HEAL Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

¹

1535

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

Dr. Karen L. Dodds (Director General, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health)

¹

1540

¹

1545

The Chair

Ms. Doryne Peace (Chair, Committee on Voluntary Labelling of Foods Obtained or Not Obtained through Genetic Modification, Canadian General Standards Board)

Ms. Marian Gaucher (Secretary, Committee on Voluntary Labelling of Food Obtained or Not Obtained through Genetic Modification, Canadian General Standards Board)

¹

1550

Ms. Doryne Peace

¹

1555

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Doryne Peace

The Chair

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Doryne Peace

º

1600

The Chair

Ms. Debra Bryanton (Executive Director, Policy, Planning and Coordination Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ)

Mr. Svend Robinson

º

1605

The Chair

Ms. Debra Bryanton

The Chair

Ms. Debra Bryanton

The Chair

Ms. Debra Bryanton

The Chair

Ms. Debra Bryanton

The Chair

Ms. Debra Bryanton

The Chair

Ms. Debra Bryanton

º

1610

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Debra Bryanton

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Debra Bryanton

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Debra Bryanton

The Chair

Ms. Mary Alton Mackey (Member and Co-chair, GM Foods Steering Committee, Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee)

º

1615

The Chair

Ms. Mary Alton Mackey

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

º

1620

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

---

NUMBER 027

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's my pleasure to call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Health to order.

    It has been a long time since the committee has looked at this subject. I see we have some interest from people from the agriculture committee. I want to welcome Monsieur Bigras and Monsieur Gagnon to this committee, because they're very interested in this subject.

    Just as a little bit of a review, people will recall that in the previous Parliament, we were given this task by four ministers. We were asked to look at this particular topic in regard to the labelling of food with genetically modified organisms. We did begin that study and we heard from several witnesses, and then our work was delayed. We had to stop and move to legislation that had been referred to us by the House. Subsequent to that, the House prorogued, leaving the request from the ministers in limbo. In other words, we would have had to have chosen to go back to this subject.

    As I explained to some of the new members on the committee, we did not immediately go back to it because, in hearing witnesses, we found that a very fuzzy picture was emerging. We were asking questions no one seemed to be able to answer at that time. Well, it wasn't that they couldn't answer, but that they could only answer with the fact that nobody really knew the answer to the questions or that conclusions had not been drawn on those points. We therefore wondered if we had been a little bit premature.

    At the request of Mr. Robinson, who was not here at that time but who was very interested in the subject, the committee has agreed to have at least this one meeting, and we will then decide beyond this what we might do about this topic. But what we're really calling for in this meeting is an update. We want to know from the various organizations the stage at which they think this file is resting. That is the purpose of this meeting.

    I want to welcome our witnesses. Our first witness will be Dr. Karen Dodds, from the Department of Health.

    Dr. Karen L. Dodds (Director General, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members, for inviting us to speak before the Standing Committee on Health today.

    We look forward to the discussion with you on further study of the issue of labelling of genetically modified foods. As the chair said, this is a reprise from last year. Indeed, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, made background presentations on this subject in February of last year. What I will present today is intended to remind you of some of that background information and to provide information on current activities. We trust it will be useful to you in your deliberations.

[Translation]

    Under the Food and Drugs Act, by regulation, foods that have been genetically modified must be reviewed by Health Canada prior to being sold in Canada to ensure that there are no safety concerns. This includes any plant, animal or microorganism where the hereditable traits have been changed by intentional manipulation. We at Health Canada take a comprehensive and rigorous approach to assessing the safety of genetically-modified foods.

[English]

    We take a comprehensive and rigorous approach to assessing the safety of GM foods. Our scientists consider how the food was developed, including a careful review of the genes that have been introduced. What are they? What do they make happen? What is the source of these genes? Where do they come from?

    The composition of the GM foods is considered, both from a chemical and a nutritional perspective. The potential of the food to be toxic or to cause allergenic reactions is assessed. The data submitted by the petitioner is reviewed by a team of scientific evaluators who have expertise in molecular biology, in toxicology, in nutrition, in chemistry, and in microbiology.

    The approach to the human safety assessment of GM foods that is taken in Canada is currently applied by regulatory agencies around the world, in countries such as the member states of the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the United States. We are continually examining our review processes for GM foods, and we will continue to make the changes needed to ensure that all current and future challenges with respect to new products are met. Indeed, we are currently revising our guidelines for the safety assessment of novel foods, guidelines that were originally published in 1994.

