:
Welcome, everyone, to our second meeting of the agriculture committee as we study genetically modified animals for human consumption.
At our first meeting we had the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. Today, for two hours, the department people are going to speak to us.
First we have Paul Mayers from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, vice-president, policy and programs branch.
Second, from Department of Health we have Karen McIntyre, who is the director general, food directorate, health products and food branch.
Third we have Andrea Johnston, who is the director general, sector development and analysis directorate, market and industry services branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Is there an acronym for that?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning to the committee. It's a pleasure to be with you again.
[Translation]
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this study, and I would like to explain the CFIA's role when it comes to genetically modified, or GM, animals. The CFIA is a science-based regulatory agency dedicated to safeguarding plants, animals, and food. Our work promotes the health and well-being of Canada's people, environment, and economy. The first priority is the health and safety of Canadians.
In the case of GM animals, the CFIA works closely with Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada to thoroughly assess that GM products are safe for food, feed and the environment before they are introduced into the Canadian marketplace.
[English]
Let me provide some background before I provide a specific example. Essentially, a GM food is one derived from an organism that has had some of its inherited traits changed. This can involve traditional techniques of crossbreeding; using chemicals or radiation to alter the genetic makeup of the organism's cells in a process called mutagenesis; and applying recombinant DNA or genetic engineering techniques, for instance, introducing a gene from one species into another species.
We use the term “novel” to cover products that have not been previously available for sale in Canada such as those produced through genetic engineering. We have a rigorous, science-based assessment process in place to make sure that these products are safe for humans, livestock, and the environment. Typically it takes a company seven to 10 years to research, develop, and test a GM food before it has compiled enough data to submit an application for market access to the Government of Canada. The company is required to submit detailed information to Health Canada outlining exactly how the product was developed. This information is reviewed by Health Canada scientists with expertise in areas such as molecular biology, toxicology, chemistry, nutritional sciences, and microbiology.
GM foods are becoming more common every day and are part of the regular diet of Canadians. GM foods that have been approved by Health Canada have been consumed in Canada for many years and are as safe and nutritious as their non-GM counterparts.
[Translation]
I also mentioned livestock. The CFIA evaluates and regulates all feed ingredients, including novel feeds derived from GM organisms, in the same manner as food assessments.
Any feed ingredient that is new, or has been modified such that it differs significantly from a conventional ingredient, is required to undergo a pre-market assessment and approval before being allowed into the Canadian marketplace.
Now let me address the specific example — AquAdvantage Salmon. This is the first genetically engineered animal to be approved in Canada for use as food for human consumption or animal feed.
[English]
The AquAdvantage salmon is a GM salmon developed to promote rapid growth during early life. This was achieved by introducing a growth hormone gene from the chinook salmon to an Atlantic salmon. The AquAdvantage salmon has undergone separate safety and nutritional assessments by Health Canada for use as food, and by the CFIA for use as livestock feed. These reviews both found the salmon to be as safe and nutritious as conventional salmon.
Health Canada and the CFIA conducted the safety assessments based on guidelines developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission as well as principles from the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
The CFIA and Health Canada assessments complement a regulatory environmental and indirect human health risk assessment that was already completed for AquAdvantage salmon. Environment and Climate Change Canada in collaboration with Fisheries and Oceans Canada conducted that assessment in 2013.
Following all of the assessments, Canada approved this product on May 19, 2016. However, Canada is not the first country to approve this product for use as food and livestock feed. In November 2015, the AquAdvantage salmon was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration following that agency's scientific safety review.
Still, the decision to market this product is up to the company. It's our understanding it could take up to two years before the first GM salmon products would be made readily available in the Canadian feed or food markets.
For this salmon, the company has advised that GM salmon eggs are to be produced in a contained facility in Prince Edward Island and then shipped to Panama for growing. Neither the eggs nor the live fish will be released into the Canadian environment.
If this salmon product enters the market, it will need to comply with all Canadian laws and regulations just like any other feed or food product, and this includes meeting standard labelling requirements.
