STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

• 0909

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)): We'll begin the meeting. I'll ask our good friends from the media to clear the room. Thank you.

We have a quorum to hear witnesses. I understand there was some important legislation before transport committee this morning. I think that's keeping some people away, or at least delaying them for a few minutes. But we can begin.

• 0910

We're continuing our study of mandatory labelling of genetically modified organisms, and today we're going to be hearing from the Consumers' Association of Canada. There will be a joint presentation on behalf of the CAC by Gail Lacombe, CAC president and chief executive officer, and Jennifer Hillard, vice-president. We'll also hear from Consumer Network Action, represented by Nathalie St-Pierre, director general.

I think Gail Lacombe is going to begin first and then hand it off to Jenny. After that we'll hear from Nathalie.

Ms. Gail Lacombe (President and CEO, Consumers' Association of Canada): Thank you very much, and good morning.

The Consumers' Association of Canada is a 52-year-old, independent, not-for-profit, volunteer-based organization with a national office in Ottawa and provincial/territorial branches. Our mandate is to inform and educate consumers on marketplace issues, to advocate for consumers with government and industry, and to work with government and industry to solve marketplace problems in beneficial ways.

CAC focuses its work in the areas of food, health, trade, standards, financial services, communication services, and other marketplace issues as they emerge. All CAC policies on specific issues are framed within a set of general consumer-oriented principles. Eight such principles govern consumer associations belonging to the worldwide federation of consumer groups, Consumers International. Among these principles are the right to choice, safety, information, and a healthy environment.

[Translation]

The Consumers' Association of Canada was founded in 1947. This non-profit independent organization is dependent in large part on the support of numerous volunteers from all regions of the country for carry out its operations.

Its mandate is to inform and educate Canadian consumers about issues related to the consumer market, to represent their interests before government agencies and industries and finally, to work with government and industries with a view to resolving the problems encountered by consumers.

The CAC focuses its efforts specifically on such areas as food products, health, trade, financial service standards, communications and industries. It also turns its attention on occasion to other areas which impact consumption.

All CAC policies respecting specific issues are founded on general principles aimed at safeguarding the interests of consumers and at making their views known, where necessary.

Member associations of Consumers International have established eight core principles, including the right to choose, the right to be heard and the right to obtain satisfaction.

[English]

I now would like to turn it over to Jenny, our vice-president of issues and policy.

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

CAC's interest in biotechnology, its applications, and the related consumer issues have spanned the last decade, beginning with a policy seminar we held in Saskatchewan in 1988. Throughout this time, CAC has tried to provide a balanced perspective on this topic. It therefore follows that our policy is neither blanket opposition nor total support for biotechnology.

We recognize that the new methods of modification are powerful technologies. To take advantage of the potential benefits of these technologies, we must be aware of and able to manage the risks. While we recognize the possibility to apply these technologies to pharmaceuticals, industrial materials, and other disciples, our comments today will be specific to plant-based food produced by genetic modification.

We will also address our comments solely to the issue of labelling of these food products, either mandatory or voluntary, as that is the purpose of this hearing. We would, however, like to state clearly that labelling is not a substitute for food safety. The right to choice is small consolation unless one has full confidence in the safety and environmental impact of either choice.

Most consumers recognize that changes and mutations in plants take place naturally in response to outside stimuli and that breeding plants for specific traits, such as disease resistance, has been practised for centuries. They're familiar with gardening activities in which many of them will have grafted trees or moved flower pollen around with a Q-tip or a paintbrush.

• 0915

When we move from the sort of seed breeding that could be done in a home greenhouse to genetic engineering, transgenics, cloning, artificially accelerated mutagenesis, and other applications of genetic modification, we go beyond both the understanding and the comfort level of many consumers. This lack of comfort, along with a shortage of answers to very valid consumer questions, is leading to much public concern about the risks to human health and the environment that may occur from the proliferation of these technologies.

The science of genetic modification is very unfamiliar to most consumers, so CAC has been active in helping to inform consumers on what it is and what it is not. In addition to working with policy-makers, we have worked with the Food Biotechnology Communications Network to produce A Growing Appetite for Information, a booklet aimed a providing readable, understandable information on biotechnology for ordinary consumer. In addition to working on the booklet, CAC held six focus groups across the country earlier this year to assess consumers' access to and level of acceptance of available information on the different techniques for genetic modification.

It is important to understand that in discussing genetic modification, especially as it is applied to food, we are dealing with issues that go way beyond concerns for human health, biodiversity, and the environment. We begin to have to deal with the moral, ethical, social, and religious concerns of consumers.

In addition, in recent months, broad concerns about globalization, international trade, and concentration of industrial power have also been put into the basket of baggage carried by genetically modified food products.

Consumers can see no clear benefits from the genetically modified foods currently in the marketplace, and yet they feel they may be at risk in eating these products.

CAC has always supported consumers' rights to have the information they need to make an informed decision. Therefore, we have never opposed the labelling of food derived from biotechnology. However, we have fought long and hard over the years for all labels and claims to be supported by accurate data available to consumers on request. We have opposed labelling that is misleading and attempted to get government regulations in place where voluntary initiatives have either failed or proven inadequate. This is the same approach as we have taken to the labelling of food containing or derived from genetically modified plant material.

CAC is participating in the Canadian General Standards Board's voluntary labelling process because we believe such a process enables multi-stakeholder discussions that result in the best results for all players, including consumers. We hope the discussions will achieve a consensus document for voluntary labelling. We would urge the government to wait and consider the outcome of the CGSB discussions and how that work might be incorporated into a mandatory label before taking action on any mandatory scheme.

Although there is already a requirement in Canada to label food products that have been substantially changed, that present a risk to consumers, or that contain an allergen, this mandatory labelling identifies the change or the risk, not the technology by which it was created.

CAC is fully supportive of the current legislation that labels food for content rather than process, but recognizes the public desire for GM labels. While we have participated in discussions on mandatory process labels for organic food in the past, there is still only a voluntary standard for organic labelling, an area where there is a lot of misunderstanding and consumer confusion due to misleading claims. Irradiation is the only process that requires a mandatory food label, to our knowledge.

We recognize problems of label space and the importance of need-to-know over nice-to-know information. We believe it is important to think beyond the actual label on the product to the sort of information that can be provided on a shelf leaflet, inside a package, or by a 1-800 number.

The following are some CAC-supported principles for labelling, many of which apply to many forms of labelling and are not necessarily specific to genetic modification:

- All labels must be based on principles that include requirements for them to be accurate, verifiable, meaningful, and not misleading.

- Products that have been derived from GM plants as well as those containing GM protein must be labelled.

- A logo, without explanation, is not an adequate label.

- We are vigorously opposed to “may contain” labels as being meaningless and totally useless to consumers.

- Labels must be used to inform consumers, not to keep products out of the market.

- The term “free” must be clearly defined.

- The definition of “genetic modification” must encompass all techniques that result in genetic modification, including, but not limited to, rDNA.

• 0920

CAC is watching activities on GM labelling within the consumer organizations in other parts of the world. As awareness increases of methods of genetic modification other than rDNA, so do the concerns about these other technologies. We also facilitated six focus groups on biotech information in different parts of Canada earlier this year, where we raised the issue of other GM technologies and noted consumer reactions.

For this reason, we have supported a broader definition for the purpose of labelling, and we would like to see any Canadian labelling scheme use a GMF definition that is either similar to the regulatory definition of “novel food” or that complies with the CGSB organic food standard, which reads:

All organisms, and products thereof, produced through techniques of genetic engineering and modification including, but not restricted to recombinant DNA, cell fusion, encapsulation, macro and micro injection, gene deletion or magnification and other techniques for altering the genetic composition of living organisms in ways, or with results, that do not occur in nature through mating or through traditional breeding techniques such as conjugation, hybridization, or transduction.

If the intent of this committee is to study only rDNA, then that is the term that should be used. We should not be using the terms “genetic modification” and “rDNA” as one in the same, because they are not.

A GM labelling scheme, whether voluntary or mandatory, that is based on sound principles will stand the test of time and will be flexible enough to deal with emerging and existing technologies that may be as controversial as rDNA. We believe if we had established such a scheme when the debate on food irradiation was raging, it may well have been able to deal with the current new technologies.

Any labelling scheme, voluntary or mandatory, must not only be verifiable with scientific and/or audit data, but must be seen to be credible. For this reason, we believe that to follow a scheme similar to the U.K.'s, which excludes products that are derived from but contain no genetically modified protein material, such as corn syrup or canola oil, would be confusing and misleading to consumers.