    A consultation session was held on this issue, collaboratively with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, in May of last year, followed by a web-based, online feedback opportunity from August through October. Within a month, we anticipate distributing the revised guidelines, accompanied by a consultation paper highlighting specific areas of attention for further input. The revisions made in this draft are consistent with recommendations we have received from expert groups such as the Royal Society of Canada and with developments at the international level.

    Within the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which is recognized by the WTO as the international standard-setting body for foods, consensus has recently been reached regarding principles and guidelines for the safety assessment of GM foods from both plants and micro-organisms. This international consensus includes representation from all parts of the world, including Europe.

¹  (1540)  

[Translation]

    As well, we are preparing draft Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods derived from Animals. While we have not received any petitions to approve GM-animals as yet, we know it is an area of research and development. These guidelines will reflect new scientific and regulatory developments in this field, including the recent report of the US National Academy of Science entitled, “Animal Biotechnology: Science-Based Concerns”.

[English]

    Another initiative at Health Canada has been work to consider strategies for the post-market surveillance of potential long-term health effects related to GM foods. We have certainly been a leader in this area internationally. A global environmental scan and a research paper have been completed. We recently invited experts and interested parties from Canada and around the world to the first ever international conference on this subject. Proceedings from this conference are available on our website.

    To date, we have learned that no effective approach to this surveillance presently exists. The difficulty remains the fact that no potential adverse health effects have yet been identified through the safety assessments, so there is no specific health outcome to use to focus the surveillance efforts. Our intent is to work collaboratively with international partners to develop recommendations on this issue.

[Translation]

    As I said earlier, independent expert advice received from the Royal Society Expert Panel and the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee are helping us in our ongoing regulatory reviews and in developing future actions.

    As for labelling and consumer information, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) share the responsibility for food labelling policies under the Food and Drugs Act.

[English]

    Under the Food and Drugs Act and regulations, Health Canada is responsible for food labelling dealing with health and safety matters. Where Health Canada's safety assessment identifies health or safety issues that can be addressed through labelling, Health Canada would require special labelling on a mandatory basis to alert consumers or susceptible groups in the population. Labelling for safety remains the government's first priority.

    The CFIA is responsible for the development of general food labelling policies and regulations that do not relate to health and safety. Our colleagues will be addressing you shortly, so I won't go into those details.

    The Government of Canada clearly recognizes that the labelling of GM foods has become an important issue for consumers, as a means to support consumer choice in the marketplace. Consistent with the government response to the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, we continue to contribute to the work of the Canadian General Standards Board and the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors. Again, representatives from these groups can provide further details.

    It's our anticipation that a standard would provide appropriate labelling guidance to food companies and manufacturers in order to assist consumers by providing access to consistent information upon which they can make product choices. We note that independent advice received from the Royal Society Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology and the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, support a voluntary system of labelling for GM foods.

    At Health Canada, we have made a commitment to continuing to improve the information we provide to the public on the regulation of GM foods. Currently on our website, we provide general information on biotechnology, and responses to frequently asked questions. We have also added specific summaries on each decision we have made regarding a GM food. We are working to improve the transparency of our system, as per recommendations from the Royal Society and our action plan in response.

    In this area, we've found industry willing to work with us cooperatively regarding the release of more information from their submissions. As well, we have been conducting information sessions over the last year, primarily with public health officials, but also with other stakeholder groups across Canada, to improve awareness and understanding of our regulatory system and our safety assessment. We find these individuals are often those approached by consumers for such information.

[Translation]

    In conclusion, we remain committed to continual improvement in the system. So, we will work within Canada and at the international level, with experts and other regulatory agencies, on the scientific safety assessment and provision of information.

[English]

    Thank you.

¹  (1545)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Dodds.

    Our next witnesses come from the Canadian General Standards Board. Doryne Peace is the chair of the committee on voluntary labelling, and is assisted by Marian Gaucher, who is the secretary of that committee.

    Ms. Peace.

    Ms. Doryne Peace (Chair, Committee on Voluntary Labelling of Foods Obtained or Not Obtained through Genetic Modification, Canadian General Standards Board): Thank you very much. I think Marian will begin.

