AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 12, 1998

• 0904

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): I call the meeting to order.

In our first round are participants from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada.

• 0905

Today, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of biotechnology's regulatory framework, we want to try to answer the questions: How are biotechnology products currently being regulated; what measures are in place to ensure the safety of these products; how is our regulatory system perceived internationally; and how does our system measure up against other international practices for biotechnology?

Our first round will last one hour. I think there's a tentative vote scheduled for 10.30. We might get started on the second round, but we'll be going until 12 noon, hopefully.

We have a quorum. We'll begin immediately with Margaret Kenny.

Ms. Margaret Kenny (Acting Director, Office of Biotechnology, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'll speak for the next five minutes concerning the regulation of agricultural products of biotechnology.

Canadian regulatory departments and agencies have agreed to define biotechnology as the “application of science and engineering to the direct or indirect use of living organisms, or parts or products of living organisms, in their natural or modified forms”. This is the definition that is in our Canadian legislation for agricultural products and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Put simply, this means that biotechnology is the application of technology to biology. In this sense, biotechnology has long been practised in agriculture through things like selective breeding of plants and animals to provide improved sources of food, fibre, and fuel.

Modern biotechnologies such as genetic engineering allow for the transfer of genes from one species or one organism to another, with the purpose of further enhancing the characteristics of agriculturally important plants and animals. This means that we have what might be called a new generation of agricultural products that are reaching the marketplace. In order to meet that challenge, in 1993 the federal government announced the federal framework for the regulation of biotechnology. I'll briefly go through the key features of this framework.

The first principle was to maintain Canada's high standards for the protection of the health of workers, the general public and the environment; second, to use existing legislation and regulatory institutions, rather than create new acts and new institutions; third, to develop clear guidelines for evaluating products; fourth, to provide for a sound scientific database on which to assess risk; fifth, to ensure that the development and enforcement of Canadian regulations are open and include consultation; and sixth, to contribute to the prosperity and well-being of Canadians by fostering a favourable climate for investment, development and innovation.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency plays a key role in the federal government in regulating agricultural products, in terms of evaluations for efficacy and environmental safety, and for implementing labelling policies.

I'll speak first concerning environmental assessment. For environmental assessments, specific regulatory amendments relating to the notification and assessment of these products were implemented in January 1997, under the Seeds, Feeds, Fertilizers, and Health of Animals Acts, which are administered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Under the Seeds Act, plants are regulated. Modern techniques of biotechnology, such as genetic engineering, provide plant and tree breeders with new means to develop new plant varieties. These varieties would include such things as new types of resistance to herbicides, insect and disease resistance, special nutritional components, and greater tolerance to environmental stresses.

The seeds regulations cover both field testing under confined conditions that would restrict the plant's ability to spread seed and pollen and, in addition, larger scale, unrestricted plantings towards commercialization. Since 1995, 33 plants with novel traits have been approved for this type of commercial planting, and in 1997 nearly 800 confined field trials were conducted in Canada.

• 0910

The Feeds Act regulates livestock feeds. These kinds of products include: living micro-organisms to help maintain bacterial populations in an animal's stomach; fermentation products, such as vitamins; microbes for forage additives; and so on.

To date 31 new plant types have been approved for feeding to livestock in Canada. In addition, approximately 180 microbial products have been approved. Only nine of these are from genetically modified micro-organisms.

Under the Fertilizers Act, fertilizer-type products are regulated. These are developed to supply plants with nutrients, and can include micro-organisms, thus the biotechnology component. Microbial fertilizers, in fact, have been used as alternatives to chemically based products for many years.

Currently there are 80 microbe-type fertilizers registered in Canada, and there have been nearly 200 research trials authorized since 1993. Only 10 of these have involved modern techniques of biotechnology.

Veterinary biologics are regulated under the Health of Animals Act. These products are used for the prevention, treatment, and diagnosis of infectious diseases of animals, and include products such as vaccines and diagnostic kits. Presently a total of 44 biotechnology-derived veterinary biologics are licensed, and 35 of these are diagnostic kits.

Importation of plants and micro-organisms and animals is controlled by way of import permit under the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act. These permit reviews examine the potential for a new imported organism to have an adverse effect on animals and plant health.

