental impact. As a consumer choice issue, it is important to ensure that any labelling plan will be verifiable, informative, understandable, truthful, and particularly, not misleading.

OCPA members, of which there are roughly 22,000 in the province of Ontario, have actively supported the availability of genetically modified crops. As has been indicated, the uptake of these genetically modified crop varieties has been tremendous, with about 40% of the Ontario corn crop--the Canadian corn crop, for that matter--being genetically modified. There is a variety of benefits associated with that, as has already been alluded to.

To address the impact of GM on the agrifood sector, there are a number of issues that need to be considered. First, what is the scope of products that are captured? Through extensive consultations that have spanned over a decade now, there has come to be an established definition in Canadian legislation and regulations--that is, the "novel traits" definition. This definition is based on the attributes of the product, not the process by which that product is developed. That's because there's comparable risk. Regardless of how a novel trait is developed, the risk is similar and needs to be evaluated.

As has already been indicated, there's significant international acclaim or support for Canada's approach to regulation of novel traits, and that rationale for novel trait regulation is as valid today as it was a decade ago. OCPA believes consumers and the entire agrifood sector will be best served by adhering to and using the novel traits/novel foods definition within the labelling of genetic modification.

The website of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency provides a current listing of all GM or novel traits. That, as Terry has indicated, is a list of 47 traits that have been approved on a variety of crops. The list includes those that have been developed by rDNA techniques, as well as the mutagenesis-based breeding process--rDNA in all the crops listed and the mutagenesis-based traits in at least corn, wheat and canola.

Is there any scientific logic as to why labelling should treat those any differently, whether they're from rDNA or mutagenic sources? No. If that were the case, then our whole regulatory system would be without standing.

Also, is there any reason to show favouritism of one method of genetic modification over another? We think not, because that could have very substantial influence on market factors in the marketing and production of those crops.

If one were to choose or show favouritism of rDNA over mutagenic breeding processes, the result would probably be that plant breeders, whether in the private system or in the public breeding arena, would revert to the older, less precise method of bombardment with nuclear radiation or mutagenic chemicals rather than using the more modern, more precise, more exacting techniques of genetic engineering.

¿ (0945)

The second issue is voluntary versus mandatory labelling. OCPA is very supportive of the voluntary approach, but we are opposed to mandatory labelling. Our rationale is that with mandatory labelling, as has already been alluded to, the rest of the world has shown that you have to have a huge number of exemptions and exclusions in order to make it work. We don't believe that's in the best interests of informed consumer choice.

Also with mandatory labelling, studies have shown--and some of them have been referred to here--that food costs will increase. Whether their numbers are accurate as to whether that's a 10% or a 20% increase, we can't say as an association because we don't have that expertise, but it's certainly clear that food costs would increase. With mandatory labelling, consumers aren't going to want to pay more, understandably. I'm a consumer, and I don't want to pay more for my food. All the costs associated with mandatory labelling are going to be shifted back right down to the primary producer and ultimately borne by the primary producer.

As a means to avoid higher food costs, as has been indicated by our colleagues from the millers association, food processors may very well force their suppliers to forgo the use and benefits of GM technologies in order to ensure a supply of non-GM. That would mean that we as producers would forgo the benefits we have so clearly seen from these products. Further, it's clear that even when there are clear benefits, the food companies are not willing to stand up and promote those.

NewLeaf potatoes are one example. This is not related to corn, but nevertheless there are very clear environmental advantages, such as a massive reduction in pesticide use. But the companies involved would not promote that benefit, which is highly supported by most consumers, and promote the use of NewLeaf potatoes. NewLeaf potatoes are no longer available on the market.

A similar case is sweet corn. Again, it's a crop not represented by our particular organization, but Bt-enhanced sweet corn can reduce pesticide use by substantial amounts--80% or 90%. But it is not being grown, because companies are unwilling at this point in time to stand up and say, “Here is a consumer benefit that we're willing to put a label on”.

By contrast, voluntary labelling allows a greater opportunity to ensure that label claims are truthful, not misleading, and more informative than would be the case with mandatory labelling. There's no need for exemptions, as Terry has already pointed out. This would allow consumers true choice. Also, increased costs associated with voluntary labelling would be restricted to only those products or brands that bear specific GM or non-GM labels. Those costs could be borne equally throughout the system and ultimately probably by the consumers who wish to make that choice for those particular foods.

The next issue is tolerance levels. In any production system, regardless of whether it's food or non-food, there's always a small potential for inadvertent mixing with undesirable ingredients. This happens in the food industry. Unintentional mixing can occur within harvesting, trucking, storage, processing, all the way through the system. Consequently, there's no such thing as zero tolerance. In most situations, this unintentional mixing can be kept easily to 1% or 2%.

However, corn is a little unique. Corn is cross-pollinated and that pollen is windblown. Unfortunately, that means pollen can drift a substantial distance before fertilizing the plant that produces the seed. As such, in the corn industry, we cannot commit to anything less than 5% inadvertent mixing because of that factor. That 5% isn't very appealing to most consumer groups, and we recognize that. However, to say we can adhere to a 2% or a 1% tolerance level would be untruthful and simply not possible.

¿ (0950)

So from the perspective of corn, the tolerance level has to be at a 5% level. However, let me be clear that this is not the same as a de facto exemption from minor ingredients of known GM origin. Our view is that where you have minor ingredients known to be from GM sources, then you don't label that product as non-GM.

Handling and processing logistics are the next issue. As has been indicated there this morning, there are in some cases limited systems for identity preservation or channelling. However, for corn as well as soybeans and wheat in Ontario, each of these has a system set up in order to identity-preserve or channel to keep GM and non-GM or some subset thereof separate.

An example is that with corn there are certain novel traits approved in Canada that are not approved in Europe. We have worked with the rest of the industry right from seed companies through growers through grain handlers and marketers to ensure that grain that contains those non-European-approved traits does not get into the market channels where products end up in Europe. That has worked very effectively over the past three years. Under a voluntary domestic labelling standard for GM or non-GM, this system could easily be expanded or modified in order to meet the anticipated demand for the product. If, however, mandatory labelling of GM were imposed, this market segregation would impose a huge, costly burden on the entire system.

