[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 28, 1996
.0849 
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Order.
I apologize for arriving a bit late this morning. It seems as if cab drivers don't always show up when they should. I guess the next time I'll probably have to take a cab about half an hour earlier than normal.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we will begin consideration of the topic of biotechnology. With your permission, we will have our researcher go through a document called ``Biotechnology Study: Framework and Objectives''. I think it's been passed out to all of the members.
Mr. Thomas Curran (Committee Researcher): I believe all the members have a copy of this document. It was passed out this morning. Perhaps you had a chance to read it even earlier.
This is, in a sense, a working document that is still under development, but the clerk and the chair, Mr. Caccia, and I sat down last week and discussed some 12 points that comprise the committee's biotechnology study. We can go through this point by point, if the members think that would be useful. Actually, it is a direct request from Mr. Caccia that the committee look at this document and make any comments as necessary.
.0850
I could point out that this is an evolving approach, or document, if you will, in that none of these points are actually fixed in granite at this stage. More points can be added at a later date if the members wish.
You also have in your possession the new schedule, dated May 27, 1996, for the committee's activities, perhaps up to June 20 if the House is sitting that long. The framework and objectives document ties in with the meetings you see on the schedule. We have slated a number of witnesses from departments and from non-governmental organizations and associations to appear to present testimony.
At the meeting with the chair and the clerk we divided the twelve issues into primary issues and subsidiary issues. I want to emphasize the designation ``subsidiary issues'' does not mean these are unimportant issues or in fact really any less important. We tried to give some sort of priority to the various points.
The first point - and in fact we end up diverging a bit from this point later on in the document - is that the principal mandate of the standing committee concerns the protection and conservation of Canada's environment and by extension of human health. Therefore the biotechnology study generally will be framed within this context.
In the second point we build on a comment by the Canadian Environmental Law Association in a brief to the minister in response to the government's response, if you will, in which they suggest that some statutes, including the Seeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, and the Feeds Act, under which it is proposed that the products of biotechnology will be regulated, ``contain no clear legislative authority for the evaluation of such products from an environmental or human-health perspective''. CELA expresses the concern that this situation might leave significant portions of the government's proposed regulatory framework vulnerable to legal challenge. The association also states that the proposal to establish biotech regulations under statutes that provide no explicit authority for environmental and human health evaluations ``amounts to a form of legislative amendment through regulation''.
The committee's study will attempt to resolve the question of whether the acts cited above are appropriate and adequately protect the safety of the environment and human health. If the acts are deemed not to be adequate for that purpose, then this conclusion might contradict the current government policy, by which we are referring to the 1993 regulatory framework. Consideration could be given to recommending appropriate amendments to the legislation.
Perhaps I'll stop after each point and the members can make any comments they wish to make on the points as we're going through.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): One thing I eliminated at the beginning of this meeting, for which I apologize, was to introduce myself. Most of the people around the table know I am Jean Payne, vice-chair of the committee.
I would like to ask if there are any comments on what has been discussed or read so far. Does anybody on the government side have any questions or comments?
Mr. Curran: The clerk informs us we have about five minutes to finish our discussion of these points. If upon reflection any of the members have questions or issues they wish to raise they can contact the clerk, who can pass the comments along to me. We can make any amendments to the framework as necessary.
The third point the committee is interested in is that inasmuch as the committee is concerned about the effectiveness of all relevant legislation and regulations on biotechnology, we will be calling witnesses to look at the Food and Drugs Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the Health of Animals Act, and the Fisheries Act, all of which have some relevance to biotechnology regulation.
Fourth, both departmental and industrial spokespersons have stated that it is the products of biotechnology that should be regulated, not the processes. This assertion suggests the processes themselves are not or should not be regulated. The committee will attempt to determine if there are concerns that the various processes used to produce living and non-living products of biotechnology might pose a threat to the environment and human health and if such processes should be regulated. Our witnesses will be asked to comment on that point.
.0855
The fifth point is the issue of food labelling for novel foods created by gene transfer techniques, as one example. That has been raised on a number of occasions. The jurisdiction over food labelling rests with Agriculture Canada and Health Canada. There is a mistake in this brief. The food labelling issue is really shared between the two departments.
Technically, food labelling is beyond the mandate of this committee. However, the issue is important and the members of the committee have expressed a strong interest in the matter, so we will be calling witnesses to discuss that aspect.
One important issue for the committee to consider is whether there is an effective system in place to identify and track transgenic species that enter the Canadian food system and to ensure that potentially antigenic proteins, for example from nuts - and the Brazil nut example has been cited on a number of occasions - produced in, for example, legumes, in this case soy beans, are appropriately identified for purposes of consumer safety.
The sixth point is given that there is a great variety of products of biotechnology and that a number of federal acts administered by several departments apply to these products, the question arises about whether there is an appropriate level of consistency in the standards of notification and assessment of those products. This approach leads logically to the question of existing interdepartmental liaison and cooperation in this area, which will have an impact on the consistency, stringency and effectiveness of regulations.
On the seventh point, some industry groups, for example the Crop Protection Institute of Canada, suggest that regulatory oversight through guidelines is the most effective way to administer regulatory requirements for biotech products. The rationale for this suggestion is that the technology is advancing rapidly and guidelines, as opposed to regulations, will best serve the flexibility required to deal with future notification and assessment needs.
I'll go through the subsidiary issues very quickly.
Point eight is the question of public participation in regulatory decision-making.
Point nine, the question has been raised by CELA and others as to whether the public should be permitted to file notices of objection to the approval of import, manufacture, use, sale, export or release into the environment of products of biotechnology.
Point ten, the committee will consider the question of to what extent the public should be allowed access to information on products of biotechnology, keeping in mind the industry's need for confidentiality of data.
Point eleven deals with a database of environmental releases of products of biotechnology.
Point twelve, the government's proposal for a renewed CEPA, which was presented as a response to the committee's review of CEPA, suggests that cost recovery should be implemented by a government for processing applications for permits for regulated biotechnology activities, for issuing permits and for monitoring of environmental effects of activities authorized under permits. The question to be asked is whether cost recovery for government activities should be a feature of all legislation pertaining to products of biotechnology.
Those are the twelve points. We don't really have time this morning to discuss them. If members have comments they wish to make or additional points they would wish to add to this framework document, I would suggest they contact the clerk and make that representation.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much. You are very good at following orders.
Mr. Curran: Yes.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): I'd be glad to pursue this later on, since I may have missed something at the very beginning, but is the outcome of this study a report, and if so, when, roughly? Or is there some other outcome that we might consider?
Mr. Curran: From meeting with the chair, we're not sure there will be a report.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): I spoke with the chair and he indicated to me that the committee will determine whether there's a need for a report or a set of recommendations when they have finished the review. It's likely, given the schedule we're looking at, that it will come in September.
Mr. Adams: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.
We have before us our witnesses: Mark Winfield, research director of the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy; Audrey Barron, director of Canadian Organic Growers; Maureen Press-Merkur, director of Women and Environments Education and Development Foundation; and Cathy Wilkinson, director of the Canadian Environmental Network.
.0900
I welcome all of you. I will start with Mr. Winfield's presentation. The others will then continue in the order in which they were introduced.
Mr. Winfield.
Mr. Mark Winfield (Director of Research, Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy): Thank you, Madam Chair.
My name is Mark Winfield, and I'm director of research for the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy. I'm also chair of the biotechnology caucus of the Canadian Environmental Network.
I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to raise these issues. It's a much-needed airing of these issues around biotechnology and environmental regulation.
Today I've asked Cathy Wilkinson to begin our presentation with a brief presentation on the work of the caucus in the areas in which it's been involved. That will be followed by a presentation by Maureen Press-Merkur on an overview of the environmental concerns around biotechnology applications, and also an overview of some of the evidence regarding public opinion survey research that exists around public attitudes towards biotechnology.
Ms Barron will provide an overview of the issues related to biotechnology and agriculture, particularly from the perspective of organic growers. I will finish up with some comments on the government's legislative proposals around biotechnology under CEPA, contained in the December 1995 government response to the June 1995 report of the committee on CEPA.
Before we start I just want to review a number of documents we've distributed to the committee. I just want to make sure everyone has them. We've distributed copies of a larger brief entitled ``For Whose Future?'', which has been developed by the biotechnology caucus of the CEN in response to the government response to the standing committee's report. It is endorsed by 89 organizations from across Canada from a very wide range of backgrounds. It's available in English and French.
I've also provided copies of a smaller document entitled ``It's Still About Our Health''. This is on the broader CEPA review prepared by the toxics caucus of the CEN. Again, this is available in English and French.
In addition, we have provided copies of a book written by the institute entitled The Citizen's Guide to Biotechnology. I regret that this isn't available in both official languages. We are seeking funds for a translation into French, but we haven't been able to do it yet.
We have also included copies of a short fax sheet developed by the caucus on biotechnology and environmental issues, entitled ``Biotechnology: Forging Ahead in Secret, in Haste and for Profit''. Again, I regret that it's only available in English.