CAC believes it is critical that the government regulate negative claims—food claiming to be GM free or to contain no GMO. This will require a clear definition of “free”, including criteria for tolerance levels that must be realistic but credible.

We do not believe the Canadian public would accept the approach being taken in Japan to tolerance levels, and there has been much opposition in Canada to the tolerance level that allows the use of the U.S. definition of “fat free”.

Again, looking at publications from consumer associations in other countries, most of their concerns appear to be with products that claim to be GM free. Consumers with concerns about the health, environmental, social, and moral impacts of GM food want to be able to choose. But primarily, they want to be able to choose products that do not contain or are not derived from genetically modified organisms. Like organic products, these products may well be able to charge a premium price, and the opportunity for economic fraud based on GM-free claims that cannot be substantiated is enormous.

Whether genetically modified food should be available; whether it should be traded internationally; whether it will help developing countries by enabling them to grow their own food, or harm them by destroying biodiversity and putting them at the mercy of multinational organizations; and whether or not it should be labelled has become a debate in which it is almost impossible to carve out middle ground.

In choosing not to oppose all GM food and to advocate for labelling based on science and principles, CAC has been portrayed as pro-GM. We believe that communication of accurate information should not be seen as supporting biotechnology or selling out to industry. Education and information dissemination is part of our mandate, and it is impossible for consumers to make choices without adequate accurate information.

CAC would like to be assured that any labelling employed in Canada is based on sound science and/or audits, the precautionary approach, and the requirement for credible, non-misleading consumer information, and that it can stand the test of time. Hopefully this committee will enable Canada to lead by example by developing and employing a GM-labelling scheme that meets these criteria and will stand the scrutiny of both Canadian consumers and the world market.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Jennifer.

Thank you, Gail.

Now we're going to go to Nathalie St-Pierre for her presentation.

Good morning.

[Translation]

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre (Executive Director, Action réseau consommateur): Ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure for me to be here today to share with you the consumer's perspective on GMOs. First of all, let me say that I am not a scientist. I head a consumer group that has been operating in Quebec since 1978. It speaks on behalf of low and moderate income consumers. However, just because a person is not a scientist does not mean that he or she cannot contribute to the debate and participate in the process of drafting and implementing relevant regulations on GMOs.

• 0925

Everyone seems to agree that the time for debating these issues is now, but few people have come forward with solutions which, in our view, would satisfy the needs of consumers. Science needs a little more humility. Need we recall the many products proposed to consumers, from pesticides to nuclear power, and our discovery some time later that these products were different than originally thought.

[English]

I have a written copy of my presentation that I asked to have translated from the French version. I made some modifications after the translation because it wasn't exactly what I expected.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): You made a GM modification?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: Yes, I made a GM modification indeed. I will now read this, but you probably won't be able to follow from the text you were given.

Consumer welfare depends upon the satisfaction of individual and shared interests through free choice. The effectiveness of consumer choice as a means to consumer welfare is directly dependent upon the quality of information available to consumers in making their purchases.

According to a 1999 Environics survey, 58% of Canadians are not familiar with genetically engineered foods. Although consumers cannot expect to know all of the aspects, effects, and consequences of any given product purchased, the government has both the onus and the practice of requiring manufacturers and importers to provide certain information that is deemed to be critical to the operation of informed choices to consumers.

Food produced using biotechnology raises fundamental consumer issues and, as such, needs to be subject to labelling requirements that ensure that consumers have sufficient information to identify GMO foods within the marketplace. As my colleague said before, we're not looking to reassure consumers as to safety. That's another issue. We're talking about identifying the products in the marketplace and providing sufficient information to consumers.

Consumers' rights are a vital instrument in the protection of consumers' interests. Of particular importance in the case of biotechnology are rights to safety, free choice, and information. A majority of Canadians are either somewhat or very concerned about the food safety issues raised by GMO products. A Léger & Léger survey conducted in Quebec in May revealed that more than 75% of Quebec consumers are concerned about the manner in which the food they eat is produced. Almost two-thirds of Quebec consumers say they are concerned about GMO foods.

Although consumers expect food products to be proven safe before they are marketed, consumers are also aware that researchers and regulatory agencies are not infallible and that errors can occur in the evaluation of the safety of food products. Recognizing this, some consumers may wish to adopt precautionary principles in making their purchasing decisions as a means of protecting basic interests. Where GMO products are neither clearly nor consistently identified as such, as is the case under existing Canadian law, consumers are virtually prohibited from adopting such a strategy through their purchases. A growing number of Canadians are also concerned about GMO foods for moral and ethical reasons as well.

The inability of consumers to obtain information on whether or not GMOs have been used in the production process of food on the marketplace is a violation of the consumer right to know. Meanwhile, the inability of consumers to make decisions on the basis of such information is a violation of the consumer right to free choice. Given the importance of biotechnology to consumers in their purchasing decisions, governments have an obligation to ensure that these rights, with respect to GMO foods, are protected by express legislation.

Therefore we recommend the establishment of a compulsory labelling strategy that affirms basic consumer rights through mandatory labelling requirements for all foods produced using biotechnology. Only through the creation of a legal obligation to provide information on techniques used in food production can consumers be sure that the purchase they make truly reflects their interests with respect to GMO food products.

• 0930

Again, according to the Léger & Léger survey, 96% of Quebec consumers are in favour of mandatory labelling rules for GMO products. Our group, Action réseau consommateur, believes that labelling legislation is the most effective way of ensuring that consumers' rights and interests are protected, since labels provide information in a direct and accessible manner to consumers, which enables them to choose between products on the basis of GMO information.

Legislation has been proposed in the U.S. that would require the phrase “genetically modified” or “produced or altered using modern or new biotechnology” to be included on the packaging of all GMO food products. This should be considered in the development of compulsory labelling legislation in the Canadian context.

In finalizing terminology, however, the government needs to consult the public in order to assess the meaningfulness and appropriateness of any proposed message. While space limitation will mean that information on a label must be limited and standardized, labels should at a minimum include a logo and statement at the front of the product, a list of ingredients and indication of GMOs contained in food products, and verification by an independent third party or government committee on whether GMOs are contained in food products.

Information allows citizens to make enlightened individual choices by enabling them to better assess the value of food products in relation to their own needs and value systems. Information must therefore be sufficient to empower consumers not only by informing consumers when biotech processes are used in food production, but also by helping them understand the social, political, and economic implication of biotechnology. In the absence of such awareness, the very possibility of enlightenment—that is to say, comparative and critical consumer choice—will not exist.

Due to the practical limitation of labelling information, additional information needs to be provided, gathered, and disseminated through government-coordinated programs. At the very least, additional information needs to explain advantages, disadvantages, and risks; provide information about the state of biotechnology today and its specific application; provide a list of individual producers, businesses, and people working in the field; provide information on products, services, and procedures; provide information on any new regulation governing new biotechnology; and provide information on production, processing, types of genetic modification used, types of organisms used, genetic codes transferred, etc.

As well, in order to guarantee credibility, objectivity, and balance, information distributed by government must reflect that and be balanced, credible, and based on transparency and democratic process; help develop consumers' independence and critical faculty; be easy to understand, useful, and relevant; and be widely distributed. The Internet is not enough to provide information to consumers. Actually, with the state of access right now, it's not a way to help all consumers.

We should be looking at providing information that's education oriented as opposed to promotion and marketing oriented. We should limit the definition of what may remain confidential, thus ensuring that only solely commercial information will constitute trade secrets.

Lastly, since information is generated by a wide variety of interest groups, including government, universities, public interest groups, food distributors, and others, the government should provide information that is drawn from the widest possible range of sources. Ensure that all stakeholders are consulted and given the means to do so. Set up an institute funded by the private and public sectors whose mandate would be to be a source of credible information. Be the 1-800 number that everybody is talking about these days. Carry out external verification of regulation governing biotechnology. Conduct independent external reviews. Receive, hear, investigate, and settle citizens' complaints, including by legal means, if it has to get to that point. Gather information on and investigate businesses. Support access to information, public participation in consultation, and independent research. Make recommendations to government authorities on registration of any new products. Finally, manage the risk of new biotechnology products by means of risk evaluation by experts, committees, and public and independent researchers, and distribute this information through a biotech registry.