As to testing and verification, as previously indicated, we also are supportive of a solid testing and verification system. Under a voluntary labelling system the additional costs of implementing--

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Ken, could you sum up now. I've been a little generous already, but you're getting on towards 12 minutes.

Mr. Ken Hough: I will sum up very quickly.

Under a voluntary labelling system, the additional costs of implementing a suitable verification process can be weighed into a company's decision as to whether or not to label.

The last issue I'd bring forward is that of international trade. Since we're considering a domestic labelling policy, it is obviously only for domestically marketed products. Imported foods would have to adhere to this same policy. With the CFIA list of 47 products there's a very easy checklist by which importers can adhere to that list. Exporters have to market to the specifications of the country or the company in those other countries they're marketing to, so the label definition or the GM definition in Canada has no bearing on exports.

I thank you for your time and apologize for being a little long.

The Chair: Thank you, Ken.

And from BIOTECanada we have Janet Lambert. I understand that you have two assistants with you, Chris Warfield and Carole Nap, and that you're going to use an overhead. Technology.

Ms. Janet Lambert (President, BIOTECanada): It's low tech.

I want to begin by first offering thanks on behalf of the members of BIOTECanada to you, the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, for this opportunity to appear before you today with my colleagues.

Carole Nap is vice-president, policy and public affairs, for BIOTECanada; and Chris Warfield is the director of government and regulatory affairs for Aventis CropScience Canada, and a member of BIOTECanada on our government relations committee.

We appreciate your time and attention in hearing our members' perspective on this important issue, and we're grateful to be included in what's coming into the tenth year of government consultations on this very issue. As you know, labelling of genetically modified, or GM, foods is very important for Canadian consumers and for Canadian farmers and producers, those who play a key role in providing an abundant and safe food supply.

Let me briefly outline who our members are. BIOTECanada is a technology association, so our membership includes a wide spectrum of biotech interests, including health care, bioinformatics, research institutions, service providers, and of course agriculture. Our members hail from industry, from academia, and from research organizations. Many of our members were pioneers in the development of genetically modified crops that farmers grow.

You may be interested to know that in the industry member category as a whole, the typical BIOTECanada member company has 28% of its employees dedicated strictly to research and development. Close to half of our industry-based members do not currently have a commercialized product on the market and are looking to find licensing agreements in the next 12 months. Of all the biotechnology companies in Canada--so this is beyond agricultural biotech--65% are not even earning revenues at this point.

I've offered you this background, first, so you could have a better understanding of who BIOTECanada is, and also so you can see how evolutionary and wide-ranging the biotechnology industry is in Canada.

That being said, we have a huge impact on the Canadian economy. This next slide is based on Statistics Canada data from 1999. It's estimated that by the end of this year, 2002, there will be more than 10,000 R and D and product development jobs in biotechnology; exports will reach more than $1.7 billion Canadian; revenues about $5 billion; R and D spending, over $2 billion; and over 17,000 products will be going into the biotechnology pipeline. Of course, within these statistics there are significant research and development investments and results by the federal government.

[Translation]

We have here given you an outline of what type of products are about to enter the marketplace, are in approval stages or are currently researched for development. Their volume is remarkable. As you can see, agricultural applications for the science of biotechnology are second only to bioinformatics and are ahead of human health.

Science alone is not what generates the opportunity for growth in this industry.

À (1000)

[English]

All of the factors we're showing on this slide--for example, public awareness, regulatory fitness, rigorous policy, to name a few--contribute to an environment where we're able to take this science forward to provide Canadians with safe food to feed our families. The goals of research of industry, of government, and the consumer are not mutually exclusive here. The more we know, the better we're able to understand, regulate, and use the technology.

Our members strongly support the current regime led by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and by Health Canada of mandatory labelling, which addresses both safety and nutritional concerns in regulating our food supply. Mandatory labels currently appear on our food for things such as potential for allergenicity, changes in the composition of the food, or changes in nutritional content, as you know. And our Canadian system relies on assessing the product we potentially put in our mouths. We don't label food for process. We're not labelling things like percentage of migrant workers who picked the crop, amount or type of pesticides, etc. We're labelling the product, the thing we put in our mouth.

All products, regardless of the process they've undergone to be grown, must continue to be monitored in this way so we can guarantee food safety. And it's especially important for new technology, such as GM food technology, so safety can be reviewed again and again over the long term. This is why we're calling for supplementary voluntary labelling, beyond the current mandatory labelling that exists right now, to best address consumer choice. As long as the supplementary voluntary labels are truthful and not misleading, which is what Canadians want, Canadians can be offered the choice they're most comfortable with.

We've been partners in the Canadian General Standards Board process, which Ms. Hillard has described, for the past two years. And it's becoming clear that the best way to offer consumer choice is by testing labels to see what consumers want and developing methods for tracing and segregating systems to ensure compliance.

As this pictorial slide shows, what we're talking about here is what we do after the mandatory labelling system--which already exists--occurs. In no way are we advocating getting rid of that current mandatory labelling safety net. And we don't want to undermine that system in any way, because the value of that mandatory system for safety is too important to dilute with a secondary set of mandatory conditions or voluntary conditions.

GM foods and crops have been in development and have been commercialized for years with no scientifically proven side effects, as some of the panellists have mentioned. The institutions confirm the need for a supplemental voluntary regime. The Royal Society said:

...there was not at this time sufficient scientific justification for a general mandatory labelling requirement. However,...many of the concerns identified in this Report do call for a strongly supported voluntary labelling system for GM foods.

As has been mentioned, KPMG did a study on the effects of labelling of all GM foods, which does show cost implications for the grower, the food industry as a whole, and the regulators. We're asking, would such cost implications be justified all in the name of providing perceived choice? And would these costs be justified when we're two years into the development of a voluntary labelling standard that can best meet that need of consumer choice?

The next slide talks to mandatory labels meaning less consumer choice, because there is a bit of confusion around what is choice and how we are describing choice.

An increase in food prices for no scientifically documented safety benefit poses an ethical dilemma. It could leave some food choices out of reach, particularly for low- income Canadians.