We have also distributed copies of a short brief by Dr. Rod MacRae, research coordinator with the Toronto Food Policy Council. He would like to have been able to join us today, but he was unable to do so. He's written a short paper on biotechnology and sustainable agriculture.
In addition, we're going to file with the clerk for the record three additional documents. The first one is a document entitled ``Enabling Biotechnology''. It was prepared by the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy for the Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade in January of 1995. It contains an overview of environmental, health, social and ethical issues around biotechnology. It includes a number of papers commissioned as part of this study on biotechnology from the perspectives of consumers, animal welfare, sustainable agriculture and the status of women. It also contains statements from a variety of organizations on biotechnology. I'll file that with the clerk.
As well, I'd like to file one copy of a document, again for background, prepared by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the United States. It's entitled Perils Amidst the Promise: Ecological Risks of Transgenic Crops in a Global Market. It provides an overview of the environmental issues around transgenic crops.
Finally, we'll provide you with copies of the briefs of the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy and the Canadian Environmental Law Association regarding the government response to the CEPA review.
.0905
I'm going to ask Ms Wilkinson if she can provide some comments on the work of the Biotechnology Caucus at the CEN to begin our formal presentation.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you.
Ms Wilkinson.
[Translation]
Ms Cathy Wilkinson (Caucus and Consultation Coordinator, Canadian Environmental Network): Good morning. My name is Cathy Wilkinson. I am the caucus and consultation coordinator at the Canadian Environmental Network. The Network represents some1,400 ecological groups in Canada. At the national level, the CEN has 16 caucuses working on environmental issues such as toxic substances, environmental assessment, mines and biotechnology.
The Biothechnology Caucus has been in existence since 1992. It comprises 100 ecological groups from every province and territory in Canada. These groups work at the local, regional, national and international levels. The Caucus spent four years participating in a multi-stakeholder process to establish biotechnology product regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The Caucus members are also monitoring the review of CEPA.
In March, 90 ecological groups composed of farmers and consumers ratified the recommendations prepared by the Caucus on a government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Mr. Winfield will be discussing these recommendations a little later on this morning.
The Caucus members are also looking into the issue of labelling genetically-engineered foods. In 1994, the Caucus participated in an Agricultural Canada Workshop on labelling. Last year, Caucus members commented on Agriculture Canada's Draft Guidelines on Labelling.
Unfortunately, these guidelines did not require the labelling of biotechnology products. The guidelines suggest, instead, that labelling be done on a voluntary basis. Several members of the caucus feel that labelling is essential in order to make it possible for Canadians to make an informed choice when selecting their foodstuffs.
At the international level, the Caucus members are following the negotiations on the proposed biosecurity protocol which will deal with the cross-border transportation of biotech products. The proposed protocol will come under the aegis of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity.
The Biotechnology Caucus is one of the most diverse and active caucuses of the Canadian Environmental Network. It is prepared to continue working with the committee, the department and the Minister on important issues. Thank you.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you, Ms Wilkinson.
Ms Press.
Ms Maureen Press-Merkur (Director, Women and Environments Education and Development Foundation): Good morning. I would like to thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to address the issue of biotechnology provisions in CEPA.
I am speaking today as a member of the Women's Network on Health and the Environment, a project of the WEED Foundation. The women's network is a non-profit, non-governmental organization established in 1994 under the Great Lakes health effects program, and it drew women from all around Ontario to discuss health and environmental issues. Since that time, WNHE has become part of a growing worldwide movement that is examining pollution prevention as the most overlooked key to health.
WNHE's goals are to promote understanding about the links between health and the state of the environment; to disseminate information about health problems that are caused or worsened by contaminants in our environment; to build public awareness and support for green industries and processes, organic agriculture, and safe renewable energy sources; and to promote environmental issues as social justice issues. Through our newsletter connections, over 1,200 individuals and groups across Canada and the U.S. are kept informed about the latest research and news.
I would like to begin by briefly outlining the critical difference between traditional biotechnology, which has been used as an agricultural practice for thousands of years, and genetic engineering, which is a specific kind of biotechnology and which has become possible only since the 1970s.
Traditional biotechnology is simply the common practice of using any living organism to produce something. The oldest example, still in use today obviously, is using yeast to produce beer or wine or cheese. Backyard gardeners who graft one kind of rose onto another to produce a unique plant are using biotechnology.
Genetic engineering, however, is fundamentally different. Here DNA, which is the basic building-block of all life, is altered by using genetic material from one species and inserting or splicing it into another; for example, taking genetic material from a fish and inserting it into a pea plant.
.0910
By doing this, scientists have been able to add very specific characteristics to plants, animals, and micro-organisms which result in genetic combinations that otherwise would not occur in nature. This is a critically different practice from that of breeding a desired food or crop from the best characteristics naturally available within a species. The species barrier has now been broken and we are in the process of creating organisms, plants, and animals that are unknown in the natural world.
Biotechnology products used in agriculture, mining, waste water treatment, forestry, fisheries, and other industries present a number of special environmental and health risks that distinguish them from traditional biotechnologies. Two major areas of concern have been identified.
Many biotechnology products include life forms that can reproduce. Once released into the environment they can spread as well as mutate and transfer their genetic material. The control of biotechnology products and their genetic material once in the environment will be difficult, if not impossible.
The technologies employed in the development of biotechnology products have emerged only over the last twenty years. Evaluating these products for possible environmental damage, therefore, is tremendously difficult. The scientific literature reflects wide concerns regarding the lack of adequate methods to assess the environmental and health effects of the products of biotechnology properly.
Methods for predicting the consequences of this deliberate introduction of new life forms are still under development. The potential risks associated with biotechnology products have been described by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as low in probability but high in consequence. Something may not go wrong, and if it does go wrong it may just be very slight, but the ecological consequences may be devastating and irreversible.
In general, the environmental risks associated with the release of biotech products are predicted on past experiences with what are called ``exotic species''; that is, species from one part of the world that have been brought to another part and have no natural controls or predators in their new environment, such as sparrows in Canada, rabbits in Australia, the kudzu plant in the southern U.S. These species can proliferate in an uncontrolled manner and upset or in some cases entirely destroy a natural ecosystem.
Specific risks have been identified in relation to biotech products or the products of genetic engineering. These include the creation of new pests - for example, if you have a salt-tolerant rice created and it escapes from the fields - the enhanced effects of existing pests or the creation of new pests - for example, herbicide tolerance spreading from a domestic crop to what is called a ``weed'', easily done from canola to its near cousin rapeseed - enhanced effects of existing pests - for example, some 55 species of weeds in the United States are now completely tolerant to the effects of the pesticide group triazine in the U.S., and this effect could well be worsened by herbicide-tolerant crops - harm to non-target species, including humans, including effectivity, toxicity, and pathogenicity; adverse and irreversible consequences to existing biodiversity, resulting in the elimination of desirable natural species; adverse effects on ecosystem processes - for example, genetically engineered trees that are engineered to grow more quickly may totally drain nutrients from the soil; and finally, the incomplete breakdown of hazardous chemicals by micro-organisms used in bio-remediation, leading to the production of perhaps even more toxic by-products. These possible consequences demand careful consideration before any genetically engineered organism is released into the environment.
There is amazingly high agreement among Canadians on the issue of biotechnology and the importance of a healthy environment in general. In two recent national polls conducted last year by the Angus Reid Group and by Ekos Research, Canadians placed environmental concerns as second in importance among the top three items. In the general population the Ekos survey found Canadians ranked freedom as being the most important, followed by the ecology, a clean environment, as they said, and a healthy population. The Angus Reid poll showed environmental issues as second in concern to Canadians, following only the economy.
More importantly, the Angus Reid poll showed Canadians are becoming more concerned about the impact of environmental contamination on their health. In the words of John Wright, who is the senior vice-president for public affairs at Angus Reid, this may be the key to the next phase of the environmental debate.
.0915
In fact, biotechnology practices that may result in more frequent use of herbicides or may cause farmers to switch to older, more toxic herbicides are of particular concern to women in this country. Currently, there are no criteria under the act for any substance to be tested for its estrogenicity; that is, its ability to mimic the hormone estrogen in the body. This impacts on males as well as on females.
Many such substances commonly used in industry and agriculture are being linked to damage in the endocrine - that is, the hormonal - system and the immune systems, giving rise to an increasing number of cancers in the breast and testicular and prostate cancers. Fertility among both men and women has fallen by 50% since World War II, when these substances came into widespread use, and many scientists, researchers, and ordinary Canadians are now alarmed at the devastating impact these chemicals have on ourselves and our wildlife.
People are cautious about practices such as genetic engineering, which would entrench the use of chemicals in agriculture or, in the case of herbicide-tolerant crops, increase the amounts of chemical residues in our diets.
In the past two years I have spoken with dozens of people from across the country and the United States, from the very well educated, holding PhDs in such disciplines as epidemiology, toxicology, and my all-time personal favourite, psychoneuroendocrinology, to nurses, farmers, housewives, and mothers. All are increasingly concerned about the impact of biotechnology on our health and the health of our children.
