;

HEAL Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 11, 2002

1105

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

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

1110

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

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Eric Claus (Vice-Chair, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, Chief Executive Officer of Co-op Alantic)

1115

1120

1125

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank (Vice-President, Atlantic Office, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors)

The Chair

Ms. Laurie Curry (Vice-President, Public Policy and Scientific Affairs, Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada)

1130

1135

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Eric Claus

1140

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mr. Eric Claus

1145

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Eric Claus

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

1150

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mr. Ménard

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mr. Ménard

Mr. Eric Claus

1155

Mr. Ménard

Mr. Eric Claus

Mr. Ménard

Mr. Eric Claus

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska)

Mr. Eric Claus

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Eric Claus

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

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

Mr. James Krushelniski

Mr. Thomas Singer

1200

Mr. Bob Speller

Mr. James Krushelniski

The Chair

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Carol Skelton

Ms. Laurie Curry

Ms. Carol Skelton

Ms. Laurie Curry

1205

Ms. Carol Skelton

Mr. Eric Claus

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank

The Chair

1210

Mr. Dromisky

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank

Mr. Eric Claus

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1215

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank

Mr. Eric Claus

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1220

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank

The Chair

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

Mr. Eric Claus

1225

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank

Mr. Castonguay

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Eric Claus

1230

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Eric Claus

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank

Mr. Eric Claus

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Laurie Curry

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank

The Chair

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

1235

Mr. Eric Claus

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Eric Claus

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Eric Claus

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Ms. Laurie Curry

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1240

Ms. Laurie Curry

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

1245

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Mr. Eric Claus

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Ms. Laurie Curry

The Chair

1250

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Laurie Curry

The Chair

Mr. Bob Speller

Mr. Eric Claus

Mr. Stan Dromisky

1255

Mr. James Krushelniski

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. James Krushelniski

Ms. Laurie Curry

Mr. Bob Speller

Mr. James Krushelniski

The Chair

Mr. Thomas Singer

1300

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

NUMBER 065

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 11, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1105)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

I'd like to call this meeting to order. I'm sorry I'm a few minutes late. I'd also like to apologize to my colleagues for cancelling the meeting on Tuesday. It was a request from the whip's office, and I understand no committees that were supposed to meet between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. met, so I was asked to cancel, and I did. I hope some of you got to the service for the Queen Mother and enjoyed it.

I regret the inconvenience, of course, to our witnesses, some of whom drove a long way to get here. We're preparing a letter to assure them they will be invited again.

I have a little bit of committee business. You all know from the last few days that Bill C-53 is in the House. That's the pesticide act. It will be referred to us. We're not sure if the House will make that motion during this week or on Monday, but we're pretty sure that by Tuesday that bill will have been referred to this committee.

As you know, with legislation it is usual that the minister is the first witness. So the bill has not been referred, but we anticipate it will be. I would like to be organized, and I want your permission to invite the minister to come on Tuesday.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I asked the clerk yesterday to do a little reconnoitering and find out if the minister could come on Tuesday. He has found out she can come from 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. She's booked until 12 p.m., so I'm wondering if I can have your permission to reschedule the hours of this meeting from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., to 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, BQ): I understand that given the way the House works, bills always have priority over mandates. I think it is very unlikely that we will finish our study over the course of the next session, so what do you suggest about future work on GMOs? Do you think we will come back to that as soon as we have finished with the bill? There are many people expecting a report from us.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Are we making a commitment to that as a committee? If people call us from our ridings and ask us the question, are we committed, as a committee, to come back to GMOs once we have finished the consideration of the bill? Can we answer in the affirmative?

[English]

The Chair: We are planning to come back to the study on GMOs when this bill is referred back to the House by us. The only thing that might get in the way of that would be if we received another piece of legislation. I don't know whether that will happen. But as you know, Mr. Ménard, most of the committee is anxious to get the piece of legislation on reproductive technology.

We could finish this bill and on its heels receive the other bill, in which case the GMO study would be put aside again for the time being. However, those people who were booked on Tuesday will indeed--if you're talking to them you can tell them--be witnesses when we resume the study. We're not trying to get rid of any witnesses. It's just the whole timing thing and the concurrence, with the arrival of a bill.

Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): My concern is exactly what you're talking about, with regard to the reproductive bill. We know that bill will come by May 10. So the chances of this coming through.... That's what the minister committed to.

The Chair: The minister said the response would come by May 10. I don't know whether it will be the actual bill, or a letter she writes to us in response. She's not compelled to bring the bill.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I questioned her on that when she was here, and she said the bill would be here. She confirmed that, so I take her at her word.

Regardless of that, when there's a bill we've worked hard on for the last year, and we've said it would supercede the GMO study--I believe it should also supercede pesticides--because of its importance to Canada and Canadians it should be our first priority, when that piece of legislation comes.

The Chair: I'm not sure if we can abandon one piece of legislation for another. We will be beginning pesticides. I have a feeling we can get it done fairly quickly, if we agree to have a few more meetings or little longer meetings and really move this.

I'm anxious to get the pesticide bill done so we're ready, should this other bill come.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'm anxious to get the reproductive bill done.

The Chair: Exactly. I think we all are.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Á (1110)

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

I suggest we actually not take the stance to put on hold the study on GMOs while we deal with pesticide legislation. As a committee, we should adopt the philosophy of handling both matters concurrently and fitting in, where we can appropriately, sessions for each. One might take precedence over the other for a period of time, but under no circumstances should we leave the impression that we are dropping one to carry on another piece of business.

I think this is an approach that's been adopted by other committees. The agriculture committee is certainly carrying on with their GMO study, while doing a major study on the future of agriculture. I think our best approach would be to adopt a similar position. Perhaps there will be opportunities, while we're waiting for hearings on Bill C-53 or for the witnesses to be organized, or whatever, to continue with the study on GMOs.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis has put a totally different suggestion on the table from mine.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.): Yes, Madam Chairperson.

You can see we're having a spin, and we'll be going round and round and coming up with alternatives and different options, and so forth.

We have witnesses before the committee at this time, and time is very precious. So I recommend we hold this discussion at a special session to solve this problem of scheduling, if we can, when we don't have witnesses before us--in other words, in camera.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Speller, do you agree with that? Do I have your agreement to proceed with this meeting, including your permission to invite the minister for Tuesday?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Perhaps you could call a meeting on future business. We could discuss it then, but now, out of respect for the witnesses we could hear them.

[English]

The Chair: Yes. We could actually convene at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, to have half an hour before the minister comes, if you prefer. Would you like to do that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: So the meeting on Tuesday will be from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The minister will come at 12 p.m. and we'll have half an hour for future business. Thank you.

I believe Mr. Dromisky has a notice of motion. He wants to just read it to you, so we'll deal with it on Tuesday.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Yes, we could deal with it at the business session. Thank you very much.

I have a notice of motion here. I would like to move that the committee invite the Minister of Health to appear before us to discuss the main estimates at a date no later than May 9, 2002.

May 9 is the last meeting we have on a Thursday before we have the next break.

The Chair: Thank you. You're all notified. You'll see it on your e-mail, or whatever, and we'll deal with it on Tuesday. Thank you very much.

It's now my pleasure to return to the study on GMOs and introduce today's witnesses. Representing the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, we have Ms. Cruikshank and Mr. Claus. Representing the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada, we have Ms. Curry and Mr. Krushelniski. Have you decided among yourselves who's going to begin?

Mr. Singer. I'm sorry; I forgot about Mr. Singer.

Mr. Singer will begin--no, Mr. Claus. Thank you.

Mr. Eric Claus (Vice-Chair, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, Chief Executive Officer of Co-op Alantic): He will be singing a little later. I guess I should start, then. Bonjour, les membres du comité. Good morning to the committee members.

We'd like to thank you for allowing us to express our views regarding what we all take as a serious issue, the issue of GM labelling of foods. First I'd like to introduce both Jeanne Cruikshank and myself, from the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors. Jeanne is the vice-president of the Atlantic region and also heads up all the issues that have to do with CCGD and biotechnology issues. She is also one of the driving forces behind the Canadian General Standards Board's issue on GMO labelling.

My name is Eric Claus, and I'm the CEO of Co-op Atlantic. We're a very diverse business in Atlantic Canada. One of the reasons I accepted to co-chair our committee, when it comes to GM labelling, is that our business is basically owned by real Atlantic Canadians--over 200,000 families--and our businesses span from agriculture to food retailing. I have to deal on a daily basis with opinions that are probably as varied as you have to deal with from the Canadian public. There are people on the very left of the issue as well as people on the very right, including agricultural shareholders of our business who are also farmers.

It certainly makes it a challenge. This whole issue has been a challenge, but I think one we all want to deal with in the best interest of consumers and the rest of the people in this country.

I'm going to start by telling you a little about CCGD--who we are--and talk about our commitment to the issue as well as to the process. Jeanne will then get into some of the more detailed aspects of the issues involving the process on labelling to date, and in particular the CGSB process. We'll also talk to you about what the future might hold concerning it. We will be followed by our colleagues at FCPMC, who will articulate their thoughts and positions.

As a food industry--and I think it's important that I make this point--the CFIG or Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, which is not represented here today but is an important part, and also the FCPMC whom you will hear a little later, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and ourselves have worked many hours tirelessly to be really responsive and proactive on these issues. I can tell you that with organizations like this at a table, it is not always easy. We all have different opinions, sometimes very varying opinions, on different issues. But at the end of the day we always come together. We really strive to find compromise. At the end of the day, we've always said we have to promote what's right for the consumers, for the industry, and also for our farming communities. So there are a lot of things at stake, and we take it quite seriously.

