AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 18, 2000

• 0904

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)): Members, we'll bring this meeting to order.

Just before I introduce the witnesses, I want to bring your attention to the matter under the title “Other Business”. It's simply a letter from Minister Vanclief—I think you've gotten it—pointing out to us that the International Grain Conference will be in Regina from June 14 to 16, and of course we as committee members are invited to attend.

• 0905

I hope some members will be able to attend. I know it's going to be a difficult time. I understand we'll have a whole slew of votes on June 15, so it may be very difficult for those of us wanting to go to go. But I just wanted to bring that letter to your attention.

If there are no questions on that, I'd like to introduce our guests.

Today we begin our study of mandatory labelling of genetically modified organisms. This will be the first meeting of many. I would think we can get in two or three meetings, likely three, before the House rises near the middle of June, so we'll have to resume our meetings in the fall, when Parliament reconvenes.

Without further ado, I want to introduce to you Dr. Lee Anne Murphy, chair of the Committee on Voluntary Labelling of Food. Dr. Murphy is a former Winnipegger. I want you to know that.

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy (Chair, Committee on Voluntary Labelling of Food Obtained or Not Obtained Through Genetic Modification, Canadian General Standards Board): I'm a current Winnipegger.

The Chair: Oh, well, that's even better.

She'll be making the opening statement this morning, members, and then we will have, from the Department of Health, Dr. Marc Le Maguer. I understand Dr. Murphy will begin, followed by Dr. Le Maguer.

I understand you'll have some slides as well, Dr. Murphy? Is that it?

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you for coming. I'm sure this is going to be a good presentation.

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: Thank you for the invitation to talk to you about the Canadian General Standards Board process. As Mr. Harvard said, I'm Lee Anne Murphy. I'm the voluntary chair of the committee looking at developing a standard for labelling genetically modified foods.

Also here today to provide some technical support to me is Bill Cunningham, who is the director of the Canadian General Standards Board; as well as Patricia Dolhan, who is the acting secretary of this committee.

I'd like to just take a few minutes to walk through the process we have begun towards developing a standard. In common phrasing or how I look at it as somebody working in this process, a standard involves developing and laying out what common practice or what an expected practice around a standard or accepted areas would be. That's our approach: developing some guidelines in areas of work around labelling genetically modified foods.

I'll give a little bit of background. The project was initiated in September of last year. The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors initiated the project and went to the Canadian General Standards Board as the body to help develop a standard. Consumers, food manufacturers, and people looking for information were looking for some guidance on how products could be labelled to indicate whether or not they had been genetically modified.

The Canadian General Standards Board, or the CGSB, is a standard-setting certification and registration body. It's part of the national standards system of Canada and is accredited as a body by the Standards Council of Canada. The role of the CGSB in this process is to be a facilitator by helping us to manage the process of adopting a voluntary standard.

It's important for people to understand that this process is driven by consensus, so all of the people who are sitting around the table come to where they are on a consensus basis.

• 0910

Our committee is called the Committee on Voluntary Labelling of Food Obtained or Not Obtained Through Genetic Modification. That's the working title of our group. Right now we have over 60 groups that represent three distinct bodies: producers, users, and general interest groups. A producer is someone who's seen as having a role to play in the development or marketing of a technology. Users are groups such as consumers and food retailers that are the end recipients of that product. And then general interest groups are people who are seen as having an interest in the development or the output of the standard.

Invitations were issued to many, many groups across the country, and we have currently 60 members who have voting rights on the committee. So if you think of this room, double the size of it, and that's the group we have to have our consensus-oriented discussion with.

The representation across these groups for voting purposes is set up to be balanced. That means there are approximately 20 people in each of those groups. There also is ample opportunity for other invited parties who don't have voting rights to fully participate in the process. At the three meetings we've held, we've certainly encouraged and had available to us input from a variety of interested parties who either requested or were seeking information about the process. The only difference currently is that those representatives who aren't part of the formal 60 with the right to vote obviously just can't vote.

Because this is a consensus-driven process, we don't do formal votes. Certainly at this time we take straw votes or indications of whether we proceed or not. There's really no voting only and then moving on, again because consensus is how we have to arrive at our end product.

In order to develop our standard, the committee has decided we need to look at four areas of work. The first is obviously definitions. We also need some general principles, because we feel that by adopting general principles, we can work through the many different food products, food distribution systems, and end uses people are looking for. We're looking at developing labelling templates that meet five key criteria: they're understandable, they're informative, they're verifiable, they're not false, and they're not misleading. Finally, we're looking at outlining procedures to verify the truthfulness of these declarations or claims, both in product labelling as well as in advertising.

Those are the four distinct areas we're looking at. They crystallize into three: definitions, label statements and guidance statements, as well as enforcement and verification systems.

Our end product is a preliminary standard. In order to get to a preliminary standard, we've developed a series of working groups that are looking at tackling each of those topics I indicated. The first three working groups have been looking at terms and definitions, principles and model claims for the label statements, as well as compliance measures and tolerances.

We also add and subtract different working groups as required. We had an information-gathering working group that provided some background information to us. We've now disbanded that, since they've completed their task. And we've just set up a fifth working group that is going to be an actual physical drafting committee, because again, we realize that with close to eighty or ninety people at a meeting, doing word-by-word line edits on a draft standard is just not the most efficient use of our time. So we've set up a small drafting committee that will put some words to paper for the general committee then to discuss. Rather than trying to write it as a group, a small group will propose some wording and people will chew it, tear it apart, and then move on.

The process was begun last September. Our first committee meeting was in November, we met again in January, the last meeting was in April, and we have another one planned for July 6. The working groups in between and during these meetings also meet as entities so that they're able to work on tasks.

Because this is a consensus-driven process and given the diverse nature of the committee, it was important for us to find areas where we could agree to continue talking. Right now we haven't made any decisions about what's going to be in the standard or not in the standard, other than that it's going to have those five principles: understandable, informative, verifiable, etc.

We were looking for areas of consensus on the following, so that we could continue to move forward: definitions, and I'll give you some examples of some of the things we're considering; some of the model declarations; as well as the whole idea of tolerances and thresholds—where are we going to have them in the standard identified, and what would be acceptable limits if we did adopt them?

I just want to spend a couple of minutes giving you a sense of the breadth and the depth of the topics the committee is addressing as we work towards developing a standard.

• 0915

The first one is defining the term “genetically modified”. There is certainly divergence within the committee, and I think it reflects the debate across Canada and around the world about what we really mean when we say something is genetically modified. The group has discussed this at length over the last three meetings. At the last meeting, we agreed to carry forward two definition areas of genetic modification for further discussion.

The first one is what we term to be a narrow definition, which looks at recombinant DNA techniques only as being genetically modified. What we're terming currently a moderate definition would broaden it beyond rDNA technologies to include other methods of producing genetically modified foods. What we're looking at is the references within the novel food guidelines, and that was since 1994. So it's broader than just rDNA techniques.

The group felt that because there are so many different technologies that ultimately result in something becoming genetically modified, we had to put some kind of parameters around it. The group felt that considering all technologies that result in a genetically modified product just wasn't feasible for developing a standard. So where you see the “X” through the broad definition, that means we've said that not everything that's genetically modified will be covered by this standard.

Right now, there's been no decision on either one of these, whether this is where we're going to end or not. The group has agreed to carry forward two different streams, looking at recombinant DNA only versus novel foods, which would again pick up more than just rDNA technologies.

The second area where we're looking for some idea of consensus so we can again carry forward our discussions towards developing a standard was around what would be covered by the label statement. These would be the claims that if a food product or something were going to be labelled with a statement, what would be some of the terms we would want to look at? Products “derived from”, “containing”, or “produced through” genetic modification was one area where we felt we had to have some sense of moving forward.

At this time, the group has looked at including a product that's derived from a genetically modified organism. Something like that would be canola oil or cheese made with chymosin. As well, we've looked at including a product that may contain the genetically modified part of the protein, something like tofu from soybeans.

The group felt that for the purposes of this standard, the whole area of “produced through”.... For example, a statement on milk that was obtained from an animal that may have been fed a genetically modified grain is not something that at this time we're looking at. As I say that, it's important to realize that nothing is ever off the table with the consensus process. What we're trying to do is to find ways to move the process forward to the development of a standard.

So where you see the “X” through, it doesn't mean that we're not ever going to come back and look at it. It's just that for the purposes of getting to our next meeting, the group wanted to try to work through a couple of things that they felt had more defined areas of work for the group.