I must stress that this is not because of a lack of information or knowledge. Many people have taken the time to read journals and educate themselves, or they have an appropriate background to understand these issues. It seems as if the more information people have, the more frightened they are about the risks associated with biotechnology.
An Optima survey published in November 1994, for example, gives a very strong indication of how Canadians feel about biotechnology and biotechnology products. Some 42% of all those interviewed felt that science and technology have made the world a riskier place in which to live. Further, 41% felt that Canadians should not accept any risk from any biotechnology product, even if it strengthened the economy.
There was unprecedented agreement among Canadians concerning the issue of labelling: 96% want milk containing rBGH or BST labelled and 94% want genetically engineered tomatoes labelled. They are equally emphatic about the role they wish the federal government to play. Only 37% of respondents indicated they want the government to support research in companies financially. Even fewer, some 33%, indicated they want the government to develop biotech products for commercial use. However, an overwhelming 87% of those interviewed stated that they wanted the government to protect the safety of workers and to determine the safety of products.
Interestingly enough, some 75% of respondents stated that they wanted the government to be involved in the ethical aspects of biotechnology. This unusually high consensus strongly suggests that Canadians want to stop and think about the need, efficacy, safety, and implications of biotechnology before proceeding to full commercialization.
Finally, I would like to touch briefly on what I see as being one of the most fundamental issues in biotechnology. A colleague of mine, Rod MacRae, whose brief you hold, has remarked that biotechnology offers technological solutions to problems created by technology in the first place. In effect, biotechnological innovations simply keep us running on a treadmill whose speed is ever increasing.
Biotechnology in many cases seeks to treat symptoms but not resolve the underlying causes. Herbicide-tolerant crops, for example, do nothing to decrease the amounts of chemicals in our air, soil, ground water, or diets. In this case, it's monoculture, the practice of planting the same crop year after year in the same place, that guarantees that weeds will become firmly established.
In 1945, when farmers rotated their crops and planted a variety of crops, only 3% of crops were lost to pests. Now farmers can expect to lose some 12% of their crops. The number has quadrupled. Clearly, adding more chemicals, or different chemicals, or more chemicals differently is not going to solve the problem. The same holds true for genetically engineered trees and fish that will mature more quickly.
The problem is not with the wildlife, but with the way in which we insist on harvesting these valuable natural resources. Decimating our existing oceans and forests and replacing them with genetically uniform plants and animals that are completely dependent on intensive use of chemicals and nutrients doesn't solve the problem of increasing contaminants or unsustainable practices.
As with the philosophy of pollution prevention rather than waste treatment, so CEPA should seek truly sustainable practices. We should not allow or encourage a technology that will only increase our present problems.
.0920
Somewhere between the enthusiasm of industry and the nightmare vision of genetic engineering portrayed in Jurassic Park lies the reality of biotechnology. Once we have created a new micro-organism, plant or animal, we may not be able to contain it or control it. We should and must proceed carefully.
Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you. Ms Barron.
Ms Audrey Barron (Director, Canadian Organic Growers): Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen, I also thank you for the opportunity to present for your consideration the views of the Canadian Organic Growers. I have belonged to the Canadian Organic Growers for 20 years, since its inception. I have been a member of the Soil Association for over 30 years and a member of the Genetic Forum for the last three years.
The Canadian Organic Growers' aims and objectives are to conduct research into alternatives to traditional chemical practices and to give support by providing the resource space and forum to bolster local marketing systems and promote greater regional food self-reliance, and to assist through education and demonstration a better understanding of the value and integrity of organic food. We see the trend in Agriculture Canada to encouraging an industrial-type farming and processing food system. The more we investigate and learn, the more certain we are it's the wrong trend for the future, the health of the population, the environment and wildlife.
Now, with so much acceptance of genetic engineering of crops, animals and processing, we see a threat to the public confidence in our organic products by the use of this revolutionary technology that we feel is being thrust upon us. We think labelling should be comprehensive and mandatory, allowing consumers to make a choice, as it should be in any democratic society.
As growers and consumers of organic food we feel we live close to the earth, so perhaps are more conscious of the changes happening around us. It seems today that science and technology is imbued with almost mystical authority in our culture, using words such as ``progress'', ``competitiveness'' and ``famine'', yet we feel it will be the organic ecological growers who will save the food base if the rigours of genetically narrow-based monoculture biotechnology takes hold and fails.
The difference in the approach to food is that industrial farming is a means to make money, which is good for a few - the object being the bottom line. The farmer grower is the lowest common denominator. Farmers who use genetically engineered technology are becoming tenders of genes they do not control the way they could have in the past. They will pay more for patented seeds and for extra help besides, which they will eventually have to use. It is genetic power with corporate power controlling farmers' markets and dictating prices.
The organic grower has complete control except for government regulations on some limits of quantities. He aims to produce a product free of any contaminants and to make a modest living. Organic growers would like to feel they can keep the freedom to choose, to recycle their seeds and to sell them. They do not have to pay patent fees, nor are they forced to use a herbicide. They've proven that little is a healthier lifestyle, not ingesting or having to cope with the hazards of pesticides - if you see the recent reports on the health of male farmers relating to manufactured chemicals.
As organic is labour intensive, of course more people are employed. The concept behind organic sustainable agriculture, as stated by the Elm Farm Research Station in the U.K., is that the health of soil, plant, animal and man is one and indivisible. A vital, healthy soil is fundamental to sustainable agriculture.
Organic agriculture is a production system that supports natural cycles and does not replace or destroy through inappropriate technology developments. Genetically modified organisms would be a rejection of the most fundamental reasons for the existence of organic farming. The threat of an accidental invasion from GMOs could jeopardize the whole concept. Once released, GMOs cannot be recalled. There is no fail-safe mechanism. Because of this, organic farming is at risk. If something goes awry in the organic farming, the concept allows for destruction before any real damage is done.
.0925
Organic growers also consider the preservation of seed of vital importance. As Pat Mooney has said, these new varieties of seed will displace existing varieties, which could more than ever narrow the crop genetic base.
An FAO study published in April 1996 gave a warning that a large-scale loss of plant genes gives reason for major concern. The report sets out a plan of action that draws attention to how small-scale farmers can conserve seeds as some gene banks are rapidly deteriorating. The spread of modern commercial agriculture and the introduction of new varieties of crops has been the main cause of the loss of genetic diversity. How can this plan be accomplished if seeds are patented and not labelled as genetically engineered?
Industry and government regulators believe science should be the basis for decisions made on whether a product should be labelled or not on these products of genetic engineering or genetically modified organisms because only they can decide if a food is safe. We can quote many cases where what was once considered safe is now proven to be a wrong decision. But the problem with all these debates is they always leave out the social problems and ethics.
The assistant deputy minister of health said in his opening address at the Codex conference this month the label allows the consumer to make an informed choice, and the content and manner in which it is presented will obviously influence that choice. How can we make a choice if industries do not label and indicate that their products have been genetically engineered or modified? If they are as proud of their products as they say, why the reluctance to label? Though it may appear to be a complex issue, all kosher food is labelled and there appears to be no problem.
It is with apprehension that we find some products are already on the market, mixed in with traditional products, for example the New Leaf potatoes. Agriculture Canada judges these genetically engineered potatoes to be substantially equivalent to normal potatoes, therefore there is no need to label. It is precisely this invisibility that lies behind the public perception that companies, perhaps with the collusion of governments, are trying to put something over us, and that is leading the public to demand labelling. It seems to be the only way to regain some measure of individual control over what we eat.
Seeds are of the first importance. If we cannot buy organic seeds we cannot grow organically. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements insists that genetically engineered seeds are not allowed. Labelling is important, because we must know what we are buying because of the certification standards. We see no reason seeds cannot be labelled.
The risk of invasion appears to be greater than thought, as seen from recent reports from Scotland and Denmark. Transplanted genes may also be released from the checks imposed by the original host, recombining to form newly virulent organisms, which could attack other species.
Because this technology is so far advanced, the grower and consumer must have a choice, the right to know what is in their food. Labelling is vital to many people, not only to consumers with allergies or religious views. Surely a country that can produce the Canadarm can come up with a system for labelling.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.
Mr. Winfield, I think you wanted to summarize.
Mr. Winfield: Actually, I'm going to focus my remarks specifically on the government's December 1995 proposals for the regulation of biotechnology under CEPA, contained in the document Environmental Protection Legislation Designed for the Future. I'm going to be basing most of my remarks on the contents of the document entitled For Whose Future?, which you have. The content of my remarks also reflects the submission of the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy on this issue.
The government's proposals have caused us serious concern. Indeed, we regard them as a serious step backwards from the existing provisions of CEPA on biotechnology. In our view the government's proposals would weaken the protection of Canadians' health and environment from the products of biotechnology in comparison to what is provided by the existing act.
.0930
We are deeply concerned and alarmed as well by some of the preceding comments in the government's response regarding biotechnology, in particular the fact that it appears to place the promotion of innovation, the encouragement of investment in biotechnology and gaining competitive advantage for the Canadian biotechnology industry ahead of the protection of human health and environmental quality in the government's approach to the regulation of biotechnology. Indeed you'll see the first recommendation contained in For Whose Future? says we believe the protection of human health and the environment should be the overriding priority in the government's regulation of biotechnology.
