AGRI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, January 31, 2002

¿

0905

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

Mr. Gord Flaten (Director, Market Development, Canadian Wheat Board)

¿

0910

¿

0915

The Chair

Dr. Brian Marchylo (Acting Director, Grain Research Laboratory, Canadian Grain Commission)

¿

0920

The Chair

Mr. Peter Brackenridge (Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

¿

0925

The Chair

Mr. Marvin Shauf (Second Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture)

¿

0930

¿

0935

The Chair

¿

0940

Mr. Abbott

¿

0945

¿

0950

The Chair

Mr. Hilstrom

Mr. Gord Flaten

¿

0955

Mr. Hilstrom

Mr. Gord Flaten

Mr. Hilstrom

Mr. Gord Flaten

The Chair

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ)

À

1020

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mrs. Tremblay

Ms. Laurie Curry

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey, Lib.)

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Murray Calder

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mr. Murray Calder

The Chair

Mr. Murray Calder

Mr. Marvin Shauf

The Chair

Mr. Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Borotsik

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mr. Borotsik

Ms. Laurie Curry

A witness

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Borotsik

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Ms. Laurie Curry

The Chair

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

À

1025

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mrs. Ur

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

À

1030

Ms. Laurie Curry

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Bart Bilmer (Director, Office of Biotechnology, Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Bart Bilmer

À

1035

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Marvin Shauf

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Marvin Shauf

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Gord Flaten

The Chair

Mr. Eyking

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Bart Bilmer

À

1040

Mr. Eyking

Mr. Bart Bilmer

The Chair

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

À

1045

Dr. Brian Marchylo

Mr. David Anderson

À

1050

Dr. Brian Marchylo

Mr. Gord Flaten

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Gord Flaten

The Chair

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron--Bruce, Lib.)

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mr. Paul Steckle

Mr. Marvin Shauf

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington, Lib.)

À

1055

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Larry McCormick

The Chair

Mr. Hilstrom

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mr. Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Calder

Ms. Laurie Curry

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

---

NUMBER 040

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Thursday, January 31, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0905)  

[English]

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

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this morning our committee is further studying the labelling of genetically modified food with impacts of voluntary and mandatory labelling on agricultural producers and the rest of the agrifood industry. For that we have five groups appearing before our committee this morning.

    We'd like to remind members that this morning our proceedings are being televised, and with such a large number of witnesses I hope we can make sure that all members have an opportunity to participate in the questioning. We will have some time limits, but hopefully we can....

    We have the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Grain Commission, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada.

    We'll start then with the Canadian Wheat Board. I'd ask if our presenters could keep to ten minutes or less, and with that, Mr. Flaten, we'd ask that you begin your presentation.

    Mr. Gord Flaten (Director, Market Development, Canadian Wheat Board): Thank you very much.

    Good morning.

[Translation]

    Good morning, and thank you for inviting the Canadian Wheat Board to make a presentation today.

[English]

    For our stakeholders—western Canadian wheat and barley farmers—this is an important issue that has many implications with respect both to meeting customer demands and to the cost of doing business in both domestic and export markets.

    We have prepared a presentation that we have handed out, so I'm just going to cover the highlights in that presentation, given the time limits here. I would like to address specifically the questions addressed to us in the invitation material. First of all, though, I should point out that I will be using the international definition of “genetic modification” in my presentation unless otherwise noted here.

    The Canadian Wheat Board has had a published position on genetically modified wheat and barley since 1999, and our position has not changed since that time. It does state that we believe genetically modified “wheat and barley varieties should not be available for production in western Canada until proven technologies and associated protocols and procedures are in place to efficiently and effectively segregate” genetically modified from non-genetically modified varieties. The fundamental objective of our position is that we want to ensure that any introduction of genetically modified wheat and barley varieties can be accomplished in a manner that will satisfy customer demands and result in net financial and other benefits to western Canadian farmers.

    Part of our involvement in genetically modified food issues has been our membership on the Canadian General Standards Board committee developing a voluntary standard for labelling foods in regard to genetically modified ingredients. Our position on labelling has been that if there is to be labelling of genetically modified foods in Canada, there must be two main priorities: first, the system must convey the information consumers want; secondly, the labelling system must not create unnecessary costs for farmers, consumers, or any of the intermediaries in the food chain.

    Our understanding of consumer opinion on this issue is that most concerns are related to products of recombinant DNA technology—what's been referred to in the committee hearings as a narrow definition—rather than on any products of traditional plant breeding technologies, or a broad definition. Therefore, in these discussions, we've supported very strongly the use of a narrow definition in any labelling system.

    As you know, Canada has a unique regulatory system for these products that is product- and not process-based. We don't want to question whether Canada's system is more proper scientifically, but it's clear labels using a broad definition of GMO based on this regulatory system would not address the specific concerns of customers. What consumers are concerned about seems to be covered by the narrow definition that has been discussed in the labelling committee.

    A broad definition would also impose unnecessarily high costs on western Canadian farmers and others in the industry, we believe. It would involve testing and segregation for more products than necessary to address consumer concerns, and it would exclude certain products unnecessarily from non-GMO markets.

    Finally, a broad definition would put Canadian grain exports at a serious disadvantage relative to our competitors, in that certain products labelled as GMOs in Canada would not be considered GMOs in any other country, raising confusion and concerns in our export markets about certain Canadian grain varieties.

    The other main factor affecting the costs of a labelling system is whether it is mandatory or voluntary. We've taken the position that if there is to be labelling, it should be based on a voluntary system. We believe voluntary labelling would allow the food industry to adjust to consumer demand. It would also minimize costs by helping to confine the costs of labelling to those markets in which concern is expressed most strongly via market demand for non-GMO products. A voluntary system would also allow food manufacturers to adjust to changes in consumers' concerns over time for either more or less labelling. A mandatory standard would not allow the same flexibility of response, but instead would impose very high costs of segregation throughout the food chain, irrespective of the degree of actual consumer interest.

    In terms of whether or not it is feasible to efficiently separate modified foodstuffs from traditional products, if genetically modified wheat is introduced into commercial production, the western Canadian grain marketing system would have to have in place the technologies and procedures to efficiently and effectively segregate GM from non-GM varieties. There is a considerable amount of work being done today to create this capability within the grain industry, but such segregation is not possible today. Concerns start with the lack of agreed tolerances for GM product in non-GM shipments, but other concerns include the possibility of gene flow and accidental contamination of non-GM wheat fields; the current lack of detection technology; the inadequacy of information systems to manage the very challenging logistics of large-scale segregation; and the cost of additional segregation within the grain handling and processing systems.

¿  (0910)  

    All, not just some, of these problems need to be solved before effective segregation can take place, and it is not clear when these solutions will be ready.

    Certainly, one useful government action, we believe, on genetically modified foods would be a careful evaluation of whether in fact a labelling system for GM products should be introduced, but if it is introduced, we believe it's important to consider the points we've made in these comments this morning.

    I wish to also draw your attention, though, to the issue of assessing the potential market impact of a genetically modified crop variety in deciding whether to introduce that variety into commercial production. The Canadian Wheat Board is doing a very careful assessment of the potential benefits and risks of the introduction of genetically modified wheat, the first product we may need to deal with. We believe the success of agricultural biotechnology, in a more general sense, depends on how well this issue is handled.

    The problem is that under the current registration process, a new variety will be registered for commercial production if it meets criteria for end-use quality, agronomic quality, and disease resistance. There is currently no process in place to prevent the introduction of a new variety, even if it is clear that the new variety will have a negative market impact and will result in lower farmer returns.

    In addition to the current tests to which all proposed varieties are routinely subjected, we believe potential market impact must be considered in the regulatory process before transgenic wheat or barley varieties become available for production in Canada. And we would certainly appreciate the support of parliamentarians in encouraging federal government departments to come up with creative solutions to this issue.

    In summary, Mr. Chairman, we encourage the committee to carefully assess the need for a labelling system, and if one is determined to be necessary, it is important that it be voluntary and that labels be based on a narrow definition of genetic modification. These elements would help to address the specific concerns of consumers and minimize costs for farmers and the rest of the grain and food industries. In addition, we urge the committee to seek the introduction of an assessment of market impact into the regulatory approval process for genetically modified crops.

    Thank you very much for your interest, and I look forward to your questions and comments later.

¿  (0915)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Flaten.

    From the Canadian Grain Commission we have Mr. Marchylo. Welcome, and the floor is yours.

    Dr. Brian Marchylo (Acting Director, Grain Research Laboratory, Canadian Grain Commission): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Canada's edge in the marketplace has always been quality, and much of the responsibility for this selling feature belongs with the Canadian Grain Commission. The CGC, or the Canadian Grain Commission, is neutral on the merits of using genetic engineering to create new varieties of grain. Our role is not to decide whether the product of a given technology is inherently safe or unsafe. That is up to other agencies such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or Health Canada.

    In the context of labelling, we feel that in the marketplace if someone wants to label, in order to do so they must know what is in the raw material, and that's where the Canadian Grain Commission takes an interest in the labelling discussion. The CGC's role in the grain industry is that of a neutral third party that provides services and regulations to assure that its clients' quality certification requirements are met. Commenting on the merits of the technology itself would, we think, compromise our third-party neutral status.

