HEAL Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 19, 2002

Á

1105

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

Dr. Brian E. Ellis (Associate Director, Biotechnology Laboratory and Professor, Agroecology, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of British Columbia; Co-Chair, Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology, Royal Society of Canada)

Á

1110

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Lunney

The Chair

Dr. Brian Ellis

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Dr. Brian Ellis

Some hon. members

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Brian Ellis

Á

1130

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Brian Ellis

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Brian Ellis

Á

1135

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Brian Ellis

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant, Lib.)

Dr. Brian Ellis

Á

1140

Mr. Bob Speller

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. Bob Speller

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. Bob Speller

Dr. Brian Ellis

Á

1145

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

Dr. Brian Ellis

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Á

1150

Dr. Brian Ellis

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.)

Dr. Brian Ellis

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Brian Ellis

Â

1200

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Brian Ellis

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska--Restigouche, Lib.)

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Dr. Brian Ellis

Â

1205

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

Â

1210

Dr. Brian Ellis

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Brian Ellis

Â

1215

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. Lunney

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Â

1220

The Chair

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

Dr. Brian Ellis

The Chair

Dr. Brian Ellis

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. Bob Speller

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. Bob Speller

Dr. Brian Ellis

Â

1225

Mr. Bob Speller

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. Bob Speller

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. Bob Speller

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. Bob Speller

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. Bob Speller

Dr. Brian Ellis

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Brian Ellis

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Brian Ellis

The Chair

Â

1230

Mr. Lunney

The Chair

Dr. Brian Ellis

The Chair

Mr. Lunney

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Â

1235

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. James Lunney

Â

1240

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Dromisky

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

---

NUMBER 063

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 19, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): It's my pleasure to call this meeting of the health committee to order, as we pursue our study on the labelling of genetically modified foods. I will introduce you to our only witness today. Dr. Brian Ellis is the co-chair of the Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology.

    Dr. Ellis, I would invite you to make your presentation, which will be followed by questions from the members. Please go ahead.

    Dr. Brian E. Ellis (Associate Director, Biotechnology Laboratory and Professor, Agroecology, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of British Columbia; Co-Chair, Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology, Royal Society of Canada): Thank you very much for inviting me to join you today. I was originally to be accompanied by Dr. Conrad Brunk, but because of a serious health problem in his family, he had to travel to Virginia today instead of being able to come to Ottawa. However, he did provide me with a copy of his statement, and I would be pleased to read that for you as well. I obviously would not be qualified to answer questions on his area of expertise, though.

    I'll begin with my statement, and I'll just preface it by saying it has a focus that is predominantly scientific, whereas Dr. Brunk's has a focus that is predominantly on social and ethical issues.

    Honourable chair and members of the committee, I'd like to once again thank you for inviting Dr. Brunk and me to speak to the standing committee today.

    The issue of GM foods and the impacts of this technology on our lives certainly continues to be of great interest to Canadians. The controversy surrounding GM foods has brought into sharp focus a number of questions ranging from food safety to the control of information in a civil society. As a result of that controversy the Royal Society of Canada was asked by the federal government, in 2000-01, to explore a number of these issues, with a particular focus on the scientific aspects of the development and management of GM food.

    The Royal Society's Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology, which Dr. Brunk and I had the pleasure of chairing, reported its findings in February 2001, in a document that made a total of 53 recommendations. Some of those recommendations included the question of labelling of GM food products. That document is publicly available at the Royal Society's website, and a slightly edited version has been published.

    It is important that I clarify one aspect of my appearance before this committee. Royal Society of Canada expert panels are always disbanded once they have issued their reports. Therefore, the Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology no longer exists and no longer has a formal role to play in the continuing debate. For that reason, the panel does not respond to critiques of its report and it will not, as a panel, comment on any new developments. Former members of the panel—there were thirteen altogether—are, of course, free to discuss the conclusions expressed in the original panel report and to present personal and professional positions on any aspect of the GM food issue. In doing so, however, we represent ourselves. We do not represent the panel, and we do not represent the views of the Royal Society of Canada. So with that disclaimer in mind, I would move on to the issue of labelling of GM foods as it was addressed within the panel, and also to some of the ways in which the panel's results have been interpreted.

    The mandate of the expert panel was to include an examination of the possible risks to human health and to the environment that might be posed by production and consumption of genetically engineered crops, animals, and fish. Since that mandate did not include a balancing of possible risks and benefits, proponents of GM technology have criticized its report as appearing to be negative and unbalanced, but I think it's important to point out that, despite that perception, the panel did not call for a moratorium on development of GM crops or animals, or a ban.

    I think it's also informative to examine the panel's recommendations with respect to labelling of GM foods. After full consideration of the current situation with respect to regulatory approval of GM crops in Canada, the panel concluded that while the existing regulatory process does require review and strengthening—and we spent considerable time discussing what might be done there—that process is still fundamentally and appropriately a science-based analysis of the characteristics of GM organisms and their products. If the improvement suggested in the panel's report were fully implemented, the panel concluded that there would be no need for mandatory, safety-based labelling of food products derived from GM crops or animals.

Á  (1110)  

    This recommendation has sometimes been viewed as standing in contradiction to the emphasis on possible risk that seems to mark much of the report—and I pointed out why the report seemed to have this focus on risk: that was its mandate. But in point of fact, the recommendation on labelling simply reaffirms the panel's belief that the only way to evaluate the impacts of a new technology is to explore those outcomes carefully, systematically, and by using the full power of the scientific tools we have available to us. Once such a thorough analysis has been completed, the nature and scale of any negative impacts can be properly assessed and an informed decision can be taken on the necessity of labelling as a mechanism to assist consumers in avoiding harm.

    I want to emphasize that the panel's labelling recommendation was framed in this context of a prior completion of a full and rigorous analysis. Since the panel identified ways in which the assessment of GM foods in Canada could and should be improved scientifically, the logical extrapolation of its recommendation on labelling is that some form of interim labelling would be justified until such time as those strengthened assessments were operational and had been validated.

    Labelling, whether interim or long-term, also helps to address the problem of monitoring human populations for possible long-term consequences of consumption of various GM foodstuffs. Such monitoring would have to be a central aspect of any evaluation process. Attempting to develop such epidemiological data in the absence of any mechanism for establishing consumption and exposure patterns within the Canadian population will be extremely challenging, if not impossible.

    One of the major questions that must be resolved when considering any labelling scheme is that of defining acceptable threshold levels of GM-derived-food content—and I'm sure this committee has discussed this at length. This is both a conceptual problem and a technological challenge. Conceptually, the adoption of a threshold means tacit acceptance that GM foodstuffs will continue to flow at some level into the food supply system. The mere fact that a threshold exists is only meaningful in the context of a continuing penetration into the food supply system. Thus, while many people may consider a low GM content threshold to be a reassuring mechanism for reducing their exposure to any potential risk, I suspect others will continue to view any GM content above zero as unacceptable.

    The latter position may be politically defensible, but a zero tolerance threshold is really largely symbolic, from a scientist's point of view. I say that because the way in which we establish and report thresholds of this nature is driven entirely by our technical ability to measure the material of interest, and both that technology and the definition of “material of interest” are moving targets. Not only do detection methods become more sensitive and more specific each year, thereby lowering the limits of what we can measure, but the variety of GM crops, animals, and fish that are in the pipeline or could eventually be produced for human consumption are going to create an enormous suite of candidate materials that will need to be monitored. In other words, what we have out there right now is a relatively narrow selection of materials, and the current technology can address those materials. What is coming over potentially the next five or ten years, however, is going to be far more challenging.

    In my view—and I'm again speaking as a scientist here—the focus of any threshold-based labelling model has to be on those components of GM foodstuffs that are directly relevant to the identified human health issues, namely those proteins and novel metabolites that are derived from the GM source material rather than from DNA.

    While specific tools will need to be developed—and some of these are in place for current materials—the basic technology needed to allow both proteins and metabolites of interest to be monitored on a routine basis is already available, and I would add as an aside that it seems logical that the developers of new GM food sources would be responsible and should be responsible for simultaneously developing those appropriate analytical tools that would enable their products to be tracked throughout the food supply system. I do not see that this is an appropriate burden to be placed on the regulatory system. It is something the proponents of the material should be developing for and providing to the regulatory system.