• 0935

As it is, consumers are not informed. Consumer information is essential to making enlightened consumer decisions. Enlightened consumer decisions are essential to consumer welfare. Consumers are particularly concerned about the health and safety issues. Consumers are concerned about moral and social issues. Consumers' concern is profound—75% of consumers are concerned.

The importance of GMO production processes to the Canadian public, as well as the fundamental nature of the issue raised by such production methods, puts an onus upon the government to ensure that basic information related to GMO food is available to the public.

We believe mandatory labelling is one of the most efficient means by which the government can fulfil this obligation. In Quebec, three out of five consumers always or often read labels—I think it's 70% for Canadians—and 96% of consumers favour legislation requiring labelling of GMO foods.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Thanks to all of you.

Just before I go to Mr. Casson, can I just go to you, Ms. St-Pierre, for a second? You've outlined a very detailed, complicated, comprehensive regime to be followed to get biotechnology products to market in a way you would find acceptable to consumers. If you were in charge of the kind of regime you're outlining in this paper and all the things that would have to be met before it happened, do you really think you could get biotechnology products to market? Is what you're proposing today really feasible?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: It's feasible to inform consumers. I think that's the core issue I'm trying to bring forward. A way to do that would be to set up an institution that would provide balanced, credible information to consumers about the risks and advantages. That hasn't been done thus far. So I think it's certainly feasible.

In terms of assessing the products, which I didn't talk about in this paper, it's a different matter altogether in terms of the safety, going through the process. Certainly right now the process is there, and products are being approved and released in the marketplace.

What we're talking about here is the information provided to consumers and the right to free choice to make the decision in the marketplace. We're talking about a free market for businesses. We're requiring a free market for consumers to be able to decide on their own. It's a signal that consumers can say whether or not they decide to buy into these products.

The Chair: But you have to admit you would be putting a lot of people through a whole lot of hoops.

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: To inform consumers, there aren't a whole lot of hoops. All the information would be concentrated or put together in one place, so consumers would not be provided with information by the industry only. They would not be provided with information by the media. Consumers would be provided with meaningful information through a credible agency.

The Chair: Yes. Thank you. I'm sure we'll get into this further.

Sorry to hold you up, Mr. Casson. You have seven minutes.

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

Madam Lacombe, through your association with the Consumers International group, have you been made aware of anywhere in the world where people have become ill or have had effects from consuming genetically modified foods?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: We don't have any evidence of anybody who has been ill, where they can directly attach the illness to genetic modification.

Mr. Rick Casson: Okay. Now, you talk a bit about—

The Chair: Would you like to be put the same question?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: Yes.

Mr. Rick Casson: Certainly. I'm sorry.

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: I attended the OECD conference last February. The purpose of that conference was to discuss the impact on health solely. It is not such a clear issue at this moment.

A lot of scientists there said that so far there have been few pre-marketing studies and hardly any post-marketing studies on the effects of consuming these products, and therefore it is difficult to say whether or not there are risks.

• 0940

Other issues have been raised. For instance, tryptophan is an acide aminé that's used as a supplement in food, and some have said that it's a genetically modified supplement. Thirty-seven people have died in the U.S.; they don't know exactly for sure whether or not it was because of this new batch that has been produced. Nonetheless, the opportunity to have that verified by the FDA was denied, and there are remaining questions.

So all of these issues are coming up now. There have been some studies done by Dr. Pusztai that were questioned, but nonetheless he raised some issues that have been deemed valid, for which the research should be pursued. Finally, there was a scientist who raised the issue that it is possible that some of the material will be transferred in the intestines, in the gut, since they've discovered mad cow disease, for instance. They said 10 years ago that it was not possible to transfer that to humans, and now it is recognized that it is transferable to humans. Therefore, they're not so sure that there are no risks.

Mr. Rick Casson: Well, I think that when we get into the final decision of a consumer as to whether or not to buy a product—I think that's what we're looking at—and giving them the information to make an informed decision, the whole labelling.... When we go through what needs to be dealt with, and now we're talking about ethical, social, religious, and moral issues that come into play, and all the other things that need to be considered when you're looking at labelling for this product, it's.... I think we're going to have to contain our products in larger containers to get all this labelling on them.

One thing you, the CAC, mentioned was that you hope any decisions that are made wait until the Canadian General Standards Board comes up with its recommendations. Is that right?

You mentioned a voluntary labelling process through that, but in your statement of issues or points that you consider, you say that “products that are derived from GM plants as well as those containing GM protein must be labelled.” So are you talking about a voluntary system or a mandatory system or what?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: What we're saying is that whatever system you adopt, whether it's voluntary or mandatory, it has to include both.

Any labelling system has to give the consumers accurate information that's credible. Whether it's a mandatory system or a voluntary system, you destroy consumers' faith in the system if they find something which they're very aware of having been genetically modified, such as industrial corn and canola, slipping under the labelling fence.

That's what's beginning to happen in Europe. They rushed in with this mandatory scheme in response to political pressure. We don't believe they stood back and thought it out.

Now people are coming back and saying, “Oh, but our chips are fried in canola oil and yet they're claiming to be GMO-free, and our drinks are sweetened with sucrose from corn, but they're claiming to be GMO-free.” That's misleading and confusing to consumers, because consumers have a limited amount of knowledge. That's not to put them down, not to say they're ignorant, but they have a limited amount of knowledge about a very complex technology. But they do know that canola and industrial corn have been genetically modified.

So you stick bottles of canola oil on the shelves.... And the flip side, of course, of GM labelling, of making people label stuff that contains GM products, is that a whole bunch of people are going to rush out and capture the market on GMO-free, because that's where the big bucks are going to be. You stick canola oil claiming to be GMO-free in the store and you've destroyed the credibility of the labelling system, whether it's mandatory or voluntary. That's our concern: to make sure the label deals with what consumers know, believe, and can get a grasp on.

Mr. Rick Casson: Did you want to comment at all?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: Yes.

Although I agree that whatever labelling scheme is being used has to be accurate and enforceable, I think we live in an industrialized society where consumers are quite able to make a decision for themselves. By assuming that they can't process this information, I think we have the wrong approach.

• 0945

I think that in our society we have more and more educated consumers and citizens. People read. Although people may not know a lot about biotechnology and genetically modified foods per se, they can assess this if they're given the information. So I think that any strategy requires that we take for granted that consumers are able to make decisions, that they're smart enough to read about this.

The point of the labelling scheme is also to allow for the consumer to make the right research, to look into this if they so desire. Obviously consumers will not be looking for all of the information. Consumers will pick and choose what they need to know and will research this, read on this, or look through magazines or different sources of information. I think that should be a way of looking at information for consumers.

The Chair: We're out of time for this round. Thank you.

Madame Alarie, seven minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a brief comment. Committee members had agreed that all documents would be presented in both French and English, and fully translated. Here we have only three short paragraphs in French. In the future, I would appreciate it if you could provide us with the French translation of the witnesses' submissions. That's all I wanted to say.

Your mission, all of you, is to educate and inform consumers. If I understand what you're saying, consumers also have the right to choose, to be heard and to obtain satisfaction.

We all received in the mail and read the pamphlet on healthy food products produced by Agriculture Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada and the CCDA. In my view, rather than inform consumers, this pamphlet more closely resembled a propaganda tool to support what's currently happening in this area. I did not see anything in the pamphlet in the way of instructional material.

Do both of your organizations receive subsidies to disseminate information and provide training? If so, do you operate fully at arms' length from the government that is awarding you these subsidies? Are you critical of Industry Canada's actions? The department was allocated a considerable sum of money to supposedly inform, instruct and educate the public. How do you feel about this, given that this is one of your primary missions, namely educating and informing the public?

[English]

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: Our funding comes from volunteer memberships. It comes from donations. Any money we get from government is tied to a very specific project, but the project is only tied to government in terms of it having to meet the proposal that we put forward in the first place. Having put forward the proposal, we're free to go out and do whatever we like within the frames of the project.

We're all volunteers. We do not use our staff for things like this. Gail and I both volunteer for the organization, as do all the people who develop our policies and our papers for any of the hearings like this.

We worked on this little document of information on biotechnology. We have those both in English and in French, if you'd like them. Without money, we worked on this as a volunteer team. I don't know where the money for printing came from. Our job was to keep it neutral, within the frames of our policy on literacy, and to try to make it informative.

We don't take money from industry, and our money from government is all tied to a specific project. We feel free to to out and say what we think is good for consumers. We've never been hampered from criticizing either government or industry, even if we're working on a project with funding from them, because we feel our job is to represent average consumers all across Canada. That's a difficult row to hoe because, as you know, consumers range from the very rich to the very poor, from farmers all the way to environmentalists, which is why we try to be so middle of the road on all of this.