    Therefore, the CGC's position on genetically modified grains was developed as follows. The CGC, in recognition of the development and registration of GM grains in Canada, will provide services to farmers and the grain industry to maintain the integrity of the quality assurance system in Canada, and we're going to do this by doing the following.

    First of all, we will evaluate the end-use quality of genetically modified grains and make recommendations to ensure that they conform to established quality standards within Canada. We've been doing this through participation in the Prairie Registration Recommending Committee for Grain, known as the PRRCG, and its various subcommittees. On these committees CGC's role--and that is its scientists and grain inspectors along with other industry specialists--is to see that breeders' lines, whether they are GM or non-GM, exhibit the quality characteristics that are needed in the marketplace.

    Second, we want to develop or verify and apply methods for the identification and testing of GM grains as needed by the industry in response in particular to the requirements of the marketplace. Commingling of GM and non-GM grains cannot be seen by the eye of a grain inspector. They're visually indistinguishable. Therefore, the CGC is involved in various research projects aimed at creating or verifying testing methods that can biochemically identify GM and non-GM grain varieties. In the end, we want these tests to be very fast and inexpensive so that they can, if necessary, be used right at the farm or the grain elevator and have detection levels that will allow for the effective application of whatever tolerances or specifications are established by the marketplace or through regulation in importing countries.

    No doubt, as more GM varieties become registered and as the need to segregate and meet customer requirements increases, there will be an increasing need for verifiable, quantifiable GM test methods. The development of such tests, it must be realized, is costly and time-consuming but will be needed to meet customer demands to know what they are receiving in their grain shipments.

    Another issue that should be noted is the biosafety protocol, which may again add requirements for testing in order to meet the protocol requirements when it comes into force.

    Third, we want to continue to provide quality assurance through monitoring programs, and this will take place whether they're GM or non-GM grains. We're doing this to assure quality for both domestic and export customers. We also want to continue to provide certification as required, but within the limits of technology. You need the technology in order to be able to do this.

    As more GM varieties become registered, there will be an increasing need to segregate GM from non-GM grains, again in order to meet the tolerances as specified by customers. This may require more certification of shipments, depending on the country of import. Right now it's not quite clear whether or not provision of such certification falls within the mandate of the CGC or other departments, but this will have to be determined.

¿  (0920)  

    We want to develop or support the development of identity-preserved, or IP, systems within the Canadian grain industry. One means of segregating GM from non-GM grains would be through the application of such IP systems. With increasing customer and consumer concerns about the relative safety of GM grains and oilseeds, some countries, such as in the EU, have established GM labelling requirements. As I said earlier, it will be necessary to be able to determine what we have in our shipments.

    Again, we think that as the number of GM varieties grown increases, we'll need more of these IP systems, along with the verification testing methodology. In response to this industry demand, the CGC and the Canadian Seed Institute began negotiations to develop a national program to audit and certify IP systems.

    In summary, we want to continue providing the services for GM grains or non-GM grains, as required by the industry.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Now from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Mr. Brackenridge.

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge (Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to make a short presentation here today on our role related to the labelling of genetically modified foods. I'm joined by Mr. Bart Bilmer, who is our director of the office of biotechnology at the CFIA.

    Health Canada and the CFIA share accountability for food labelling policies under the Food and Drugs Act. In this partnership, Health Canada's role relates to food safety and establishing science-based policies and standards. Within that role, Health Canada has a clear process, documented through its guidelines published in 1994, for the evaluation of foods derived from biotechnology.

    In this regard, there is a requirement for mandatory labelling of all foods, including those derived through biotechnology, when Health Canada's stringent food safety assessments determine that there are health or safety questions that can be mitigated through labelling. Further, as with other foods, foods derived from biotechnology are required to be labelled to identify any significant changes from the corresponding existing foods that may have occurred with respect to their composition or nutritional value.

[Translation]

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

[English]

    As the single federal food inspection agency in Canada, the CFIA enforces all federal food regulations, including those established by Health Canada. We have over 5,000 staff across the country who carry out our mandate to enhance the safety of federally regulated food, to contribute to the health and welfare of animals, and to protect the plant resource base.

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

[Translation]

    The CFIA also provides educational tools to assist and encourage industry to understand and take responsibility for issues related to regulatory compliance, and to establish control procedures to prevent violations.

[English]

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

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

¿  (0925)  

[Translation]

    If this national standard proceeds through with a final consensus over the next few months, the establishment/publication of a national standard will be a significant step towards labelling that is meaningful, credible, verifiable and enforceable. It should also be recognized that there may be some enforcement challenges of note.

[English]

    As a first example, validated detection methods for testing for the presence of products of biotechnology are still not widely available nor necessarily proven in the field, either in Canada or internationally. Certainly at this point in time there is no one test that can identify all products of biotechnology, but the development of validated detection methods is ongoing both in the public and private sector.

    Secondly, while the standard allows a paper trail to be used to verify label claims, clear practices need to be identified to appropriately document the origin of product ingredients. Such questions are particularly important for biotechnology-derived foods and ingredients that no longer contain detectable protein or DNA, such as highly processed oils or sugars.

    Finally, further efforts through communication and information sharing will also be required so that Canadian consumers are aware of the new national standard, understand what it means for them, and know where to go to find further information about biotechnology-derived foods.

[Translation]

    It must be recognized that while labelling provides a mechanism by which consumers can obtain information about biotechnology-derived foods, it cannot address the information needs of all consumers. Through consumer research, other ways of providing Canadians with various levels of information and detail on food biotechnology have been identified, such as point-of-sale literature, magazines, the Internet, television and toll-free numbers. Our efforts and those of others will need to continue in these areas.

[English]

    Canada is recognized as a strong player in helping to develop internationally accepted standards. Through a Codex guideline to the labelling of foods derived from biotechnology--indeed as part of the Codex Alimentarius Commission--Canada chairs the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, which will hold its next meeting here in Canada in May of this year.

    In conclusion, I hope this brief overview helps to situate the role of the CFIA as you proceed with your round table deliberations. We continue to work hard with our colleagues and many stakeholders to achieve the best labelling system possible for Canadians--one that will work here in Canada and internationally and that is credible and meaningful for consumers, but also scientifically sound and enforceable.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Brackenridge.

    Now, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Shauf.

    Mr. Marvin Shauf (Second Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    And thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation this morning on behalf of our farmer members from across Canada. Dietwald Claus is also here from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to assist me in this presentation.

    We support biotechnology in agriculture and we support voluntary labelling. We oppose fear-mongering and mandatory labelling. Canadian regulation is science-based. Farmers support the use of science in regulation. They also support the use of science in improving agricultural practices and technology. Canadian farmers would support voluntary labelling and are currently involved in the CGSB process to create a standard on this issue.

    There is no evidence that genetically engineered foods are any less safe than foods produced with the aid of conventional breeding methods. Certainly genetically modified foods have been studied vigorously in the recent past. Canadian farmers oppose mandatory labelling because consumers could see it as a warning sign when there is no health or safety concern at all. Having said this, we need to ensure acceptance in the marketplace before any new genetically engineered crops are registered for production.

    Costs associated with mandatory labelling could easily rise to approximately 40% of the farm-gate price for some crops. Obviously, for many farmers this would be too much to bear. It will negatively affect the Canadian food processing sector and potentially cost the Canadian economy numerous jobs. Rules on mandatory labelling could also increase food prices and hurt Canadians who already have to struggle with our cost of living. Such rules would also act as barriers to trade, violating rules under the WTO. Trade with the United States would also be affected by mandatory labelling rules, which would disrupt exports from Canada.

    At the same time, food safety would not be improved. Either those products are safe or they are not safe. If they are unsafe, they should not be sold; if they are safe, why do they need to be labelled? There would be no more consumer choice in the marketplace; processors would stop using such crops. Genetically engineered crops could vanish from the marketplace. The number of Canadian products on the market could also be decreased. Mandatory labelling will not help the environment--and we can enlarge on this later.

    Voluntary labelling, on the other hand, would give consumers choice. Some processors and marketers would decide to provide food that has not been made with genetically engineered crops to the consumers who want them. Farmers could choose to deliver either GE or non-GE crops. The system, if properly drafted, would then conform to WTO rules. Trade with the United States would not be disrupted because this system would be similar to the existing organic labelling standards already in place. It would be a show of confidence in the Canadian regulatory system and it would not hurt farmers or Canadians in general.

    Mandatory labelling would require IP systems and documentation for all products, both genetically engineered and not genetically engineered, which would increase the costs--of production for all farmers, of processing, of prices paid by consumers, and of government expenditures on monitoring and enforcement. For example, the mandatory labelling system as it was proposed would require every farmer, whether or not he produces genetically engineered crops, to maintain documentation regarding the genetic history of the crop. This documentation would be required for everyone else involved in the food chain, right up to and including the grocery store. This would be no different for those using organic products, genetically engineered products, or products that were not genetically engineered.