[Translation]
Health Canada requires labelling for food products where clear, scientifically established health risks or significant changes to the nutritional qualities of the food have been identified and can be mitigated through labelling. For example, if there is an allergen present in a food, it must be labelled to alert consumers. In this case, given that no health and safety concerns were identified, there are no special labelling requirements for AquAdvantage Salmon.
However, Mr. Chair, there is a Canadian national labelling standard for genetically engineered foods that can be used when companies choose to make claims. This standard was developed through extensive consultation with industry and the public.
[English]
The voluntary labelling and advertising of foods that are or are not products of genetic engineering was first adopted by the Standards Council of Canada in April 2004. It provides guidance to food manufacturers that choose to make claims regarding genetically engineered foods so that they are in compliance with the labelling requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act.
Products can be voluntarily labelled based on the national standard, provided conditions are met and the claim is understandable, informative, accurate, and not misleading. The CFIA is responsible for enforcing these labelling requirements. The decision of whether or not to proceed with voluntary labelling rests with the company.
Thank you again for this opportunity to provide insight into the CFIA's role regarding genetically modified animals.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak with you this morning about Health Canada's role in regulating genetically modified foods, including GM animals intended for human consumption in Canada.
[Translation]
Health Canada's mission is to help Canadians maintain and improve their health. In order to fulfill its mission, Health Canada develops appropriate regulatory frameworks and guidance to help ensure that the food products Canadians purchase are safe and nutritious.
[English]
Within Health Canada, the food directorate is the federal authority responsible for establishing policies, setting standards, and providing authoritative advice and information on the safety and nutritional value of all food sold in Canada. In support of this role, the food directorate conducts scientific research as well as health risk and benefit assessments. We also conduct pre-market reviews for products including food additives, infant formula, and novel foods.
In the 1990s, Health Canada established new regulations under division 28, part B, of the Food and Drug Regulations, also known as the novel foods regulations. These regulations capture any GM micro-organisms, plant or animal, and require food companies to notify the department prior to making them available for sale in the Canadian marketplace. This allows Health Canada to determine that the product is safe for use as a food.
To support the pre-market safety assessment process, the company wishing to sell the product must submit detailed scientific data to support the safety and nutritional value of the genetically modified food. Only once Health Canada is satisfied that the data provided demonstrates that the food is safe and nutritious will it be allowed for sale on the Canadian market.
These regulations address any new GM product because they are triggered by the addition or change in a trait of a product as opposed to the technology used to produce it. In order to evaluate the safety of GM foods for food use, whether a GM crop or a GM animal, Health Canada uses a rigorous process that is consistent with internationally established scientific principles and guidelines developed through the work of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, and the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
[Translation]
This assessment is conducted by Health Canada scientific evaluators, who have expertise in molecular biology, toxicology, chemistry, nutritional sciences and microbiology. They review how the food was developed, compare its compositional and nutritional profile with conventional counterparts, and look at the potential for the food to be toxic or to contain a toxin or allergen.
[English]
If in any area of the assessment Health Canada scientists determine that the data provided is not sufficient, additional information and/or testing would be required and requested in order to fully demonstrate the safety of that product. Only when all the scientists evaluating a GM food agree that there are no safety concerns is the food permitted into the Canadian marketplace.
It should also be noted that Health Canada scientists also consider other published data, in addition to that provided by the company, that is relevant to the product in question when it is completing the safety assessment.
Under the current regulatory framework approval, no single government body is responsible for making a final decision on these products. Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and Environment and Climate Change Canada all have a role to play in the overall approval process that allows for a GM food to enter the Canadian marketplace.
While each department or agency makes its own independent decisions regarding the authorization of a GM food according to its own regulatory authorities, Health Canada and the CFIA have a “no split” approval policy that ensures the coordinated communication of positive decisions. This is aimed to prevent unapproved GM foods, feeds, or seeds from entering the Canadian marketplace.
Historically, most GM food submissions have been related to foods derived from GM crops. However, Health Canada and the CFIA did receive a GM food submission from AquaBounty for its GM salmon. This product was modified using recombinant DNA technology to grow faster and thus reach market weight sooner than a non-modified farmed Atlantic salmon. This was the first submission for approval of a GM animal for food and animal feed use in Canada.