• 0950

What do we think about what's going on at the agriculture department and the Food Inspection Agency? We think it lacks a lot of transparency. We think they've done a very poor job of communication to this point. On the other hand, the evidence we have supports the claims that in Canada we have a very good regulatory system and very safe food.

Actually, there's an article I would like to quote from here. It's a quote that came from Roy Romanow of Saskatchewan. It was in the Globe and Mail last week. He said these genetically modified foods don't come from “some madman's spider-webbed laboratory”; they've passed through “one of the best government regulatory systems in the world”.

I know we're really good at criticizing government and at criticizing the regulators, but when you go out and look at the food scares they've had in other countries, if you look at the BSE in the U.K., if you go back and look at the egg incident in the U.K., if you look at the Coca-Cola incident in Belgium, we haven't had a major problem like that—

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Not yet.

[English]

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: —and maybe that's why our consumers are a tad more complacent. We haven't had the jack-in-the-box hamburger scare that they've had in the U.S.

Certainly improvements could be made, primarily in transparency within the Canadian system, but we're not prepared to stand up and say that we don't have a good system. We do have a good system. Anything can be improved, but we do have a good system.

[Translation]

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: On the one hand, organizations that have a mission to educate the public are facing fundamental problems owing to a lack of funding. Generally speaking, as Ms. Hillard said, money is allocated for specific projects.

On the other hand, even in the case of such projects, sometimes the resources aren't there to translate some very interesting consumer studies and research projects that have been done over the past ten years. We francophones do not, therefore, have access to these studies. The problem is even greater for us because we're not in a position to have these documents translated because it could cost us up to $15,000 to have a 40-page document translated.

We don't have the resources for this. In particular, we're not in a position to print up pamphlets. If we work we other groups to produce joint publications, we run the risk of damaging our credibility with consumers. This is a genuine concern, even though funding may come from consumers. People might think that because we received a grant from industry, the position taken may not be as neutral as it should be. Yet, in reality, that's not the case. The perception of consumers is a major problem.

However, I wouldn't be here asking the government to provide more credible information to consumers if I were satisfied with what I had been told up until now. Unfortunately, the pamphlet you spoke of earlier that was distributed to all households does not paint an accurate picture of reality. Consumers and members of the public are led to believe that this agency has carried out tests and studies, when in fact that is not the case.

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): That's not the case.

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: What we do know is that the agency does evaluations and subsequently ask the industry to conduct its own studies. Canadians should have been informed of this. Whether or not one agrees with this, this information should have been disclosed.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Alarie.

Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Thank you for appearing this morning.

We're talking about dissemination of information, and that seems to be your main concern, Madame St-Pierre. You mentioned earlier, I believe, that safety was not your primary focus. The focus you're trying to put on this issue is the information that people have available to them.

In saying that, are you conceding that CFIA and other agencies within the government structure already provide the safety or at least have the ability to be able to deliver on that? Your basic concern is that the public have available to them all the information that it is possible for them to have.

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: Actually, I made it clear that I wasn't here presenting on the safety aspect. For our organization, it's a different issue. When we're talking about labelling, it's not to say the product is safe or not safe. It's a different issue. But we are very concerned with the safety issue, obviously. Labelling is information, is free choice, is a free market. That's one thing.

• 0955

In terms of the health risks and evaluation regarding the safety issue, I think it was discussed a bit before. One of the major concerns we have is the transparency of this organization. It is not transparent. It is not accessible. It has proceeded since the beginning, with the first in 1993, when they decided the different ministries would be involved instead of creating one particular piece of legislation. Nobody was consulted on this.

Then following that there were the guidelines. They were submitted for consultation, but none of the results were really available right after the consultation. Consensus was supposedly achieved and the results were published, but none of this was really reflecting what had been submitted, according to our research, and so on and so forth. So the process is not very inclusive of Canadian citizens, for one thing.

In terms of assessing for safety, I'm not a scientist and I'm not pretending to be one, so I do not know and I cannot say whether or not the process of taking a plant right from the beginning to the end and bringing it to the table is safe. But what I'm concerned about is that we're using an approach that's based on the principle of substantial equivalence, which tends to be at this point a principle that's not appropriate for this. The precautionary approach seems to be what countries are aiming for at this point: if you don't know, you just wait and see, and you don't take risks. So that's a concern: how are we in our Canadian system going to integrate this?

Those are some of the issues I would want to raise.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Would we not, based on credibility, on historical evidence of food supplies...? I mean, how far back do we go when we look at genetic modification? I suppose we could go back a century or two and find this has been happening, particularly in the potato and in a number of other species of vegetables and plant products. We've done this.

Yet the question comes up meeting after meeting after meeting: has anyone ever been taken ill? We've asked, to the best of the knowledge of the people who have come before us, has anyone ever become sick because of a product they've eaten that's been genetically modified? The answer invariably comes up no.

Yet we have products on the market that are sold every day, that are for the very best of intentions labelled in fact as dangerous to their health. The government has received huge sums of money in taxes from those products, we spend huge sums of money in dealing with the health problems associated with those products, and yet we still allow them for sale. So really, does it make people any healthier? Does it bring a greater degree of safety to the public because labelling is done? These are questions that I think the public....

And where should the consumer look for information? Who do they believe? Do they believe the scientists? Do they believe the government, through CFIA, saying this product is safe? When will the public really feel safe, and when will we get over this whole fear of what is taking place today with the GMOs?

Everybody talks about GMOs, and it's not GM cars either. They understand the difference between those two, but basically I'm not sure they can go much further than that.

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: Again, I just want to point out it's a different issue in terms of the safety and the labelling. It is true that the labelling won't solve the safety issue. Safety is en amont of this labelling issue. We don't know, because we haven't kept track, and that's why a registry of what's going on needs to be set in place.

We can say there's no problem, but how do we know that? We have environmental diseases today. DDT or other products have been banned today because they created problems that we kept track of over the years. We need to do the same thing, and then we will be able to know that there are no problems, or that there are problems.

• 1000

Maybe we haven't had the mad cow disease, but we've had the Walkerton water scare. Three weeks ago I would have sat here and said there's no problem with water in Canada. Or I would have said, being a consumer representative, there's a problem with water in Canada, and you would have said no way. But today we're facing seven people dying—maybe eleven—and we have a problem.

Let's just be cautious; that's all I'm asking.

Mr. Paul Steckle: I guess the question was bad. When will the public ever feel satisfied? You'd need a place to go, a kiosk where you could punch in all the information you'd want, and then go buy your groceries as a result of that. Is the public ever going to want to do that?

How would you ever get what you need on the label? Some of these containers are very small. You couldn't get it on the label. How are we ever going to satisfy? When will we come to a point where we'll say we have now attained the proper level of assuredness to the public that the product is safe?

Or is this going to be something we'll talk about in the next millennium? I won't be here for it, but spare my grandchildren that agony.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: I'm prepared to attack that one.

Different levels of consumers require different levels of information. That's what we're all struggling with. There is a small group of consumers who are very concerned about genetically modified products, and possibly more the environmental impacts than the health impacts.

Yes, we've been genetically modifying products for years, but we've been doing it in a way that almost anybody could do it really. But now we've taken it beyond what almost anybody can do and we've turned it into a witch's brew, in their imagination. We have movies—we have The Fly, The Tomato that Ate Tokyo—and people link these things up. I'm sorry, but this is how they see it.

Scientists are notoriously bad communicators, and they've been so busy telling us how clever they are with moving all these genes and things around that they have failed to explain it in a way that's acceptable to consumers, and now people are scared. We don't have the long-term tests. We don't have necessarily a good system for doing that post-market surveillance and looking at the long-term tests.

I'm not a scientist either. We do have some very well-qualified scientists who volunteer for us on our biotechnology committee. They are aware too that the long-term tests aren't there, but this is a technology that's really only been in the marketplace for ten years, and we have had glitches such as DDT. It would seem from the evidence coming out right now that in fact the problems are more likely to be environmental than health-related. Again, those take even longer-term testing.

We're not saying these products are absolutely wonderful and everything's marvellous, but they've gone through a thorough regulatory process for health and safety, and the ones out there are.... We don't have the cloned sheep in the market yet.

Sorry, Mr. Harvard. He's trying to wind me up.

The Chair: We're a little over time for this round.

