HEAL Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 12, 2002

Á

1105

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.))

Dr. Arnold Naimark (Chair, Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee)

Á

1110

The Chair

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks (Co-Chair, Project Steering Committee on the Regulation of Genetically Modified Food, Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee)

Á

1115

Á

1120

Dr. Peter Phillips (Co-Chair, Project Steering Committee on the Regulation of Genetically Modified Food, Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee)

Á

1125

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks

Mr. Merrifield

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Arnold Naimark

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Arnold Naimark

Á

1135

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Arnold Naimark

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Peter Phillips

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni, Canadian Alliance)

Dr. Arnold Naimark

Á

1140

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Peter Phillips

Dr. Arnold Naimark

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Arnold Naimark

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Arnold Naimark

Dr. Peter Phillips

The Chair

Mr. Ménard

Á

1145

Dr. Arnold Naimark

Mr. Réal Ménard

Dr. Arnold Naimark

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks

M. Réal Ménard

Dr. Peter Phillips

Á

1150

M. Réal Ménard

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks

The Chair

Mr. Castonguay

Dr. Arnold Naimark

Á

1155

Dr. Peter Phillips

Mr. Castonguay

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Ms. Scherrer

Â

1200

Ms. Suzanne Hendricks

Ms. Scherrer

Dr. Arnold Naimark

Â

1205

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

Â

1210

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Arnold Naimark

Â

1215

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Arnold Naimark

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Peter Phillips

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Peter Phillips

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Â

1220

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Ms. Scherrer

Â

1225

Dr. Peter Phillips

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Dr. Peter Phillips

Ms. Scherrer

Dr. Peter Phillips

Â

1230

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Â

1235

Dr. Peter Phillips

The Chair

Dr. Peter Phillips

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Â

1240

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

Dr. Arnold Naimark

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

---

NUMBER 061

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 12, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's my pleasure to call this meeting to order.

    Before we start the business of the agenda, I want to alert committee members that I have before me two notices of motion, which we will try to do on Thursday, because, as you recall, there's a 48-hour notice period.

    One is from Mr. Merrifield of the Canadian Alliance, who moves:

That Dr. Alan Bernstein, President of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, be called to appear before the Committee to explain why the CIHR ignored Parliament by imposing new guidelines on embryonic stem cell research just prior to the introduction of legislation, and to justify the contradictions between the Standing Committee Report and the new guidelines.

    We will debate that on Thursday.

    We have a second one from Mr. Ménard of the Bloc Québécois, who moves:

That witnesses be given ten (10) minutes for opening statement and, that during the questioning of witnesses there be an allocated seven (7)minutes for the questioners of the parties in the following order: the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, the Coalition PC-DR and the Liberal Party and that thereafter five (5) minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between opposition and government parties, at the discretion of the Chair.

    Mr. Ménard is trying to put a little more structure into our questioning procedures. You will get copies of this, in French and English, from our clerk, Mr. Richard Rumas, who is replacing our usual clerk. Mr. Rumas will be replacing Mr. Sokolyk for the next three meetings.

     In addition to that notice of motion, which you will receive and I hope you will think about and be prepared to debate on Thursday, we will move to today's agenda. We have before us the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee and its chairperson, Dr. Naimark. He is accompanied by Dr. Phillips, who is the co-chair of the project steering committee on GMO foods. We also have Suzanne Hendricks, who is the co-chair of that same committee.

     Welcome, Dr. Naimark and friends. We invite you to begin your presentation.

    Dr. Arnold Naimark (Chair, Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair. We're pleased that we are here today, and not on Thursday.

    The Chair: Lucky you.

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: I'll make a few introductory remarks, if I may, and then call upon my colleagues to amplify a couple of areas. Then we'd be pleased to answer questions and participate in discussion.

    I won't go into the background of CBAC, our organization, because that's probably in the materials you have available to you.

    In August of last year we released our interim report on improving the regulation of genetically modified and other novel foods in Canada. That report contained 5 general and 24 specific recommendations addressing the organization and administration of the regulatory system, the monitoring of long-term health and environmental impacts, the transparency of the regulatory system, and requirements for informed consumer choice and environmental stewardship.

    After we released our report, we invited comments from all who are interested, on all aspects of our report, and we will be taking those into account when we prepare our final report, which is scheduled for release later this spring.

    Many of the comments we've received focus on one of our draft recommendations having to do with labelling of GM foods as one of the aspects involved in facilitating informed consumer choice. That recommendation stated that the government should ensure the development of an approach to labelling regarding genetic modification that is effective in helping Canadians to make informed choices. That should include developing a set of clear labelling criteria regarding GM content in food; ensuring that any label statements are verifiable; and implementing the standard voluntarily, at least initially, to test its adequacy and effectiveness, and widely promote its use so that people have real opportunities to make informed choices. We indicated that if a voluntary approach did not succeed even though there was evidence that it was important in the matter of choice, a mandatory labelling scheme would be considered.

    I want to emphasize that our final recommendations have not yet been formulated. However, we believe it would be of interest to this committee to know the considerations that led us to our draft recommendations, since they may be relevant to your own deliberations on this issue.

    I should also say by way of explanation that our main focus in our deliberations has been future oriented; that is, our concern was the regulatory system and its capacities for dealing with products in the pipeline or that are likely to be developed as a result of rapid advances in biological sciences.

    Since labelling of all foods, including genetically modified foods, is already required for reasons of health--for example, to disclose allergens or significant nutritional change--the issue becomes largely one of labelling for purposes of providing consumers with information to support their choices based on considerations other than known risks to health. One of the problems is that discussions of labelling of GM foods are sometimes confused because some people use the term “GM food” believing it means that the product actually consumed contains abnormal substances, substances resulting from genetic modification, while others use it in a more general sense to mean food derived from modified plants regardless of whether or not there are abnormal substances in the product being consumed. It is important to keep those two issues clear.

    In order for labelling to serve the purpose of informing consumer choice effectively, it must be meaningful; that is, the label needs to convey useful information in an understandable fashion, and it must be based on a rational standard, compliance with which can be verified by objective testing. It is important to realize that those requirements apply to both voluntary and mandatory labelling.

Á  (1110)  

    Effective labelling, as a means of distinguishing between genetically modified and non-GM foods, presupposes that there is an adequate system for segregating GM crops from non-GM crops and that this identity distinction can be preserved through all of the steps leading to the production of the consumable foodstuffs. Moreover, it presupposes there are mechanisms to identify that this identity has been preserved. Clearly, there are substantial costs associated with meeting with what we have referred to as “conditions precedent to labelling”.

    Whether labelling of GM foods should be voluntary or mandatory is a contentious question. Among the trade-offs that need to be considered is the potential impact of the labelling machine on international trade. There are concerns on the part of many that mandatory labelling for reasons other than health and safety may in fact contravene international agreements and lead to countervail measures by certain of our trading partners. On the other hand, some other trading partners may actually require mandatory labelling. Clearly, if we could work toward an agreed-upon international standard, the negative trade consequences of mandatory labelling would be avoided.

    While it has been argued that mandatory labelling is required for monitoring of long-term health effects of foods derived from GM crops, it's clear from our preliminary examination of this matter that mandatory labelling is not sufficient and perhaps not even necessary for such monitoring. The real challenges lie in designing a monitoring system that actually works and that is not prohibitively expensive to implement. There are initiatives exploring these issues underway now, both in Canada and abroad.

    It's on the basis of these foregoing points that our draft recommendations emphasize the development of a rigorous, effective labelling standard. We see the establishment of a voluntary system as a means to test the efficacy of the standard to allow time for working toward an international agreement, to avoid trade action in the interim, and to support consumer choice at reasonable cost.

     Now, Madam Chair, with your permission, I'll call upon Suzanne Hendricks to speak a little more about the consumer interest. She'll be followed by Peter Phillips, who will talk about the economics issues, the conditions precedent, and trade considerations.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Hendricks.