The one area where the group made a consensus decision was that of tolerances and thresholds. Members of the committee collectively decided that we would consider both tolerances, which take into account accidental inclusions of something, and thresholds, which are traditionally a maximum level of something. Here I'm calling it an impurity, but it's the maximum level of something that would be allowed to still meet the definition of “genetically modified” or to qualify for the statement.

Again, I want to reinforce that as we look through this, everything, including the claims, has to meet what we call our five standards: easy to understand, informative, verifiable, not false, and not misleading.

Finally, because everything focuses on what a claim that would come out of this would be, I just want to give you an idea of some of the areas of consideration under the development of what the model declarations and the principles behind that are.

Currently under consideration are: including information in the standard, using it as a guidance document for both manufacturers and consumers; looking at comparative claims; what we feel is the minimum amount of information that would have to be on any kind of declaration or claim; pointers towards other sources of information; to use or not to use a logo; the whole area of negative claims, such as claiming that something is “free from” or “does not contain”; and then other considerations such as economic, commercial, practicality, literacy, and all kinds of other considerations that go into developing a product that is supposed to have a practical use for consumers and be doable for both food producers and manufacturers.

• 0920

That, Mr. Chairman, is a quick overview of the process we've embarked upon. With that, we thank you.

The Chair: Just before you take your microphone off, Dr. Murphy, and before I invite Dr. Le Maguer to give his remarks, can I just have one point of clarification?

You were mentioning that your committee is made up of three groups: producers, users, and general interest groups. Would you say that the 60 members of your committee, in a general sense or in a broad sense, are like-minded? Would certain groups that are incompatible have a membership on your committee? For example, would you have the Council of Canadians?

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: Well, the current committee, as it's made up, includes representatives from organic producers all the way through to the Crop Protection Institute. If you want to talk about the gamut of food production philosophies, we have them at the table.

I think you mentioned particular groups. Certainly Patricia Dolhan can explain the process of invitation, but at the beginning we extended invitations to pretty much anybody who'd ever expressed an interest in looking at genetically modified food. At the first meeting, we received a note signed by 20-odd groups that indicated that they weren't going to participate in the process. We issued the invitation again to them to at least consider being informational members as opposed to voting members, just to be part of the process, and they declined at that time.

We have since then issued invitations truly to any group that feels they have something to say, mostly because there's such interest in this group from different constituencies that in order to maintain the balance, we cannot bring in other groups unless the balance is met. For example, for the user group, we need more representatives from consumer groups, from senior groups, from end users of the product or people who'd be interested in the technology. Until we can bring those numbers up, we don't alter the voting mix of the other groups.

The Chair: We may have more questions on that later.

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: Certainly.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Dr. Le Maguer, who will give remarks on behalf of the Department of Health. Thank you for coming and we look forward to your presentation.

Dr. Marc Le Maguer (Director General, Food Directorate, Department of Health): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm accompanied today by Karen McIntyre of the Bureau of Food Policy and Integration and Dr. William Yan, Office of Food Biotechnology, who will assist with the questions you may have later.

Thank you, committee members, for the invitation to appear before the standing committee today. It is my pleasure to provide you with an overview of Health Canada's responsibilities for labelling foods that are derived from biotechnology.

Before I begin, I would like to note that the invitation relates specifically to the issue of labelling, which is the interest of your committee. In order to situate this issue, it is necessary to understand Health Canada's regulatory oversight for foods, including those derived from biotechnology, so you can put it in the context of what is done and where it fits.

[Translation]

Under the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations, Health Canada is responsible for provisions related to public health, food safety and nutrition. Health Canada's responsibility regarding food is to establish science-based policies and standards ensuring that all foods, including those foods derived from biotechnology, are safe and nutritious.

Health Canada has recently promulgated a new piece of legislation, the Novel Foods Regulation under the Food and Drugs Act in order to address the safety of such new foods and food ingredients.

[English]

The scope of the regulation is intended to cover foods that originate from new or unusual sources or foods produced using new processes or technologies, including foods derived from biotechnology. It's under the label of novel foods, as you've heard already mentioned.

Examples of new foods that have never been part of the human diet include novel food fibres or fat substitutes, which I'm sure you've heard about. The safety of consuming such products would be assessed under the new regulation to determine whether that product could be sold in Canada.

• 0925

A food process can also be considered “novel” under these regulations. So it's not only the food itself, it's the process that can be used. If a company, for example, develops a new pasteurization process such as ultrasonic waves or pulse light, which are currently under study, that they want to apply to milk, then Health Canada would conduct a thorough safety assessment of this process to ensure that there would be no adverse health effects from consuming the milk produced using the new process. So the important point there is that we look at the end result of what the process, or the technology, has done to the food that is going onto the market.

[Translation]

As I have previously mentioned, the definition of novel foods also includes those foods derived from biotechnology. These foods are often referred to as genetically modified, genetically engineered or GM foods. Genetic modification is any change to the heritable traits of an organism achieved by several techniques that include transferring a gene (or genes) from one species to another unrelated species which is commonly called genetic engineering. Another example of a modification technique is artificial mutagenesis which involves treating cells of an organism with UV light or certain chemicals in order to produce changes in its genetic material. Regardless of the technique used, foods that have been genetically modified trigger the notification requirement when a new characteristic or trait has been introduced into the food or the composition of the food has been substantially altered.

[English]

Health Canada has established a clear and stringent process for evaluating the safety of foods derived from biotechnology. In 1994 Health Canada issued the publication Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods, which outlines our safety assessment process. The safety assessment focuses on the inherent characteristics of the food and its intended use rather than the method of production, because we are interested in determining what, if any, impact the change made to the food will have on diet and human health. These guidelines have benefited from detailed consultations with stakeholders in Canada and continue to be available for review and critique through our website.

[Translation]

As is the case for approval of most products by regulatory agencies around the world, companies or proponents of biotechnology-derived foods are required to submit a set of data which must be of sufficiently high calibre and meet the criteria specified in the guidelines. This information is reviewed by a team of scientific evaluators representing expertise in molecular biology, toxicology, chemistry, nutritional scientists and microbiology. The scientific validity of study protocols used, as well as the raw data submitted, are critically analyzed by comparing them to an international data base, which was validated by peer review. If any part of the information provided is insufficient, further studies will be required from the company.

[English]

The federal government recognizes that it must ensure that it will have the necessary scientific and regulatory capacity in order to adequately regulate the products of biotechnology as the science continues to advance and new products are proposed for commercialization. To this end an independent expert panel, the Expert Scientific Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology, has been established by the Royal Society of Canada to examine future scientific developments in food biotechnology. This independent expert panel will also advise Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Environment Canada on the science capacity that the federal government will require to continue to ensure the safety of new food products being developed through biotechnology into the 21st century.

• 0930

[Translation]

Health Canada's labelling role, therefore, derives from our responsibilities regarding food safety. Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) share accountability for food labelling policies under the Food and Drugs Act. Health Canada's responsibilities derive from its mandate for health and safety issues, while the CFIA is responsible for protecting consumers from misrepresentation and fraud with respect to food labelling, packaging and advertising, and for prescribing basic food labelling and advertising standards.

[English]

Health Canada requires mandatory labelling to address health and safety issues that might be mitigated through labelling, such as identifying the presence of allergens. Labelling is also required to identify composition or nutritional changes. In these situations labelling is required to alert consumers or susceptible groups in the population at large. Additionally, food producers and manufacturers may voluntarily, at this time, label food as derived from or not derived from biotechnology, provided that the label is truthful and not misleading.

In principle, food products that are demonstrated to be equivalent to, and as safe and nutritious as, their traditional counterparts are treated the same in terms of labelling requirements. In cases where a product has been intentionally modified, for example, increasing the level of lauric acid in canola oil through biotechnology, a different common name will be required to describe the oil so there is no confusion.

[Translation]

The Canadian position on labelling biotechnology-derived foods must consider both domestic and international needs. Canada's labelling policy must be consistent with the objectives of the Codex Alimentarius which include protecting consumers from health hazards and fraud, as well as ensuring fair practices in trade. The federal government's position on labelling biotechnology-derived foods remains under discussion with Canadians and international standards organizations, such as Codex Alimentarius, in order to further develop the Canadian position.

Options for labelling biotechnology-derived foods were discussed at the recent meeting in Ottawa of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling, which was held two weeks ago. Progress was achieved in establishing mandatory labelling for allergens and resolving common definitions among the participating countries, bringing the various options closer together. In order to overcome the polarization between the European and North American model a compromise was proposed. Canada has been asked again this year to chair a working group that will look at developing a proposal for a guideline for non-health and safety labelling that will be considered for international agreement.