Let me just pick up on that and ask a question of Ms. St-Pierre.

As Jenny implied, most of us are not scientists, so I think we all struggle a lot with these issues. But, Ms. St-Pierre, you were saying earlier, or at least my inference from what you said was, a big part of this really comes down to consumers' choice, the right of consumers to choose, and if they're provided the right kind of information, they should be in a position to make their own evaluation. Is that a fair comment on what you just said?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: Absolutely.

The Chair: All right. If we agree on that, let me ask you this, because it comes back to all of us being laymen and not scientists, and hence our struggle.

In the CAC brief today, they mention that any kind of food labelling regime, voluntary or mandatory, should perhaps define GM foods similarly to how organic food is already defined under the Canadian General Standards Board definition. If you look at this definition as supplied by the CAC, it's a long one, many sentences, and it includes words such as “cell fusion”, “encapsulation”—whatever the hell that is—“macro and micro injection”, “gene deletion or magnification”, “conjugation”—I guess that has to do with more than words, right?—

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: —“hybridization”, and “transduction”, whatever the hell that is. They throw around all these technical words, very much part of a technical process, most of it absolutely beyond us because we're not scientists.

• 1005

When you use that kind of definition, how in the world can we, as laymen consumers, ever make our own evaluation? In other words, do we not have to depend on a body of experts, so-called experts, scientists?

I'm not suggesting that scientists walk on water, but somewhere along the line we have to place our faith in someone else, do we not? That's not to say those in whom we place our trust are never going to make a mistake, and Walkerton is a good example. I guess you could have two or three Walkertons. But ultimately do we not have to come back to placing our faith in someone?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: Absolutely. But as to the terms to which you were referring, in terms of defining what it is, it doesn't mean that's what would be required to be on the label. That is what would be required to say it's genetically modified using those techniques. So you define “genetically modified” as being those techniques and not hybridization, for instance, so whoever has to label then knows what they have to label. It is true that consumers cannot and probably do not want to know all about this, but what is true is that they need to know there is a system for checks and balances.

That is to say, groups like ours or CAC's sit through those committees. We try to understand this and to discuss this with our volunteers and our members, and we try to assess what's going on and say, okay, this is good. That's why I was referring in my brief to the commercial secret. When we ask for information, we're often told, no, you can't have access to that information; it's a commercial secret. So industry won't reveal the way it conducted the study for evaluating a product because it's a secret of the industry. That's unacceptable, because you need people to be able to verify, third-party verification, independent verification.

So, yes, down the process you have something like a funnel. You're going from the wider, that some experts are doing this, and then others, independent parties, consumer groups, and researchers are looking at it, and then bringing it down to the level that the consumer wants. If some consumers have more interest, they can go to another level. So it's a process, and we have to allow this to happen. That's it.

The Chair: All right.

We're going to Mr. Casson, followed by Rose-Marie Ur, and then Mr. Desrochers and Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Casson.

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

To the CAC again, in your presentation you say the Canadian public would not accept the approach being taken in Japan. Can you expand on that approach and what our consumers are saying is wrong with it?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: They have a really extraordinary way of dealing with tolerance levels. Obviously you're not going to be able to guarantee that anything is 100% free. There will always be minor contamination from containers moving stuff around. So you have to set tolerance levels at something that's acceptable to consumers.

The Japanese system—and I'm sorry, it's one of the things I failed to bring with me—is so much in each product, and then the five that are the biggest ones in anything that's mixed up, and you add them all up and they come to “not more than”. You could have an awful lot of genetically modified products in a processed food and still label it as GM-free. That's the sort of thing we're trying to avoid, and that's why the other example we cite, of course, is the the decision in Canada to allow the U.S. definition of fat-free, where it actually contains 0.5% fat.

So when you tell Canadians that “fat-free” actually has fat in it, we don't want to have to tell Canadians that “GM-free” actually means it may have 0.5% GM product in it. We want the tolerance levels to be set so that they can be achieved, because you have to be realistic in all of this, otherwise we're not going to be able to afford the food. But we want to make sure they're not at a level whereby, combining them, you could finish up with a product that has an awful lot of genetic modification in it and is still claiming to be GM-free.

Mr. Rick Casson: So you said there's no way we would ever be able to guarantee 100% GM-free. So a GM-free label is not something we can deal with.

• 1010

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: You can if you define “free” properly.

In environmental labelling, you define “free” as not containing more than the normal trace elements that you would find in the environment. In “fat-free”, they define “free” as 0.5%. So, yes, you can have a “free” claim, but you have to define “free” in a way that is acceptable to the public or, again, you destroy the credibility of the process.

No food manufacturer, or hardly anybody, will make a claim of nut-free. Everything in the market may contain nuts. We asked the food processors about that, and they say they can't guarantee that some foreign person supplying the oil with which we oil our equipment hasn't put nuts in it, therefore from a liability perspective, they won't claim that it's nut-free. So we have the same situation with genetically modified products.

Mr. Rick Casson: Do I have some time left?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Rick Casson: On one of the questions I've asked, in order for Health Canada to regulate mandatory labelling, we have to have the legislation in place to do that. But in order to use that legislation, you have to prove potential harm. Doesn't that just take us right back to the idea that, before we can do anything, we have to establish whether this stuff is harmful or not?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: Under the current system where we label just for health and safety and we label for the product and the contents, yes, but if you're looking at a GM label, you're moving out of that box. You're looking at a process label, because genetic modification is a process. Currently we don't mandatorily label food for process, except irradiated food. So, yes, if you're looking at mandatory labelling for genetic modification, you're looking at moving out of the box in which we currently label food.

Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you.

The Chair: Now we will go to Rose-Marie Ur.

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

I wonder if each group represented here today could tell this committee how large a membership you have and who you actually represent. Make this fast; I have a lot of questions.

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: Okay. The group in Quebec is a network. There are 40 different consumer groups in Quebec, and we are a network of those groups. We work with different groups on different issues. Individual members are members of the local associations, so we don't have the membership of individual consumers, although we have the opportunity in some people involved as individual consumers. So it's through the local groups that we have committees.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes, okay.

Madame Hillard.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: We have close to 10,000 members. Our members in our provincial branches are also automatically members of our national associations. So although we operate with provincial and territorial branches, they're automatically members. They may just be active—and when I say “active”, I mean they sit on committees and form positions at the provincial level—or they may operate at both levels or only on the national level.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Is your list of donors public information?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: I think it has to be.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay. Would you mind providing...?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: I'm not sure how we could pull it off the computer, but we will certainly attempt to.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: We do not take donations from industry, only from individuals.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It would be interesting.

And Madame St-Pierre?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: Yes, our things are public.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Right. Maybe you could do the same.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: Excuse me, did you say donors or members? We have two packages.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Donors.

I've heard “consumers, consumers, consumers” here this morning, naturally, because you represent the Consumers' Association of Canada. But—this should be no surprise—farmers are consumers too. It really boggles my mind that consumers want all this information, but farmers are consumers as well. They certainly aren't going out there trying to produce something that's not going to....

I'm a farmer, and I don't have one field from which to sell to you and one field from which to sell to my family. This is what we have to get across to consumers.

As you have said here, in other countries they have all these problems, or whatever. But I think if we take a look at the fact that we have CFIA here in Canada—and I have had my battles with CFIA too—we are recognized throughout the world for the best quality, the safest food, in all the world. The people here in Canada do not understand what we have. These consumers should set their feet off Canada and see what there is in the rest of the world, and then maybe they would look at what we have and quit this fear-mongering.

• 1015

An hon. member: Like mad cow.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I get very, very upset, because whether you're in government or whether you're in another country, everyone tries to do their best, but we haven't had those kinds of things. That's because we've had strict regulations. Ask the farmers. I'm a farmer. You have to go through hell and back to make sure it's safe. But that's good.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: Can I respond?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: I'm from Winnipeg, so I'm from the Prairies. We can't help being close to farmers. The Consumers' Association, certainly in Manitoba, works very closely with the farmers.

I agree with what you're saying, but as I've said repeatedly to farm groups in Manitoba, I don't think you can be complacent about the public reaction to genetic modification, because it is going to impact on your ability to earn a living.

A lot of farmers are saying “We know it's safe and we feed it to our families”, and I agree with you, but that doesn't stop the public being very worried about this. If we don't deal with the public concerns, some of which are quite valid in terms of things such as long-term testing and possible long-term environmental impacts, if we don't deal with those, this technology, like food irradiation, could be lost.