Á  (1115)  

    Finally, and perhaps by way of an aside, if GM foods remain a part of our agriculture industry, then I would say the days of traditional bulk commodity handling as we've known it will probably be numbered. It seems inevitable that the labelling and associated monitoring regimes that are likely to come into play sooner or later will lead to fully segregated crop and animal production streams in which identity preservation is being maintained from the field to the fork. This is not necessarily a negative outcome, in my view, because such a pattern would actually facilitate management of a safe food supply system in terms of monitoring both known and potential problems. If you know exactly where food components have come from, you're in a far better position to track a problem back to its source.

    There are many dimensions to the GM food debate, scientific, legal, and social. In my statement, I have only touched on one or two of those as they relate to labelling, but I'd be pleased to follow up with any answers that I can to questions from the members of the committee.

    Would you prefer that I move directly to Dr. Brunk's statement at this point?

    The Chair: I think so. Please go ahead.

    Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Do we have a copy of that?

    The Chair: It should be in your package.

    Dr. Brian Ellis: Dr. Brunk had also intended to appear before the committee. I would say that I feel the Royal Society of Canada made a very wise and useful choice in appointing co-chairs to this particular panel, because while I was charged with representing the scientific dimensions of the issues, Dr. Brunk was charged with representing the social dimensions of these same issues. It was a very congenial and productive relationship that the entire panel enjoyed.

    Dr. Brunk also wanted to thank you for inviting the two of us to speak to you, and he was going to deal with another important component of appropriate policy on this question. I'll read his statement directly as he wrote it.

    Let me begin by qualifying my expertise in this area. I'm a social philosopher, not a scientist, and I am therefore more qualified to address the social, ethical, and political aspects of the GM food labelling issues than the scientific aspects. The scientific aspects were the focus of discussion in the report of the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology, which Dr. Brian Ellis and I co-chaired.

    I will defer to Dr. Ellis to interpret for the committee the expert panel's treatment of issues related to the labelling of GM foods on the basis of scientifically established health hazards. The expert panel did not find a justification on this basis for the mandatory labelling of GM foods, but did call for the implementation of a reliable and informative system of voluntary labelling. The expert panel made it clear, however, that it was not addressing other social, political, and ethical considerations that might justify a mandatory labelling requirement. It is to some of those considerations that I would like to draw the committee's attention. These considerations, in my view, significantly strengthen the case for mandatory labelling; however, I would like to make it clear to the committee that in addressing these issues, I am representing only myself, not the Royal Society of Canada or the expert panel.

    These considerations that I wish to address relate to the non-scientific but socially critical aspects of the health and safety issue. It's now universally recognized among risk management experts that the question of the safety of a food or of any technology is not a question of whether or not that food is entirely free of risks to humans, animals, or the environment. All foods and technologies carry risks of various kinds, along with their implementation and use. There's rarely such a thing as zero risk.

    We declare a product to be safe when the level of risk it imposes is judged to be acceptable by those who bear that risk: those who stand to be harmed should any risk materialize. Determining whether or not a product is safe is a two-stage process. The first stage involves a scientific identification and assessment of the types and magnitudes of risk inherent in the product. The second is a political and moral process of establishing the standards by which that assessed level of risk will be deemed acceptable. This clearly is why different individuals and social groups may judge the same level of risk very differently.

    For some, the risk of listeriosis in raw milk cheese is acceptable. For others, it is not. This difference is not a matter of competing scientific understandings of the level of risk, but rather a matter of differing standards of risk acceptance.

    The acceptability of risks is determined largely by the way certain of their characteristics are perceived. Among the most significant of these are the magnitude of the potential harm; whether the risks are outweighed by even greater benefit; whether the risks and the benefits are equitably distributed; whether those risks are easily identifiable and easily avoided or controlled; whether the risks are voluntarily assumed or imposed by others; and whether the managers of the risk, whether it's oneself or another, are trusted and respected.

    A relatively high risk such as mountain climbing might be quite acceptable if the risk bearers feel they voluntarily assume control of the risk, they reap the benefits, and they trust the risk managers, who in this case are themselves. On the other hand, an extremely low risk like variant CJD from BSE-infected beef may be highly unacceptable if the risk bearers perceive it to involve a highly dreaded potential harm, to be invisible, to be difficult to control in terms of their exposure, and to be involuntarily imposed for the benefit of others, such as the food industry and government, which have seriously mismanaged it.

Á  (1120)  

    These factors are widely known and accepted as the critical determinants of public acceptability of risks. Yet ultimately, as European regulators of food infected with BSE have discovered, it is the public that has the final say on the acceptability of health risks, despite the judgments of the scientists and the economists about the relative weight of the risks and the benefits.

    The heightened European concerns about the safety of GM foods do not stem simply from the alleged tendency of a scientifically uninformed public to over-estimate their health and environmental risks. They stem more from the fact that the risks, however minimal, are not acceptable because they bear a profile similar to that of the risk of vCJD: they are new and largely unknown; they are perceived as benefiting the food producers while the risks, if any, are borne by the consumers; and they're being managed by industry and regulatory bodies that have shown themselves to be unreliable managers of BSE and other risks. Any risk with a profile like this is likely to suffer from low levels of public acceptance.

    European governments have recognized that the single most effective way to build public acceptance of genetically modified foods is through the implementation of a mandatory labelling regime. If products containing genetically modified ingredients are labelled, this makes several critical changes to the risk profile affecting perceptions of safety. Firstly, it gives consumers the ability to control their exposure to GM foods and whatever levels and kinds of risks they attribute to them. Secondly, it makes the risk-taking that they associate with the products largely a voluntary choice. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly in the current political context, it ameliorates public distrust of the industry and the regulators not only by giving consumers greater ability to regulate their own exposure to risks, but also by undermining the commonly expressed sentiment that asks the following question: If they, i.e. the industry, think there is nothing to hide, then why, by opposing labelling of genetically modified foods, do they not want us to know what products contain them?

    In Canada and the U.S., there is currently a much higher level of acceptance of GM foods than there is in Europe and elsewhere, but this situation could change quickly and dramatically if we experience a serious food safety issue, whether or not that situation is related to GM foods. Such a food safety issue would undermine public confidence in the industry and in the government. In that situation, the public's perception of GM foods in North America would undoubtedly come to mirror more closely the European perception.

    In my opinion, it would be to the benefit of both the industry and the government, to say nothing of consumers, if there were a simple and reliable labelling system in place for GM foods, one that would give consumers the ability to control their response to the changing perception of risk. I am confident that such control would markedly increase public acceptance of GM foods and the health and environmental risks attributed to them.

    The continued opposition of government and industry to the labelling of GM foods merely serves to generate and reinforce public uneasiness about this technology. Consumers can easily see the contradiction in claiming both that the market, not regulators, should decide whether genetically modified foods are acceptable, and that the products containing GM ingredients ought not to be identified with labels so that consumers have a choice. This contradiction can only serve to further undermine the public trust in the industry, the technology, and the regulators, that is essential to acceptance of the technology.

    And Dr. Brunk would have been happy to respond to questions and comments, but, as I say, he unfortunately could not be here.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Ellis.

    We'll move now to the question-and-answer portion, and we'll begin with Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Thank you for being here and for reading both reports.

    As the committee searches and goes through their feelings on genetic modification, and as we listen to the witnesses who come forward, it increasingly is apparent to me that it's an element of trust or lack of trust in our foods. It really boils down to that.

    My question to you is going to be a very simple one. Are genetically modified foods safer or more hazardous than the conventional foods that we have on the market today?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: This is your definition of a simple question?

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: They either are or they aren't.

    Dr. Brian Ellis: Maybe. That's my simple answer.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Touché.

    Dr. Brian Ellis: It's a question that the public asks, and they would like a simple answer. Unfortunately, there is no simple answer. I'll pose my response this way—and I look at it from the scientific perspective, because that's really where safety, as a phenomenon, resides.