[English]

There are a number of ongoing national initiatives that will contribute to the further development of the Canadian position, including consideration of labelling requirements for method of production as a means of addressing consumer demand for information that is not relevant to health and safety...already covered by the existing regulations and mandatory. The Canadian General Standards Board and Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors initiative to develop a voluntary standard for labelling biotechnology-derived foods is an important step towards providing consumers with information that will assist them to better understand the nature of their food choices.

• 0935

[Translation]

We continue to work with colleagues at the Canadian Food Inspection Agencies and other stakeholders including health professionals, consumer groups and industry associations in order to develop mechanisms to provide information that is consistent with international approaches in the most effective manner regarding foods derived from biotechnology.

Recently, the CFIA distributed to Canadian households a brochure entitled “Food Safety and You”, which contained information about the regulatory system for foods, including a section on the assessment and approval system for genetically modified foods.

[English]

Health Canada remains committed to sharing information with Canadians on how we regulate products of biotechnology. On our website we make available Health Canada decisions taken on new products, novel food decision summaries for each new product, the novel foods regulation, the Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods, along with fact sheets and answers to frequently asked questions to aid understanding of this subject.

Regulatory officials from Health Canada are continuously involved in a range of initiatives to inform and engage Canadians about regulating foods derived from biotechnology. These include presentations at public fora, particularly participation in panel discussions and interviews with the media.

I thank you for your attention.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Le Maguer. I think you and Dr. Murphy have given us a couple of good scene setters, and it will help members develop their questions, which we will begin now.

Mr. Hilstrom, seven minutes.

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

Certainly the Canadian Alliance is fully in favour of the concept of a voluntary system, partly because any mandatory system inevitably leads to inefficiencies and waste. I think between consumers and the producers and marketers of the food, they can come to an agreement, which is what I see happening here, and I'm very much in favour of this process that you're going through.

We need to establish some very basic things here first before we go through this. These are going to be long and complicated hearings. But have you any complaints, or do you have any verified cases where any Canadian has been injured, has become sick, has become ill in any way from consuming what we already have in genetically modified food? Dr. Le Maguer.

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: The answer to that question is no. There have been no complaints, no incidents of anything happening due to these.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you.

I'll deal just for a minute here with the Europeans. On page 2 of your report Labelling of Biotechnology-Derived Foods in Canada, in the second paragraph, you define genetically modified food starting with: “Genetic modification is any change to the heritable traits of an organism achieved by several techniques”. My understanding is that the Europeans agree with that part, but they don't agree with, and in fact they use, the second portion:

Another example of a modification technique is artificial mutagenesis which involves treating cells of an organism with UV light or certain chemicals

They're saying that's not genetic modification. In fact, as we've seen with the beef hormone, is there a concern that the Europeans in particular are using GMOs as a trade barrier?

Ms. Karen McIntyre (Acting Associate Director, Bureau of Food Policy and Integration, Department of Health): I wouldn't comment on whether or not it's a trade barrier; however, that is an accurate comprehension of their regulatory oversight for labelling. In fact, Canada's regulation and definition of GMOs is broader in scope to include other techniques for modifying a genome than just recombinant DNA technology.

We have chosen to do this because, as Dr. Le Maguer has said in his speaking notes, it is the trait, or the final product, and what impact that change may have on the diet and human health that we're interested in assessing, not so much how it was done as what it is. So whether it was mutagenesis or whether it was recombinant DNA that was used to introduce the same trait, for example, into a crop plant, again, it's the final product that we're focusing on.

• 0940

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: With regard to this compromise with the EU and other countries in regard to international agreements and that, what specifically is being suggested as the compromise position we could all take so that we can trade, which is the key to this whole thing?

Ms. Karen McIntyre: At the Codex meetings two weeks ago these positions were discussed. What's going to be determined is a combination of both the options on the table at this point. Canada has been asked to chair a working group that will look at rolling these two options together in order to propose or develop a strategy that will provide flexibility in terms of a guideline that will be a compromise and will be agreeable to all parties.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: When is this process or this final recommendation on voluntary labelling going to come down? What's the target date to have this completed?

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: The average standards-setting process takes between 18 months and 10 years with regard to the organics standard. We started last November, so we're about eight months in. A target date, as you've seen from some of the issues we're dealing with, is something we haven't set yet, but we expect certainly to be within that average for standards-setting.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: While you're still doing your work, it's my understanding that you are mandatorily labouring for allergens and nutritional changes, and that if a retailer of some food product wanted to put on it that this was not derived from GMO, they could do that right now.

Am I understanding that correctly? If so, what exactly do they put on the label—on a box of Cheerios, say?

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: There is no example at this time. As I mentioned, it's a possibility that is open but that has never been used by the industry in order to do this. It's partly because of the lack of definitions, which is being studied now in terms of what could be there that is not misleading or opening the door to that.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Who here is from the natural grocer or wholesaler area? Anybody? No.

What have you been told in terms of the level of consumer demand for this information? We certainly see the protest groups out in front, but we certainly know they don't represent the majority of Canadians. The majority of Canadians are average folks, like those of us sitting around here.

What feedback do you get as to what the consumers are actually saying? Do you have any surveys, polls, or anything?

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: We've conducted surveys all along the process of defining novel food regulations, so there was a large amount of consultation at that time. It has varied. Initially, because....

As you recall, the legislation in place covers the mandatory health and safety requirements. That's the only one that's really there from the mandatory perspective. This has never appeared as a concern. Health and safety is not a question that has been raised by the consumers vis-à-vis these products.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you.

The Chair: Just before we go to Mrs. Alarie, Mr. Hilstrom was asking about any possible illnesses you know of that have been brought on by genetically modified foods. Do you know of any cases anywhere in the world?

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: The answer is no.

The Chair: Madam Alarie.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Thank you very much for coming to testify on this subject which I find very important and very interesting. I'm very much interested in this subject.

• 0945

I would like to request a clarification, Mr. Chairman. Will the officials from the Health Department be coming back to testify at other meetings?

[English]

The Chair: Why do you ask?

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: There are many questions that could be asked of the departmental officials about equivalencies, but I don't want to stray from the subject of voluntary labelling, because our witnesses came to speak specifically about this.

[English]

The Chair: I certainly wouldn't preclude it, Madam Alarie. We're going to have quite a few meetings—I would assume 10 or 12—and I guess that if there is a consensus of this committee that we need, say, the Department of Health at some point towards the end, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to it personally. Okay?

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Fine. Thank you.

The many surveys I have seen, such as the ones done by Environics or by consumer associations, show that often, over 80% of consumers want mandatory labelling. They want full knowledge about what they choose to eat.

A number of countries have laws on mandatory labelling. I see from the documents you distributed that the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors asked that a voluntary labelling process be established. I am satisfied, Ms. Murphy, with your announcement that the work will be completed within 18 months to two years. So we can say that there is a fairly specific deadline.

If consumers continue to demand this, ultimately the CCGD will have to fall in line. Could the work you are doing at the moment be integrated completely into the regulations or into proposed regulations on mandatory labelling?

[English]

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: Again, the approach the committee has taken is to develop a standard which by its very nature is voluntary, but as I pointed out, we've taken a principles-based approach that looks at what principles would support meeting—informative, verifiable, not false, not misleading—the requirements of law.

Again, by taking a principles-based approach, the idea was that we wouldn't be just doing this by covering one technology for one period of time and then having to come back to it, so whether it could be.... Obviously we want to work with what other groups are looking at, both in Canada and internationally, but the principles will hopefully allow us to do that.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: After the Montreal Protocol on biodiversity, I heard Mr. Glickman, the American Secretary of State, say in a radio interview that they could sign the agreement if there were voluntary labelling. He also said that this was not true of mandatory labelling, because it would disadvantage US producers and everyone else.

I think we have a duty as regards mandatory labelling, and that we must inform people properly. However, there seems to be some fear about mandatory labelling. Some people say that if we have labelling, many consumers will avoid these products. If the product is safe, why has no one died or taken ill? Is there a lack of training or information? Did we act too late? Why? People do have the right to know.

[English]

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: Again, I think maybe I'll ask Mr. Cunningham to explain how many standards are in place, both in Canada and certainly around the world, that provide information to consumers. With regard to the other things, I'll refer to Health Canada.