All food would be required to meet mandatory requirements, including our imports, so choice may get removed from our shelves as other countries determine it's not feasible to meet these requirements. Canadians and Canadian farmers don't necessarily replace those imports, and other countries wrestling with these issues haven't been able to develop an enforceable definition. This has been described by the panel as well.

Many of you here have a very personal connection with the agricultural industry in this country. And many of you have direct experience that tells you the cost implications as a result of a supplemental mandatory label will appear at all levels of the food supply chain, based on our current system of growing and producing today. Costs on the farm, in storage, of transporting product, of processing, of developing tests for compliance, will all impact on the final cost, as we know. And, of course, this is not fear-mongering. It's the reality of what's involved in getting our food to our tables.

À (1005)

The next slide talks to the possibility of trade sanctions, which we've heard. And in terms of our point of view, it could be viewed as a non-tariff trade barrier or a trade irritant and lead to possible WTO challenges. While governments around the world can potentially sanction Canadian exports, Canadian farmers get shut out of markets to sell their crops. And for what? Something difficult to define and enforce. Canadian farmers are innovators in agriculture, providing leadership in the use of technology. It's evidenced by their uptake in biotech products. If markets for some of the farmers' products are arbitrarily shut down, demand for BIOTECanada members' products from farmers dries up, which is sad for the technology.

What we're talking about is a mechanism to provide consumers with more choice in their food selection. That's our recommendation. Voluntary labels supplemental to the current mandatory labelling for safety facilitate consumer choice by offering flexibility to all partners in this process, including the public, to design the most effective and appropriate labelling system.

We can protect our mandatory safety system by creating a supplementary voluntary one that doesn't undermine the content of safety labels while still implementing a system for tracing products and for segregation to ensure we have truthful labelling while not necessarily impacting on our trading relationships.

The next slide talks to Canadians being world leaders in agricultural innovation. When Canada speaks on this issue, the world trusts you and listens to you. It's a great responsibility. If we choose a mandatory system for a non-safety-related issue in our food supply, what does this say to the world about the integrity of our scientists and our regulators? There are more than a hundred partners involved in the CGSB process. We as biotechnology industry members are determined to live up to our public responsibility to make that process work.

Supplementary voluntary labels over and above the current system for safety can provide choice to Canadian consumers. A science-based, fact-driven regulatory system is safest for all of us. The what-if accusations against this science must hold up to scientific scrutiny. After all, they're the same what-if questions that regulate our current food safety system.

We value and accept the responsibility to be accountable and to create straightforward dialogue with Canadians about how this science can change our lives. We know it's the only way we can build public awareness and acceptance. We understand and respect the moral and ethical issues that are being raised about the use of this technology. It's for this reason we're such strong supporters of understanding the science and accepting what the science tells us about the impact of these innovations.

[Translation]

The main factor in these discussions relates to the need to protect our food safety system. We should not weaken in any way the existing system because it already supplies Canadians with safe foods. Biotechnology offers the potential to produce healthier foods, to adapt environmentally sound farming practices and eventually to feed the world. We work at developping this science in the safest way possible for all Canadians.

[English]

Thank you very much, merci beaucoup, on behalf of the members of BIOTECanada.

The Chair: Thank you, Janet.

I'm probably like most members in that the more I hear about this, the greyer it becomes, because there are so many different points of view on it.

David, we'll start with your questions.

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming this morning.

I'm going to start off with a fairly direct question addressed to Terry and Ken. Now, we have an issue of a broad versus a narrow definition of GMO that's being discussed. You've brought that up, as others have here. I'm just going to ask you, do you believe it's better for the participants in the voluntary labelling process, having failed to reach a consensus, to then consequently not send recommendations to the government rather than recommend a voluntary system based on a narrow definition of GMOs; that is, recognizing that the alternative would probably then be mandatory labelling?

Mr. Terry Daynard: I've seen the results of the first vote on a draft standard, and I don't believe this thing is being held up over a question of narrow versus broad. I think it's being held up over people requesting exemptions. A lot of the people who voted no, as I see it, want more exemptions in there. We feel fairly strongly that this is the strength of the voluntary system: no exemptions. If you're going to have exemptions, you might as well do the same as the rest of the world. I think that's the key issue that's holding the thing up.

I think also that you're getting a lot of misinformation to the effect that anything that's different and so on in there is going to have to be labelled because it's genetically modified. We feel a compromise may be found in these standards. For example, you have a list of these products in front of you here, and I'll use a corn one. You have one corn variety developed by DuPont that's resistant to one chemical and that has been created by mutagenesis. You have the next one down there developed by Monsanto, about a fifth the size internationally as DuPont and another big chemical company, and it has a chemical it's resistant to. There are a relatively small number. We don't see any difference in them. Consumer surveys we've seen say that they have a broad definition out there. We feel this is important, and we just don't think this is really what it's being held up over.

There are a lot of people talking about whether they want to have positive label claims or negative, which is one issue there's a major debate on. We're going to say, if you're going to have voluntary standards, there have to be voluntary standards for positive as well as negative, and that's a key issue that seems to be divisive at the moment.

À (1010)

Mr. David Anderson: Does anyone else want to make a quick comment?

Ken.

Mr. Ken Hough: I would just reiterate Terry's statement that I don't believe the narrow versus the broad definition question is the only issue that could prevent consensus from happening at CGSB. There are a number of issues there, not the least of which is also the issue of the 5% tolerance. That was in the public consultation and it was a real lightning rod.

We would like to be able to say, yes, we can adhere to a 2% or 1% inadvertent mixing, but in corn we simply can't and be truthful.

Mr. David Anderson: Every producer group we've had come in here has said the same thing, that the 1% is not achievable.

Mr. Ken Hough: Right. But many would say that 2% is, or 3%, and frankly that's better than 5%, but for corn we just can't meet that.

The other comment I would make is that our underlying principle is that the system, whether it is the regulatory system or the labelling system, should be based on science, and we believe that science supports the novel foods approach.

Mr. David Anderson: I have limited time. Does anyone else have a quick response to that?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: I'm not able to address that because we have specifically voted against the standard because it would allow products that the Canadian government feels should be regulated as novel foods under the novel foods regulations to make non-GM claims. We feel that is just authorizing misleading claims in the marketplace.