    There's no evidence to date that the current genetically modified foods that are in the marketplace pose a health risk. My colleague Dr. Brunk would immediately respond that an absence of evidence is no evidence of absence of risk, but that's something we can debate endlessly. Nevertheless, at this point, either conceptually or in terms of our very limited monitoring that has been going on, I don't see any evidence of increased hazard.

    Now, I condition that statement very strongly because, first of all, every genetically modified product is a unique product. The gene combinations would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis as you go along, so that's not a blanket endorsement of GM technology. It does point out, though, that what's out there right now does not appear to pose any particular risk, but that's not a predictor for the future.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: So the simple answer is that for the ones on the market today, no evidence exists that there would be anything more at risk with the genetically modified food than with the conventional.

    Dr. Brian Ellis: I would have to say that for the moment, yes.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Then do those that are genetically modified and are on the market today have to go through much more rigorous testing before they're on the market than the conventional ones do?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: They go through a very similar testing. Again, though, when you say “conventional”, it depends. Many food products that come into the marketplace do not receive rigorous testing because they're very familiar and they may be modifications of existing technologies.

    I would say that the GM foods that have come forward so far have been examined quite extensively. I would also say there is a level of examination that has not been deployed that I think would have been recommended, given that they are novel in their development and in their characteristics. That was one of the recommendations of the panel. A suite of technologies could be deployed that, personally, would give me much more confidence that these products are genuinely modified in only a very minor way.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Let's talk for a minute about the precautionary principle that you're recommending. Can you tell us a little bit about what you mean by that, and what it means to future genetically modified foods?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: The precautionary principle is not a fixed entity, it's a very flexible envelope that can range all the way from acceptance of no risk under any circumstances to a very broad acceptance of risk under appropriate circumstances. But its general theme is that in the absence of convincing evidence that there is no risk, the assumptions should be that there may well be a risk and that one should deploy, in this particular case, a technology very carefully and only after a thorough examination. That way, a body of evidence that is convincing to the consumer—in this particular case—is accumulated and can allow us to say we've approached this in a very precautionary way and we feel the evidence is quite convincing now that there is no risk of any consequence attached.

    The precautionary principle simply places the onus on the proponents and the regulators to make a decision that is on the conservative side. That decision is conditioned by the weight of evidence that has been accumulated and that has been generated. It doesn't provide a fixed threshold that has to be responded to.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Lunney.

    Mr. James Lunney: Welcome to the committee today, Dr. Ellis. On your recommendations regarding “substantial equivalence”, there seems to be some confusion about the Royal Society's acceptance or rejection of this. I'm looking at your recommendations and executive summary, and I see three clauses that make reference to this.

    In recommendation 7.1, it says, “Such testing should replace current regulatory reliance on 'substantial equivalence'”. But another one, recommendation 8.1 uses the word “reject”, stating, “The Panel rejects the use of 'substantial equivalence' as a decision threshold to exempt new GM products from rigorous safety assessments”. And a third, recommendation 8.5, says:

The Panel recommends a precautionary use of “conservative” safety standards with respect to certain kinds of risks... When “substantial equivalence” is invoked as an unambiguous safety standard... it stipulates a reasonably conservative standard of safety consistent with a precautionary approach.

    So it seems there's a contradiction here. People sometimes pick up one quote or the other. Would you please give us your take on “substantial equivalence”?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: This is a term that has probably caused more difficulty than anything else in the entire GM food assessment story. It really goes back to the origins of the protocols that have been developed for testing GM foods.

    The regulators were concerned with whether they should adopt a whole, new set of procedures and approaches to examining the safety of GM foods, or whether they could work within existing models. The existing model that they opted to use—along with existing legislation, I might add—was one in which the comparison of a GM product with its source material, the material from which it was derived, would be a good starting point on which to base their analysis. That comparison would be primarily asking if the GM version of a particular crop—and this was really all about crops—differs significantly from the parental material. If it doesn't, then you would move on to the next characteristic to see if that characteristic differs significantly from the parental material.

    The idea was to go through the GM product and the parental product, asking whether they were substantially equivalent—i.e., in effect, identical—outside of the new trait that had been created, and the one you might regard as having been the one extra little bubble added to the genetic tree here.

    As it showed up in the decision trees used by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, for instance, the concept was quite reasonable, except that there was a point in the decision tree at which a decision appeared to have been taken that said the GM food is substantially equivalent to the parental material. Therefore, aside from the trait itself, all other aspects did not need to be examined rigorously.

    On the face of it, that seems like a reasonable conclusion if you assume that the trait itself had no effects within the organism other than the one that was premeditated, that had been planned for. It was the panel's conclusion that there is considerable evidence that you cannot change one trait in an organism without inducing an array of other changes, some subtle, some perhaps not so subtle; and that to declare “substantial equivalence” without examining the entire organism and its products for that suite of changes is premature and unacceptable. That was the use of “substantial equivalence” that really concerned the expert panel.

    So we didn't reject the concept that one should compare. I think everybody would agree that's a plausible and reasonable mechanism. But what we did take issue with was the implication within the decision tree that a relatively superficial comparison of the two outside of the trait itself would be sufficient.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. James Lunney: In your evaluation of the mandatory and voluntary labelling, your report clearly states—and I'm just quoting from recommendation 8.4, on page 206, in chapter 8:

Serious risks to human health, such as the potential for allergens in genetically engineeredfoods, risks of extensive, irremediable disruptions to the natural ecosystems through emergence ofhighly aggressive or invasive weed species, or of serious diminution of biodiversity, demand thatthe best scientific methods be employed to reduce the uncertainties with respect to these risks.Approval of products with these potentially serious risks should await the reduction of scientificuncertainty to minimum levels.

    You pointed out quite correctly in your introductory remarks that your recommendation of a voluntary system was conditional upon acceptance of your recommendations for increased scrutiny of the products. It has been said that even the Royal Society approves a voluntary system. Could you please explain the conditions to us? For example, on the conditions for the sale of a house, if you don't meet the conditions, the house doesn't sell.

    Dr. Brian Ellis: That's why I was glad to actually have the chance to make this statement to the committee today, because that really did require clarification. It didn't come through very well in the report.

    Our recommendation with respect to voluntary labelling, as opposed to mandatory labelling, was fully conditional on implementation and validation of a more extensive and long-term analysis of the safety and environmental impacts of GM products. We should have made that clear, because that was the context in which that recommendation was made. So you could turn it around quite reasonably, as I said in my statement. The extrapolation from what I've said there, what I'm saying today, and what's in the report, is that there should be labelling until we have a longer history of safe use of this technology.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunney.

    Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    Thank you very much for coming forward, Dr. Ellis. I have a couple of questions.

    One of my questions is about GM fish. You outlined in your report some direct concerns with regard to GM fish. I understand that the Food and Drug Administration is now looking at that issue in the United States in regard to Atlantic salmon and a super-growth gene. Could you explain your concerns on that issue of GM fish?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: I can summarize our concerns as being related to the way fish are farmed, at least on the coasts, where they are released into net pens and are raised in a marine environment. The escape rate from those pens more or less guarantees that you're going to have a release of whatever is in the pens into the environment. While it might be plausible to control a crop that might spread from field to field, it is impossible to recover any organisms that have been released from net pens into the natural environment.

    Our concern as a panel was that, because we know so little about the impacts of genetically modified versions of fish on the native stocks and on the ecology of marine systems, it would be irresponsible to release GM fish into net pens. At the very minimum, they should be used only in land-based systems.

    I've often said in public that I even find land-based systems to be a very risky enterprise. That's not because fish are going to flop their way to the shore, but because someone is sooner or later going to think it's a clever idea to take some of those fish and toss them into their net pens.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Bob Speller: Thank you.

    I appreciate the fact that you read the other gentleman's presentation. He really talked about non-science considerations in this debate. Your panel obviously looked at those sides and came up with recommendations.