To show you also a little bit of the commitment we have in terms of retailers in particular--members of the CCGD--we have stood together, and it hasn't always been a popular move, to disallow products that are labelled GM-free on our shelves until such time as there is a standard. We believe it's not right--it would be unethical--to put something on our shelves where we can't stand by what the label means. Today there is no system in place. There is no real definition; there is no standard. We've been quite adamant that until the standard is established we will not allow a product like this on our shelves. We really are committed as an industry. We're not allowing anyone to do some of the silly things that were done in the U.K. To promote a GM-free line on our shelves today, I think, would be totally unethical. We have stood by that.

The last thing, before I get into more of the detail, is it's important to note that in Canada we are fortunate we enjoy the trust of the consumers. If we look around the western world, in particular at countries such as the U.K., consumers have no trust in the food industry. They have no trust in their regulatory bodies. The trust we have, which we share jointly between our regulatory bodies of government and industry, is not one that happened by accident; it's one we've earned.

We enjoy one of the safest food systems in the world and want to continue to respect the trust we have from the consumers. That's why we take this issue so seriously and are making the presentations we make. I certainly hope that as a country we don't repeat some of the mistakes that were made in places such as western Europe that, on the part of many industries, were initiatives taken for marketing reasons, and politically and emotionally, without balancing the facts. I hope we as a country do better than that.

I'm going to speak a little bit in French now, so those who are not donning devices, please do. I'll tell you a little bit about the CCGD.

Á (1115)

[Translation]

The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors (CCGD) is a not-for-profit association dedicated to advancing and promoting the interests of the grocery and food service distribution industry across Canada. The membership of CCGD includes large and small retail and wholesale operations, food service distributors and allied members who provide product and support services to CCGD members.

CCGD's members make important contributions to Canada's economic prosperity. The food sector is the second-largest entity in Canada's retail sector. The grocery distribution industry employs almost half a million individuals, and total grocery sales in Canada through traditional outlets exceeds $56 billion.

In addition, our food service sector employs approximately 8,000 individuals and the total food service sector sales total $11 billion. CCGD's distributor members represent more than 80% of the volume of grocery distribution in Canada. CCGD's mission is to advance and promote the interests of members by helping them to deliver the very best value to Canadian consumers in three ways: leading in selective public policy initiatives at the federal and provincial levels; working with suppliers to develop and implement industry's standards and best practices, and working with provincial and national governments to ensure a regulatory environment that enhances industry competitiveness.

Á (1120)

[English]

I'll go back to English now.

CCGD is really a bridge between the food-producing industry and the consumer. We need to be responsible retailers. And I can tell you, when I was co-chairing this committee, the first thing we always talked about at every meeting we had on this whole GM labelling issue was how we could be responsible retailers and respond to our consumers. In this role of responsible retailers we support the principle of informed consumer choice. We always have and we'll always continue to do so.

We support the view that consumers have the right to information about food that goes beyond the strict issue of health and safety. In the case of foods from biotechnology, we also support the voluntary labelling as a complement to the mandatory system of labelling already in place when food or food ingredients raise concerns related to health and safety. This labelling falls under the mandate of Health Canada.

A similar example of such an initiative was the development of the organic standard. In holding this position, we recognize a number of key trends in consumer attitudes. Some of these are quite interesting. I'm sure you're aware of many of them. We found that there is definitely a marked lack of knowledge on the subject, but the level of awareness is rising. Concern is rising along with this awareness. There's an overwhelming belief that consumers have a right to know whether or not products are derived from food biotechnology.

The other thing we found is that consumers give a very high credibility ranking to grocery retailers on the subject. This position has led us to stake out our leadership role on the issue of labelling foods being produced through biotechnology.

An interesting thing you may know that relates to our business is that, in representing the people we do in eight supermarket chains spanning the four Atlantic provinces and also les Îles-de-la-Madeleine au Québec, we actually were the first, and I believe the only, retailer in North America to put biotechnology and GM food information kiosks in supermarkets.

We offered literature in these kiosks to inform consumers, from both organizations totally against biotechnology and GM foods and organizations that are very pro. We also had a direct hot-line with a 1-800 number to a biotech information centre in those kiosks, which were front and centre in the stores. Interestingly, with all the things we hear about the issue--and this is again in the four Atlantic provinces plus in Quebec, les Îles-de-la-Madeleine--we had zero response over a period of six weeks and dismantled the kiosks. It was almost shocking to see this.

It speaks to the fact that, when we speak to people about GM foods, they have an opinion, but when it came down to real people in real stores, they had absolutely no reaction to the chance to inform themselves. I was astonished by this.

So there's a lot of talk from extremes on the right and the left, which doesn't take away from us dealing with the issue, but we have to be careful that we deal with what's really important to the majority of people.

In late 1999 the CCGD initiated the work of a multi-stakeholder committee, the CGSB--which Jeanne will get into--that is now reaching the end of its deliberations on the rules for a system of voluntary labelling. We've also taken the position that foods with labels that claim they either are or are not genetically modified should not be permitted until clear rules are established by a standard that provides information to consumers that is truthful, verifiable, and not misleading--and Jeanne will speak to verifiable because it's a key word in this.

On the front lines, retailers have been presented with the challenge of trying to advance a legitimate process as expeditiously as possible, even though the issues are complicated and take time to resolve. Inevitably this has created some tension.

I'd ask Jeanne now to get into more of the specifics of the whole process--where it is and where it's going.

I thank you.

Á (1125)

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank (Vice-President, Atlantic Office, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors): Thank you.

Let me quickly take you through the process that we believe was put in place under the structures of the Canadian General Standards Board and sometimes may not have been as expeditious as we all would have liked. Nevertheless, few would argue against the legitimacy of the broad group at the table working hard to achieve consensus.

The representatives at the Canadian General Standards Board process include government departments at the federal and provincial levels, the producing community, retailers, consumer groups, and other NGOs. The domestic and exporting ends of the industry have been at the table.

Since its formation, the group has participated in nine full committee meetings, in addition to many hundreds of hours of smaller working groups. Our preliminary drafts were released for public comment and sent out for review by the World Trade Organization. We've shared conference calls, e-mails, and facilitated online discussion to advance our deliberations.

Although it hasn't been a speedy process, we have leapfrogged over other countries grappling with the same issues. In December 2001, our first valid draft went out to members and received substantial support when ballots were returned with comments in late January.

In early March, at our ninth meeting, we met and made significant progress in addressing the outstanding issues that had prevented members from supporting the standard. The ballot draft has been revised to reflect this meeting and the comments, and these revisions have been reviewed by the full committee in an online forum. We are now in the position of preparing a second and final ballot draft, which will go to the members in the coming weeks.

So allow me again quickly to take a few moments to describe the key features of the standard.

First of all, it is voluntary. That means the products on our grocery shelves making claims about genetically modified ingredients must do so under the rules of the standard. The principles of this standard, as outlined earlier, require that claims are clear, meaningful, verifiable, truthful, and not misleading. As mentioned, verifiable in this context means that it is essential that processes be in place that allow us to trace back the ingredients that are in the products on our shelf to the seeds planted in the ground--easier said than done.

Most crucial, we have arrived at a clear definition of what the standard refers to as genetically engineered. To put it simply, depending on how you define genetic modification, you could be describing almost every agricultural product or very few, but the committee has settled on a definition that encompasses recombinant DNA technology, the Codex definition.

However, in the interest of consumer information, the standard commits to the sharing of greater information about the food production techniques through off-label methods, including 1-800 numbers and industry websites.

What does all of this mean? Hopefully something very easy for consumers to understand.

In summary, we are very optimistic that we will have a consensus on a second ballot draft within a few short weeks. The task then is to have the standard implemented by industry. Our research tells us--and I'm sure that our friends at FCPMC agree on this--that consumers have a low level of knowledge about foods from biotechnology.

We know from our work on this committee also that the issue is complicated, and it will be important for the introduction of the standard to be accompanied by a substantial program of public education. We believe as industry sees advantages in making claims about food from biotechnology, labelling will begin to become more prevalent, driven by the choices made by consumers. Our hope as responsible retailers is that these will be informed choices, made with clear and meaningful information.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Claus and Ms. Cruikshank.

We'll now move to the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada and to their vice-president, Ms. Laurie Curry.

Ms. Curry.

Ms. Laurie Curry (Vice-President, Public Policy and Scientific Affairs, Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada): Good morning, bonjour, Madam Chair and committee members.

My name is Laurie Curry. I'm vice-president, public policy and scientific affairs, with the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada. We certainly appreciate the opportunity today to present our members' perspective on labelling on foods from biotechnology. We support this open dialogue on genetically modified, or GM, foods, and we hope this review will help to explain the full implications of labelling for the food industry and, most importantly, for Canadian consumers.

FCPMC is the industry association representing over 165 Canadian-operated member companies. Our members produce and market food and consumer products sold through retail stores and food service outlets across Canada. I just want to point out for the committee that we in fact are not the biotechnology industry; we are the food manufacturers. Our food manufacturing industry employs 320,000 individuals, and we are the second largest manufacturing sector after the automotive sector here in Canada.

With me today are two representatives from our membership. Mr. Tom Singer is the president of Reinhart Foods Limited, which is a privately owned Canadian company that makes vinegar and baking ingredients. Mr. James Krushelniski is the president and CEO of the H.J. Heinz Company of Canada Limited, which is a multinational food company that makes canned foods, condiments, and pet foods.

Our members have been in the business of serving consumers for decades. We make the brands Canadians have come to rely on. Our brands deliver a promise to consumers every day: we promise them choice, we promise them quality, and above all we promise them safety. I underline the promise of safety because it is key to the issues faced by us in the food industry and by you as legislators.

