:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the committee for inviting the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance to speak with you today.
By production volume and value, our association represents over 95% of the aquaculture industry in Canada. Our members include large and small companies from both finfish and shellfish sectors, marine and freshwater operations, regional aquaculture associations, feed suppliers, and other companies across the aquaculture value chain in Canada. We are farmers operating in all 10 provinces and Yukon. Our industry generates $3.1 billion in economic activity and over $1.2 billion in GDP, and employs more than 15,000 Canadians in rural, coastal, and first nation communities from coast to coast to coast.
With growing demand for fresh seafood in Canada and around the world, we believe our industry can grow in a sustainable manner to more than twice our current size. With the right governance and policy framework in Canada, which we are working hard to achieve, our industry is poised to add an additional 17,000 jobs and over $3 billion in additional economic activity in Canada by 2024.
The government's new economic advisory council, which was created to advise the government on steps to create long-term economic growth in Canada, appears to agree. While the council's final report won't be completed until early 2017, the council's chair, Dominic Barton of McKinsey and Company, has spoken publicly about the need for Canada to become a global champion in the agrifood sector and has highlighted aquaculture as a key sector for growth.
We can deliver on this growth and meet the demands of our customers with a combination of new farm sites and productivity gains, improving on our own current technology. While we do not oppose the approval of genetically modified salmon, our customers in Canada and around the world are not demanding it. We do not need nor do we intend to employ genetically modified salmon technology in Canada.
Consumers are interested in the food they eat and in receiving accurate information about the food they purchase, including where it comes from and how it is farmed. We support that.
We note that voluntary labelling is an option open to companies as long as they comply with the national standard of Canada on voluntary labelling and advertising of foods that are and are not products of genetic engineering.
We also support the Government of Canada's food labelling policy to require labelling in circumstances where food safety issues are identified, and to ensure that food labels are accurate and clear.
Thank you very much.
Good morning everyone.
I am going to speak French.
I thank you for your invitation, and for this opportunity to present the concerns of the more than 200,000 people in Canada represented by the Vigilance OGM network.
My name is Thibault Rehn, and I am the coordinator of a small network called Vigilance OGM. The network is based in Quebec. it is made up of citizens, environmental groups, farmers, unions and groups of consumers who are concerned by what we put on our plates on a daily basis, but also by how food is produced and the impact this has on our health and our environment.
Firstly I want to talk about the concerns Vigilance OGM has after 20 years of experience in Canada, since GMOs have been in our fields and in our plates for 20 years now. Secondly, I will talk about regulating GMOs in Canada, which is a matter of concern for us. Finally, I will discuss the mandatory labelling of GMOs, which is in our opinion the most effective way of informing consumers and respecting their fundamental rights. With these three points, we are going to try and see why Canadians still do not trust these technologies which have existed for more than 20 years.
As you know, GMOs have been in our fields for 20 years, and also on our plates. The GMO industry had made several promises in the beginning. I will discuss the three main promises the industry made in this regard.
The first promise was to offer consumers better, cheaper, tastier, fresher and more nutritional products. That was one of the big promises of the industry 20 years ago. The second promise was to decrease the use of pesticides. Finally, the third promise was to feed the world, especially the southern countries, whose population is expanding.
Unfortunately, after 20 years, we can only note that 85% of all of the GMOs marketed in the world are genetically modified to resist so-called total herbicides, or soil sterilants. That is the case for instance of the famous Roundup Ready seeds that resist Roundup. Currently, in the world, less than 1% of marketed crops are there to potentially provide a benefit to consumers.
The industry did not keep its promises. A large majority of the GMOs are there to resist soil sterilants. So much more the first promise, which was broken.
The second promise was to diminish the use of pesticides to produce better seeds for our environment. If we look at Statistics Canada data, we see that since the introduction of GMOs, there has been a 130% increase in the sale of pesticides in Canada—which is enormous—for cultivated areas of more or less the same size.