    How important are these non-science implications? For our committee, we're going to have to balance between what science is telling us and what these other considerations are. Can you give us an idea of how we might go about doing that?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: I don't think they're inconsistent. I think what the scientists are saying is that we would be more comfortable making a call on the safety of these materials if we had a longer and more thorough history of analysis of their impacts. We don't have an immediate alarm reaction, but we don't feel we're in a position to make very definitive calls, particularly as new versions of these GM materials come along.

    Our job as scientists is to provide as much relevant information as possible so that what is essentially a political and social decision can be taken. Wearing both hats, as a citizen and as a scientist, I would have to say I think those social and political decisions pre-empt the scientific ones. They don't negate the value of the science, but the decision that's being taken, as Conrad Brunk has said—and I agree with him completely—is basically one of building trust in this technology. If you don't build trust in this technology, I think there's a very real risk that the technology will actually not achieve its potential for good. There's potential for harm as well, but I'm more concerned that we might lose the ability to enjoy that potential for good if we don't build trust in the technology.

    Mr. Bob Speller: I'm wondering, Doctor, if you feel the resources to do that are within Health Canada now. Did you make recommendations with regard to assuring the public of the food safety, and are the resources there now in Health Canada to do that?

    Secondly, what recommendations have you heard back from Health Canada? Are they going to accept what you've recommended and make changes, or...

    Dr. Brian Ellis: I can't address their resources, but from a technology point of view, yes, they can do what needs to be done. From a capacity point of view— in other words, do they have the staffing and the throughput to do what needs to be done?—I don't know the extent of their capacity, so that's something they would have to address specifically in the context of a formal question.

    Mr. Bob Speller: To date, though, you've accepted that they have gone through the fifty or so and that those fifty or so are acceptable.

    Dr. Brian Ellis: Aside from their initial, knee-jerk, negative response, I would say they've responded constructively but hesitantly. They've had an ongoing off-and-on dialogue with former members of the panel about how they might implement the recommendations.

    To be fair to them, the 53 recommendations represent a rather undistilled output from the panel. We ran out of time. We were pushed to issue our report probably two months before we really were ready to. I would have been happier with about 25 recommendations that were more succinct, so that's one of the struggles they've had. They had a meeting with the panel a month or two after the report came out, in order to receive clarification on the recommendations. We went through every one of those recommendations with them.

    Their action plan, which you may or may not be familiar with, does address the recommendations in a way. From my perspective, though, it does so in a rather general and unfocused fashion, and it does not really lay out very tangible goals. In rather bureaucratic terms, it speaks of directions in which it might like to go.

Á  (1145)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Speller.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, please.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

    Let me just pick up on this knee-jerk reaction... [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...plan first, and then let me pick up on this whole issue of Health Canada.

    You said it very well, Dr. Ellis. The government as a whole, and particularly Health Canada, responded quite inappropriately when your report came out, by quibbling with your science, suggesting that you didn't have all the information, and trying to discredit the report. I think an attempt to turn that around has now been made, and we now have a semblance of an action report in response. But as you said, we have seen no specific actions to deal with the fundamental question, which is food safety.

    I think we all agree that the labelling issue is a secondary, side issue. If we all could be assured that independent, scientific research had been in place, and that the genetically modified foods on the market now were safe beyond a reasonable doubt, we wouldn't be into this issue of labelling.

    I have just a couple of questions in my five minutes. In February 2001, in response to the department, which quibbled with your scientific approach and the idea of substantial equivalence, you responded by saying that you appreciated Health Canada's approach, but that their analysis was

based solely on data and information provided by the petitioner and the decision documents describing and validating the outcome are, as you point out, internal and thus not readily available to either the scientific community or general public.

    Have you been able to get any more information from Health Canada about the information they are using, the data they are working with, and the science they are using in terms of this whole, long, often-stated promise about doing everything possible to ensure that our genetically modified food is safe beyond a reasonable doubt?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: First of all, as is the case with the disbanding of the panel, I no longer have a formal role. I would therefore be no more successful in extracting information from Health Canada than your average citizen, and I haven't attempted to dig any deeper.

    They do not have any more transparency in the system than they had when we were talking to them, so that has not changed. The one offer they have made—and it's a tentative one—to improve oversight mechanisms for their assessment process is to have one external expert sitting on their final decision panel for approvals. I'm sorry, but I find that to be more or less a token offer. First of all, because there are so many facets to the assessment of a GM food, one expert, whether that person is an ecologist, an allergist or whatever, is in no position to make decisions on the quality and validity of the work sitting on the table before them.

    I would still go back to the panel's call that the process be made much more transparent, and that reflects right back on the question of building public trust. Also, it's not just that the public be granted more access to those data sets, but that the scientific community be in a position to examine both how the testing was designed and how the data were assessed, in order that that relatively independent voice can also be heard and become part of the public debate.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You also said in your report—and you reiterated it again today—that it was critically important for our society, our government, to maintain scientific integrity, and that any perceived conflict that is created by having an agency such as the CFIA doing both promotion and regulating was of concern. We know from some news reports over the last month that it would in fact appear that the government has engaged in a multi-million dollar propaganda campaign to promote GE foods.

    Having reported on this issue a year ago or more, what are your thoughts today in terms of this whole area, given that we're really dealing with more than a matter of perception?

Á  (1150)  

    Dr. Brian Ellis: I have always felt it was inappropriate, and I don't feel any differently now. Based on what I've seen, I would say they've scaled back their emphasis on development of food biotechnology and are playing a much more neutral role. My discussions with Agriculture Canada scientists suggests that their former, very heavy emphasis on developing new biotech products has shifted quite markedly away from that within the research branch of Agriculture Canada. They're now much more focused on sustainable agriculture than they were a year or two ago.

    So I think there has been a shift. I don't think our report necessarily was the big piece in that, but I think they realized that there is a strong public reaction to the introduction of this technology. If they don't feel their emphasis was inappropriate, they do feel it's counterproductive.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Dr. Dromisky.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you.

    You've talked about building trust in the technology, but I think it's far greater than just building trust in the technology. You're a man with a background in and great knowledge regarding research and so forth, so you know as well as I do that most research has a weakness. Characteristics regarding any research could be severely scrutinized and questioned, depending upon the variables that are used within the research model. We have the private sector and we have institutions and foundations doing research. They could have x, y, or whatever number of variables included in their research, and those variables could vary from institution to institution.

    You talk about universities. You're recommending that universities do the research. I think the same kinds of problems and weaknesses exist within any university scientific department that might be involved in research in this area. It depends upon the variables that are there. If a variable is going to taint the outcome and it will be unacceptable, the scientists will have to consider if their supporter—some foundation or the government, if it's government funded—would be happy with the outcome. Should they take this variable out of the picture and guarantee that they will continue to receive funds in the years to come, or will they be cut off if they give a negative report or a report that's not acceptable?

    We talk about the industry, we talk about the private sector, and we talk about universities and a host of others that might be involved, yet there is no consistent way to control the variables that are used. Any critic can come along and say this is acceptable, but if you take a look, you see that they've forgotten this, they left this variable out deliberately, and now they're labelling their product and are saying it is safe and acceptable. Meanwhile, some other model might prove it's not safe. Of course, I'm just hypothesizing here, because I don't know what is possible.

    What is Europe doing in this regard? How are the Europeans getting around this problem? We're not just talking about the health problems, we're talking about social problems, economic problems, and so forth, based on some kind of research. Do they have any kind of research in Europe?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: You've touched on a number of points.

    Let me just say that I recognize fully—we all do—that scientists are human like everybody else, and they respond to pressures. That's the reason the scientific community operates on an open-information, peer-review system. If you cannot validate data by reproducing it in somebody else's lab, then that data is suspect. That's a given. It's only by making comparisons, retesting, and challenging data, that you finally arrive at a conclusion that's quite robust. It's not proven, but it gives people, both scientific and non-scientific, confidence that the data are correct.

    So I agree completely that the issue isn't really so much whether work is done in a university, in industry, or in a government lab, although you can clearly see more pressure in one situation than the other. The key thing is open access to data and to the conclusions that were derived from that data, so that they can be tested elsewhere. That's the peer-review system in science, and that's really what we emphasized when we brought the report forward. I therefore think there is a mechanism for ensuring that those variables are taken care of.

