[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, May 29, 1996
.1532 
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Guay): Order, please.
Good morning, everyone.
Today, we will be hearing from three different groups who will be speaking to us about biotechnology. We have, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Jack Wilkinson, president; from the National Agriculture Environment Committee, Jeff Wilson, a Board Member and Vice-Chair; and from Ag-West Biotech Inc., Mr. Ron Kehring, interim manager and Mr. Lorne Babiuk, who is the Director of the Veterinary Infectious Disease Organization.
I would ask the witnesses to give us a brief 10-minute presentation, one group at a time, and then we will ask questions.
We will begin with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, represented by Mr. Jack Wilkinson. Mr. Wilkinson, you have 10 minutes.
[English]
Mr. Jack Wilkinson (President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture): I'd like Jeff Wilson, from NAEC, to start it off for us, please.
Mr. Jeff Wilson (Board Member and Vice-Chair, National Agriculture Environment Committee): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'm a fruit and vegetable producer from Ontario, as well as vice-chair of NAEC.
The National Agriculture Environment Committee provides a forum for farm leaders from over twenty organizations on environmental issues in agriculture. Hence, because we have been looking at the review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the issue of biotechnology as well, those are two issues that are certainly germane to the discussions of our committee.
Since the beginning of time, Canadian agricultural producers have met the challenges of the environment around and on their farms and ranges as well as meeting what the consumers demand in quality, type, product, and what have you. Farmers and researchers who support the farm community continue to work to meet these challenges and demands. Over the years, new innovations have contributed to how farmers do meet these challenges.
Agricultural producers have a goal to protect human health and the environment, and also to have themselves the appropriate tools to produce for Canadians and the world an abundant and safe food supply. We view biotechnology as a tool to deal with the pressures on agriculture: climate, pests, and the need to feed the burgeoning millions of humans on this planet.
.1535
What do we require in a regulatory framework as a farming community? The first issue would be predictability. Farmers, like most sectors, are interested in certainty in supply of products that we need to produce and grow the food and therefore call for a certain and predictable regulatory climate for ourselves and those industries that supply our inputs. A stable regulatory climate assures us that we can be competitive in the world market.
In terms of the use of biotechnology products by agricultural producers, farmers use different production methods, depending on the sector and personal preferences. Our committee is composed of members who, at the moment, will embrace the products envisioned from biotechnology as a way to feed the world and others who will be selective of which particular biotechnology product they will use.
Farmers will make their choices whether to grow herbicide-tolerant plants, whether to use rBST, should it be approved in Canada, and what types of biological controls to use for pests. They'll review the information as it becomes available on seeds and other input products, and make decisions as to what to grow and use and as to what suits their particular production methods and personal philosophies.
Whether farmers would or would not use products developed with the tool called genetic engineering on their farms and ranges, all are clear that the products must be carefully reviewed and must be regulated under an effective and an efficient regulatory framework to ensure the safety of our workers and of the products we sell to Canadians, and globally for that matter.
We want a system that is consistent with global approaches, one that is efficient, cost effective, open and transparent, and in which we can have a say as to the requirements for the regulatory approaches.
In regard to regulatory responsibility, product-specific acts in most cases were developed over the years to specify how products should be regulated. Regulatory action under these acts has been protecting Canadians' health and the environment for decades.
We believe the products of biotechnology are simply products under the same umbrella but developed using a new tool. Therefore, products made using the tool of biotechnology are viewed as simply a new generation of these types of products and the agriculture and other acts are suitable for dealing with this.
We feel that we have been well served by the team of regulators from the line departments that regulate under the product-specific acts. We in the industry that supplies us with our inputs are familiar with the workings of these acts and with the services they supply. We believe that those who understand their products and agriculture must continue to deal with biotechnology products.
We recognize that the standing committee has expressed an interest in opinions on some legal aspects on whether the acts have authority to regulate biotechnology and their health and safety. We're not legal experts, obviously, but we do know that the regulatory people in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Health Canada have effectively regulated products for safety and efficacy and we do not see why this service should be any different for biotechnology products.
We understand that in 1993 the government published a framework based on this concept and we support it. We understand that the regulators in agriculture and health are working to meet, where needed, the exemption requirements under CEPA for notification and assessment. We support their efforts and urge them to get on with it where needed and put in place a strong and effective coordinated regulatory framework. We also understand that regulators across government meet on a regular basis to coordinate and standardize approaches, and this should continue.
We want safe products. We know the regulators in the departments want the same goals that we are after ourselves. We see harmonization internationally through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to coordinate what we're doing here domestically with the international stage.
Guidelines: our understanding is that, again, the international groups, such as OECD, are recommending that guidelines are the most appropriate level to allow for the continued unfolding of new information and data. We do support the statement that has been made to this committee by the Crop Protection Institute of Canada that regulatory oversight through guidelines is the most effective way to administer regulatory requirements for biotechnology products and will best serve the flexibility required to deal with future notification and assessment needs.
Many agricultural practices are effectively regulated using guidelines. Guidelines work, they're more readable and accessible to those who need to use them than regulations in the act they stem from.
.1540
On products and process, our interpretation of the product versus process is this: using the example of a seed as a part of an assessment, regulators take into account how that seed came to be the way it is. All these questions and more are proposed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada under guidelines for plants with novel traits. This is our understanding of product versus process. Therefore, we want the product, the seed, regulated, but during the review the process should be considered along with other aspects such as the continued practice of comparing and assessing agronomic qualities.
Research opportunities: as a result of the targeted funding for research in biotechnology over the last 10 years or so, we see an incredible potential for the future. We also see a basic understanding of how the biology of organisms and of biological systems has been enhanced. This has resulted in an invaluable collection of data and new useful ideas stemming from an enhanced understanding of how organisms relate to others and their environment. Further, the issues of biotechnology and biodiversity have raised the importance of the issue of seed banks or culture collections.
Under labelling, labelling has traditionally been done for foods, nutritional analysis, ingredients, and also warnings in cases where there is potential for allergic reactions. We believe that products with health or safety implications should be labelled. This would include possible allergenicity or medical concerns, for example peanut or soy bean allergies. Where a product has been determined as safe and scientifically approved we do not see the need for labelling. Voluntary labelling is an option. If we believe that it would be to provide a market niche, there may be value to market a product as brought to you by biotechnology where niche marketing has been enhanced, such as organic farming and other practices out there where there is an idea of raising in the consumer's mind something that is different. We see very positive aspects to using that in terms of products coming out of biotechnology.
We believe that Canada should be actively involved with the discussions internationally on labelling, for example with the committee on food labelling at the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and should be consistent regarding decisions made on harmonization of labelling requirements at that forum.
In summary, we support the maintenance and continued development of the regulatory framework where agricultural products are regulated under the agriculture acts. These acts have been used for years to assess the health and safety of products. This extends to biotechnology products.
We support the concept of regulating the product, but in the regulating taking into consideration a process, as has always been the case. We support food labelling where there is a health and safety concern, for example allergy or other medical concerns or religious reasons. Where a product has been declared safe for use, there should be no need to label.
For reverse products without genetic engineering, or positive products produced by biotechnology, voluntary labelling should be standardized and must not be misleading, make false statements, or leave false impressions.