In our view, the government's proposals to amend CEPA would weaken the existing provisions of the act in three major ways. First, they would eliminate the existing requirement that all products of biotechnology undergo environmental and human health impact assessments before they are permitted to be imported to or manufactured or sold in Canada. The existing provisions require that everything undergo pre-manufacturing notification and assessment, either under CEPA or under another act.
Under the government's proposals, CEPA would only apply where there's no potential for a product to be regulated under another act. In other words, as long as there's a potential for a regulation to be made, CEPA wouldn't apply and in effect the product could potentially escape notification and assessment requirements.
Second, as we read the government's proposal, it would eliminate the existing minimum standards for the content of pre-manufacturing import or sale and for human health and environmental assessments of biotechnology products. The existing provisions of section 26.(3)(a) of CEPA are worded in such a way that they ensure there are certain minimum requirements on what's in the assessment of new products in terms of their potential environmental effects, their potential to pose danger or harm to human health and their potential to affect the environment on which human health and life depend. That, as we read the government's proposal, would be eliminated.
Third, we believe the government's proposal would significantly weaken the roles of Environment Canada and Health Canada in the regulation of biotechnology products and at the same time strengthen the role of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. This causes concern for a number of reasons.
First of all, many people are concerned that this would deepen the conflicts of interest already present in Agriculture Canada's role with respect to biotechnology. The department not only plays a major regulatory role but over the past decade has been a major promoter, developer and funder of agricultural applications of biotechnology. Many people regard this mixing of promotional and regulatory functions as a conflict of interest.
Secondly, serious questions have been raised by a number of legal scholars regarding the extent of the actual legislative authority provided by a number of the statutes under which Agriculture Canada presently proposes to regulate products of biotechnology, notably the Seeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, and the Feeds Act. It's important to note that none of these statutes make explicit reference to the conduct of human health or environmental evaluations. Indeed a review of the legislative record around these statutes indicates their primary intention was the prevention of fraud, not the conduct of human health or environmental evaluations. This raises questions about the possibility of a legal challenge.
Efforts to conduct human health or environmental evaluations under these acts seem to us at best to be an exercise in legislative amendment through regulation, which is a practice that has been frowned on by committees of Parliament and by many legal and constitutional scholars.
As an alternative to the government's proposals, we make a number of suggestions regarding the contents of a new biotechnology part of CEPA. These include provisions that would ensure that the part would apply to all products of biotechnology that may enter the environment and that the part would establish requirements for the assessment of biotechnology products in terms of their potential, immediate or long-term direct or indirect impacts on human life and health, the environment and biodiversity, including cumulative impacts. It would include provisions for the evaluation of the potential effectiveness of products for their intended purpose and require consideration of the availability of alternative means of achieving the intended purposes of products that may present lower potential harm for human health and the environment.
.0935
We would also like to see provisions that make provision for public participation in decision-making regarding products of biotechnology, including provisions for public notice of major decisions regarding biotechnology products, public notice of proposed field tests of biotechnology products, opportunities to appeal government decisions regarding biotechnology products, particularly the approval of field tests, and, finally, enhanced access to information regarding products of biotechnology.
We also believe that the new CEPA biotechnology part should establish a full-cost-recovery, user-pay system for approvals of products of biotechnology. It should provide authority to make regulations to implement international agreements regarding biotechnology to which Canada is a party, such as the proposed biosafety protocol under the convention on the conservation of biological diversity. Finally, we believe that provision should be made for the establishment of a database of environmental releases of products of biotechnology in Canada, similar to the national pollutant release inventory.
I'll close my comments there. We will welcome questions.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much, Mr. Winfield. A number of people are wanting to ask questions. There was lots of food for discussion there.
Mr. Asselin.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): In January 1993, nine federal departments were responsible for biotechnology, namely, Agriculture Canada, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Forestry Canada, Health and Welfare Canada, Industry, Science and Technology Canada, Labour Canada and Transport Canada. Are there so many departments involved today, in 1996?
Given that there is a great variety of products of biotechnology, and that a number of federal Acts administered by several departments apply to these products, the question arises about whether there is an appropriate level of consistency in the standards of notification and assessment of products of biotechnology. This approach leads logically to the question of existing interdepartmental liaison and cooperation in this area, which will have an impact on the consistency, stringency and effectiveness of regulations.
Can the witnesses comment generally on interdepartmental liaison and cooperation in the development of guidelines and regulations for the assessment of biotechnology products? Can the witnesses suggest how the situation can be improved?
[English]
Mr. Winfield: Yes. There are a number of questions there.
I think that one of the concerns in fact is that regulatory authority is spread among a number of agencies. One of the advantages with the existing provisions of CEPA, at least in theory, is that they provide a fairly firm benchmark standard that all of those different agencies have to meet.
The way the act works presently is that a product can be regulated under an act other than CEPA provided that the act makes provisions for premanufacturing notification and assessment and for an evaluation against the criteria for toxicity contained in CEPA. That benchmark standard in the present drafting of the act is essentially a legally binding standard, so it ensures a minimal level of consistency.
.0940
One of the things that concerns us greatly about the government's response is that it would effectively wipe out that common benchmark standard and essentially create something approaching a free-for-all among the departments. So you would probably lose consistency rather than gain it, and that's a serious concern. It's a concern from the viewpoint of environmental organizations and health organizations, because it means different standards and quality of assessment are applied in different departments. It should also be of concern to the industry, because it means the regulatory requirements are going to vary completely from product to product and department to department. There's going to be no consistency across the board.
We are also concerned in terms of relationships between the various departments. We understand there have been tensions from time to time. This partially goes back to my point about the issue of conflict of interest in that some departments understand their role largely in terms of being regulators. Other departments have multiple roles with respect to biotechnology.
Agriculture Canada again comes to mind as the obvious example. There are concerns that their enthusiasm for the technology on the whole may trench on the degree of stringency with which they approach the regulation of the products.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much, Mr. Winfield.
Mr. Asselin, do you have anything else?
Mr. Asselin: C'est bon.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I first would to express to the members who have come before us this morning my interest in the whole issue we're discussing this morning. I share your enthusiasm for much of your concerns. But I also want to put to this group a number of generic comments and concerns I have, perhaps for your consideration and comment. I will give you the choice of who wishes to speak to those issues. You may all wish to speak to them if your time will permit.
Listening to some of the concerns you have this morning, I think you've enhanced my enthusiasm for leaving this world and going to heaven, because probably that's the best alternative to living here.
Mr. Knutson (Elgin - Norfolk): It's a given, in your case, that you're going to heaven.
Mr. Steckle: Well, we're working towards that. Being a Liberal is one of the prerequisites.
I guess my concern goes back to your comments, Maureen, in terms of the kinds of things we're doing, the women's concerns today...and I think you alluded to the fact that they're concerns we have for human health, not only women's. Given the fact that we make choices, and choices of course may depend on whether we have the knowledge through labelling to make those choices, given the fact that tobacco products are well-labelled and people continue to choose to use tobacco products, how can we rationalize that labelling is going to solve the problem of people making choices? That's one of the questions I have.
Moving to Audrey's concerns about herbicides, pesticides and her concern for organic growth of agricultural products, I happen to be a person of the soil. I have made my living as a farmer in agriculture. I know the role of rotation and of course the adaptation of farmers to new modes of agriculture today. I know of the no-till process, using less herbicide, of course, than our European friends, so that we have reduced greatly the use of those products, and the fact that urban people use, on a per-geographic area of soil, probably a greater proportion of herbicides than farmers do. How do we continue to believe we can sustain a population that is going to probably double by the year 2040?
I happen to know a lot of organic farmers. I know those people, and I know the kind of production rates they have. How are we going to feed the world in the year 2040, continuing to believe that consumers want cheap food? If we're going to produce cheap food we're going to have to find ways of producing this economically. It certainly isn't going to take place if we produce at the average production yields organic farmers have.
.0945
These are some of the concerns I have. We're talking here as if when we come together on all these issues we're going to find a way of finding Utopia. I happen to believe it's not quite that easy. Because we can produce a fish that increases in size by ten times because of genetic engineering, is there anything wrong with eating that fish? Is it more likely to cause cancerous organs in human beings than one that isn't? These are the kinds of questions you have to ask. How do you rationalize with the John Public consumer?
Ms Press-Merkur: You gave the example of cigarettes now being very clearly labelled, especially in Canada. Americans are always shocked when they see Canadian cigarettes: ``Cigarettes can kill you'', in big, bold letters. There are two very interesting things about that. First, we've made smoking no longer socially acceptable. We've stopped with the little, tiny writing on the side that says ``The Surgeon General says this may sometimes...'' We're saying this is going to kill you; smoking can hurt your baby; smoking can hurt your children. And the number of smokers decreases, unfortunately not among adolescents, but among adults the number of smokers decreases.