In terms of labelling policy, Canada certainly requires that food offered for sale to the Canadian public is safe for consumption. Accordingly, Canadian policy considers foods derived from newer techniques of biotechnology, such as novel foods. While Health Canada is responsible for assessing the safety of these foods—and my colleague, Paul Mayers, will go into more detail on that—Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency carry responsibility for labelling policy. This is under the Food and Drugs Act.

Since 1993 the government has held three public consultations to determine Canadian views on labelling foods derived from biotechnology. I'm going to briefly describe some of our findings. I would stress that these consultations have included over 2,000 organizations, companies and individuals, so there's probably no point on which we had 100% agreement, but these points certainly represent a good general consensus.

The first point is that labels of novel foods must identify the presence of any potential health or safety risks for certain individuals or population segments. In addition, the label would have to identify any significant compositional or nutritional changes from the traditional food source. Consumer choice would be provided through an option of voluntary labelling—that is, an industry could voluntarily choose to identify that a food has or has not been developed through biotechnology. However, with the exception of the health and nutritional considerations I previously noted, a mandatory requirement, a law specifically requiring that the process of biotechnology be identified, should not be obligatory. Dietary restrictions based on religious requirement in our consultations were considered to be outside of the mandate of government to regulate.

These findings are consistent with the provisions in place under the Food and Drugs Act, and as such describe the approach Canada has used in determining whether or not new products of biotechnology that enter the Canadian market require special labelling.

I would also note that Canada is a member of Codex Alimentarius, and is working with this international standard-setting organization to arrive at a common international position.

In closing, I would like to note that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency certainly does recognize the importance of making information available to the public, and we have endeavoured to do so. For example, information concerning our legislation and the regulatory system labelling policies are available to the public. This material includes information on our regulations, on our guidelines, the consultations we've undertaken, the field trials that are carried on and the decisions we have made with regard to the regulation of these products. These pieces of information are available to the public.

• 0915

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Kenny. We'll go now to the Health Canada representative, Paul Mayers, head of the office of food biotechnology.

Mr. Paul Mayers (Head, Office of Food Biotechnology, Health Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I would like to do in five minutes or so is overview our approach regarding regulating foods in terms of the safety of those foods. Since my colleague Margaret Kenny has given an overview of the federal regulatory framework, I'll address specifically the food safety issues, but I will place the food safety consideration within the context of that federal framework.

Health Canada does have the responsibility of ensuring food safety under the Food and Drugs Act in its regulations. That is a shared responsibility with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency since the consolidation of the federal food inspection service, and Health Canada's role in that consolidated approach is in the area of standard setting and regulation with respect to food safety.

There are a number of mechanisms we have available under the Food and Drugs Act and regulations in terms of food safety control in this country. These mechanisms include pre-market notification, pre-market approval, and the provision of standards. In the case of novel foods, because of the breadth of foods that may be new to our food supply and for which it would be relevant to assess their safey, the approach that was considered appropriate was the use of pre-market notification to permit, prior to foods entering the marketplace, the opportunity for assessment while at the same time not requiring that those foods be subjected to a positive listing such as we do for food additives, which requires regulatory amendment in each case.

We hope that the approach of notification allows for appropriate assessment without the added time restriction that would impact on the industry of requiring the regulatory amendment for a positive listing, such as the case in division 16 of the food and drug regulations, where we list food additives that are permitted.

So Health Canada has proposed a new division to the food and drug regulations that defines the concept of a novel food and would require notification for such a food prior to its sale or advertising for sale in Canada. This permits the department to conduct a thorough safety assessment for each such product.

Novel foods would include but not be limited to foods derived from genetically modified organisms, and this is particularly important because our federal regulatory framework does require that we use existing legislation to regulate products of biotechnology. We recognize within the department that the issue we are dealing with is novelty to the food supply, not specifically the fact that a product may have been genetically modified. Therefore a product that is not genetically modified but new to the food supply may present similar risks for which it's as appropriate to carry out safety assessment as it would be for a product of biotechnology.

On the basis of our consultations around the regulatory proposal for novel foods, we are currently revising the proposal. We hope to return that proposal to the Canada Gazette, part I, for further consultation this year. In order to assist product developers, however, in bringing products forward for assessment, we have also, again as the federal regulatory framework requires, provided guidance as to how those products will be assessed. This guidance is outlined in a Health Canada publication, Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods. What these guidelines do is provide an overview of the information requirements a developer would need to generate in order for a safety assessment to be carried out.