    What are the Europeans doing? The Europeans are doing a lot of research, but they're doing it in a context in which they have blocked deployment of GM crops. They haven't blocked consumption of GM food, but they have imposed thresholds on how much can be incorporated into food. But they're investing tens of millions of dollars every year in assessing both the environmental and health impacts of GM foods, in labs, in field trials, before they actually deploy the crops in the landscape. That's what they're doing.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

    Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Let me pick up on that, since you mentioned Europe. You're saying they're doing much more extensive studies and tests in genetically modified foods. The question comes with regard to tone and trust. Getting back to the idea of trust, has that changed somewhat in Europe as they have tested for a significant number of years? I'm referring to a report that came out just prior to Christmas. It was a European study suggesting that genetically modified foods may even be safer than conventional ones. Can you comment on where they are with that?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: I'm not sure the public attitudes have changed a great deal. I think the scientific evidence that's accumulating is very valuable, and that it will eventually become an important piece of the debate. But from what I've read of public attitudes to GM foods in Europe, they have not shifted dramatically. They've shifted somewhat, and probably in the direction of more acceptance, but there is still strong resistance within the public.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Has the shift taken place within the scientific community? Maybe that's something you can address more so than...

    Dr. Brian Ellis: The scientific community is not a uniform group. I'd be hesitant to place a marker on that particular continuum, but if I had to answer that—and this is just a personal perspective—I would say it has probably shifted somewhat in the direction that, yes, we're accumulating more evidence and that, by and large, the existing GM products are probably safe, but some interesting, unexpected traits also need to be followed up.

    Again, as science always proceeds, it confirms many expectations, but it also generates some interesting, new questions.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: On our testing here in North America or in Canada, there certainly seems to be a consensus that what we have on the market today is very safe and that we should not be too alarmed about it.

    I'm a little more concerned about looking forward. Do we have the mechanisms in place presently? Are we waiting long enough? For some of the new products coming down the line, are we testing them enough prior to allowing them to get into the marketplace? From a scientific perspective, are you comfortable that we're taking the appropriate precautionary measures now, or should we tighten those up?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: The challenge of testing the new products that are coming—for instance, those that carry disease resistance or environmental stress tolerance—is huge, because they carry traits that are.... Let me condition my remarks. I don't think they're necessarily any more risky from a human health perspective, but I think those new products are going to be a big challenge from an environmental health perspective, because the traits they carry are going to make them much more competitive in the natural environment. The transmission of those traits to related species, for instance, is something that's going to have to be monitored very carefully.

    From a human health perspective, as I had mentioned in my presentation, the tools are there to very thoroughly assess the potential health impacts, with the one qualifier being that we still need long-term monitoring if we're going to really be confident that we're not triggering some response that we just did not predict at all.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Is that your hesitation with regard to the fish, in that if it's not a food safety issue, it's environmental?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: It's absolutely an environmental issue.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: But you're not too concerned about food safety.

    Dr. Brian Ellis: I think it needs to be examined in the same thorough fashion that all other GM products are examined, but I don't see it as a unique safety issue, no.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

    Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

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

    Thank you, Dr. Ellis. The issue of genetically modified foods is of great interest to us. We have been told that genetic modifications occur spontaneously in nature. We know that this technology has a lot of potential benefits in the long term. However, everyone wants to know whether it will have a negative impact on health in the long term. If I understand correctly, when foods are approved for marketing, there is a scientific assessment carried out and we are told that the current research shows that we can consume these products without any risk to our health.

    How can these assessments be carried out? It is not an easy task; who should be responsible for doing it, and how indeed should it be done? I often draw a comparison between this issue and drugs, which are more strictly monitored. I'm talking of course about prescription drugs where the chances of follow-up are perhaps higher. Could you perhaps suggest to us a way of ensuring that there is indeed an assessment which takes place when foods of this kind are marketed? In my opinion, this type of assessment process could be a key to acceptance of the new technology.

[English]

    Dr. Brian Ellis: I agree completely. I think the single biggest challenge that we face scientifically is the long-term monitoring—and this applies to environmental effects as well as health effects. But just to focus on the health issue for the moment, I don't see how you can carry out meaningful epidemiological studies to look for, say, new patterns of health impacts or allergic responses if you're not able to develop consumption records for parts of the population that appear to be affected. Otherwise, you can't establish the correlations that are the only indicator that changes in consumption patterns have actually been the cause, or at least the tentative cause, of the outcome that you're seeing.

    Even with those labelling and tracking mechanisms, it is a big, expensive process. As I understand it from our discussions with them, Health Canada has accepted that long-term monitoring is going to have to be implemented in order to address this question. They actually have established a long-term monitoring committee, but I don't know much about it because we haven't sat down to talk to them. I don't know what methodology they're planning to use, but in the absence of labelling, I am frankly puzzled as to how they could make much progress on this. It seems to me that the current model is to wait and see.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I really don't have the answer either. It's not an easy issue to solve. I don't think that anyone is currently in a position to solve this issue, but we're all well aware of how important it is to have an assessment process.

    Let's come back to labelling, be it compulsory or voluntary. What type of information should be given to the public so as to allow them to decide whether or not they wish to consume this type of food? What type of information should appear on labels?

[English]

    Dr. Brian Ellis: I'm going to have to answer that question at different levels. As I pointed out in my presentation, the idea of zero tolerance is very problematic. If you are going to accept that there is a practicable threshold, if you will, then your question is fine. If it's 2% GM, what does that mean and how would it be implemented? My focus would definitely be on any proteins in the product that have been derived from genetically modified food sources, like crop plants and so on. The greatest risk in this technology—and I don't want to put that as a great risk, but it is the greatest relative risk—is going to be in the induction of new allergic responses because of novel proteins that are either proteins we haven't seen before in our diet or proteins that are now at a much higher level in our diet than was ever the case before.

    So my personal thought on the matter is that I would focus on the level of GM-derived protein that is present in the food product in question. I would not be concerned about DNA, because I'm not aware of a health issue that's attached to DNA. While I do consider metabolites—in other words, the chemicals that accumulate in food products—to be an issue, they are something relatively straightforward in terms of monitoring them. An assessment of them can be done a priori, at the level of the bulk commodity. You can be confident that there are no toxic metabolites that you're not familiar with, and you know what the toxicity levels are.

    But proteins have this big unknown attached to them. You do not know who is going to be allergic to a protein until you have a history of exposure across a big population. That may sound like an experiment in action, and it is effectively an experiment in action, but we do that with classically bred crops and with mutation breeding as well. I think it's just something we have to accept, in that this is another facet of our manipulation of our food supply.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Castonguay.

    Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): I would like to pick up on my colleague Ms. Wasylycia-Leis' comments. She said that the debate that we are currently at grips with stems from the fact that there are doubts. If we knew that in the short, medium or long term, GMOs represented no risk to health, then we would not be having this debate that we are currently having on the safety of these types of products.

    If we start from the premise that doubts do exist in terms of these products, then, I don't know why we are not recommending a compulsory warning label for these types of products, and as you indeed yourself have suggested, during a said period. We often draw comparisons between GMO foods and the situation in terms of drugs. In my view, I do not think that this comparison holds much water, because in the case of prescription drugs, we are in a position to track how often these drugs are used and whether they have been mixed with other substances. However, we are not able to do this in the case of genetically modified products.

    I might eat certain types of corn and I might have an allergic reaction to it. However, it might not be this particular product which is the root cause of my allergy, but it might be because it has been mixed with another product. Then again my reaction might be because I've eaten this product often over the years. Scientists are not in a position to prove the safety of these types of products for the time being. I think that they will never be able to do so. Perhaps you put me on the right track here. Will we ever be able to control all the possible variables, in particular, the mixing with other substances and the frequency with which this particular type of food is consumed?

    Why, then, in light of what you have said, do you not just call for compulsive labelling—even on a temporary basis—until it is felt that a system has been set up to assess mixing, frequency, timeline and modifications that have been made, rather than just saying that when in doubt, err on the side of caution?