We're sometimes curious why companies such as Monsanto, which does the Flavr Savr tomato, don't want us to know they are genetically engineered. Is it because the product is exactly the same as any other tomato or any other milk? It's not the case. Or is it because they're afraid that as a consumer, if they said it was genetically engineered, I would choose not to buy it?
I think labelling the cigarettes has made a difference. That, in conjunction with not allowing smoking and doing all the other things we do, means if you go from looking at Cary Grant doing it on the big movie screen to seeing only people on the sides of streets do it in twenty-below weather, labelling does make a difference. A lot of people now check a lot of labels in grocery stores, for salt, for sugar, for fats. It makes a difference. All we're saying is people need to have that choice.
Then if you choose to go ahead and buy cigarettes when it clearly states it's going to kill you, that's your choice. And you're right, it's not rational. But if cigarettes had initially been sold carrying that message, saying it's more addictive than heroin, but if you want to buy it, go for it, they wouldn't have been so popular.
Mr. Steckle: If people then choose to smoke and the surgeon general has indicated it's harmful to health to do that - government knows it's harmful to health - do we then as a government continue to support health services for those people who choose to smoke if those kinds of sicknesses and diseases are directly caused from using those products? Can we at some point come to the conclusion that we can no longer deliver a certain service because people have chosen to go diametrically opposed to something they know is harmful to their health? This is a terribly loaded question, but some day we're going to have to ask it.
Ms Press-Merkur: It's a whole other debate, unless you're willing to provide some serious addiction recovery for people who -
Mr. Steckle: I use tobacco because it's a very easy one for us to look at.
Ms Press-Merkur: Sure.
The other thing you have to consider when you're eating a fish that has been growing ten times faster because it has been genetically engineered is that it's going to be pulling nutrients out of the water ten times faster, and the only way you can put in nutrients that fast for those fish is to grow them in farms, give them what is no longer a natural food, and give them antibiotics so they won't get diseases. You're raising them in unnatural conditions and it may have an adverse effect on our health.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much. It's a subject I'm sure we'll come back to again.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan, please.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I think your fish example is a good one to understand that even though we may have certain methods for testing products in terms of their effect on human or animal health directly, there are environmental impacts that aren't taken into consideration when these tests or assessments are undertaken. So trying to understand the effects on a natural ecosystem when a foreign product or a genetically manipulated life form is introduced is not necessarily taken into consideration, or the second-order effects that occur. These are all interconnected.
.0950
What I'd like to go back to is the issue around certain legislation that currently exists that may not have the legislative authority for the evaluation of biotech products with regard to the environment or human health. In the notes prepared by the researcher on the second issue, they had identified the Seeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, and the Feeds Act. Products of biotechnology will be regulated under these acts, but it has been suggested that they may not have a clear legislative authority for the evaluation of these products with regard to environmental or human health.
I'm wondering if, for the members of the committee, one of the witnesses could give us a quick overview of what these acts are intended to do and why you may feel that they don't cover health and environmental concerns.
As an extra question, how might this legal challenge occur?
Mr. Winfield: I want to touch on your first comment about evaluation of environmental impacts, because one of the most noteworthy things about biotechnology is the infancy of the science of trying to predict the broader environmental impacts in the long term. It's really quite remarkable how few scientists in North America actually work on that dimension of this. It's really quite tiny. I can probably name most of them, and not have to use all the fingers on both hands to count them. We need to understand as background that an enormous effort has gone into developing these products but virtually none has gone into figuring out how we're going to assess their likely long-term ecological impacts.
With respect to the agricultural legislation we referred to, in all these cases... I'm most familiar with the Seeds Act. It is the central one, because of its role with plants. The act was last amended substantively in 1959. It is very general and enabling in nature. It makes no reference to biotechnology. It makes no reference to the conduct of human health or environmental evaluations. There is a general provision allowing for the Governor in Council to make regulations for the testing of seeds, and Agriculture Canada's argument is that is enough to carry them through to evaluations from a human health and environmental perspective.
With respect to the legislative record, we've reviewed this in detail for the Seeds Act. It's quite clear from the minister's statements to the House on second reading that the primary concern was the prevention of fraud, not the conduct of human health or environmental evaluations.
In terms of how a challenge might arise, there are three possibilities. In a formal legal sense, one would be for a regulatee to challenge the authority of the department to make regulations for this purpose under the act. The second possibility would be for someone with an interest - a farmer, for example - to initiate such a challenge. The third possibility would be for a public-interest intervener to raise a challenge arguing that the regulations that Agriculture Canada proposes to make for the purpose of notification of assessment are ultra vires the provisions of the act.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Could you clarify for me what you mean by testing seeds, when you are talking about fraud? Is it to make sure they are what the seller says they are?
Mr. Winfield: Essentially that they are efficacious, that they are what they say they are. The primary concern of a lot of the agricultural statutes has been efficacy, potency - those kinds of considerations. Is it what it says it is and does it do what it claims it will do?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: It has no grounds for evaluation on the basis of impact on the environment or human health?
Mr. Winfield: There is certainly no reference in the act to environmental or human health considerations. It's a general authority for testing, but nothing in the act indicates that the intent was testing for the purposes of human health or environmental considerations.
.0955
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: In your opinion, what is the likelihood of regulations being developed to test for those things?
Mr. Winfield: There are regulations in process within Agriculture Canada for the agricultural products. Also, a regulation has been developed by Environment Canada, to be made under the existing provisions of CEPA, that would largely deal with micro-organisms to be used in such applications as bio-remediation and waste water treatment.
Those regulations have been done for some time, as I understand it, and there has been delay for reasons I don't fully understand. One of the implications of this is essentially we're in an unregulated situation at the moment.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Right.
Mr. Winfield: Basically it's partially because the CEPA regulation, when it's made, under the existing provisions of the act would in effect set a benchmark standard of assessment in terms of the content and information requirements that all the other departments would then have to meet with their regulations in order to get the equivalency under section 26.(3)(a) of CEPA and therefore escape regulation under CEPA.
There's been considerable argument between Agriculture Canada and Environment Canada over the content of those regulations. At this stage, as I understand it, they're written and they're ready to go to gazette, but they're still delayed. That's in the background to what's in the government response.
There are also pressures on the agricultural side. We know the USDA is moving to complete deregulation of field tests of genetically altered plants. There are concerns that Agriculture Canada may want to move in the same direction. In fact there is no notification and assessment regulation.
Certainly the biotechnology industry, in its comments to the government response, pushed very hard for a situation in which notification and assessment would occur through guidelines as opposed to regulations, the implication being the guideline is not legally binding.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you.
We'll end this round with Mr. Gar Knutson and then begin a second round.
Mr. Knutson: Thank you very much.
Ms Press-Merkur, I'd like to take you back to the issue of labelling for a second. Let's look specifically at the BST issue. I'll try to play devil's advocate for a second. My understanding is the milk that comes out of a BST cow doesn't differ from the milk that comes out of a non-BST cow and the real issue around BST is the health of the animal.
Ms Press-Merkur: There is one difference. We're not exactly clear on what the ramifications of it will be, but there is an increased amount of insulin growth-like factor. It increases by a factor of eight, so there's eight times more IGF-1 in BST milk than there is in ordinary milk.
There's also a test being developed in the United States by a psychoneuro-endocrinologist to see if rBGH is different and present in milk in a quantity that can be tested.
Mr. Knutson: Okay.
Ms Press-Merkur: But the IGF-1 is different. It is of concern to people, because IGF-1 does not cause or create but promotes rapid tumour growth. So women are concerned. A lot of people I've talked to are concerned about that. Animals only give milk to their young when they're young and growing, and we're taking it in still as adults. If now we're going to multiply by eight the factor of IGF-1, then there is cause for some concern about what we're doing to our own human health.
And you're right; there is substantial cause for concern about unnecessary cruelty to animals.
Mr. Knutson: Let's say for the sake of argument we were relatively convinced that there wasn't a difference in the milk and it was safe for human consumption. I take it you would still want it labelled.
Ms Press-Merkur: The underlying principle is the choice of the consumer.
Mr. Knutson: Right. This is what I want to get to in a second.
In a world where a typical person... Take me, for example, and where I concentrate my efforts. I have three small children. I have this job. I don't have a lot of time to sort out these kinds of issues. I happen to sit on the environment committee, so part of my job is to try to sort them out.
.1000
But that aside, I think the typical person doesn't have a whole lot of time to sort this out. They don't have a lot of energy. They may not have the educational background. A whole bunch of factors go into play as to why the label by itself, in and of itself, isn't very helpful.
I don't know if you remember the cartoon about the flies on page 14. I would think that if people are convinced they're going to turn into flies - not that they would be, but that's part of the background venue in which this label exists - you might end up in a world where people are drinking less milk and are less healthy for it because of an overconcern or an alarmist attitude about, you know, Jurassic Park, where things go wrong. They bring up images of thalidomide. We can run down the list and at the end of the day we may end up with a less healthy population than what we started with, because people drink less milk - which is good for you, right? Do we all accept that milk is good for you?
Ms Press-Merkur: No.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Knutson: Milk is not good for you! My idea is old-fashioned, then.