• 0920

Given this committee's interest in how our regulatory system fits within the international framework, it's important to note that this guidance is in the context of international guidance in safety assessment of novel foods. That international guidance was first developed by an expert group within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and Canada was a part of that expert group that developed the concept of substantial equivalents, which is the premise that we use for safety assessment in biotechnology.

That approach to assessment is based on comparison of the novel product to traditional products that have an acceptable standard of safety. In other words, we compare a novel food to a food for which we have a history of safe use. This is a very valuable concept for us, because by using that comparative approach to link a new food entering the marketplace to a food with which we have a long history of familiarity, what we achieve is a mechanism by which we can then in comparison establish the safety of the food not in terms of absolute terms, because there is no such thing as zero risk or absolute safety, but instead it allows us to benefit from the history of safe use and therefore gives us a mechanism by which we can predict not only potential acute effects of a particular food but also the long-term effects of that food, based on our knowledge of the long-term effects of its traditional counterpart.

In addition, the safety assessment considers the process used to develop the food. It compares its characteristics with the traditional counterpart as noted, both in terms of its composition and its nutritional quality. An important consideration is the potential for the presence of any toxicants or anti-nutritional components that may be present.

We are already aware that the current food supply includes products that include toxicant and anti-nutritional factors, and we have in our history learned how to deal with those factors. For example, some of the anti-nutritional factors in products such as beans we know how to deal with by cooking, but that doesn't mean we prevent those products from entering the marketplace. Instead we handle those products in a similar fashion so as to deal with those anti-nutritional compounds. Similarly, a novel food would be held to a similar standard of safety, as opposed to a different standard of safety.

The final considerations in the review are the potential toxic effects or allergenic effects of the newly introduced proteins to these foods. We recognize that some proteins have toxic effects and some proteins have allergenic effects, so that is a key component of the safety assessment carried out.

Once foods are reviewed and found to be substantially equivalent to and therefore as safe and nutritious as their traditional counterpart, they can enter the marketplace in the same manner as those traditional foods. From a scientific perspective, it would be inappropriate to hold a food that is in fact as safe and nutritious as another food to a different standard in terms of its entering the marketplace. We subject those foods to the same post-market standards that are applicable to all foods in this country.

We recognize that the safety issues related to genetically modified organisms are in fact the same as those already in the food supply: the potential for toxicity, for anti-nutritional factors, for allergenicity, the potential for those foods to be contaminated. So the fact that these products have been genetically modified has not changed the potential areas of risk that we need to assess, and therefore we do have the expertise to address the risks that are potentially associated with such products.

• 0925

The regulatory approach proposed by the department is comprehensive, in that it allows each individual product to be subjected to assessment before it enters the marketplace. As mentioned, we provide guidance to developers so that they are aware, as they go through their development process, of what standards their products will be held to.

Within the international context, it's important to note that in addition to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization of the United Nations have been active in providing guidance in this area. The guidance they provide is also based upon the concept of substantial equivalence, and the Canadian approach is consistent with that international guidance.

Further, I would note here that the Canadian approach has served as a model for several other countries developing their own regulatory system, because we were one of the first to elaborate a regulatory approach for such products. In terms of regulating such products, only the U.S. has had experience with more products than we have here in Canada. The regulatory approach in Canada has been a very important model for other countries. In fact, we routinely get requests from other countries to either visit Canada to observe our regulatory approach, or for us to visit those countries to provide an overview of the regulatory approach we use in Canada.

As noted, to date over 30 products have been reviewed and permitted for use in the Canadian marketplace. I won't spend much time in discussing the issue of labelling, since Margaret has already done that, but I would note that Health Canada too is supportive of providing consumers with information to aid them in their food choices.

To that end, we have made a commitment to providing information on the regulatory system, information on our guidelines, and information on individual product decisions available to the public. We do this mainly through a Health Canada web site. The office of food biotechnology within the department is also committed to sharing information, and we routinely respond to requests to attend meetings to provide overviews of the regulatory approach and information regarding individual product reviews, so that those who are interested in information regarding the technology and the products derived from the technology can have such information available to them.