    Ms. Marian Gaucher (Secretary, Committee on Voluntary Labelling of Food Obtained or Not Obtained through Genetic Modification, Canadian General Standards Board): Thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting representation from the Canadian General Standards Board committee. As well, we'd like to thank you and the committee members for your interest in this process.

    I'm an employee with Public Works and Government Services Canada, and secretary of the standards committee. Doryne Peace represents Advertising Standards Canada on the CGSB committee, and she is also the committee chair.

    The package for our presentation includes a series of twelve slides that will cover a review of the standards development process, the scope of the committee developing the standard, and an update on the development of the standard.

    Please turn to slide 2.

    The Canadian General Standards Board, or CGSB, is a standards development, certification, and registration body. CGSB provides these services to meet client needs and to support the Government of Canada's health, safety, economic, regulatory, procurement, and environmental issues. We are part of the National Standards System of Canada, and are accredited by the Standards Council of Canada.

    The National Standards System is defined as the system for voluntary standards development, promotion, and implementation in Canada. The Standards Council of Canada coordinates and oversees the efforts of the National Standards System.

    CGSB plays a facilitating role by managing the development of voluntary standards through a consensus process. The development of the standard for voluntary labelling and advertising of foods that are or are not products of genetic engineering is one such standards development activity.

    Slides 3 and 4 represent a summary of the standards development process. First of all, a standard is requested by a client. CGSB seeks volunteer committee members through consultation, research, and references, and invites membership on the committee. Membership is derived from three main groups of stakeholders—producers, users, and general interest. Membership is open to individuals and representatives of organizations who are technically qualified or otherwise knowledgeable in the subject area of the committee.

    Committee voting membership is balanced, so no single category of interest represented can dominate the committee. CGSB provides the committee secretary, who is not a voting member, and the chair is selected by the membership.

    A CGSB standards committee meets several times to develop a draft standard. Deliberations begin with a draft outline or preliminary document, and following discussion among committee members, a draft standard is developed to capture the committee's ideas. The committee members review this draft standard, and CGSB compiles their comments for further discussion. Whenever possible, CGSB uses recognized international standards as the basis for national standards.

    Several meetings may be required to develop a draft upon which consensus can be reached. The draft standard is balloted, and members vote and must reach consensus approval. Once consensus is reached by the committee, the draft standard is advanced to the second level—approval stage—and to the Standards Council of Canada as a candidate national standard.

    The process is open and transparent. The process includes accessible and effective participation by a balance of concerned interests and openness to public comment and review. Standards are voluntary. CGSB standards may only be made mandatory through regulation or a procurement scheme.

    Slide 5 is the consensus process. Approval of a draft standard is achieved by consensus through a consensus process that requires substantial agreement by concerned interests, an attempt to resolve all objections to the draft standard, and more than a simple majority but not necessarily unanimity. Unimportant or non-persuasive objections are not allowed to block a standard. As well, consensus requires the return of at least 60% of the ballots and affirmative votes from at least 50% of all voting members.

¹  (1550)  

    The standard that we're talking about today involved a request from a sponsoring body, in this case the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, the supermarket industry. Funders include Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Industry Canada, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, along with in-kind contributions from the private sector.

    I'll now turn the presentation over to Ms. Doryne Peace, who will begin at slide 7, “The Development of a National Standard for Voluntary Labelling and Advertising of Foods That Are, And Are Not, Products of Genetic Engineering”.

    Ms. Doryne Peace: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be back again, but when we last spoke, I did express hope that a conclusion would have been reached by now. That goal still eludes our committee.

    My presentation will help bring you up to date, and Marian and I will be pleased to answer your questions as best as we can on behalf of the committee and CGSB.

    I just wanted to point out again that this is a voluntary standard aimed at giving consumers information beyond the mandatory provisions of the law that relate to health and safety. You might take a look at the standard again. It's a very long name, “National Standard for the Voluntary Labelling and Advertising of Foods that Are, and Are Not, Products of Genetic Engineering”. We have chosen the term “genetic engineering” after much debate, and for various reasons that I won't get into today.

    Slide 8 is a general overview of what will constitute the standard if and when it is approved.

    Slide 9 gives you some idea of the amount of work that has gone into this process on the part of the Canadian General Standards Board and the committee. The committee actually consists of 53 voting members, representing organizations for the most part. There are 18 producer votes, 17 user votes, and 17 organizations that are on the committee for general interest purposes. We will be providing you with a membership list, and there is one on the web page.