[Translation]

    Ms. Suzanne Hendricks (Co-Chair, Project Steering Committee on the Regulation of Genetically Modified Food, Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee): Thank you, Madame Chair.

    In order to take into consideration the viewpoint or the perspective of consumers, our committee asked itself some questions and really wanted to be able to identify what the nature of their concerns was and what was the basis for these concerns. Having established this backdrop, the committee asked itself to what extent labelling could provide a satisfactory response to these concerns, taking into account their merits.

    If we look at the nature of consumer concerns, we see that consumers essentially want to be in a position to make choices that respect their values and their beliefs. Some consumers want to be able to base their food consumption on products that contain no GMOs. Consumers also want to have access to the information, including labelling, necessary for them to make their choices. I think that Einsiedel, who prepared a research report for us, described that information very clearly.

    Consumers also want access to products that contain no GMOs in order to be able to feed themselves according to their convictions. They consider labelling to be a mechanism, a means of access to these products. Finally, we can assume that consumers wish to be able to benefit from this option at a reasonable cost.

    We are now going to examine the reasons that lead consumers to require or demand labelling. Consumers demand, above all, the ability to make independent choices for numerous reasons which reflect their convictions and their values and which are not necessarily the same for each individual. There are, therefore, a great number of reasons. I won't make a complete listing but I think it is important to highlight the range of these reasons.

    First of all, some people fear the potential, long-term effects of GMOs, either on health or on the environment. For example, they are concerned about allergies, a change or a decline in biodiversity or long-distance pollenization, which we would be unable to identify. Others demonstrate a fundamental opposition to any genetic modification. Still others invoke socio-economic considerations, the effects on small farmers, for example, whether in Canada or in developing countries. Others oppose the concentration of corporate power in the industries which develop these products. Others are asking themselves questions about the value added to these products. Still others are wondering about the overall effects on the Canadian economy. Finally, others invoke issues which we could consider as being of a moral or ethical dimension. For example, they wonder if there is an equitable sharing of the risks and the benefits of these products. Some people will state, for example, that the benefits of products already on the market, go largely to the corporations which developed these products, while the risks, if there are any, would be shared by the population as a whole. Another of their concerns is respecting the rights of the aboriginal peoples.

    Consumers maintain, therefore, that they have a right to have access to the information needed to be able to make informed decisions. They are not just asking for labelling, they are also asking for information.

Á  (1115)  

Many consumers are well aware of the complexity of these factors and the need to be better informed in order to make decisions.

    In reality, consumers respect diversity and recognize that they are not all in agreement on the same points and that they have different demands. They recognize the need to allow access to GMO-free products to those who want them, even among those persons who have no objection to consuming GMOs. They say that they are ready to consume them, but they also believe that people who wish to abstain should be able to abstain.

    Consumers, as I have already said, consider labelling to be an essential element to exercising their freedom of choice. Most believe that labelling should be mandatory. I want to emphasize the fact that this demand also reflects a certain loss of confidence in the system as a whole, and is part of the call for a generally more transparent system.

    Having described consumer concerns and the basis for these concerns, we can now ask ourselves to what extent would labelling meet these needs. Mr. Thompson, who is also one of the researchers on which the committee relied for its recommendations, emphasized the following fact:

    

A system which does not allow consumers to feed themselves based on their convictions and values compromises the principle of autonomy and respect for diversity.

    In that sense, the committee recognizes that labelling is a tool which allows consumers to exercise an enlightened choice, but it also recognizes that, on one hand, labelling by itself is not enough and that, on the other hand, labelling will only be able to fulfill its role if it is fair, not misleading, understandable, verifiable and, finally, if it is adopted by a reasonable number of stakeholders in the food chain.

    Therefore, the CBAC insisted on the necessity of formulating a rigorous labelling standard, as Dr. Naimark mentioned. It also insisted on the necessity of promoting it so that it would be adopted at a certain scale. The committee believes that voluntary labelling should allow, first of all, the standard to be put to the test and to measure its relevance and its effectiveness. It should also make it possible to clearly identify a sufficient range of GMO-free products, thereby offering an option to consumers somewhat like the situation with what are known as organic products. If the measures should proof to be ineffective, the committee has suggest that we then contemplate mandatory labelling.

    Before closing my brief presentation, I would like to say that since labelling is not an instrument which allows consumers to choose, the committee has issued a number of recommendations intended to promote access to information, transparency, research development and facilitate the dialogue and the integration of the ethical and social considerations I have just talked about, in setting policies for GMOs.

    I would like to ask my colleague, Peter, to speak to you about other aspects of this issue.

Á  (1120)  

[English]

    Dr. Peter Phillips (Co-Chair, Project Steering Committee on the Regulation of Genetically Modified Food, Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee): Let me touch on three things that relate to our considerations on the choice of labelling system. My portion of the presentation, in perhaps three minutes, will attempt to touch on three areas. There is the impact of labelling on our trading regime and our ability to trade the food we produce and consume right now, on the organizations in the domestic industry, and on the cost of the food system we now have.

    I think it is important to remember that the GM foods we now have in the market are very narrowly produced, in three or four countries at most, in commercial quantities that are extensively exported. Up to 80% of the world trade in the product lines is from countries that produce genetically modified foods. Our single largest trading partner, the United States, is one that is involved in the production and use of genetically modified foods.

    We are heavily integrated in the agrifood chain. The ability to satisfy our consumers with the variety, choice, and price of food that we now have depends upon our access to, and our ability to use, the international markets.

    I think our food deliberations have satisfied us that mandatory labels, if we were to pursue that route, would be actionable. It would likely be subject to an adverse decision that would affect our market access and could cause other actions against us. It would undoubtedly complicate our relations with our major trading partner, the United States. It would complicate the access of our food into their market, and vice versa, as we try to satisfy our consumers in periods when we don't actually produce many of the foods available.

    Quite frankly, I don't think it would improve the marketing of our products in the international marketplaces. There is no single standard out there against which you can shoot. Setting a mandatory system in Canada, regardless of what we set, wouldn't necessarily meet, or match up with, the needs for market access into other markets.

    Voluntary labels that we viewed would probably be legal under international law. There are many of them already. They would be flexible enough to perhaps enhance the marketing efforts of our agrifood industry in Canada.

    The second issue we looked at was what our submission calls “conditions precedent”. I like to call it the organization of the domestic industry. There is one point that has to be pretty clear. Although there are countries around the world that say they are labelling, there are very few systems actually functioning. In fact, I'm attributed as the source of much of the information.

    The ones that are there are not fully fledged systems. In many cases, there is no GM element available in the domestic marketplace. They've stopped it at the border. It's very easy to manage a system when you don't have domestic production potentially commingling and creating complications in the marketplace. No single country that has proposed a labelling system, to this point, produces GM goods. They are all the importing countries. Australia has introduced a law, but the only GM crop it produces is cotton, which is not consumed in any significant quantities.

    The complexities of changing a domestic marketing system have not been examined by anyone yet. They've had the luxury of going to third markets where there are GM-free products. Until you get one of those systems, it's very hard to tell what kinds of changes will be required.

    In the Canadian system, we have a very complex and, for the most part, very efficient bulk handling and food processing system. It is based on a couple of criteria that are inimical to the identity preservation that may be required to manage a food system. We have bulk handling on farms. We have a bulk handling system in our transportation and storage system. Our wholesaling system is bulk driven. Much of the processing of the world is highly efficient and uses component parts rather than identity-preserved inputs.

    Changing the system will not be simple. In fact, most of the identity-preserved change that has been developed to date has avoided the system completely. They have created a special purpose system. We are not sure at this point what changes would be required in a country that produces such extensive genetically modified products as we do to satisfy a mandatory requirement.

    The third issue is cost. There are lots of opinions, but very little evidence, about what the cost structure really will be. Quite frankly, the cost of promulgating, adopting, and enforcing a rule is pretty simple. It may be not trivial, but it's the tip of the iceberg. The real cost will be in how you have to change the supply chain to satisfy the quality standards of the regulations.