In closing, I would note that other groups have worked in collaboration with both Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in also providing general information to the public to aid their understanding of both the technology and the food safety issues associated with the technology. These are groups such as the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Food Biotechnology Communications Network, and the Dieticians' Biotechnology Network, all of which we see as key partners in sharing information with the public to aid in their understanding of both the technology and how the technology is regulated.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mayers.

I was just wondering how you came to arrive at the term “novel” to describe genetically-altered produce. It seems to me a peculiar way to describe our efforts to double our food production over the next number of years. “We're going to do it with novel foods”—it's like describing a can of Boost or something like that. Is this an international term, or how did you come across the word “novel” for canola or things like that?

Mr. Paul Mayers: It's an interesting question. Internationally, there have been a couple of approaches taken. In Europe, the U.K., and Australia, they have used the term “novel foods”, as have we in Canada. Our colleagues in the U.S. don't use the term “novel foods”, although there was some consideration of that issue there. Instead, they have to date focused solely on plants. They simply describe them as “new plant varieties”.

The reason we selected the term “novel foods” in Canada is that we had serious concerns about a focus solely on foods derived through biotechnology, and therefore the potential for the terms “biotechnology foods” or “genetically engineered foods”.

• 0930

The reason for those concerns is the fact that we recognize there are other foods that are new to the Canadian marketplace that may pose risk if they are not assessed prior to entering the marketplace. We therefore needed a category description for foods that would encompass much more than just biotechnology, but would also include new fat replacers and foods that had never been consumed as foods in Canada before. The issue of novelty was the trigger point, and therefore that's where the term “novel foods” came from.

The Chairman: I see. Was any consideration given to having a North American term, instead of Canada having one term and the Americans having another term for the same thing?

Mr. Paul Mayers: Well, because to date the U.S. has not dealt with things more broadly than genetically modified plant products, there has not been such consideration. Because their legislative approach is slightly different in how they treat foods, in the U.S. they have the concept of “generally recognized as safe” or “food additives”, and foods can only fall into those two categories.

We have a much broader set of food categories in Canada. As a result, we could not use a similar approach to the approach used in the U.S. because we have no “generally recognized as safe” or “GRAS” concept as they do, and which they use to categorize these. Most of the novel foods in the U.S. fall into the category of food additives, and a few fall into the GRAS category. So it was not a consideration for a single North American term.

The Chairman: Okay.

We have 30 minutes for questions. Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Sorry I was late this morning to listen to your presentations, but our plane was two hours late coming in on Monday, and last night we had the opportunity to see the Senators play hockey, so, you know, you do important things first.

I was interested in the terms here—Food and Drugs Act. I just noticed that in my constituency a company working with biotechnology is trying to get a permit to grow noxious weeds. Does this line up with your type of work? Is that a food or is that a drug? Where would you designate that?

Mr. Paul Mayers: It would depend on the end use. If the product, whether it's a weed or not, is going to result in a component, or the entire plant is going to be used in human feeding, then yes, it would fall under the Food and Drugs Act and would be potentially subject to the novel food proposal. If that product were being grown for animal feeding, then it would not be subject to the Food and Drugs Act and regulations. Instead, it would be subject to the Feeds Act, which the Canadian Food Inspection Agency administers.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Where does cost recovery come in to this type of plan? In this biotechnology industry, which is public good and which is private good? To me, it seems there's probably a lot more private good involved in this than public good, if you look at the new seeds that are developed, the hybrids. How do you establish a guideline, or how do you set regulations to cover that?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: I could probably start with a response to that question. The regulation of products of biotechnology is not fundamentally different from the other kinds of products that we regulate in that regard. Essentially, under the pieces of legislation we are working with, the general cost recovery mechanism for the evaluations for approvals is worked out at about 50%.

Mr. Paul Mayers: In Health Canada, to date, within foods, there's only one area of the food program that is currently being subjected to cost recovery, and that's veterinary drug approvals. The remainder of the program at present is not subjected to cost recovery. What other areas of the program might be subjected to cost recovery is a consideration that's under discussion. So at present there is no cost recovery for the reviews that are undertaken for novel foods.

• 0935

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: I was home last weekend and got in a couple hours on the tractor seeding canola. I was astounded at the costs for Roundup for canola. I think they were paying $ 12 an acre just for the breeder rights or the technology of that product. Now, you know, when you sow 1,000 acres of canola, that's a lot of bucks. Who gets that or who pays for the research on this type of project? I'm sure government does some testing and funding to make it safe to use.

