;

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, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, May 28, 2003

1540

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

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

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

A Voice

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Ms. Mary Alton Mackey

1555

The Chair

Mr. Greg Orriss (Director, Bureau of Food Safety and Consumer Protection, Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Doryne Peace

1600

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Rob Merrifield

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

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Bart Bilmer (Director, Office of Biotechnology, Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Mr. Bart Bilmer

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Mr. Bart Bilmer

1605

Mr. Paul Mayers (Acting Associate Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health)

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance)

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Mr. Greg Orriss

Mrs. Carol Skelton

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

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Ms. Marian Gaucher

Mrs. Carol Skelton

Ms. Marian Gaucher

1610

Mrs. Carol Skelton

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Doryne Peace

The Chair

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1615

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP)

Ms. Doryne Peace

Ms. Marian Gaucher

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Marian Gaucher

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Marian Gaucher

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Marian Gaucher

Mr. Svend Robinson

1620

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Svend Robinson

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Mr. Svend Robinson

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Svend Robinson

Ms. Doryne Peace

1625

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

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

Mr. Greg Orriss

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Mr. Greg Orriss

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

1630

Mr. Greg Orriss

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

The Chair

Mr. Rob Merrifield

1635

Mr. Greg Orriss

Mr. Rob Merrifield

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1640

The Chair

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Ms. Doryne Peace

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Ms. Doryne Peace

Ms. Marian Gaucher

Ms. Doryne Peace

The Chair

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

1645

Mr. Bart Bilmer

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Bart Bilmer

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

1650

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

The Chair

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Mr. Greg Orriss

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1655

Ms. Doryne Peace

The Chair

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.)

The Chair

1700

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

NUMBER 038

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, May 28, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1540)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's my pleasure to call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Health. This session will be on the question of labelling of genetically modified foods.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses. The first witness will be Mary Alton Mackey of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee.

Because this is the second session with these witnesses, we have asked them to make their opening comments very brief so that most of the meeting can be dedicated to question and answer.

Ms. Mackey.

Ms. Mary Alton Mackey (Member, and Co-chair, GM Foods Steering Committee, Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee): Good afternoon, and thank you, Madam Chairman, on behalf of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, CBAC, for this opportunity to answer your questions concerning--

The Chair: There doesn't seem to be a translation. We're not getting the English into French.

Mr. Bigras, a technician has been called. Do you think you could cope if we proceed?

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): No.

The Chair: Okay, we'll have to wait. There's no French translation, and Mr. Bigras is not willing to go forward without that.

¹ (1543)

¹ (1554)

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: No, but we intend to...

A Voice: The witnesses do not understand French.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I see then.

[English]

The Chair: Are you ready to begin, ladies and gentlemen?

I'm sorry the witnesses have had to waste this time, but we'll ask Ms. Mackey to begin again, please.

Ms. Mary Alton Mackey: Thank you again, Madam Chairperson, on behalf of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, for this opportunity to answer your questions concerning genetically modified food labelling.

CBAC supports consumers' right to information and informed choice. In our report, which was distributed the last time, on improving the regulation of GM foods and other novel foods in Canada, we recommended that a labelling standard be developed and supported--the voluntary approach--provided that there be a review of its effectiveness.

The last time we met, CBAC urged the government to encourage CGSB to continue its efforts, and we recommended setting a deadline of the end of December. We are pleased that a further meeting of the CGSB has been held and that progress has been made.

CBAC anticipates that a standard that provides for labels that are truthful, not misleading, and verifiable can be finalized by the end of the year. Further, we hope that the standard will be quickly adopted and promoted so that consumers can see labelled products on grocery shelves early in 2004.

Thank you for your attention, and I'd be pleased to answer questions.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll now hear from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Mr. Orriss.

Mr. Greg Orriss (Director, Bureau of Food Safety and Consumer Protection, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Madam Chair.

The CFIA has no opening statement at this time, other than to express our appreciation for the opportunity to be with the standing committee today to answer questions in follow-up to our previous appearance on March 26.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now we'll hear from the Canadian General Standards Board, the chair of the committee on voluntary labelling of foods obtained or not obtained through genetic modification, Ms. Doryne 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 for having us back again. I wasn't sure we were going to have an opportunity to deal with the questions that you all had at the last meeting. It ended rather abruptly, so I'm quite pleased to be back and able to answer the questions.

As you've already heard, we did have a further meeting. The committee approached the meeting with renewed vigour and a clear appreciation of the importance of a voluntary standard for Canadians. We were able to address perhaps two out of the four outstanding issues that we had in front of us, and we are rather optimistic that this time around we will be moving further towards a consensus document.

However, we will have to re-ballot the draft. We made some substantial changes, so we will need to have it go back out to the committee. This will happen in June. Generally the committee has about six weeks to look at it and go back to their groups, their stakeholders, and decide on their votes.

We can't prejudice the results. For example, not all committee members were at the meeting, but we are, as I mentioned, optimistic.