It also makes the standard very short-lived and very impractical, because scientists are developing all sorts of technologies very quickly. If you limit the standard to the one technology, who knows what they are going to come up with next week. Write the standard so that it is going to last for a while, pick up the products that the Canadian government feel require regulating, label them honestly, don't charge people a whole bunch of extra money for something that is non-GM because they've “GMed” it by some technology other than rDNA. It's not honest.

Mr. David Anderson: I would like to discuss something you had mentioned, and I wasn't sure if you were saying the estimates were too low or too high. You referred to the study where you thought the results were inaccurate. Were you talking about the KPMG study?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: Yes, the costs. We weren't comfortable with the initial assumptions because the CGSB process, while it hasn't reached consensus on everything, has reached consensus on an enormous number of very difficult points. One would assume that the government is not going to just throw all that multi-stakeholder work away. Whatever sort of labelling scheme we come up with is likely to incorporate a lot of the points on which there has been consensus among this enormous number of groups. We feel that if you built that into the initial assumptions, then the cost would probably not come out so high.

I also firmly believe the difficulties of segregation are being enormously exaggerated.

Mr. David Anderson: I'll take exemption with that because I am a producer. I looked through the study a bit, and those costs to the producers in particular are going to be high. The problem with this is that producers are price takers, and consumers often don't have to deal with the fact that the farmers are being squeezed, because it doesn't show through in the price of food at the other end. But the cost to the producers will be extremely high to change their operations to be able to deal with this, if they are required to do that at every level.

À (1015)

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: Producers manage to separate their different grades of wheat. Most of the canola crushing plants that I've been into have at least two crushers. They have even managed to find a way of putting little bits of paper in the wheat so that if it is being rustled out of people's grain bins, they know whose it is.

I have a really hard time determining why, if they can segregate to this point.... I recognize it's not going to be easy and it is going to cost money, but I don't think it's going to be nearly as difficult as we're being told it is. I'd love somebody to convince me, because I've spent a lot of time looking at this. I've been out to look at Terry's bins, and I've been out to canola crushing plants in Manitoba.

Mr. David Anderson: The main question, again, I would suggest, would be the tolerance levels that are going to be demanded of producers.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: And we have been convinced that we are going to have to live with the 5%. We would prefer it to be lower. We recognize it is going to be a really hot spot with the public, but if the standard goes out with the 5% tolerance, and we agree to the other things in the standard, we're prepared to go out there and say, “We've looked at everything, and at this point in time that's as low as we can get if this is going to work”. We know the U.K. one is not working; 1% is just getting the products out of the market.

The Chair: Thanks, David. I may come back to you if we have time.

Claude.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): I would first like to say that I was pleased to hear the presentation you gave on behalf of the Consumers Association. It was sweet to hear because after our negative vote...Personally, I voted against mandatory labelling because of the way the motion was presented. Since then, I must have received at least 700 or 800 emails asking for explanations. Everybody was apparently horrified by the fact that I had voted against this mandatory labelling. I think that what the consumers in my riding understand about labelling was not what was presented.

I have doubts about voluntary labelling and I would like...But I am in favor of labelling. I am in favor of informing the consumer about the content of what he buys. However, we should clearly define what should be on the label. How do you think we can, with voluntary labelling, give useful information to the consumer, for those who are in favor of voluntary labelling, and be sure that the product is correctly identified and that the consumer knows what he buys? He has the right to know what he buys.

Moreover, how can we ensure that the companies who will try not to identify their ingredients and will look for ways to... Don't we risk setting up a system that would be worse than the one we have now? These days, when I see labels, a whole bunch of them, where we can read all over “and/or” or “may contain”, I don't read them anymore because I have come to the conclusion that labelling is a hoax. It is a real hoax.

How can we, with voluntary labelling, prevent that... I think we will only increase that.

Ms. Gail Lacombe: I really would like to answer you in French, but I am not the expert on that, and unfortunately, Mrs Hillard does not speak French.

Mr. Claude Duplain: That's no problem: we have interpretation services.

Ms. Gail Lacombe: And I am sure she will give you a good explanation.

[English]

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: Thank you. I'm sorry I'm not able to answer you in French, sir.

We are deadly opposed to a “may contain” label, and we honestly believe that's what is going to come out of a mandatory system because there are so many products and small amounts of things that are just not going to be able to track adequately. You're right; under a mandatory scheme, those products that can't back up that they're definitely non-GM or contain GM would have to say “may contain”, but under a voluntary scheme they would just remain unlabelled.

It may be less confusing for consumers if we can go out and say there are lots of products that can't be definitely labelled, since it's not seen as a health and safety issue. With the unlabelled ones, it's like having a “may contain”. But if you put a “may contain” on, you have that sort of warning. They tie it in with the nuts and the allergens. Given the number of tests these products have gone through, while there's never such a thing as zero risk, we're not convinced that these are health and safety labels so much as consumer choice labels, which in Canada have traditionally been done on a voluntary scheme. Maybe you can have the labels referenced in legislation, as happens with environmental claims, but still voluntary; you don't have to do it.

Whichever direction we go in with the labelling, whatever we decide to do, it's going to take an enormous consumer education program on the part of all the stakeholders, partly because of lack of information out there, but also because it has become such a polarized, contentious, made-for-media debate that we also have a lot of misinformation that we're going to have to try to correct as we go through. We're not convinced that mandatory labels that are full of loopholes and “may contains” and sidebars are really going to be very helpful to consumers. We don't want a logo, we don't want to have “may contain.”

One of the things the CGSB committee almost reached consensus on was that we would do things like put a star or a double star in the ingredient list and then put underneath that the ones with stars or double stars were or were not genetically modified. That would then enable the company, if they wanted to make a non-GM claim or a GM claim for a good reason, to make the claim on the front and refer you back to the label.

The one thing we were completely unanimous on around the CGSB table was that the label alone was never going to be adequate. There was going to be a requirement for 1-800 numbers, websites, etc., probably centrally coordinated so that the information could be seen as neutral. Had we dealt with this properly 10 or 12 years ago, all of this may not be necessary, but the debate has become so nasty, so public, that it's going to require a great deal more effort to do it properly now than it would if we'd done it properly in the first place.

À (1020)

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: I'm in fact wondering if we are not entering an era where with globalization and all the research...