Ms. Margaret Kenny: I guess there are probably two pieces to that. One is that companies are in the best position to explain why the price is the way it is. I expect they're recouping some of their research dollars.

Certainly there are programs, particularly in early research, before development stage projects, where the government has had a hand in developing new technologies that are then used to develop products somewhere down the line. In terms, though, of the work that is done for regulation, to meet our safety requirements this is a responsibility of the companies involved, to pay that price to carry out the testing that is required to meet our safety standards.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: So the testing, as far as Agriculture Canada and food safety are concerned, is paid by the companies—or does that again translate to taxpayers picking up part of it?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: That bill is picked up by the companies involved, the applicants, and it may be a university in some cases. But the applicant is responsible.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Getting back to drugs and food, the nutraceutical industry, how do you distinguish it? Is it a pharmaceutical? Is it a drug? If it's a health food from natural products, where does it fit in?

Mr. Paul Mayers: Some nutraceutical-type products will in fact be novel foods if they have not already been used in the food supply.

There is a separate discussion also going on around the issue of the ability to make claims for food products that are nutraceuticals, and that discussion is outside of our consideration of food biotechnology per se. Instead, it is a discussion regarding the distinction between a pharmaceutical product and a food and the fact that there may be a grey area between those where you have a food that has a health benefit. The question is, what types of claims are in fact appropriate for such a food? Consultations around that issue are currently going on.

In terms of how that relates to biotechnology is the situation where the technology is used in developing such a product, and in that case, the safety of that product, based on the use of the technology, would be assessed under novel foods, and the authorization of any claims associated with that food would then follow under whatever is finally determined as appropriate in terms of permitting claims for food.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Are you saying, then, sir, that a novel food is probably a combination of a nutraceutical or a pharmaceutical and a food?

Mr. Paul Mayers: Some novel foods might be, but many novel foods, certainly all of the examples we have today, are nothing more than traditional products simply modified for agronomic improvements or improvements in terms of quality.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Thank you. I appreciate it.

Mr. Paul Mayers: You're welcome.

The Chairman: Madame Alarie.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Good morning. On looking at the labelling regulations, I am somewhat surprised to see that there is a voluntary aspect to this whole thing as far as industry compliance is concerned. The industry can choose whether or not to label a product as having been developed with the help of biotechnology.

• 0940

I have question concerning the export trade. Even though you comply with general OECD rules when you export a product, does the comprehensive labelling requirement present a problem for you?

[English]

Ms. Margaret Kenny: I can speak to that question. The issue of labelling, particularly in the European Union, is one that is ongoing. You're certainly correct that this decision could be one that has an influence on Canadian exports. The current discussion, though, in the European Union, which is never quite stable—what it is today may not necessarily reflect where it goes tomorrow—would suggest that they would see three categories for labelling: this food comes from genetic engineering; this food does not come from genetic engineering; this food may come from genetic engineering.

In a case where there was any doubt—for example, if they're dealing with a commodity where grains that may have come from a plant derived through biotechnology are mixed with those that are not, with commingling taking place—then the labelling would simply say “may” contain. But the European Union has not yet finalized those rules, and there's certainly considerable debate going on at this time.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: I was thinking about the European Community and about the Asian market as well which is very meticulous when it comes to these kinds of things.

If I understand correctly, the labelling policy is a responsibility that is shared between the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada. Who has primary responsibility? We have often discussed the problem of labelling and of educating the public and we don't have the impression that any one department or agency is responsible for the education component. Is this left up to consumer associations and groups? Doesn't the government feel some kind of responsibility where such matters are concerned?

[English]

Ms. Margaret Kenny: In terms of the Asian market, or even exports to the United States, I can say that our labelling policies have been consistent with those of Japan and those of the United States. We have not had issues such as you've described there.

In terms of who is the leader with regard to labelling, really, it is very much a shared responsibility between Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Health Canada, in carrying out their safety review, would identify if there was a concern for a segment of the population, or if there was a significant nutritional change. At that time they would define any mandatory labelling requirement in that regard. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's role is more on the prevention of fraud, this type of thing. Then we have a role in the development of the general labelling provisions. Certainly we work hand in hand with other federal departments in that regard.