We understand the right to know where it is practical. In a perfect world we would have all the knowledge about all products and be able to make totally informed decisions about everything we use. We don't have that now for many things we consume and use in everyday life.
We support that requirements for biotechnology products should be detailed in guidelines in most cases to allow for building on new information and data.
Thank you for the opportunity to be before the committee.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Guay): Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilkinson, do you have anything that you wish to add?
[English]
Mr. Wilkinson: I would like to add a couple of points. Number one, we're a member of the National Agriculture Environment Committee and supportive of the brief that's put before you today and Jeff's statements. We're involved fairly extensively in trade-related issues, and in particular eco-labelling and a number of labelling issues as it affects trade between our trading partners. Jeff touched on that. I would like to go a little bit further in that area.
One of our concerns is that there has to be a harmonized system of labelling internationally so they do not develop into trade barriers. We have seen some developments in Europe and in the United States in discussions around labelling and eco-labelling where a number of issues are being proposed that would be part of a voluntary labelling system but are being promoted by the government. This in fact runs the possible risk of creating trade barriers because of the non-transparent system that has been created in some countries. That is a major concern to ourselves as it relates to labelling in general and biotechnology in other areas specifically.
We think a great deal of effort has to be put in by Canada to work on international standards, that our labels would fall under them and in fact insist that other countries maintain a science-based approach to claims made on labels, and that the transparency exists so that any country would be able to know, first of all, what domestic labelling systems may be in place and be able to meet them so they do not become an added trade barrier that could develop in the future.
.1545
I have one further comment, and then we'll be quite happy to answer questions as they come along. Our sense is that the agriculture community and the agrifood industry has great potential within Canada from the point of view of job creation and balance of trade. It is a major factor in the economy.
We're well positioned in the whole area of research and biotechnology. The work that has been done over the last number of years has really put us on the edge of being one of the leading nations in the world. We think what unfolds over the next year or two will be very important as to where we will end up in the future and whether we will continue to be ahead of the pack in areas where we're developing new varieties and seeing new products come on the line. It will affect whether our producers on the production side as well as the agrifood industry will become world leaders able to take great opportunities. If we fall behind substantially and our producers are at a competitive disadvantage, our industry will not meet the needs of an incredibly growing population and there will be a shortage of food in some particular areas.
Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Guay): Thank you very much, Mr. Wilkinson.
We will now turn to questions. Mr. Steckle.
[English]
Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): Thank you, gentlemen, for once again coming before the committee. I have spoken with you gentlemen before.
With respect to biotechnology, as we're looking at it in speaking to witnesses, we met with a number of witnesses the other day. The question I put to them was as we're looking at the next millennium and the population as we expect it to be around the year 2030, is there any way we can begin to even attempt to feed that population without biotechnology or technologies in the whole area of food production? Whether it's in crops, animal science or aquaculture, can we even attempt to think that we can possibly feed the world beyond the year 2025 if there aren't further advances?
Mr. Wilson: To single out biotechnology alone in that scenario is somewhat unfair. because if you use just straight technology and biotechnology as one tool, there's a challenge we think we can meet or we wouldn't be here. We wouldn't be doing what we do, which is feed people.
I'd argue that as we look at where biotechnology allows us to more competitively feed people, when you talk about the need to potentially reduce input - which translates for us to dollars and for your committee to potential environmental impact - we see a win for both of us in our goals, although we may be coming from different areas or backgrounds. But when we look at the need and the tracking of how we have increased yields through the selective breeding in the late 1800s and through the early part of this century to the more advanced state of biotechnology to increase those yields we're going to require, it's certainly a tool we need.
When we look at the far fewer numbers of people actively involved in production agriculture, not just in Canada but on a global basis, there's also the question of who is going to do the producing to feed this population.
Mr. Wilkinson: I think a lot of experts would indicate that over the last few years population has outstripped the productive gains that have been made. Many would advocate that if we do not have some new technology in general terms or breakthroughs, we will be running some very tight food-stock situations over the next number of years and into the future.
It's very difficult, as you well know, to make predictions for 20 years. You don't have to be that old - which I'm not, as you well know - but starting in 1973 we had a food scare that existed for a number of years. A lot of government policies came in at that time to deal with what was viewed as a food crisis and the thought that there would be shortages for a long time to come. But the green revolution that took place in Canada in the fifties and sixties took place globally. Countries that were major importers like India are now exporters. But if that technology and that green revolution hadn't hit countries like that we would have had very serious circumstances.
.1550
I think we're at that edge again, according to what the numbers are indicating. We have some shortages right now in some coarse grains, and if we do not have some breakthroughs in some general areas, we're going to have a very difficult time having production meet the growth in world population.
I agree with Jeff that biotechnology is just one aspect of production. It looks like the tip of an iceberg that could be very encouraging in what it can do, but time will tell whether it will materialize. We don't want to cut it off from an opportunity to see what can happen under a fair, regulated system to guarantee health, safety and quality for consumers.
Mr. Steckle: How would you differentiate in your minds - and how do we interpret that differentiation to the public consumer - between animal science and plant science? In plant science we find ourselves looking at the issue somewhat differently because it's not as moral an issue as animal science.
When I talk about moral, there are the rights and the wrongs, both to the animal and to the human ingesting that product. Somehow we look at a tomato that ripens quicker, stays red longer and stays fresh longer as something not quite as difficult to accept as something we would perhaps inject into a cow, for the sake of using an argument, in comparison.
How do we relate to that, and how do we sell that to the public?
Mr. Wilkinson: We have had selective breeding processes for many years. They have allowed us to have better feed conversions and make better quality products available. In fact, there has never been safer food in recorded history than we're consuming now, and part of it is because of a very rigorous food inspection, grading and regulatory system. We're still advocating that. But many parts of biotechnology, for example, that have taken 20 years can now be done, as far as selective breeding, in a very short time period, and not necessarily differently. They're different processes, but we can now do this sort of thing in a very tightened timeframe.
I think the moral question around the creation of new life forms is a very big issue and everybody has to face where that is going. As an individual producer, I have personal views the same as I'm sure everybody in this room. The question is where do they become societal concerns, and what sort of process do you need to put in place? That's why we advocated the science-based regulatory system to deal with those questions. When that product comes on line for Jeff or me to use as producers, we view it as being safe and running no significant safety risk. We can proceed with it and see what it can do from a production gains point of view.
Mr. Wilson: Really, you're almost referring to the BST issue, and that was one of the first issues to really hit. It hit an unprepared agricultural community. It hit a number of unprepared commodities in the livestock sector, and in the plant sector as well.
The dilemma today is that the thoughts of all those in agriculture have come around. We have a little better understanding - not a lot. On the plant side, we've had the luxury of seeing the new innovations come in with the full involvement of the farm community. I would site the bacillus thurongenisis gene in corn. I would site the bacillus thurongenisis gene in potatoes. There are167 potato producers in Ontario and at least 165 of them are very conversant with the Bt gene potential in the potatoes and what that means for them.
We didn't have that luxury when the livestock issues hit five years ago now. One would argue that we can always hypothesize today about what would have happened. So there's certainly a slight difference of opinion within agriculture. We're working hard to try to find common ground on this whole issue of the moral clause.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Guay): Dear colleagues, I neglected to ask the last group to make its presentation. I will therefore ask the representatives from Ag-West Biotech Inc. to introduce themselves and to provide us with their presentation, and then we will resume questioning.