So thank you very much for having us back again. Marian Gaucher is with me, also from the Canadian General Standards Board, and together we'll be happy to answer questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll now proceed to the question and answer portion, beginning with Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): I missed the last meeting; I'm sorry, I think I was in the House speaking on something. But I certainly appreciate you being here and giving us an update from a year ago. I remember that quite vividly as we debated the safety of GMOs and then the whole idea of labelling.

I'm trying to get a handle on what I just heard. You're talking about a voluntary labelling to be implemented on January 1 of next year. Is that what you're saying?

Ms. Doryne Peace: Our standard is a voluntary labelling standard that goes through the Canadian General Standards Board up into the Standards Council of Canada. We can't commit to a date at this time. It goes out for a vote of our committee, and if it succeeds in reaching consensus--Marian can tell you a little bit more about this--it would be another six to eight months before it is adopted as an official standard of Canada.

Yes, it is voluntary.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: It would be an official standard, but it would be voluntary, so that they could either take part in it or not. That's the idea.

Ms. Doryne Peace: Yes, and if they take part in it, it has to comply with the certain recommendations in the standard.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: The standard just gives guidelines to make sure that the information is factual and accurate, that sort of thing.

Ms. Doryne Peace: Right.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: What are the main pitfalls for those who would want or not want to do it? What are the major stumbling blocks you might see as you move forward from here?

Ms. Doryne Peace: The implementation of the standard is something the committee does not discuss to any great extent. I think I can say informally that the issue of verification is a very important one. You probably talked to the agricultural folks. They can tell you that it's hard to separate agricultural commodities. The infrastructure to set up that kind of separation and verification and validation is one that I think is of concern to some members of the group and will affect the rate of implementation.

º (1600)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Is there a major cost to some for doing it? How do they weigh that?

Ms. Doryne Peace: That will be up to them to weigh. The costs will be different for each and every segment. It will really be up to them to figure out how much those costs will be. You must realize these folks sit around the table and are working with us to come up with a standard that is acceptable, applicable, and doesn't cost itself out of the market.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That isn't onerous on them as an industry.

Let's go back just a little bit, one question before that. Have we ever recalled a GMO product that was licensed in Canada because of a safety or an environmental concern?

Dr. Karen L. Dodds (Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health): We haven't done a recall to product that has been approved in Canada.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: This was my understanding as well. If I remember right, last year there was some very strong witness with regard to the idea that any licensed genetically modified food that is on the shelf in Canada is perfectly safe. Has there been any change to that in the last year?

Dr. Karen L. Dodds: No, there hasn't.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: You're comfortable that all the products that are genetically modified in Canada are very safe.

Now, the reason I'm asking that is because of some of the comments of President Bush with regard to the EU. I believe it was a couple of weeks ago he was challenging them about their hesitation toward growing and providing GMO foods on their market. Do you have any comments as to how you see that unfolding, and whether it's going to impact in any way, positively or negatively, on us moving forward?

Mr. Bart Bilmer (Director, Office of Biotechnology, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Perhaps I can address that question. My name is Bart Bilmer. I'm with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Probably I should clarify to start that--and I'm not directly involved in this--the WTO challenge you're referring to is in relation to the EU's approval system for products of biotechnology and the fact that it's not functioning at this point. They're not evaluating and assessing products. That was the basis for the U.S.-led challenge of it. It didn't have to do with health or safety, or details of the European system itself, just the fact that the system wasn't operating or actively reviewing products. There's an effective moratorium on any further assessment of products of biotechnology.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: That's in the EU.

Mr. Bart Bilmer: That's in the EU, yes.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Yes. It's really interesting. When we went through this last time—or maybe it wasn't last time—I think it was a report coming out this last Christmas, or just prior to this Christmas, from the EU. It was a fairly comprehensive study over a 15-year period, if I'm not mistaken, of 400 different products, 80 different groups, or 400 different.... I'm not sure of the data. It doesn't really matter. It was a pretty comprehensive study suggesting that GMO foods were actually safer than conventional. This was a European study. Do you have any comments on that?

I was really quite astounded that it was a study coming out of Europe. Is that something you would concur with, or reflects what we are doing here?

Dr. Karen L. Dodds: If I can ask my associate director general, Paul Mayers, to come to the table, he seems to be aware of the report. I'm not.

Mr. Bart Bilmer: I can make a comment too, from the agency's perspective. We're aware of this study. It was announced last year. Essentially, the report that identified a series of research that had been done related to products of biotechnology and the fact that none of them had confirmed there was any safety risk, to their knowledge.

º (1605)

Mr. Paul Mayers (Acting Associate Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health): Thank you very much. Paul Mayers from Health Canada. The study in the European Union, as conducted by the science commissioner in the European Commission, interpreted that GM-related foods might in fact be safer, based on the fact that prior to their introduction these products were subject to a much higher degree of regulatory oversight than conventional food products, which enter the market without pre-market approvals in many cases.

As a result of that pre-market oversight, any concerns related to the safety of those products would be identified before those products entered the market. And as a result of the enhanced regulatory oversight of those products, the interpretation, based on the European study, was that these products might in fact be safer than conventional products, given that oversight.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Skelton.

Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): Could you tell me, Ms. Dodds, what Health Canada's position is on the voluntary labelling system?