With regard to your question concerning who is responsible for education or providing information, I would certainly suggest that is a shared responsibility between all stakeholders who deal with these new crops, new foods. That might be, for example, the companies involved in the development. They have a role to play. The grocery industry has a role to play. Certainly from a regulatory perspective we are in a position where we need to provide information on what constitutes the safety assessment, what products we have looked at, and what our policies are.

These are very much shared responsibilities. I don't believe any one group can do it all themselves or are perhaps the best to handle all situations. Again, it's an activity that requires partnerships.

• 0945

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Information may well be available, for example on certain Web sites, but there is a world of difference between information and education. This issue has been raised by every single group that has come before the committee. Everyone has told us that we must start educating young people and the general population. Information is all well and good and I understand that people can easily access a Web site, but it goes much further than this. We need to take a proactive approach.

[English]

Ms. Margaret Kenny: I would agree. You're absolutely correct there. In our consultations with regard to the Canadian biotechnology strategy, that same point was emphasized time and again. Yes, there is a role for the provision of information and we should be doing more in that area, but also education in our schools, starting at kindergarten, with an emphasis on science is important.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Margaret and Paul, I read through this and found it very interesting. You start out here with guidelines for the safety assessment of novel foods. We go along a little bit further and see that Health Canada is very supportive of providing consumers with information. Also, you have a web site, which is obviously going to put forward that information.

But I want to take my chicken farmer hat off for a minute and put on my consumer hat. That'll make Christine very happy at the back of the room here.

Take novel foods. I like my wholewheat bread the way it was. Why do I have to eat novel wholewheat bread now? I like my shredded wheat the way it was before. Why do I have to eat genetically engineered shredded wheat now? What type of resistance from consumers are you getting for novel foods, genetically engineered food products?

My next question goes straight to the Health Canada web site. First, how well advertised is this web site? Do people know about it? Second, how user-friendly is the web site once they find out it's there? Third, what are your usage numbers with that web site?

Mr. Paul Mayers: To take the questions in order, in terms of consumer reaction to the products, we certainly have seen a lot of consumer interest and questions. What I can't tell you is the direct consumer reaction. The reason for this is that the developers of the products, those who market the products are the only ones who will have a true understanding of whether there is consumer resistance to the products.

The few examples of actual tests in the marketplace that have taken place have been quite positive. There was a market test of genetically modified potatoes in Atlantic Canada carried out through a supermarket chain. The response there was very positive to that product.

Now, it might be argued that in Atlantic Canada, where there is an understanding of the particular pest problem that this potato addressed, that may have been a reason why the acceptance was high. I certainly don't know if that's the reason, but indeed, in terms of that particular market test, it was very positive.

That doesn't mean we don't see questions from consumers regarding the product. That's typically the response we get. It's not typical that they just don't want this stuff, it's that they need to understand this beforehand. So we do try to address that.

In terms of the information on the web site and our publicizing it for the entire Health Canada web site as a network of health information, there's a project under way to reinforce how we promote that web site, and the food web site is included in that entire broader health network.

Also, through our partners such as the food biotechnology communication network, we try to make people aware that the network exists. But it is extremely difficult to publicize the web site.

• 0950

In terms of user-friendliness, I certainly would not suggest that it's as user-friendly as it could be. At present, some of the documents on that web site have to be downloaded simply because of the technology used in developing them. Within the food program, there is a commitment to focus on our web site as an information tool and to improve it to increase that user-friendliness.

What we have found is that since the web site has been put in place, its usage continues to go up. One of the very interesting things that we've seen since the web site has been in place is that the number of phone calls directed to the Office of Food Biotechnology from consumers has gone down as a result of the web site being available. That has really highlighted to us that it's very important to continue to improve that web site as an information tool.

Mr. Murray Calder: Good. Have you bothered to go on this track instead? I think basically what we're doing is that when we try to get too technical as to what we're doing in agriculture we scare the heck out of the consumer.

Say we turned around and maybe took the track of telling the consumer that the shredded wheat they're eating right now is already from genetically engineered grains. The grains right now in 1998 are totally different from what they were in 1970. The reason for this is that we're not making land any more, and you, as a consumer who wants a house, is paving over more agricultural land each year. There are more consumers each year. There will be nine billion by 2030. And you're paving over the land that we're already producing food on, which is putting us into a corner such that agriculture must become more intensive. The yield per acre has to go up because there are fewer acres and there are more people.