.1555
[English]
Mr. Ron Kehrig (Interim Manager, Ag-West Biotech Inc.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, honourable committee members.
I'd first of all like to say that I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf of Ag-West Biotech. With me this afternoon is Dr. Lorne Babiuk, director of the Veterinary Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan. I'll be making a brief presentation andDr. Babiuk will assist me in answering your questions, particularly those of a technical nature.
My presentation will be in four parts: a brief description of Ag-West Biotech; a perspective on the evolution of agriculture biotechnology; comments on the needs for an effective and efficient regulatory system in Canada; and finally, comments on the significance of agriculture biotechnology to Canadian agriculture.
Ag-West Biotech is a non-profit organization in Saskatoon with a mandate to support and develop the agriculture biotechnology industry in Saskatchewan. Ag-West receives core grant funding from Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food.
Ag-West operates under an industry government board of directors. I'm the interim manager of the organization, as a search for a new president is under way. Dr. Murray McLaughlin, former president of Ag-West Biotech, is now the deputy minister of Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food.
Ag-West Biotech is not a commercial biotech company. The products of Ag-West Biotech are largely information-based. The Agbiotech Bulletin is published monthly by Ag-West as an industry newsletter and marketing effort for the Saskatchewan agriculture biotech community. The ``Agbiotech Infosource'' is published as a bi-monthly insert in the bulletin. It's intended to stimulate interest and a better understanding of agriculture related sciences, particularly agriculture biotechnology. I would invite committee members to read these publications.
Ag-West also produces special publications to meet its needs. Some examples of these are the issues and benefits booklets ``From Field to Plate'' and ``Biotechnology, Agriculture and Your Food''. I think you will find them understandable and informative.
Ag-West hosts numerous delegations visiting Saskatchewan's agriculture biotech community each year. I would invite committee members to visit Saskatchewan, to visit with our community, and to attend the agriculture biotechnology international conference in Saskatoon from June 11 to June 14 of this year.
Ag-West Biotech sponsors seminars, training sessions, and forums for business, government, and industry interaction. Ag-West was initiated in 1989. Just a few companies were involved in agriculture biotech in Saskatchewan at that time. By 1994 there were about 28 commercial companies in Saskatchewan with an interest in biotechnology, and Saskatchewan economic development reported industry direct sales in 1994 to be $42.5 million.
I'll have more about the significance of agriculture biotechnology as an industry and as an essential complement to our existing agriculture industry later.
Agriculture is the planned utilization of plants and animals to suit human needs. Genetic modification of plants and animals by selection and cross-breeding, for example, has been a part of agriculture for years, as has the use of micro-organisms in the production of food products. Canadian agriculture has a rich history of technological advancement and of agricultural science-based achievement.
Agriculture biotechnology is not so much seen as a revolutionary force that will change things overnight. Instead it is seen as a set of tools that will gradually change and improve agriculture. Its commercial uses are simply a way to improve on the proven methods of agricultural science. Biotechnology has been defined by federal regulatory departments as the application of science and engineering to the direct or indirect use of living organisms, parts, or products living in their natural or modified forms. That is the CEPA definition.
Agricultural biotechnology brings together advanced disciplines such as biology, genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, biophysics, chemical engineering, and computer science to develop agrifood products. Agricultural biotechnology allows scientists to develop improved crop varieties at an improved rate. For example, techniques such as the use of marker assisted selection allow plant breeders to know which lines carry the desired traits. Biotechnology actually allows plant breeders to make genetic changes that are more precise and reliable.
Agricultural biotechnology is a set of tools to develop improved crops which, like those derived through conventional plant breeding, have qualities desired by producers and the marketplace. Herbicide tolerant crops not only provide production cost savings to farmers, but also often result in fewer chemicals being applied to the environment.
.1600
Crops with improved disease and pest resistance could also substantially reduce the chemicals applied for control. This means less fuel consumption, lower emissions, less tillage, and less soil erosion.
Ag biotech can ease the pressure on the environment. Crops with specific quality traits not only serve to keep Canada competitive in a world market where quality is a concern but can offer environmental solutions. Crops used for biodegradable plastics, lubricants, and renewable sources of fuels are examples.
Crops are not the only product of ag biotechnology. Veterinary vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and feed additives are some of the areas of agricultural livestock applications. Improved production levels and improved food safety are the result.
Microbial products of ag biotechnology include nitrogen-fixing inoculants, bio-fertilizers, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, as well as inoculants to improve plant disease resistance. Plant tissue culturing or micro-propagation and cloning allow the production of disease-free transplants for field and greenhouse crops, including ornamental plants, potatoes, and other vegetables. Applications of ag biotechnology extend into processing and many applications in plant and animal diagnostics; but in the interest of time I'll move along.
This leads me to comment on the need for an effective regulatory environment for its development in Canada. Regulatory efforts are best applied in the departments having the related expertise needed to assess the product properly. As such, regulatory authority should remain largely with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Health Canada for ag biotech products, including the details of notifications and toxicity testing requirements.
The safety net concept of CEPA may needlessly catch products which would be adequately regulated by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada or Health Canada, or both, in pending regulations. CEPA need not regulate the regulators, since this is seen as a duplication in government.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is responsible for administering several acts which cover the safety and efficacy of agricultural products. These include agronomic and ecological safety assessment. Health Canada is the department with primary responsibility for matters of food safety.
The focus of government's regulation must remain on the product, not the process. There's nothing inherently toxic about biotechnology products. They need not be grouped or treated differently from any other products regulated by government. While each product must be assessed separately, the principle of substantial equivalence should apply and be used in risk assessment.
In Canada food labelling of biotech products is allowed as negative or positive labelling. The information must be accurate and truthful. But mandatory labelling of ag biotech foods for reasons of food safety is not required. Where a food safety issue exists, such as a possible allergic reaction, Health Canada regulates food labelling.
Canada must continue to have a safe and effective regulatory system, but one that allows for industry development and the application of new technologies. The current Canadian regulatory system is one of the safest in the world, and we fully support these existing high standards. Cost-recovery strategies by regulators must take a reasonable approach, where cost avoidance, cost reduction, and cost recovery are practised. Costs must be fair and reasonable.
The uncertainty in Canada's regulatory system must be removed. It will have a devastating effect on the investment and corporate development in this industry in Canada. But more importantly, it will prevent our farmers, our society, from receiving the benefits of the applications of ag biotechnology.
The on-farm implications of ag biotechnology mean farmers can maintain a competitive edge in supplying quality products to existing and new markets. Improved yields and production levels, along with reduced risk and lower production costs, mean a better bottom line at the base of our economy. These benefits are literally estimated in the billions of dollars.
Ag biotechnology also offers opportunities for contracting specialty crops, with higher farm-gate values and opportunities for jobs in related processing. Jobs created in the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of ag biotech products are also expected to grow as more safe and effective products reach the market.
It is for these reasons that ag biotechnology is identified as a priority area in the economic and agricultural strategy for Saskatchewan and the City of Saskatoon. A recent study in Washington State showed that although job growth in that state was 1.8%, for the biotechnology sector it was 7.8% in 1994.