Dr. Karen L. Dodds: We've been working on part of the CGSB process because we're certainly in support of consumers having information consumers are interested in.

Mrs. Carol Skelton: Okay.

In terms of a Canadian Food Inspection Agency mandate, how would either a voluntary or mandatory labelling system affect you? Let's first do the voluntary, and then let's do the mandatory. How would it change?

Mr. Greg Orriss: The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for enforcing two pieces of legislation that are pertinent. One includes the requirements under the Food and Drugs Act and regulations that deal with food safety, as well as fraud and deception. We also have the responsibility for enforcing the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act.

Should the Health Canada assessment identify there is a need to label genetically modified food, for reasons of a change in composition or the possible introduction of an allergen or some associated safety issue, we would regulate that under the Food and Drugs Act and take the appropriate enforcement action on a mandatory basis.

With respect to voluntary labelling, we enforce the requirements of subsection 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act that prohibit false or misleading or deceptive labelling of foods or anything that creates an erroneous impression related to the quality, value, merit, or safety of the food.

With respect to enforcement of subsection 5(1), we do look at voluntary standards as reference points for us. We cannot enforce directly a voluntary standard. However, we can, of course, enforce subsection 5(1), should the situation warrant such enforcement.

Mrs. Carol Skelton: Has your group developed guidelines yet, Ms. Peace, at all, that are available to the general public to have a look at?

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

We have developed a number of draft standards, of which the first one was available for public review. It was an official public review, period, which is required by the WTO and so on. Any draft is available to the public upon request.

Mrs. Carol Skelton: Could you tell me about your group that met? Again just go over it so I can remember who was invited to the table.

Ms. Marian Gaucher: Who is on our committee?

Mrs. Carol Skelton: Yes.

Ms. Marian Gaucher: We have a committee of 54 voting members. It's a balanced representation of 18 producer representatives, 18 user representatives, which include consumers and retail and so on, and 18 general interest members, which include government, university research, those types of groups.

º (1610)

Mrs. Carol Skelton: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Madam Chair. How much time do I have?

[English]

The Chair: You have five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Five minutes.

First of all, thank you for appearing before the committee, Ms. Peace. I'm somewhat surprised to hear you speak optimistically today, given that on February 28 last, you wrote a letter to the members of your committee in which you noted the following:

I believe we have a responsibility to assess the situation in a realistic way to ascertain if in fact any progress is possible or if, in good conscience, we should declare a lack of consensus on the issue and dissolve the committee.

Yet, a mere month and half later, you claim to be full of optimism. You seem to believe that this committee will be tabling a very favourable report in June. Therefore, am I to understand by this that we are nearing a consensus on the two stumbling points, namely, if memory serves me well, the 5 per cent GE content target and product labelling, that is the act of indicating whether a food product is genetically modified or not? If a product contains 5 per cent of adventitious material, are we prepared to label it as genetically modified? Secondly, are you prepared to go along with the basic arguments set out in the Codex Alimentarius which dictate that GMOs must be so labelled?

[English]

Ms. Doryne Peace: I want to say a couple of things. First, yes, I am optimistic, but I am optimistic by nature.

The Chair: Does that mean we shouldn't put too much stock in it?

Ms. Doryne Peace: Well, people did come together. They realize this is a serious issue.

Secondly, I'd like to comment that the 5% adventitious material remains a stumbling point in the minds of some members of the committee. We did address it in great detail at the last meeting. We have again as a committee recognized that as a starting point for Canada, given our infrastructure and our very large transportation requirements for grains, the 5% adventitious material is a reasonable target at this point in time.

The committee recognizes that to achieve that, the individual farmer, the individual processor, the individual manufacturer will have to target, in effect, zero adventitious material, zero unintentional material into the system. But we all recognize that we never clean our floors as well as we'd like to clean them, and we never clean silos as correctly as we'd like to, too. So it's a recognition of the current state of affairs in Canada.

That may change as we become more sophisticated in dealing with this, but at this particular time the committee, with very few exceptions, believes the 5% adventitious material is the right choice.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Chair, one fact cannot be denied, namely that your proposal has the support of 53 per cent of the members of the committee. MAPAQ has rejected it, as has Option consommateurs. Therefore, on these two fundamental issues, namely the 5 per cent target, if your response is any indication... I can understand wanting to set the target at one per cent, but what about 2 per cent or 3 per cent? Wouldn't that be a good compromise?

Moreover, you still haven't answered my question about GMF labelling. Isn't labelling -- which is voluntary, by the way, although I would have preferred it to be mandatory, but we have to live with this choice -- potentially misleading to consumers? Shouldn't we instead be pushing for compliance with the Codex Alimentarius, which states that GMOs must be so labelled? Can't we come up with a compromise that would result in the desired consensus?

If I understood correctly, 53 per cent support is not sufficient and I totally agree with you on that score. We need to strive for a consensus. Shouldn't that consensus be 2 per cent, or 3 per cent, plus GMF labelling of the product, not simply a label stating that the product is genetically engineered?