    IP costs have been estimated to run anywhere from 3% to 17% of farm gate price in studies in North America. These are IP systems that have been put into place in one or two cases for genetically modified organisms, but in most cases for other traits that do not relate to genetic modification. All of those systems have been very low volume systems, so what you're looking at in many cases is a special-purpose-built system. We don't know what the cost will be once you start changing the grain handling system in western Canada, for example, to an identity-preserved system.

Á  (1125)  

    There have been some stabs, which I would be the first to say probably aren't definitive, on trying to estimate the cost of this to consumers. KPMG in both Australia and Canada have done studies. They've estimated anywhere from a 3% to 6% one-time, upfront cost for adopting the system and a 1% to 3% flow-through cost in perpetuity, as long as you run it. That would translate probably into a relatively small per weekly cost, but in annual costs it could be in the $600 million-plus range for managing an identity-preserved system.

    From our perspective, I'd like to bring it back to the first point, which is that we believe the best way of handling public health and safety issues is through the regulatory system and through the mandatory labelling provisions that are already there. For the other elements where there is not an identifiable health risk that you're trying to flag, the costs, the risks of market access, and the uncertainties of changing a very complex and very extensive supply chain militate against a mandatory system at this point. It would suggest that we should try to establish a standard that is credible and enforceable and apply it in a voluntary way to see how it will evolve in the marketplace. During that period we think there is some possibility it could become more of a national system if it begins to function effectively in this country.

    Thank you.

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We'll proceed to the questioning by committee members. We will begin with Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): This is indeed a topic that I think Canadians are becoming more and more interested in. I am wondering, first of all, on the public side of it, whether you think over the last decade there has been more concern or less concern from the public from your research and what you've been able to find out to this point.

    Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: I would say there is an increased concern for the very reason that the products have just started to appear in the fairly recent past. We're dealing with a technology that is more complex and more difficult to understand. There is a lot of information out there, but it's not always easy to grasp. So you're dealing with an unknown sort of change that is fairly recent. I think this is primarily the reason that you have more concern about those products. And, at the same time, you also have a public that has changed, and it is demanding, for instance, more transparency from its government on decisions that are taken, including regulatory decisions on foods.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: So the issue, then, is really more about the lack of trust by the consumer of a new product that they are really not that sure of. That is what you're suggesting, isn't it? It is not necessarily a health issue, though.

    Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: It is not a health issue. Although we recognize that some consumers may say they are concerned about the long-term effects, we don't consider it's a health issue. When it is a health issue, right now labelling is required. For instance, if there is the presence of an allergen or a significant change in nutritional value, there is a requirement for labelling. So it is partly an issue of trust.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: So the issue may be more about informing the public, increasing the trust level with regard to the health side of it. If most of the public are concerned that genetic modification may be a health concern, but it's not really that, then... If they're right and it is a health concern, then we should not just label it, we should remove it. But if it's not a health concern, then we should inform them so and increase the trust level. Would that be a fair statement?

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: I think that's a valid conclusion, and the real challenge is to figure out how best to inform the public in a way that is credible, understandable, truthful, and gives them a basis of being able to assess the risks in ways that are meaningful to them.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: You have an interesting group with social, ethical, legal, economic, and environmental perspectives. How are you going to put all that together in your final report?

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: It's interesting. We've had to consider that question right from the beginning, since we were established. I am now expressing a personal view, but I think it's shared by our committee members, and this view is that we could continue to work to try to achieve consensus on everything, but if to achieve consensus you have to move to such a high level of generalization that it becomes useless to the policy-makers...

    So on some issues we are going to try to meet our mandate by saying, here are the contending views, the contending opinions, the arguments on both sides. We are going to try to present that state of the debate in as fair and objective a fashion as we can. We are going to say a majority of members support position A, but there is a significant minority, or even one member, who hold a different view and here's why. That, we think, will be more useful to the policy-makers than being told the committee's in favour of motherhood. I think we need that kind of service to our policy-makers so that they can apply their own judgments to which argument is persuasive.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Are you just going to throw all the views out on the table?

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: No. There are many things on which we will reach uniformity or consensus, but there are some where we won't.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: For the ones where you won't you'll promote two or three views or whatever?

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: Right.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: All right, fair enough.

    In some countries internationally--and the market is where it actually comes from--they have mandatory labelling or are trying to do mandatory labelling. You talked about Australia a little bit. Did I hear you right that Australia doesn't export any genetically modified foods?

    Dr. Peter Phillips: No, Australia has only produced one variety of genetically modified crops and that's cotton, a Bt variety, which it does export. But there's only a very small quantity of cottonseed oil that's consumed by humans. Most of it is obviously used in the garments industry. So at this point, Australia has the luxury of not having to segregate within its production chains.

    Even if they do approve a variety, they have the a luxury that we do not have: they do not pool their grain in a national context. Grains and oilseeds that we produce in Canada are produced primarily in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba--the wheats, the canolas--and pooled not just for efficiency purposes but for consistency and quality purposes, because you don't want wide variations in the quality, and they're shipped through one of three ports or they're shipped down through the Soo Line in the United States. We have four constriction points in Canada.

    Australia, with the state government system there, has the ability to actually export directly from each state, so there is the ability to declare GM-free zones and satisfy the market. It is going to have a much easier time than countries like Canada and the United States, which have integrated supply chains, in satisfying domestic rules on labelling.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

    I will move to Mr. Lunney now, please.

    Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni, Canadian Alliance): I would like to refer to some remarks made by Dr. Naimark as he began the discussion of labelling.

    Dr. Naimark, you mentioned that labelling is already required. You mentioned that the committee was seeking a rational standard, objective testing, and a labelling system that actually works.

    I'd like to ask about the per cent. The voluntary labelling system that you're recommending, I understand, would allow for a 5% GM content, recognizing that pollen drift does occur and so on. I understand the European standard is 1%. Could you just explain to us how that standard would work?

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: We have not identified a standard. That has come out of the studies that are now being done with the Canadian General Standards Board and the grocery group. We don't know what the right standard is, and what we're calling for is a lot more investigation of what the appropriate standard should be. In other words, it may be 1%, it may be 3%, it may be 0.50%, we don't know. The decision about what the standard should be needs to be based on what we regard as rational grounds, namely, that you have some evidence to suggest that when the content exceeds a certain percentage, certain effects then can be quantified.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Doctor. I'd just like to mention that we've had witnesses here who suggest there currently is no scientific method of evaluating whether it's a 1% or a 5% content, or any other percent. At this time, we can only verify whether there is or isn't GM content.

    Dr. Peter Phillips: I think there are tests that can get to the degree of specificity people are asking for, although perhaps not below 1% with great confidence. But the tests are not appropriate to the market systems we have in this country. When you deliver grain, you have about a 20-minute turnaround time for a truck. You can't wait seven days for the test with the specificity you're asking for to be done at the terminal. It requires a lab technician with a degree and an ability to run a PCR machine.

    What you're getting is a mismatch between the existing technology and the demands that might be required by certain markets. That's where you're going into the identity preservation systems, where people are essentially bypassing the traditional systems. They're buying grain on farm and delivering in bins rather than through trucks and the grain handling system.

    So yes, there are probably tests that can do it, but at high cost. In many cases the costs exceed the value of the product.

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: Could I just amplify--

    Mr. James Lunney: In the interests of time, because we have very limited questioning time, I just want to pick up on the fact that many of the products that are on the market have GM content because of the use of oils--canola oil, corn oil, or soy oil--in those products. Only a small percentage of that product is there, but when you add different percentages, it's a very difficult thing to sort through, as we're saying.

    I'd just like to pick up on a second point here. If you want to have a system that makes sense and actually works, how is the organic person who is supposedly going to compete for a niche market with a GM canola, for example, going to protect his crop from pollen when he's surrounded by 70% to 80% producing the GM crop? GM canola is 20 times more aggressive than traditional canola in pollinating.