Mr. Bill Cunningham (Director, Canadian General Standards Board): Well, if you're talking about standards in general, we ourselves at the standards board have approximately 1,500 standards, but only a very limited number of those are related to food products. There's the.... I'm not sure how the question ended up at this point from where you were starting, Madam Alarie. I don't feel I'm answering your question.

• 0950

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: No, that is true.

I will try to make my question even simpler. At the moment, we don't have mandatory labelling, because it will be difficult to sell products that are labelled “contains GMOs”, no matter how we do it. If there is no danger, why is there this fear? Why are we not giving the right information to people when they purchase products? After all, this is the year 2000, and we should know what we are eating.

[English]

Mr. Bill Cunningham: I'm not sure that any of us here are experts in human nature, but I think that's one of the aspects of the project that we believe consumers are looking for. They're looking for additional information.

How are consumers going to react when they get that information? Certainly we at the Canadian General Standards Board don't know. There may be a certain number of them who will make decisions based on the knowledge they have. There may be others who do not have adequate knowledge and will make decisions based on their perceptions of the issue.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Oui.

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: Just to follow up on that, my intent in turning the question over to Mr. Cunningham was actually to explain that a standard, even though it's voluntary, protects us for everything from hockey helmet safety all the way through to air bags and everything else. Standards really provide a measure of more than just voluntary comfort to both consumers and manufacturers. I think it's important that standards be recognized as a very important contributor to the information base.

Secondly, our project is looking both at products that want to be labelled as genetically modified as well as at those that want to claim to be genetically-modified-free. The same principles apply. For example, right now there's nothing stopping a manufacturer from claiming that a product is free of genetically modified organisms or “derived from”. What they don't have, though, is guidance as to what an appropriate claim with an appropriate standard of evidence would be. That's what this project was set up to do: to provide that kind of guidance and background.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Alarie. You're out of time.

Mr. Calder.

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

Dr. Murphy, I see that you're with the Consumers' Association of Canada. What do you do when you're not with the Consumers' Association of Canada?

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: Well, as you said, I'm here as a volunteer. I'm a volunteer with the food committee at the Consumers' Association of Canada. When I'm back in Winnipeg, I'm the mother of two children and I'm married to a farmer. I work in public relations.

Mr. Murray Calder: First of all, what I want to establish is this: what is a GMO?

For years within the farming industry we have had the process of cross-pollination, and we came up with a product called canola, which we're using for cooking oil right now. Within the fruit industry we've had grafting for years, and we came up with a product called a nectarine, and all of these things.... There has been a process within agriculture over the years called plant breeding; we've been improving plant species, production, yields, and everything else like that for years. Are those GMOs? Or is that some new type of animal? Anybody...?

Dr. William Yan (Acting Head, Office of Food Biotechnology, Department of Health): I can take that question.

The definition given in the novel foods regulation is that to be classified as a novel food there are basically three categories. Anything that goes through what we call genetic modification—that is, recombinant DNA technology, mutagenesis—is classified as a GM food.

As for the food you referred to, the traditional breeding, that type of changing of a trait in a plant, that's not officially categorized under genetic modification, but it's still called a novel food because, as you referred to earlier, there is a change in the plant, a trait that has been changed. So we focus on that trait and see if there's any introduction of safety concerns or allergens. That's covered as a novel food.

So it's important to remember that novel food is more than just GM foods. That's how we approach it.

• 0955

Mr. Murray Calder: But the problem is that as soon as the consumer sees a novel food, they immediately say that it's a GMO.

On page 4 of the presentation you gave, Doctor, it says:

Additionally, food producers and manufacturers may voluntarily label foods as derived from (or not derived from) biotechnology, provided that the label is truthful and not misleading.

Boy, that's going to be some label, because at that point you're going to have to explain on the label that this product was a product of plant breeding, which is a novel food but not a GMO. How are you going to do that?

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: I'll take that one.

Of course what we've added to that is understandable, informative, and verifiable. Right now in law it would have to be not false and not misleading, and we've said that in order to have utility for the end user, mostly the consumer, it has to be understandable.

As I mentioned in my overheads, what people want to know is whether it is recombinant DNA only. Is it more than that? If it's more than that, what are the terms and standards? How do we verify what somebody is claiming? Can it be done? Obviously we think so, or we wouldn't have embarked on and endured this process.

Mr. Murray Calder: I look at this from this perspective. Within the poultry industry right now, for instance, we're becoming HACCP compliant. This very simply means that when the chicken comes on my farm, I track through very reliable records exactly what has happened to that bird until it exits my farm. I can also track records from the breeder flock and from the hatchery up until that point. Then the processor can pick up from my records and keep on going until it's basically from the gate to the plate. That's the system we're working on right now. I feel that's going to help us become ISO effective when we start shipping internationally on a larger scale than we're doing right now.

But the reason we're doing all of this is that the consumer is always right. That's the point, the bottom line here. The consumer is always right, even though, quite frankly, sometimes the consumer is wrong.

With all the stuff you have just explained right now, I think the consumer out on the street is going to very confused about this. How do we apply the KISS principle to labelling so that it is understandable and the consumer can look at the product and say, okay, I understand that? Right now I don't see it.

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: That is why we've taken a principles-based approach. We're considering things other than the physical label that could be affixed to a product. What are the other information sources that would provide that comfort? To view a label as the one and only place we can provide this information really makes it impossible. So what we're looking at, then, is what are the systems of information provision, whether it's in the stores or available through other bodies, that would help the consumer understand more fully what they are consuming.

Mr. Murray Calder: I have one final question.

What you're telling me is basically what I started with, which is that in order to give the full story on this label, it's going to be some label. So there has to be some sort of system set up now so that the consumer can take a label course in order to understand what in fact is on the label. Would I be right in assuming that?

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: Precisely.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Calder.

Dr. Murphy, you mentioned that your committee takes a principled approach. I understand that, but those principles—and I don't say this pejoratively—must be in accordance with voluntary labelling. In other words, the ultimate imperative, if I can put it this way, is that it has to be voluntary labelling and not mandatory. Would that be right?

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: What we're developing is a standard for the voluntary labelling of products. So it's the standard we're developing, and what the standard is going to be applied to is the labelling. So the principles of understandable, informative, verifiable, not false, and not misleading refer to the actual physical declarations, as well as guiding what the committee is going to look at to develop the standard. I think it's important to point out that what we're looking at here is the development of a standard, which is a document that lays out the practice that would relate to this.

• 1000

The Chair: But to serve voluntary labelling, as opposed to mandatory labelling.

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: Right now it's called the voluntary labelling of products.

The Chair: Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): To Ms. Murphy, what would be the key objections of your committee on mandatory labelling? What elements would you see as being the most difficult? Would it be the size of the label, as Mr. Calder has suggested? What would be your primary concerns?

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: Our body was set up to develop a standard that would look at voluntary labelling. Discussions on mandatory or whatever really don't impact the work of developing the standard.

Mr. Dick Proctor: So your committee never sits down and says, gee, what if the government said it has to be mandatory? What would we do? What are our arguments either for or against that?

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: Actually, that is what brought us to a principles-based approach. If 60-odd people, who volunteered their time to sit around a table for the length of time we've been meeting, felt that this was a one-shot, very narrow exercise, we probably would have been done by now, and we wouldn't have spent as much time working through the general principles. I look at the principles we've outlined, and I don't see that voluntary or mandatory, anything like that, is affected by it, because what we're developing is a standard or set of practices.

Mr. Dick Proctor: We've heard several times today the word “standard”. I'll ask Dr. Le Maguer. What's the difference between a standard and a guideline in this whole discussion? The argument is that a standard is something that can be taken to the WTO and used to enforce trading regulations, whereas a guideline would be a horse of another colour. Is that fair and reasonable?

Ms. Karen McIntyre: No. It's my understanding that the WTO does not distinguish between a Codex standard and a Codex guideline.

Mr. Dick Proctor: They're exactly the same.

Ms. Karen McIntyre: They're considered the same, yes.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Last week when Codex Alimentarius was here, it was mentioned that Norway and India said we need mandatory labelling of all foods derived from biotech without qualification. That's the one, I gather, that has now gone back to the committee that Canada chairs. What is the timeline on that? Is it a year? Has a further meeting been scheduled?

Ms. Karen McIntyre: The meetings haven't been scheduled, but the working group will put together a proposal that will be tabled at the Codex meeting in May 2001.

Mr. Dick Proctor: What other countries are members of that committee? I understand that Canada is the chair.