    As you can see, the committee first met in late 1999. It has met 10 times since then. As well, it has had several facilitated, online meetings, in addition to several meetings involving various working groups. The first draft went out for public review in August 2001. The public review period was 60 days and a we had a lot of response. I think things totalled 99 typewritten pages by the time everything was collated.

    Wherever possible, the drafting group incorporated the comments received during that public review process into a second draft, which was sent out for a vote—the first vote—in December 2001. That's the third bullet on this sheet.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam Chair, I'm very sorry to interrupt the witness, but I just want to get some clarification on the timeframe that each of the witnesses will have. I'm mindful of the clock, since there may very well be a vote.

    There are four witnesses actually appearing. If we could—

    The Chair: Yes, I know.

    This group has 10 minutes, and they're at 8 minutes and 57 seconds. I would ask you to please speed up. Maybe try not to talk so much about the process, but more about the results.

    Ms. Doryne Peace: I think we'll get right into that, then.

    Just as a comment, we had the first vote in December 2001, and after that, we had a very successful meeting in March, at which we incorporated the negative votes. We thought at that time, at the end of that meeting in March 2002, that we had a consensus. However, there was an unexpected development. One government organization came to us with a new idea after the consensus-building of March 2002. This was a new idea that had not previously been addressed, so we held another meeting in September 2002 to address that issue. As a result of that meeting, no further consensus was reached on that issue.

    During the intervening time, from March to October, the players changed and the issues once resolved re-emerged. In the third ballot, in October 2002—which is the final bullet—we really showed little increase in consensus.

    I think I'll address the table on slide 10. It's a table that will show you that we had tremendous results of 96% and 92% in both of those votes. In terms of 53 returned votes, our affirmative votes were 51 in 2001, and 49 affirmative votes supporting the standard after considerable effort in 2002. At that point, as you know, we did not feel the committee had achieved the kind of consensus it had been looking for.

    The Chair: What we really need to know are not these numbers, but why. What were the issues?

    Ms. Doryne Peace: If you go to slide 11—

    Mr. Svend Robinson: What was the issue that caused dissent?

    Ms. Doryne Peace: There wasn't just one. If you go to slide 11, you will see four issues that remain contentious. The first one was the unexpected issue raised by some government organizations. It claims that highly processed foods do not contain GE DNA or protein. It's a complex issue, but what it really amounts to...if you think about canola oil, it comes from canola that may be genetically engineered. The claim that we've allowed in the standard to this point is canola oil derived from genetically engineered canola.

    Some groups wanted the standard to include an additional possible claim, which would be canola oil that is derived from genetically engineered canola but does not contain GE DNA or protein. The committee wrestled with this claim, but at the meeting we had in March, there wasn't sufficient known information to really decide whether or not we could go ahead with such a claim. We didn't know if we should have tolerances, we didn't know what those tolerances should be, and we didn't know if it conflicted with allergy policy. We had a number of different definitions that we hadn't even thought of, and many of the consumer groups thought this was an issue that was raised at the last minute without sufficient rationale.

    The second point is accidental comingling. I talked to you about adventitious material the last time I was here. That means the addition of non-GE material into GE material or vice versa, the addition of GE material into non-GE material. The committee has set a level of 5% comingling, which means you can make a claim that your ingredient is not a product of genetic engineering if it has had up to 5% product of genetic engineering included in it. This is to account for birds, bees, transportation issues, comingling at the farm gate, or comingling in various processes. The consumer groups sitting at the table were desirous of having less than this. After discussion with industry, however, we felt 5% was what we could achieve at this point in time.

    Exemption of GE enzymes is an issue, because some GE enzymes are found in very trace amounts in food. Around the world, there are some lists that exempt these kinds of things, but these particular laws aren't for both positive and negative labelling. When you exempt something that is genetically engineered, you have a problem when you want to call the food not genetically engineered. It becomes potentially quite misleading.

    We have to figure that one out. We haven't yet, and we may not be able to because the Canadian General Standards Board has some concern about it. The definition issue of what is a processing aid—which these enzymes are—seems to be different in terms of what the authorities consider to be the operational definition and what some of the industry would like to have.