We embrace Canada's world-class regulatory standards so we can deliver to Canadians the best quality and safest food supply. In order to meet and exceed this objective we use only ingredients approved by Health Canada, and we implement mandatory and voluntary systems and processes currently, such as HACCP, hazard analysis and critical control point, and ISO certification.

We stand behind Canada's regulatory system and the quality and safety of our products. Canada's regulatory system ensures that every precaution is taken in assessing the safety of foods before they are made available to consumers. This of course includes foods from biotechnology. All foods from biotechnology undergo a rigorous regulatory approval process that can take up to 10 years, including research and development--R and D--field trial evaluation, registration, and marketing practices.

Canada's regulators have determined that there are no health or environmental concerns with food products currently on grocery store shelves that contain ingredients derived from biotechnology. Independent reports and studies such as the Royal Society Expert Scientific Panel's report confirm that GM foods undergo such a rigorous approval process that they are deemed to be as safe as or safer than their traditional counterparts.

Ladies and gentlemen, both we as food manufacturers and you as legislators are facing a very serious disconnect. On the one hand, we have GM foods that have been carefully assessed and approved and that are absolutely safe. On the other hand, despite assurances of safety, we know that 40% of Canadian consumers view GM labels as a health and safety warning. Furthermore, 25% of consumers are less likely to buy products labelled GM, and in fact 27% will look for alternative sources, non-GM sources, of those products. This is based on consumer research that was conducted in 2001 by Ipsos-Reid.

Since consumers see GM labels as a health and safety warning, we would rather remove GM ingredients from our products than mislead consumers into thinking that our products are not safe. The food industry is one of the most consumer-driven industries in the world. Whether consumer perceptions are based on fact or on myth, food manufacturers will respond to those perceptions.

Labelling for the presence of GM ingredients would have significant implications for our industry and for consumers. To avoid the misconceptions that GM labels would create and the potential economic impact, food manufacturers have several options, including using non-GM ingredients in our products, substituting ingredients for those derived from GM sources, for instance, substituting sucrose for corn sweeteners, using wheat starch for cornstarch, and using non-GM ingredients for our products from outside Canada.

All options involve significant lost opportunities and costs for food companies, farmers, consumers, and Canada's economy. Those lost opportunities and costs would be a direct result of the fact that a significant number of consumers have the misguided perception that GM foods are unsafe.

Á (1130)

You, as members of Parliament, will have a major influence on this issue. We ask you not to compound the problem. We ask you, rather, to help address the misguided perception. Let's not confuse the consumer's preference for a certain type of product with the safety of all Canadian food products.

This brings us, really, to the issue of labelling. What should GM labelling look like? We support consumer preference in the marketplace, and that's why we are helping to develop a standard through the Canadian General Standards Board that will allow food companies to provide informative and truthful claims to consumers. It is agreed by all participants in the CGSB process that this standard must meet five core principles, which we've heard about: it must be informative, it must be understandable, verifiable, not false, and not misleading for consumers.

We have five recommendations for the government. First, continue to support Canada's current mandatory labelling system for health and safety reasons. We support Canada's current labelling policy. This calls for mandatory labelling when genetic modification causes a change say, for example, in the nutrition composition of the food. That must be identified on the label. Or when a potential health and safety risk needs to be identified, mandatory labelling is required. An example would be the presence of an allergen; it must be on the label today under the novel food regulations.

Our second recommendation is to support the development of a voluntary labelling system when information is provided to the consumer for reasons other than health and safety. Don't confuse the two. We ask the government to support the development of a voluntary labelling system for reasons other than health and safety so that we can continue our ongoing dialogue with Canadians about the foods they eat. We look forward to being able to provide more information to our consumers.

Our third recommendation is to ensure a marketplace exists in which food manufacturers can continue to use as many Canadian crops for their products as possible. As an industry responsive to consumers, we have two options. We can move away from GM ingredients or we could source non-GM ingredients from outside of Canada. Either option is to ensure that consumers are not misled into thinking that our products are not safe.

Our fourth recommendation is to continue to communicate to Canadian consumers about foods from biotechnology in order to enhance their understanding and allow them to make informed choices. Informing consumers is essential. It is even more essential that consumers receive accurate, unbiased, and scientifically valid facts in order for them to make informed decisions about the foods they choose to purchase and eat.

Lastly, our fifth recommendation is to evolve the regulatory framework for the health and safety evaluation of new products of biotechnology for food use as advances in biotechnology continue to evolve.

Canada needs a regulatory framework that keeps pace with the evolving science, there is no question about it. We support the Government of Canada's action plan in response to the royal society's report, which recognizes the need to continually enhance Canada's regulatory processes and protocols, particularly as the science becomes more complex, and as that evolves.

In conclusion, we need government to stand by Canada's world-class regulatory system. We need to label only for health and safety reasons, and continue to do that, so we don't mislead Canadians about the safety of their food products. We need a dialogue that enhances Canadians' understanding of how effective and respected our food safety system already is. Above all, let us continue to buy Canadian crops for the good of the entire food supply and to provide an affordable food supply for consumers.

Thank you very much for the opportunity today, Madam Chair and committee. We look forward to participating in the dialogue.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Curry.

Would Mr. Krushelniski like to say something? Or Mr. Singer?

Mr. James Krushelniski (President and CEO, H.J. Heinz Company of Canada Ltd.; Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada): No, I'm fine.

Mr. Thomas Singer (President, Reinhart Foods Limited; Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada): No, thank you.

The Chair: That being said, thank you.

We'll move to the questioning. We'll move to our lead opposition critic, Mr. Merrifield.

Before you begin, may I welcome Ms. Skelton, who is newly appointed to our committee. Welcome aboard.

Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I want to thank you very much for coming and sharing your insights with regard to an important issue for all Canadians.

It's a fascinating subject. I believe Eric Claus mentioned what I see as one of the key factors here, and that's the matter of trust between the consumer and the processors, whether it be the farmer or all the way down the line. It's this trust level that we have to increase if we're really going to get to a place where Canadians will feel informed and knowledgeable enough about what's happening. In fact, the only way you are going to get that trust is to get that information level up.

I'm really interested in your comments, Mr. Claus. You talked about a standard that we need, and then there's the organic, or the pest-free side of that. You say we're not going to come up with a standard, but what do you do with a label such as organic labelling, or pesticide-free labelling, in your stores? Are you okay with those kinds of labelling or not?

Mr. Eric Claus: Wherever there is a standard and wherever something is verifiable.... The standard we're referring to is the standard that's being proposed or being finalized with the CGSB. Until that time, if you have a can of beans or a can of whatever on a shelf, and a manufacturer wants to make a claim that it's GMO-free, we have to feel comfortable as retailers that the claim can be substantiated.

A standard includes a lot of things, including the ones that both Jeanne and Laurie mentioned, in particular having the ability to verify. We have to be able to have a traceability system that goes from that can of beans on the shelf in the store right back to all the ingredients and to the seeds that were used to grow the plants that were the ingredients in that can.

There already is a standard and a certification process for organics. You can see that many of the large retailers are promoting organic products in a fairly substantive way.

I guess a simple answer is that before we make any claims on anything, there has to be a standard about that claim. First of all, there has to be a definition of what genetically engineered is. As Jeanne mentioned, you could have a definition that is broad enough to include half the products that are sold, or you could narrow it down to something that's extremely narrow. I think what the CGSB is proposing is the internationally accepted standard, which is the Codex standard, which is the protein.

Á (1140)

Ms. Laurie Curry: I was just going to add that all labelling practices in Canada today are based on standards. If you take a look even in the nutrition area--fat free, low in cholesterol, sugar free--there is a standard in place for criteria for each and every one of those claims today.

The fact is that if there's no standard in place, we can't deliver on that because that would be false and misleading under the Food and Drugs Act, and as a government you cannot enforce against it. Whatever is out there and whatever is on the label, there is a standard and criteria that go behind it. That's critical for delivery from the agrifood industry as well as for the government, from an enforcement standpoint.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: So what you're saying is that if somebody wants to promote genetically modified products for whatever, there isn't a standard there. That's the rationale of why you're saying no to it.

Ms. Laurie Curry: Again, whatever is going to be in the marketplace, there has to be a standard to promote it. The importance of the work behind the Canadian General Standards Board is to establish that. If you're going to say something is non-GM, what are the criteria to meet that? That's why you need a standard. Until the standard is in place, we should not be participating in the marketplace with those claims. That's the position we've taken. That standard is under development as we speak.

Mr. Eric Claus: The fact that we as an industry have released it together on the retail front to say that we will not put anything on ourselves reflects our commitment to a standard. As Laurie said, there are rules and regulations.

The whole issue about labelling.... I'm not a scientist, and I find that when you listen to people, you can get so confused with this issue. It just boggles your mind because you're hearing all kinds of things all over.

We have a regulatory system in this country that's probably one of the best in the world. The reason we're proposing a voluntary labelling standard is that if there's a health and safety issue, by God, you have to label it. That's fundamental. It has nothing to do with cost. It has to do with what's right and what's wrong. If something is a health and safety issue, you have to label it.

If we have foods that go through a rigorous testing program and process in this country, which is controlled by many regulatory agencies that have served us well for so many years, our responsibility as an industry in terms of labelling is to say whether they're deemed safe. The processes are there. We have those regulatory bodies.

Where we come in is with the consumer's right to know. Again, it's a trust factor. You have consumers who don't want to eat genetically modified food that has a genetically engineered product in it. If the consumers want to know, if that demand is there, we as retailers will provide that product. We'd be stupid not to. It's just part of what we do. If there's enough of a demand for it, the processors will do it also.

Don't impose regulations in terms of mandatory labelling on something that's not health and safety. What's going to be the next issue then? We'll end up with a foot-square label on a product that's this big. There has to be some rationale or some logic behind this.