In May 2016, Health Canada and the CFIA completed thorough and rigorous scientific reviews of the AquAdvantage salmon and determined that it was as safe and nutritious for humans and livestock as conventional salmon is. This completed the Government of Canada's scientific safety assessments required to let AquAdvantage salmon be allowed for use as food.
Under the Food and Drugs Act, Health Canada requires mandatory labelling for any food, including food derived from genetic modification, when there is a health risk or significant nutritional changes to the food that can be mitigated through labelling. In these situations, labelling is required to alert consumers or susceptible populations. Given that the GM salmon was determined to be safe and nutritious, there are no special labelling requirements.
As my colleague from CFIA has already noted, voluntary labelling is permitted to provide consumers with information that is not related to the safety of the product. The national voluntary standard allows companies to voluntarily label foods as GE or non-GE. Voluntary labelling is a marketing issue and does not fall under the mandate of Health Canada, which is related to food safety only.
[Translation]
We are also committed to ensuring openness and transparency in our evidence-based decision-making. So, to help inform Canadians on the regulatory decisions related to novel foods, including GM foods, Health Canada posts detailed decision documents along with plain language summaries of the safety assessment on our website.
[English]
I hope that the activities I have highlighted today help explain the science-based approach that Health Canada takes to regulating novel foods and, in particular, those that are products of genetic modification.
[Translation]
Thank you for your time today.
[English]
Thank you.
:
Good morning and thank you.
It is my pleasure to appear before this committee today as you study the framework around genetically modified animals in Canada.
[Translation]
I would like to provide some context on this important issue with a high-level overview of: the importance of innovation to agriculture, including biotechnology; the approach of the Government of Canada to biotechnology; the applications of biotechnology in agriculture; and the international context around the regulation of genetically modified products.
[English]
AAFC's role is to support innovation and competitiveness within the sector, including through funding, as well as to facilitate coordination throughout the value chain and to undertake international advocacy to ensure a level playing field.
In terms of the importance of innovation to the agriculture sector,
[Translation]
the agriculture sector worldwide faces a major challenge: growing more food with fewer inputs.
[English]
It is estimated that the world's demand for food will grow by at least 50% by 2050. Meanwhile, producers face competing pressures on land, water supply challenges, demands for a reduced environmental footprint, and the effects of climate change, such as extreme weather events that are creating new risks to agriculture production.
To meet this challenge of sustainable growth, we will need to rely heavily on scientific research and innovation.
[Translation]
The government has a key role to play in fostering private sector investment and creativity through support for basic research and regulatory and trade regimes.
[English]
Science and innovation are core priorities for the Government of Canada, with a commitment to a new innovation agenda and significant investments in core economic sectors, including agriculture. The history of agriculture is one of creativity and innovation. Today, we're producing more food per acre and using less water, fertilizer, and other resources. Farmers today require half the amount of inputs that they did half a century ago in order to produce the same amount of food. That's thanks in part to investments in productivity growth.
Biotechnology, for example, has expanded the tool box available to develop a wider range of functional and value-added traits, while bringing those changes to the market faster than ever. Canadian producers rely on plant science technology to stay competitive and tackle a growing number of challenges, from climate change to plant pests and disease. Not only do these technologies help farm businesses and the economy, but they strengthen global food security as well.
Advances in biotechnology will continue to drive productivity and competitiveness in the agricultural sector in many ways. We are now moving beyond traits and benefits such as disease resistance and reduced pesticide use to benefits for consumers, such as improved nutrition and other attributes—for example, non-browning apples.
In terms of the Government of Canada's approach to biotechnology, our primary responsibility in an innovation-driven economy is to ensure its regulatory system protects the health and safety of Canadians, as well as the environment. The government follows a science-based approach in approving products by conducting environmental health and safety assessments.
There is also a need to create a climate that fosters investment in innovative technologies to drive the long-term viability of the industry. For its part, industry will need a level of certainty and predictability in the regulatory framework before investing in Canada and in these technologies.