In any case, we have the Canadian Food Inspection Agency which does, I think, an excellent job. I don't know what you, the Consumers Association, think of it. We do have highly qualified scientists, who do good research and who are ready to guarantee their products. I am sure that Mrs Lambert won't say that the members of BIOTECCanada can certify that their products are 100% safe. We have not been testing them for hundred of years, which we should do to be able to say that.

But aren't we entering an era where our society is sufficiently mature to only market products which have been fully tested? Shoul we not rather insist on the importance of communicating to the consumers the information we have and , for consumers who reject completely certain products, indicate with a label the products they like, as we do now for organic foods that some consumers seek.

Today, we know that if we had to label all GMOs, between 60% and 80% of the products on the shelves would be labelled as containing GMOs, canola oil, for example. Shouldn't we then promote another way and state that we are going for products... Companies could say they won't mention the presence of GMO, if they wish. This way, the consumer would be well informed and we would inform consumers about the ingredients used in other products, truthfully.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Rick...and I'll come back again, hopefully.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon--Souris, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go back to costs to a certain extent. We have heard from Paul and from Gordon, and I think it was Paul who said quite explicitly that if there is a cost to this labelling, it is going to borne by the GM varieties, which means the producer in particular and not the seed companies. In saying that, do they mean that any cost is going to be borne by the processors if in fact the costs are greater for non-GM varieties with respect to pesticides, as we just heard, and as we've heard with respect to additional costs for fuel consumption and lesser yields? Are you then prepared to pay more money for non-GM corn and canola products?

À (1025)

Mr. Paul Hetherington: With regard to our resolution on the wheat issue, which it was specific to, the board of directors looked at the issue and said wheat, a non-GM crop, is the current norm. Therefore, since there seemed to be overwhelming evidence that consumers are very reluctant to accept a GM variety or GM ingredients, why should we be paying more for a product our customers essentially don't want?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: If consumers are reluctant to pay for or to accept GM products like canola and corn that are currently in the system, if that should be given up, are you prepared to pay more for that non-GM product?

Mr. Paul Hetherington: For the canola?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, and for the corn, the soy, and all the rest of it.

Mr. Paul Hetherington: The canola is a bit of a different issue because it is a case of locking the barn door after the horse is already out.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You're not answering my question. Are you prepared to pay more for non-GM?

Mr. Paul Hetherington: That is going to be an issue that comes down to what the market decides, quite frankly. Also as part of that, when you start coming down and deciding about developing a non-GM product and are looking at the issue of the current GM crops, canola or whatever, two issues come into play there. First of all, what definition is used? In some of these oils you don't have a genetically modified protein transfer, so is that going to be part of the labelling? Is that going to be captured?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Paul, I have very limited time.

I want to go Gordon if I could, please, for costs first of all. Also, there was some discussion about the potentially huge cost right now of fusarium in wheat. You're the millers. Supposedly we have 6,000-odd products coming down the pipeline in agriculture. Supposedly there's going to be a really good opportunity to control fusarium, perhaps genetically. Are you prepared to throw that out the window and pay additional costs for non-GM fusarium-resistant wheat in the millers association?

Mr. Gordon Harrison: No. I think you made a very good point, and so did Terry, that for the longest time in this debate our association, including within the CGSB forum and with other food industry associations, has said, let's think long term, let's think for the future. Fusarium is a known health and safety risk. If you can achieve fusarium resistance that's bulletproof either by conventional breeding or rDNA or a combination thereof, it's going to be a very important development for producers and bakers.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: But if the consumer doesn't accept it, you're not going to use it.

Mr. Gordon Harrison: I'm afraid we will not, because our members will not be asked by his members or other food processors to provide it if it's required to be put on the label. And Terry makes a good point: you have to think long term. So if we're going to set the ground rules today that reject products, we're rejecting a lot of products for a long time.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Costs, you wanted to talk about costs.

Mr. Gordon Harrison: I do. Costs are known. We already know that in the western grain system, the Canadian Wheat Board incurs about $18.50 a tonne for a segregation program. In that case, producers pay a little, handlers pay a little, customers pay a little, because they're segregating a product that somebody wants. There's a demand for the product.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: And the millers don't pay anything?

Mr. Gordon Harrison: The millers in the U.K. do. It's not our millers who are milling the wheat. In Ontario, it's a minimum of $20 to a maximum of $60, depending on how much you want to spend.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Gordon, I have to cut you off.

Mr. Gordon Harrison: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I want to talk to Jenny for a second. And this is interesting. We've had the opportunity of talking to a number of groups and organizations and individuals. We had some U.S. officials here just recently, and their basic thrust was on the trade issues more so than anything else with respect to mandatory labelling. I asked them if there was not a consumer outcry, if you will, in the United States, or a push by the consumers. And their answer to me was, no, it's not a consumer-driven issue in the United States.

Do you, first of all, agree with that comment? And secondly, if that's the case, why is it consumer-driven here in Canada but we don't seem to have that same component in the United States?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: Coming from the only national consumer group, I'm not sure that it's consumer-driven in Canada either. When you look at most of the groups that are opposing GM food, they're not consumer groups, they're environmental groups, they're anti-globalization groups, and they're riding on the consumers' coattails.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: We have the information coming back to us that 73% of consumers in the survey have said they want to have the choice of mandatory labelling. You're saying that's not in fact the case?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: In fact, those questions have to be triggered. When you go to consumers and you ask them food safety questions, their first response still, in the surveys I have seen, is the same as it was 10 or 15 years ago. They're concerned about pesticides, chemicals, additives, all these kinds of things. And then if you ask them about GM food, they say, yes, GM foods. So it's all very much, as with all surveys, in how you ask the questions, which ones you pose.

If you go out specifically and ask, do you want labels on GM foods--

À (1030)

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm sure they'll say yes.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Of course.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: In the same way as they give you the politically correct answer if asked, will you pay more? Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'll put one very quick question to Janet, if I could.

You say 34% of the products in the pipeline are agricultural. You have 17,000 products, I saw. Does that mean approximately 6,000 products sitting in the pipeline right now are going to be agriculture-related with GM and biotech?

Ms. Janet Lambert: Products and processes, yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: This is huge.