º (1615)

[English]

Ms. Doryne Peace: I'm going to address the two to three percent. You're very well informed, because in fact that was a compromise position that was brought to the table, and it was debated. And I'll reiterate again that after much soul-searching there was no real confidence that we'd be able to label truthfully and without misleading at a level that's substantially lower than the 5%.

We thank the folks who brought that compromise position to the table, and we appreciated it, but we were not able as a group to rally behind that issue.

In regard to the term “GMO”, I'm going to let Bart talk to the Codex issue of it, because labelling in Codex is not as far along as we are with our voluntary system. We have, as I mentioned the last time, not been able to use the words “genetic modification” because of the existing food and drug regulations that define “genetically modified” in a very broad way.

The next term we feel that consumers recognize, and which is increasingly becoming more popular when this issue is discussed in the press, is “genetic engineering”. It's a problem in French. We know the jargon isn't as easily translated in French as GMO is. It is a situation that we felt this was the best term to use, given the restrictions we had on “genetically modified”.

Most of these foods are not organisms, by the way. Most of them are highly refined or semi-refined foods that come from organisms. So we're really not correct if we even use the term “genetically modified organism”, because canola oil, for example, is not an organism.

Do you want to talk about Codex, Bart?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Do I have time for another quick question, Madam Chair?

[English]

The Chair: No, you're at seven minutes

Does anybody on this side have a question? Seeing none, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Thanks very much. I want to follow up with Ms. Peace on a couple of questions.

Who's funding this continuation of your mandate, and how much money is it going to cost?

Ms. Doryne Peace: Marian, do you want to respond?

Ms. Marian Gaucher: The bulk of the funding has come from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, who have actually acted as the sponsor or the manager of the project, but the funds have come from Agriculture Canada.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I know where they've come from. I'm asking where the funding to extend this....

Ms. Marian Gaucher: To extend? The cost to the Canadian General Standards Board is about $50,000 to extend.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And where's that coming from?

Ms. Marian Gaucher: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And that's the total budget, $50,000?

Ms. Marian Gaucher: That does not include funds for consumer representative travel, which is separate. I don't know how much that is.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So taxpayers are paying for this extension?

I have to say that when we put this in context, it was something like three years ago that we were told by the government that this would be about an 18-month process.

Canadians have a right to know what they're eating. My colleague Charles Caccia had a bill before the House of Commons that was defeated when four ministers, four federal ministers, said no, no, no, it's okay, we're going to come up with a voluntary labelling scheme, you don't have to go there, we'll come up with a voluntary labeling scheme.

We've now got this absurd situation, frankly, in which we have an industry-dominated body that has degenerated into what many of us see as a farcical situation. For example, seriously suggesting that consumers would accept that foods that have 4% or 4.5% genetically engineered components are in fact not genetically engineered is ludicrous, frankly.

When Ms. Mackey.... I give Ms. Mackey credit at least for saying, in her evidence before the committee:

...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 that say they want.

So 5% doesn't cut it. If you had beer that contained 5% alcohol or 4.5% alcohol, you wouldn't say it was alcohol-free, right? So this is a con job for consumers, I have to say. It's just not fair to consumers. I don't think you're accepting the mandate you've been given, which is to make sure that people are able to make informed decisions on the food they eat.

You said in your evidence to the committee during your last appearance that the consumer groups that work with you accept this. Do you stand by that, Ms. Peace?

º (1620)

Ms. Doryne Peace: Not all consumer groups voted for it. One consumer group did not support that, but the rest, who sat around the table for quite a while, do.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Then why did you mislead the committee when you appeared before us last time? And I want to quote you; here's what you said:

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.

That wasn't true, was it?

Ms. Doryne Peace: There was one consumer group that did not support the 5%.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right. Why didn't you tell us that?

Ms. Doryne Peace: I probably should have. But out of all of them, there was only one.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You said they all supported it. You didn't tell us the truth on that. So that, to me, raises some pretty serious questions about the other evidence you gave that maybe wasn't totally accurate either, and we just don't know. I happened to know that wasn't accurate, that wasn't truthful, but maybe there are others as well.

I want to ask the Health Canada representative, Dr. Dodds, something. Dr. Dodds, you indicated you were revising your guidelines for the safety assessment of novel foods, which were originally published back almost a decade ago, and that you expected within a month to be able to distribute them. I understand they still haven't been distributed, and I'm wondering when we can expect them.

Dr. Karen L. Dodds: I said in March that we were planning to publish them or put them into the public domain within about a month. We are still working on the finalization of both the guidelines and a consultation document. Some of the perspectives of the consultation document go beyond the specific question of genetically modified plants and micro-organisms, which was the focus of the earlier set of guidelines. Now we're looking at all novel foods and will also be introducing some of the questions about things like genetically modified animals.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So what's the new timeline?

Dr. Karen L. Dodds: They should be out within weeks.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Two months ago, we were told in a month.

My last question--because I know my time is limited--is again back to the issue of the right to know and mandatory labelling being an essential component of that. As a consumer yourself--as we're all consumers around this table--don't you think there's a bit of a problem in suggesting that foods that contain up to 5% GE content in fact should not be labeled as being genetically engineered? Is that not deceptive advertising? And more fundamentally, why should some companies be in a position to say that whatever you want to do voluntarily, we aren't going to go along with this? Why not have mandatory labelling if we're serious about the right to know?