    I have a second question. Reference is often made to the tolerance threshold and to the possibility of permitting a certain percentage of GMO material in a particular product. To my mind, you cannot be a bit pregnant. You're either pregnant or you're not. If particular products do cause health problems, why then should we tolerate 1%, 2% or 5% GMO content? Don't you think that we should go for zero tolerance because we don't know the health problems which might be caused by this product?

  (1210)  

[English]

    Dr. Brian Ellis: You asked many different questions there. Perhaps I'll start at the end and work my way back through them, and if I miss something, you can tell me.

    Why not zero tolerance? Because putting a zero label on a product basically introduces a legal obligation to be able to guarantee that there is zero in there. As I mentioned in my presentation, that is basically technology-driven. Today's level of what we can detect is not tomorrow's level of what we can detect. We drive it down constantly. That's why I say it's not a practicable or meaningful level.

    You can try to guarantee zero, just as organic growers do by declaring that no GM product material is acceptable in an organic food system. In point of fact, though, they don't survey that. The industry is not technically able to survey that, and they don't make any pretense of it. While you have to accept that organic production is “GM-free”, I know of no data demonstrating that is the case. That's the kind of challenge you have to face, and that's why some level of acceptable inclusion of GM is really where most countries have gone, just to be realistic about it.

    Why don't we declare labelling mandatory and have done with it? Effectively, I think that's what both Conrad Brunk and I have said here even though we're coming at it from different dimensions. From a scientific dimension, I don't think the database is complete yet on GM safety. Therefore, it would be entirely appropriate to have mandatory labelling. From Conrad's perspective, there is a social and ethical dimension to this. If you're asking the consumer population to accept some degree of risk, then you have to give the population the ability to make choices around that risk. I don't have any problem with that argument either.

    Have I dealt with...

[Translation]

    Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Lunney.

    Mr. James Lunney: I'm just going back to the GM crops, and to canola in particular because it's so widely used. We understand that about 78% of our crop in Canada is GM canola. Are you aware of studies showing that the GM canola is more aggressive in pollinating?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: I'm not aware of studies showing that GM canola is more aggressive in pollinating, but I'm aware of a study on one of its related species, arabidopsis, suggesting that one of the herbicide resistance genes seems to change the effectiveness with which the pollen will carry that GM trait to other individuals in the population. It seems to improve the out-crossing rate.

    It's quite an unexpected result, but it apparently has been confirmed by the original researcher. I have not seen follow-up experiments from other people, though, and I don't know whether corresponding work has been done with canola. I would have to say, however, that it would seem like a logical study to do.

    Mr. James Lunney: Yes, exactly.

    With the issue of an alternative, the industry seems to be promoting a voluntary labelling scheme. With tolerance levels in Europe, I understand they would presumably be for those who want to label their product GMO-free. In Europe, as I understand it, they have accepted a tolerance level of about 1% content.

    I understand that the Canadian General Standards Board is looking at a 5% tolerance. Could you comment on that? We were told by Health Canada officials who were at committee recently that there is a problem in quantifying, whether the content is 1%, 5%, or any other percentage. You can tell there is a presence or absence, but in terms of actually quantifying the amount of GM content, especially in mixed products, it is a problem.

    Dr. Brian Ellis: It would depend on what Health Canada is looking at. I'm assuming it's DNA, which is quantifiable, but I don't know whether they are considering DNA. If they're focusing on protein, which would certainly be my primary concern, I don't see why it would not be quantifiable.

    I can see challenges in there, because the methodology that you develop for one form of the protein might be less efficient at detecting it, say, once it has been cooked and processed and sits on the shelf for six months.

    I understand the challenge, but I don't see why it's not resolvable. We have very good scientists both in Health Canada and outside Health Canada, and these things are all addressable. So I really don't understand the argument.

  (1215)  

    Mr. James Lunney: Would you say a certain amount of instability tends to be a feature of genetically modified crops or substances, or that there is a tendency toward instability in reproducing, meaning that they throw off a lot of variants?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: When they create genetically modified crops, the very first stage of the development is the incorporation of the gene into the parental background. When you look at the products of that exercise, you find many different variants or off-types. What the developers do is simply rogue those out, they discard them. They only keep the ones that, one, have the gene; two, have the gene and it seems to be doing what it was expected to do; and three, don't appear to be an off-type. So they go through a pruning process that is basically getting rid of most of those visible off-types. They will then often crossbreed that GM line with existing non-GM lines in order to improve the background or give it characteristics that might make it better adapted to one area or another.

    So a lot of front-end work goes on, and once they have selected a GM variety, I don't think there's any evidence that those selected lines are any more unstable or genetically unreliable than classically bred lines.

    Mr. James Lunney: Is there evidence that production levels or expected production levels are dropping off with some GM crops? After a while, do they seem to be losing some of the advantage?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: I have not seen any evidence of that. The studies that I've seen from the soybean producers, cotton producers, and canola producers have not suggested a fall-off in efficacy. That's something growers would respond to very quickly. They will not take a yield loss in order to handle this technology.

    Mr. James Lunney: On the use of a virus in creating GM crops, are you familiar with adeno-associated virus?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: There are two aspects that you might be referring to. One is that, most commonly, the regulatory elements that you build into your GM crop include what's called a gene promoter, which is derived from a plant virus. But there are also direct GM constructs that are viral, and they're designed to suppress viral disease. So those are two different ways in which it has been used.

    Mr. James Lunney: Just as a final comment, very briefly—

    The Chair: Sorry, Dr. Lunney, but you're at five and a half minutes. I have to move on.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, followed by Mr. Speller.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I have four questions, I'll put them all together in the hope that Dr. Ellis can make something out of them.

    The first question, Dr. Ellis, goes back to your last response to me about the CFIA. I'm just going to put to you a hypothetical question. Perhaps the CFIA can in fact appear to be in less of a direct conflict of interest position and be more neutral because it now has a natural front group for advancing this notion of food safety in genetically modified products and for convincing Canadians that all is well. I'm thinking in particular of this glossy booklet that has gone out. It was somehow put out through the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee and under the auspices of the Food Biotechnology Communications Network. Considerable information is still being put out to try to do the same thing, just under different names, so I just wondered if you had a comment on that.

    The second question has to do with the research issue. Who is doing independent, science-based research in the country today? I don't know if you can answer that.

    I'm also wondering who the Canadian Research Institute for Food Safety is, because we had a presentation last week from a Dr. Doug Powell. He seemed to be more a walking advertisement for the industry than an independent scientist concerned about food safety, yet he was purporting to represent the body that is...he was making statements to the effect that they provide science-based public information, that we have the best safety system in the world, and all the rest. So that's the second question.

    The third is with respect to labelling. I support the idea of mandatory labelling; however, as you were talking, I started thinking that perhaps some of these large, corporate food giants might start to side with us on mandatory labelling because they can cover the costs in terms of the labelling, advertise all they want to counter the effects, and not deal with the fundamental issue of science. And who then takes the brunt? Consumers, of course, but also the farmers, who are left to sort things out on the labelling side.

    The fourth question is simply seeking clarification on the idea that you would support a moratorium on the approval of any new genetically modified products coming onto the market at this point.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: You're over two and a half minutes already, Judy.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sorry.

    Dr. Brian Ellis: I'll try to be fast. Do I have a time limit as well?

    The Chair: No, but the member has a time limit for both the question and the answer.

    Dr. Brian Ellis: Oh, I see. Very good.

    Is the CFIA appearing more neutral because it's devoting some of its promotional efforts to other... I can't say. I certainly have my own hesitations about some of this literature that's still coming out, because it's bypassing the issue, to me. It's simply trying to take an advocacy position, but I don't think that's what the public needs right now. It doesn't need advocacy, it needs mechanisms that allow it to gain confidence.

    Secondly, who is doing independent research? A significant amount of independent research is being done in universities, but it's typically reactive research rather than proactive research. I also have to say it's difficult for university researchers to get funding to pursue some of these questions, and that's partly because the chances of finding something really exciting and new are relatively small. That makes it a risky proposition for somebody who has to maintain a research program and their credibility. If they spend three or four years studying a problem and they're not able to say they've found a problem at the end of the day, they look like they've been wasting their time. That doesn't look good.