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: I think the issue there is a very important one. The solution, of course, doesn't relate to labelling at the grocery store end; it relates to farm management practices and buffer zones and how extensive they should be. That's amenable to testing. You can decide how safe you need to be, in terms of buffer zones, to protect against pollen drift. If you have a particularly aggressive plant, that zone has to be larger. That's an issue that can be solved by field management rather than by any labelling regime.

    Mr. James Lunney: Would you not agree that it does prejudice the outcomes in favour of the person who is producing a GM crop? After a few years, there simply wouldn't be any competition. That may in fact have a bearing on whether this system is fair and sustainable for those who wish to have non-GM products.

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: I'll let my trade consultant answer that one.

    Dr. Peter Phillips: Two quick points. In terms of your question of whether it biases it, in the eyes of some it might. There are already differential buffer zones. Canola buffer zones are hundreds of times larger than wheat buffer zones to control for that.

    Part of it is the choice of the industry itself. The organic standard that exists does allow 5% commingling of non-organic elements. It's only recently that they've defined that this may not include any genetically modified elements. So it's partly how the industries will choose to define themselves. Each industry--the GM, the GM-free, and the organics--will to some extent determine their own ability to deliver the product into the marketplace.

    Can I make one final point? You mentioned oils. At the moment, of the 30-some labelling systems we've identified out there, not one of them requires highly processed foods to be labelled. I think that's important to keep in mind. Highly processed foods include processed oils from corn, canola, and soy, the starches, the sugars. They're all exempt by law. They are looking for detectable proteins. In those cases, there are no detectable proteins.

    The only country that has even considered extending the labelling laws into those areas is the European Union. It's moving towards a traceability system and away from an identification and testing regime.

    The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Lunney.

    Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

    Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, BQ): Thank you.

    If I understood the essence of the presentation you gave this morning, you are telling us that there are potential risks in committing ourselves to mandatory labelling and you base your reservations on a criterion of effectiveness.

    However, I did not clearly understand what effectiveness meant to you. I would like to make a comparison and you can tell me if it is accurate or not. Maybe it isn't. About a year and a half ago, this committee carried out a study of the information labels concerning the contents of cigarettes. There were many reservations, particularly by the tobacco companies, about expropriation and legal challenges. Canada is certainly forward-looking at that level. Not many countries in the world were doing this.

    Here is the question I am asking myself. As legislators, it may happen that we find ourselves in a very select club of nations that are not carrying out a practice we deem to be desirable, but this should not necessarily stop us from going forward. Those who are demanding information about genetically-modified products are obviously doing so because they are convinced that the consumer has the right to chose and not necessarily because the health of the consumer is the primary concern.

    My two questions are the following: When we speak of the criterion of effectiveness, what exactly are we referring to? To what degree do we, as legislators, have to be forward-thinkers and to have as our primary concern the interest of the consumer?

Á  (1145)  

[English]

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: I'll just make one quick point. We did not use the term “efficiency” per se. Our main point is that we need to do a lot of work on developing a standard that is objective, that we can measure accurately, that is enforceable and verifiable. So we did not use the term “efficiency”.

    The other point I would make is in the--

    Mr. Réal Ménard: It's in the translation, is it? Perhaps it isn't the right one, but--

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: My apologies for that. Our concern is not with efficiency so much, but with developing the standard.

    The other point is that the analogies we draw should be very carefully drawn. In the case of tobacco, we know about a specific health risk. What we're saying is that with genetically modified foods, or any food, if there's a health risk, that's where the regulatory system comes in. It should be dealt with in the regulatory system, and it shouldn't even get to the market to be labelled.

    But on your point about the other matters, consumer choice is a very important one, Mr. Ménard, and I would ask my colleague Suzanne Hendricks to follow up on that.

[Translation]

    Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: I would like to return to your question concerning the need to be forward-looking. Our approach is to say that Canada should be forward-looking in developing a rigorous standard, As Peter Phillips emphasized, there is no standard at the moment. It's great to have a statement on the label but if we don't agree on what the term “genetically-modified” means and if we cannot agree on the degree of tolerance that we are going to accept in order to give such or such a label to products, at that point, labelling could easily become misleading or meaningless.

    For us, it is forward-looking to try to apply a rigorous standard to labelling.

    M. Réal Ménard: The officials from the Department of International Trade, when they came before the committee—you can read their testimony, but you may have already done so—obviously declared themselves to be very opposed to this. I don't know to what extent this translates into the Department's position, but the officials were very opposed to a mandatory labelling system because, they said, it was incompatible with our international obligations. That's basically what you were maintaining earlier, Dr. Phillips. Who is going to take the initiative to establish this international standard? Canada ratifies many treaties about which the international community is not necessarily unanimous. I work with another committee which studies the issue of drugs, and the same question presents itself. Canada has committed itself to fight to suppress the use of illegal drugs, but not all countries have signed the conventions. What hope do you have of the international community mobilizing itself so that we can agree on a standard?

[English]

    Dr. Peter Phillips: Actually, I think we are in the vanguard of this debate. The key point is we're trying to find a credible system. The systems out there, by the admission of the countries operating them, are nascent at best. In many cases these systems have some flaws that are being debated internally. In most cases they're being honoured more in hope than in action. When they get down to the enforcement, the enforcement results show we're getting all kinds of mislabelling.

    Selling something that you can't deliver is the biggest concern. Unfortunately, most of the labelling systems started out with someone saying X was going to be labelled without necessarily asking consumers why they wanted the label. Then a system to enforce it was imposed. So we have a mismatch between what we're offering and what the consumers are expecting.

    We've seen this in many of the surveys in Canada. Consumers don't really know what GMOs are. So if you start labelling GMOs, some of them think it means the application of conventional chemicals to a conventional crop. When they find out this is not what the label means, are they going to be satisfied?

Á  (1150)  

[Translation]

    M. Réal Ménard: When the officials from International Trade or you, yourself, have reservations about the fact that there is no standard on which everyone agrees, we can understand that, but do you believe that there is a polarization of this debate between, on one side, consumers who demand the right to know what is going to ultimately end up on their plates and, on the other side, the entrepreneurs or the people who thrive on economic mobility who are worried about the costs of adapting to such a regime. Is their not a risk that these deeply mercantile, deeply economic realities dictate our actions and that it is the logic of the market which overrides the interests of the consumer? Doesn't this trap exist? I am not saying that these are not your central motives, but don't we have to take that into account?

    Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: There is no doubt that there is polarization. You are completely right to say that the debate is very polarized. In our meetings with various groups who provided us with comments on our report, we did our best to try to depolarize the debate and to clearly understand everyone's position.

    Having said that, in our recommendations, the first point we emphasize, is the need to go forward with labelling. So, we...

    Mr. Réal Ménard: Voluntary.

    Mrs. Suzanne Hendricks: Yes, voluntary, but we have said that we absolutely had to take a step. We have to take a step which has been thought out and we must accept that we have to proceed progressively, hoping that this approach will succeed in providing consumers with an acceptable choice. We have also said that if this approach proves to be unsatisfactory, it would be necessary to reevaluate this position. Therefore, all that we are suggesting is an approach based on a certain degree of caution and on a certain degree of rigorousness.

    

    

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

    Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska--Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Madame Chair.

    I would like to come back to a point which we discussed at other sessions. That is the famous question of agreeing on the definition of GMOs. Once again, you are bringing this back into the debate and I agree with you that this is perhaps the first step we have to take.

    Now, who must arrange to bring together all the stakeholders in order that we can finally agree on what we are talking about? If we don't know what we are talking about, it is hard to go any further. I would like to have you point of view on how we can manage to agree on what exactly GMOs are.