¿  (0930)  

    How this would increase the cost of producing, processing, and handling food is self-evident. It would add an entirely new kind of documentation to the entire food chain, even if no one were growing genetically engineered crops any more. That is a relatively unknown implication of mandatory labelling. If you add the costs associated with implementing, monitoring, and enforcing the standard to this, it becomes a large cost and creates a differential end cost between Canada and other countries in our food chain.

    Mandatory labelling would mean a de facto ban on genetically engineered products, leading to no consumer choice, potentially increased pesticide use, potentially increased soil erosion, trade barriers to goods from the United States, violation of WTO rules, and a potential biotech brain drain from Canada, which would be expensive in the Canadian economy.

    Mandatory labelling would most likely result in the end of genetically engineered technology in Canada. Genetically engineered technology allows producers to use fewer pesticides. It assists farmers in practising no-till agriculture, which is widely recognized to be one of the most effective means of preventing soil erosion. Soil erosion is a serious threat to food security, and I don't think we want to reduce the opportunities to be able to continue that practice.

    There are other factors we may want to consider, and I've mentioned them briefly. On trade implications, Canada is not and cannot be an island. Brain drain is a huge issue, in the context of the Canadian economy. Canada has become a leader in this technology that may one day not only improve agriculture, but revolutionize it. It also has potential for a great deal of other benefits in Canadian society, as this technology grows.

    Let's look for a moment at voluntary labelling. As already mentioned, it would allow farmers to provide non-GE products to those who were willing to pay for them. Consumers who wanted those products would be able to buy them. Those consumers would be looking for products with no-GE signs, and they would know that those products that did not carry the signs would potentially contain genetically engineered ingredients. So their desire for information would be met, and other consumers who didn't care either way would be able to buy based on price, not the beliefs of others.

    Costs associated with providing GE-free products would be borne exclusively by those who wanted to purchase non-GE products, not the whole food industry. If there were sufficient demand for non-genetically engineered products, farmers would provide the supply. This would be similar to organic, except that for GE-free production, one would be able to use pesticides and other means not allowed in organic agriculture. The solution would be fair to everyone, except of course those who wanted to force their world view into the law books at the expense of everyone else.

    A voluntary labelling system would allow the continued use of GE technology in Canadian agriculture. It would allow farmers to further reduce pesticide use and continue the reduction of soil erosion. By keeping the technology, we would also see very soon the development of GE crops that directly benefited consumers, through improved nutritional properties, reduced spoilage, and even medical benefits. Canada would maintain its position as a world leader in this technology of the future, and Canadian farmers would be able to remain among the most efficient in the world.

    GE crops might not provide the solutions to all problems, but they would solve many. Canadian farmers hope the Canadian government will not adopt legislation for mandatory labelling. It would destroy this technology and its promises for agriculture.

¿  (0935)  

    To wrap up, we are supporting voluntary labelling, and we're supporting it for the benefit to the environment, the benefit to consumers, the benefit to farmers, and the benefit to food processors. We're also supporting the science, because there is benefit to all Canadians.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Shauf.

    From the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada, we welcome Ms. Laurie Curry.

¿  (0940)  

    Ms. Laurie Curry (Vice-President, Public Policy and Scientific Affairs, Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada): Thank you for this opportunity as well. I represent the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada, which is the national trade association.

    Just to put it into perspective, when we talk about labelling and products from biotechnology, as food manufacturers, we really are the front line. Just to give you an example in terms of what the impact is, if you take a look at the three major commodities that are currently genetically modified in this country, they are corn, canola, and soybeans. As food manufacturers, when consumers call us, we have to indicate today that 65% to 70% of the current Canadian food supply contains genetically modified ingredients. I just want to make that statement up front and put into context what this means to Canada, to the agrifood sector, and to Canadian consumers as well.

    Again, thank you for this opportunity. I want to take a look at and explain to you, from a food manufacturer's standpoint, what the implications are in terms of mandatory, as well as voluntary, labelling of genetically modified foods. I, too, will be using the international Codex definition when I refer to GM. We support the open dialogue on genetically modified foods, and we hope this review will help to explain the full implications of labelling to Canadian consumers, the agrifood industry, and international trade.

    FCPMC is the industry association representing over 165 Canadian-operated member companies that produce and market food and consumer products sold through retail stores and food service outlets across Canada. We basically make the brands Canadians have come to rely on. Our brands deliver a promise each and every single day to Canadian consumers. We promise them what they want and what they need, we promise them quality, and, above all, we promise them safety. With so much trust at stake, we embrace Canada's world-class regulatory standards so that we can deliver to Canadians the best-quality, safest food supply in the world.

    We share the government's objective of a safe food supply. To ensure that we meet and exceed this objective, we use only ingredients approved by Health Canada. As a food industry, we're a very highly regulated industry in this country. In fact we comply today with over 353 regulations and over a thousand voluntary guidelines that are currently in place.

    Independent reports and studies, such as the Royal Society of Canada report, confirm that genetically modified foods undergo such a rigorous approval process that they are deemed to be as safe or safer than their traditional counterparts. Despite these assurances, we know through our research that 40% of Canadian consumers view GM labels, or genetically modified labels, as a warning. A further 25% of consumers are less likely to buy products labelled GM. In fact, they will actively seek to find non-GM alternatives in the marketplace—and this is based on consumer research conducted in September 2001. Since consumers see GM labels as a warning, we would far rather remove GM ingredients from our products than mislead consumers into thinking our products are not safe.

    Mandatory labelling for the presence of GM ingredients would have significant implications for the food manufacturing industry and the Canadian consumer. To avoid the misperceptions GM labels would create and their potential economic implications, food manufacturers believe they have several options available to them, including sourcing ingredients from non-GM commodities or moving away from their current sourcing of GM commodities today; substituting other GM ingredients for those derived from GM sources, such as switching from corn sweeteners to sucrose; and sourcing ingredients internationally or moving out of Canada to source those ingredients.

    All options involved include significant costs and lost opportunities for Canadian food companies, the agrifood sector, and consumers, including $11.7 billion worth of trade from processed food and beverage products representing 65% of exports to the United States that may potentially be jeopardized. Canadian manufacturers would purchase substantially less Canadian commodities—and today our manufacturers use 35% of Canadian farm outputs in the manufacturing of their products. Jobs in the Canadian manufacturing industry might be lost. Canada's corporate tax base could be reduced. Canadian consumers would lose access to some of the brands of products they currently enjoy, because many of these products are produced for a North American marketplace, so the Canadian marketplace might no longer have those brands. And the federal government would fail to meet its goal of increasing value-added exports from Canada.

    Numerous case studies show that North American food manufacturers have in fact responded to consumer misperceptions of food safety and potential price increases in the past by doing exactly that: reformulating their products. For example, in the early 1990s, North American food manufacturers substituted hydrogenated vegetable fats for tropical oils in response to consumer concerns over the nutritional safety of tropical oils. They did that within a six-month time period.

    Should a widespread reformulation of most food products on Canadian store shelves occur, the implications would be felt both in the short term and long term. In the short term, multinational companies would purchase commodity ingredients on a global scale. Remember, they have an advantage, because they have global sourcing networks that our Canadian, privately owned companies do not. They would be able to access alternate ingredients or non-GM ingredients through global buying contracts as long as supply is available. Since non-GM commodities are priced at a premium, cost increases would be passed on to the consumer.

¿  (0945)  

    For our small and medium-sized companies, they would be restricted to domestic sourcing of non-GM ingredients, which would likely be limited, or available at non-competitive pricing. In the long term, consumers would lose their choice between GM and non-GM ingredients in foods. This has already been witnessed in the United Kingdom and in Europe, where the food industry replaced low-cost, genetically modified products, such as canned tomatoes in the U.K. marketplace, exclusively with higher-cost, non-GM alternatives.

    Farmers would lose the benefits of the technology, including reduced chemical pesticide use, increased yields on the same amount of land, and other examples that were already stated by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. All Canadians would lose or have delayed the projected future benefits of the technology.

    So what would GM labelling look like? We support consumer choice in the marketplace. Based on research, we know that a fraction of consumers want foods that do not contain GM ingredients. That's why we're helping develop a standard through the Canadian General Standards Board that will allow food companies to provide information and truthful claims to consumers about products that do not contain GM ingredients.

    What we know through our research is that people who want information about GM products want that information because they want to be able to avoid buying those products. Our position is, why not allow a market niche? If manufacturers choose to produce non-GM products, they will have to incur higher costs for segregated commodities and reduced efficiency due to increased manufacturing complexity.

    Just to give you an example of the increased manufacturing complexity, here is what manufacturers who choose to offer non-GM products would be required to provide: substantial capital investment to provide segregated handling and manufacturing facilities; development of a certification system and supporting record management system by the supplier community; increased numbers of products manufactured and offered for sale; reduced size of manufacturing runs; segregated storage and handling of additional ingredients and packaging; increased sanitation to reduce risk of accidental commingling of ingredients in in-process materials; and the warehousing and shipping of segregated finished goods. And lastly, there's the incremental listing fees at retail for each additional stock-keeping unit or individual product that is sold--you must have a listing fee in order to sell your product in the retail store.

    These costs should be borne by those consumers who choose to purchase and eat non-GM foods, just like they do today for other niche product markets, such as organics. In this way, food costs do not increase for every single Canadian for no apparent health and safety reason, and they would not impact international trade negatively.