Ms Press-Merkur: Not for an adult.
Mr. Knutson: Well, kids may drink less milk, then - and milk is good for them - because their parents misread the label, or the implications of the label.
Ms Barron: I would like to say something about the regulations concerning the BST or BGH in the milk. There's a report from Europe, from this Genetic Forum I belong to, that says under the regulations there, genetically engineered milk could easily be sold to farmers and they'd have no idea of its characteristics. Though it may be banned in one country, it could slip into all their markets in the form of dried milk and from places where it's not banned. So it would have to be international labelling.
Mr. Knutson: No. The point of my question is that in a world where people... You're saying the label gives consumers choice, and my point is that you presuppose they have, if they're going to make an intelligent choice, some background knowledge, or that they can make decisions based on rational knowledge they may not have. They may have certain prejudices. The example is the cartoon about the fly, which may create certain prejudices in people's minds.
My point is that the label by itself may create another problem. We may end up in a world where we have BST milk, it's properly labelled, and from your point of view, that's fine, but from an overall health determinant point of view we have children drinking less milk.
Mr. Winfield: That's a speculative outcome, I guess.
Ms Barron: I think sometimes we underestimate what the consumer really does know.
Mr. Knutson: And that's why people have stopped smoking.
Mr. Winfield: I think the point is, the provision of the information is a necessary condition for the possibility of consumer choice to be made. There's no possibility you can make a choice at all without the information, so it's a precondition, really. That's sort of at the core of the argument. Whether consumers choose to do the research to exercise that right of choice, or to make use of it, is another question, and it really rests with the consumer. I think we hold pretty closely to the view that, really, it's for the consumer to decide rather than for the government to make a choice for consumers: we're not going to bother to tell you because we know best and you really won't do enough homework to make a decision.
.1005
Secondly, there is public opinion survey research in Canada specifically on the issue of labelling of rBST, and the results are nothing short of stunning. They are contained in this document. It's a public opinion poll. It was -
Mr. Knutson: Mark, I don't doubt that; but perhaps that's because of the background the cartoon about the fly is part of. If you were to show that cartoon to every Canadian and then asked ``Do you want your milk labelled with BST'', I don't doubt every single Canadian would say ``sure''. My point is at some point we may be accused of being alarmist.
Mr. Winfield: It really comes down to a question of trusting our own citizens to make intelligent decisions with the information they're provided with in the marketplace. I'm quite sure they would be bombarded with information from the biotechnology industry that this is all fine.
So we have to put consumers into the position of being able to make a choice. That's a fundamental component of a market economy. One of the conditions of a functional market is the provision of information. Piled on top of that is the consideration that as part of the government's entire regulatory and policy framework around biotechnology it is stated quite explicitly that in any decisions about the value or the purpose of products of biotechnology to be made by the marketplace, in order for the marketplace to express preferences it needs to have the information necessary to do so.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): I wanted to ask Ms Barron if she might want to respond to a topic brought up earlier by Mr. Steckle. That is, how do we balance the non-use of biotechnological organic-type things with being able to feed the world economically?
Ms Barron: To begin with, we all eat too much anyway. You only need to look in people's garbage cans to see how much food is thrown away.
We also think the food today is very cheap in comparison with what it was, although the price of food in the supermarkets today is not really its true value, because of course the taxpayer is paying a lot to the growers and a lot for research and development. It's a subsidy for the food, whereas the organic farmer doesn't get anything at all from anybody. It's all through his own hard work that he's producing food. Now of course they have found, through recent experiments, that over the years an organic producer can produce as much as, if not more than, the farmer producing with chemicals.
I just feel if people got better-quality, in my opinion more wholesome, food, without the chemicals and genetic engineering, they would all be healthier. Perhaps a lot of the problems in our health today are because of the food we have been eating over the past fifty years, more and more.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): I don't want to be argumentative, but an extension of that might be the shortage we've experienced in codfish, and now the efforts that are being made to farm codfish and grow them at a rate that's ten times faster than normal. Governments are supporting and subsidizing this.
Ms Barron: Yes. Why is there a shortage of codfish? Because it's been overfarmed. Too many people... A lot of the time it's not being used for food. A lot of it is used to put as fertilizers on the farms and for other products, to feed people's pets.
As for the fish farms, I'm very concerned about them, because they are now finding they're escaping and going into the wild and mating with the wild salmon and causing mutations in the fish in the sea. So where are we going to be? There's going to be a greater famine.
.1010
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.
I'm sure this subject could be pursued for the rest of the day, but, Mr. Asselin, I'd like to go to you for a further question.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Would you be willing to request that the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment abide by the commitment described in the Liberal Party action plan with respect to job creation and economic recovery, a plan which was strongly supported by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development?
Would you be prepared to make recommendations with a view to making the Department of the Environment more effective, which would enable the government to put some order in the federal house, primarily with respect to environment and biotech products?
[English]
Mr. Winfield: The short answer is yes. What we're calling for in our brief is a strengthening of the degree to which CEPA brings order to the federal house, specifically around biotechnology, but also in terms of my own institute's brief on the CEPA review in general. That's part of the intention.
It's of concern that what the government has proposed with respect to biotechnology, CEPA in particular, seems likely to lead to more disorder, rather than less. That's part of the reason why we're so concerned about what's proposed here: we think that the existing provisions, although not really adequate, are certainly better from a number of perspectives in comparison to what's proposed.
Mr. Steckle: I'm being sort of the devil's advocate with my colleague this morning. For the record, Audrey, I should clarify with you, at least for your understanding, that in the province of Ontario, if you live in Ontario and you farm organically, you are able to receive from the government the same kinds of subsidies on your taxes as anyone else who farms in the province of Ontario. You get your GST back in the same way as any other farmer does. So basically the same kinds of amenities in terms of compensation for taxes and others benefits are also there for organic farmers.
The research and developments costs, which are spread over the general populace, of course apply to those people too, if they use them. If they choose not to use them, that is a choice they make.
I also challenge the proposition that you can produce as much on 100 acres or on any given parcel of land by farming organically as you can by farming in the way most people choose to farm today. I have to disagree with you. I've been farming for a long time and I happen to know that you can't produce the volumes.
An issue that is of paramount concern to a lot of people in Ontario is the area surrounding the Great Lakes. In the Great Lakes we have a species called the lamprey eel. It's been here for a long time. It's been brought into this area through the ballast of ships. This is a species that we have to control. If we don't control it, then we're going to lose some of the natural species that are currently frequenting our Great Lakes. So we're going to have to do things that some people may find to be detrimental to the health of the Great Lakes.
Which is the greater detriment? Is it the lamprey eel, which is going to destroy the species that we as people can use? Or do we take the risk of applying certain pesticides, if you wish, or whatever they use to destroy these species?
Given the circumstances, these are choices that we have to make. I cite that as an example. I could cite many other cases, but that's a good one.
Mr. Winfield: I have to take issue with your argument about the role of subsidies and organic growers. In the province of Ontario a number of advantages flow to conventional growers that organic growers don't enjoy. I direct you in particular to the study that was done on this issue - I think it was by John Girt & Associates - for the Ontario round table on the environment and the economy a couple of years ago, specifically on the role of subsidies and sustainable agriculture in the province of Ontario.
.1015
Second, in terms of research and development it's very important to understand the imbalance between government spending on, for example, the development of biotechnology products, which in the case of things such as herbicide-resistant crops are closely related to the use of herbicides, and the amounts of money that have gone into development of alternatives to pesticides. Our rough estimates are that at least $26 million over the last few years in Agriculture Canada on biotech -
Ms Press-Merkur: That's a single year.
Mr. Winfield: In a single year, sorry. That is in comparison to about $2.5 million spent on the pesticide management alternatives office.
Third, on the issue of organic growers versus conventional growers, my understanding from the literature is that the outcome that is normally experienced by organic growers is that when they make the transition from conventional to organic they suffer a drop in production in the short term, but it goes back up afterwards. The other important thing to note about organic growers is that they do that with a much lower level of inputs.
That's a critical component to the answer to your previous questions about environmental sustainability in agriculture and feeding the world. There are two points here. One is that most of the applications of biotechnology that we're seeing in the agricultural field really do not have very much to do with that broader level-of-production type of question. The overwhelming focus has been on modifying crops for resistance to specific brand names of herbicide or, more recently, the second wave that is appearing is modifying crops to have build-in pesticides, usually Bt toxin. Those things in themselves aren't going to address those broader global issues of food production.
The other problem that underlies the use of the biotechnological approach in the agricultural systems that it's largely associated with now is that a lot of scholars have raised some quite serious questions about their own sustainability because of their intense reliance on external inputs in the form of pesticides and fertilizers and energy and mechanical energy. It's a real dilemma, because, yes, we can raise the level of production in the short term, but we're doing it by drawing down on natural capital from all kinds of other sources, which isn't very sustainable.
Finally, the choice of the sea lamprey as an example is interesting, because of course it's an exotic species. It's an introduced species; it's not a species naturally occurring in the Great Lakes. It is, in a sense, an illustration of precisely the kinds of problems people are concerned about with the introduction of genetically engineered species: that when you introduce it into the environment, in effect it's going to get at you; you're going to lose control over it; it's going to prove to be a problem; and it's going to be enormously difficult, if not impossible, to retrieve.