We recognize that currently—and this is maybe one of the problems—the benefits of the current applications of food biotechnology are in terms of reduced inputs for farmers. You use biotechnology and fewer chemicals. One of the problems is that the benefits aren't clear and available to consumers. And in fact, although we're hearing all this about fewer pesticides, much as we ask, because farmers have been struggling to reduce pesticide use for the last fifteen years, they can't separate out for us where that reduced use is just because they've been trying to reduce and where it is because they've used genetic modification technologies. So we can't even have evidence to support this. We believe it, but we can't go out and say “Yes, we know”, because it's all muddled up together.

I'm sympathetic to the farmers, absolutely, but there is a need to recognize that basically consumer concerns about genetic modification are taking this technology away from European farmers, and if we don't deal with it here, it's going to be taken away from Canadian farmers as well. And I think you need it.

The Chair: We'll have to come back to this in a few minutes. We're over time.

Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Good morning and welcome. Once again, I want to thank the agencies that have sent representatives here to discuss this important issue, namely the mandatory labelling of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

Off the top, I have a question regarding the Consumers' Association of Canada which, I believe, is a member of the Canadian General Standards Board committee. Action réseau communautaire, on the other hand, has refused to sit on the voluntary labelling committee, seeing this as an attempt to avoid mandatory labelling. I'd like to know how the Consumers' Association of Canada feels about this, giving that it sits on the Canadian General Standards Board committee. I'd also like to hear Ms. St-Pierre's reasons for refusing to serve on this committee.

[English]

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: We are very active in standards development, both in Canada and internationally, and we have very close links with the standards system. Probably about twenty to thirty of our volunteers sit on various standards committees. So for us it was a very easy and natural move onto this committee.

I represent international consumers on international environmental labelling standards committees. I'm used to being boycotted and picketed by people who don't like the system.

Our association has always been solution-oriented. We want to work in multi-stakeholder committees. We want to develop systems that might solve a problem. We believe that the CGSB standard, albeit to design a voluntary system, will come up with a scheme that has the input of many stakeholders. It will be a consensus document, and we think it will give some good, sound basis for what, if anything, the government decides to do on mandatory labelling.

• 1020

We're happy to be there. It's tough. It's certainly not an easy committee to sit through, but we're used to that. We are moving towards some sort of consensus. If we don't like the results, we won't support it at the end, but at the moment, everybody's shuffling around, and I think we're going to get there.

[Translation]

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: I'd like to say something about this labelling committee. Our organization did in fact take matters up with the board of directors and with decision-making authorities, but ultimately decided not to take part in the work of the committee. Normally, we would have. We endeavour as much as possible to find ways of resolving problems, but in this instance, we had been calling for mandatory labelling for 10 years and we viewed this committee merely as a means of delaying the introduction of mandatory labelling.

Moreover, I'd like to say that I don't agree with the present composition of the committee. Although each participant as a kind of veto right, and that normally, a consensus should prevail, the make-up of the committee presents a problem. Consider the membership list.

Secondly, financing is another problem that has been clearly identified. I had a pile of documents this high that I wanted to bring along, but I left it behind. We have to set aside about two days for each meeting. On three occasions, meetings have lasted two days. This represents six working days. You've seen some of the definitions in the book: mutagenesis, transgenesis, cellular fusion, molecular, fusion, and so on.

Organizations claim to represent consumer interests. I think an effort must be made to make the process more accessible. We need to consult our members. Each two-day meeting represents four or five working days and no money is invested in the process.

I applaud the CAC for its volunteer efforts, but although we have many volunteers working for us, it's our paid staff members who must attend these meetings. But that's not the real problem. In our society, we need to have well-paid individuals.

Basically, the problem stems from the fact that this committee's work is funded by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Obviously, it has the resources for this. If you look at the minutes of proceedings of these meetings and at all of the documents, you will note that meetings are often controlled by the people who produce the documents. Everyone knows that when a handful of people are responsible for preparing documents, these are not always easy to consult and that can be a problem.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: May I ask another question?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We've been told here that anywhere from 60% to 75% of the processed food that's been sold in our grocery stores can be traced to genetically modified food. Are we putting the cart before the horse here? I mean, we've been eating this stuff now for years.

What kind of economic disruption would it be to implement something like what you, Nathalie, are proposing here? It took you two pages just to describe what you'd like to have on the label. It would take a book or a booklet. You're saying you're interested in lower-income people. What would this do to their ability to even buy food, if you took, say, 75% of the food that's now being sold and you imposed this kind of expense on the consumer? This seems so complicated and so expensive-sounding. What would be the impact really?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: Well, first of all, if we look at the figure of 60% to 70% of the food, we're talking about sometimes minute amounts of an additive or something. So it's not as if we're talking about all our food—certainly not our vegetables and fruits and certainly not the meat.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Processed food.

• 1025

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: It's part of some of the processed food, exactly.

We don't want the creation—and this was also talked about in the brief CAC presented—of premium price for food. In that type of marketing approach, voluntary labelling protects commercial interests, because you can create a niche. If you can say you're GMO-free, you can command a higher price. What you're doing at the same time is creating a field just like the organic, where the government has tried to say “Well, people who don't like it can go organic.”

That's not a fair system. You can't feed Canadians under a system where, if I want the choice, I'm going to turn to organic, or I'm going to be able to afford these high-priced foods. We have to try to have a system that's equal for all.

In terms of providing the information, everybody seems to think it's a very expensive proposal, but I would just like to remind you that actually the CCCB exists, and that requires a great deal of money. I've never been consulted. We had asked that this group be the group to provide the information. It's been set up, but it's not answering the needs because it is expert-based. Nobody has to go back to the member base, nobody has to be accountable to the public. A lot of the members actually signed a public letter saying that they supported...in La Presse in December. How can that be credible when you say...?

So lots of money is being invested. There's lots of abris fiscaux. Companies and industries are given a lot of fiscal deductions for investing in this. I think consumers and citizens deserve the same kind of investment in terms of informing them. Maybe in ten years we won't need this because we'll have done the job, and biotechnology and genetically modified food will seem irrelevant. But at this time we believe that's necessary.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Do you think there's any stopping the process that began here seven or eight years ago with GMOs? Is there any going back? I mean, this thing is not going to stop, so where do you end up?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: As I said at the beginning, just because we're trying to raise some issues it doesn't mean we're anti-science, anti-technology. It's there. We're just saying let's take a break. Some of the things have been approved, and we have to deal with it. Let's label. Let's debate this. Let's find the proper way of informing and labelling.

In the meantime, obviously, it would be appropriate to have a moratoire on approving new products, but certainly what's there we don't....

Mr. Joe McGuire: Thank you.

The Chair: On that—and maybe the question should go to Ms. Hillard—we are perhaps further down the GMO road than we were with food irradiation, but that was killed. There was a certain amount of hysteria or whatever around it, and it was killed. Do you think the same thing could happen if all the concerns or the near hysteria around GMOs ever got out of hand?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: We're seeing it in Europe. We've just seen a whole bunch of Canadian seeds get destroyed and the possibility of an international court case because the genetically modified seeds got muddled up with some others.

The Chair: When the food irradiation process was stopped, do you think that was a loss, as it were?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: I think we have to look at what's happening now, where they're currently in the process of licensing a whole load of food irradiation approvals in the U.S. to deal with, in hamburger meat, the same strain of E. coli they're dealing with in Walkerton.

You know, we've limited it here. We have only onions, potatoes, and spices here, but you can't tell whether or not food's been irradiated. We're bringing imports in from all different countries where they do licensed irradiation. I mean, if I have strawberries in my fridge that last two weeks, something's been done to them.

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: But we have to be careful about taking a band-aid approach to food irradiation. The Americans, it's true, have decided to irradiate chicken and all that, but instead of looking at what's wrong with the product, we should be looking at the before, at the production, at why it needs to be irradiated. Saying, okay, we'll irradiate the food and just get rid of the problem we have now is not the way to look at things. If we do that, and have the same approach, we're going to have the same problem.

• 1030

I think we have to be careful too, when we talk about this, not to say it's “hysteria”.

The Chair: Well, I don't like that word either, but being deficient in the language, I just couldn't find a better word at the moment. Maybe “semi-hysteria”?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: No, but we have to be careful. It's very important. Just because people bring these issues out there, they don't have to be considered the “Franken-people” or whatever. We have to be careful about that.

The Chair: Sure. Thank you.