Á (1145)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes. I think we've heard many witnesses come forward saying the same thing. If it's a health and safety issue, if they're not safe, then let's get rid of all GMOs. If they are safe, then let's educate the population so there's a comfort zone there.

That takes me to my other question with regard to the difference in what Eric and Laurie said.

Eric, you had some test-market cases where virtually there was a comfort zone after a short period of time, if I understand correctly what you said, with regard to GMOs. Yet Laurie is saying your polls are showing that 65% of Canadians are very disturbed about genetic modification. Can you justify the difference and tell me where consumers are really at?

Ms. Laurie Curry: Sure, I'd be happy to respond. Currently, in the marketplace, there are no products that have labels on them with respect to GM or non-GM, so the research we have done has tested out...we've actually done interactive research where we've simulated online what a grocery store would look like, where you have product choices with the labels right on them, to see how consumer choice would happen.

When consumers see--and this is all proposed because it's not in the marketplace right now--packaging that says, for example, “contains genetically modified corn”, they see that as a warning. They see it as a health and safety issue. They see it as an unsafe product, and they will stop buying the product. Twenty-five percent said they would look for other alternatives, because they think that is a health and safety warning.

What that does is start to undermine the strength of our regulatory system, and it perpetuates a myth or a perception that GM is unsafe.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: How do you justify your tests?

Mr. Eric Claus: What we did...I don't think one is related to the other. If I went to the same consumer...a woman or a man walks into one of our stores, and I have a kiosk on GM products. It has all the information; it has a hotline. There's no real interest out there. Those are just the facts. I couldn't invent those. We put them up. We were probably the most proactive retailer in North America in doing that. People just walked by. If you asked the same consumer who just walked by, if I were to go up to her or him and show them a can of beans that says it contains genetically modified beans, chances are they would look for another product. In today's context, it would be a negative.

I think where we're going with the whole CGSB process is that if there is concern among consumers, and obviously there is some, then allow us to have a voluntary labelling system whereby we can label GM-free product and have it as such in the stores.

Our test is disconnected from a survey where you actually go and ask somebody the question.

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: I would just add, I think it speaks to the challenge we have for education, but as a real building block of that education you have to start with a set of rules or criteria and a definition. From that base, you can give the explanation, you can give the education. Until we have that, our challenge is much, much more complex than it will be with the finalization of the set of criteria and an understanding of health and safety being addressed.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm trying to understand and make sense of all this; it is not always easy to figure this out. Each one of you has said that you are concerned about the consumer's interests, and I don't doubt that, I don't question that at all, but in what way is mandatory labelling, with very specific standards, incompatible with the consumers' interests?

For example, as you know, there was a private member's bill put forward by one of our colleagues, the chairman of the Environment Committee, which proposed several things, I'm told, that were based on the European model.

If that bill had become law, would it have been completely unacceptable to you, and for exactly what reasons? You said that you have the consumers' interests at heart first, and I believe that feeling is shared by all the members of this committee, therefore tell me in what way a mandatory labelling system is incompatible with the consumers' interests.

Á (1150)

[English]

Ms. Laurie Curry: I'll go first. So your question is--just to make sure I get that right--in terms of mandatory labelling and with respect to Canadian consumers, why does that not translate to choice?

Overall, if you take a look even at the U.K. or the European situation, faced with the mandatory situation, what you actually end up seeing in the marketplace is not a situation where you have choice. Why is that? Because food manufacturers, faced with the proposition of GM labels that they know infer to consumers a safety or health and safety issue, have reformulated to walk away from the technology. So in fact when you go into the European and the U.K. marketplace today, you will not find products on the shelf that say they contain GM, or derived from GM, ingredients, because food manufacturers have walked away from the technology and those ingredients.

In Canada, our members buy 45% of the agricultural products, and in fact if you take a look at corn, canola, and soya in Canada, we represent 70% of the ingredients in the further manufactured product. Our challenge is that these ingredients are safe; consumers perceive them as not being safe. How do you inform the consumer and educate them about this? A mandatory system will drive reformulation.

Just getting back to Mr. Merrifield's question in addition to that, another piece of research we did says consumers are looking for three things. They want to know, who can I trust, what's being done to minimize the risk, and how do I get access to the information? That's what consumers want to know. So when you take Mr. Claus' information kiosk, that was not products with labels on; that was information available to the consumer.

What they want to know at the end of the day is that food manufacturers, the food industry, has nothing to hide, and they want access to the information. We have a responsibility in terms of how we provide that to consumers in a way that's meaningful and understandable to them, truthful and not misleading, and verifiable, and that's why we're working on the voluntary standard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But you do not want it to be mandatory. You acknowledge that there is a moral duty or obligation. You want to provide this type of information. You're saying that in the end, consumers want to know what they are eating and what the nutritional content is. However, while you acknowledge that responsibility, you are not willing to accept legislation that would make this mandatory because you feel that there is no need for legislative measures to make you do this.

[English]

Ms. Laurie Curry: Right. Maybe I should just point out some of the efforts that are currently under way. We've been involved in the issue probably since about 1993, and more heavily involved in the last three years.

As farmers, as manufacturers, and as retailers, we have pooled our resources to help provide Canadians with information. So, for example, we help to fund a 1-800 telephone number where Canadians can call in and talk to registered dieticians, not just about whether or not the products contain genetically modified food ingredients, but what is the technology? What does it do? What does it deliver? What are the pros and cons?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But you're not answering my question. Why would you be uncomfortable with legislation making this mandatory, that would set out criteria? I appreciate what you have done, but answer my question. Perhaps Mr. Claus could?

Mr. Eric Claus: I will simply it. First, I don't think we should be confusing two things. All the products on our shelves are products made up of ingredients that have been approved through our regulatory systems. Therefore, we do not think we should be made to start having...

Á (1155)

Mr. Réal Ménard: Labels.

Mr. Eric Claus: If something is legitimate, there is no danger to our health because our system has said that it isn't dangerous for our health.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Something that has already been approved.

Mr. Eric Claus: I think that we are serving the consumer very well in saying that we will only sell products that have been approved through our regulatory system.

Second, in terms of a voluntary system, if we had a standard then we would have the ability to label. If consumers wanted GMO-free products, we would be able to provide them. We can't do that today because there is no standard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: There's a problem with what you are saying. If understood correctly, you are saying that the products on your shelves have already been checked and monitored and that the Canadian Standards Association's standards are already being applied. But the Canadian Standards Association, or the existing monitoring systems, do not oblige you to provide information unless those products contain allergenic substances, and even then, under very specific circumstances. The people representing consumers associations—I believe there are some in this room but I will not name them—are saying that we need to go further in providing information. If I have understood correctly, the various monitoring systems that exist do not oblige you to do that. So you cannot say that you are complying with current monitoring systems because there is no current GMO standard.

Do you agree with my reasoning? It doesn't matter if we don't agree.

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond--Arthabaska, PC): Did you understand?

Mr. Eric Claus: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's not always clear; that is what my colleague means.

Mr. Eric Claus: I understand, but I do not think that there is any logic for the consumer in what you are saying. I'm sorry, but that is my opinion.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's fine. I do not take it personally.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Am I finished?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Speller.

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

I want to thank the presenters for coming today.

I want to give Mr. Krushelniski and Mr. Singer an opportunity to speak about this from the perspective of their two companies. What would mandatory labelling mean for your companies?

Mr. James Krushelniski: The health and safety of our consumers is obviously our number one priority. It's absolutely critical. We really support the regulatory system we have in Canada. I think it's a great system, and it's world-renowned.

We support the fact that labelling must be informative and verifiable and not misleading to our consumers.

Having said that, we also do not see any scientific data that would suggest that GMO ingredients are unsafe. However, we are a company that is very sensitive to our consumers and their expectations. If mandatory labelling were to become a regulation, we would be forced to reformulate away from GMOs for one very simple reason. You've heard the evidence that Laurie provided. If you put on the label that a product contains GMO ingredients, a significant percentage of consumers would view that as a warning, and it would be a significant risk to our business. So we would be forced to meet their expectations and reformulate and abide by their desires.

Mr. Thomas Singer: I would like to echo Mr. Krushelniski's sentiment. I'm not going to repeat, but I will emphasize the fact that we are consumer driven.

I'm a member of a group of Canadian privately owned companies. We're small and medium-sized companies. We're not multinationals. That's where Jim and I are a little bit different. We share similar views in this particular arena, but the fact is that it will be significantly different for the Canadian privately owned companies.

I would like to say that we are so consumer driven that it's very simple. We just want to sell our products. If it has on it what is perceived to be a warning, then we will not be able to sell that product. Therefore, we have to reformulate. Even the small guy has to reformulate. That's very expensive, and it has a dramatic economic impact.

It puts the smaller and medium-sized Canadian-owned food manufacturers at a disadvantage even with the multinationals, because they've already had the experience in Europe. They have a bit of a head start.

There's also the fact that potentially we have to outsource outside of this country. We can't go to our farmers as much, at least not for the moment. So the whole process will be expensive.

I'll draw that negative impact back to the consumer. The consumer will pay more for his food. This is not a threat. We are just going by the fact that we have to sell product that consumers will buy. On that basis, the price of food will go up. Today 11% of the disposable income in Canada is spent on food. Twenty years ago it was 21%. It's going to go back toward 20%. That'll have a dramatic economic impact if we don't look at this.

I applaud what you're doing because it is absolutely necessary to look at all factors, including economic and, in the same context, health and safety.

Â (1200)

Mr. Bob Speller: Can you explain to me what “reformulate” means for Heinz?