Industry is best positioned to make non-health and safety considerations, such as the market's willingness to accept new technologies. This approach supports a wide variety of production methods, helping the sector supply the vast array of products needed to meet both domestic and international market demands and offer a wide array of choices to consumers. Indeed, in recent years we have seen a number of new consumer products brought to market, including organic, non-GMO, free-range, and sustainability certifications.
Given that industry decides whether and how it will develop and adopt new technologies following regulatory approval, biotechnology applications in agriculture have proceeded differently for grains and oilseeds, fruits and vegetables, and animals.
With respect to grains and oilseeds, Canada is a top-five producer globally of genetically modified crops. Grain producers have embraced the technology. Today, 95% of canola acreage in Canada is genetically modified. For corn it's 90% and for soybeans it's 85%. These crops have become well accepted in international markets, with grains and oilseeds comprising a third of all Canadian agriculture and food exports.
The use of biotechnology for animals and for fruits and vegetables has not progressed at the same pace. As a result, there has been a limited number of cases of genetically modified animals. The most notable, of course, is the AquAdvantage salmon, which was the first to be approved for food and feed use in Canada in May 2016.
The willingness of the marketplace to accept genetically modified animals continues to be a prime consideration for industry before moving forward with these technologies.
Within the international context, regulatory systems based on factors other than scientific evidence can create non-tariff trade barriers. Canada's long-standing and science-based approach to regulatory approval has helped all sectors of the Canadian economy, including agriculture and agrifood, to adopt innovative technologies.
This has given our economy a competitive edge, helping to position Canada as a top-five exporter of agriculture and agrifood products. It also fosters a high degree of confidence in the Canadian food supply, both domestically and internationally.
Canada's focus on science is consistent with our international trade obligations. It is also a pillar of our international market strategy, especially with products of biotechnology, which can often face unscientific restrictions in foreign markets.
The government continues to press for regulatory frameworks that are science-based, transparent, and predictable. This will not only facilitate trade but will also strengthen our ability to compete internationally and maximize economic benefits for the Canadian agriculture and agrifood sector. To support these efforts, we continue to work actively with countries that have adopted regulatory approaches comparable to Canada's, including the United States, Brazil, and Argentina.
Our common focus is to grow opportunities for our exporters, especially in key markets such as the European Union and China. The department continues to promote science-based international standards in the global trading community and to provide a predictable trading environment for our exporters.
To close, Mr. Chair, biotechnology and other innovative techniques are helping the agriculture sector become more productive, consume fewer resources, and help feed a growing world population sustainably.
Canada's commitment to sound, science-based regulatory decisions is essential to protect the health and safety of Canadians, as well as our farmed animals and our environment. Science-based regulatory decisions are essential in providing a predictable investment and trading climate. The marketplace, through evolving consumer demands, continues to work well, providing a vast array of choice to consumers in Canada and around the world.
Thank you again for this opportunity, Mr. Chair.
It's great to be back at the ag committee. If I could have both trade and agriculture, I would, there's no question about it. I love both committees.
I have to start off by thanking you guys for all the hard work you did in China in that canola market. I know you did the work in the background. I know you made this happen. A lot of people back out west and a lot of farmers who are sitting in combines today appreciate the hard work you did and really want to say thanks. I want to make sure that I relay that to you here in committee. If I get a chance to do it in the House sometime, I'll try to do that also.
I love B movies. I really do. On Sunday afternoons I'll sit and watch a B movie, and one of my favourites is Sharknado.
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. Randy Hoback: I don't know why, but maybe it's because I can turn my brain off and watch TV for a couple of hours.
You know, though, a lot of those B movies are based on fears about GMOs. Sharknado, I would assume, is based on that somewhere down the road. I'm going to go down that route to try to alleviate some of those fears.
You've talked about the processes you go through in improving these products. We've seen it done in canola. You've talked about the importance of that for the canola market. It used to be that if you grew a 30-bushel canola crop, that was pretty good, and if you grew a 45-bushel canola crop, you were lying, but now, if you don't grow a 55- or 60-bushel canola crop, then you're not a good farmer.
It's amazing how that new technology has increased our productivity and also has reduced our water consumption, our chemical usage, and soil erosion. The economic and agronomic benefits are phenomenal.