Madame Alarie.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: First of all, I'd like to comment on the association's submission, specifically on something I read on page 2.

The submission notes that several consumers have observed changes and mutations that have occurred naturally in plants and so forth.

[English]

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: I'm sorry, but we printed ours in big print for our old eyes. We have a page number that's different from yours.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: In any case, this is often mentioned. I also read something similar in the government's little pamphlet. We hear that everything should be natural, because in nature, all kinds of mutations and hybridizations take place. Among other things, we have the fermentation process in cheese, the yeast in beer and so forth.

This bothers me a great deal and I'll tell you why. When mutations occur, these are chance occurrences and we have time to control the process. Biotechnology involves controlled operations. Nothing is left to chance. Gene X is used to enhance chromozone Y. This is a controlled, planned operation. If the results achieved are poor, then a balance can be struck, but this is done in a laboratory setting. We have been able, using agricultural procedures developed over the years, to make an intelligent selection. I'm tired of hearing people compare the two, because in my view, they are not comparable.

I have another comment I'd like to make. You stated - and I'm sorry that I can't quote you exactly on this - that there is some concern that people will buy only products that are not genetically modified if genetically modified products are labeled as such. Following the negotiation of the Biosafety Protocol, I heard Mr. Glickman say that if these products were in fact labeled, no one would buy them. If that's true, then it means consumers are very short on information, because we're always talking from the consumer's perspective.

If these products are not labeled, or if the labelling process is delayed out of concern that consumers will not purchase genetically modified products, then what we're really doing is protecting multinationals, not consumers. That's all I wanted to say about this. I have a question now about the definition used.

My feeling is that they're trying to buy some time and that in the process, they are muddling the issue. Talking about mutagenesis and all of the physical operations included in genetic mutations is not the same as talking about recombinant DNA. Internationally, when we talk of GMOs, everyone understands more or less the issue. The classic definition has yet to be included in the Codex alimentarius, but there is always a reference to recombinant DNA. We're adding so many things to the mix that at some point, we'll no longer know what people are talking about when they refer to GMOs. I'm sorry, but I think this is merely a ploy to postpone the introduction of a measure that could prove interesting to consumers.

Like Rose-Marie, I too am concerned for producers. The definition you have worries me.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Hillard.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: In the whole issue, you separate mutagenesis out from rDNA, and that's what we say. If you want to label for rDNA, then be very clear that you're labelling for rDNA. If you want to label for genetic modifications, then you have to look at the other ways in which it's being done.

They are artificially accelerating mutagenesis and they are getting an awful lot of random results that then have to be sorted through for useful ones. One of the ways they do it—and I asked the scientists to explain this to me in non-technical terms—is to put it in a metal box. They send it to a radiation laboratory, and it's bombarded with either radiation or mustard gas. Then they take the seeds back and see what grows out of them. Personally, I find that a lot scarier than something that's carefully planned—if we move this gene to here, we're pretty sure what we're going to get at the end of it.

• 1035

So, fine. If we decide to label just for rDNA technology, then we have to take that decision and we have to label for rDNA, not for genetic modification, or we'll be misleading people. When they learn about these other technologies, we're going to have a whole other wave of consumer concerns. I think the reason we haven't heard so much about it internationally yet is that they're only just beginning to get that information. It's just beginning to leak out. As I understand it, the Codex definition is still under debate. I don't think it was settled at the meeting they had in May. Certainly the Canadian position was flexible on the definition. If you want to label for rDNA, fine, but say that. Don't say you're labelling for genetic modification.

The Chair: Thank you.

Rose-Marie.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madame Hillard, you said your job with the CAC is to promote what is good for consumers based on your expertise. Then you, I think, indicated that you have scientists who volunteer. Is that credible enough for consumers?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: I believe it is. When I say they're scientists...they start off as our volunteers, volunteering with the consumers. We usually try to bring them in as volunteers in a area where their expertise is not. That's a backward sentence, but if we have scientists coming in, we try to send them off to do some work first on financial issues, to sort of get them zeroed in on how to zero in on the consumer issues. Then afterward, we let them move into their areas of expertise, and we pick their brains. But by then we have them adjusted to how to pick out consumer issues.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: So you're saying these scientists are more concerned about financial issues than safety and that?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: No. They come to us because they have consumer concerns. Quite often a scientist will come to us because they have a consumer issue over the price of their kids' haircuts. So they come in as a volunteer. We get them used to being a consumer volunteer.

I know Lee Anne Murphy was here presenting to you a couple of weeks ago. In addition to having a PhD in plant pathology and chairing the CGSB committee, she's been a volunteer with us for years and years, since long before she got her PhD. She was involved in consumer issues and with the Consumers' Association in Manitoba, and as she has developed her technical expertise, she has given a lot of it to us.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Do these scientists share as much enthusiasm with the financial aspect as they look at the producer aspect? You know, they're just looking at one end of it. I don't know whether you're actually getting your best bang for your dollar when you're only looking at half of the equation.

That leads me into my next question.

You say consumers need choices—I totally agree with you—and labelling as to the contents, whether it's GMO-free and all the rest, versus cost. What I'm saying to you is that when it comes down to the long and short of it, they will look at what's in it, whether it's GMO altered or whatever else, but when it comes to cost, they're going to make sure they take the cheapest. I've been there. To say they'll pay a premium price—it does not happen. I'm a producer.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: I agree with you to a certain extent. When you go out and survey consumers, they want to be politically correct even in a completely independent survey. They say they'll spend the extra money. Then when it comes to the cash desk, they won't. We've had proof of this over and over with environmental labelling.

On the flip side of that, we have an enormous number of people who pay a huge premium for products that make an organic claim that can't be supported and verified. We truly believe that if you start making GM-free claims, that will be a concern.

We share a lot of what Nathalie said. People are going to make these claims and they're going to charge the premium, which is why the definition of “free” has to be accurate so we're not doing that. For the average consumer, I agree with you, the decision is on price, absolutely. The Australian research, although we have some questions about the research that was done, talks about a 6% to 12% increase in food prices for their labelling system. I don't think consumers are going to accept it. I also—

• 1040

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Does that mean the producer is going to have to pay for that again?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: Well, you don't have that much room on your margins, and—

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: We don't have any. We're in the minus now.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: That's right.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: So it's all right to bat your chest and want all these things, but the primary producer cannot pay for any more.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: That's right, and you're not getting much of our food dollar either, so it's going to have to come from somewhere.

On the other hand, I absolutely believe that the processors and the packagers are very creative and they're going to find a way to do this that minimizes the cost to themselves.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you.

Madame St-Pierre, you said let's find a proper way, let's take a break. Okay, what's the proper way?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: I propose some of the recommendations. I think there are a lot of recommendations on the table. I think we have to take the time to look at environmental impacts and at social and ethical impacts. We have to have the time to debate this with the society here. What do we want? That's the cost of doing business as well.

This is a totally different, new field. We're not talking about just changing a few things. This is a debate that needs to be done because we're privatizing life. We're patenting life. Nobody has debated that. We're saying we're going to feed the world. We haven't talked about redistribution. We're not sharing this technology. All these issues are emerging out of this debate, and they have to be dealt with.

The Chair: We'll go to Rick Casson, Mr. McGuire, and then Mr. Desrochers. Since I haven't been genetically modified, I want Mr. Secretary to take my chair for about two minutes.

Go ahead, Rick.

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

To the Consumers' Association again, do you rank or keep track of the number of inquiries you have and what the major concern of consumers is, and on down the list? What are the top 10, and where does this particular problem rank?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: Do you mean among top issues?

Mr. Rick Casson: Yes.

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: Quite a long way down, when you consider problems like home repairs and car repairs, actually, which always take the priority. Home renovations and car repairs are always top issues from people who phone in.

Most of those phone-in calls aren't taken in the national office; they're taken by our provincial associations, and they do certainly record numbers. I think a couple of the provinces have them in a way that we could probably pull them out and send them to you.

It's not high, but it's strong. We get letters from people who—because, as I said, we're not opposing it—write to us and ask, why are you taking all this money from Monsanto? There's an enormous amount of misinformation out there. It's difficult to try to remain neutral on this.

The letters are strong, but compared with other issues, it's a fairly long way down the ranking.

For our own association, food issues have a very high priority.

Mr. Rick Casson: Are the issues that are of most concern to consumers economically driven? Home repairs and car repairs obviously are high-ticket items. Is that what drives it mostly?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: I think it's what drives the complaint that makes them phone us. That's not to say that there's not.... You get one big complaint that makes people take some action and phone, and then you get a lower-down level of lots of niggling little concerns that may all go together and make them protest.