In Quebec, where I am from, the use of glyphosate-based pesticides, the ones that are generally used for GMO crops, increased by 71% between 2006 and 2012. As opposed to what the industry had promised, the use of pesticides has not decreased. Rather, it has considerably increased in our country, and this concerns us greatly.
Thirdly, we had been told that GMOs would feed the world, especially the southern hemisphere countries. Canada is the fifth world producer of GMOs. There are practically no countries growing GMOs in Africa and Asia, aside from cotton in India. The four main GMO crops are cotton, canola, soya and corn. These GMO crops are mainly used to feed cattle in northern countries, to produce bioethanol for our cars, and are added to processed products. So there are no GMO food crops that are used to help southern countries. This is a third promise which was not kept by the industry.
In the case of cattle fed with GMOs, it is hard to trust the promises of the same companies that have not kept their promises generally.
We are also concerned by what Mr. Paul Mayers, the vice-president of policy and programs at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, said before this committee when he appeared two weeks ago. He stated
[English]
that the recall of GMO is “extremely positive”.
[Translation]
When we see the Statistics Canada figures, we have trouble seeing this in a positive light.
Our second concern is Canadian regulation.
As you know, Health Canada is responsible for the regulation of plants with novel traits, especially since 2013, when that department began supervising the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
To develop the Canadian regulations on new GMOs, especially new plants, in the vast majority of cases, Health Canada uses data reported by the industry almost exclusively. This worries us. Health Canada has never carried out any long-term studies on the safety of GMOs. We would like to see that done.
When she appeared before the committee about two weeks ago, Ms. Karen McIntyre, director general of the Food Directorate at Health Canada, stated that the department was very transparent, and that its website showed all of the studies that it had taken into account in its acceptance of genetically modified salmon. After listening to that committee hearing, I went on the Health Canada website. What I saw was that the documents available on the Web mention no studies done on genetically modified salmon. Even an access to information request netted us nothing on this.
As you know, one of the fundamental pillars of science is to allow scientific communities to reproduce studies, to compare and evaluate data, and unfortunately, that is currently impossible in Canada. We don't know on which studies Health Canada bases its decision to accept or reject GMOs, in this case salmon. We don't even have the title of those studies.
In the case of genetically modified salmon, Health Canada tells us that it did not base itself solely on industry data—so, in this case, data from AquaBounty, which is the company that wants to market this product—but on all of the available scientific literature. However, when we take a closer look at this, we discover that the vast majority of the scientific literature on this was produced by AquaBounty. Health Canada can say that the department bases its decisions on the scientific literature, but that is relatively weak as compared to the weight of the industry studies. This concerns us.
We would like the Canadian regulation not only to be based on the safety or lack of safety of these GMOs, but that other factors also be taken into account, such as their economic impact. You will recall that the introduction of flax and alfalfa closed many markets for our farmers. And so we are concerned by the fact that there are no economic impact studies being done on the introduction of new GMOs.
We are also worried about environmental impacts. Twenty years ago, many people had anticipated the appearance of weeds and the increase in the use of glyphosate-based products. No sufficiently rigorous studies have been done, in our opinion, on the environmental consequences of the introduction of GMOs.
As well, there are no studies on social acceptance. No one was consulted about GMOs, neither the population nor the producers. Apple producers in Quebec were not consulted about the GM apple, for instance. GM alfalfa, which is already on the market in Quebec, is of great concern to the Union des producteurs agricoles, which is asking for a moratorium on it.
We are worried. We would like the regulations to be more transparent as to the safety of these products, but also that other factors be taken into account.
As for the mandatory labelling of GMOs, aside from the information that must be provided to consumers, the right to know what one is eating is a fundamental right that has been recognized by the UN. This is not just for human health reasons, but also for ethical, religious and environmental reasons. This has been an issue for 20 years. Before coming here, I circulated surveys that have been done since 1994 in Canada, and which show that a huge majority of Canadians want to see the mandatory labelling of GMOs. This is a democracy. Since such a large majority has been asking for this for such a long time, the government should have adopted this kind of regulation long ago. In fact, 64 countries around the world have already passed such regulations. We would not be the first.