Ms. Janet Lambert: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So any decisions made now, obviously, are going to impact--

Ms. Janet Lambert: The technology impacts and research impacts, improving our lives. Yes.

The Chair: Thanks Rick.

Rose-Marie.

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

These have been most interesting presentations. I'm a bit like the chair: the more I hear, I don't know whether I leave at the end of the day any more convinced one way or the other.

One thing I'd like to bring forth is the use of the phrase “labelling scheme”. We're worried about non-GM and GM products. I think using the word “scheme” with a consumer puts up the wrong flag, whether it's a scheme by the producers or by government as to labelling, and the reaction will be, what are they trying to put over on us? That may seem minute, but I think that's flagging what we're here to discuss.

Ms. Hillard, my question to you concerns the fact that you represent consumers, and I'm sure you're well aware farmers--producers--are consumers as well. They're very much aware of what they want to produce. They eat the same things they produce and the consumer buys, so I don't think they're trying to do something that would not be positive for our marketing.

That being said, what would you see as a standard for a label that would be easy for a consumer to read? We all have busy lifestyles, and if we have all this to read on every product we're going to purchase, we may as well take a day off work to see what best fits our grocery basket. It was repeatedly said by each presenter here that the labelling had to be truthful, not misleading. Is there any indication, anything you can bring forth to the committee, that this has indeed happened in the past?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: On the misleading?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes, both parts of the question.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: If you go into some of the smaller stores and some of the farmers' markets, you'll see stuff that they're claiming is organic but that's not certified and that doesn't meet any standards. I've often declared that they probably go buy their bunches of carrots at Safeway and rub some mud on them.

That situation is gradually getting corrected, but it's taken a long time, and people pay a huge premium for those products. It's funny in a way, but it's also not funny, and then the marketing is done in such a way as to imply that these foods are better, safer, or in some other way preferable to the regular food, which sends a very bad message to low-income people.

In fact, the organic industry in the U.K. was recently slapped with some major rulings by their product standards branch. They had a whole list of claims they were not allowed to make anymore about organic food. The organic food labelling in the U.S. is not considered food labelling; it falls within their environmental labelling and has to comply with a lot of the environmental labelling regulations, which is how we see it. We don't see it as a food issue, we really see it as an environmental issue.

So yes, we've got examples, and that's why the negative claims that came in the last French question are the ones that are going.... The minute the grocery stores allow claims on the shelves, that's what you're going to see. You're going to see the non-GM ones because there is a market demand. People have been scared about these products. They are going to be on the shelves.... Sorry.

The Chair: I'm sorry; it takes you a lot of time, I know. Terry there is trying to get in, and he only has five minutes.

Mr. Terry Daynard: Can I add something very quickly? You can go into any grocery store in Canada and buy sodium-free drinks. It says sodium-free on the bottom, and it lists the sodium content. You can go into the same grocery store and buy fat-free foods that list the fat content. We'd like to take a unique approach, that when it says GM-free, it actually is GM-free.

À (1035)

The Chair: Terry, we have to be careful. That's a big motor company too, isn't it?

Rose-Marie.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I believe it was you, Janet, or maybe it was Jennifer, who said something regarding writing a standard that would last for a while. I think there's a changing environment with this. Don't you think that with the way this is moving, by the time you have the standards written it will be obsolete, much like computer systems?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: It was actually me who said that, and it's because I spend an awful lot of time working on all sorts of standards both in Canada and internationally. There's a requirement in the standards system to review them at least every five years, anyway. I suspect that this one will probably come back for review a lot sooner than five years. The certified forest management one came back after only three years. That's because I like getting into these easy issues. I think this one will come back, but I don't see that's any reason for initially writing it with great big loopholes. This technology is moving very, very fast.

The Chair: Ken, go ahead.

Mr. Ken Hough: Very briefly, I think the advantage of going with the novel foods definition is that it then becomes the always constant, available list of what is or what isn't subject to voluntary labelling.

The Chair: I'm going to go to Murray and then back to David.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey, Lib.): Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Jenny, when I was here and you gave your presentation, you said you wanted the labelling for the consumer to be truthful, clear, and accurate. I'm going to deal with accurate because obviously when we get to this point, there has to be a filtering mechanism in place that the products go through. You know what's happened to the product, therefore you can come up with accurate labelling. That means you have to be able to identify the product and you have to be able to track and trace the product.

I'll give you an example. In my other life I'm a chicken farmer. It's the best example I can work with. You have the breeder flocks within our industry. Those breeder flocks could have been fed GMO feed. Then the egg and the baby chick that come from that come to me. I grow that chicken up, getting ready to process it, but I don't feed it GMO feed.

Does the tracking and tracing system, which obviously has to go into place, have to be that intensive and accurate? How do you see that system? It obviously has to be there to be accurate.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: In the CGSB we've had two-year-long discussions on the definition, and after two years we still haven't really settled on the definition. The one thing we have all agreed to throw out of the definition is the need to label products that have received GM feed at some point in their process. Originally we went in with three: this massive one that captured everything, the narrow rDNA only, and then the middle one, which would capture the things that have gone through the novel food. The very broad one was thrown out very early.

I suspect that's something we're going to have to face public criticism on. I suspect there will be groups of people who believe that if the meat has been fed GM feed, it should be labelled as well. If we finally vote yes on the standard, we'll be prepared to go out with all the other people around the table and defend that bit of the standard.

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes. With our committee last year, we were dealing with the issue of medicated feeds, for instance. These were being taken back into the system, remixed, and put back out. We could also turn around and take a look at the same situation of GMO grains being mixed into the feed and feeds that don't have GMO grains. Non-medicated feeds are still being taken back to the feed mills and remixed and put back out again.

You obviously will be getting into the situation that when we get into this labelling, it becomes even more intrusive for the feed companies, for instance. Now they have to be able to verify whether or not there's a GMO product in the feed before they remix it to put it back out again.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: I wouldn't want to confuse medicated feeds with feeds that contain GM, because medicated feeds are very clearly a possible food safety issue and should be dealt with as a drug under veterinary drugs.

À (1040)

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes, but we still have to identify what the percentage is.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: Yes, exactly. But because GM is a choice rather than a human health and safety thing, as I said, the decision around the CGSB table, and hopefully in any labelling system--not scheme, system--was that we will not be trying to track that because it's very unrealistic.