Ms. Karen McIntyre: There are a number of countries in that working group. I think last year there were 33 countries from all over the world, and this year it will be expanded to include India.

Mr. Dick Proctor: There's a reference in these notes saying that if it's an unsafe product or whatever, the labelling has to be on, but also if it's an enhanced product. Earlier we heard about rice that has a vitamin A component for third world countries. If we were talking about Canada, is this something that would require mandatory labelling?

Ms. Karen McIntyre: The novel foods regulations would include a product like that as well. That would be assessed for its safety and also for changes in nutritional quality. That sounds like the kind of product that would require mandatory labelling, even though we haven't reviewed such a product yet.

Mr. Dick Proctor: There are no products on the Canadian shelves right now that the department has said have to be labelled on nutritional qualities.

Ms. Karen McIntyre: That is correct. We haven't had a product that has been genetically modified to improve its nutritional quality.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Okay.

The Chair: Does “novel” simply mean introducing a new element, some kind of change? Is that what “novel” suggests?

Ms. Karen McIntyre: Yes, it does. It can be the introduction of a trait or some kind of change in the composition.

The Chair: Mr. McCormick, five minutes.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses. I'm sure we're going to see you back, whether or not it's during this time of the year.

• 1005

We've had biotechnology around for a couple of thousand years. I keep hearing that number. I also like the phrase people use when they say that what we call technology today used to be known as good science.

Today it was mentioned that one of the keys to this, which I don't argue against, is world trade. Canada is a trading nation and that's very important, but I think the number one key to this whole issue, on behalf of the producers and the consumers and all Canadians, is the assurance that we have a very healthy and safe product. I just wouldn't want to let it go by that Health Canada.... It's fine for you to look at polls and surveys, but I want you to assure us that you do not make decisions on your work based on polls or surveys. I'll give you that opportunity.

Also, one of the concerns we hear in the street is that we don't know the long-term effects of these GMO products. I'll offer that at this moment to you.

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: I can reassure you that on the first count, we do not follow the polls of the street. We deal very scientifically with the risk assessment and the risk management. I would like to take the opportunity at this point of mentioning as well the risk communication part of this, which is really very important and relates to many of these issues.

For example, the label is only an element of risk communication. Education is also a very important component, particularly as it relates to nutrition, as you would know, and diet. In the risk communication area, you have more tools than just the label to deal with the issues we're talking about today. That's important to recognize. It has to be politic, totally well positioned vis-à-vis the different elements. There can be different groups involved in the different parts of that risk communication area, but there are many elements that are important.

The second part of the question was...?

Mr. Larry McCormick: The public's concern about the long-term effects. We haven't been studying this forever. How can we reassure their concerns that they don't know what will happen from this? The headlines, to grab the public's attention on the front pages, are things like “The Monster, Frankenstein”.

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: I'll let Dr. Yan answer that.

Dr. William Yan: The safety assessment of all of these novel foods, which include GM foods, involves a whole series of questions that we ask. These are questions that would address potential toxicology questions, allergenicity, etc. Long-term effect is actually one of the questions we also ask, as stated in our guideline.

We look at each product on a case-by-case basis. The 43 foods that we have looked at up to now are what we call the first generation type of biotech products. They are derived from relatively simple, single-trait mutation or change in the plants. Based on this, they have not triggered a long-term study to be required. That being said, this is a rapidly moving technology. When the next wave of product comes in, we might have questions that we need to ask that can only be addressed by a long-term study. The company would have to carry out those studies before we would approve these products.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you. Generations will follow very shortly in this business.

Back to the trade, Europe has possibly put up barriers to protect their own products by talking about the GMOs. No, they wouldn't do that, but they have.

In the European Union, food and ingredients derived from GMOs are labelled as such if the GM modification is detectable. It makes me think of the rBST across the border, a few miles south of here. Is there a system that we could use or they could use to test for rBST?

This European system that protects them is pretty loose, and we have to have something better than this down the road. Are there systems in place or available that can detect whether GMs are included in the corn flakes? What percentage would have to be there before we could detect it, and so on?

The Chair: That will be the final answer in this round.

• 1010

Dr. William Yan: Currently there are technologies available to detect specific traits in a modified plant. The key there is threshold, because there has not been a generally agreed-upon standard of what the threshold should be. The sensitivities of these techniques are all different.

Mr. Larry McCormick: What percentage might that be?

Dr. William Yan: Different countries have different threshold standards. We can detect these things if we really try to do it. There are technologies available.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Casson.

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

I'd like to go to the other end of this issue. If indeed we go through all of the process and come up with the guidelines and standards, that could take up to 10 years. That's rather disturbing. What gives the government the power? Is there legislation in place that allows you to put mandatory labelling regulations out there? I'd like to know a little bit more about how that would be enacted, if that does exist and what it is.

Ms. Karen McIntyre: Our powers come from our Food and Drugs Act. Under that act we can require mandatory labelling for issues related to health and safety. However, we have no mandate under that act to require labelling for issues that are not related to health and safety, such as requiring mandatory labelling for a method of production. There are some legal considerations to do with our legislation when we're talking about imposing mandatory labelling for non-health and safety reasons.

Mr. Rick Casson: If you go through this process and we go through this process, we come up with a system. But then there's the statement that nobody in Canada or in the world has been proven to have fallen ill because of a genetically modified food product. Then where are we? If it doesn't fall under a health issue, then you can't implement the system. Is that correct?

Ms. Karen McIntyre: As our legislation is today, that is correct.

Mr. Rick Casson: So in order to do this, there would have to be some legislative changes if indeed it can't be proven that it is a health risk.

Ms. Karen McIntyre: Yes, this would have to be considered.

Mr. Rick Casson: I'm trying to get my head around voluntary and mandatory. What if I produce a product that I am very confident is not derived from a genetically modified plant or whatever at all and I just want to stick a label on that product saying this is GMO-free, period? We're saying now that we cannot do that until we have the standards of what GMO-free means. Just expand on that a little.

Ms. Karen McIntyre: Actually, right now manufacturers can voluntarily label products for those non-health and safety considerations. The food industry in general has said that in order to do that in a way that protects consumers ultimately.... I won't speak on behalf of food manufacturers, but it's inconceivable to me that somebody would label something and then get called on it. It's not in the interest of a manufacturer to label something that is going to be incorrect. Certainly that's not going to be false or misleading.

Right now there are no guidelines in place for those food manufacturers and end users to know what a label should say. For example, we don't see GM-free labels in the stores because the food industry, the producers and manufacturers, have felt that until there are some parameters or some guidelines for that, they're not going to embark upon that. There are no rules for the road here. Certainly they can label right now, but they are choosing not to because, again, they're not sure what the triggers would be for false and misleading labelling until the standard is developed.

Mr. Rick Casson: Okay.

We use the comparison between the health food product industry and the fact that they've created a niche for themselves—and doing it on a voluntary basis. Is there any comparison between labelling a product to say it's a natural remedy and labelling a product to say it's not genetically modified? Are there any comparisons or have there been discussions in your group about that?

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: The answer is no at this time. Because Health Canada has added the Office of Natural Health Products, that's certainly something that's going to be looked at from exactly the point of view of regulatory perspective. At this point it has been voluntary compared to what may be coming down the line.

• 1015

The Chair: Thank you.

We're out of time on this round. Now we go to Mr. McGuire.

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

To follow up with Mr. Yan about the testing, you say that GMOs can be tested. You can test the corn, but can you test the cornflake?

Dr. William Yan: Let me clarify that. Yes, there's a way to test the presence of a particular gene that you've inserted into a seed, or into corn, or a tomato, or a soya bean—at that level. But once it's been processed, then it becomes a lot more difficult. I don't think there's any currently acceptable method whereby we can say definitively they can be tested.

Mr. Joe McGuire: You mean it's destroyed during the processing.

Dr. William Yan: Right.

Mr. Joe McGuire: So how would you implement—

Dr. William Yan: That's the big question, because it's easy to say you want to have compulsory labelling, but if you're looking at the enforcement side, then there are a lot of challenges in doing that.

Mr. Joe McGuire: So you're studying what the Europeans are doing, and they're passing legislation on labelling and so on. Are they using any other methods besides the label, or as Mr. Calder said, do you have to have a booklet with each product? Are you looking at other ways to inform the consumer that products are genetically modified?