    So here are our recommendations. There are three.

    The first is to continue to support Health Canada's current labelling policy, which includes mandatory labelling for health and safety--so basically, no additional mandatory labelling. We support that for all the reasons Mr. Brackenridge from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has already outlined.

    Number two is to support the development of a voluntary labelling system when information is provided to the consumer for reasons other than health and safety. The food manufacturing industry is currently working with government, consumer groups, and general interest groups to develop a voluntary labelling standard under the CGS board. We want to ensure this labelling standard meets the five guiding principles of the CGSB process, which are that they must be informative, understandable, verifiable, not false, and not misleading; and that it has a provision for consumer choice in the marketplace through absence claims or claims about ingredients that are not products of GM.

    Our third recommendation is to continue to dialogue with consumers about foods from biotechnology and Canada's world-class regulatory system. Food manufacturers support and will continue to support education and communication efforts. In fact, we spent over $1.5 million so far in the last year and a half to inform Canadians about the foods they are eating. Our members are already providing information to consumers about their manufacturing processes, including the use of GM ingredients, through toll-free numbers and websites.

    In conclusion, we need the government to stand by Canada's world-class regulatory system. We need to label only for health and safety reasons, so we don't mislead Canadians and undermine the regulatory system. We're asking the government to help us respond to consumer demands for non-GM products by letting us create a niche market with our supply chain partners, and above all, let us continue to buy Canadian for the good of the entire food supply and to keep prices competitive for the Canadian consumer.

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to questions.

¿  (0950)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Curry.

    Before we begin our questioning, I would ask each member to identify who they would like to have answer. I know sometimes witnesses all want to answer a particular question, but each member has so many minutes, and the answer is part of those minutes. So if the members would identify which agency or group is to reply, I think it would be better probably for all of us.

    Howard, would you begin?

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk--Interlake, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    These presentations today were the most common sense, practical, positive presentations on GMO issues that have ever been presented in this Parliament and in anything that I've seen in public in the media. It's pro-agriculture, it's pro-consumer, it's pro-low-income Canadians, it's pro-environment, and it's pro-national economy.

    I am going to ensure that, on my part and my party's part, this message gets to every member of Parliament and is as widely spread across this country as I can, because, in a nutshell, you folks--every one of you--have put forward these issues in the cold light of day. Some of it is kind of sobering, I suppose, as to the effects that mandatory labelling would have.

    Having said that, there are a couple of questions we need to ask. I know the answer to the first one, that there is no documented case of anyone getting sick from consuming GMO corn, canola, soybean, that every Canadian and virtually everyone around the world has eaten already. That takes care of that.

    On the environment issues, I guess I would simply leave it open. If there are any unmanageable environment issues, I would invite anyone at any point during their answers to identify those, but I haven't seen any unmanageable environment issues to this point.

    In regard to the question of market acceptance, Canadians have already accepted corn, soybean, and canola products, or they would already not be buying them and there would be tremendous pressure. I would like to know from the food manufacturers and the wheat board if in fact they have any hard studies they could give to us.

    I'll ask a specific question. The Canadian Wheat Board's was a great presentation. I was very pleased with what you've come across with, but there's one question. You said you would oppose the introduction of GMO wheat at this time, though that seems to be the next product coming along for customer acceptance, but you may agree to it in the future.

    What would happen if Ontario introduced GMO wheat and western Canada didn't? What would be the effect of that on marketability of our grains? We know that GMO wheats will give an advantage to those producers who produce it, but would that give Ontario an advantage over western Canada? Have you considered that question, Mr. Flaten?

    Mr. Gord Flaten: Sure, I can answer that question first, if you like.

    First of all, one of the things we're trying to ascertain within the western Canadian wheat industry is whether the first example of GM wheat is in fact agronomically advantageous for farmers. I don't think the answer to that one is clear.

    Now, that's not a statement about future GM varieties. As I'm sure you're aware, there's a lot of debate going on within the farm community, market impact aside, as to whether this first herbicide-tolerant Roundup Ready wheat is in fact a good idea even from an agronomic point of view. As I pointed out, there are concerns about gene flow and so on. That question, I think, needs to be answered. So it isn't clear that farmers in Ontario would necessarily have an advantage if that's the example of GM wheat you're talking about.

    If genetically modified wheat in general terms were introduced in Ontario and not in western Canada, that could throw up some challenges for us in terms of the logistics and handling system, if our customers--as two-thirds of our customers are saying today--said they did not want to have the presence of genetically modified wheat in non-GM wheat shipments.

    Because Ontario wheat and western Canadian wheat does get handled by some of the same facilities in the lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway system, that may cause some liability concerns among the terminal elevators and the transfer elevators operating there, that they wouldn't want to be responsible for the presence of these visually indistinguishable GM wheat varieties in their shipments. So there would certainly be some issues there. That would be the main impact, though, I would think, Mr. Hilstrom.

¿  (0955)  

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: What are the dollar figures you have? You've studied the Canadian Wheat Board along with other industry aspects, particularly in western Canada, but obviously also in eastern Canada. You've studied the issue of cost. What hard figures do you have now were it to go to a mandatory segregation system and all that? What hard figures have you come up with to date? I know you've been studying this for quite some time.

    Mr. Gord Flaten: With respect to wheat, I would have to say that there are no hard figures right now as to what the cost would be. One of the reasons for this is that the cost of the detection technology isn't even known. Those technologies don't exist, so we don't know how much it would cost, for example, to buy those kits.

    There are studies that have been done on the costs of segregation in general, and I think the CFA referred to one of them done by KPMG that had the costs as high as 40% of the farm gate price, if you were going to segregate on a mandatory basis.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I'll direct my last question to the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Do you agree in fact that the best place to determine where these costs should fall should be based on the customer demand and the marketplace, as opposed to a government bureaucracy saying we're going to have mandatory labelling, or the costs are going to fall at a certain place in the food chain from the consumer right down to the farmer? Is it going to be more cost-efficient to have the government, bureaucrats sitting here in Ottawa, deciding that, or the whole food industry?

    Mr. Gord Flaten: I think it's a little bit more complex than that, in that it is not possible, I don't think, to ensure that all of the costs of a segregation system would fall on the consumers of GM products. So if you introduce GM products, it's going to have a big cost impact on farmers, grain handlers, food processors, and others, whether they're processing or producing GM crops or not. So farmers who want to produce non-GM crops, once GM wheat is introduced, will face some additional costs. So they are going to run into some of those externalities, or external impacts, there.

    That's why we're suggesting that the grain industry rather than the government do an evaluation of those costs, weigh the cost benefits and risks of introducing, on a case-by-case basis, GM commodities, and then make a recommendation to government that perhaps in this case this GM variety should not be introduced, or it should be introduced. That's the kind of process we're suggesting we go through.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Flaten, and Howard.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Tremblay, please.

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): I in turn wish to thank those who have made presentations, but I am not quite as optimistic as the speaker who preceded me. I had the distinct feeling that I was watching a propaganda rather than an information session, but that is perhaps just because of where I am coming from or my skepticism.

    There was a time when everyone talked about cholesterol. We were told how dangerous it was for our health, and that we must pay attention to it. We began to see the words cholesterol free on labels, even if it was ridiculous to think that the cholesterol was not produced by us. There is no cholesterol in chips. It comes about because of a reaction in the human body. But we began to see everything labelled cholesterol free because it was what consumers wanted.

    Just because there have not yet been any documented cases of people becoming sick or dying after eating GMOs does not mean that the danger does not exist. That is irrelevant. It took us time to document deaths attributable to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in connection with mad cow disease. It took almost 20 years to establish the link between the two.

    Many people are worried because of the large number of children now allergic to milk. When we were young, we drank cow's milk that had not even been pasteurized and we were never, or rarely, sick. Now, it is a common occurrence for children not to be able to drink milk. We buy cream on January 1 and it is good until February 28. So what has been put in it that it lasts so long? When I was young, it turned after three days.

    What we eat now has no taste. When we buy organic products, which cost more, they taste just like they did when we were young. They have a taste again. All that organic growers are doing is farming the way people farmed before we decided to industrialize.

    When you tell us, Ms. Curry, that this will drive prices way up, I do not see why prices would suddenly jump because of a requirement for a GM-free label. If, to begin with, there were GM seed and non-GM seed, I could understand. It is true that it is not visible to the naked eye. But if a producer buys GM-free products, I would like you to be more specific and tell us why this would drive prices so much higher.

    When you consider that this could have an impact on health--This would increase the price terribly. I do not know which it would be better to pay for: labelling, or the consequences of seeing everyone sick because we no longer really know what we are eating.

À  (1020)  

[English]

    Ms. Laurie Curry: I guess at the end of the day, if you're going to label something, you are responsible for ensuring that what is on the label is accurate. Either way, whether you're making a claim that this contains genetically modified corn or this does not contain genetically modified corn, under the Food and Drugs Act you must prove that that is so. That is called identity preservation plus analytical responsibilities.