Now I see this in the animal sector. It is exciting, but it is a little nerve-wracking for people if they don't understand the science and what goes in behind the science, and if they don't have comfort in knowing that the proper systems have been put in place to make sure that when it hits the table, it's safe to eat.
Also, in the animal sector, I think people also want to know what the environmental implications are. I'll use the example of the fish that you brought up here. As they are being developed and produced, if one were to escape and get into the ocean, what would that mean? What would that impact be?
Can you give us some background? I'll start with you, Paul. As you go through the process, and as somebody presents an idea to you in terms of doing a GMO fish or a GMO cow, what are the prerequisites before they even get started in doing the science?
:
Yes, and thank you very much for the question. Also, thank you for the kind words with respect to the work in terms of market access.
During that period, typically at the early research stage, there is little interaction, because the company at that point is finding out if they have something that will have mileage. Once they believe they do, that's typically when interaction starts. We encourage that interaction, but it isn't mandatory.
It's entirely possible for a company to go through all of that process and come to us only when they're ready to come to market. It's not the wisest decision in the world, and the reason for that is that when we have questions during the review process, the review stops. We go back to companies with questions in terms of deficiency letters, and, in essence, if they haven't had a lot of interaction with us, it can sometimes take them almost a year to compile the necessary data just to answer those questions.
For the efficiency of the system, we would rather reduce that cycle time, because if a company is coming to us with what they believe to be a legitimate market opportunity, then we're interested in carrying out the due diligence in a time frame that can give some predictability for market entry. That's why we encourage that interaction.
That interaction typically takes place less in the pure development end of the research and more in the market preparation end as they are compiling the regulatory data, as opposed to the research to develop, for example, the AquAdvantage. As they move to something that they think is going to work, what do they need to do to be able to demonstrate that it's safe? It's not whether they can get it to to grow at an accelerated pace, but rather, now that it seems to be working, what do they need to do to get it into the market? That's where the significant interaction helps.
My thanks also to the witnesses who provided us with very clear information on this matter.
I accept that there are genetically modified products. We have a great deal of experience with plant and crop products. To my great surprise, based on what you said, we have been eating them for 15 years or so.
I don't know whether, when your various agencies approved these products 15 years ago, consumers were as hesitant as they are today. Consumers have become wary and mistrustful of genetically modified animals.
If we put ourselves in the shoes of ordinary people, we see this from a different angle and say that it's very capitalistic. We attribute it partly to producers, thinking that they want to produce more in less time, that they will be more productive and that they will be making more money.
In my view, we should find the proper way to communicate the correct information and the benefits to the public. Earlier, I heard what the benefits are and they seem fairly clear.
We've heard a lot about benefits, but can you also tell us about the risks for consumers? I know that studies have been conducted over the past few years and that there are risks related to toxicity, antibiotic resistance and allergens.
I would like to know a little more about those issues, which may have been analyzed by the scientists in your various agencies.
[Translation]
Thank you for your question.
[English]
There are risk considerations, and that's why the safety assessment process is there. If genetic modification didn't have any potential to introduce risk, then we wouldn't need it. We recognize that if in modifying an organism...because you are changing the heritable traits of the organism, if you introduce a gene associated with toxicity as an example, then you will be introducing risk. That's why we carry out these careful assessments.
In those assessments, we also want to determine whether, in accomplishing the modification you have made because you're affecting the metabolism of the organism, there are any additional effects. These are all carefully considered.
There have been reports from researchers pointing to their views of risks. We look at those reports carefully. I can say with confidence the products of biotechnology, which have been reviewed and approved for the marketplace, have not shown any evidence of adverse effect, even after many years of presence in the marketplace as animal feeds. I'm sure my colleague can speak to it in the context of human foods. The record with respect to biotechnology product approvals—I'm not saying biotechnology in general, but for products that are reviewed and approved using the guidance that is available—is extremely positive.
That doesn't mean it's impossible to create risk. It's not. That's why we do the work we do.
My thanks also to the witnesses for being here.