Mr. James Krushelniski: What it would mean, for example...let me be very specific. For our baby food and infant care products we took an initiative two years ago to go away from GMO ingredients. What that meant was, if there was any corn in the ingredient, we took the corn out of the recipe and added some other vegetable we knew was not genetically modified. We would reformulate our recipes to accommodate that requirement.

In the case of tomatoes, we've taken a company policy that we--as you know, Heinz is tomatoes--have our own tomato-breeding programs. We do not use genetically modified tomato varieties in the processing of our products. There are sweeteners, for example, that are corn-related and that do contain genetically modified varieties. Within the supply chain it is absolutely impossible to segregate a sweetener derived from corn that was genetically modified versus not. Therefore, because of the fact that we can't guarantee it and our suppliers can't supply it, we would be forced to convert that recipe to invert sugar rather than corn sweetener.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Speller.

Ms. Skelton.

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, Canadian Alliance): I'd just to like to ask Ms. Curry, have you--

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: On a point of order, Madam Chair, we have a rotation order, and I did have my hand up at the outset.

The Chair: I'm sorry, I didn't see your hand. You'll follow Mr. Dromisky.

Ms. Carol Skelton: I was just wondering, Ms. Curry, if you've looked at the cost of mandatory labelling requirements and how it would affect the Canadian exports of member organizations. Have you done any cost analysis on that?

Ms. Laurie Curry: The only study I'm aware of that has been conducted in Canada was done by KPMG, and it took a look at a mandatory labelling regime and what that would mean from a cost standpoint. The overall cost increase was a range from 6% to 10% in terms of increased cost to Canadian consumers with respect to a mandatory labelling system. I'd have to go back to the study to see if that also took a look with respect to the export situation. I don't have that answer at the ready today.

Ms. Carol Skelton: What about the effects on agriculture in Canada?

Ms. Laurie Curry: It affects agriculture, broadly speaking. Mandatory labelling would basically drive a reformulation in the industry. We've heard from Mr. Krushelniski and Mr. Singer in terms of reformulation, and what that means...there are options available if you want to reformulate. You have to find another source for corn, canola, and soya outside Canada, particularly in the short term, because these are mass commodities.

I mentioned earlier that they are in 70% of the manufactured products we have on the shelf today, this since 1994. You just can't reformulate and have farmers move away from that system overnight. We understand from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that it's anywhere from five to seven years to move that out of the system. In that time period it would mean our member companies would be looking to source those ingredients from outside Canada--that's one option--for non-GM in the short term while the farmers pick up.

The second option would be to move away. If you are using, for example, a corn sweetener today, could you move off corn sweetener, reformulate your product, and put sucrose in it instead? Those are the two options that are available, and quite frankly that would be detrimental to the agrifood community. If you consider that our members alone buy 45% of the agricultural commodities in this country and that our members put 80% of the product on the shelf, that would have a detrimental effect.

Think about it from the consumer's standpoint: increasing the cost of food by reformulation for no health and safety reason? That's not serving Canadian consumers either.

Â (1205)

Ms. Carol Skelton: Mr. Claus, you talked about the reality of the situation. Can you expand on that a bit for me.

Mr. Eric Claus: I think just from what I've seen...I'll go back three years. We had an AGM with probably 500 people, where there was a resolution for us to push for a mandatory labelling system in Canada, for us to take a leadership role in that. The debate on that resolution was a totally democratic debate, which was probably, as I mentioned earlier, a reflection of the population of Canada. We had farmers, and we had activists on the very left of the situation. At the end of it all, we had polarized 5% on either side, and you had the mass, or certainly the vast majority, of people who wanted us to proceed cautiously, to think about what we're doing, and to ensure that we would respond to consumers.

At the end of the day what they really told us, and if there is only one sentence I could say here today it would be this: don't lose sight of what's really important. We talk about the cost, but it's not even the issue of the cost. It's an issue of health and safety, and if we have regulatory bodies we trust that deem the food we sell is safe, then why the heck would we impose a mandatory labelling system on products that would create a negative effect on something that we've deemed to be safe and that has a huge economic impact? It doesn't seem to make sense to me.

If there's a health and safety issue, deal with it. People are wasting so much time and money on this issue. If it's a health and safety issue, then let the scientists and Health Canada figure it out and tell us if there's a problem. Until that time, don't railroad a process that served this country so well and cause so much havoc. It doesn't make any sense, and if I had to say one thing, that's all I would say.

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: I'd like to add, and underscore, that we have an opportunity to have the best of both worlds. In Canada we have a system that allows the addressing, under mandatory labelling, of the health and safety issues, and that's what's key and absolutely of greatest importance to communicate to consumers. We understand consumers would like to know more about their food. We're also developing a system here that's going to allow, under a set of rules, us to communicate that information.

So I think we really have a great opportunity to offer the best to Canadians in a very short time, but it does take some time to have things in place to do that.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll now go to Dr. Dromisky.

Â (1210)

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much.

I have to agree with Eric Claus here. I think the emphasis must be really put intensely on the whole inspection system, and testing and so forth, and to determine whether in the future genetically modified foods are really a health risk.

There are many reasons why I'm taking that position, Madam Chair, but I'll give one.

Here we are and we're talking basically about processed foods. But I'm concerned about the vast amount of fresh produce that comes from south of the border. I know it comes from Chile and every place else, but above all it comes from two countries, from the United States and Mexico. The celery that's being used in your products, let's say your Heinz soup, is it one farm that produces all the celery in the United States so that we could test it and so forth? There are tens of thousands of them. In Mexico especially, there are thousands of small farmers producing the tomatoes you might use to make the tomato paste to produce some of your products.

What I'm trying to point out is that the system is very complex. We would have to have an army inspecting, checking every bit of produce that comes from south of the border. There it is sitting in the supermarket as fresh produce and there's no sign telling me it's genetically modified, but this very same celery that's on the shelf could be used in soup, and because it was genetically modified there will be a label there.

I think we're playing a game here with the minds of people. I don't think we're telling the truth. I think we are putting ourselves in a position where we will be, in a sense, conducting some type of fraud as far as the market is concerned.

I have to agree with you. We have to put a heavy emphasis on the ongoing research because there is no way with the United States and Mexico, which are totally opposed to labelling genetically modified foods and to testing, are going to spend billions of dollars in testing to guarantee that food that's going across the border is or is not healthy or is or is not genetically modified.

Could I have some reactions to that one scenario alone?

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: Let me give one reaction at least, which is to note the fact that because in this country we have this regulatory system and we have this army of inspectors, the products that come into this country have to meet the Canadian requirements. So in fact within the assessment that's already in place--

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Whoa, whoa. You're not going to tell me we check every damn tomato that comes in, that we're going to check every crate of grapes that comes in, every crate of celery that comes in. We don't do that.

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: No, but I believe the Canadian Food Inspection Agency were here previously, and there is certainly an onerous paper regime for products coming into this country that would include information about those products well in advance of becoming products on our retail shelf. In fact, in the Canadian system we have checked products that are not grown here, that are grown elsewhere, to make sure they meet Canadian requirements. As Canadians, one of our downsides sometimes is that we don't know enough or hear enough about what good things we're already doing in this system to ensure the ongoing safety of the products that are sold here, regardless of where they're grown.

Mr. Eric Claus: And we actually contract--most large retailers contract--often under strict rules and regulations, the produce that's grown south of the border.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: But I'm talking about produce coming from south of the border and coming into Canada. Go and follow the process. Go from the farmer's field in north Florida and go to the disinfectant containers where the trucks drive through. Then it comes across the border and he's got a lading bill saying it's wonderful food. It is all safety first, all inspected; it's healthy. All the jargonese is there, but I'm trying to tell you the controls are superficial, because we have thousands of farmers producing. We cannot inspect all the produce coming from all those thousands of farms.

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: But the simple booklet you have there will detail for you what products are assessed. One of the other things this demonstrates is that in the produce section there is very little genetically modified product, under this definition of recombinant DNA.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I'm thinking of the future.

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: And clearly we're with you in making sure we have a system that not only addresses the present but needs to be adhered to for the future.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

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

I'd love to pursue this line from Stan, because I think he makes an important point. We're all wondering whether that kind of onerous, responsible, proactive regulatory system is in place for the kind of inspection you're talking about, Ms. Cruikshank.

But first I want to talk about the process for voluntary standards, because that's really what our first mandate is here today. As I understand it--and this is a question to either Mr. Claus or Ms. Cruikshank--it was the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors that initially got the ball rolling for what you're saying about voluntary standards: back in, I think, September 1999 you approached the Standards Council of Canada through the Canadian General Standards Board to develop a voluntary standard for labelling of GM foods. Is that correct?

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: Absolutely.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm glad you gave a clear answer on that, because I want to follow up and quiz you on it a bit. In fact, we've gone through the access to information documents, which show that the Government of Canada had, long before that--six months before September 1999--started the whole agenda for voluntary labelling. And the documents don't mention your organization. They mention Health Canada, CFIA, and Agriculture Canada. Those three departments began a process to develop voluntary standards way back then. And you're saying you initiated the process.

So I guess the real question for us today is, are you being used by the Government of Canada? Are you a front for a government that knows it's got to get someone out on this issue who has trust with consumers to advance the agenda? And what's in it for you? Why are you doing this? How did you approach the government, or who approached whom? And while I'm at it, I understand also that your organization has received, to date, some $345,000 from Agriculture Canada. It would be useful for us to know what that money is for, where it's gone, and the whole history of that financing.

Â (1215)

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: Sure. I think probably I'm in the best seat to answer that one.