Indeed, I don't know of any example in North America where any of the exotics that have proven to be a problem - sea lampreys, purple loosestrife, starlings, Dutch elm beetle - have ever been remediated or undone. The great fear and concern are that you can't put the genie back in the bottle once it's out.
With chemical pesticides, if you discover there's a problem at least you can stop making them. You can cease production and eventually the amounts in the environment will go down. With products of biotechnology the concern is that, precisely because they're living organisms with a capability to reproduce and spread, not only is it away from you but in fact the problem may get worse as time goes on. That's part of the reason why a lot of people recommend such caution around this.
The science around exotics and around assessing their likely impacts is so weak that this reinforces people's concerns.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: In 1993 the Government of Canada came out with a federal regulatory framework for biotechnology. It developed a list of six principles for the framework, and one of the first ones was maintaining Canada's high standards for the protection of human health and the environment.
.1020
Given what you've said about certain acts in Agriculture Canada that will likely have a role in regulating biotech or that have a role in regulating biotech currently, even though it's not clear they have legislative authority to do this, and given what you've said about the government response, I'm just wondering what kind of legal... With the current CEPA we had certain minimum standards that had to be upheld. The government response is taking those minimum standards away as well as leaving the field potentially unregulated. I'm wondering what kind of legal position this leaves us in.
Mr. Winfield: A very messy one. For a number of reasons, as I've said before, part of it is that you would lose the fairly firm legal standards in terms of consistency among departments and their regulations which the existing provisions provide for. Secondly, as I say, it is clearly a possibility in the language of the government response that certain applications of biotechnology could be left completely unregulated. I think that has to be a pretty serious concern, that in effect there seems to be contemplation of the possibility of things proceeding to the marketplace without pre-manufacturing notification and assessment.
This is of particular concern for the agricultural products, because we know there are pressures from the biotechnology industry to do precisely that. They're pushing very hard to proceed through guidelines rather than regulations. We also know in the United States the United States Department of Agriculture seems to be moving towards effectively complete deregulation. One would assume if that's the direction USDA takes there will be fairly intense pressures on Canada to go the same route, for a pile of reasons. There are the competitive arguments that industry would raise. There would also potentially even be trade issues that might arise through the NAFTA or the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement. If Canada is applying a level of requirement for assessment and the United States is not, we could be open to a trade challenge.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: You've said there's the potential for moving to deregulation in Canada. Do you have any examples?
Mr. Winfield: Part of the problem is that in effect at the moment we're in a regulatory vacuum. No regulations are in force at the moment. The CEPA new substance notification regulations part III, the biotechnology regulations, are a sort of linchpin. When it comes forward, then the regulations from the other departments are supposed to start to flow as well. The CEPA regulation also has a clean-up schedule, which captures everything that hasn't been thought of yet. This would include things such as fish and animals and other things for which no regulations are even drafted yet.
I think that's an important thing to understand about the present circumstances. At the moment we are essentially in an unregulated situation. More products are proceeding to market without notification and assessment because in effect the existing provisions of CEPA around biotechnology don't become operational until the CEPA regulation is promulgated. Then they become operational. But until that happens, basically we're in a vacuum.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: But given the government response...and you've mentioned there are some clean-up things CEPA would catch. That's under the old CEPA, isn't it?
Mr. Winfield: Yes. Under the existing provisions of CEPA what is proposed is a regulation that would establish the notification procedures and information requirements around certain products of biotechnology which at the moment it's not anticipated would be regulated under other acts of Parliament in a manner that would meet the CEPA equivalency requirement established by paragraph 26(3)(a) of the act.
.1025
The primary target of those regulations are the applications related to micro-organisms - bioremediation, waste-water treatment and mining. But in the CEPA regulation as currently drafted, apparently a schedule is proposed that would deal with basically anything left over that isn't captured either through equivalent notification and assessment regulations made under other acts or under the main provisions of the CEPA regulation. At the moment that schedule could conceivably capture things such as fish and animals. Currently there are not even draft regulations that I know of, from any department, to establish notification and assessment around those products.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: With the government proposal, if that came into effect, would fish and animals be captured under CEPA or would they go someplace else?
Mr. Winfield: They probably would not be captured under CEPA. The way the government response is worded is that in order to escape CEPA there just has to be the potential that they would be regulated under another act. There has to be a provision somewhere in another act that creates the possibility of writing a notification and assessment regulation. That's different from the existing situation, which says there has to be a regulation either under CEPA or somewhere else.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I wanted to ask you some questions with regard to the field testing. What are the current guidelines for field testing through Agriculture Canada today?
Mr. Winfield: Ag Canada has issued a number of guidelines for the approval of field tests under the authority of the Seeds Act, as I understand it. They have amended one of the regulations under the Seeds Act to make a reference to biotechnology. They argue that this provides them some legal basis for controlling field tests.
There has been a very large number of field tests in Canada. The total is I believe approaching 2,000 over the past five years. The data we have is a little unclear. It's not clear the degree to which they have been saying no very often - to put it gently. It's not clear from the data how much that's occurring, but they seem to be approving an awful lot of tests.
There is some legal ambiguity around this. This in fact arose with respect to the New Leaf potato, because as was reported in the media, apparently some of the test batches of the New Leaf found their way into the marketplace. One of the issues that arose was that given this current regulatory vacuum, there really wasn't any legal barrier to stopping that from happening. Health Canada only has draft regulations for notification under the Food and Drugs Act. Again, there's a vacuum there, too.
Precisely what is the legal basis for what they've been doing is really ambiguous. They give out notices saying Health Canada or Agriculture Canada has ``no objection'' to something entering the market, or identifies ``no health problems'', but because there's no legal framework because the regulations don't exist, it's not clear to me on what basis they would be able to say no if they wanted to.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: What size are some of these field tests?
Mr. Winfield: It varies from a few plants to hundreds of hectares. In fact, a number of crops - a number of canolas and the New Leaf potato - have now been approved for unconfined release, which essentially means commercial production. I think they grew about 40,000 hectares of herbicide-resistant canola last year in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Does this sound like a normal size for a field test?
.1030
Mr. Winfield: Well, that's actually out of being a field test and into free production. The normal size for the field tests, as I say, varies enormously from a plot a metre square to several hundred hectares.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: When these field tests are being undertaken, what kind of barrier or protection is set up so these plant materials can't escape outside of the field test area? You've already articulated some problems with genetically manipulated materials and how they can recombine, for example, with a weed or something like that, and then they're resistant to all kinds of things and are almost impossible to get rid of.
Mr. Winfield: It varies with the crop. They do a number of things. They create buffer zones, which are essentially barriers in which nothing is growing, around the plot. In some cases they put netting over it in order to keep insects and birds away to prevent the possibility of pollination. In some cases they actually sterilize the plant itself to ensure there's no possibility of the seed being passed on.
There have been, over the years, a lot of concerns about the adequacy of some of these controls. Again, the recent science in particular - and I'm thinking of some of the stuff that was reported in New Scientist last fall, coming out of the Scottish Crop Research Institute, for example - indicates that some of the assumptions made previously by field testers about how far pollen and seed might travel from test plots and how viable they are were not entirely valid. They found that in fact pollen and seed were turning up much further away from the test sites than they had expected.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Are there examples in Canada of situations where some of these things have recombined with other areas?
Mr. Winfield: At the moment we don't have any specific data about that, but it's important to understand that it's very hard to get very detailed data about the field tests themselves. We have a data package from Ag Can that basically says what it is, in general where it is and who the proponent is, but getting any data on the actual results of tests, the results of inspections or those kinds of things, which might indicate there is a problem, is very difficult.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Why is that?
Mr. Winfield: It's a combination of reasons. The primary one appears to be concerns over proprietary information. Many of the tests being conducted by universities or by the government itself are done in partnership with private sector actors, and there are concerns over the confidentiality of business information and information about the tests.
This is a major concern, because it's very difficult to get any information beyond the most basic information about the nature of the crop that is being tested and the characteristics for which it's being tested. Anything beyond that's very difficult to obtain.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Are there other examples in Europe or other parts of the world where they've been conducting field tests like this and something has escaped and gotten into another plant material that it shouldn't?
Mr. Winfield: With plants, as I say, the work at the Scottish Crop Research Institute is the most obvious example. Not so much with plants but with fish there have been all kinds of problems, with aquaculture.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Yes.
Mr. Winfield: With the plants we don't have that much hard data. Part of it, again, is because there are so few scientists who actually work on the issue of environmental impacts and escape. The overwhelming focus and purpose of the field tests invariably is testing the efficacy of the products as opposed to their environmental or human health impacts.
.1035
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Could you cite some of the problems when fish from fish farms escape into the wild? I understand sometimes if they start breeding with salmon from the wild these salmon lose their ability to spawn. They don't know how to find the headwaters and that sort of thing. Are there other problems?