Of course, we also did those six focus groups this year to try to zero in on where consumers were coming from on biotechnology. I think we got a very good sense of what their concerns were from that.

Mr. Rick Casson: I'd like to give you a scenario of what happens on my farm. We just got through spring seeding, and I want to ask both your organizations if you consider my crop to be genetically modified.

I use chemical fertilizer—I have to. I have to get 70 bushels an acre on barley, not 30, or I'll go broke. I use half and half barley and durum. I forget the name of the durum seed, but it was developed by Ag Canada. The barley is Harrington, and I don't know the background of it. The seed is chemically treated to resist disease. When it germinates and starts to grow, I spray it to kill the weeds so that I can again improve the yield. I'm probably the farmer driving the tractors full of GMO modified foods; I don't know.

• 1045

But in the end, the durum is going to be made into pasta somewhere in the world. I don't know where it will go. The barley's going to be turned into beef. I'll sell it to a feedlot. In the end, for that beef and that pasta, how on earth do I know if that's genetically modified? How will a consumer know that?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: That's where you'll need some sort of audit trail to separate the stuff that's going to make claims that it's GM free from the stuff that's going to be required to label that it's genetically modified. That's where a lot of the cost is going to come. Separating the Canadian system, especially for moving grain around, is going to be a cost. If we want the separation, we're going to have to be prepared for that.

Mr. Rick Casson: Who is going to have to pick that cost up?

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: I can't see it going anywhere except onto the consumer's shoulders, I'm afraid. I wish I could say otherwise.

Mr. Rick Casson: Or the producer.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we'll go to Mr. McGuire, followed by Mr. Desrochers.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When we were doing the first round we ever did on biotech two years ago, I think you were witnesses here at that time. We were developing Canada's biotech strategy. There was no talk at all about frankenfoods or any of these scares. That has all developed since then. There was very little talk even two years ago about labelling, especially mandatory labelling. There was some talk about voluntary labelling by your organization, I believe. Somebody hit upon the idea of scare tactics, or whatever you want to term it, and how terrible all this might be.

At the same time, we thought Europe was using non-tariff barriers. They wouldn't take any genetically modified canola or the beef hormones and so on. But at the same time, they were putting tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into the biotech industry on their own, and they still are today. They're basically trying to catch up with North America in terms of their level of being able to do these things with seeds and with food. Maybe if the Europeans are going to be ready....

Once the general public becomes more accepting of GMO foods, Europe is not going to be behind, at least not any more behind than they are today. They're going to be in a catch-up phase.

If we're going to do a moratorium on development of food through biotechnology techniques, should we do the same with medical advances in using biotechnology techniques? Should we stop everything there because of the same concerns? Somebody might die because....

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: First I'd like to answer your first question. I know for a fact that our group has been promoting mandatory labelling for well over six years within the government. We've participated in a lot of initiatives and strategies and we've put forth the same recommendations that we are carrying forward today.

It was a bit the same when we discussed the pesticides and herbicides. Why not label for that? I've read that even in the paper. But 20 years ago, my group was also trying to raise awareness about the pesticide issue and so on. We can say that today we are more inclusive of some representation from various stakeholders. Maybe that's why we're still sitting here.

In terms of looking at the pharmaceutical aspect of this, one of the things that come out clearly, in terms of the consumer's mind, is that the food aspect is something that really worries them. They're more inclined to accept the pharmaceutical aspects.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Why is that?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: Because it has a different application. If we were going to do the focus groups, maybe through your focus groups.... Through our discussion with consumers and through other surveys that have been done, or the work Edna Einsiedel did in Calgary in communication with consumers, it is believed that consumers are accepting this more. This can be debated. I'm not an expert in that area. We've had discussions about reproductive technology and there have been some reports. I wouldn't say that we can just go ahead and do it. I think different groups and stakeholders have to be brought in to discuss that. We're more specialized in the food sector of this and we know consumers are quite concerned with the food.

• 1050

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I have a question for Ms. St-Pierre, given that she works very closely with consumers. Are your associations pushing to find out whether GMOs are already sold in supermarkets like Loblaws and Sobey's? Are consumers aware that some stores already sell GMO food products? Are they concerned?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: We have received letters from a number of consumers asking us for a list of GMO food products. Obviously, we cannot do that for them. All we can do is give them some indications, in light of the products that have been registered, and suggest that they read labels to see if the products are in fact GMO products.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Has your association lobbied the major grocery chains to provide this type of information to consumers? I'm thinking here about Loblaws, Sobey's, Provigo and Métro in Quebec.

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: Some groups in Quebec are urging consumers to call the 1-800 numbers of companies to ask questions, convey their disapproval or approval or suggest certain steps to take. Therefore, they are being pressured from many different directions. We're working with other groups that are more active at this level. Our focus is more on public policies, but some groups have been pressuring certain large corporations to take a stand on this issue.

Several years ago, the dairy industry was lobbied in connection with the use of recombinant BST. We lobbied school boards on the issue of milk for children. All kinds of efforts have been made over the past 10 years.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Fine. Thank you. I have one last question, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier, Ms. Hillard, you stated that you were nevertheless comfortable with your role within the Canadian General Standards Board. Do you intend to use your leadership role to get the debate moving forward more quickly? Right now, the committee is struggling over the definition. We're seeing what's happening right now around the world, in Europe, in Japan and in Korea. There is talk of the relationship between the customer and the supplier. If, in future, it's unclear which products from Canada contain GMOs, and which ones do not, the implications could be fairly dramatic. What do you intend to do about this?

You made it very clear that if you were not satisfied, you would say so. Given that you serve on the Canadian General Standards Board, what kind of leadership to you intend to exercise? Has the Board set any kind of deadline so that we might know when the federal government might rule on this matter?

[English]

Ms. Jennifer Hillard: My role is to put forward the consumer positions that we have from our association and from our focus groups. It's not to move the process forward more quickly. However, from my vast experience in standards, I can tell you that this one is going at breakneck speed and there's a lot of pressure on the committee to have a solution very quickly.

I'm not sure exactly where the federal government role comes in this. We're developing a voluntary labelling scheme. Presumably the federal government, through the Standards Council of Canada Act, will approve it as a national standard of Canada after it's gone through all its leaps and bounds and voting periods.

Even while it's going through those systems, if we have a consensus document that deals with principles of real, accurate consumer information, I hope this committee and the agriculture minister, in looking at what they're going to do with mandatory labelling, will look at the discussions we've had rather than doing something over here when all the stakeholders have agreed to do something over here.

• 1055

My concern is that the two pieces of work are going to go in different directions. I think the stakeholder input that's going into the CGSB process will be very useful to inform whatever is being done on mandatory labelling. If we like what comes out of CGSB, we may recommend to our board to vote that it be made a mandatory scheme. We can't tell at this time, but that's one of the possible outcomes.

The Chair: I want to finish this by putting a couple of very short questions to Nathalie.

Nathalie, I hope this is not unfair, but I assume that because of the work you do on behalf of your group, you are far ahead or better informed than most people with respect to this issue of labelling and GM foods. In your own personal case, if you come across a GM food or if you know of a GM food that is not labelled, what do you do? What do you do personally? Do you avoid it? Do you use it? What do you do?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: Actually, I avoid it. That's a personal decision. I think I'm informed enough at this point to know that I don't know enough to make that decision, therefore I avoid it for a lot of different reasons, which are not just health reasons. Environmental reasons are very important in my book, and certainly social issues are also important. So according to my beliefs and my values, I avoid it.

The Chair: Okay.

Your action network is part of a larger group called Action 21 or something like that. Am I right?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: No.

The Chair: Are you not part of a larger group?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: We are a network. We recruit groups, consumer associations, from Quebec.

The Chair: Are you not part of a coalition of groups concerned about mandatory labelling?

Mr. Nathalie St-Pierre: Well, we've been signing and supporting different.... I'm not sure what you're talking about. I know we were supporting the group that refused to go to the CGSB initiative. Yes, that's correct. We don't have a mandate with.... We join coalitions, but I'm not sure exactly—

The Chair: But you did sign a letter with other groups?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: Yes, absolutely.

The Chair: But you don't necessarily share a common cause. In other words, you don't speak for the others who signed that letter?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: No, I speak for my group.

The Chair: And your group only?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. I wanted that straight. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Thank you for coming.

This meeting is adjourned.