.1605
Agricultural biotechnology was identified in a recent study by the Western Economic Diversification agency as the only technology industry cluster in western Canada that is internationally competitive. It is a resource-based, value-adding industry that is sustainable.
In closing, Madam Chair, agricultural biotechnology offers benefits such as foods with better nutritional value, longer shelf life, higher quality and improved taste. Biotech also provides health and environmental benefits by reducing the need for veterinary drugs, chemical pesticides, and fertilizers. Biotechnology can contribute to higher productivity on the farm. It is increasingly important as a growing world population demands vast increases in food production. Biotech can also help make more efficient use of agricultural resources such as soil and plant nutrients. This enhances the sustainability and permanence of agricultural systems.
With biotech, scientists are making our food healthier, safer, and cheaper in a way that is less of a burden for the environment. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Guay): Thank you, Mr. Kehrig. Mr. Babiuk, do you have anything else that you wish to add?
[English]
Dr. Lorne Babiuk (Director, Veterinary Infectious Disease Organization, Ag-West Biotech Inc.): No. I'll be happy to answer any questions, but before I do that maybe I'll give you two little comments.
I look at biotechnology as evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I think a lot of people have thought it was revolutionary. As a result of this evolution, I think we can have safer products. I'm from the Veterinary Infectious Disease Organization, where we produce vaccines. Vaccination has been one of the major triumphs in modern medicine, whether it be human or veterinary medicine, and we can actually provide much safer vaccines for healthier animals and for safer food. I'd be happy to elaborate if there's any interest in that or if there are any questions.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Guay): Thank you very much. We will now proceed with the questions. Ms Payne, the floor is yours.
[English]
Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to speak briefly on labelling. Mr. Wilson, you mentioned that you felt the jurisdiction for food labelling rests with Health Canada. You also said that Canada should be involved internationally with discussions on labelling. The comment that I want to make has to do with international labelling, not with biotechnology, but I just raise it for discussion, I suppose.
We have food coming into Canada with labelling that really does not indicate what's actually in the food. I'm thinking primarily of some of the sauces we bring in from other countries. Canada has been trying very hard to regulate that process, yet a lot of this product still seems to enter the country and remains on the shelves in supermarkets and other groceries. Do you have any ideas as to how better enforcement or better means of enforcement for that kind of thing can happen?
I know you and Mr. Kehrig are saying that biotechnology is not dangerous and doesn't pose a health hazard, but that aside, I think we do have a problem with the enforcement of labelling. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Wilson: I think one of the realities of what I call this brave new world we're entering is that governments in general are going to have to place a greater emphasis on things such as international guidelines, as we alluded to in our report.
I don't see where we're ever going to have the resources in the near future - either federally or provincially - to have a comfort level that we're regulating or where we're enforcing all the regulations we set in place. Conversely, I'm very comfortable with some internationally recognized guidelines on the product. If there's a concern with a specific component of the sauces, as per your example, then we discuss that in international forums and we develop guidelines that everyone buys into and everyone agrees to in the sense of how we go about doing business on this new global front in which we're all trying to do business.
.1610
Mrs. Payne: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Guay): Madam Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): In the brief that was prepared by the National Agriculture Environment Committee, one of the things that you had put as a priority was predictability, so that's very important. Having other industry representatives come before this committee, and even in private conversations with leaders within the field of commerce and industry, one of the things we are concerned about is predictability and knowing what's coming down.
Then I turned to the second brief that has been prepared by Ag-West Biotech. You have identified some concerns with the safety net concept in CEPA as it currently stands. The government response has changed the nature of that safety net. With the government response, we are currently left with a patchwork.
There are different standards. There is no minimum standard that has to apply. We're also in a situation in which we could potentially have no regulation in a field around biotechnology. So I'm wondering how your concerns over the current CEPA safety net balance out about your concerns over having consistency within the field.
Mr. Wilson: I guess I could start off. This is probably one of the key points in the whole review about which all of us raise a question mark. One of the things we discussed is, for lack of better terminology, where the orphans fit that don't fit, in an agricultural context, under an existing act. The dilemma we're facing is that we haven't identified any orphans.
To our knowledge, at this point there's nothing out there, at either the developmental stage or at the stage of final production, that doesn't fit within one of the existing acts out there. So if the safety net was designed, in a sense, to catch anything that doesn't fit within a regulatory framework or an act, how do we deal with that? But we haven't seen anything, at least to my knowledge.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I believe yesterday our witnesses told us that animals were not caught under the current regulatory framework. Do you think it's a good idea that potentially there would be no regulations for biotech products?
Mr. Kehrig: There are certainly regulations in place to deal with the products of biotechnology in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada, and Environment Canada with respect to microbials.
Perhaps Dr. Babiuk could comment on the livestock question you raised.
Dr. Babiuk: I guess there are two questions here, of which this is one: is there no need to regulate biotechnology? If we talk about Agriculture, they have a very good record in regulating agricultural products. We can see this continuing. Just because it's produced by biotechnology...
Again, I mentioned earlier that it is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I would see Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada continuing to regulate the products for safety and efficacy, just as they have in the past. It's just that we'll use a slightly different method of producing them, which, in my mind, has a potential for actually being safer than the existing ones we have. So I would not see them not being regulated; I think they have to be regulated.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: How do you respond to the concerns that were raised yesterday by the witnesses who came before the committee? They talked about the seeds and fertilizer and feeds acts. They said that when you take a look at what these acts actually regulate, they don't look at any impact on human health or the environmental impact.
.1615
Dr. Babiuk: I can't answer that question directly. But again, as we have made some vaccines using biotechnology, we've worked very closely with Agriculture Canada. There is always a risk assessment that has to be carried out to ensure that there is not an environmental impact.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: But you're talking about vaccines, a specific example.
Dr. Babiuk: That is correct.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'm referring to the Seeds Act, Fertilizers Act, and Feeds Act.
Mr. Kehrig: The current system we have regulates on the basis of products. So the fact that the technology is not listed in the act does not mean that the resultant products of biotechnology are in fact regulated under current regulations in those departments or are to be dealt with in pending regulations within the various departments.
As Lorne mentioned, it is an evolutionary process in the development of regulations of agricultural products to maintain a safe food supply and safe environmental products in Canada. We believe that the current framework and regulations, and the structure of the regulatory framework, should fundamentally remain as it is.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Then how do you respond to what the witnesses said yesterday when they examined these particular acts and looked at the regulation under these acts, and most of these things dealt with fraud, not with effects on human health or environmental health? Also, there have been field tests undertaken. For example, with the NewLeaf potato, there has been no testing on the environment or on human health either. It has essentially moved into production and sale.
Mr. Wilson: I guess, very briefly, we don't agree with that.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: No, I'm just asking how you... We had a set of witnesses yesterday who had a very different perspective. They had also put forward concerns around the statements of increased productivity with biotechnology and had suggested that a lot of the increase in productivity brought about concurrent losses in other natural capital.
Consider stress on the environment. If you have a tree, for example, that grows at ten times the rate of another tree, then it sucks up ten times as many nutrients from the soil, so there's an increase in the use of fertilizers, etc.