    Who is the CRIFS? I won't comment on Doug Powell. I think you have your own views on him.

    Would big corporations pursue mandatory labelling? Strategically, I think they'd be very smart to pursue mandatory labelling. When Monsanto introduced New Leaf potatoes in New Brunswick, they did so with an open and active publicity campaign that made no bones about the fact that these were genetically modified potatoes. They had stands in the supermarkets, they had freebies, they were happy to discuss the technology, and there was a very positive response from the population in that context. I always thought that was a remarkably prescient move on the part of Monsanto. Monsanto got killed on GM potatoes because the big distributors like McCain said they wouldn't buy GM potatoes anymore because their customers down the food line were saying no. But I thought the model Monsanto used to introduce New Leaf was actually more respectful of consumers than a lot of the subsequent introductions have been.

    Would I support a moratorium? I hesitate to take stands like that, because, to me as a scientist, I will still stand by the comment that we need thorough testing and full data sets. I would ask that any new products coming onto the market have that information and that work behind them before they're released. I'll leave it at that.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Fair enough. Perfect.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Bob Speller: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of quick questions.

    Did you study the European situation? Are the Europeans now eating foods that have been genetically modified?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: Yes.

    Mr. Bob Speller: But they have a mandatory labelling system, is that it?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: It's coming in.

    Mr. Bob Speller: Did you look at their system? I'm just wondering how responsive it is to some of your concerns. I think back to something you said: that “tools will need to be developed”, but “the basic technology is available to allow both proteins and metabolites of interest to be monitored”. Will they be able to monitor them? You also mention “monitoring human populations”. Will they be able to do that? Will they be able to “develop such data in the absence of any mechanism for establishing consumption and exposure patterns”? Do they have a threshold level of GM foods, and will they be able to verify what that is?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: Yes, they are consuming, because they're big importers of food from the U.S.

    Will they have the technologies? Do they have the technologies needed to monitor? Yes, they do. The Americans have it as well, because the Americans have had to develop these technologies in order to verify that the shipments they send to Europe have what they say they have. The American producers in the big commodity grains are now able to sample multi-ton shipments within ten minutes, and can give you a statistically reliable number on how much GM “contamination” might be in that shipment.

  (1225)  

    Mr. Bob Speller: Is that in all products, or is that just grain?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: That's primarily in grain, because mainly grain and soybean and corn products are shipped to Europe. Those are the only ones that have been modified. Cotton is not an issue because it's not a food product.

    So, yes, both the Americans and the Europeans are addressing those questions, but for different reasons. The Americans are doing so because they want to ship into the European market. The Europeans are doing so because they want to be able to verify that what they receive is actually what the label says. So I don't see any pieces missing there.

    On the long-term monitoring, I can't address what sorts of long-term monitoring programs are in place in Europe, but the very fact that labelling will at least be introduced will allow epidemiological studies to establish correlations with consumption patterns, because people will be able to report what they have been eating over the last six months. If they say they always avoid foods that have a GM label on them, that automatically defines a subpopulation.

    Mr. Bob Speller: How would they be able to prove that something is not genetically modified?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: They won't, but using thresholds allows them to establish a relative exposure. That's the whole purpose of thresholds. If you've said your threshold is, say, 1%, as opposed to, say, no threshold in Canada, you're at least segregating the population into those who have been exposed to no more than 1% GM protein—whether it's soybean protein or corn protein—and those who may have been sampling basically the entire food supply system, whatever that might average out to be over time in terms of GM monitoring.

    Mr. Bob Speller: Do you know if they have a tracking and tracing ability in order to trace something back to the farm gate?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: That's coming. The soybean producers in the States have already done it.

    Mr. Bob Speller: Sorry, but I meant Europe.

    Dr. Brian Ellis: There is no farm gate in Europe. They don't grow GM crops.

    Mr. Bob Speller: We know that?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: It's illegal.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Speller.

    Mr. Lunney, you can have the last minute, so get your question out quickly.

    Mr. James Lunney: On the adeno-associated virus, you mentioned that you would be concerned about DNA, but there are some concerns about changes to the genome. Unexpected sequences have begun to be observed and associated with transgenes and GM crops, such as soybeans. That's according to an article by Daniel Miller, Elizabeth Rutledge, and David Russell, entitled “Chromosomal effects of adeno-virus vector integration”, published in Nature Genetics in February 2002. They say a fuller analysis will likely show that scrambled and/or unexpected sequences are commonplace in GM crops. Are you aware of those studies?

    Dr. Brian Ellis: Just as a point of clarification, I'm not aware of any adeno-virus constructs that have been involved in GM crops. It's an animal virus, to the best of my knowledge. It has not been used in plants, so I don't know quite what that context is.

    Mr. James Lunney: Oh, okay. I understood that they used that, as well as the biolistic transformation or gene gun methods.

    Dr. Brian Ellis: The gene gun, yes, but you don't use adeno-virus in plants. It's used to transform animal cells.

    To get to your point about scrambled DNA sequences, yes, any construct that has been inserted into a plant by using gene gun technology in particular tends to have multiple insertions, and often those insertions are scrambled or damaged. By definition, one or more of them must be functional; otherwise, they would not have proceeded with the development. But that background of other sequences is very real and would be difficult to remove, except through very extensive breeding. That's why, in general, the technology tries to make use of the agrobacterium-based method, this natural bacterial transformation vector. It's much cleaner and you don't get nearly as much scrambling, if any.

    The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Lunney.

  (1230)  

    Mr. James Lunney: Thank you.

    The Chair: On behalf of the committee, Dr. Ellis, let me express our gratitude for the clarity of both presentations, yours and that of your colleague. I thought you demonstrated a real generosity of spirit in the way you answered our questions, and we're very grateful for that. We would like to reserve the right to call you again when we all learn a little more...not the right, but I think I can say we're giving you fair warning, because I have a feeling we may need you as these issues begin to become more clarified in our minds.

    We're really only beginning this study, and sometimes things can be pretty confusing. I thought today's presentations were among the clearest we've had. You have outlined the questions very well for us, so we'll proceed with that knowledge as we hear from the next witnesses.

    Thank you for your time today, and for the clarity of your presentations.

    Dr. Brian Ellis: Thank you very much. They were excellent questions, and I enjoyed being here. It's a long trip, but I'm always surprised at how productive it is.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, just for one second, I would direct your attention to an invitation that you have before you to something that is actually in the second week of the break, the week after Easter. The representatives from Germany are very anxious to meet with some of us, so if anybody could possibly turn up in Ottawa on Wednesday, April 3—there's a mistake in the third line, where it says Wednesday, April 4—would you please let the clerk know? The ambassador would be happy to take you out for lunch with these visiting German parliamentarians.

    Mr. James Lunney: I have a policy meeting.

    The Chair: Oh, do you? So you can't go.

    Moving on to the motion, for which you received notice on Thursday last, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis has put this motion forward. It's quite lengthy, and it has six clauses explaining her rationale.

    Would you like to address it, Judy?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

    I won't read the motion, but I will just go over a few of the factors leading up to this recommendation that our committee deal with the issue of adverse drug reactions for a period of time between now and the recess for this parliamentary session.

    Madam Chair, you know better than anyone that this is the anniversary of the death of Vanessa Young, who died from an adverse reaction to a drug that was inappropriately prescribed to her. Today is also almost the anniversary of the report from the coroner's inquiry into that death. The coroner's inquest resulted in a number of recommendations and a proposal that these ideas be implemented as quickly as possible.

    To the best of my knowledge, very few decisions have been made by the federal government since that time, and very little action has been taken, although there may be some progress in the work that I'm not aware of. I think it would be very fitting and very helpful for us, as a committee, to devote just a bit of time to this issue in the near future.