    The final point is one that was raised by two members of the committee, and that's limiting the scope of the standard to negative claims only. Two members of the committee voted against the standard mainly because it addressed both positive and negative labelling. In other words, it was a standard that wanted to label things that are genetically engineered, and it also wanted to label things that aren't genetically engineered. Quite frankly, the committee has agreed almost unanimously that they want both of those aspects in this standard, and this particular issue doesn't really seem to be one that can be adapted.

    So those are the issues. I'd love to talk to you more about them. I went over them very quickly, but they're not as simple as I made them sound. I would like to point out that I have asked the committee if it wants to continue, because we have not grown in consensus. It is likely that they will continue because they are people of optimism and good faith. On the other hand, it is their decision. If they do decide to continue, we plan on having another meeting if we can achieve adequate funding to go ahead and do that kind of thing.

    Thank you very much. I hope I didn't go over by too much.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: No.

    From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, we welcome Debra Bryanton, executive director of policy and planning.

    Debra, if you could, we don't want to know what process you're going through on this question, we want to know what conclusions you're drawing, if any. Could you do that for us?

    Ms. Debra Bryanton (Executive Director, Policy, Planning and Coordination Directorate, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Yes, thank you. And thank you for the opportunity to speak with you.

[Translation]

    Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Madam Chair, do we have the reference documents?

[English]

    Mr. Svend Robinson: With respect, and just while the document is coming, along the lines of what our chair said, there's no need to repeat evidence that was given to the committee previously. Just looking at this, it looks like it's basically a repeat of what was said last time around in terms of the process stuff. As the chair has said, some of us have reviewed that evidence. Let's get down to what's actually happening now and what's stopping the arrival at some sort of a standard or consensus.

º  (1605)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

    Ms. Bryanton.

    Ms. Debra Bryanton: The CFIA's main role in involvement in the issue does relate to our role in the labelling of food products. As Dr. Dodds pointed out in her presentation, we first look at the safety aspects of products of biotechnology. Those are subject to very stringent health and safety requirements, and those are addressed.

    The labelling of the products is governed by two main pieces of legislation—the Food and Drugs Act and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. The health and safety aspects are guided by Health Canada, but CFIA does administer and enforce the non-health and non-safety provisions of those. We are responsible for setting criteria to protect consumers from misrepresentation and fraud with respect to food labelling, packaging, and advertising, so we do establish some basic guidelines that refer to those.

    As it stands now, food manufacturers can choose whether or not to indicate if products have been developed or certain components of that product have been developed through a certain process, as long as that information is not misleading or deceptive. Our role has been mainly looking at whether or not statements are meaningful and if they are deceptive.

    The food industry is responsible for the provision of accurate and adequate information to consumers, and consumers can be informed about new products and their safety in many ways, not just through labelling. It can be through point of purchase, or it can be through toll-free information or advertising. Consumers want accurate information so that they can make informed food choices.

    In the case of labelling the products of biotechnology, the questions surrounding the scope and wording of the proposed labelling claims and validation of these claims are quite complex. Food producers and processors, distributors, and consumers all have a very important role in finding viable solutions to these challenging questions. As Ms. Peace and the CGSB have noted, these are the challenging questions that are before the CGSB committee.

    The CGSB process is helping to bring together these interested parties to establish guidelines for the labelling of foods obtained or not obtained through genetic engineering. Recognizing the importance of broad discussion across these interests, CFIA has supported the initiative from the start and we, with Health Canada and other federal departments, have participated in this process. We are there mainly to provide regulatory advice and technical support.

    We do remain optimistic that the standards committee will find a way to achieve its original goals. This is based on the view that we've seen the dedication of committee members to the process and their willingness to share views toward resolving some of the complex questions that are being posed and are associated with labelling biotechnology foods.

    It was our understanding that you had also wanted to know a little bit more about the international context, so we have included some points here that did relate to that. If you would like me to skip over those in the interest of time, I can do that.

    The Chair: I just want you to get to the nub of the question.

    Ms. Debra Bryanton: Okay.

    As I indicated, the role of the agency is mainly to verify that these claims are not misleading and are truthful, and we do seek means to do that. We need a common understanding of what labelling claims do or do not mean. We have been looking to the CGSB process to review the very important issues associated with products of biotechnology. Because their process is very inclusive and provides the opportunity for these questions to be discussed in quite a lot of detail, we are seeking advice from that group, and we will consider that advice when looking at whether there needs to be any further labelling requirements included within our scope.