We also note that letting the market self-regulate does not work. In 2004, the Liberal government voted in favour of voluntary labelling, and to my knowledge, in the intervening years, no company has chosen to indicate in its labelling that its product contains GMOs. We can't let the market self-regulate. The government has to act.
As I know that the mandate of your committee is to determine what measures should be put in place to inform the public, our first recommendation is to bring in mandatory GMO labelling, which would not only allow consumers to know what they are eating, but also allow producers to know what certain products contain. As you know, most GMOs are intended for animal consumption. Farmers are entitled to know what they are feeding their animals, just like the consumer is entitled to know what his family and children are eating.
It is urgent to act before GM salmon arrives on the market, potentially in a few years. Consumers may reject this product totally.
We have a second recommendation. We would like to see more transparent regulations. As we explained, this is not the case right now with Health Canada. We would like health to not be the only factor that is taken into account in regulating new GMO products that are coming onto the market, but that you also consider other factors such as the environment, the economy and social acceptance.
Thank you.
:
Thank you to our witnesses for coming out.
I'm always interested in comments like what Mr. Rehn, for example, has made about the lack of benefit to the general public. Prior witnesses spoke about the lack of benefit to the producers. What we know now is that there are some 18 million farmers who actually use GMO in their business. What we've also found is that in the seed business, when you actually talk to the dealers out my way, those most technical seeds, which at the start tend to be the most expensive—it will cost you a hundred bucks or a little better an acre to plant, just for the seed—they're the first to go. I'm always wondering when I hear that what the thought is of the presenter who says there's no benefit to the farmer, when actually the farmer sees it as having a great economic benefit, a great environmental benefit.
Also, we have a report that came out by the American Council on Science and Health which was an analysis of 147 studies. The studies were not done just in Canada or the United States, but globally about the impact of GM soybean, maize, cotton crops, pesticide use, and farmer profits. What they found is crop yields increased 22%, farmer profit increased 68%, and they also found that GM technology has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%.
We're always going to have these discussions about the use, but what I can tell you from on the ground.... I'm assuming that when we're talking about aquaculture and GMO salmon, we're not talking about safety and those issues. It's already been determined that those products are safe. What we are concerned about is how we market that, because we clearly know the benefits, not only in profit.... Some will say that all the big companies are interested in is profit. Actually, it's about the farmer. If we don't have an economically sound farming industry, aquaculture industry, then we don't have safe secure food that is economical to the consumer.
With that, I just want to ask Mr. Rehn one question. Are there any GMO products that you actually approve of?
:
Certainly. Thank you very much for this opportunity to present and include the aquatic realm in your deliberations. We are in court on this topic this morning.
As you said, I'm the policy director for the Ecology Action Centre. Prior to working at the Ecology Action Centre, I worked for a time in the fishing industry. I also worked at the Huntsman Marine Science Centre teaching biology. I was there at a time when research into how to make salmonites more resistant to super chilling was occurring.
The Ecology Action Centre is an environmental organization founded in 1971. We endeavour to ground our work in science. Most of our staff have science backgrounds. We try to find solutions that integrate the economy and the environment. Prior to the engagement on the issue of GM salmon, we did relatively little work on this issue. We became involved because of the threat to wild Atlantic salmon. As we have become more familiar with this issue, it is the threat to species with wild counterparts that concerns us.
First, we are concerned about the risk to wild salmon should GM salmon escape. We are worried that GM salmon could outcompete wild salmon for resources, such as food, habitat, and mates. Second, and even more important, we are worried that these salmon could breed with wild salmon and change the genetic makeup of wild salmon forever. This would have unknown ecological consequences and economic consequences. I should note that research also shows that GM salmon can interbreed with wild brown trout.