    I would also just say a couple of other things. We know this isn't an issue just about Vanessa Young, this is an issue about many Canadians who experience adverse drug reactions. We don't appear to have a very effective system in place for keeping track of adverse reactions or for requiring doctors to transmit their reports or get out the information on a timely basis.

    We also know the Auditor General, who appeared before our committee a few weeks back, has had so many concerns raised with her that she is in fact thinking about doing an investigation.

    So I would suggest, Madam Chair, that this issue would be worthy of having us spend perhaps two sessions on it between now and the middle of June. It would take one session to perhaps hear from the department about current structures with respect to drug safety and mechanisms for reporting adverse drug reactions. We could perhaps include the CMA, because the Canadian Medical Association has, as you all know, issued public statements indicating that because the federal government hasn't acted, it intends to act. It has been involved in some semblance of a national reporting system. And perhaps we can also consider someone like Terrence Young or someone else who might be an expert in terms of experiencing this issue directly. Finally, we might then have a session to sort through where things are and to see whether or not, at that point, we should be making some recommendations.

    So I present this as a positive suggestion. I think it's a role for the committee to play at this critical juncture. I know we have a full plate with GMOs, Madam Chair, but I'm just looking at the schedule now and wondering if it looks bare enough anywhere in there that we can somehow find perhaps two sessions when we could deal with this issue.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Dr. Dromisky.

  (1235)  

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: I think the concepts being presented are very valid, Madam Chairperson. There's no doubt in my mind that everybody in this room is concerned about the same kinds of things being presented in this motion. As far as future agenda items are concerned, though, I can come up with ten that are all extremely important as far as the health of Canadians is concerned.

    This motion is asking us to deal with this before Parliament rises for the summer. There is a strong possibility, first of all, that we might dismiss early. Secondly, we know the reproductive technology issue will be presented to this committee before May 10, and that means meetings all day Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday afternoon, and Thursday, just as we did before Christmas.

    Thirdly, we're dealing with an issue right now. I don't know how far we're going to get with this issue. The demands here, as pointed out by my colleague from the opposition...she made some suggestions.

    The suggestion that you're making, Judy, would hardly meet the demands that exist in my mind in regard to this issue. I can think of more groups to bring before the committee than those you've just identified. I can see more than two or three or four or five sessions to deal with this issue, because it's an extremely important issue. There's no doubt about it. Therefore, I don't see how we can possibly even touch this before summer, but I would like to have it put as a major item on some future agenda for the health committee.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Merrifield.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I would like to actually reiterate a little bit of what Mr. Dromisky said in the sense that the issue is very large. It has many tentacles to it. It's not just on the drug safety agency, although hopefully that's going to be up and going very soon. But this is very important.

    But here we are. I sit and wrestle with the idea that we're talking about genetically modified foods when we know all of what is on the market today is safe. We're spending all this time on it, yet we're losing lives. People are dying because of inappropriate drug use and the inappropriateness of us being able to deal with it in an effective way. We've known about it for a number of years. I think we have our priorities a little messed up on this one.

    I will support this motion, because I think it absolutely has to be looked at.

    The Chair: Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I would just like to say that Mr. Dromisky expressed his position very well. I share that position. I agree with him. I would just like to say to Judy that I checked with department officials and they told me that they are currently looking at the whole reporting system in terms of reaction to drugs in an attempt to find ways of ensuring that information is provided. Very often, it's not just a case of reporting but also of ensuring that information is provided.

    I have one tangible example of this to give you. I have been made aware of something new that is due to start in April. In the past, when adverse reactions to drugs were discovered, very often, this was reported in the Canadian Medical Association journal. However, from now on, these adverse reactions will be documented in a separate paper in an attempt to reach doctors and health care providers. Very often, it's not just a case of the information not being reported, but rather of getting the message out to the appropriate people to make them aware of the problem.

    I just wanted to share this information with the committee and with Judy. I have been informed that action is being taken at a departmental level. In light of this information, and given that our agenda is very heavy, I cannot support the motion as it stands now.

[English]

    The Chair: I'll give you a one-minute wrap-up, Judy. You've had over twelve minutes of time now.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Did you want to speak before I wrap up?

    Mr. James Lunney: Well, I would like to speak in favour of the motion, Madam Chair. I'll make it brief, but I would just like it to be on the record that I realize how important this issue is. And it is a big issue. It is one that we're going to need to address as a committee. The question is just exactly when and how we're going to do that.

    I would certainly like to have it on the record that I think we should make this a priority study. If it doesn't receive approval to be passed now, I think we should put it on the slate as a high-priority issue to have on our slate as soon as possible.

    Sorry, Judy.

  (1240)  

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thanks.

    The Chair: Dr. Dromisky.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: I'd like to make an official amendment to the motion, although I don't know if I'll get support for it or not. What if we delete the words “before Parliament rises for the summer”?

    The Chair: That's in order.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Do you want us to address the amendment?

    The Chair: Yes, we have to address the amendment now. Or can we just vote on it?

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: I just have one little comment on the amendment.

    The Chair: Okay, quickly.

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Health Canada has known since 1996 that there is a major problem here. We can find a ton of excuses to not bring this forward, but I think the time is long gone for us to turn a blind eye to this. I think we have to bring it forward.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Before summer?

    Mr. Rob Merrifield: Before summer.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Then how are we going to get all the other stuff done that we're supposed to get done? I have two committees to sit on, so I strongly oppose this move.

    The Chair: We'll hear from Ms. Wasylycia-Leis on the amendment.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I can appreciate the sentiment of the amendment and I understand that it gives some support to the idea of discussing the idea down the road. However, I think there is some urgency for us to take a little bit of time out of our schedule between now and the middle of June to at least get an overview of what has happened in response to the coroner's inquest into Vanessa Young's death, and in terms of having an opportunity to get some clarity around the news that Mr. Castonguay brings us today with respect to the establishment of some sort of an agency.

    As my colleague Rob Merrifield has just said, a lot time has passed. Since 1996, when this issue first emerged, there have been eighty deaths in United States and Canada in total. After Vanessa's death, it took five months before the government acted. It has now been two years since her death and a year since the coroner's inquest and those specific recommendations. I think it's incumbent upon us to have a little bit of time to deal with this now, and that's why I presented my proposal the way I did.

    I realize we have a full agenda, but we have the ability to be a little flexible and to devote one or two sessions to this issue, in order to get an overview and to see if we should be making recommendations at that point. I would obviously love a fuller, more lengthy discussion, but in the interests both of dealing with this as expeditiously as possible and of respecting the schedule of the committee's agenda, I made this proposal and I will stick with it.

    The Chair: We've had speakers for and against this amendment. The amendment is to delete the phrase “before Parliament rises for the summer”.

    All those in favour of the amendment, please so indicate.

    What are you going to do, Madame Thibeault?

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): I am going to agree with the proposal put forward by Madame Wasylycia-Leis.

    The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.

    Are you abstaining, Madame Thibeault? Yes? Thank you.

    (Amendment agreed to)

    The Chair: We're now back to the motion without that phrase in it. Addressing the main motion, I think I had Dr. Castonguay on the list just before we moved to the amendment.

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: My position is the same as it was before. I supported the amendment because I believe that if there is an opening in our busy schedule at some point in time, I would welcome this. But the reality is that all the things we are discussing on our agenda are important, and it's a question of priorities. We have different views on this, but I support the amendment that we just voted on.

    The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Madame Chairperson, I forgot to mention that a bill coming before the House this week will be presented to the health committee, to be dealt with immediately.

    The Chair: Okay, let's vote on the motion, as amended.

    (Motion as amended agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: Thank you. That motion carried unanimously.

    I was just going to say, Mr. Dromisky, that it sounds like we're going to have a bill in our laps almost as soon as we come back from the Easter break.

    I will just caution you, colleagues, that in order to get through that, to be ready for the next piece of legislation, and to also keep working on GMOs, we are definitely going to have to seriously increase our number of scheduled meetings. I'm sorry about that, because I'd rather save your energy for the finalization of a report. I can't do that, though, because it really looks like we're going to have to meet a lot more often.

    Anyway, I thank you for your attendance, your attention, and your participation today.

    This meeting is now adjourned.