Mr. Murray Calder: My last question is an open question to anybody who wants to answer this.

How close are we to this identification and tracking system? Does it exist?

Gordon.

Mr. Gordon Harrison: I attended a meeting in the last week of an advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board on genetically modified wheat. I think one of the organizations appeared before the committee on Tuesday, the Western Grain Elevator Association. Also in the room were the Canadian Grain Commission and others who are involved.

The government, the Grain Commission, and the private sector parties are still unable to pinpoint a date when an affordable, universally available technology--i.e., at the farm gate and at every country elevator--will be available, even though they have extensive cooperation. They're looking at perhaps years before it is so widely available that you could actually implement this technology rapidly from the farm gate moving forward. Those are the opinions of those other sectors within the last week.

The Chair: Thank you, Murray.

Ken has a point, so I'll go now to Ken.

Mr. Ken Hough: Yes, as alluded to in my presentation, for corn in Ontario we already have a channeling system or an identity preserve system in place for certain GM traits in order to keep the European non-approved traits out of market channels for products that eventually end up in Europe.

In soybeans and in wheat in Ontario there are identity preserve systems. For example, there are several different grades and types of wheat that are kept separately. For soybeans it's not necessarily GM versus non-GM, but that could be adapted very easily. In fact, I would challenge the western Canadian people to agree they actually have an identity preserve system as well: they produce durum wheat, they produce red wheat; they keep them separate.

The Chair: Thank you, Ken.

Can we just have two or three minutes, Dave, for this round?

Mr. David Anderson: Sure.

Just to comment on Murray's question, I know this spring at the Moving Up Market Conference the Wheat Board held in Winnipeg one of the directors got up--so I presume it was a pre-arranged question--and asked if they thought they could have an IP system up and going within 10 years. That shows how far behind they are, because we have farmers who are ready to move into that, and can move into it if they are given the capacity and encouragement to do it.

The seed growers also have their own system. The Wheat Board walked into that meeting a couple of weeks ago with a poorly thought-out plan they were going to basically impose and soon found out it wasn't going to work. They need to go back to talk to some of the producer groups and see what they're doing. Hopefully they're listening a little on that.

I had a question. Do you guys export or import much of what you....?

Mr. Gordon Harrison: We have export activity in both the milling industry and in baked goods and further processed foods. The principal market is the United States--probably 90% in our case and maybe something similar for the baking industry. We also have imports, from the U.S. principally, but from many other countries . We're particularly concerned about alignment of our regulatory framework for labelling with that of the United States, because our members--and I believe Paul's members--are trying to grow that market, as are our counterparts in the U.S.

Mr. David Anderson: Have you done a study or anything on the impacts mandatory labelling would have on your industry and the import-export market?

Mr. Gordon Harrison: We have talked to our members, and I have knowledge of a study done very recently that surveyed many food companies. Mandatory labelling, or voluntary positive and negative labelling, food manufacturers see as equivalent. In the words of an FCPMC delegate to the CGSB, “voluntary” means only “not required by law”, otherwise to be universally adopted like other guidelines for labelling within industry.

When one looks at the labelling options, there's increasing focus on negative labelling only, and it should be noted that negative labelling, as Terry has pointed out, is already an option and a right that is held by manufacturers in the U.S. and Canada. A negative labelling system only would be consistent with the law and precedent. Voluntary positive is something very different, and the outcome is that manufacturers will not use those ingredients, period.

The Chair: David, I think Brian had a short answer too.

Mr. Brian Trueblood: The testing is being worked on all the time--faster tests, easier ways to test it. But really the IP system, testing the source all the way through the system--we'll do it if you want to pay us enough for it. But if you're not going to pay us for it, we'd just as soon not do it.

À (1045)

The Chair: Rick, do you have a short question there?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: This is to Terry, so that he can answer his question if he wants to put it on the table.

You keep talking about exclusions. Would you like to expand on that a little, please? What are you referring to when you talk about the exemptions and the exclusions you refer to?

Mr. Terry Daynard: I'm thinking of enzymes that are being used to make cheeses, vitamins--you can't buy vitamin B-12 anywhere in the world now that's not genetically modified--all kinds of different products. Or corn: the corn goes off my farm--it's GM corn--it goes to a corn process; it's going into Europe. It's being sold in foods in stores in Europe right now as a non-genetically modified ingredient, and it's a hoax. It's on Greenpeace's website for the U.K. They have stuff on there they say is non-GM, and it is GM--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You're talking about corn starches, corn syrup--

Mr. Terry Daynard: --syrups, oils, vegetable oils, canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, corn sweeteners--all of that stuff.

The other thing I wanted to say, to follow up on the IP system, is the Grain Growers of Canada are very committed to moving towards a system. We're going to produce more and more specialized products right across Canada, meeting identity preserve standards, and the product is going to have to be segregated and so on.

You have some regulatory impediments in western Canada that we're working on to give producers a few more choices there and still preserve a pooling system. We think there is an impediment there that has to be dealt with, but as an organization we're committed to that sort of stuff from B.C. right through to the Maritimes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Jenny, how can we get the information out to the consumers to tell them there's an advantage?

The Chair: We're getting a little bit over time now. I'm afraid Claude here probably has a question.

Mr. Claude Duplain: No.

The Chair: Rose-Marie?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes. Actually, that was one of my questions, and I've asked that before to presenters. Sometimes politicians maybe aren't regarded as the best people for consumers to believe that what we're saying is accurate. From your viewpoint, very briefly, who's the best to deliver that message?

Secondly, you indicated that we should have done this right 10 or 12 years ago. What did we do wrong? That was before my time.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: I think both the government and the industry underestimated the public sensitivity to messing around with food. I think that was a problem we didn't deal with early on.