Also, the concern that seems to be articulated by a number of people in the field around biotechnology is that not only are you dealing with monocultures - this is a single crop, form or species - you're also dealing with the same parent. So there are more problems with diseases and other pests, so you have to use other kinds of chemical intervention to avoid some of these problems.
Mr. Wilkinson: If I may, I totally disagree with that argument. If we use that argument, we would be growing crops that had yields of what they were fifty years ago, with literally millions and billions of people starving to death on this planet. The facts are that many of the products that are coming on stream are much safer than they were in the past and are better converters of nutrients to consumable products by humans. We've made substantial gains in many areas.
There will always be individual cases in which there are questions around, but if you look at the overall technology that has been there - I'm not talking about biotech in particular here - the gains have been phenomenal in productivity.
The part I really have a lot of trouble with is some of the arguments of some people. They look at it in an extremely narrow scope. Some of these new products that come on with disease resistance have massive environmental savings that go along with them. So I, as a farmer, don't have to use certain products to deal with the pests. There are clearly some environmental risks with some of those products, because you're trying to deal with an insecticide or whatever. If you can breed in disease resistance, that product just is no longer being used any more. As a farmer, I personally use it only as a tool to protect my crop. If I can have a seed that has built-in resistance such that I no longer need that, that product will not be used on my farm, period, and there will be tremendous environmental savings.
.1620
I think that balance has to be there as part of an overview in any regulatory framework. It currently does exist. If there are specific examples where it doesn't, those specific examples should be corrected, first throwing everything out and starting again.
The gains in productivity have been phenomenal from an agriculture point of view. They've come with breeding and technology and management. We're better off for it today than we were a hundred years ago, by far.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: You have to understand the position I'm in. I heard one set of statements yesterday and I'm hearing something different today. Whether they are referring to the same sets of products or issues...there may be a misinterpretation on that.
I've also heard that when you are developing these disease-resistant crops or whatever, sometimes there are problems when they jump the fence and recombine with weeds. Then you have weeds you can't get rid of.
Mr. Kehrig: I would like to get back to one of your earlier comments. Health and environmental assessments are performed under the feed, seed, fertilizer, and health of animals acts. I might also suggest you direct this question once again to the regulatory officials, who I understand will be appearing before this committee once again, if there's a concern regarding that issue.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Sure. Okay, thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Guay): Mr. Adams.
[Translation]
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): Thank you, madam Chair. I apologize for being late.
[English]
I would like to go back to the labelling thing. I read the briefs I missed. I've heard literally from some of you and from some of the people sitting behind you that we have the safest, healthiest, cheapest food in the world. By the way, I accept that. But on this matter of labelling, I know technically it has to do with health, with Health Canada. I think there's at least a problem of perception those of us who are interested in the food and agriculture business should deal with.
For example, two or three weeks ago there was a clip on one of the local stations about a hog protein tomato. It was used as an example. There was a conference here that was dealing with gene technology and so on.
When you say ``hog protein tomato'', different things can come into your mind. One is great, you have the bacon already in the tomato - how nice. Another would be, I like tomatoes, they're very healthy for me; I'm going to get a protein-enriched diet at the same time. The other is a tomato with four little legs.
I'm talking about images now. I just said ``hog protein tomato''. This thing exists.
I would suggest to you that whether this is a gradual evolution of something that's been going on or not, people are concerned about these changes. It behooves people in food and agriculture to be very wary of it, wary of the trends, and wary, by the way, of misconceptions that might be built up so high you'll never be able to change them. An interest in labelling would help you.
I wonder if any of you would care to comment on that.
Mr. Kehrig: I'd like to draw your attention to a paper I've tabled this afternoon, which is an interview with Dr. Thomas Hoban on consumer attitudes about food biotechnology. Might I suggest you read the document. In summary, it says a lot of factors go into the decision-making, but probably nowhere on that list would be the question, is it from biotechnology? It just isn't that important to consumers.
.1625
Mr. Adams: I'll gladly read Dr. Hoban's paper. I only told you one anecdotal story, and I would suggest to you that those things are ticking away out there. He did a survey. That may be so, but I would suggest to you that...
Dr. Babiuk: I think that is critical. I don't think we as scientists in industry have done a good enough job of educating the public and telling them what biotechnology really is about.
If you look at the gene of a pig and the gene of a tomato, more than one gene is required to put four legs on the tomato and have it run around. When we talk about allergies, you have peanut genes. There are 10,000 or more genes in a particular species, and you take one particular one that will offer a specific characteristic you might want. It doesn't mean that right away you've converted a tomato into a pig and you have bacon. It doesn't taste like bacon. It doesn't look like bacon. It still tastes and looks like a tomato.
I think again we have been at fault as scientists in not articulating effectively what biotechnology is and what it can do. I take as much blame as anybody else for not ensuring that it indeed is critically articulated.
Mr. Adams: You're right, doctor. I think there are other ways, and Dr. Hopen's article here is one example. There are other ways of getting this information, but I would suggest to you that most people don't watch science programs or read science articles, and that some ongoing interest in labelling would be worth your while.
You mentioned the peanuts. We know that at the moment there are still families struggling for peanut-free zones in schools and that kind of thing for these kids who get a touch of peanut and have a serious condition. The question with this gene technology is of tracking that sort of thing. By the way, I'm not looking at biotech yet.
Say, for example, you have a potentially antigenic protein from a nut that is produced in a vegetable and one of these kids eats it. By the way, I don't know if this can come from peanuts or not. You would know. Again, this is in the general context of labelling or warning. How do we track these changes as they go on? First of all, can you tell me if it is possible to produce a peanut protein in a vegetable?
Dr. Babiuk: It should be possible to do that.
Mr. Adams: Let's just use that one then. The labelling is getting better and better on the peanuts, but how do we track that stuff into a potato or whatever it might be in so that these kids who are already looking out for peanuts can see that?
Mr. Kehrig: As I mentioned earlier in my presentation, where there is any potential allergic reaction or health concern, Health Canada regulates the labelling of those products. There is a system in place to deal with health concerns of any product, whether the source of that is from a peanut directly or from a genetically modified legume.
Mr. Wilson: The comments you made are comments we all hear, and remember we're part of society as well, and some of us also share some of those concerns. They're fair comments, but it does go back to the idea that we can't ignore the fact of what's going on internationally.
It goes back to one of the points we raised of predictability. If Canada decides it wants labelling and can sell that on the international market, then as long as we all know what the ground rules are I think we can deal with that.
As a producer, my name goes on the box of every product that leaves my farm. By law it has to. One could argue that's one way to deal with the philosophical concerns. I agree that the health concerns have to be dealt with through the regulators. We aren't skilled within the agriculture community to deal with that side of it.
If we can be quite open, this is an issue that has been hotly debated at the Codex Alimentarius discussions, with the U.S. saying no labelling, France being somewhat sympathetic, Canada sitting on the fence, and a few others saying they want labelling, or at least hinting they want labelling. All we really want to know is what the ground rules are.
.1630
Mr. Wilkinson: Further to that, we want a label that informs people so that once you read the label you know something at the end of the day. This is part of the concern I have with people who advocate everything being on a label.