You're already eating genetically engineered food. This is just a progression that we're moving on with right now. The industry is evolving.

Have you taken that track with the consumers? They're reasonable people. They understand. Instead of scaring them with a whole bunch of scientific gobbledegook, just kind of show them that this is the progression of the industry. Have you tried that track?

Mr. Paul Mayers: In fact that approach is the principal communications tool. There's the fact that this technology is simply one in a progression that man has used in crop improvement since they first domesticated crops.

Absolutely, the direction you're suggesting is a key direction in creating the understanding that this is just another tool in the farmer's tool kit as opposed to something so revolutionary that it's outside of the realm of understandability.

Mr. Murray Calder: Is it working?

Mr. Paul Mayers: I believe it's working in some sectors. It's very interesting that in Canada I think there's a much greater linkage to the farming community even though that linkage in Canada is a very low percentage than that in other areas of the world. As a result, I think in Canada that message has created more understanding than in other countries.

The Chairman: There are only seven minutes left. We have Mr. Harvard, Mr. Steckle, and McCormick.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—Assiniboine, Lib.): I'd like you to give me a picture of government investigation into modified foods arising from biotechnology. Would it be accurate to say, Mr. Mayers, that product development is coming at you in far greater numbers now than say that of 10 or 15 years ago?

You said that 30 products had been approved. I don't know over what period of time that was, but if 30 products were approved, out of how many? How many were rejected?

Mr. Paul Mayers: Well, certainly in terms of development, it has been tremendous over the last several years.

We started reviewing the first products in 1994. From then until today, the number of products that we have dealt with is more than 30. As Margaret Kenny would be able to describe, the number of products that are undergoing field trials is a magnitude greater than that. We expect that the numbers will continue to increase.

• 0955

In terms of how we are handling it, it's my understanding that the industry did a study and was quite pleased with how the regulatory agencies are responding in terms of timeliness of response in Canada in comparison to other countries. We are operating on a time line basis. Our regulatory proposal stipulates a 90-day review period for the actual safety assessment, and in the majority of cases we can meet that time line.

Mr. John Harvard: But have you had cases where product has been brought to your attention, you've investigated it, and you've said to the industry or whoever brought it forward, “Sorry, it doesn't cut the mustard, it's not safe”?

Mr. Paul Mayers: The way the approach works is that if we have safety concerns, we relay those safety concerns to the company—

Mr. John Harvard: And then what happens?

Mr. Paul Mayers: It's up to the company then to either generate data to demonstrate that those safety concerns can be addressed or withdraw the product.

Mr. John Harvard: Now, if the product development is growing at a fast pace and if that pace may even be quickened in the future, what sort of pressure does that put on Health Canada or the Food Inspection Agency? Are you going to have to hire more researchers or more staff? If you don't, one would assume that would cause a slowdown in your work.

Mr. Paul Mayers: The growing requirements for evaluators to assess these products is part of our priority and resource allocation considerations, and we deal with that both in terms of how we reorient our priorities within the program and in terms of the potential, where it's necessary, to bring in the expertise we require to carry out those assessments.

Mr. John Harvard: Does Ms. Kenny have anything to say?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: I would just say that within the Canadian Food Inspection Agency we have brought on a new expertise for this very reason. It certainly is a situation that has to be monitored. The training of these people is also a very critical component of ensuring that we have solid—

Mr. John Harvard: I have one more thing. When it comes to vetting these products, if they've already been subjected to examination in other countries, do you accept the work of other countries or do you have to reinvent the wheel and do it over again here in Canada?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: We have been in a somewhat unique situation in Canada. As Paul has said, we have been the leaders, together with the United States, in having products come to us. We are working with a number of other countries. Evaluators from the Ukraine, for example, are in our offices this week, Chileans will be coming up in October, a delegation from Argentina will be here for a month later in the fall as well, so that we can share our experiences and work towards more harmonization of regulation, which I think is what you're....

The Chairman: Mr. Steckle, please.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): I want to address my question to you, Margaret, and I want to continue on with Ms. Alarie's comments about labelling.