The only way you're going to be able to get accurate information out to consumers is if you can get the information put together and given out by mixed stakeholders and make sure that some of the naysayers are somehow brought to the table as well. That's going to be difficult.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: What are you doing in your organization?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: Well, we're doing the best we can, but we're continually getting media-trashed because the debate has become that if you don't completely oppose the entire technology, you've been bought out by the industry. So we're continually battling unbelievable media stories about these millions of dollars that we're taking from the industry, while we have one small office with two part-time staff and everybody else volunteers.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Should we go to elementary schools and have our children take it home to their parents?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: Well, ag in the classroom hasn't worked in the cities, which is where the problems are, so I'm not sure if that's the way to do it. I just think getting some labels out there, voluntary or mandatory, and then letting people follow up.... The people who want more information are actually a very small percentage of the population, but they're a very vocal percentage of the population. Using the resources we have, like food safety centres and food biotechnology communications networks, would help.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thanks, Jennifer.

Gordon.

Mr. Gordon Harrison: I'd like to comment.

I have asked Jennifer the question on the issue of dissemination of information, educating the public and health professionals about the new labelling system. I'm not calling it a scheme. I asked Jennifer who would bear the cost of disseminating that information. Her answer to me was, “Why, industry of course”. You did say that, with respect, and I take exception to that.

I want to point out that if industry bears the costs, the costs will be borne by the consumer. If the government bears the costs, the costs will be borne by the consumer. But it's our view that, as Paul noted, leadership on this file.... If we are going to have a labelling standard and a labelling system to deal with this, it is a public sector responsibility to encourage and ensure public awareness. I think that's what Paul was talking about in terms of leadership.

À (1050)

The Chair: I do want to give our witnesses an opportunity to.... In fact, I see three hands up there. We are getting another message here that our interpreters have another event to go to at 11 o'clock sharp.

Before I go to those, though, I can't help but reflect on the levelers in Britain, back in the 18th century. I suppose I have too much history behind me. You have to remind yourselves of the great advances Canadian agriculture has made in the past century. Darwin talked about natural selection. We had enhanced selection in terms of the work that was done by some of our great agricultural leaders in the 1900s.

As a government, are we spending too much time on biotech and not enough time on real, enhanced, straight biology and plant development? Is our government, our nation, spending too much time at one end of the board and not enough time at the other? Maybe you can answer that, Jennifer.

Then I'll go to the two or three others. I guess Paul is keen to give an answer too.

In Canada, in our health system, we have two big situations. We have physical health and we have mental health. It appears that there's a group out there that is really preying on our mental health with this labelling business. Quite often in society, mental health is more important than the physical things that you have to talk about when you give your answers here. Health-wise, there's no problem physically, but mentally, are we coming up with the European standards and so forth that they're putting into the industry?

Jennifer, can you give me just a quick answer on that? Then, Paul, you have some comments to make, and Brian.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: I did say earlier in our presentation that one of the problems was that this was developing like crazy without an acceptable overall policy framework, and I think that's part of it. We're also putting a lot of money into research and not a lot of money into helping Canadian companies take those research products into the market. So we do the research and they sell out to a big multinational. The government's responsibility is to set some acceptable overall policy framework for where this industry is going, and they need to do it very quickly because they're late.

The Chair: Paul.

Mr. Paul Hetherington: I'd like to make a quick comment on an earlier point about industry education and further processors involved in the promotion of biotech products. I have a one-line summary for that: my members are involved in selling bread, not biotech.

With regard to the chair's question about spending our time and concentrating our efforts on the biotech file, I think a valid argument could be made for that. We want to look at food in general and the nutraceutical value food may have for us as consumers, which I touched on in our presentation, and the ability to utilize the resources of the food industry to make claims and promote the health benefit of our foods, whether it be related to the fibre content in our diet or the folic acid issue, as I mentioned. I just wish sometimes that we were putting as many resources into those discussions and efforts as we are putting into this issue, which, as already has been admitted, is not a health-related issue, whereas those others are.

The Chair: Janet.

Ms. Janet Lambert: To answer Mrs. Ur's question with regard to who should be the educators not only for labelling but for how we should be talking about the technology and all scientific advancements, it goes back to let's heed the science but see what the science tells us.

However, there is a role for all stakeholders in moving the dialogue forward. I would put forward the position that there's even a role for protestors and activists so that the dialogue does get raised among Canadians, our awareness and understanding goes up, and there is talk around the kitchen tables of the country. Therefore, there's thoughtful public policy on the part of our leaders.

The Chair: Brian.

Mr. Brian Trueblood: Mr. Chairman, farmers have been early adapters of modern technology as long as it's perfectly safe and accepted worldwide. That's one of the things that helps keep us on the cutting edge and to be ahead of our competitors. Canola is a prime example. Here's a product, the healthiest vegetable oil in the world, that was developed in Canada using Canadian technology.

À (1055)

The Chair: Next is Ken and then Gordon.

Mr. Ken Hough: Thank you.

With regard to your question, food seems to be a very important issue for most of us. But food is all about choices, and there is a plethora of choices that consumers make every day, and GM is just one more of those. So I think the debate we're having is very worthwhile.

I'd like to make a very quick comment on a point Mr. Borotsik brought up about being fusarium free. In fact, the Ontario Corn Producers' Association is investing in research to try to develop a fusarium-free situation, and I think we're making some significant progress in the area of corn. The beauty of the voluntary system, though, is that when a product such as that comes along, if the general populace doesn't wish to purchase it, it allows the sector of the population that wishes it to have that label and to make that choice.

The Chair: Gordon.

Mr. Gordon Harrison: In response to your question, Mr. Chairman, I think one of the great risks of all of this is that we have come to use biotechnology so widely and freely that we lose sight of the fact that all agricultural and food science is biotechnology in the true sense of the word as we've known it for 100 years or however long ago it was invented. This issue really challenges everyone to communicate responsibly, particularly those who are in the academic community, about the breadth of this. I would say that there's a very broad base of research going on in all biotechnology, and this poses a risk to that if we mismanage it.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you all for coming.

Mr. Johnston joined us a bit late. His own industry suffers some trade barriers as a result of growth stimulants in the cattle business.

It's a factor in agriculture that as Canadians, we produce a lot of things for other countries, and when they use trade barriers, whether they be for good reasons or not, it still is a big factor in where we can ship our product.

We will continue this study. Certainly we've gleaned a good amount of information this morning. We won't satisfy everybody with our report, but hopefully you will appreciate the effort we've put into it.

Once again, thank you all for coming.

The meeting is adjourned.