As to absolutely who initiated the voluntary labelling discussion--and I guess I can go back to 1991 or 1992, when it was a discussion--I think there were a number of parties discussing it. Obviously, as in any situation, there has to be someone who takes the lead. The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, in discussion with Agriculture Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, were the initial stakeholders, which later developed into the Canadian General Standards Board committee of over 60 organizations, with approximately 80 people attending each meeting. The Canadian General Standards Board is the process in Canada and the only body that can develop food standards. They were our “one-stop shopping” on this issue.

Under their structure and regime, they set up a committee that is comprised of representative demographic and geographic interests. This takes me to the costs for such. The Canadian General Standards Board serves as a secretariat; CCGD has a contract with the Canadian General Standards Board to do so. The costs involved in that are to recover not only the payment to the Canadian General Standards Board that serves that role; it also is to provide the travel for committee members. We have NGOs, consumer groups, interest groups that are very important stakeholders at this table and could not be participating if it were left to them to pay their own way.

The cost element you put forward is a reality. Our books are audited. They are very open, very transparent, as in any discussion with the use--and the judicious use--of taxpayers' money. But one also would say that equal to or much greater, in that committee membership that's in your document today, would be the industry dollars that have gone into the committee participation, the extreme efforts on the part of all stakeholders, of varying interests at some times, to reach a consensus on this issue.

There are some costs involved--yes, certainly--in getting to a final product.

Mr. Eric Claus: I have to add something.

We're not in the business of acting as a front for shady activities and we're not in the spy business. We are an association representing retailers across this country, and we have their trust because we've always acted correctly, in the best interests of consumers. There's nothing in this for us. We've taken the lead because we feel this is our role. We represent a significant part of the food industry. I believe we've always acted honourably. We are doing so today, and we will continue to do so.

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: I'd only add that this is not unique. I was involved in the development of the organic standard. I'm involved in a number of standards as they relate to best serving the interests of our Canadian consumers. We are acting under the direction of our membership, retailers who want to address the interests of consumers, and we're in the business of responding to this interest, whether through legislation or the setting of standards such as those I'm currently involved with on behalf of CCGD.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I certainly agree that you are in a position of trust for Canadians and you have to keep proving yourselves worthy of that trust. We now have a situation where the facts we know don't jibe with what you're saying.

In fact, the government started this process--clearly, according to our information--way back in April of 1999. You came along six months later and took it up with a vengeance and now are claiming to have initiated a process. So we're left with the conclusion that in fact, as you probably realize, this whole agenda could not have been advanced without a third party who is in a position of trust. There is that question.

And there is still the question of the money your organization needed--$345,000 to do whatever around voluntary standards--when in fact this went forward in accordance with the government's initiation and agenda.

And because you are talking about the issue of trust for both organizations, I have to ask the question about the lobbying that occurred on the Hill around Charles Caccia's private member's bill. There was a tremendous lobbying effort from both your organizations, with some pretty questionable propaganda, and seven lobbyists from Hill and Knowlton.

We want to know if this is where the money went, hiring lobbyists to present an imbalanced position with respect to a piece of legislation that was being taken seriously by members of Parliament, with all sides being debated. When that kind of lobbying is going on, you can be sure that, if it's pretty hard for consumers to get a fair and balanced position, it's pretty hard for us as members of Parliament. So there are some big questions here for both organizations.

Â (1220)

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: Well, I'd be very happy to spend time, which perhaps isn't permitted in this forum, to discuss this. But as I say, the books are very open. It is very clear where we have spent the dollars.

They have not been spent on lobbyists. They have been spent on very clearly defined contractual agreements that go towards the administration or the development of the standard, or to committee travel.

This is another cost-onerous issue of which I'm aware. Access to information is an issue that many times seems to be an improper use of time or taxpayers' money because the information is very readily there. I'd be very happy to provide it. We have information members.

As far as trust goes, it is an issue we never once take for granted--not for a moment.

So we are a party involved in this, but we are one organization at the table, one vote out of 53. Someone had to carry the ball forward. Who will win is less relevant than the important fact that these 53 voting organizations, with a number of very diverse interests, are going to come up with a Canadian standard that reflects the interests of Canadian people. And yes, some dollars were necessary to get us to this point, but the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors is one of the committee members.

It did get involved, but there was no return. If there is a perception that we were looking for glory on this, trust me, some days this isn't something you necessarily want to stick your head up out of the tunnel and say you're doing. So it's not work for which we are always receiving accolades, but we think it is important to do. That's why we're involved.

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

Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska--Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses.

In the documents that you distributed and in your presentations, you said, Mr. Claus, that you have found “a marked lack of knowledge on the subject, but a rising level of awareness; and an overwhelming belief that consumers have a right to know”.

It was pointed out that when there is a health risk, Health Canada provides for labels that mention this. Obvious, manufacturers and industry say that currently, because of a lack of knowledge and education on the part of the public, there is no GMO labelling on products, as this could be counterproductive.

Here's what I am trying to understand. Once a GMO definition has been established, as well as labelling standards and criteria that are clear for everyone, and once people will have been educated about GMOs, will you accept mandatory labelling? You say that meanwhile, we need to do that work and to make labelling voluntary.

Once the education will have been done and the criteria established, why would one continue on a voluntary basis? Without education, and without being sure that labelling will send the right message, I understand we need a period of voluntary labelling instead of mandatory labelling.

Mr. Eric Claus: As regards voluntary versus mandatory labelling, how can we have a mandatory labelling system for something that is not a health or food security problem?

Whether there are labels or not does not make a big difference to us as retailers. It makes a difference if I am a manufacturer, since I have to assume the costs involved for other ingredients, etc. If 10 per cent of the population really wants to have food without GMOs and if we believe that that demand exists, we will go see the processors and ask them to provide us with a percentage of non-GMO products. We can have a section for that. It would be very easy.

If, for example, a diabetic child cannot eat a certain product and if a genetically modified product is now available in a new container, we will promote it, saying that the child can eat this product even if he or she is diabetic because it does not contain sugar.

The system we are proposing would give us a positive labelling system, not just a negative one, and the possibility of having non-GMO products on our shelves. If all consumers wanted non-GMO products, I can assure you that all of those products would be on our shelves, since we are in business to serve our customers..

Why make labelling mandatory? I could ask the following question. I can find all sorts of reasons not to like some new type of food product, but if it does not pose any health risk, under our regulatory system, why would I not ask you to make labelling of that product mandatory as well?

In our opinion, then, if there is no health risk, we should not have a mandatory system.

Â (1225)

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: If there is no health risk, why would we have a voluntary system? What more would that do? Let me finish.

I agree that when there is a health risk, consumers need to be informed, but we are hearing that there is increasing concern as awareness is growing. In other words, there is also this issue of consumer choice: people want to know because they want to be able to decide. That is the issue. I wonder at what point something needs to be done. I can understand the difficulties involved in mandatory labelling and voluntary labelling. You say that you are not prepared to move right away because the public is not yet educated and people will simply say that these products pose a health risk. I understand that very well.

I would also like to know how we are going to manage to educate the public. What is the difference between having a voluntary system and, once labelling standards and criteria are established... I cannot get the two pieces to fit together.

[English]

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: Let me see if I can help.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I hope so.

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: Let's think of it as a two-step process, one step being, I think, a better awareness and a better understanding in this country that does not presently exist, that we do have mandatory labelling where there are health and safety issues. I don't think that's well known.

So the thing of this in my two-step answer here is that once we have an understanding that if there's a health and safety issue...under the regime within this country that we respect and uphold for all foods, and additional requirements as relates to this subject, then I think there's a comfort level that it's not health and safety issues. That's step one.

That's why a voluntary system can complement. In addition to health and safety issues, there are other things that people would like to know about how their food is grown. That's why we have organic, and kosher, and other labelling for other information. But I think it's critical that Canadians understand, and as an ongoing process by government as well as the industry, that we have this system that, should there be a health and safety issue, defined as allergens or nutrition or composition, the consumer will be aware of that on the label.

Then there are other things the consumer might want to know and might want communicated. That's why we can complement that sound system with a voluntary one. So it's not, as I believe I understand, one replacing, or instead of, another until a certain time. We have a sound system as far as health and safety are concerned. We're able to complement that with this set of rules on other information that we know Canadians, or some Canadians, would like to know. As we hear from more Canadians, if it's towards a particular issue, then it's in the food industry's best interests to address those issues that come forward.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Castonguay.

Mr. Merrifield will be followed by Madame Scherrer, and then Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I have a couple of quick questions.

The first thing is, as I've said before, this really comes down to a trust factor, and I'd just like to ask you very plainly and simply, regarding the products that we have on the market that are genetically modified in Canada today, as retailers, do you have any concerns that they compromise in any way the safety of Canadians? Is there any risk there at all?

Mr. Eric Claus: Categorically not, and I'd have to be a scientist to have any other opinion. We have faith in the regulatory system, and if we break that down, then you break down the foundation of the system that has served us so well.

We stand behind the products--and I speak for Loblaws, Sobeys, Overwaitea, for all these groups.

Â (1230)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: McCain?

Mr. Eric Claus: No, I don't speak for McCain.

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: Safeway, yes.

Mr. Eric Claus: I know you're referring to it; certain things are done in the industry for marketing reasons, not for health and safety reasons.

I could reiterate what was done overseas in the U.K. It was a marketing thing. It had nothing to do with health and safety.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: And we see that from the study that came out just prior to Christmas in Europe with regard to genetically modified foods...safer perhaps than conventional because of different factors. We're seeing that from some of the witnesses who have come forward to our committee.

I'm not so concerned about what's on the market today, and I appreciate what you're saying, because that reinforces my views with regard to food safety right now. If there's a concern I have, it's more on the environmental side of genetically modified foods and what might happen on controlling it environmentally. That's not the issue you're speaking to.