    The Chair: So you're saying you're waiting for the CGSB, essentially.

    Ms. Debra Bryanton: Yes, we are.

    The Chair: Are you doing any science to help them?

    Ms. Debra Bryanton: Science to help them?

    The Chair: Do you do any kind of science? They're struggling with whether 5% is a good idea, or whether 2% is. Are you doing anything to back them up, or are you just literally waiting until they report to you?

    Ms. Debra Bryanton: In relation to labelling requirements, as we indicated, our first role is to be there to provide advice on the existing regulatory requirements and on those aspects that relate to the health and safety of food.

    The Chair: So you're not really doing anything to move forward the whole thing about labelling.

    Ms. Debra Bryanton: When it comes to other questions that relate to products of biotechnology and questions such as adventitious material, we can provide some information on what is normal and usual in a distribution system and how, within a seeds program, for example, there can be adventitious material that is likely to be in a product, in a seed, and could end up in the food supply. We are also able to provide them with some advice on other labelling requirements and how they have evolved, and how consumers do perceive some of those labelling requirements.

    Perhaps I'll leave it at that. You may have more specific questions.

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Svend Robinson: May I ask a quick question, Ms. Brown?

    When this three-and-a-half-year process started, we were told by government agencies like yours that there was an eighteen-month timeline. It has now been three and a half years. What's the reason for your optimism that things are going to be okay?

    Ms. Debra Bryanton: First, our most significant interest is whether the health and safety issues are being addressed, and they have been addressed. When it comes to the—

    Mr. Svend Robinson: They have been addressed? We've just heard from Ms. Peace that there are some fundamental questions around the threshold level, for example, that they can't deal with.

    Ms. Debra Bryanton: The threshold level is not a health and safety issue.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: It's not?

    Ms. Debra Bryanton: No.

    The Chair: There's no recognition that it is.

    We'll move to Mary Alton Mackey. Maybe she will be able to help us. And then we'll go back to the regular questioning format.

    Ms. Mary Alton Mackey (Member and Co-chair, GM Foods Steering Committee, Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee):

    Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson. On behalf of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, CBAC, thank you for this opportunity to update you and your committee members on the work related to genetically modified food, or as it is also known, genetically engineered food.

    CBAC's mandate is to provide comprehensive advice to the Government of Canada on policy issues associated with the ethical, social, regulatory, economic, scientific, environmental, and health aspects of biotechnology. We appeared before this committee almost exactly a year ago to describe our deliberations on the issue of labelling of GM foods.

    In August of last year, we released our report on improving the regulation of genetically modified foods and other novel foods in Canada. In that report, we addressed the question of labelling as part of a broader question of providing meaningful information about GM foods, to enhance the ability of consumers to make informed choices about the foods they eat. While I know you all received a copy of our report last year, I'm pleased to re-table it today for your ease of reference.

    For CBAC, the question is not whether to develop a labelling system for GM foods that goes beyond the mandatory requirements for health and safety, but rather how to develop a system that provides reliable information and facilitates informed choice without unduly increasing the cost to consumers or disrupting international trade in agricultural products.

    As our report indicates, we found no evidence that GM foods pose any greater health or environmental risks than their conventional counterparts currently in the Canadian marketplace. What we found was that Canadians want comprehensive information on all foods—including genetically engineered and other novel foods—and on our regulatory system.

    Government and industry have an obligation to provide consumers with the information they say they want. Canada needs to establish a centralized food information system as a single window through which Canadians can get this information. Additionally, well-organized and readily accessible specialized information should be provided to help professionals and other intermediaries.

    With regard to labelling, we endorse the creation of a voluntary labelling system for GM foods to deal with matters not related to health and safety. Such a system should be based on clear criteria, a widely accepted standard, and the requirement that the information on the labels be meaningful, verifiable, and not misleading. We urge the government not only to establish the voluntary labelling system, but also to actively promote it. Canada should also continue to work with other countries to develop an internationally accepted labelling standard.

    Additionally, we recommend that five years after this implementation, the voluntary labelling system should be assessed for its effectiveness both in providing adequate choice to consumers and also in looking at its uptake. If the voluntary system were judged not to be adequate at that time, Canada should consider alternate approaches, possibly including a mandatory labelling system.