Mr. Winfield: There have been all kinds of problems related to aquaculture and the escape of fish. The major one that comes up is what's described as genetic pollution of the wild stocks when they cross-breed with escapees from fish farms. There are all kinds of concerns there, as you say, about spawning, about the strength and hardiness of the fish, about the possibility of susceptibility to disease. One of the factors is that it greatly narrows the genetic pool in the wild populations, because typically the farmed fish all come from single parents. They're genetically uniform, or as close to uniform as possible, because that's something that makes processing them and growing them a lot easier. There's a range of concerns about that.
There are also concerns that farmed fish tend to be more susceptible to disease. There are concerns that escapees may pass disease on to wild populations.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: When you bring some of these concerns to Agriculture Canada - andMs Barron spoke with a great deal of concern about seeds and things such as that, what kind of reaction do you get from Agriculture Canada officials?
Mr. Winfield: It's polite interest.
Ms Barron: ``We understand your concern.''
Mr. Winfield: Yes - ``but you're misguided''.
The reaction we get generally is that either the concerns have been addressed in some way or we're asked to present additional scientific data to back up the concerns, data which in Canada unfortunately mostly don't exist.
That's been the response we've had so far: polite interest. The department expresses concern. It does argue it addresses these issues in its evaluations.
There's some debate about that. Some people have raised some very specific concerns about some of the regulatory decisions that have been made. The obvious one has been the approval of the New Leaf potato with the Bt resistance gene in it and the implications for the possibility of Bt resistance in insect populations, which has been a subject of major debate in the United States. Yet the potato has been approved for unconfined release, without conditions.
There have also been concerns that in some of the decision documents were admissions that there would be a flow of traits from engineered varieties to close wild relatives, and in fact admissions in Agriculture Canada decision documents to that effect, followed by hand-waving to the effect that this is not a problem. Those kinds of things add to the layers of concern about the quality of decision-making. Indeed, the way it was put to us was that in some of those cases the decisions have involved the balance between the desire for economic development of the industry and the need to protect the environment and human health.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): If I may just extend what you were saying there,Mrs. Kraft Sloan, and my question about the aquaculture side of things, Canada is not known as being the leader in aquaculture. In fact, other countries in the world are. I wonder whether there has been any forum for discussion between Canada and other countries of the world. We know the release of farmed fish into the wild has happened and we know they've had diseases. I can't help but think this has happened to a larger degree in other countries of the world.
Do you know of any forum where this has been discussed, or where it should be or could be discussed?
.1040
Mr. Winfield: On the specific issue of aquaculture, I'm not familiar with any.
There are other forums in which there have been discussions around some of the other applications of biotechnology. There are regular Environment Canada-EPA conferences. In fact, one is coming up later next month on the micro-organisms. There are contacts around the plants, particularly through the OECD. But I'm not familiar with any fora specifically on aquaculture.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Is it your opinion that in fact it's a subject that should be talked about in other areas?
Mr. Winfield: This is extremely serious stuff. The aquaculture is a good illustration of the underlying problems that Maureen and Audrey and others were mentioning this morning around the various applications of biotechnology that we seem to be seeing emerging. Aquaculture deals with the problem of declining fish stocks by creating a highly technological way of growing fish, which both is environmentally very destructive and also relies very heavily on external inputs - antibiotics, feed, and all kinds of things like these.
So it seems to be a response to a symptom of a problem, rather than dealing with the problem at the source. In the view of many people, that's something that is common to a lot of the applications of biotechnology that we're seeing in agriculture. They deal with symptoms of problems, be they increasing resistance of pests to herbicides or whatever, but they don't deal with the problems at their source.
To use an analogy, the applications are largely the equivalent of pollution control technologies in agriculture, as opposed to being pollution prevention technologies in agriculture.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Except that some of the effects of the pollution control are higher-order effects than the original pollution was in the first place.
I want to ask you one follow-up question. From some of the things you've been telling us today, I think you have grave concerns as to how these processes are regulated and evaluated and how people are notified. Other than the comments you've made on CEPA - and I'm referring to the discussion that we've had related to Agriculture Canada - I wonder if you feel that improvements can be made and what those improvements might be.
Mr. Winfield: In terms of CEPA itself or...?
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: You've already put on the record what you would like to see in terms of CEPA. Following the discussion we've had around Agriculture Canada, the field tests and those kinds of things, how might you see improvements in that process?
Mr. Winfield: A number of things could be done. The most obvious has been at least a more formalized process for informing people that field tests are occurring in their communities, particularly neighbouring landowners and people like that. Some structure that provides for opportunities for public input into the decision-making process would be very welcome.
The existing process - and this applies to the CEPA stuff and even to the chemical new substances provisions of CEPA - appears to be constructed on an assumption of omniscience on the part of government and that nobody outside of government could possibly come forward with something useful to say about the products under assessment. Our experience in the province of Ontario with environmental approvals is that this is not the case, particularly on site-specific things. So we would like some mechanisms to deal with that.
Some mechanisms to deal with appeals would be very nice, especially around field tests, but also around a question such as the unconditional approval of the new leaf potato, where there are very serious concerns around not just the impact of the product itself, but also the fact that it may actually impact negatively on the practices of other farmers, with the possibility of the emergence of Bt-resistant pests.
Something needs to be done about access to information about these products. As I say, you can get rudimentary information about field tests, and that's an improvement. It was a struggle on the part of our organization, with Agriculture Canada, to start that process, and it started with freedom-of-information requests. But additional information would be important if people are to make intelligent comments on what's moving through the regulatory process.
.1045
More broadly, I think one of the concerns has been that the contents of the evaluation processes have been very narrowly focused and don't place these products in the context of the agricultural systems of which they are part or in the context of the ecological systems of which they are part. That's been one of the broader concerns about the regulatory process: some of those questions have never really been open. They apply particularly strongly in the area of agriculture.
To put it in starker terms, in Canada we never had any kind of public discussion of whether or not making large public investments in creating crops that are resistant to herbicide or that generate their own pesticides is really a very good idea in the context of our limited resources for agricultural research and research in general. There was never a discussion of whether this serves and promotes environmentally sustainable agriculture or at best it entrenches unsustainable practices more deeply or in fact it potentially undermines more sustainable practices. I know it's late in the day, now that we're at the brink of commercialization with so many of these crops, but it seems to us those questions should have been asked a long time ago.
This goes to the heart of what people's criticism is. It says there are layers of concern about these products, some of which are related to the very specific environmental impacts or human health impacts they might have, but there's a whole other layer of questions that have been raised by an awful lot of people around the world about the value and the purpose of many of the applications of biotechnology that are emerging, and we've never had that discussion or that debate inside Canada. I think that's part of what causes so much frustration.
Mr. Knutson: I want to get back to your final point, that it's late in the day. Is it more appropriate in terms of metaphor to think of the biotechnology revolution as wave upon wave upon wave or as our being about to walk over a cliff? I would prefer to think it's never too late to start asking the right questions. If we could get a handle on it now, at least we could forestall maybe some of the stuff that's going to happen 25 or 30 years down the road. We can't go back and undo some of the things, I grant, but your point that it's late in the day - what does that mean?
Mr. Winfield: I think what it means is we've reached a point where we're either into commercialization or at the brink of commercialization of such a wide range of genetically engineered products, particularly agricultural products, that -
Mr. Knutson: It's the first wave, though, isn't it?
Mr. Winfield: Of these types, yes. They've been developing over the last decade. Field tests have been going on since 1988. What's happened in the last two years, the last growing season and now this growing season starting, is we've started to go into commercial production of these crops. We're no longer talking about field tests of a hundred hectares, we're talking about tens of thousands of hectares of unconfined release - fields of it.
The next stage is next fall one would assume the appearance of these products, labelled or unlabelled - we don't know at this stage - in significant quantities on store shelves. We really are at the watershed of commercialization in the next two to three years. This is where we're really going to start to move from experimentation to commercial production. Once we get into that, I think it's going to be very hard to go backwards, even if we choose to do so. That's why I'm concerned that we're getting close to too late. It's also part of the reason why the labelling issue keeps coming back. It's a last-ditch way to give Canadians the opportunity to make a choice.
.1050
In my view, they were robbed of the opportunity for a serious public debate about this. There was a conscious decision by the Government of Canada, when the national biotechnology strategy was first initiated in 1984, not to initiate a widespread public debate or consultation around the role of biotechnology in Canadian society. I think that was a mistake.
But given that this opportunity never occurred, labelling seems in some ways a last opportunity for Canadians to make their views known, or at least express their preferences and to make decisions for themselves about the risks associated with these foods, about whether from an ethical or environmental or social or cultural or religious perspective they find them acceptable or not.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.
With that very poignant remark, Mr. Winfield, I would like to thank you and the other members of your panel for your very in-depth responses to our questions today and for the presentations you've prepared so well. Obviously there are still a great many questions on this subject from legal, social and other standpoints. I'm sure there'll be other sessions when we'll be talking to you again, or certainly to others in the field. Thank you again for appearing before us. We look forward to further discussions with you.
This meeting stands adjourned to the call of the chair.