For example, you could say this product in part or in whole is a product of genetic engineering. What does that mean? I'm not being flippant about it. It could possibly mean that a yeast was used way back in the process so the yeast is 0.1% of that product, but there was some genetic engineering to make that yeast. It may have absolutely no nutritional effect on the food and there may be no allergic reaction to the food. That label in effect is really not giving anything to the consumer.
We would like to advocate it as part of the regulatory system. That's where the tracking and all the bits and pieces have to be done. If it isn't there now it should be put in place so that when the experts put the stamp on it, the insurance is there for the consumer that this product is safe from a nutritional and allergenic point of view. If it's not, if there are any concerns, they are what's on the label so that when people do a quick read of the label they know there's a possibility of an allergic reaction to peanuts or whatever.
That is where I think the emphasis has to be. I don't want to be flippant and treat it lightly, but you can only put so much on a label. We're going to have to send CD-ROMs out with a can of tomato paste if we have everything on the label that some people would like, and that's not going to be of any benefit to the consumer.
Mr. Adams: I just want to make a comment. The context of my questioning is not to push you into labelling and all that stuff. The food industry has to be proactive with this thing. I'll read this article, but that's not going to satisfy the public. My suggestion to you is that people are getting concerned. I think the industry should be right on top of that stuff if it's not labelling.
As for your point about how much you can put on, the famous example is the Lada. They were selling this Lada and they had to put on it all the warnings of what could go wrong. They had one on every rank and they had to keep making the Lada higher and higher.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Guay): Earlier, Ms Kraft Sloan raised a question with respect to biotechnology regulations and Mr. Simon Barber from Agriculture and Agrofood Canada, who is in the room, wishes to provide her with an answer immediately.
Mr. Barber, go ahead.
[English]
Mr. Simon Barber (Chief of the Plant Biotechnology Office, Plant Products Division, Food Inspection Directorate, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada): Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Simon Barber and I am with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. I work with a group of people who actually evaluate the plant types you've been discussing here.
One comment I think you made was that under the Seeds Act there is no evaluation for food safety. This isn't true. If we look at two crops in particular, canola and potatoes, both of these crop species go through a series of testing before they can be registered as varieties in Canada and grown and sold.
Potatoes are tested for solanins, which are known toxic products, and in the case of canola the different fatty acids in there are evaluated. Erucic acid, which is known as a possible toxicant, has to be below certain limits. In the oil of canola and in the meal of canola we have to get rid of the peppery taste, things called glucosinolates. This is done as a matter of course. That's an instance under the Seeds Act where there is evaluation of food safety.
Also under our Fertilizers Act and regulations we have toxicologists who evaluate the toxic components of fertilizers and so forth. I'm not really in a position to speak on that, but I know this takes place.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I was just responding to what witnesses told me yesterday, because I'm hearing two different things in two days.
Mr. Barber: Thank you for letting me tell you that is the case.
.1635
I also heard you talk about things jumping over fences in terms of genes. I believe that perhaps a lot of people aren't aware that a huge amount work has gone on in setting up a safety evaluation process, which considers that very topic. It has been considered by the international regulatory community since 1986, 1987, when people started engineering plants.
For this reason, in Canada we've developed a safety evaluation system which is founded on two building blocks, if you want to put it this way. One is the biology of the plant species you are talking about. In other words, does it have relatives with which it can exchange genes? The other building block is how is this thing different from the ones we know? We have a huge experience, as our colleagues over here have mentioned, of plant breeding and crop breeding over many decades, a hundred years or more, so these things are taken into consideration.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Guay): Before beginning a second round, I would like to ask a few questions. Earlier, Mr. Wilson or Mr. Wilkinson spoke about harmonization with the provinces. I would like to know how that works and if in fact it is really working. Before talking about international harmonization, perhaps we should take a look at how things are going at home. I would like you to elaborate on the subject a bit.
[English]
Mr. Wilson: Coming from a province that quite often is at odds with Ottawa, Ontario, one of the things I heard this past week is Ontario is now pushing not to schedule pesticides provincially, to let the new agency deal with that federally. I think we can look at that in a very positive way.
On trade issues, obviously we have a way to go yet.
On the issue of biotechnology, though, two weeks ago we actually had a deputies meeting in Ontario with the farm community on predominantly environmental matters, and the issue of biotechnology did come up. From a provincial perspective, they're finding there's very little for them to look at at a provincial level, especially given that currently in an agricultural... This was strictly in an agricultural context. They said they were comfortable that at this point things were being dealt with under the various acts at the national level and they don't necessarily see a role at this time provincially. We can't respond about down the road.
But do we see a potential that a canola variety might be licensed or approved federally and couldn't be used in a province? We haven't really come to that point. We haven't seen that yet. If we go back to the original nemesis, almost, of the whole debate, BST, I think we're all agreeing that in an agricultural sense we almost have to deal with the BST issue as an entity unto itself, apart from the rest of the biotechnology discussions.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Guay): Speaking of bovine somatotrophine, we have had a lengthy discussion on this issue here in the committee. We have discussed this issue for hours and we have not managed to obtain the information that we wanted to get.
This is a biotech product, an injected hormone. As consumers and citizens, when we buy a product from the store, shouldn't we be entitled - and this leads us to the issue of labelling - , to know whether or not we are buying a naturally manufactured product or a product derived from biotechnology? People should be able to choose whether or not to buy such and such product because it is a natural product.
This is a hot issue that will continue to be a topic of discussion and it is understandable for people to ask for that. This brings us back, once again, to labelling. Earlier, you talked about voluntary labelling. I'm not convinced that this would work. In many fields voluntary measures are not always implemented.
The general public will be debating that very issue and they will be demanding much more transparency and the right to choose a product to their liking.
[English]
Mr. Wilkinson: The question I would put back is what makes biotechnology so different for a consumer from all the other production processes and technologies that are involved? That's the question we continually raise. I think the concern goes back to Mr. Adams' point - the sense that something is happening here that consumers should be worried about.
.1640
There is a breakdown in confidence in some consumers that there is not an appropriate regulatory framework out there to ensure they are getting safe quality food when it comes to biotechnology. They're comfortable about almost all other aspects of the food chain. But for some reason biotechnology has taken on a very scary concept for many people that requires in their minds something totally different to ensure that it's okay.
As people who are more involved in it, we're saying there is a system there. Maybe it's not understood or widely known. We're obviously not doing a very good job, people, in communicating to individuals that it's there. But there's a very thorough process for when hybrids come on to be licensed to be grown, when back scenes are used - the list goes on and on - that is currently there to ensure the product is safe or it's not licensed for use in Canada.
We're just suggesting that's there. We think it's appropriate. We think it deals with the concerns. We think it has an incredibly good track record and we think that's the agency that should look at new technology and in this case biotechnology. There's no need, if that system is good, to do anything more than give a stamp of approval to say this product has been inspected and is safe and these are the nutritional values.
Biotechnology in itself does not create a new scenario for us. We're used to technology and plant breeding for generations as farmers and others. We're just saying this is another tool that an industry is using to speed up what is currently a 20-year process in selected breeding in many cases.
That's the question back to you. It clearly is a sense that the job is not being regulated appropriately. We should probably advertise that and give the assurance to government that it is being done, that information is available to anybody who wants to get it as far as any product that comes on line is concerned, and that's where we think it should be dealt with.