    Let me touch on some of the significant recent developments related to labelling of GM foods that have emerged since our report was released last August. I should note that even in light of these developments, we continue to stand by our recommendations. Several countries, including Canada, are tackling the issue of an international voluntary standard for labelling within the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Codex has found this issue to be extremely complex, and resolution is not imminent.

    Last November, voters in the state of Oregon rejected an initiative that would have required labels on foods containing GM ingredients. Nearly three-quarters—73%, actually—of the voters in that plebiscite voted against the imposition of mandatory labels. I'm not saying that number is directly applicable to the Canadian population, but it is an interesting development that calls into question the established view that consumers will inevitably opt for a mandatory labelling system. And there are other examples of practical experience that I would be pleased to share with you during the question period.

    More recently, the European Parliament backed a proposal to increase labelling requirements for food, and those will lead to more stringent rules for testing and identifying foods and animal feed for GE content. The proposal would decrease the threshold for GE content from 1% to 0.5% and would require manufacturers to trace foods to their place of origin. I should note here that the EU countries, like most other countries with stringent labelling requirements, are not producers of GE foods for the most part. We believe these regulations may be impossible to implement, and there are also trade implications.

    No countries requiring labelling of GM foods are themselves significant producers of GM crops, thus there is no suitable model for Canada. Perhaps the most recent development on this issue is the joint effort of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and the Canadian Standards Board, and our concern was that they may have come to an impasse.

    The development of an effective standard is fundamental to any labelling system, whether it's voluntary or mandatory. Since such a standard does not appear to be imminent—

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: The bells are ringing for us to vote, so we probably have about five minutes. Just make one more point, and then we'll go to Mr. Robinson for questioning.

    Ms. Mary Alton Mackey: I'm essentially finished.

    What I wanted to say is that the development of an effective standard is fundamental. We would propose that the federal government ask CGSB to continue its efforts. We are suggesting that the committee be given a limited timeframe for completion. If that is not successful, the government should consider alternate approaches to developing a standard. In the meantime, CBAC will review the options that are available and will offer counsel to government.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. Sorry to cut you short, but these are the parameters by which we live.

    Mr. Robinson brought this topic to the committee's attention. It is his topic, and there is an agreement in the committee that when such a thing happens, if there's a shortage of question time, it will be given to the person who brought it forward.

    Mr. Robinson.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): On a point of order, Madam Chair.

[English]

    The Chair: Yes, Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: With all due respect to Mr. Robinson, it seems to me that we have rules in this committee that state that we have alternating speaking rights. Did the committee not adopt regulations in this regard? If that is the case, could you refresh my memory?

[English]

    The Chair: We don't have a set of rules.

    Mr. Robinson.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: On the same point of order, it's clear that we'll need more time with these witnesses. While I very much appreciate the opportunity to ask questions, there are literally only three or four minutes on a subject that is of critical importance. I know my colleagues from the Bloc have questions, and I'm sure Ms. Bennett has questions as well. The witnesses have given us an update. I would suggest that the committee meet to decide an appropriate time for them to return when there will be ample opportunity, because some very serious issues have to be explored, both with these witnesses and hopefully with witnesses who will have an opportunity to respond to the points they have raised.

    I would suggest—and also just in fairness to the witnesses—that three or four minutes really makes it impossible to have any serious line of questioning. I think we should we thank them and invite them back.

º  (1620)  

    The Chair: But I would remind you, Mr. Robinson, that the committee itself, in planning its spring work, only allocated one meeting. It was at the conclusion of this meeting and following the review of the material that the committee was to decide whether or not to have another one. I cannot invite these witnesses back unless the committee decides to go forward.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Obviously the committee is being interrupted in its proceedings. We were supposed to go until 5:30, but it's only 4:20. In light of that, clearly that decision would have to be reviewed, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Well, we've talked so much about process that I feel there is no point in even starting the questioning now. On your behalf, then, I will thank these witnesses for coming.

    I will alert you to the fact that we will let you know if we decide to have another meeting on this topic. In the meantime—

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Just for clarification, can I just ask one brief question of the government witness?

    The Chair: I don't think so, because then Mr. Bigras will want to ask questions.

    Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay, we'll have them back then. That's fine.

    The Chair: I didn't promise to have them back. I promised to present this material to the other committee members, and they will have a choice as to whether or not we have another meeting on this subject.

    Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.