    So in terms of the costs.... It's different when you're dealing with small niche markets like organic, where you can completely segregate that product and then follow it all the way into the marketplace and into the hands of consumers. However, when you take a look at mass commodities such as corn, canola, and soya, and you take a look at 70% of the finished products that are using those ingredients, you have to be able to trace back all the way to the farm level, to the seed level, to guarantee that in fact that product is what you claim it to be, either genetically modified or not genetically modified, and that is where the costs come in all the way through.

    For example, in a manufacturing facility you're going to have to operate separate manufacturing lines; you're going to have to have separate sanitation. It's no different, for example, from how we treat allergens today. If we have, for example, peanut products, we completely segregate those to be able to guarantee that that is a nut-free product. There are increased costs to doing that.

    Our basic premise is that for those consumers who want the choice--they want to avoid those products--why not then allow a system that will allow for non-GM labelling, but recognize that those are going to be increased costs to consumers?

    On the flip side, if you take a look at GM, why should consumers have to bear that cost for products that are already safe and have been deemed safe by Health Canada? That's the fundamental premise of our position.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: The fact remains that, if a farmer wants to grow corn, why can he not be guaranteed that the seeds are GM-free? If his seeds are GM-free, he should deliver to a place where everything is GM-free. That is what I do not understand: why is it not possible to keep things separate from the outset?

    As for your manufacturing line, if someone wants to produce GM-free corn products, that is what he is going to do if it is what everyone wants. That is the point. People no longer really know what they want. They do not know what is hazardous, and I have the feeling that we are perhaps making a mountain out of a molehill or whatever. The problem is that we do not have any proof that it is hazardous, nor do we have any that it is not.

    What are we to do? What should we tell people? Why is it not traceable all the way back to the corn seed? Why not? It cannot be traced all the way back.

[English]

    Ms. Laurie Curry: In terms of how the system works today, if you go right back to the seed level, it is deemed by the government that these products are safe. So if they're deemed to be safe, then they are deemed to be as safe as their traditional counterparts. So they are not segregated currently in the marketplace today. It's not to say that you can't do that in the future, but if we take a look at the mass commodities--corn, canola, and soya--these systems currently are not segregated in Canada. To go back retroactively now and segregate and put these systems in places is not without a cost. And that's the fundamental basis.

    Going to your health and safety point, which I recognize we're not here to debate today, if these ingredients were deemed to be unsafe, they should not be on the market, period. So when you take a look from the point of view of a further manufacturer, these ingredients have already been deemed to be safe; they are completely grown without segregation currently in the marketplace, based on the premise that they are deemed to be healthy and safe. If they're not healthy and safe, I say get them out of the products and off the marketplace today.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Calder.

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

    I don't want to get into this debate about GMO and the labelling, because quite frankly I think it clouds the issue, and the issue we're dealing with here right now is labelling, period. Whether it's involuntary or mandatory...I think as soon as you start involuntary labelling within the market, the consumer is going to dictate and it's going to be mandatory in a short period of time anyway, because they'll want as much information on that label as they possibly can get. The processor that is not doing that is not selling his product. So it's eventually going to become mandatory anyway.

    So the labelling system has to be credible. The question is, how do we make it credible? What type of tracking system is put in place to be able to find out I'm a poultry farmer? In our system, we're going to have to be able to track the product beyond the egg, so you have the finished product on the shelf. What's that system going to look like?

    I'll start with Peter because I know he's dealing with it right now, not only within the poultry industry but in the pork industry, through quality assurance, and then I'll go to Laurie.

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Unfortunately, I don't know exactly what it's going to look like either, and that's the whole purpose of the activities we have under way right now when it comes to the reference made by Mr. Calder.

    As far as on-farm food safety programs, we're working very closely right now with the Chicken Farmers of Canada under the agricultural policy framework to come up with a system for on-farm food safety that would consider all of the elements under a hazard analysis type of system. It will also have trace-back components to it, as Mr. Calder has made reference to. We're dealing with the Chicken Farmers in that particular situation on a pilot project basis, and we're making very good progress, I should say, on that particular initiative.

    With regard to the GM issue, we also do the feed assessment aspect of it at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, as well as environmental assessments. As Ms. Curry has already indicated, GM-based, biotechnology-based, products are required to go through food, feed, and environmental assessments before approval is given.

    So in the case of feeds that may be used on a poultry farm or whatever, if they have any kind of a genetically modified base to them, they would have gone through an assessment process and be deemed to have been safe.

    Because safety is not the issue at play, I believe there is not a component as such within the on-farm food safety program to date that relates to the source of the feed, whether it be GM or non-GM feed-based, because, again, it's not considered to be a safety issue.

    With regard to the tracking and tracing systems, under the food safety and quality pillar of the ag policy framework there have been some preliminary discussions with industry groups about tracking and tracing systems. There has been a lot of discussion with the Federation of Agriculture, with the Grain Commission, with the Wheat Board, and with others about the practicality of such systems and how you could in fact put them in place on a reasonable basis. Again, I don't think the answers are there yet, but it's very much one of the priorities to come up with systems. What do they mean? Are they practical, meaningful, credible, and forceful? That is the terminology we use.

    Mr. Murray Calder: Laurie, I think I'll just add a wee bit of an addendum onto that question. For the consumers and for the tracking system we have, for instance, with the Chicken Farmers we do self-policing. How credible is that going to be, in your eyes?

    Ms. Laurie Curry: From our standpoint, in terms of the type of tracking mechanism we currently have in the industry, most of the systems today go from the manufacturer through to the consumer, so they're upstream, in terms of our traceability. For example, if we have a product recall today, from a consumer level at a retail store, we're able to trace that back to the manufacturer, and what time and at what location that product was produced, etc.

    So all of our tracking systems today are upstream. What needs to be worked on--and we're working with government officials and other organizations--is downstream, back to the farmer. That's where we have said, even taking a look at a labelling system, you have to have verifiability. We have said it needs to be twofold: it needs to be both from an analytical standpoint, where that is available, as well as from an IP process standpoint, which will need to be audited as well.

    We say it's twofold because right now there's not one of those systems that is necessarily in place today. They need to be put in place, like the identity preservation process, as well as the analytical process. When you take a look at the thresholds we're looking at currently in the CJSB process, we're looking at 5%. Well, some might say that's too high. We would agree with that; however, if it's a 5% threshold, you have to be able to enforce to that level, and currently you can't have a lesser amount. But what we have said is make that contingent...and that's actually the beauty of having a standard versus a regulation. So as the analytical methodologies improve, you can decrease that threshold so that it's on par through the analyticals.

    Really there are two aspects: identity preservation and analytical.

    Mr. Murray Calder: My final question, Mr. Chair, is this. With this tracking system, I know what we're going to be exposed to within the poultry industry, and it's basically over 112 checkpoint that our farming operation will have to respond to. We're into it right now, and obviously there's going to be an extra cost to us as to how we do farming.

    I guess I'll point the question to Marvin and then open it up to anybody else.

    The Chair: Mr. Calder, your time's getting short, so you'd better--

    Mr. Murray Calder: Okay, I'll just direct it to Marvin and do it very quickly.

    With the extra cost, who should be bearing that extra cost?

    Mr. Marvin Shauf: Let me back up a little bit. I think there is a difference between food safety issues and consumer preference. If the science says that genetically engineered food is safe, it can go to the marketplace. That's not a safety issue. When we talk about someone who wants to have no genetically engineered food, that's a consumer preference. A voluntary label will allow that consumer to look at a product and say, “This contains no genetically engineered product and that's what I want, so I am prepared to pay a premium for that”.

    I have a huge concern that we're mixing food safety issues and consumer preference issues here, and I have a huge concern that we have a potential to damage our whole food system by doing that, from the production right through to the body that regulates the CFIA.

    If we mix those issues, we are going to confuse consumers and we are going to cost the industry a great deal of money, potentially, and a great deal of jobs. We need to be very clear that food safety is one issue and consumer preference is another issue, and we need to make absolutely sure that we don't mix those issues and confuse our consumers.

    If somebody wants to have genetically-engineered-free food, there can be a niche market that's developed for that person and they could pay a premium for that product in the marketplace.

    The Chair: Thank you, Murray.

    Dick.

    Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Chair, I understand my colleague from Brandon--Souris has another commitment, so he's asked if we could exchange our slots.

    The Chair: No problem.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon--Souris, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleague, Mr. Proctor.

    First of all, I should say just because someone doesn't believe in the information being given doesn't mean it's propaganda. I want to suggest that everybody here has a similar theme and a similar position to put forward, and I appreciate that. It's always nicer when we have opposing opinions, so we can use that as a bit of a springboard. However, I do thank you for making your presentations, and making them very succinct and very understandable.

    First of all, are all organizations that are here today members of the Canadian General Standards Board? So everybody here is on that board?

    Voices: Yes.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. They are going forward with a recommendation now for a voluntary labelling system. All of you, I assume, agree with that voluntary system. I've heard it in your presentations. I'd just like to have a nod of heads that everybody agrees with that voluntary system that's being recommended by the Canadian General Standards Board. Correct?

    Ms. Laurie Curry: The process.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: The process.

    Ms. Laurie Curry: Yes.

    A witness: The fact that it's voluntary.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: The fact that it's voluntary, yes. So there is a difference of opinion. But the process going forward would be voluntary.