But looking forward, when it comes to voluntary labelling, if we project out the next five years, you might say, we know there are extra vitamins coming in some genetically modified foods, or there's lower fat, lower risks to consumer health in genetically modified foods. Can you tell me, from a consumer's or from your perspective, how that would relate back to the labelling and what kind of advantages or disadvantages might come of that?

Ms. Laurie Curry: If you take a look in terms of the future around where the technology might go--and we talked about the regulatory system and making sure they're safe--that's one of the reasons in my comments I also said that as the technology evolves, as it evolves to wave two and wave three where it's not just agronomic benefits but you're getting to direct consumer benefits around increased vitamin content, and so on, the regulatory system must also evolve. They'll still have to go through the approval mechanism to determine that it is a safe food product. Once that happens, companies will also put information on their package to talk about what that requirement is.

So if, for example, today, even under the novel food regulations, you change the essential fatty acid composition in an oil, that must be on the label. That has to be communicated through the nutrition label, and there are other mechanisms currently on the package itself for you to communicate that information about that change, whether it be in nutritional composition or the fact that there's an allergen present. So that will hold true as well, going forward, under the current novel food regulations, under the mandatory labelling requirement for health and safety reasons.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Even in vitamins?

Ms. Laurie Curry: Absolutely.

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: One of the other issues in this industry is dealing with nutritional labeling and nutrient content. There are a number of different rules around labelling, so if some future things more appropriately fit under some other set of rules or regulations--there are sometimes multiple sets of rules and regulations around that labelling--they may be addressed under additional nutritional value and captured there as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

Madame Scherrer.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am sorry for being late.

I understood your positions when I listened to the answers you gave to the questions you were asked. I agree with you on a number of aspects, in particular on the fact that it is absolutely essential to require labelling for products that present health risks. I think that people always came back to that. And that is why we are looking more closely at this in the Health Committee.

I am wondering about the definition of health risk. At present, when the agencies examine a product, they look at it as a product in itself. They wonder whether the product could be detrimental to the health of consumers, if it could cause allergic reactions, if it can cause some illness. It is in those cases that a warning is put on the product.

Where I have difficulty is with the definition, which is still very narrow, of health risk. There are some products that may present a risk for me, but not for Mr. Dromisky. Some products may pose a risk when they are used with other products. It is important to know that a certain product contains GMOs because, when combined with another product, it may present health risks.

As for mandatory labelling of product ingredients, we indicate if a product contains, for example, sugar or traces of dairy products. Why? Because, in combination with other products, or for people who have particular health problems, that product as part of another product presents a health risk.

The way I see it, a product that is a health risk in itself is one thing, but I feel that labelling should be mandatory even though GMOs, which we have not been studying for very long, do not pose problems right now, because they might be a problem down the road. I do not see why it would be problematic to label these products, and not give a warning, in the same way that ingredients are listed. The label indicates that the product contains sugar, starch or dairy products because those things can present a health risk for people. Why not say that a product contains GMOs, which might create a problem for certain people, or might do so in combination with other products?

Â (1235)

Mr. Eric Claus: I think that you are talking about the interaction between two products. When a genetic modification involves combining two things in a single product, the legislation in place today requires us to indicate that. Our definition of GMOs talks about ingredients that do not need to be indicated, that is, those that do not result from a modification of two things. It is not like combining a tomato with a cucumber. Instead, we are developing something that occurs naturally over 1,000 years, perhaps.

If there really are two products involved, we have to...

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: If the label on Mr. Heinz's canned tomatoes says that one of the ingredients is sugar, it is not the sugar itself that presents a health risk, but if I am diabetic, it is a risk for my health. I feel that it is important to indicate everything that is contained in the can, in the cereal box, in any manufactured product.

Mr. Eric Claus: But a GMO is not an ingredient, it is a process. All the ingredients are there. If there was a change in an organism, such as a cucumber being combined with a tomato, that would amount to two ingredients.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: The process goes a lot further back in the composition of the product.

Mr. Eric Claus: It does not mean anything. An allergy to sugar is something I can understand: I am allergic to nuts.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I have one last question. It was pointed out to us, in a presentation, among other things, that when genetically modified products are created, certain proteins are modified using a process that is scientifically very basic. There may be health effects as a result of changes to certain proteins, which trigger a certain biological process. It may not be in the sugar as such. In fact, the problems do not lie in the sugar itself, but in the fact that there are secretions elsewhere. We are talking about a biological process.

[English]

Ms. Laurie Curry: Just in response to that, I can say that under the current novel food regulations there are a series of tests that take a look at toxicological aspects, which are some of the concerns you're raising right now. They take a look at nutritional composition and other interactions in terms of counterreactions and other ingredients. That's part of the novel food regulations today in terms of review of those products and those ingredients.

They take a look also at allergenicity, which could potentially cause a problem. All those aspects are currently covered off in the novel food regulations and the current assessment. That's part of why it takes ten years for these products to get through the approval mechanism, because all these elements are reviewed.

In addition to that, Health Canada works with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to take a look at environmental aspects of those too. You have to make sure of its safety for human consumption and with respect to plants and animals and the environment as well, and that's encapsulated.

The ingredient listing today on a product is mandatory. All ingredients that are used in a product today are listed on the ingredient panel, and that's mandatory.

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Scherrer.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

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

I have to say that this question of trust is as much an issue for the government as it is for you. In fact, you see, we've been handed an agenda from four ministers to study the question of labelling. This is supposed to be an unbiased, objective approach to the issue, and we're learning as we go through this. In fact, the agenda was set and put in motion a long time ago, many months ago, and we're hearing witnesses who have been very much a part of the voluntary labelling process. Two of the principals of the Hill and Knowlton food biotech lobby around Charles Caccia's bill are you two. Two of the four groups who killed Charles Caccia's bill are here today.

I appreciate the fact that you have a position, but the problem we have is independence. Where is government, and what kind of a charade are we going through if there is this kind of overlapping membership and financial backing going back and forth?

There are still questions, and maybe the way to answer them is for each of the two organizations to commit to giving us a complete accounting of all the money they have received to date from any department of the Government of Canada and to explain where the money came from for the Hill and Knowlton lobby. You could tell us whether or not you consulted with Hill and Knowlton before you came here and tell us how we can even do an independent study when everything's set before we even start.

Â (1240)

Ms. Laurie Curry: Let me just clarify one thing right off the bat, and that is, the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada has not received any government dollars with respect to our initiatives. Imagine us as the food manufacturers and the retailers.... Like it or not, as I mentioned right up front, we are not the biotechnology industry. However, we have been the target of many advocacy organizations and of many efforts against our industry members. We have an onus to respond to consumers with respect to this issue.

I'll tell you where our money came from: it came precisely from our own membership. FCPMC works directly with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, who is joining us today, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers.

What we said when this hit the mark over in the U.K. and in Europe was, we cannot repeat the mistakes that happed in Europe; we have a responsibility to Canadian consumers to provide them with accurate information about the regulatory system and products of biotechnology.

We then undertook within our own membership, the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada, to raise just slightly over $1 million. That money has been primarily spent helping to educate Canadian consumers. We have produced pamphlets that have been distributed at the retail level, over three million copies to Canadian consumers, and we have helped provide information to the media, making sure there's balance in scientifically based information that has gone out there. The task force did retain the services of Hill and Knowlton. It is not a Hill and Knowlton effort; it is an agrifood industry effort in terms of our task force initiative, and the efforts under way with Hill and Knowlton have been to assist us from a public education standpoint as well as a government relations standpoint overall.

The initiative is squarely with the food manufacturers, the retailers, and the farmers, and we had no choice in this issue. We use Health Canada-approved ingredients. However, it's on our doorstep, and we must respond to Canadian consumers. Most of our dollars have been spent in educational efforts for consumers. A 1-800 number is a very costly thing to operate. We have helped to educate our members on the issue to make sure they can respond when any consumer calls or writes them so they have the information handy, because it is about trust. If you take a look from a food manufacturer's standpoint, what do they produce? They produce brands, and they will do nothing to jeopardize those brands.

From a consumer trust standpoint, we have to respond to the consumers. That's why our efforts have been spent primarily on education. We know that a mandatory labelling system will also drive reformulation, but then you're not left with a better educated consumer at the end of it. If you had a marketplace that supported those products, no education would then be required.

The Chair: Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am trying to understand. At some point, I will also have to make a decision on this. I understand that if we stamp “GMO” on products right now, Canadian consumers will see these as a health risk and leave them on the shelves. That is our fear. We are taking it for granted that the Canadian public has not reached this level of knowledge. We may or may not agree on that.

If I told you today that the Canadian public knows what GMOs are all about, that people know that, in the case of a specific health risk, Health Canada will indicate that in a certain way, but that in order to give consumers an informed choice so that they can have the necessary information to decide whether or not they want to use these products, we are going to make labelling mandatory, would you be opposed to that?

Right now, the tendency is to reject mandatory labelling because people think that the public will be afraid if they see “GMO” on a product. I am not trying to trip you up. I do not want to give you a hard time; I am just trying to understand.

Â (1245)

[English]

Ms. Jeanne Cruikshank: Let me try this one. Education is certainly a piece of it.

The issue also is that as we speak the processes are not in place in Canada to allow us to verifiably communicate the segregation and complexity of multi-ingredient products. We're not opposed to labelling, or we would not have invested the time to participate in this. I think very similar discussions happened around the Canadian General Standards Board committee.

This is why we felt that in addition to information on the label, it is very important that there be off-label information, whether it be a website or a toll-free number. To burrow down deeper into the issue of ingredients, sugar might be fine for most consumers. For others they need to know more. That's why the label is one piece of this education tool. But while the industry is continuing to do that, we saw that a very important aspect is to address the further need to know and to have toll-free numbers and websites. It's in fact a complement, and it provides even more education, which won't fit within the constraints of the label.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: So at the end of the day, if the public had that level of education and knowledge, you would not object to mandatory labelling. Is that correct?