Ms. Doryne Peace: Quite frankly, I can't answer that question. I chair a committee that was set up to do a voluntary labelling system.

What I can comment on is the inconsistency of having a standard where you would have something that was 3%. When we're talking about adventitious material, if you think of a bag of 100 potatoes, three or five of those potatoes, depending on the percentages, would have been picked up incidentally by the farmer as he was collecting the potatoes from the ground. The difference between--

Mr. Svend Robinson: What's the European standard--isn't it 1%?

Ms. Doryne Peace: I think it's about 1% or less.

Mr. Svend Robinson: If the Europeans can do 1%, why can't we?

Ms. Doryne Peace: Because we plant a lot more genetically modified seed. They have a system where they don't plant genetically modified seed, so they don't have the incidental material coming in.

Recently we read a paper that was submitted to us by the agriculture department within Quebec that suggested that even getting 5% when you're in an environment like ours where you have for some crops 50% genetically engineered product grown, seeds grown, 50% non-genetically engineered.... In Europe they concluded that in getting even 5% adventitious material it becomes a problem.

So we're dealing with reality in Canada right now. We're certainly dealing with the Canadian situation in this standard.

º (1625)

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

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

If I understood correctly, we are certain that products currently marketed, that is genetically modified or “engineered” foods -- I'm not certain which label to use -- are safe to consume. Is that in fact the case?

Also, if I understand correctly, it's important for us to ensure that product labelling accurately reflects the truth. In other words, it's important that labelling be accurate and not misleading.

Do we have the technology today to be really accurate about this, that is to determine if the GE content of a particular product is one per cent or two per cent? It's all well and good to talk about the one per cent target used elsewhere, but do we really have the technology to guarantee on the label that this product's GE content is one per cent? This is something that has always fascinated me because we stress the importance of truth in labelling and we sometimes talk about strict percentages. I'd be interested in hearing your comments.

[English]

Mr. Greg Orriss: Thank you for the question.

In terms of the technology to determine the level of adventitious presence, yes, we do have the technology to do that.

In terms of the distribution systems, as Ms. Peace indicated, there are challenges in Canada in terms of segregation throughout the food chain, from the planting of the seed to the final product, and there are some possibilities for incidental adventitious contamination between genetically engineered and non-genetically-engineered products. And that's why, as Ms. Peace indicated, the committee had concluded that 5% at this time was a reasonable target, with my understanding--and I'd ask Ms. Peace to correct me--that they would review this at a later date to see if it was possible to lower that level below 5% as distribution systems developed to control this more tightly.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: So, if I understand what you're telling me, if we try to be more specific than 5 per cent, we run the risk of having labelling that is somewhat misleading. Is that what you're saying?

[English]

Mr. Greg Orriss: No, I think we could confirm the truthfulness of the labels. From a technical perspective we could determine the truthfulness at levels less than 5%, certainly.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: Now then, can the mere fact of labelling a product as genetically modified lead to other problems? As a member of the Health Committee, my concern is ensuring that products on the market are safe and pose no risk to the health of consumers. Now then, on the labelling issue, people's right to know whether or not...First, it's important to ensure that the information is accurate. That's why when I hear people mention percentages, I have to wonder if this is really necessary. What will the label look like? How will this information be imparted to consumers?

As a consumer, if I purchase a product with a vast amount of information presented on a very small label, I'm not convinced the aim of the exercise has been achieved. What kind of label is being considered to ensure that it serves a useful purpose? Labelling for labelling's sake is all well and good, but a label has to serve a useful purpose. I'd be interested in getting your views on this matter.

º (1630)

[English]

Mr. Greg Orriss: I think I should reiterate that any food that's offered for sale in Canada must be safe. And if it's genetically engineered food it must have passed through the novel food regulation requirements of Health Canada. What were talking about here is not a safety issue, from the perspective of what the Canadian General Standards Board has been looking at; it's an information issue in terms of providing information on the method of product, whether the product was manufactured or produced through genetic engineering or not produced through genetic engineering.

We have had situations we have dealt with in the past with adventitious presence of material that was not in fact approved through the Canadian system, and the example there is StarLink corn. And at that point, because the product had not in fact been approved for sale as a food in Canada, the CFIA did take action to prohibit its entry into the country.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: And if a GM product poses a health risk, the label must say so. That's a mandatory requirement, correct?

[English]

Dr. Karen L. Dodds: To clarify, Canada does a very thorough safety assessment of all genetically modified foods. We wouldn't approve it if we thought there were adverse health consequences.

We have a policy that demands labelling to address some issues. If it's a result of a review of the genetically modified foods, it would resolve any issues, but it's not to say that we would ever approve a product that was not safe.

Let me give an example. We know that there is research and development underway that changes some of the fat constituents of products. They will likely want to be able to say it's healthier. The consumer needs to know that the fat profile of that product is not that of the regular one, the one that the consumer is used to consuming. There would be some form of labelling to advise the consumer of that.