[English]

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: Mr. Castonguay, I might just say that what you've identified is one of the main challenges we have taken on at CBAC, namely, trying to create a vehicle--a method of dialogue amongst the stakeholders--to see whether we can narrow the range of difference of view. We are now working with stakeholder groups from all sectors, including environmental NGOs and others, to examine a concept or a tool called an acceptability spectrum, where we try to get people to indicate what aspects of a particular issue are of concern to them, rather than speaking in broad terms where no one is exactly clear what they're talking about. Rather, we want them to define their terms to see where the zones of difference really lie and what mechanisms there are to bridge the differences. And that process is underway at the moment.

    I would also like to indicate, in response to something that Mr. Ménard said, that we are not opposed to Canada taking a lead in any respect. But we do think that decision has to be taken with due regard for what all of the evidence and the effects are likely to be, so that it is a calculated decision to take a leadership position and not inadvertent.

    The matter of definition is very important. For example, we hear people ask what's wrong with just saying that something may contain GM foods or GM material. Well, the words “may contain” are already in our usage, but they have a history and therefore they connote a specific meaning. We're used to things saying “may contain peanuts or peanut products”, but that's because we know that peanuts produce allergies in some people. In the case of GM foods we do not have that information. We do not now have foods on the market that are known to be allergenic by virtue of genetic modification. So what would “may contain” mean? It would mean may contain a food ingredient about which there is no health hazard. We need somehow to get beyond the generalities to looking at how to label in a way that is meaningful and that people can trust.

    I'll ask Peter to comment.

Á  (1155)  

    Dr. Peter Phillips: I'll make a quick comment about leading. In fact, I think we are leading in two significant ways in this area.

    To my knowledge, the CCGD--the grocery store council--and Canadian General Standards Board initiative to develop a standard that's based on the views of the stakeholders is the only one that has been done in the world. Most of the others have been bureaucrats who might have consulted with a few people who come up with a technical standard and promulgate it. This is the first one that would be voted on that would be standard driven from the bottom up. I think that's unique and will have a lot of influence if it can be established in Canada first, because it involves the very same groups that you'll have in other countries.

    The second point is that we are leading internationally through the Codex Alimentarius. Canada chairs the committee that's involved in trying to establish a definition for GMOs and a labelling structure that would be acceptable under international trade law. I think we're leading in two very significant ways.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Thank you.

    In the report that you are going to present at the end of the month, can we expect to find such a definition of the jargon we are using in it, so that starting from that, we can build in a constructive way?

    Once again, Madame Chair, I must say that I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of starting to put labels on when no one agrees on what we are talking about. It is almost, like we say back home, like putting the cart before the horse.

[English]

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: Well, we'll certainly try to make a contribution there, but it's something we're going to work on continuously. This kind of understanding and definition will have to evolve, because you have to test it out on people to see whether they get the right meaning from it and then keep changing. But your point is very well taken. It's an important challenge and we will try to contribute to solving that.

    The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Castonguay.

    Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Thank you.

    I had no questions but your last statement prompts me to ask some questions. I have the impression that the debate is now focussing on how to do the labelling. If I go back a bit, I feel like asking you what is product labelling. Is it the picture of corn? Is it the ingredients found inside? Is it the sugar? Is it the definition of the ingredients or is it a warning?

    As a consumer, when I get my groceries and I look at a can, I don't read anything, except when there is a warning on the front, this stresses me a little. However, if the product design is pleasing, I'll take it.

    So, since labelling can be anything, what is labelling?

    Secondly, I have the impression that we are also tripping over the reasons for labelling. Why would we insist on writing “may contain” or peut contenir except, in my opinion, for one reason and one reason only: because it has a negative effect on the health of citizens. It seems to me, this should be the number one criterion for determining whether or not we have labelling, that is, obviously, if we are able to guarantee or to say...

    It's the same thing when you look at peanuts. It is true that when you say “may contain peanuts”, we know what kind of effects bits of peanuts can have on a person who is allergic to peanuts.

    We don't know anything. We don't know if, long-term or short-term... So, labelling, in my opinion as a consumer, means that I must pay attention, that it is hazardous. This is the way people perceive this now: it means "attention". It is a warning and not just an indication to say that it contains I don't know what, what it is made of or how it is made. Actually, what is hazardous to me, as a consumer, is when it says “may contain less than 1% GMOs”, it's a warning. It isn't labelling, it's a warning. It's not design, it's not selling the product, it is “danger”. That's what it means.

    I don't think we have made much progress in the definition of— [Editor's note: inaudible]. Is there somewhere where you recommend a campaign of awareness or definition of what exactly these darn GMOs are and what their effects are? As long as you don't know what effects they may have, I don't know why we are even talking about labelling them and scaring everyone. I wouldn't buy any. Yet, I'm here and I'm well informed. I am not going to buy any and I don't know what that means, either.

  (1200)  

    Ms. Suzanne Hendricks: The points you have raised are those that have been raised during discussions, in fact, on the whole problem of labelling. So, one of the questions we have to answer is: how to label? Certainly, the ambush represented by labelling that can be perceived as a warning is very clear in the minds of people who are examining this problem. Be assured that when we come up with a formula, it will be a formula which aims at avoiding that ambush.

    There are several elements on labels and the ways that consumers consult labels, varies enormously. We know this from surveys. Some people read labels religiously, will consult the list of ingredients. Many will do so only at the time of their first purchase. Once they have the information, they no longer look at labels, etc.

    It is possible to produce labelling that is not misleading or that does not lead to concerns or rejection. It is obvious that no matter what kind of labelling we aim for, we will need an information campaign. So, whether it is nutritional labelling, or the fact that the ingredients are listed on the label in declining proportional order, we will have to inform the public so that they will be in a position to use this information.

    The same thing is going to happen. When we have labelling, we will have to ensure that, along with the labelling, that we have some kind of information campaign. You have demonstrated to us very clearly what the reasons are that lead you to select a product, to read or to reject the labelling. This is what we are trying to show in our proposal, that is, in fact, consumers have very different requirements.

    The way you shop is unique to you. You have a right to that; we recognize that. On the other hand, your neighbour next door is concerned about GMOs, for various reasons which we have tried to describe. So, what is interesting, is that when we carry out public opinion surveys, even consumers who are aware that they are very comfortable with GMOs, because they recognize that we have a well-tested evaluation system, tell us that there are some people who are not as comfortable as they are and that those people should have the option of making choices according to their convictions. It becomes a matter of respecting others, if I may put it that way. We hope that voluntary labelling is going to, as a matter of fact, offer some choice on the market.

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Actually, my intervention had more to do with the “how”. I have the impression that we are working very hard on how to label but we haven't yet settled the “why”. It is as if we skipped the step of asking ourselves why we need labelling. Is it meet the rights of consumers? Consumers have all the rights in the world, when we look at that area, but why label? Because there is a hazard? Because we want to know?

    I don't want to know how most of the food I eat is produced. If somebody has to tell me what kind of fertilizer, what kind of fly and what kind of temperature they use, I'm not interested. But why label GMOs in particular unless there is a possibility, long or medium term, of an effect on consumers? I think we haven't settled the “why” and we're already working on the “how”.

[English]

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: You've just made a point that I think is important or at least triggers a matter we have been very conscious of; that is, many of the arguments that raise the question of labelling in respect of GM foods apply to all novel foods, whether organically grown foods or others. We have to ask a broader question first--namely, what do we want to know about food and new foods on the market, whether they are GM, organic, or whatever--because some of those things will apply to both.

    The other thing I think we also have to keep in mind is not only why to label but, if we decide to label, how. The reason for the how is that we have to remember there are significant segments of our population where functional literacy is an issue. To them a label might as well be opaque, because it's not the way they get information.

    So we have to think about informed choice from a much broader perspective than just a label on the product. It has to be a way for advisers of people to know what's in the food; it has to be a way of tapping into information resources among government departments, health clinics, health care professionals, dieticians, and others.

    We have a big job to do both before we label and after. Our concentration at the moment is saying, let's make sure we do what's necessary to establish appropriate standards and then go on to the how.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Madame Scherrer.

    I have a couple of questions. If you get this standard agreed upon and promulgated, and it's voluntary, have you any idea what rate of conformity or voluntarism you might elicit from the packagers or the growers of food?