Mr. Wilson: In a nutshell, it's who does it. Remember that as a number of farmers we are relatively few. Is it our role to communicate? I won't use the word educate. I think awareness is a more appropriate word.
On my farm we have a retail operation as well. People come and ask all kinds of production-oriented questions because they have the opportunity to talk to literally a real live farmer. Most people don't have the opportunity to do that in a retail outlet.
I'm giving you a very subjective opinion that people are quite satisfied with the answers they get when the question hinges around whether their food is safe. I just lay it right out. What do I do to produce the broccoli, the potatoes, the strawberries, the wheat that I produce on my farm.
So if the issue is one of awareness and information, then I would also challenge whether there is a responsibility to all of us as consumers or whether it is just without any effort that we are supposed to be able to access that. I can't access the information I need to do a better job on my farm without a reasonable degree of effort on my part.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Guay): Where should this consumer information be coming from, then? You have said that this is not your job. Where should we go to get this information? You have said that people are not educated about biotechnology. We need to provide some education, but who's going to do this?
[English]
Mr. Wilson: I stated it's not my role. It's not possible for me to do the entire job. I think it's very appropriate to ask me, as a vegetable producer, for example, some of the questions about what I do and it's a fair game for me to have some responses to that. That's one of the roles I have on environmental and especially pesticide issues, as many of the committee members are aware of. But I can only deal with the aspects of what I do on my farm.
We're shipping cabbage right now, last year's cabbage crop. Some of it's going to retail outlets, some of it's going to Swiss Chalet, some of it's going to further processors. All I know is where the product went when it left my farm. I have no idea where it tracks from there.
.1645
So I think this is something, as we move into this, that again goes back to the predictability. If we know there's a requirement to do something, then we set up a framework up to see whether we can deal with it or if we have to, how we deal with it. But I can only respond to the point where a product leaves my farming operation.
Mr. Kehrig: I would like to disagree to a certain extent with what Jack has said, that their consumers have a concern about biotechnology products. Certainly the surveys indicate the majority of consumers do not have a concern about biotechnology being part of their food products. Furthermore, the biotechnology products that have been labelled in a positive way, identifying them as biotechnology products, have experienced market success.
There is nothing in Canada preventing either positive or negative labelling on a voluntary basis. It comes down to a question of why we are labelling. We are labelling for food safety. If there is no food safety aspect for biotechnology being part of the process or of the product consumed, there is no need to label it as a product of biotechnology unless it presents a food safety concern or is nutritionally different from a conventional or alternative product.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Guay): Thank you, gentlemen. We will now begin our second round. Mr. Steckle.
[English]
Mr. Steckle: The purpose for meeting in this way is to determine if you really believe there are things we ought to change. If everything is working, then we ought not to fix it. If there is something wrong with the system, if we're failing in our labelling process and we ought to improve that, then I would ask you to tell us that.
If we're doing that right, if we have international labelling standards we can all agree to... We know there are fruit products from California that are perhaps sprayed with chemicals we can't use here, but we buy the product from there. It simply says it's a product of the U.S.A. People buy these products and in fact many of them prefer to buy them.
Labelling in itself doesn't solve anything. We know tobacco products aren't good. I know we have people perhaps in this room that use tobacco products. In fact, I'm quite sure they do, but I'm also quite sure they understand the ramifications of using those products. But they're well labelled. So that doesn't solve the problem.
I've talked about the moral address we have to think about because there are issues and I'm going to name just one. A cow has already been developed that can produce milk identical to human milk for mothers who can't lactate. Now, we'll never have a lot of those cows. I'm sure most people wouldn't believe there's such a creature, but there is such a creature. Yet, I'm sure we wouldn't question that because if we needed that milk, we'd buy that milk. I'm not sure we would need it labelled.
So we do all kinds of things. There are a number of other instances I could cite that are pretty way out and we're going to see more and more of that. But people are always going to ask whether it is morally right for us to do that, to enter into that whole element of science.
How do we deal with that as a government? Do we allow it? Do we not allow it? Do we not get involved? How do we deal with that issue? It's a big subject.
Mr. Wilson: I guess some of the skepticism about the process we bring as farmers is that we do allow a lot of what I would almost call - and what we refer to in our brief - negative labelling. I love cholesterol-free potato chips because there's no way on God's green earth you can have cholesterol in potato chips. But someone has decided in a moral sense it's a marketing advantage to identify potato chips as cholesterol-free.
We see this time and time again. When we had the alar scare, what was the best thing people could do? Our Coca-Cola is alar-free. These are some of the things we have to deal with if we're going to talk about information, as Jack stated, that someone who is interested enough to take the time to at least read can glean from. Quite often we see the nutritional labelling. We haven't got our act together in a Canadian sense on nutritional labelling yet. So where does this start?
I would argue that maybe if we're talking labelling, it should be as part of a bigger process of getting our labelling act together, as it were, as a nation. We have a lot of our bugaboos we have to question as well.
.1650
Dr. Babiuk: I'd like to add a little to that comment. Again, I think we could support positive labelling on this milk that is specially for a niche market because there would be a market for it. Mothers would want to be able identify this milk. Ninety-nine percent of the people couldn't care less and would never pay for it. There probably is a premium on it. So why would they pay that premium unless they actually needed it.
That's positive labelling. But again, as Jeff said, on chlorestoral-free potatoes, if it doesn't have anything - you can always do negative labelling as well, but that's not what we support. In these specific niche markets it may actually be an advantage so these children could have the nutrition they want.
When you talk about the moral issue, that's something each and every one of us is going to have to make a decision on by himself. If this child actually needs that milk in order to survive - and again this is moving a little further - we have a choice of whether it's better to let the child die or feed it with milk that has come from a genetically engineered cow.
We have the same moral issues about using animals for research purposes. It's your decision whether you have a heart transplant or not. If you don't, you know the consequences. To me the consequences of having one are better than the alternative. That only happened because of using animals in research. I know this is a bit of a digression, but we're talking about moral issues and those are things we as a society have to decide.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Guay): Thank you Mr. Steckle. Mr. Adams, please.
Mr. Adams: Thank you, madam Chair.
[English]
What do you say to the people who say to us that Agriculture Canada has a conflict of interest in regulating these things when it's developed these new crops, whatever, and it's regulating something that it is in fact selling or promoting?
Dr. Babiuk: I look at it as obviously we've had, as one of our members from Agriculture Canada said, 100 years of experience in regulating. There are two completely different sections, one that does the research and one that regulates. One could say any research done by the government has been regulated by the government as well. So you get yourself into an argument you can't get out of. I think we can just go on the past record. The regulatory section is a different section of Agriculture Canada than the research section. I don't think there is a conflict of interest there.
Mr. Adams: Are there any the examples in the 100 years of them making mistakes, for example, in the introduction of new types of wheat or something like this where they've promoted the wrong one or have missed one?
Mr. Wilkinson: No.
Dr. Babiuk: We all make mistakes somewhere along the line. Even if you have the most fantastic regulatory system, sometimes you're going to make a mistake. You said no when it should have been yes, for a positive one as well. I don't know. Maybe our Agriculture Canada representative can say where there was a mistake. I'm not familiar with any of them that just pop out.
Mr. Adams: None comes to mind.
Dr. Babiuk: None right off the bat, but I don't want to emphatically say no because then somebody might dig one up somewhere and say yes.