Similarly, if there were a product that was safe, with the exception that there were some concerns about allergies, a kind of allergy labelling would be appropriate, but it would only be allowed if that allergy concern wasn't broad across the Canadian population and it was felt that labelling could remove any health concern.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Castonguay.

Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I've been around agriculture all my life, and if I'm concerned about anything with regard to the genetically modifieds it's perhaps the environmental concern of how it might eventually get out into the environment and become more uncontrolled.

As far as the safety of it, I would concur that I certainly don't have any phobias about it being not healthy, but there are consumers out there who do. There are consumers out there who feel that genetically modified foods are dangerous. To those individuals I would say that with 75% of our processed foods being genetically modified already, there's an avenue for them, which would be the organically grown, which is a growing market for farmers who do grow organic. I don't have any argument with that. In fact, I applaud those farmers for doing that, because I applaud choice for the consumer.

My problem with the labelling is that so many of the consumers do not even understand what genetically modified foods are, how they differ, the true repercussions of it. For me, it's exactly as you said earlier: if a product is not healthy for you, then it's not that we should label it, we should get it off the market. But if it's safe for the consumers, then it's a matter of choice, and if it's a matter of choice, then don't worry about 5% or 10% or 3%; then organically grown is an option that's available.

Is this the discussion that is out there from some of the labelling people and those who would want to or not?

º (1635)

Mr. Greg Orriss: Thank you.

Yes, that's certainly an option in terms of looking at organic food. An alternative option is what the CGSB process has provided in terms of voluntary labelling in terms of negative labelling. So if a food producer wants to identify a product as not containing genetically engineered material, they can do so when there's a market advantage, obviously, in doing that, but with that market advantage comes a responsibility and some cost in terms of the appropriate segregation systems, the appropriate trace-back systems if necessary, and a system of validation of the claim that they are making to ensure that it is in fact truthful and not misleading.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: But that's already there, is it not? Before you can deem yourself an organic grower, you have criteria that have to be met. So the standards are already in place for the organic producer. Fair enough, and it's a growing industry, no question about that.

As a consumer--let's put that total consumer hat on--if I'm going to be concerned about my food, it would be much more on the amount of pesticide that has been used on that food than whether it was organically grown or not.

As a producer, when I put that hat on and I understand how to grow organically or conventionally, I know I use a lot less pesticide on my genetically modified foods than I do on the conventional ones. Yet that information seems not to be on labels and not out there for the consumer to understand. So I guess the whole debate around it is informing the consumer so they have a true understanding of exactly what kinds of foods they're eating and what's in them.

That's my discomfort about the labelling. It's fair enough to have the standards there and to allow genetically modified food labelling on the product, but my fear is that we're somewhat misleading as well even in that, because health and safety would come first for the consumer.

Ms. Doryne Peace: I just want to draw attention to the fact that one of the requirements of the standard, if and when it passes, is that there be a 1-800 number on the label when genetically engineered claims are made. This 1-800 number should be the repository of information concerning the reason why genetic engineering was undertaken--for example, to reduce pesticide use, or for other reasons. So this standard does provide an opportunity for those making the claim to give out additional information that goes well beyond just what you might see on the label, provided it's truthful and not misleading.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Bigras, then Ms. Bennett.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Peace, when you realized the committee had reached an impasse, you apparently decided to submit to your members, prior to April 1, a questionnaire in an attempt to determine those issues on which a consensus had been achieved, and those on which opinion was still divided, all with a view to coming up with a solution.

The committee's future was set to be decided in May, if I'm not mistaken, and it's now the end of May. You stated publicly that you intended to send this questionnaire out to your members and I'd like to know if you have received any feedback from them and if so, what are the issues on which a consensus has been achieved?

Getting back to the proposed 2 per cent or 3 per cent GE content target, if we're still a long way off from that target and members are adamant about the 5 per cent target, do we not run the risk of not having either a mandatory, or even a voluntary, labelling system in place, but rather no labelling system at all? We could well be left with the status quo, hence the importance of finding some compromises.

I'd also appreciate more information about StarLink wheat. As far as I know, this particular kind of wheat is not approved for human consumption. I'd like to know how this wheat, which is banned in Canada, rates in terms of the 5 per cent standard.

º (1640)

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Dodds.

Dr. Karen L. Dodds: As a point of clarification, if there is a genetically modified product that has not been approved in Canada, we have zero tolerance for adventitious presence. The 5% refers only to those products that have both CFIA approval for plants and Health Canada approval for foods.

Ms. Doryne Peace: If I can address the issue over our definition of “consensus”--and I'm sorry Mr. Robinson is not here--we do not need 100% of the people sitting around the table, all 54 members, to vote in favour of the standard for it to be approved. So it's not that kind of consensus. It is not a unanimous thing. It is quite possible to achieve a better result than what we had last time, which, as you'd mentioned, was 53% or 54% supporting the standard. Anyway, it is quite possible to achieve a better result than that, as a result of our last meeting, but I don't think we would ever be able to achieve 100% of the people sitting around the table voting in favour of a standard.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Given that 53 per cent of committee members rejected the initial recommendation, the fact that you're hoping for a consensus--I understand why we're talking here about a consensus, not unanimity as such--indicates that some members are open to a compromise solution.