    I would first like to put this on the table. Laurie mentioned 65% to 70% of the foodstuffs on the shelves in grocery stores today, in some way, shape or form, may in fact contain a genetically modified product, whether it be in the sugar components, whether it be corn, soy, or canola.

    I'll direct this to the CFIA. How many products on the shelves now, or approximately what percentage, do we know are import products coming from other jurisdictions? Do you know that, Mr. Brackenridge?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: If I can just get clarification, Mr. Chair, is it what percentage of Canadian food products on the marketplace are from imports?

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes.

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Or GE--

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, no, I'm talking imports only.

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Actually, Ms. Curry may have more stats.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: The number I got yesterday, by the way, Mr. Brackenridge, was between 35% and 40% of foodstuffs may well be imported. The reason I ask is you have a very important comment here, where you say:

...biotechnology-derived foods and ingredients that no longer contain detectable protein or DNA, such as highly processed oils or sugars.

    What I'm trying to get at is if we have a product that's being imported, we do not and cannot detect whether that has a GM component or not. So if in fact we in Canada suggest that there be mandatory standards, how would we know that those imports would have no genetically modified food stuffs? Or could we?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Well, again, this is one of the challenges we face, whether it be on GE or any other type of activity in the food business. For imported products, we put the onus on the Canadian importer to have the right level of documentation, testing, whatever.

    As I indicated in my presentation, there is a real challenge here, whether it be the amount of processing of the ingredient, whether it be the live technology that is or isn't available, or whether it be the number of products that are mixed together in the finished food product. How do you in fact do that?

    So our approach, even under a voluntary system, is one that is somewhat multifaceted. There's a certain analytical component to it; there's a certain documentation tracking. Obviously, with imports you've just heightened the challenge we're dealing with, and it puts a lot of responsibility on the importers.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay, the last comment is to you, please, Mr. Brackenridge. We talked about the cost of labelling. Unfortunately, too many people, simplistically, think it's the paper costs of going onto a can or a box or a product that identifies its components as GM. I know Ms. Curry has done an admirable job, but from the CFIA, can you walk us through the real costs associated with identifying GM product?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Well, again, I don't know if I'm the best person to do that or not. Certainly, there's a long list, starting from the farm level up. You would expect that they would have an understanding of where the seed had come from, what the source of the seed was, how it had been used. There would presumably be some type of segregation required even for the field it was grown in, because if it is grown beside a field that had approved GE varieties in it, you will get pollen movement and that type of thing. So there's a certain responsibility on the farmer.

    You get it then going into the distribution system and into the elevators and the other situations, where it's not simply a single field or a farmer's fields going in; it's being mixed with other product. There is the potential within the grain handling system for cross...I'll use the word “contamination”, that's what I mean, but it's a crossing of the different varieties, remnants that are left over, the cleaning process that was previously mentioned--getting it into the manufacturing facility, and even the transportation itself creates problems for the manufacturing facility and others.

    I don't know how you quantify those costs, but there is then a requirement obviously on the part of the manufacturer to have very good documentation and to be able to do the trace-back, because in our case, from an enforcement standpoint, should we have a complaint--and we would do an investigation--if we determined that in fact the label was inaccurate or was making inappropriate statements, we then have to oblige the manufacturer, or whoever the responsible party is on the label, to do a recall procedure. We then have a requirement on them, and they have to go all the way back in the system and follow what the distribution of the finished product has been, and, depending upon how they do their lot segregation and coding systems, it can be an extremely expensive proposition.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Brackenridge. It's not the pennies of the label itself.

    The Chair: Thank you, Rick.

    May I ask just one question here in terms of the manufacture. I'm a little confused with the statement that 40% of the products on the shelves in grocery stores are imported. Are we talking about produce? Are we talking about finished products? Are we talking about ingredients?

    Ms. Curry, could you maybe just give our committee some...? It's rather shocking if we realize that in the average grocery store 30% or 40% of the items we see on the shelves are imported.

    Ms. Laurie Curry: It would probably be finished products.

    Let me tell you in terms of our membership. We have 165 member companies, and of those 165 member companies, 85 are food companies in Canada. Those 85 food companies put about 80% of the product on the retail shelves in Canada. Just those 85 companies that are members of FCPMC put 80% of the product on the retail shelves.

    So when I heard the number of 30% or 35%, I was looking outside the.... We occupy the centre of the store, not the outskirts, which include the produce and those types of things. So when I heard 30%, 35%, I would have said it would probably include the produce section. But when I take a look at the inner core of the store, our members put 80% of the product on the retail shelves. The other 20% would come from imported product. This is for further-manufactured products as well as products from the other 2,000 establishments in this country that make food, small food companies, if that helps to clarify.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you.

    Rose-Marie.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton--Kent--Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too would like to thank all the presenters. This subject is most interesting, and we can certainly learn a lot at each of our committee meetings.

    My comments and question are to Laurie, and I made the same comment at our last meeting regarding country of origin, and that ties in with labelling. Before the labelling issue it was country of origin, and having been in the produce business in my previous life, I was always a little bit excited when I went to the grocery chains and didn't see country of origin. I would think that would be a little easier to implement versus labelling, and we still have not achieved that in our grocery chains as to country of origin. Consumers have demanded that all along, and we haven't been able to accomplish this. So if we can't do such a simple thing as country of origin, I think this is going to be even more difficult to try to implement.

    I don't know if you want to comment.

À  (1025)  

    Ms. Laurie Curry: I'll respond to that in the sense that, again, you need to take a look at commodities versus finished products. If you want to implement something at a commodity stage--for example, if you're a farmer selling corn on your farm and you've been able to isolate these products and sell them separately, it's relatively easy, or if you want to do country of origin labelling, it's relatively easy.

    Once you move away from the commodity and you start getting into the finished product, that's where it becomes more difficult, whether it's about country of origin labelling or about ingredients from biotechnology or genetic modification, because of the complexity.

    For example, if you're a company, you might be sourcing from all around the world. You might get your pea supply from Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, but to what percentage? When you're doing that on a mass basis, it becomes more difficult, and that's why country of origin, when you get to the finished product, has in fact the same complexities as what we're talking about here.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I think basically where I'm coming from, Laurie, is...let's take a bunch of asparagus. It's not something that has had further processing, it's produce you go and pick up off the shelf. Whether it's a head of lettuce or something like that, I think that's still lacking within our grocery chains.

    Ms. Laurie Curry: That's what I'm referring to. That's what I refer to by “commodities”, and even that can be challenging, right?

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Exactly.

    Ms. Laurie Curry: Imagine then when you get to the finished products.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: That's right.

    Also, you had indicated that the consumer wants niche markets. That's fine and dandy, but how much are they willing to pay for that niche market? I can tell you, having been in the produce business, the bottom line is price. You can say a Canadian consumer wants to buy Canadian. Trust me, that is not true. The bottom line is price.

    Ms. Laurie Curry: Yes. I indicated earlier we've been doing some research. Maybe we can talk offline with the clerk or the chair in terms of how we might be able to provide it. We're still operating under a confidentiality agreement respecting the research we have conducted.

    We have done two levels of research. We've done nation-wide public opinion polling, some quantitative research, and in our most recent research, which we did just before Christmas, we did market simulation research. Instead of closing a grocery store and giving consumers $120 and having them go around and relabel everything, what we did was online. We took a look at three different price points: we did 0%, 10%, and 20%.

    I'll just share some of this with you. Again, this research is what it is because we did not close a grocery store to be able to do a major quantitative study, but it relates back to the quantitative we did do.

    For example, at 0% price difference, 58% of shoppers will select non-GM foods. When the price point increases by 5%, that drops to 50% of consumers. When it increases to 10%, it drops to 39%. When the price differential goes to 15% , which we did as well, it drops to 28%.

    The hard and fast truth, folks, is when you take it up to 20%, the proportion of people who will then select non-GM foods is 21%.

    So you're quite right: price is a key driver. Those who definitely want to search out non-GM are about 21% of Canadians. That correlates with the 25% I quoted earlier from our quantitative research. So there's consistency there.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Do we really understand, though, what the consumer is asking for? As Mr. Shauf indicated before, we have to have clear communication. On the labelling, do they have more of a preference for information as to food safety, or whether it's indicated GMO or GMO-free? I think consumers are a bit confused at this point as to what they're actually looking for on this additional labelling.

    Ms. Laurie Curry: We would agree. Again, in terms of the consumer research, we know that when we took a look at the issue two years ago from a consumer standpoint, they saw it as a science and technology issue. However, in the past two years it has shifted to a food safety issue.

    When you take a look at the same research conducted in the United States, it is still a science and technology issue. In Canada it has moved and is an issue of food safety in the consumer's mind.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I found it very interesting when the question was asked by the chair whether all presenters were in agreement with volunteer labelling. But there's no information available as to what it might cost. This is like buying a pig in a poke.

    I'm really concerned. I'm here fighting on behalf of, yes, constituents who are consumers, but the primary producers are my constituents as well. I certainly want a balanced approach on this before we stumble ahead.

À  (1030)  

    Ms. Laurie Curry: The challenge with the voluntary labelling, particularly on the presence side, is that from the food manufacturers' standpoint it will be viewed as de facto mandatory labelling. That is why we support, going forward, a voluntary standard that allows for absence labelling for Canadian consumers.