You might be thinking, “but these fish are sterile and on land”. Our greatest concern is with the commercialization. At that point, you are talking hundreds of millions of fish being grown in numerous facilities and potentially close to some of our famous Atlantic salmon rivers in New Brunswick, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. At the commercial scale, the reassurances aren't so reassuring. We know that fish have escaped from land-based facilities before. We also know that triploid induction is not 100% effective. When you are talking about hundreds of millions of fish, 1% or 3% or 5% starts to look like a lot.
We are not looking for problems or windmills to tilt at. Atlantic salmon have enough problems without embedding them. It's an endangered species. Unfortunately, we see a problem that is underappreciated and downplayed by the industry. If these fish escape into Atlantic Canadian salmon rivers, they will put at risk a substantial recreational industry, which is particularly important in rural areas.
We are in court because we are upset by the current handling of this issue. AquaBounty received approval for commercial production in Canada without there being an assessment of commercial grow out. The export of eggs from one research facility is a very different matter from the production of millions of fish at numerous facilities. We are requesting that a strategic environmental assessment be carried out on the risk to aquatic systems from GM organisms.
There also has been no public consultation in Canada around the first GM food animal in the world, and there's been no consultation with stakeholders, be it the aquaculture industry, the commercial fishing industry, the tourism industry, or the recreational fishing industry. I would also point out that there has been no consultation with first nations and indigenous peoples. Atlantic salmon was and is a very important species for first nations in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. Altering the genome of this fish should trigger consultation.
When this fish was approved for human consumption in the U.S., there was a reaction from the Alaskan fishing industry. As a result, until the labelling issue is resolved in the U.S., it is my understanding that approval in the U.S. is on hold.
In Nova Scotia, our fisheries minister has spoken out against GM salmon. He is quoted as saying, “We're more interested in making sure we protect what we have. Until someone can prove to us and to the public that this will be a good idea—and I don't see much support anywhere for this—we're not interested.” Keith Colwell also said he is concerned about what the impact of accidentally introducing genetically engineered fish would have on natural populations from both an ecological and sports fishing standpoint. That was on May 20, 2016, following approval from Heath Canada.
I have spoken about some of the risks. Others have spoken of benefits. For Atlantic Canada, I don't see the broader economic benefits. Yes, the company stands to gain by controlling the broodstock, but I don't see the lift, including jobs, to the broader economy. I also understand that the growth rates of this salmon have not been independently verified.
The Ecology Action Centre does some work around seafood labelling. The trend in the seafood industry is toward traceability and transparency. Consumers want to know more, and they want consistency of information across product. As you know, other jurisdictions label for GM.
Finally, I understand that many of you represent constituents that are growing GM crops, and that places you in a difficult position. I would ask that you give special consideration to our wild Atlantic salmon and the risk to all wild species in your deliberations.
Thank you very much.
:
I am here to represent myself, I guess. I'll just give you a history of my personal involvement in GM salmon. At the moment I am a professor emeritus and head of the department of ocean sciences at Memorial University.
I am a little nervous, so if I quiver it's because I don't want you to do this.
My colleagues, Choy Hew from the department of biochemistry at MUN and Peter Davies from Queen's University, and I started studying fish antifreeze proteins in the mid-1970s. These unique proteins evolved to protect fish species inhabiting polar or subpolar waters from freezing when water temperatures declined below the colligative freezing points of their body fluids.
During this time, there was a developing interest in Atlantic salmon aquaculture along the coastal regions of the Atlantic provinces. However, salmon do not have antifreeze proteins to protect them from freezing, so culture operations were restricted to waters where the water temperatures rarely declined below zero.
As academic scientists, we were looking for innovative ways to broaden our research program, so we applied to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council's strategic grants program for funds to transfer antifreeze protein genes from a small flatfish, called the winter flounder, to Atlantic salmon.