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: We do know that the people selling the products in supermarkets and others will have a great deal to say about the rapidity with which voluntary labelling is adopted, because they feel the consumer input most directly. We're already seeing studies showing that the public's concern about this area, from the standpoint of how it would affect shopping choices, is being noticed.

    The Chair: So you think these people would respond to consumers asking for it, as opposed to adopting it on their own?

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: I think both, because some will see an advantage. Some will say that they see a marked advantage there. They have a product that they can say has been grown using modern biotechnology and genetic modification, which allowed a wonderful looking product to be grown with less pesticide or herbicide than before. And if you don't like pesticides and herbicides, this becomes a sales point.

    The Chair: So essentially you're saying leave it to the market, that it will decide own the basis of economic best interests whether to label or not.

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: Yes, and in the end consumer interests will determine economic interests.

    The other comment is on the force of guidelines. For example, if an effort to establish a standard emerges, whether it's national or international, and one says that good practice is to establish information allowing the consumer to know whether or not product meets the standard, you don't have to pass a law. Guidelines start to have an effect of their own. We've seen this in other areas, such as past moratoriums on certain reproductive technologies, which were adhered to, though there was nothing in law.

    The Chair: They were adhered to by some.

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: Well, I'm saying they certainly had a very serious effect in any agency supported by government.

    I think there is a force in establishing a national standard, and we have many examples in other products where people like to be able to say that they have met the highest standards available. All of those things should lead to uptake by the manufacturers, but our point is, if it doesn't happen, then we have to rethink.

    The Chair: Okay, you have more faith in the market than I do. It seems to me it could take an awful long time to get everyone conforming to the standard if it's dependent upon their own profit.

    Now I think I heard you say earlier that in some of these genetically modified foods--let's take a tomato, for example--there's essentially no measurable difference in the content, the ingredients, what is actually found, say, inside that tomato. Did I understand this correctly?

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: I wasn't thinking of tomatoes. I was thinking of certain products like highly refined oils from canola or soya.

  (1210)  

    The Chair: Do you know about a tomato, for example, because it's something we can all understand?

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: Yes, I think you could find in a whole plant, or a whole fruit or vegetable, components that contain traces of the original genetic modification material, which is the DNA, or the protein for which the DNA codes. You could find traces of it there.

    The Chair: From a nutritional point of view, is it exactly the same?

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: From a nutritional point of view I think almost certainly it is. All of its major compounds are the same as in a regular tomato. In fact, if the composition has significantly changed, it is mandatory to label it now.

    So I would say yes. GM tomatoes have the same chemistry, the same foodstuffs, as the ones we have here, although I don't think Canada now imports GM tomatoes.

    The Chair: I'm looking forward... not positively, but I see that day coming.

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: There is another point, Madam Chairman, that we are also cognizant of. It has to do with developments in science and technology designed to genetically modify a plant to produce a specific change, namely, to actually produce a product that is different in some important respects. This product may contain a vaccine, increased quantities of a vitamin, or any number of other desired specific differences. This is where we have to spend a lot of time to make sure this is safe from a health standpoint.

    At some point we are going to have a decision to make about whether the kinds of changes produced through what is called molecular farming really ought to be regulated in the same way as we regulate drugs, as opposed to the way we regulate foods. This is a challenge for the regulatory system and how we go about things, and it's coming at us quite soon.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Thank you.

    I want to get back to the difference between the work the Royal Society have done and what you're doing. Can you describe to us the significant differences? I know they looked at it from a scientific perspective. There are lots of scientists on your panel as well. As an end result, do you think you're going to come up with the same conclusion?

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: Perhaps I could speak to that, Mr. Merrifield. When we thought about our project in GM foods, we had three areas we were interested in. One was the science base: are we keeping up with the science? Do we have the scientific personnel? Do we have the methodology right to regulate properly? The second is how the system is organized, managed, and run. And the third was how we take into account social and ethical concerns.

    When the decision was taken that the science piece would be referred to a special panel of the Royal Society, we were involved in setting up the terms of reference for that panel. We have deferred that piece of it to the Royal Society, and our final report will be informed by what the Royal Society has recommended and the reaction to it by Health Canada and other government agencies.

    So our focus has been on how the system works, how transparent it is, how information is developed, what should be made available by way of information with respect to how the system runs, how to take into consideration important social and ethical things such as informed consumer choice and the balance between regulation and promotion. In other words, the Royal Society and we have been going along parallel tracks on different subject matters.

    There is some overlap in that they have made comments on some things we have also made comments on. For example, they too have essentially said their concern is with the future development of the system: that the current products on the market have been shown to be safe by all current standards; secondly, that on labelling they also tended to favour a voluntary system at the moment. I don't see any significant conflict between the Royal Society recommendations and ours. That doesn't mean we necessarily endorse every recommendation they made in the terms in which they made it, but we were really, so far, working on parallel but complementary tracks.

    In the next couple of weeks or in the next month or two, we will be trying to provide further information about the Royal Society report and how it intersects with what we're saying in a fuller way, now that we understand what the government's action plan is in response to the Royal Society report.

  (1215)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay. Just to leap-frog--and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you can probably answer this one fairly easily--they came up with voluntary labelling as a way to go. Is that something that has consensus? Is it unanimous among your committee?

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: I don't know that it's unanimous, and it may not be, but I think it certainly represents the balance of opinion in our committee.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay. In the areas you're dealing with in your comment, have you gone out looking for specific other research, as a committee?

    Dr. Peter Phillips: Perhaps I can answer that. We have done a couple of different things. We have scanned the environment-- academic, industrial, NGO, and international organizations--to find out what has been done around determining best practices in the management of regulatory systems and in the labelling systems. As a committee, we've done that. We've also commissioned a number of studies, which I believe we've made available to the research office that we've alluded to, one by Professor Einsiedel from Calgary, one by Professors Hart and Chaitoo from Carleton, and I think perhaps one by Professor Thompson from the United States on the ethical dimensions.

    Similarly, some of us actually live and work in this area. I do research in this area, so I have been making available many of my bits of work to the committee. We have access to pretty much what's going on out there. The question is making sense and trying to determine some recommendations out of that.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Is there nothing in your research you'd want to share with us?

    Dr. Peter Phillips: I think we've made it available; if there are things we haven't, we'd certainly be willing, I think, to make available everything we think has even remote bearing to the labelling issue. Some of the reports that we've done, obviously, are beyond labelling and look at a whole myriad of other parts of the system that may be of interest but are not particularly relevant to the committee.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Lunney.

    Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Getting back to the definition of GMOs and the confusion about what constitutes a GMO, the Royal Society actually came up with a very succinct definition of a GMO that's really not very confusing. I think it helps to define, first of all, what it's not. It certainly is not traditional breeding and it is not traditional hybridization. We're talking about the introduction of a novel gene here, the rDNA technique. It's quite easily explained. I think one of the reasons for the confusion is that the industry has been rather reluctant to explain it to people. When you talk about a transgenic, or the introduction of a foreign gene, it does make people nervous. In reality, it's what we're talking about. Let's be honest.

    There have been very serious problems with GM products. For example, we recently had a question in the House of Commons related to GM insulin. It is an rDNA product, a yeast product. There are over 460 reported incidents of adverse reactions and eight deaths. People are very alarmed about precipitous drops in blood sugar, comas, seizures, and so on.

    Going back to 1989, you have a GM product that came in a health food line. It produced an amino acid called tryptophan. Now, that's identifiable as a protein, isn't it? There were crippling muscle complaints and over 37 deaths. This is supposed to be an identical tryptophan, but the scientists in this case failed to notice there was a toxin coming along with it, because of the novel toxin. And that was a Japanese product.

    So there is a perception amongst the public of the concept in the biotech world to trust the scientists. You don't need to ask where these things are coming from. It is one of the things that I think has led to a sense of mistrust.