[Translation]

Mr. Eric Claus: Your question assumes a situation where everyone understands. First of all, the world will never be perfect, but we are strongly opposed to a mandatory labelling system for something that does not present a health risk.

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: All right. Your position is clear. Thank you.

[English]

Ms. Laurie Curry: I would just like to respond from a food manufacturer's standpoint. We support mandatory labelling for all aspects of health and safety, not just those related to biotechnology. For example, we've actually had voluntary nutrition labelling in place in this country since 1988. We were the first ones to put it on. In fact, at that point in time it wasn't even allowed under the Food and Drugs Act to put nutrition information on the panel. We did it under a voluntary mechanism. However, what we have seen in this country is a rise in chronic diseases, and now we're moving toward a mandatory system for nutrition labelling, something we support, to ensure that consumers have that information. So in this instance, voluntary has turned into mandatory. But again it has been for health and safety reasons, in this case related to chronic disease.

You also have to remember that the premise around even the World Trade Organization is that labelling must be based on health and safety. Once you move off that premise, you start to establish non-tariff barriers to trade, and for a country like Canada that becomes problematic.

What we're saying here and what the government is saying is that this is not a health and safety issue. Therefore, we must find other mechanisms to educate and inform consumers about the technology. We're still dealing with the fact that at present labelling is perceived as a warning. That's the dilemma we have. How do we address that? How do we get more information to the consumers? The label is one mechanism, but you have to look at 1-800 numbers and other sources of information.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I have a very short question, Madam Chair.

I agree where health is concerned, but how can we help consumers who want to exercise choice? How do we give them the information? My question is simple.

[English]

Ms. Laurie Curry: The consumers who want the information want to avoid the products. So if you move forward on the voluntary labelling system, what you'll see as pick-up in the marketplace will be the pick-up of the absence claims or the non-GM claims. There will be choice in the marketplace. It will likely be a niche market to begin with, because you also have to prove that in fact it is non-GM. You're going to have the segregation systems in place, etc. But under the voluntary labelling system there will be a marketplace in this country for non-GM products. There will be an option in the marketplace for those consumers who want to avoid the technology.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Castonguay.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, you're next, if you have a question, not a speech.

Â (1250)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, I have a question.

I appreciated Laurie Curry's response to my last question and I want to raise another problem. As a committee we've heard from a couple of the best scientists in the world on this issue, and they tell us the science is not here in this country. We have not done our homework. Our regulatory system is not in place.

Yet you're here today showing us that you've bought the whole thing hook, line, and sinker, and you believe it. Therefore, on that basis, you're confident to go forward to consumers with this approach. We have a real dilemma of trying to put all this into perspective and believing some of the scientists who came before us, and the Royal Society as well, who said they haven't done this long-term, independent research to be able to say with certainty that genetically modified food is safe beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ms. Laurie Curry: Let me make something clear about FCPMC and our position, and in fact the Royal Society. I've reviewed that full report. The Royal Society report makes it adamantly clear that where the process and the technology are at today, for the current 50-plus products that have been approved in the novel foods regulations, they are safe products.

The Royal Society was initially put in place to take a look at what future regulatory and scientific capacity are required as the technology evolves. It's right in my speaking remarks today. As that technology evolves, you'd better make sure the regulatory environment also evolves with that technology. We've said that in our remarks and we support that, but for today's products and for today's technology, they've been approved by Health Canada. We support those, and those are the ingredients we are using.

As the technology evolves, evolve the regulatory system, evolve the scientific capacity within the department to make sure we are keeping pace with the technology, and we can continue to have the world-class regulatory system we enjoy in Canada. That's what our comments are.

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

Mr. Speller.

Mr. Bob Speller: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

By the way, Judy, those weren't the same scientists that I heard in this committee. We might all have different definitions of what people said, but certainly I don't think there's any question out there that our regulatory system cannot be matched in the world. It is one of the best regulatory systems in the world, and we should be proud of it.

I have a quick question on the European experience, which somebody mentioned. Obviously they've brought this in. What's happened over there?

Mr. Eric Claus: We can both speak on this. You've done some research.

We're affiliated with a fairly large organization in the U.K. To be quite candid, the whole thing was a snowball that just got bigger and didn't work. It started with a food retailer called Iceland, which decided to promote non-GMO foods. Then Tesco got into it. It was clearly a marketing decision that had absolutely nothing to do with health and safety.

Then it was like a run on the bank, I guess, where everybody wanted GMO-free product without any information. It forced manufacturers to reformulate. It forced the whole industry, everybody, to change. The world didn't come to an end. It didn't stop.

At the end of the day, in this country I think we have a history of doing things for the right reasons. If you're going to do something, do it for the right reasons.

I listened to the debate, and I obviously have been involved in the debate, just listening to what's going on nationally. It boggles my mind where all the emphasis is put. If it's a health issue, then deal with Health Canada. We have a process that works. We have the best process in the world. You said it; we have the finest. To those who really think there is a health risk, then deal with Health Canada. If there is one, we're not scientists; that's not our job. You're food manufacturers, not scientists. We're retailers, not scientists. You're certainly not scientists. Let the scientists, Health Canada, and the regulatory bodies that exist for that very purpose determine if there's a problem. Boycotting stores or manufacturers, or whatever, doesn't make any sense. It's ridiculous. If there's a health problem, then deal with the health issues.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Speller.

Dr. Dromisky, you're the last questioner.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Taking a look at the food manufacturers and processors and so forth, if we come to the position that there's going to be compulsory labelling on our manufactured food products, how is Heinz going to deal with the tens of thousands of processed and partially processed byproducts and everything else that are coming from other countries in the world, especially the United States, that are used in some of your products that you put on the shelves in our supermarkets? It's coming from a country where there are no regulations and testing regarding genetically modified foods.

Â (1255)

Mr. James Krushelniski: That obviously is a big concern because there's no current methodology, as we understand it, of testing accurately to the levels that we need to test to validate that throughout the supply chain, wherever you source those raw materials, that those raw materials are in fact GMO-free. But make no mistake about it, we will reformulate if that statement becomes mandatory because we are concerned about the impression it will have on our consumers.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Yes, you made that statement three times today. You say reformulate. Who's going to pay for it? Where is the testing going to be done to reformulate? How will you know that many of those products, the oils and everything else you had been getting from south of the border, are genetically modified? Who's going to tell you? Are you going to do all the testing in your labs to find out whether or not all the celery you're getting from south California is genetically modified?

Mr. James Krushelniski: We would have to set up the tracking systems, just like we now do with our baby food ingredients. We contract with producers, we control it, we manage it, and we are able to control the entire supply chain all the way from seed to the product going into our facilities for the manufacturing of baby foods. We can do that, and we do it now. But in many cases, and let us take, for example, corn sweeteners, within the supply chain within North America there is no means of doing that now. The system has not been segregated from the farm gate to the manufacturers. Therefore, our only option then is to reformulate away from corn sweeteners, and that's what we would have to do. We would have to go to ingredients for which we know there is no possibility whatsoever of their having any GMO ingredients.

Ms. Laurie Curry: If I could add to that, for many of our members, and particularly the multinational companies, when they say they're going to reformulate, they're reformulating but not to take advantage of the non-GM labelling proposition; it's so as not to put the mandatory requirement on. Right now, in addition to having the rules in place, you have to have the systems in place to support that standard. While you might be able to trace that back right now in a niche market standpoint for some of the products, you can't do that for mass commodities today, for corn, canola, and soya in this country. The segregation systems are not in place.

We understand that is clearly a priority of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and we understand it is a priority for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to work on that from the farm level. We don't just have to do that for Canada, we have to do that for every single ingredient in a multi-ingredient product no matter where in the world that product might be sourced, and those systems do not exist today.

So whatever labelling system is put in place you must have the support systems there to trace back or do identity preservation back to every single ingredient right through to the farm level and the seed level, and that is not in place today. You have to be able to support whatever labelling system you have.

Mr. Bob Speller: Would you reformulate right out of the country then? You're a multinational. Would that mean jobs would go to a U.S. plant where you didn't have, let's say, mandatory labelling? Or what would happen?

Mr. James Krushelniski: Potentially it would. But we're here to serve the Canadian marketplace, and again, our number one priority is our consumers and the health and safety of our consumers. So our objective, if in fact the consumers viewed mandatory labelling as a concern, would be to respond to their expectations, and we would. That means we would have to undergo some significant reformulations.

We've done that in the U.K., we've done that in Europe, we've done that in other countries where we've had to respond to consumers' expectations as well as the regulatory agencies.

The Chair: Mr. Singer would like to get in.

Mr. Thomas Singer: If I can go beyond that, the multinational companies have a head start. With the mandatory labelling, if it came in now, with all the problems and the complexities, you would probably start to lose your Canadian small and medium-sized food processors. While over 90% of the dollar value of the sales in food of this country is due to the multinationals, you'd lose a very large percentage of about 2,000 businesses. Prices would go up if we could do it, because we're at a disadvantage to it, and jobs would be lost. As I said earlier, my major situation here is I have complete agreement with the health and safety issues and the consumers' right to know, but the fact is there is an economic impact and I want you to look at that.

Thank you.

· (1300)

The Chair: Thank you very much, members of the committee. Thank you very much to the witnesses for coming and sharing your thoughts so clearly with us today. As you have heard, we will probably be putting the study aside for the time being. You will be the last witnesses, and then we'll pick it up again. So if you watch the newspapers and find out we've passed the pesticide legislation and the reproductive technology legislation, you will know we'll be ready to pick up this subject matter again.

Thanks very much. This meeting is adjourned.