Our goal was to develop freeze-resistant salmon, thus enabling the salmon aquaculture industry to expand operations throughout the Atlantic coastline and to create much needed employment in coastal rural areas. Between 1982 and 1999, we were fortunate enough to receive funds of approximately $1.66 million from NSERC for our gene transfer experiments.
During this time, we worked out how to transfer the antifreeze genes to Atlantic salmon—most people thought it was impossible—and to have them expressed and passed on from generation to generation by cross breeding. We found low levels of winter flounder antifreeze proteins in the blood of the Atlantic salmon; however, these levels were insufficient to protect the salmon from freezing.
While the salmon we produced were not sufficiently freeze resistant for aquaculture purposes, our experiments were successful in establishing a proof of concept: genes could be transferred from one fish species to another, actually quite easily.
This success prompted us to look into transferring a growth hormone gene isolated from chinook salmon to the genome of Atlantic salmon in order to accelerate growth rates, and again, to improve the economics of salmon aquaculture in the Atlantic provinces. We started experiments in the fall of 1989, and by 1990 we saw obvious signs of success. Atlantic salmon containing the additional growth hormone gene grew considerably faster than the non-transgenics.
In 1991, when we were applying to renew our NSERC grant to continue our growth hormone gene transfer research, we were reviewed by an NSERC site visit committee who encouraged us to look for an industrial partner so that the results of our research could be commercialized.
We were fortunate enough to do so when we met up with a Mr. Elliot Entis, who was starting up a small privately funded U.S. biotech company, then called A/F Protein, based on the use of fish antifreeze proteins to protect cells and tissues from cold and freezing temperatures.
By this time, Choy Hew and I had filed preliminary patent applications through our employers, Memorial University and The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto—often called SickKids—where Choy Hew had taken up a position. Elliot agreed to license the transgenic salmon technology from our employers and Choy and I became founding members of A/F Protein Inc. Our principal aim was to demonstrate to NSERC that the private sector was interested in our research.
In 1994, A/F Protein Inc. founded A/F Protein Canada, a wholly owned subsidiary. Elliot, Choy Hew, and I served as board members. I took on the position of CEO and chief scientist, and served in this capacity until 2005.
Once incorporated, the company received a loan from ACOA and a matching grant from the Province of Newfoundland. This enabled us to set up a small antifreeze protein purification laboratory in St. John’s that was independent of MUN. Our research on the growth hormone transgenic salmon still continued at MUN’s ocean sciences centre.
The year 1994 was also when Choy and I accompanied Elliot Entis on a visit to the FDA in Washington, D.C., to begin discussions regarding the regulatory approval process for the transgenic product.
In 1996, A/F Protein purchased a small land-based salmon hatchery in Bay Fortune, Souris, P.E.I., for the purpose of developing a broodstock of transgenic salmon.
In 2000, A/F Protein Inc. split into two independent companies: A/F Protein and Aqua Bounty Farms, later AquaBounty Technologies, with Aqua Bounty Canada as its subsidiary. I continued to direct and supervise the operations of both Canadian companies.
By 2003, Aqua Bounty Canada had 36 full-time staff, nine of which were Ph.D.s.
In 2005, most research related to the documents required by the FDA was completed, at least from our end. At this point, the parent company made the decision to lay off most of the employees in St John’s, which included me. I then returned to become a full-time functional professor emeritus at MUN. I took on the position of director of the ocean sciences centre in 2009, and in 2012, I was given the position of head, a position which I still hold.
In 2006, AquaBounty Technologies registered with the London Stock Exchange’s alternative investment market as ABTX. At that time, the company raised about $30 million.
In the interests of full disclosure, I must inform you that I remain on Aqua Bounty Canada’s board of directors. I was asked to serve on the board by the parent company because Canadian law requires a Canadian resident to be on the board of foreign-owned companies. I see no reason not to help the company I helped found. For this, I receive $3,000 a year.