    For the record, the Royal Society agreed to approve voluntary labelling on the condition that their whole series of recommendations to reduce the risk of uncertainty and satisfy the precautionary principle were implemented. There certainly hasn't been any effort that I can see at this point to satisfy the requirements.

    I understand we have thirteen agricultural colleges in this country. They all receive grants from biotech companies. There are scientists who have serious concerns. You might wonder what kind of pressure it puts them under if they're willing to speak out. We will be hearing from some of them over the course of the hearings.

    What would you be willing to do to encourage independent analysis, independent scientific study, so public confidence could in fact be improved in this area of uncertainty?

  (1220)  

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: On the last point, we are very much in favour of complementing scientists working in government and industry with scientists from universities and other independent scientists. Especially for complex future products, we're going to need much more manpower and weight to make sure we have all the talent we need to evaluate those carefully.

    We also align ourselves completely with the Royal Society's view that there is a lot to be done in preparing ourselves for what's coming down the pipe in biotechnologically produced innovations.

    Third, I think one has to be very careful when talking about some of the kinds of adverse events or reports you've heard. Insulin produced by recombinant DNA technology is a safe product. But a serious concern is that the use of the genetically modified insulin, because of potencies and so on, requires people to be properly educated and informed about its administration--about how to watch for its effects. Many of the concerns you've referred to relate to overdoses, where people become hypoglycemic and have all the central nervous system effects, as a result of a poor level of information about how to use that new product.

    That's one kind of thing. That doesn't mean to say there won't be occasional products we will learn about, whether from biotechnology or organic agriculture... There are risks everywhere and we have to watch for them.

    The other thing is about understanding. We understand what the terms “transgenic” and “recombinant DNA” mean, but there is a concern about what you mean when you say “GMO food”. I know what a GMO organism is, but does it mean that the oil I'm consuming contains DNA, recombinant DNA, or a protein from it? It may not. The plant it comes from does, and some other kinds of whole fruits may. It's that confusion I'm talking about, not the very focused one you're referring to, which is quite right.

    So all in all, I think this issue is a complicated one. We have to keep all of those cautions in the mix, whether they come from the Royal Society, concerned social activist groups, or scientists. Nothing can be excluded because of where it comes from. All ideas need to be examined carefully, because we can't afford to ignore information or concerns. They have to be evaluated. By the same token, we have to be fairly careful and rigorous in how we interpret the evidence.

    The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Lunney.

    Ms. Scherrer.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Thank you, Madame Chair. I have one last question.

    In the last report which you submitted, it was recommended that we go forward with labelling standards, but also, that we go forward with voluntary labeling which would allow, according to your definitions, public reaction to be tested and also the relevance of labelling to be tested. Don't you think that we risk shooting ourselves in the foot by going forward with voluntary labelling, because as soon as we provide a choice and that there is uncertainty around that, people are not going to use it?

    I join Madam Chair in saying that I also am asking myself about the goodwill of merchants who will see the benefits of voluntary labelling only in terms of dollar signs. By going forward with a voluntary system to test it, to get public reaction, are we not shooting ourselves directly in the foot?

    I have the impression. taking into account the current unsettling context, of the definition of the terms and all the economic factors which are currently linked to that... Even recently, when we were talking to the international trade people, they told us that the United States was currently boycotting almost anything which had voluntary GMO labelling on it because it had not been properly defined and it had not been well received. By going forward with this, aren't we risking shooting ourselves in the foot and never managing to achieve mandatory labelling because voluntary labelling does not appear on the right path at the moment to ensure the results we would want to see?

  (1225)  

[English]

    Dr. Peter Phillips: Let me make a couple of quick comments on that. I think we perhaps overestimate the height of anxiety around this issue. If you ask people point blank do they want labelling, 90% to 95% of the population say yes. It doesn't matter what country in the world you're in, they all want something labelled.

    If you ask them what their concerns about food are, and say GMO is one of the concerns, 45% or 50% will say, yes, that's a concern. It doesn't matter what country you're in in the world, you'll get that. If you ask them what are you concerned about in food, GMOs come down to about number 11 on the list, and it doesn't matter whether you're in Canada, or Britain, or the United States.

    If you ask them how they buy their food, less than 20% of our population actually reads labels when they go into a store. They're in and out of the store in less than 20 minutes, so they're whipping through. Most of the labelling is so small I have to take my glasses off, even my bifocals aren't big enough to read it.

    So I think we have to take care to realize that by putting on a label you're not necessarily going to see a groundswell of response. What you're going to do is provide those people who are in the 20% category, who have something they want to have represented by their shopping patterns, with an opportunity to do that.

    That doesn't mean every product in every store will have a dual option, GM or GM-free. What it will mean is that in every product category, even if the price isn't any different, you're likely to have a GM-free element actively promoted because that will increase the volume per shelf foot. That's what they're looking for; they don't necessarily need a price premium to make it happen.

    So I think what you're going to see is that in the major food categories where there are GM elements--and you can exempt the whole fresh fruit aisle, because there aren't any yet--in all those cases you'll find an opportunity for people to have a choice, which will take some of the pressure off the question of the debate around GMOs. Tthe vast majority of the population, if explicitly asked, has a concern, but in general terms this is not their number one concern in terms of safety in the food system.

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Why bother labelling, then?

    Dr. Peter Phillips: But it's still a portion of the population. You're right, one option is to ignore it, but it is possible at relatively minimal cost and to the satisfaction of the industry to positively label now. That will be a precursor to the second round, which is when you get positive labelling, because that's not far down the track.

    We've had it already. Flavr Savr tomato was never sold without a proper label on it; the company wanted the price premium. The NewLeaf potato was never sold without a label on it; it was proactively labelled. So I think what you're getting is that the industry wants to see this happen because it then gives them the flip side of the standard--how to label in the future so that it doesn't get done for fraudulent misrepresentation of their product when it may have positive benefits that the consumer values and seeks out in the marketplace.

    So I think this is a bit of a testing ground, and the problem is we only have half of the product lines on the shelf, or half of the options. If there were two, then you could see how it worked. That's where the debate is going on in the Standards Council effort, because they're trying to create a standard that goes both ways, both for the yield-enhancing and the quality-enhancing products.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I am still asking myself, why label if, in the end, the population which is truly concerned about labelling only represents a very small percentage. There is one thing first. The majority of people answer anything at all because they don't know what GMOs are. Even the people around the table have trouble defining them. It would surprise me greatly if the majority of consumers at the grocery store knew what we were talking about. I don't think that the majority of people really look at cans in that way.

    We always say it is in the interest of the consumer. In my opinion, this is not quite true, either. The industry is attacking from the rear with its big guns because, bottom line, they don't want any labelling because it has an impact. Are we not kidding ourselves when we say it is the consumers' reaction we want? The bug in labelling is not there. It is the industry which has problems at the level of international trade.

    I return once again to my question of voluntary labelling. Are we not shooting ourselves in the foot by going forward with voluntary labelling and not first evaluating the proper criteria?

[English]

    Dr. Peter Phillips: If I could make one comment, I think where your colleagues from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade were expressing some of their concern around labelling options was that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Most of the world would like to have some way of discriminating in the marketplace between products based on their country of origin, and this is one way of doing it at the moment

    Virtually everything we produce is at risk. We are a trading nation, so we don't want to create a precedent where we have explicitly acknowledged the right to discriminatorily label a product based on origin, or based on something other than health and safety and environmental standards. So a voluntary system does not play into that, because we have oodles of voluntary systems. A mandatory system does, quite frankly. It creates a precedent that is actionable, which would create challenges in other product areas. So I suspect that's where some of their concern rises.

  (1230)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Scherrer.

    I'd like to follow up on this. I'm really getting confused. You've come up with the idea that you're probably going to recommend voluntary labelling when you put out your final report, which tells me you think labelling is a good idea. But I keep hearing about consumer preferences, what consumers might want to know. This is the health committee. We're not in the business of making consumers happy. We don't really focus on that. We're interested in long-term health and safety concerns. So I'm finding this whole consumer preference idea to be confusing to the issues we're interested in here.