I'm curious as to the points that might form the basis of this consensus? Would it be the target content level or the wording on the label? Will the standard be lowered? Will compromises be made on the labelling issue as such?

[English]

Ms. Doryne Peace: I'm going to turn this over to Marian to tell you what the Canadian General Standards Board policy is on consensus, but it's not on one item at a time; it's not on one component of the standard at a time. An organization votes yea or nay, based on the entire standard. Maybe Marian can explain to you what the criteria are.

Ms. Marian Gaucher: The process requires that all opinions be weighed and considered and that the final standard reflect substantial agreement by the concerned interests. It's not necessarily unanimity. So we have to make an attempt to resolve all objections, and this is why we have the meetings. However, unimportant or non-persuasive objections to the rest of the committee are not allowed to block the standard forever.

So people get a hearing. They get the chance to convince their fellow committee members of their position, to bring data or whatever they can to the table to convince them, and the rest of the committee will perhaps counter their arguments or give their position. That is what defines “consensus” in the end.

So we do need substantial agreement and we do need objections to be heard, but we do not need unanimity. So if those members cannot persuade the rest of the committee, their negatives will be deemed non-persuasive.

Ms. Doryne Peace: As one other follow-up to that, on the issue that most concerns you, which is the adventitious material, there were really only three negative votes around that area on that particular issue.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Ms. Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Thank you. I apologize, in that we were in government operations, where we were just thrilled to reduce the estimates for the privacy commissioner by $1,000 because he refused to come yesterday. It's just our little break for parliamentary reform.

If you've gone over this, I apologize, but I would really like to understand, if you could bear with me, what the European models have looked like.

I understood it was pretty difficult to take a cornflake and find out if there's any GM material in it. Is it possible to do that in terms of testing? So I've labelled it or whatever I want; how do you tell whether there's GM product in a cornflake?

º (1645)

Mr. Bart Bilmer: I can give it a shot.

I don't know in particular if somebody has tried to do it with a cornflake. I know the agency has tried to do it with a taco chip. If I could just go back to the StarLink investigation, the agency quickly had to develop some methods to try to detect whether a product was there or not. In fact, we found that in the centre of a corn chip we had a better chance of finding the DNA than on the edge of a corn chip. Testing is a bit--

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Do the Europeans have testing that's better than ours? How do you go to mandatory labelling if you can't test for it? How do you find out whether what's on the label is true? During the natural health products study, I think we found that gosh, golly, gee, that Sleepytime tea, or whatever, really worked, because there was Valium in it, and we found that the fancy, expensive echinacea worked really well because it had adrenalin in it, or epinephrine.

I don't think it's quite as simple on this, that we can say if it only has--

Mr. Bart Bilmer: I think what we need to make clear is that there are no international standards with respect to testing, so it makes it difficult when we're not all starting from the same point. If we have a test in Canada, it's not necessarily available in the EU, or they can't reproduce our results. That's an example.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, which is the international food standards body, has been working on a process to be able to identify internationally acceptable test methodologies. It has been working on this for a couple of years now. The question is now referred to one of the technical committees, but it's hoped that if in this body we have the chance to all work together, we can validate test methodologies in this forum and set out essentially a world standard for various tests.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Until we get there, even if you went to mandatory testing, it's still an honour system of what's in the box. Unless you can enforce that.... Can you help me with enforcement, labelling, and whatever?

Also, I think Mr. Merrifield's point was very good in terms of if you call something organic, then clearly it doesn't have pesticides or GMOs. Is there a way of just getting that it's either organic or it maybe has anything? Could you have mandatory labelling, or is there almost specifically now a label that says unless it says organic, buyer beware, because it may have anything?

In the way, again, of labelling on natural health products, we realize that a label could say, in effect, we can't tell you it doesn't have this, or it has been reported to do that. You can have a label that just says the product definitely doesn't have GMOs, and then we'd have to enforce it; or it could say this may have anything in it, and if you have allergies and all of this, then you're going to have to be careful and maybe you'd be better off buying organic.

Dr. Karen L. Dodds: Let me start by talking about the European policy, because when the Europeans adopted that policy, they were clear that they did not have analytical methodology to support the policy. They adopted a policy that rested on, essentially, the integrity of the people in the system to say it was free of GM product. They were clear about that.

The nature of the agricultural system in Europe is such that it is more vertically integrated than in Canada, and they are more able to say they've kept segregated product and they can, if you will excuse the use of the word, “prove” the lineage of this product at retail. But they did not have analytical methodology to support that policy.

Over the last number of years there has been an enormous amount of development in terms of analytical methodology. Your ability to determine whether or not a product has some genetically modified product in it depends upon the nature of the product.

Again, you go back to the basics. The genetic modification is at the level of DNA. Both Health Canada and CFIA get the sequence information for each product that we approve. You could do a DNA-based test if the final product has DNA in it. Not all do. The changed DNA leads to a changed protein, typically, so if the final product has the protein in it, your ability to detect it is also fairly high.