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: We're not. Again, I'll let Health Canada deal with what's happening in Europe. I just wanted to indicate that verification is not just testing. It can include audit trails and all kinds of other systems of certifying an end product. That's what our committee is looking at. What are the systems of verification that could include things like testing, but recognizing again with the cornflake that if you can't detect a protein then you can't test? What is a system we could use to say that, yes, this product was produced this way or not? So we're looking more broadly than just testing protocols for verification.

But I'll turn it over to them for comments on Europe.

Ms. Karen McIntyre: Thank you. It's my understanding that in Europe they're developing a negative list of products that don't have to be labelled for the very reasons you raised, because you cannot detect a protein or a foreign DNA. These are highly refined products such as sugars and oils.

So at this point their labelling requirements cover products for which there is detectable foreign DNA and/or protein in them.

Mr. Joe McGuire: They're having a great deal of difficulty, I'm told, implementing anything in Europe as far as labelling is concerned. They have legislation, but they really haven't figured out how to implement it. How do you think we'll be any more successful?

Ms. Karen McIntyre: This of course has been the challenge for them, because they implemented the legislation before they had worked out how they were going to enforce it. That is why we're learning from their mistakes and proceeding with much more caution in terms of how we're going to proceed.

Mr. Joe McGuire: So if 65% of the food products in the grocery store are already generally modified, has the horse left the barn? What are we doing?

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: The answer to that is the ones that have been approved from a health and safety perspective—

Mr. Joe McGuire: You leave them alone. It's anything new from here on in?

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: No, and they've been evaluated. So on that basis alone there is no risk, if you want, to the population from the health and safety point of view. That's the only legislation we have in place at this time, which is really the important part of approving any food product in the food chain to get on the market. You want to make sure that at least this component is absolutely secure, which it is.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McGuire.

[Translation]

Ms. Alarie.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I find the discussion somewhat biased. I'm sorry, but if people want to ask questions about Europe, we should bring in someone from the European Parliament to answer them.

When Kellogg decided to sell GMO-free products in Europe, that involved issues that went beyond labelling. Personally, I think we are making the discussion too simplistic.

• 1020

Ms. Murphy, I wanted to ask you a question. There are consumers, but there are also producers and retailers. Have you talked to them to see how many people would be ready to voluntarily label their products? People are wondering who will be the first to label a GMO product; after all, there is competition on the market. Will this topic be raised in your talks with producers?

[English]

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: I'm having a terrible time actually following you, so my apologies if I'm missing half of your question.

Right now, again, manufacturers can voluntary label. In the Maritimes about four years ago, there were potatoes that were voluntary labelled as produced from genetically modified potatoes. So manufacturers certainly are willing to do that.

What they've decided—and again I don't want to speak on their behalf, and I hope it's a group that you're going to invite—is that without some rules of the road explaining what we mean by genetically modified, what allowable statements will be, and will we have negative claims, for example, free versus contains.... Until those things have been sorted out by the collective food industry, I think the manufacturers and retailers have said that they don't want to embark upon a free-for-all of claims that may not be verifiable.

There are concerns about consumer fraud, because if somebody's making a claim they can't prove, where's the consumer protection in that? So I think it's been very prudent to answer some of the questions about how we're going to enforce before we say let's label.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Since I have a little time left, I will ask my questions on health, even though I would prefer to keep them for another day. I will ask them anyway, in case I don't get another chance.

You always talk about the health and safety of food products. After all, that is Canada's trademark, and that is how it should be. The work we are doing today is because we want to ensure that the principle of equivalency applies.

I do not have a Ph.D., but I am a consumer, and I am more curious than most. There is one thing that I find very surprising, and somewhat annoying. Your own deputy minister has said that you did not have the resources required to perform the tests that were needed. He said that before the Senate Committee on Agriculture. He should know what he is talking about.

There is a letter that has been signed by 200 specialists from your department. When an official signs a letter stating: “We are concerned”, I find myself becoming concerned as well. As we have said, there is nothing to be concerned about in the short term—after all, no one has died—but there are long-term concerns.

Whenever the issue is discussed at forums concerned with GMOs, we talk about the equivalency principle. Not everyone agrees on that. The discussions may be very interesting, but they are conducted among scientists. We listen to those who are in favour of GMOs, and find that what they say makes sense; then, we hear those who are against GMOs, and find that what they say makes sense as well.

What worries me is having no right to speak out in the future. We'll agree that no one has been gagged so far, but we cannot afford to have the slightest doubt, or to take the slightest risks, for the future. When I hear some very competent people on both sides of the issue, including some from your department, like those 200 officials, I become concerned.

Don't you feel concerned sometimes?

[English]

The Chair: This will be the final answer in this round.

Go ahead.

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: There are different parts to your question. First of all, without getting into the equivalence principle or the use of it in there, there is a process, though, that is very thorough in terms of what is actually evaluated on all these foods that are coming up for review, which is not done on the basis of equivalence simply with another one. You're going to take all the characteristics that may have to be changed, and they will be required to be tested with protocols and against scientific data available in the literature that has been screened and validated through peer review. You will look at all these components systematically in the food from the toxicological aspect, the nutrition part, the effect it would have in animal trials and so forth. You will truly evaluate the characteristics of that new food as long as there are differences or there are characteristics that have changed through the process. This is very varied, but in a way it's described in the guidelines and the protocols we follow.

But the point is that we use all the available, if you want, scientific data that exists in the literature, plus the ones we have ourselves, in order to evaluate these submissions. So that's one part where equivalence, as you said, is under debate in terms of defining what is the component of the food we should be looking at in terms of the risk it may create, versus the part that is already known from previous studies or the use of that particular food. That's what true equivalence means in practical terms rather than simplified ways.

• 1025

In regard to your point about how confident you can be in the system we have in place, which is the second part of your question, I can say that particularly in the Food Directorate, where we are responsible for many of these particular activities, there has been over the last few years an increase in the capacity, both on the scientific and the submission evaluation side as well, of that directorate to be able to address many of these areas, such as biotechnology, that are coming up. It doesn't mean we've not done the work before, but it was under conditions that may not have been ideal. But certainly from a scientific point of view on the evaluation side, we've not sacrificed that.

What we have now is gearing up as well for new areas in the science capacity—and this is more the ministry as well as the directorate and the branches—in order to expand the knowledge base that is necessary in order to address many of these new areas that are coming up, because there are also other areas we have to look at.

So what I would like to say is that you can be confident that the work that has been done was good and is secure, and the investment the Government of Canada has made, and specifically in that particular branch, is also going to have much more impact on the rate at which we can deal with these problems—a greater number of them. It's a capacity issue rather than a quality issue. So we may have taken longer to do the evaluations than would have been the case, but we would never sacrifice the security or safety issue in the process of doing that. So what it has created is more delays rather than no quality on the product that was coming up.

The Chair: Thank you.

I allowed Dr. Le Maguer to give a long answer to that, Madam Alarie. We went almost four minutes.

I would suggest to the witnesses to take a look at me once in a while, because going over three or four minutes is really not acceptable.

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: Yes, I'm sorry.

The Chair: Mr. Steckle.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): In my comments I'd like to say that I appreciate your coming here this morning.

And knowing that Dr. Murphy's husband is a farmer, I find good company around that table. I'm sure that from time to time there are differences of opinion perhaps even between your views and your husband's views.

Health and safety certainly is the primary reason we're together in doing this exercise. But I'm wondering, if there are no allergens found in a product, is that product then deemed to be safe? I'd like a quick answer, please.

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: That's only a component of the evaluation, because there's the nutritional value and there are other things.

Mr. Paul Steckle: But from a health and safety perspective, that conclusively is a safe product if there are no allergens found.

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: As I said, on the health and safety side we look at more than allergens; there is toxicology and nutrition as well.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Since it's such a complex issue and this is going to go on forever...and in fact if I was probably going to invest in a business today, I would invest in the business of developing kiosks, and I would put a kiosk in every major supermarket in the country, where people could go and investigate for themselves as they entered the store. This may be a good business to get into.

But very conclusively, I think if I take one thing from this meeting this morning, it's two responses you have given, Dr. Le Maguer, on the issue of whether anyone in the world has ever been known to become sick because of a mutation change in a plant or product—obviously no one.

• 1030

We're living in a society where every time we go outside we breathe air that we are told is unsafe for us to breathe. We stand next to someone who is smoking. We go onto the highway, where someone may be over-intoxicated, either with drugs or with alcohol. It's a very unsafe world we're living in. Every time we move in this world, we come next to someone who may cause us some harm.