    I want to go back to that tomato that's been genetically modified. If in fact it sort of looks the same or maybe looks even better, if it's nutritionally the same, if no one can find any health or safety concerns with it, to the person who eats it it's the same thing. This is what people keep claiming about these genetically modified things. If that's the case, why in your other recent paper are you recommending that a company be able to patent that higher life form? If it's the same, why does it need to be patented?

    I'm worried about the same thing as Mr. Ménard is worried about, and that is the movement into the food we eat of companies that want to control the future, control the supply, in the same way as multinational drug companies control the price of pharmaceuticals--through the patent system.

    To me, this whole thing about genetically modified organisms in food and who discovers how to do it... How can they claim the food is identical to the other food that isn't genetically modified and yet want a patent for their process? In other words, they're trying to assuage people's fears about it, but then they make the maximum economic benefit by having a patent over it. Explain that to me.

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: As you well know, there are all kinds of patents based on process, how to make things. The thing you make may be no different from another thing that's on the market, but your process allows you to make it more cheaply, allows you to produce a product that is more durable, and therefore provides a gain in intellectual content, for which you want to get a return on your investment.

    The Chair: Are you recommending in your latest paper that they patent only the process as to how they got to a thing? Aren't you recommending that the actual higher life form itself be patented? I understood it's the latter.

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: We've done the latter.

    The Chair: Well, exactly. That's not a process, that's a product.

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: What I'm saying is that what is sold in the marketplace is the product. Who owns the patent on either the process or the plant? From the standpoint of the consumer, all they're deciding is whether they're going to buy it from company A or company B.

    So those two are really operating in different dimensions. One is not in conflict with the other. You can say that something is identical to something else and has gone through all the rigorous testing for health and safety concerns. We can say that tomato, from a health and safety standpoint, is okay. I can also say, for other reasons having to do with the basic philosophy of property and intellectual property and intellectual property protection, that there should be a regime that allows patenting of whole plants and animals. Those two are separate issues.

    The Chair: Don't they connect in the economic world?

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: Well, they may.

    The Chair: Dr. Phillips.

  (1235)  

    Dr. Peter Phillips: Let me perhaps provide you with a little bit of confidence that you're not going to see concentration that way. The biotech industries represent about 3% to 4% of the value added in the food chain right now.

    The Chair: In Canada or in the United States?

    Dr. Peter Phillips: Globally... the United States as well. They're very small. They're not very profitable. Their so-called exclusive ownership rights are extremely limited and in most cases are of diminishing returns. The major patents that people are basing their portfolios on are within five to seven years of expiring. So if you start developing a product today, you'll have the freedom to operate and exploit that in five years, in many of these cases.

    So the concern that the Monsantos of the world are going to control the agrifood chain is far overblown relative to their size, scale, and position within the supply chain. Far more important in the long run will be the industrial concentration at the retail end of the system, at the store shelves. You're starting to see the development of two, three, or four extremely large, extremely powerful retail chains, one in the United States and two in Europe, that are dominating access to the store shelves themselves. That is going to be far more important.

    So who owns a small gene that is competing against thousands of other genetic constructs for access to the marketplace is going to be far less important in terms of the consumer than the other. In many cases, even though these technologies may have an 18- or 20-year life under plant variety protection, the economic life is three to five years because the innovation rate is so high that within five years the germ plasm value has been diminished to zero by the introduction of a new variety.

    I think there has been a fixation on these large multinationals because there are a handful and they do look large in their context, but they're in a very small fish pool, and that has to be kept in mind. The agrifood chain is immense globally, so they aren't going to dominate it in the way the pharmaceutical companies dominate the drug chain.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    May I make one comment. I saw an ad in The Hill Times in either this week's or last week's issue. Anyway, I saw it yesterday when I returned, and it said that your patent recommendations were there to be downloaded off the Internet, which I did. I was amazed that the final date for responses was March 15, or this Friday.

    It seems to me that's a rather short time for the public to respond, unless I missed some earlier ad.

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: We provided a four-month comment period and we put a reminder notice in to let people know there was one week to go in the deadline, and if they hadn't submitted they should.

    The Chair: Did you advertise four months ago in The Hill Times, or did you advertise at all?

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: I don't know that. I'll have to ask whether or not we did. It may have been that The Hill Times picked it up from somewhere.

    The Chair: No, it's a paid advertisement. It's in a box.

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: I'll have to check on that, Madam Chairman. I don't know whether we advertised in the first instance, but we set it out very widely on the first round of publication. We find that, as always, you need to remind people about deadlines.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Dr. Lunney.

    Mr. James Lunney: As the chair pointed out a moment ago, I think it's correct to say that Canadians are less concerned, by and large, with the implications for international trade or for an industrial marketing advantage than they are about their own health, safety, and security and that of their children.

    Going back to the substantial equivalence question and the patenting of life forms, I think a very interesting concern that comes out of this is the case of the onco-mouse. Here's an rDNA product, a little tweak to the gene of the mouse and now he produces cancer in all of his offspring. I'm sure they're very grateful for that, by the way, and the scientists want to say this is substantively different and therefore patent... Yet at the same time the industry is trying to base the acceptability of many GM products on the substantial equivalence argument that this little change genetically is safe--and trust us, we know what we're doing.

    The reality is that in the realm of genetics there's a whole lot that isn't known, and I think most sincere scientists will admit that. For instance, we don't even know for certain if the same gene produces the same protein in a different cellular context in the same organism. We don't know what turns genes on and off. And when we introduce a novel gene to a foreign species the outcomes are, as a matter of fact, in many cases unpredictable. You cannot, with certainty, predict how that novel gene will react.

    I mentioned the case about tryptophan earlier. It tested 99.6% equivalent to the tryptophan from other natural sources. But that little difference had a heck of a lot of toxicity to it that disabled about 1,500 people and led to 37 deaths.

    As the Royal Society soundly rejected the substantial equivalence argument, I would like to ask you this. What can be done to increase consumer confidence in the testing of these procedures for human consumption?

  (1240)  

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: Thank you.

    I think the substantial equivalence question is an important one. What the Royal Society rightly pointed out was that substantial equivalence is not a sufficient basis upon which to approve a product or not. Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in response pointed out that they do not use substantial equivalence as the threshold for approval, but rather they use it as a way of characterizing the product in order to identify whether there are any residual differences that need to be pursued. That's where that debate stands at the moment.

    On your point that some genetic modifications produce harmful things, that's certainly true. In some cases, as in that of the Harvard onco-mouse for identifying the gene associated with increased susceptibility to cancer, the animal was deliberately developed and engineered so they could have an animal in which to study cancer.

    That is why we've said, in the case of transgenic interventions where a new substance is to be produced, whether it's a vaccine in a plant or vitamin A in rice or whatever, that's the point at which you have to be doubly careful in doing the safety and health assessment. I think it's important not to assume that the genetic modification being introduced is safe by virtue of knowing what it was like in other circumstances. You have to subject it to field trials and take it through several generations of crops in order to make sure how stable it is, and then you have to do feeding experiments, and then you have to test for allergenicity and toxicity. By all means, we're saying you cannot presume on the basis of historical information how things are going to behave.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Lunney.

    Seeing no further questioners, I'd like to thank you very much for coming. We'll be following this with interest. When you produce your final report, I'm wondering, are you planning a big press conference and being on Newsworld and all that sort of thing, or are you just going to present it quietly to your own audience?

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: No, we'll present through public release and we'll make ourselves available to the media. We suspect we'll get a significant amount of attention, given the interest that has been generated by the Royal Society report and our interim report. We'll be more than happy to return to this committee or any other committee to talk about these matters if that would be useful.

    We want to thank you, Madam Chair, and your colleagues for your interest in our work and for taking on this important task. It is a significant issue.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Dr. Arnold Naimark: I'll leave copies of my introductory remarks with the clerk.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This meeting is now adjourned.