In the highly refined products, which is where you end up with them saying most of our food supply could contain genetically modified products--not that they are genetically modified, but that they could contain genetically modified products--it's things like canola oil. With canola oil, the oil is exactly the same whether it's derived from a genetically modified plant or a non-genetically-modified plant. So you're talking about looking at trace amounts of either protein or DNA that might be in that oil, which really pushes the limit of analytical methodology.

So if you have a protein product or a product that has DNA in it, yes, you would be able to do testing with a high degree of confidence and relative ease, but if you have in one of these processed products something like a highly purified oil or something like corn starch, you're looking for traces of something in a vast quantity of something that is absolutely identical to the non-genetically-modified product.

º (1650)

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: And do they have the infrastructure to do the lineage, the separated rail cars? Are they able, in tracking the lineage, to find out, as we're hoping to do with cows now, where this has all been and how close it is to the next field and all of those things we worry about in terms of people who really don't want to have any of this stuff?

Dr. Karen L. Dodds: Again, one of the biggest problems with Europe is their moratorium. There aren't really genetically modified crops planted in Europe, so it essentially isn't a system they have had to test. They have said “If you want to ship to us, you have to prove to us the integrity of your system”.

The Chair: Because they don't plant genetically modified seed, they don't have to go back and check the silos for not being cleaned properly.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: And on another topic, do we have any controls in this country for what people get to call “organic”?

Mr. Greg Orriss: Yes. If a product is identified as organic, we expect it to meet the requirements under the Canadian General Standards Board standard and the Standards Council of Canada approval standard for organic food.

The onus is on the manufacturer who has declared a product to be organic to be able to provide us with evidence that they have met the criteria associated with the standard, and we will investigate that as the CFIA carries out our inspection program.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bennett.

Mr. Bigras, then Mrs. Chamberlain.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a known fact that Canada ranks third in the world among users of genetically engineered seeds. You've stated, Ms. Peace, that in terms of the 5 per cent content target, the industry advised you that it would be very difficult to comply with stricter rules.

The hoped-for compromise of 2 per cent or 3 per cent fell through. Nevertheless, Option consommateurs, among others, forwarded a letter signed by 52 other organizations to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. That's an impressive number of signatories.

Basically, I'd like to know if your refusal to lower the target from 5 per cent, to 2 or 3 per cent, a level already far off from the .9 per cent target in place in Europe, is merely one way of satisfying industry demands. As you yourself admitted, the industry wouldn't be able to comply with the 2 per cent to 3 per cent rules. Therefore, doesn't your decision to stick to the 5 per cent target have more to do with what the industry told you than with what consumers really want?

In my opinion, Mr. Robinson's comments were on point. Among other things, your committee is controlled by industry, whereas labelling standards were developed with the consumer in mind.

Furthermore, two thirds of all Canadian wheat is sold to countries, in Asia in particular, that demand assurances that the wheat is not genetically engineered. Shouldn't you be changing your philosophy and acknowledging that the labelling of wheat and other GM products can generate some very interesting business opportunities?

When we are no longer able to provide such assurances, perhaps we will no longer be able to sell our wheat to countries in Asia that enforce stricter standards when it comes to GM products.

º (1655)

[English]

Ms. Doryne Peace: I need to clarify a point. The industry's comments to the committee have been in the past that it is likely they could supply or they may be able to supply lower levels, but at a great cost. I understand, for example, in the soybean industry that they are able, because they have strict segregation, to supply product that has an advantageous level, somewhat lower than the 5% to their European clients, if that's what they specify, but at great cost.

The development of our standard was for the general population, and the intent was not to impose this kind of labelling standard only on very high-priced foods. It was to allow the average Canadian consumer access to reasonably priced foods, as they have right now with this kind of information on it.

I do think the comment that it is an industry-driven standard is incorrect. We have had many strong consumer advocates around the table who have succeeded in making this standard representative of their needs.

For example, as I mentioned, we have the 1-800 number, which is mandatory if you're going to make this kind of labelling happen. The other thing is, we are not only labelling a product that contains DNA, but the standard also addresses the more commonly consumed products derived from seeds that contain DNA.

So we've expanded this standard much beyond what the European standards are, and this was at the insistence of the consumers around the table.

So I think, in all fairness, to paint this as an industry-driven standard is perhaps unfair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Chair. My question is a procedural one, actually for you. I wasn't sure where we were going with this. I knew we were going to hear the witnesses again. Then were we doing a mini-report, or what were we doing?

The Chair: This whole series of things was suggested by Mr. Robinson, and we only agreed to hold one more meeting and then to decide if we wanted to go further with it. So we will deal with that procedural question when this part of the meeting is over.

» (1700)

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Okay. Very good.

The Chair: I have no further names on my list, so with your approval I will thank these witnesses for coming.

We will let you know if we're going to go further with this investigation or whether we're going to close it down. We appreciate very much the fact that you've come twice and shared all the information you have. So thank you very much.

For the other members of the committee, we have half an hour, and I believe we agreed to go back to this strategy on HIV-AIDS, which we had worked our way through and made small suggestions about changing. We will be going in camera to deal with this, so I will adjourn this portion of the meeting.