We're spending a lot of effort on doing this, and I'm really not sure that anyone at the end of the day is going to be any safer for it. But here's what I'm wondering: where does the credibility of a Dr. Suzuki of this world come from, based on the fact that you've just told us this? He tells us that we could be in danger because of some of the products we're consuming. Why is it that consumers have their faith placed in a Dr. Suzuki when in fact there is no conclusive evidence to support the kinds of things he's saying?

I say this not to be negative to Dr. Suzuki, because I watch his program and I think he's a great scientist. But why is it that Canadians place their faith in certain individuals and there's no regard given to the fact that there's no conclusive evidence that by consuming these products...? The same people who tell us we shouldn't be using these products eat seedless grapes and they eat tangelos, and all of these things have been modified.

I also wonder if those people who make these statements have ever given any regard to the fact that if we were to go to the issue of organic farming, how many more countries we would need to feed the world....

Those were a lot of questions and a lot of comments, but can you give me some summary answer to that?

The Chair: You have about two and a half minutes.

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: Again, on the development of a standard, that's why we have looked at more than just “not false” and “not misleading”; it has to be understandable and it has to be informative. Those two words, I think, come to what you're saying. This is a very heavily science-driven discussion that we're having. The majority of the Canadian population isn't able to have it at the level of the doctors of the world, so communicators who are effective in bringing to people messages that they can understand obviously are listened to a lot more easily than people who talk a lot about heavy science.

So again, that's why part of the development of the standard has been to accept the reality that it has to be understandable and informative as well as truthful and not misleading.

Mr. Paul Steckle: But is it fair that a Dr. Suzuki could convince so many people that what we in the primary producing sector are doing may be harmful to their health when in fact there's no conclusive evidence of anything of the sort?

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: I'm not going to comment specifically on this, but what I will say is that the guidelines that were established to do these evaluations were based on scientific principles that are recognized at the world level; they were done from consultation on a scientific basis. In fact, on the risk assessment side, all the countries in the world agreed that there is no risk. That is an accepted fact. What you're dealing with is a risk management side, which follows the risk assessment, in which countries then will introduce other components in order to manage that.

Regarding your comment with respect to Dr. Suzuki, these guidelines, for example, are available and are made available on the web. They can be obtained. We've always asked whoever was interested in making comments.... This is open for comments from the public, scientists, and others. This is the place where they can come and poke holes and say “This has not been used.”

Now, what you're talking about, the other one, is the public place and a public perception and how you deal with the risk communication side of the issue there, which is the other area I mentioned before. That's where debate—but proper debate, in a way—with all the parties around the table is needed to discuss these in an independent forum.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hilstrom.

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

I'd like to continue with this communication issue, because it has certainly been an important one. The scaremongering and the misinformation out there has been of great concern to me. When the CBC ran their articles on the radio some months ago, along with Dr. Suzuki literally scaring the hell out of everybody, I wrote a letter to the CBC informing them that they should also have people like you on the program, which they never did do.

• 1035

Dr. Suzuki and I have corresponded a few times over these issues. The other day the Canadian Food Inspection Agency people were in before our committee. Dr. Suzuki was quoted in an article, and I read out the exact, precise quote from him and asked the CFIA people what they thought of that. Their opinion was that these are broad, generalized statements that you can't really pin down. But they give the impression that in fact there's something drastically wrong, that people should be avoiding this, they should be scared of this.

I would encourage communication from the federal government and private industry, putting out the full facts and the type of information you're giving us here today. I hope we can communicate that. That is what's wrong with what's been going on.

These special interest groups that run down to the supermarkets and stand in front with their frankenfood humps on their backs or whatever they do to try to look like a tomato, they are doing this simply as a fundraising effort and to try to scare people into providing money for their organization. That really, really bothers me. I would really....

What I'm trying to do myself, in my own constituency and across the country when I speak, is to bring out the very fact that people have not gotten sick from this. There is no concern. Our food supply is safe. It's being monitored constantly and there is nothing to be afraid of in our food supply. Certainly continuing to look at things and continuing our processes is the right thing to do.

All that being said, your organization has a budget. How big is the budget for the voluntary labelling of foods committee? Just a dollar figure. Is it not just a simple dollar figure for the last fiscal year?

The Chair: Patricia, do you want to answer that? Are you the treasurer of this group?

Ms. Patricia Dolhan (Acting Secretary, Committee on Voluntary Labelling of Food Obtained or Not Obtained Through Genetic Modification, Canadian General Standards Board): The ballpark figure for this past year is about $75,000. We set up project agreements every year, line out the steps that we expect to cover through the year, and then we negotiate with the project sponsors to come to a figure. For the last fiscal year it was about $75,000.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's great. Thank you.

With the makeup of your committee now, you indicated that some groups didn't want to participate. I'd like you to tell me exactly what reasons they gave for not wanting to participate in this consensus thing.

Can you also just mention a couple of the names of the farm groups that are representing farmers? Producers are a key component of anything, and part of our hearings are going to be into the economic impacts on them at a later point. Can you answer those questions?

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: I certainly can answer that.

Actually, we'll provide copies of the list to the committee. For example, among the producer groups we have the Canola Council of Canada, the Canadian Horticultural Council, Ontario Corn Producers, the Canadian Wheat Board, Manitoba Food Processors, Ontario Soybean Growers, and Dairy Farmers of Canada. Again, we're very much trying to capture the entire food matrix within the Canadian food industry.

I think Patricia has the letter that was submitted to the first meeting.

Ms. Patricia Dolhan: The letter was addressed to Minister Rock, Minister Vanclief, and Minister Manley. The first paragraph says:

We, the undersigned, object to the purpose and process of the Committee on Voluntary Labelling of Foods Obtained Through Biotechnology. We would welcome meaningful dialogue on this issue, but we do not share the Committee's goals. The premise of the Committee is to protect the biotech industry and to deny consumers the information they demand.

They go on to say they would really prefer mandatory labelling rather than voluntary labelling.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Who wrote that? Who signed that?

Ms. Patricia Dolhan: There were 21 organizations. The signatory list includes Action Réseau Consommateur, FoodShare, Greenpeace, Canadian Health Coalition, Canadian Labour Congress, David Suzuki, Sierra Club.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That's fine. Thanks.

The Chair: At some point we'll actually hear from a representative of that coalition of 20 or 21.

Just before we go to Dr. Bennett—we even have doctors on our side too, Dr. Murphy—you were mentioning that so much of this issue has to do with labelling, mandatory or voluntary, being science-based. That's understandable. But would you agree that part of the struggle is communication and what you might call public relations?

• 1040

There is, for example, the issue of threshold or tolerance. I'm sure you will struggle with that particular issue for some time. But let me offer you a hypothetical. If, for example, from a scientific approach you and many others agreed to a certain level of tolerance—let's say it's one part per million or per trillion of GMO—for those people who, for whatever reason, look upon GMOs as being something almost toxic, if you put on a label that a product contained one part per million or per trillion of what is to them toxin as opposed to GMO, they would say, “I'm not going to have anything to do with that. I'm not going to buy that. It has a little trace of something that I don't like.” How do you deal with that?

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: I think the first thing to realize is that there is choice in the marketplace. I think somebody said that 70% of the products in the grocery store are genetically modified, and that's not precisely true. It's about 70% of further processed products that would contain either corn, soybean, or canola as one of the ingredients. So there are lots of primary basic food groups that have no genetic modification, no rDNA, at all. When we get to what's fact versus rhetoric, I think that's where some of the consumer choice issues get answered.

I'm allergic to a lot of things, so I buy a lot of basic products. I don't buy a lot of further processed foods. I know that in Canada there are no genetically modified fruits or vegetables in the marketplace, so I have no concerns at all about consuming fruits and vegetables. With regard to canola oil, because there's no protein in it, I'm not concerned about that. Those are personal statements.

How to communicate something that is so complex and to look at your food and try to understand how science developed that, as Dr. Le Maguer said, is a huge challenge. That's why what we want to look at is information that is both understandable and informative. If a label is going to say “GMO-free” and the definition of that excludes a whole bunch of things that intuitively sound to me like genetic modification, then consumers are going to perceive that to be either fraudulent or misleading. So there are a lot of different things that play around what you want to say as a label statement.

I don't know if I'm answering directly, but what I'm trying to give you is a flavour of all the different aspects that go into something very simple, like making a statement.