Mr. Adams: I'm not trying to catch you out in it, but again it's something you said to this committee and I'd like you to talk to it.
Mr. Wilson: This came up under the whole pesticide issue as well, that supposedly Agriculture Canada serves a constituency. Remember it's Agri-Food Canada as well now. At that time their constituency was the farmers and therefore what the farmers wanted it was Agriculture Canada's role to get. One could argue though that we had a pesticide system that wasn't responsive to the farmers' needs. If it was housed within Agriculture Canada and we weren't satisfied, then how does one go about saying they're there solely to serve our interests?
I've always dismissed the fact that specific ministries have very narrow specific constituents. One could argue whether the federal environment ministry is only there to serve environmentalists. I would argue every ministry is there to serve us all. It's almost as though the same people who come up with the great ideas within Agriculture Canada or any other ministry are the same ones who are on the firing line for promotion. I would argue that quite often they're dealt with in isolation within the department. We've been quite comfortable, but the successes and frustrations with any ministry in the end tend to balance out for all of us as Canadians.
.1655
Mr. Wilkinson: I think the one thing we have to keep in mind is that these are government regulations. These are not Ag Canada regulations. They're not any mainline department's regulations or Health Canada's. They are government regulations. Anybody who's inspecting and servicing those is responsible to that framework, to the government in general. Even though questions are raised about it, I think they're unfounded, and one would have to search very hard in any of the departments before you see that kind of breakdown in our system.
I think it's very good and very honest and straightforward and it tried very hard to serve the regulatory framework versus the constituency and not bow to pressure in those areas.
Mr. Kehrig: There may well be examples. Perhaps this is another question you could bring to the officials of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada. There may be research projects that have taken place on the research side of the department that did not make it through the regulatory process within that department.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Guay): Madam Payne.
Mrs. Payne: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to ask a very basic question and I hope you'll forgive my ignorance. I am a woman, but I'm not a mother. I'd like to know why we need a cow that can produce mother's milk.
Dr. Babiuk: Again, the reason is that there are certain proteins in cow's milk that are not identical to human milk. As a result of that, the child cannot digest as well and cannot get the appropriate nutrients out of them.
Mrs. Payne: Do we not have a product that can be used in that case?
Dr. Babiuk: The products would be milk substitutes like Soyalac. Of course, some children are allergic to soya, so they cannot use that. They need to have milk.
Mrs. Payne: I'll ask you again. Is there not another product that's available to replace Soyalac?
Dr. Babiuk: Not that I'm aware of.
Mrs. Payne: I would like to take it a step further. I do know of a child who has the allergy that you refer to and I do know of a product - and I'm sorry I can't tell you the name - that is available.
Dr. Babiuk: As I said, I don't know. My children are 20 years old, so it's been a long time since I've had to feed them with Soyalac. If there is a product, great.
Mr. Wilkinson: Just for the record, we didn't bring the example up. We're not proponents of it. I'm just saying that we're not experts on this particular topic and we never pretended to be.
Mrs. Payne: I just asked the question to demonstrate whether the kind of biotechnology that we're doing is always necessary.
Mr. Kehrig: Perhaps there is an alternative product for this for or other biotechnology products that enter the marketplace, but this is not a medical panel.
Mrs. Payne: Thank you.
Mr. Wilson: To use a different example, let's talk about the Bt gene in potatoes. I'm a potato grower. Bt is bacillus thurogenisis and I use that as one of the tools to manage Colorado potato beetles on my potato crops now. So what am I really gaining - if I'm gaining anything - by having the gene structure of Bt inherent in the potatoes that I plant?
On our farm we follow an integrated pest management process that is one of analysis, scouting and observation. Even with that I still only hit roughly the 90th percentile, so that does translate into some reduction of yield, some reduction of potential and some build-up of the pest for the following years on other fields.
So it's not the be-all and end-all, and it's not going to end the dilemma I face with the Colorado potato beetle, but it becomes one additional tool I can utilize to better manage the pest problems I face. But I've never looked at the Bt potato as the salvation, as it were. I've never looked at it as being the potato I can just plant, go away from, and literally not manage for the life of the crop.
All of these crops - and again, I'm assuming an animal analogy - still require a high degree of management. But I'm going to gain somewhat of an advantage in terms of yield and in terms of productivity. One could argue on the assumption that if I'm only gaining a 90th percentile control, it means I'm not hitting the market in either timing or product application. If that means I'm not fully utilizing the product I'm applying, one could argue that I'm creating an environmental impact as well by not fully utilizing the product.
Mrs. Payne: But at least there's a purpose for it.
.1700
Mr. Wilson: Yes. But again, one could draw an analogy with your original argument. Why are we doing this if you have Bt and you have potatoes?
Mrs. Payne: We have the potatoes.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Guay): Thank you, Ms Payne.
Ms Payne, if I may, I would like to answer your question, because I'm a woman and I have children, including a daughter who has an allergy. The allergy is caused by the lactose present in milk and, as a replacement, I can give her soya milk. As for natural products, today there is an additive available that can be added to the child's daily natural milk intake. This additive is completely harmless and resolves the lactose problem. We can still get around the problem today.
I have one final question for you, gentlemen. You referred earlier to international regulations. I would like to know if you have any information on labelling. Are there other countries that have specific label regulations? Could we use them for guidance or should we be playing a leadership role? I would like to hear what you have to say on the matter.
[English]
Mr. Wilson: My understanding is that last week in Ottawa discussions were being held on this whole international labelling issue.
Actually, my comments came from what I picked up off the Internet. I guess the purpose and the point is that there was a perception in the Internet article that Canada's sitting on the fence, that Canada is not leaning either way. A rationale was given that you can agree with or not agree with. I had a problem agreeing with it. I like to see definitive positions.
But conversely, there has to be an international agreement. I don't see how we can have half. As this world gets more narrow in terms of trade, how we can have some countries saying they want a strict regime of labelling and others saying they don't? Ultimately, what's the motivation behind it?
In a trade context we're very sensitive. We have deregulated the tariff structures. The potential for non-tariff barriers is always there and we have to be very vigilant internationally that we don't create barriers in order to just basically replace tariff structures that we've agreed internationally through GATT we're better off without.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Guay): Are you telling me that this does not exist in other countries?
[English]
Mr. Wilkinson: No. There are regulations as to what can constitute a trade barrier due to labelling. There are regulations to that effect that require it to be scientifically based. For example, there are discussions as to what an international standard for eco-labelling should be. Some advocate that eco-labelling deal with a host of concerns, from production and processing methodologies to things like biotechnology and others.
There have been discussions with OECD on that. There is also a committee working within GATT to look at the labelling issue as to what should be on from an international standard point of view and what should not constitute a legal requirement.
Obviously, under a voluntary method governments or groups in any country can put additional information on a label if they choose, but the labels then cannot be used against you from a trade barrier point of view. To the best of my knowledge, there are no conclusions as of yet on what has been agreed upon internationally. They're in the process of meeting and talking and trying to determine the extent of the labelling question.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chair (Ms Guay): Thank you very much, Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Kehrig and Mr. Babiuk, for appearing before our committee. I would also like to thank my colleagues.
This meeting is adjourned.