Some consumers are concerned about genetically modified foods, but also about the producers. Let me give you an example about grain producers. About 20 years ago, it was relatively easy to harvest a crop and sow it again. Today, professional seed producers have a number of advantages, including in terms of the quality of the grains, the starch, and the yield. However, there is also a gene inside that makes it impossible to harvest the crop and sow it again the following year.
In my riding, people had difficulty producing winter wheat, because the seeds came from another province. My neighbours, my friends and my family had the same problem. So the yield was not necessarily very well adapted to the weather conditions in my region.
We found a variety with a relatively average yield, but after seven or eight years of the same variety being sowed, it naturally adapted to the region. So after about 10 years, there was a natural mutation of the grain in our region and the results were very satisfying, which thrilled a number of producers in the region.
That being said, we are on to the third generation of genetically modified seeds where it is possible to keep some of the beneficial traits and eliminate other less desirable ones. However, our producers are concerned about our ability to find the original traits of the plants or grains should there be a global shortage of seeds. After 10, 15, 20 or 30 years, would we be able to find the original seeds from which these plants were modified?
Does Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada contribute to a Canadian or international seed bank, to at least ensure the future of agriculture overall?
:
—and they haven't conditioned that market to accept it.
We've gone through market acceptance and looked at that. Obviously that's a corporate decision or the designer's decision. We've looked at aspects of the safety side of it and the environmental side.
I think you can see that there are a lot of processes these people go through with lots of expertise and professionalism before that food ever even makes it onto the table.
What do you do then to counter-attack? Maybe you don't. Maybe that's the industry's role. Maybe your role is just to tell us, “You can be safe in knowing this stuff is safe to eat.” Whether it's margarine or fish, or maybe beef somewhere down the road or another product, there's a process that's been put in place to do that. That's where I wonder, when I see organics out there, or promoting organics or natural food....
A lot of people say there are studies and research showing that a percentage of people don't like this or that, but I always say that's just a glimpse in time on that day, and it's showing who's doing the best marketing. Is that a role for government to be involved in, to try to promote one system versus the other?
Karen, do you feel you need to be there?
Andrea, do you think you need to be there?
:
I can start. My colleague from Health Canada will want to speak.
In Canada, the labelling responsibility with respect to food is a shared responsibility between CFIA and Health Canada. All of the non-health-related and safety-related labelling considerations are managed by CFIA—and, of course, the enforcement of the entire labelling framework—while Health Canada sets the policies with respect to health labelling. On your point in terms of a diabetic having that important information on nutrition on the label, my colleague will speak to it.
There are a number of interests that consumers have in terms of information about products in order to make choices. We distinguish between mandatory label declaration, which includes things like net weight, the health and safety information, what the product is, the mandatory requirement to have a list of the ingredients—all of those things—and then a number of claims that can be made, provided they're truthful and not misleading, that are what we would characterize as information that supports consumer choice. If you're interested in understanding if a product is local or there's a claim with respect to the sustainable production of the product, those claims can be made provided they're truthful and not misleading.
In many cases, in order to have predictability in the marketplace, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will work with businesses and consumers and elaborate on guidance, but it's not mandatory to make those declarations. This falls into that same category.
Thank you to our colleagues across the aisle for allowing this fulsome discussion uninterrupted. I was really hoping we'd have time to have a full discussion today, and we're having that.
I want to explore the movement of Canadian intellectual property and the classification of the eggs that are going down to Panama. Just to put some context to it, I'm thinking of Semex in Guelph that ships bull semen. There's a classification of that as a food product versus as another type of product.
We had Ceva in Guelph that does antibiotics for chickens. They were bringing chickens in from the States for use on antibiotic development. It wasn't food product, but it's a chicken coming in, and they see a chicken as a food product. Semex ships semen. It's not a food product, but it's been classified as a food product, which limits their ability at the border sometimes. There are delays at the border.
I have a question about the classification of the eggs and the classification of our intellectual property that is not directly food product. With CFIA reporting into Health Canada and the work that we're doing with international trade, bridges are maybe not quite working there.
Are you aware of any of that or is there some kind of a correction? Are we applying a different standard for these eggs moving across than semen going around the world?