    The reality is that the industry, and all of us here collectively, are supporting the CGSB process. Once that standard is produced, if it contains both a presence and an absence labelling format, we will be under tremendous pressure to implement the presence side of that labelling. So in fact it is de facto mandatory. That's why going forward, and based on our research, we are saying if we want to meet the five core principles of being understandable, informative, not false, not misleading, and verifiable, then the way forward is to develop a labelling standard that is for absence claims.

    The Chair: Thank you, Rose-Marie.

    Now back to Dick.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the presenters this morning.

    It seems to me all of you in one way or another are in favour of voluntary labelling. All the presentations indicate that. When this committee met on Tuesday, we were urged by one group of expert witnesses to read, or in some cases reread, the Royal Society report that was made by Health Canada, the Food Inspection Agency, and Environment Canada.

    That report says if recommendations for changes to risk assessment and management are not fully implemented, mandatory labelling for GE food products is required. The two examples or thresholds they give are rigorous scientific assessment to replace substantial equivalents, which the society has doubts about, and arm's length experts from all sectors who report decisions in a public forum.

    So my question to the CFIA representatives is, have these changes--or to what degree have these changes--been incorporated since the Royal Society report was released one year ago?

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Mr. Chair, if I could, I'd ask Mr. Bilmer to respond to that. He's been very intricately involved.

    Mr. Bart Bilmer (Director, Office of Biotechnology, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): First, as background on the report, the Royal Society was looking at foods that will be coming in the future, not the foods currently in the market. So they were talking about the future, down the road, and the foods that we would be seeing at that time.

    With respect to their comments on substantial equivalence, in the report itself they said they see two ways that substantial equivalence is being applied, basically, just to make it very simple, the right way and the way we prefer. In our view, we are already applying substantial equivalence in the way they have recommended, so we're fully consistent and are doing what the Royal Society has recommended in that respect.

    I would also like to point out that the government and all the government departments there were recommendations made about in the Royal Society got together and published a Government of Canada action plan back in November, and it's on the websites of all our federal departments. In it we lay out a very detailed action plan for how we're going to address the recommendations made by the Royal Society. We are expecting in the very near future to do our first update on that, to show the progress we've made in all those areas. Particularly, Health Canada has laid out what they have done on the food safety side and what their plans are. We have updated it on the types of activities we're doing, including more communication with the public in the area of food biotechnology.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you very much, Mr. Bilmer.

    So with the first part of your answer, I could take it that you're looking forward to GM wheat and how that's going to come into play, as opposed to the adventures concerning StarLink corn of December 2000. Is that so?

    Mr. Bart Bilmer: The Royal Society looked at a number of products that would be coming in the future. I don't know if they specifically looked at GM wheat, but they would have looked at products with significant compositional changes and nutritional changes that may be of more interest to the consumer.

À  (1035)  

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay.

    Marvin, your presentation, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture presentation, was very upbeat on GM crops. Does that include enthusiasm for the prospect of genetically modified wheat?

    Mr. Marvin Shauf: Genetically modified wheat or anything else that may be coming in the future needs to have a market acceptance prior to being registered for production in Canada. If there is a marketplace that is accepting of it and if the appropriate systems are put in place to maintain the identity, those would be the precedents that are needed before we would be supporting the registration of genetically modified wheat for production. Right now, we don't have situations in place to enable us to make it sensible to register genetically modified wheat, because of the fact that a huge amount of our wheat is exported, and there are countries that are not willing to accept genetically modified wheat at this point.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: We heard the spokesperson for the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers say that in a small market like organic, you could completely segregate the market. You, as a farmer, know that's increasingly difficult to do, with pollen drift, all the stories about GM canola, and the rest of it. I think you would agree that it's not as easily done as said to segregate GM products from non-GM crops.

    Mr. Marvin Shauf: There are certainly costs involved in doing that, as we've discussed before. It's a process that consumes a great deal of time and energy all the way through the system. But again, let me come back to the fact that it's not a food safety issue. We support labelling for safety reasons, absolutely, but this is ultimately about consumer preference. The science says it's safe, so it can be on the shelf. If a consumer prefers something different, there is an ability to segregate for a niche market.

    Mr. Dick Proctor: Can the Wheat Board identify one country that would want to import GM wheat, if it were available?

    Mr. Gord Flaten: There are no countries that actually say they want to import Roundup Ready wheat, but about one-third of our markets have not said they do not want to. So unless the situation changes, it looks like there will be markets for some of that product.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mark.

    Mr. Mark Eyking (Sydney--Victoria, Lib.): Do you know what countries like Australia, the United States, and maybe Europe are doing or planning to do on this whole issue of labelling, if they're involved in it? We compete for the same markets and import from those countries.

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Again, I'll defer to Mr. Bilmer to address this in more detail, because he's quite directly involved in the whole situation.

    There have been a number of developments in Europe, Japan, China, and other countries. Perhaps it would be useful for the committee if Bart gave a very quick summary of the situation.

    Mr. Bart Bilmer: The European Union has had regulations in place to address mandatory labelling for a couple of years. The Canadian General Standards Board committee discussions focused on how they were struggling to implement the system and the fact that there were very few labels on products.

    Japan has also put in place a system for mandatory labelling. They have set a 5% threshold that will help them facilitate more labelling than perhaps Europe will see.

    The United States have been very supportive of a voluntary labelling system. About a year ago they published a draft paper on a proposed voluntary labelling approach, which the CGSB committee studied in quite some detail.

    Perhaps I'll leave it at those three and mention the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, which has been studying this topic since about 1993. Canada and a number of other countries have been participating in this exercise; however, they're struggling to come to some international consensus on the standard itself.

    I would say that the work that's been done in Canada on the voluntary labelling system has gone into far more depth at this point than Codex, so I think the Codex discussion will be ongoing for many years. For example, they haven't addressed negative labelling, thresholds, verification, and matters such as those.

À  (1040)  

    Mr. Mark Eyking: It seems to me we're very much on the same level as the U.S., but you said Japan was going toward mandatory labelling. If we sell a lot of grains like soybeans and whatnot to Japan and Asia, should farmers out west be looking at protecting their 1,000 acres, if that's going to be in the future? How do you see that happening?

    Mr. Bart Bilmer: Japan has put out a list of products on which they want to have mandatory labelling. At this point they have said there's no labelling required for canola oil, because after the crushing process any protein or DNA is not in the final product. They've also, as I mentioned, set a 5% threshold for crops such as corn. In their opinion, that is a reasonable standard for producers shipping to Japan to meet. It is also a reasonable standard to meet for soybeans.

    So they looked at the international situation and their own situation, in that they import so many products, and took all those factors into account when they established their standard.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mark.

    David.

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills--Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): Grain producers for decades have had a visual distinguishability index to distinguish varieties. Basically that means a new variety couldn't come on the market unless it's a new shape or colour from something that's already there.

    I guess for a long time we've known that system is inadequate. It has cost farmers lots of money at different times. Grandin wheat would be an example of that.

    We've known that the system has to be changed. The inability of the government and the marketing system to deal with new varieties comes into play in labelling food, and I think it would carry right down to flour and being able to label that kind of thing.

    My concern is when the system is going to be able to move away from that, the VDI system. The Wheat Board this winter had a Moving up Market conference. During one of the question periods, one of your directors got up and asked what I assume was a prearranged question, but the gist of it basically was, will we be able to segregate or move to identity preservation within the next ten years?

    I have producers in my area who are capable of doing that right now, are ready to move into that immediately. So I'm asking you, what's the time line on your new testing? Both the Wheat Board and the Grain Commission have put money into this new system and this research. When will you be able to bring it on line?

À  (1045)  

    Dr. Brian Marchylo: With specific reference to moving away from KVD, the commission has had a committee in place for the last year looking at the development or introduction of a declaration system that would be an alternative to KVD. A report on the committee's deliberations will be going to the commissioners of the Canadian Grain Commission. They will be doing consultation, beginning in the next few months, with producers and others in the industry. Again, this is looking at an alternative to KVD.

    In discussions with farmers, industry, and so on, you mentioned the development of a test. In order to go to something like an affidavit-type system, a declaration system, you need testing as a verification tool. We're developing that through various types of research avenues, primarily looking at the development of DNA-based tests. We're hoping to have in about three years the beginnings of such tests, but at that time, these tests would only be laboratory-based. In order to make this a really good type of procedure to take over from KVD, you need something that would be useful right at the grain elevator, if not at the farm level. It remains to be seen how long it will take to get that type of test in place, but it will be a while. That's why we're looking at also introducing certification and auditing-type processes to make sure that IP systems, or declaration systems, will be working.

    Mr. David Anderson: The system needs to be initiated immediately.

À  (1050)  

    Dr. Brian Marchylo: It is being worked on right now.

    Mr. Gord Flaten: It might be useful to point out that we do operate IP systems now within wheat. The issue is not that one day we will go from a complete KVD system to a non-KVD system. We've been operating IP...[Inaudible—Editor]...actually in wheat for market testing purposes. What we'll likely do is expand that. In fact, we've been expanding it pretty aggressively into some of the smaller classes of wheat, trying to protect the consistency and uniformity of our flagship classes of hard red spring and durum wheat. But we're certainly moving as fast as we can, because it's painful for us, too, to see fusarium-resistant varieties, as you are aware, not being able to fit into that KVD system.