The Chair: Is there not a resistance to the notion of putting any kind of threshold or tolerance on a label for public perusal? One part per million or one part per trillion may be absolutely safe to you as one person, but you might also know or feel that if you put that information on a label, some people are going to react negatively. It becomes a communication problem or a PR problem.

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: Certainly, and we can look at examples in the Canadian marketplace where this has been addressed. Maybe Karen McIntyre can address this.

We have fat-free labels in Canada that have up to 0.5% fat allowable in the product, so consumers already can buy something that's “free” but has a tolerance or threshold level in it. That concept is already in the marketplace, and we're not proposing to do anything that takes people in a new direction. There are other labels that have tolerances and thresholds built into them.

The Chair: Dr. Bennett. Five minutes, Carolyn.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Thank you.

Obviously there are a lot of groups who think they should be mandatory, and indeed that's what the study of this committee is.

When we were doing the natural health products study and we looked at labelling, we looked at some international models where there were labels that said “this may contain”. In terms of a mandatory standard, I'm wondering what any of the groups would feel about a mandatory label that said “this definitely doesn't contain GMOs” and “this may contain”.

• 1045

Certainly the people who have come to my office are worried about choice. They're worried about whether or not they want to be part of this big experiment.

I think there is some credence in the difference between saying something is safe and saying that at this time we have no evidence to show that it's dangerous. Sometimes safety can only be proven over the long term. The people who choose to take a more conservative view are asking for help.

Obviously all of the comprehensive work done on the voluntary side is interesting, but I would like to know what your opinion would be in terms of a mandatory label that said “this definitely doesn't” or “this may”.

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: I'll take that first.

I don't know if you were here when I walked through what are the principles, but by taking a principles-based approach that says there are principles that we feel this standard should have, which are understandable, informative, verifiable, not false, and not misleading, those to me apply certainly to a mandatory-type case. For someone to state that something definitely has this, except with these qualifiers, that “unless it was mixed up” or “because I can't detect it” or something, what are the definitions that support that kind of statement? That's very much the approach we have taken. In order to make a statement that something either is GM-free or contains an rDNA protein, what is the standard of verification that goes along with that? How do you prove it, how do you explain it, and how are we going to enforce that what you're saying is actually true? That to me works in mandatory as well.

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: First, there's something to understand as it relates to the Food and Drugs Act from a legal perspective and also its application, which is that labelling is not a substitute for safety. No product gets on the market that shouldn't be on the market, label or no label. That's very important in terms of approving anything that goes on the market.

A label is added to communicate maybe to some specific groups, allergens or others, that there is something associated with that, which is not for the general population. So it's specific communication that you attempt with a label. That's mandatory as well from the health and safety perspective. I think these two points are important when we try to put things in perspective. From the food perspective, nothing goes on the market that has not been assessed and approved, independent of the label that may be put on it later for other reasons.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: But until we can deal with the tsunami wave of consumer concern in terms of this informed choice that people feel they deserve, is there a place for a GMO-free label or an area of the supermarket that is—

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: Like organic.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Like supposedly organic, natural, mild, or all of the other things we have trouble with? How do we solve this problem around informed choice for the people who still aren't sure?

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: Going back to, for example, the organic, you have the Codex Alimentarius labelling committee, which has dealt very specifically with that category of product in defining what goes on the label in terms of public communication. It deals with the safety side of things, as well as fraud. That is one of the international committees that deal with that, and that's where genetically modified foods are—

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Is that enforceable and working, all the reasons we're told we can't lose?

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: Usually it's attached to methodology and others that would be used to enforce it. Those components are part of it.

The Chair: Thank you. We'll leave it at that.

Madam Alarie.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: A few moments ago, you said that a committee had been established at the Codex Alimentarius to study possible compromises between the US position and the European position.

• 1050

We now have a great many committees dealing with the issue, but I wonder whether they communicate with one another. Ms. Murphy, were you on that committee? Will you be receiving an invitation from the Codex Alimentarius?

The Minister tells us that his committee has done one thing, while another Minister tells us that his committee has done another thing. I believe that some five or six ministers have each established a committee. The work of the Codex Alimentarius bodes well for the future. I would like to know how their work ties in with your committee's, and how those efforts will result in the establishment of standards.

[English]

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: At every one of our meetings we get an update report about what other activities are happening, both within Canada and internationally. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which has the non-health and safety labelling, is looking to the work of the standards-setting committee before they do anything else. Within Canada, the standards-setting committee is the one that is doing the active work. Through our representation, by having a CFIA representative at the table, we get information about what else is happening in Canada and around the world.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Is there someone with an overview of all that? Is there someone responsible for managing information generated by the Codex Alimentarius?

[English]

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: I can answer that partially, as it relates to health and safety issues.

[Translation]

When it comes to food safety and health, the Government of Canada's position prevails at all international committees on which we represent Canada. The committees established within Canada represent government departments, and other parties engaged in the discussion. As with the Codex Alimentarius. At present, Canada has two important committees within the Codex Alimentarius: one deals with genetically modified foods, while the other—the one we were talking about—deals with labelling. Though these are separate committees, they have a common position.

We bring together all participants and departments, including Environment, Agriculture and Health. Regardless of who makes up the committees, we have the flexibility we need to define their positions. There is a consensus.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: You have two minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: But this is wonderful!

I had many other questions. There are two philosophies here: one is health and safety, as it should be, and the other is costs. We are told that all this will be very costly, but we never know exactly how costly.

Is there some way of putting a figure on this? Ms. Murphy, does your committee consider cases where mandatory labelling has already been imposed, where I imagine monitoring and sampling systems have already been set up? If we establish a mandatory, or even voluntary, labelling system, we will need monitoring mechanisms as well. Has anyone assessed what these systems might cost?

[English]

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: The groups include the food manufacturers and commercial products people. These are the people, like the Krafts and the Kelloggs, who take food ingredients and have to move them through the system. There are primary producers and there are the people who control the products from the primary producers. All those people have had to work with different systems and are looking at this within that light.

People move canola from the Prairies to an oil manufacturer, who then sends it to somebody who turns it into salad dressing oil. Those people are represented on our committee. We are assured at every meeting about costs and how we have to understand that economics is part of a labelling or information regime.

Internationally, when there are studies that look at the cost of different systems, that information is brought to our table as well. So it is a consideration.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Hilstrom says he has a short question, so we'll finish with him.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Yes, it's very short, and it gets back to communications a bit.

I believe you're all doctors of medicine, genetics, and agriculture. That's your expertise, I understand.

• 1055

On the question of communications, we hear about the experiment. We heard of that today in this committee hearing, this GMO experiment. As part of government and as part of the professional facilities, have any of you ever heard of any experiments being conducted on the Canadian consumer of GMO foods? Is there such an experiment on the go? Because this is what we hear from the broad-based statements.

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: The answer is no. And I may use the opportunity to add that there has been in place since last April, as created by Minister Rock, the Office of Consumer Affairs and Public Involvement, which is beginning to work full-fledged exactly on that risk communication part of consumer and public involvement in debating these issues. So this is a piece of that puzzle. The answer to the other one is no.

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

The Chair: Thank you.

I think Mr. Calder had a short one, as well.

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes. We've used this terminology of being GMO-free and we've kicked it around quite a wee bit. I would like to know what in fact would fall into that category, given the fact, for instance, that I could say I'm selling organically grown canola, which would fall underneath the category of novel and which would come under the category of GMO. So what products do we have out there that have not been subjected to plant breeding, grafting, cross-pollination, that would fall under the category of novel and that in fact would be GMO-free?

Dr. Marc Le Maguer: I can think of one. I think it's the fat substitutes that are in the novel food category but are not made using any of these processes. It's a new particular complement. And there are new processes used for pasteurization that fall under the category of novel. So those are two categories. So there are three categories, as was mentioned before, under novel food, and GMO is only one of those.

Mr. Murray Calder: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Dr. Murphy, you wanted to say something?

Dr. Lee Anne Murphy: Yes. I want to add to this that, again, it is really one of the points of very strong discussion within the development of the standard. Does genetically modified only mean rDNA, or does it mean more than that? And that is a point where what the committee has agreed to do is examine both. If we mean recombinant DNA, this is what it captures within that basket. If it's more than that—is it more than just novel foods, is it everything that was ever modified so that its inheritable traits are changed?—it has obviously a very big impact on what you can either state or claim.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Calder. Thanks, members. Thank you to the witnesses.

I think we've had a pretty good start today. This is the first of many discussions on this rather broad topic. I don't know where the discussions will take us, but stay tuned. Thank you again.

This meeting is adjourned.