    Mr. David Anderson: There's a growing concern that this market acceptance is being used as an excuse to cover for the fact that these products cannot be brought onto the market because our system is not capable of distinguishing between them. I hope you're making preparations to deal with those kinds of things.

    Mr. Gord Flaten: Yes, but I do want to emphasize that it's not the only reason there is hesitation throughout the industry. And it's not just at the Wheat Board. There's hesitation throughout the industry about issues like Roundup Ready wheat. It isn't just market acceptance. It's logistics and handling questions and costs, but there are agronomic concerns as well. So there are myriad concerns that need to be dealt with here.

    The Chair: Thank you, David. I'm going to have to stop you there. If there's a little time, I'll come back to you.

    Paul, you had a question.

    Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron--Bruce, Lib.): Well, this is very difficult. Maybe it's an impossible task that we have before us in terms of trying to resolve the issue of whether it's mandatory or voluntary.

    As I look at it, the whole issue of engineering of food products is not something new. This has been going on for generations. Our forefathers were in the business of doing this. The purpose of genetic engineering, as I see it, is basically to achieve economic advantage. I think it's also there to allow us to reduce the use of our chemicals, and I think that leads to a better environment. I think all people, all consumers, and farmers particularly, are why you see all of those things happen.

    Given our historical knowledge, based on what we know has happened in terms of people ingesting food products, we cannot recall an incident in which people have died from ingesting these products. What, then, is the premise of public fear of genetically modified products? Where does this premise come from? If we don't have a history of people becoming ill while using genetically modified products—and I'm not here as a proponent of some of the transgenics that can go on in plant and animal proteins and all of those kinds of things, because those are things I think we have to be careful of—where does the premise of fear come from? Is it myth or is it real?

    I'll leave this open to anyone, even though I'm not supposed to do that.

    Ms. Laurie Curry: I would just add, from a consumer standpoint, the fact that science and tech is viewed as a health and safety issue. It's actually viewed no differently from previous research that we used to see around microwaves and cellphones initially.

    There are a couple of reasons for what makes the challenge. First, foremost, and fundamentally, most Canadians don't grow up in rural areas any more. Most Canadians don't know where their food comes from. So when you introduce a new technology to a food supply when there's not the basic understanding or knowledge, it has the potential to instill fear.

    The other disadvantage we have right now, as we talk about the benefits in terms of economics, decreased chemical use, better environment, for example, is that there's no direct consumer benefit. If we had a direct consumer benefit as manufacturers that we could communicate to Canadians, we would not be having this conversation today. That's in terms of where the technology is. It is direct benefits back at the farm level and at the environment level, but they are not direct benefits at the consumer level. If, for example, we had functional foods and increased health benefits with these products, that would be a very different scenario.

    That's part of our whole positioning. When you have agronomical trades that are of value to the consumer...let's go back through the CGSB process and take a look at what type of presence labelling we should put in place.

    Mr. Paul Steckle: Does anyone else have a comment in terms of the premise of fear? Where does this come from? Or is it driven by some of the countries who basically don't want our food products, as a vehicle of anti-trade tariff, as a non-trade tariff barrier?

    Maybe we shouldn't be saying this type of thing, but I think it's fair to say that those kinds of tactics are being applied today. How much of that then becomes real in the minds of people in terms of what we're trying to impose on the public against their will? We've heard from Mr. Shauf that people have turned from health and safety; they don't find this a health and safety issue as much any more as it becomes now a preference.

    Also, we see that cost becomes a factor. As we see costs go up, people take their preferences in other areas. I mean, it's driven. And ultimately there's a cost. There's a cost that's going to end up at the producers' doorstep.

    My concern is, if we can't pass it on to the consumer, ultimately we won't have farmers, we won't have producers. This a real concern to me, so I'm trying to accommodate both the consumer and the producer. Somehow we have to find middle ground here.

    Mr. Marvin Shauf: I share your concern. I think part of the fear amongst consumers--some of it is people who just want to create fear--comes from some of the discussions we have about food safety issues. That's why I said before that we need to very clearly recognize this as a consumer preference issue, not a food safety issue. We can't second guess our science because the science has said that it's safe food. So we very clearly need to recognize it as a consumer preference issue.

    When it comes to the costs involved in segregation, we can supply a niche market without injecting all of that cost into everything that is produced and consumed in the food chain. And at that point we can provide the consumers with something they may be prepared to pay a premium for. It would be at that point that the consumer of that specific product would be prepared to pay the premium for it. At that point it becomes the consumer's choice whether or not that product continues to carry into the future.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Shauf.

    I'm going to Larry for a quick question, then a couple of other quick ones around it.

    Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings--Frontenac--Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sure that part of this may be education that we all need to share throughout the country.

    Following our excellent witnesses today and the fact that some of us in the House voted against Bill C-287, a private member's bill, I don't think government has ever passed a bill that can't be enforced. I want to follow up on this with the CFIA.

    I understand there may be tests available today for grain, and of course consumers will ultimately decide this, but if we order a pizza today, for example, is there a test? Again, following that up, how can we pass a bill when there's no test to enforce it at this time, Mr. Chair?

À  (1055)  

    Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Right now, there is not a simple test you can run on a pizza to determine whether or not it had genetically modified ingredients; you would have to run a screening of the various subcomponents of the food product. Even at that, as you work farther back to the individual inputs, your chances of determining whether or not genetic modification has taken place are increased.

    The challenge we're dealing with, of course, is that the tests we would be using would basically be those that we use to determine the approved genetic events that have come through the system. So when you're trying to have a test for non-approved genetic events, you're into a whole other ball game. It's not all that helpful, to be honest with you.

    So I don't think testing alone is the answer. It's certainly not the answer at the present time. We're working to try to enhance testing capability, but that's where you have to get into the documentation verification and that type of thing.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: I'll share my time. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Larry.

    Howard, did you or David have a question?

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I had a very short one that has to do with the direct consumer benefit, and I would direct it to the food manufacturers.

    In western Canada we have roughly 72 million acres grown in wheat. At the present time it costs about $429 million to control weeds in that wheat crop. By having GMO wheat that we could use a glyphosate on, we would end up with costs down an estimated $4 an acre, as opposed to $17 an acre for weed control, and that's going to be a direct benefit to the consumer in lower-cost food. That's my question. Is there not direct benefit right now to the consumer?

    Ms. Laurie Curry: When we conducted the research with Canadian consumers we found that while they recognize there are those benefits, they attribute those benefits as being received back by the industry itself, by the agrifood sector.

    Canadians, as we know, enjoy one of the lowest-cost food supplies in the entire world, in addition to having one of the safest food supplies in the world, which means that we all have a challenge before us. But they are looking for benefits such as health benefits in terms of a direct linkage to that technology, and quite frankly, that aspect is probably three to five, even seven years, off.

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

    The Chair: David, next one.

    Mr. David Anderson: The flip side of this is that there is a cost to enforce mandatory labelling. We've heard on two different days the government doesn't have any numbers on that, but KPMG has done a report and they suggest that labelling costs could be equivalent to at least 10% of the retail price of processed foods and up to 41% of the price of grains and oilseeds, and it could amount to $950 million that a mandatory labelling system could add to the cost of food.

    I'm wondering if you see the majority of these costs being borne by the producer or by the consumer? I would suggest that they're going to be borne by the producer.

    Ms. Laurie Curry: That's the challenge. You probably see it both ways. If we take a look at passing on prices to the consumer, even going forward, it's very difficult to do in the current environment in terms of the retail competition in this country. So passing through increased costs to consumers is difficult. As a food manufacturer, we either go forward to the consumer or we look back then to the producer, and you're going to see pressures on both ends of that from a pricing standpoint.

    Mr. David Anderson: I think producers are bearing the majority of that.

    The Chair: Thank you, David.

    Are there any further questions?

    Mr. Calder.

    Mr. Murray Calder: Yes, I have a question to ask before I have to take off.

    We're into this debate about GMOs. Is there some way we can clarify the debate by acknowledging that the real scare of a GMO is transgenic? Let's face it, when you start talking about canola oil and cookies, for instance, is that not a GM because it was created through plant breeding?

    Laurie.

    Ms. Laurie Curry: Yes, and even when we take a look at the whole CGSB process and how you define it, we very much support a very narrow definition that would be focused on transgenics, because we believe, in terms of where consumers are at, that would be where they are drawing the line in the sand from a health and safety standpoint.

    The Chair: With that, we'd like to conclude our hearings this morning. We'd like to thank our witnesses for coming. When I hear the overall philosophy that we have around the table this morning, it certainly was not reflected in the motion or the bill that was before the House last fall, where the overall vote was so close. With that, I think we have to recognize that if members of Parliament represent the people of this country, it's a very narrow division between what they want and what they think they should have.

    So thank you for coming this morning. We'll continue with our debate on this issue in the future.

    We'd like to conclude this morning's meeting. Thank you very much.