In your second point on page 3, you're talking about consumer choices. Given that you're saying you're providing the choice through the option of voluntary labelling to identify the food products, if the company producing and manufacturing a product chooses to not include or to include certain information in regard to its genetic origin.... Given that the label may or may not, what is the public's acceptance of labelling? Have they chosen to buy the products with the greater amount of information on the label? In some of the consultations you've done, have you been able to determine whether the public really cares what's on the label, or is it a fact that basically it's nice to have the label on there, but really people don't read it? Or do people really read it?

Ms. Margaret Kenny: Again, that is a very difficult piece to assess. Certainly when surveys are done asking people “If you have two apples in front of you and one has been subjected to new technology, do you want it labelled?”, people generally say yes. However, in surveys where the question is “What are your food safety concerns?”, biotechnology rarely makes the list.

• 1000

If we look at the Holland experience, though, where the country did put in a requirement for mandatory labelling and then labelled what I would certainly consider very few products, something between 80 and 100, officials in that country say the controversy is no longer there. The question the public had was whether they would label. Once they were satisfied that there was labelling, the controversy in that particular country was over. That's what's being reported to us.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Basically, for the public to realize there is a label on there, even though they don't understand or perhaps don't even read what's on there.... We keep talking about labelling. There is a cost to that, and the consumer will bear that cost.

I believe the public should be informed, but we do all kinds of things where labelling indicates certain hazards. We can use tobacco as an example. People still buy the product, don't they? Is it then simply to deny liability to the manufacturer? Why are we doing this? I am asking these questions for a reason. I don't have the answer to it, but we keep insisting that we need more labelling. If you as a consumer, as I, don't read the labels.... I buy the corn flakes, and I don't really care. I know it's corn flakes in there, and I know when I shake it out whether it is corn flakes or not, and that's all I really care. Enough said on that for now, but we can think about that one.

I want you to tell me, Paul, in what way is the potato—we're using that product and we all understand what a potato is—used as a novel food? Give us an example of where the potato may be used as a novel food today.

Mr. Paul Mayers: As to our current examples of potatoes that have been through the review process, in terms of the potato that reaches the consumer table, there is no difference. It is novel only in its agronomic performance, in that it can resist the Colorado potato beetle without the application of insecticide. The potato that reaches the table is a potato, and as far as the consumer is concerned, it doesn't taste different, it doesn't look different, and it has no difference in nutritional value, because there was no intent to modify any of those considerations.

There are potatoes in development, for example, that would be higher in starch and therefore would absorb less oil during frying, which will have a significant nutritional impact in diet. That situation is very different from our current examples of potatoes.

I think that is really key to recognize, that for some novel foods the novelty relates not necessarily to the food to the consumer, but the novelty is in terms of how the product is produced. Then there will be others where the intended novelty is for direct consumer benefit.

Mr. Paul Steckle: In that example, would there be merit in labelling?

Mr. Paul Mayers: Certainly if you have a product that adds value, then there is merit in voluntarily highlighting to the consumer that if you buy this potato for frying, you are going to reduce your fat intake versus the traditional potato if you fry it. So yes, definitely.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Is it your view that should remain a voluntary exercise?

Mr. Paul Mayers: In terms of that claim, yes, voluntary.

In terms of highlighting to the consumer that this potato is different compositionally from another potato, I believe that needs to be mandatory. The consumer must know, when they select this potato, that nutritionally it is different from what they are used to.

The Chairman: Thank you, Paul.

To follow up on Paul's question on the potato, why would a company like Monsanto, or any other company or any individual scientist in his basement who changes one gene in a product he had nothing to do with developing in the first place, be able to patent that and charge farmers extra money for research? The Incas probably had more to do with the potato than Monsanto. Would that stand up legally, to change one gene in the composition of the potato and the next day it's theirs?

Mr. Paul Mayers: It's a bit out of the realm of my competence to comment on it. Certainly from a scientific perspective it is not just the fact that there is one gene; it is the impact of that one gene that may have a profound difference. But beyond that, it's certainly outside of my competence to comment on.

• 1005

The Chairman: Thank you very much, both of you, for coming here today and helping us out with our exercise this morning.

We'll begin round two and call our next group of participants to the table. In round two, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of biotechnology, we're going to look at the public perception and access to information on biotechnology, including the consumers groups' and researchers' perspectives on the public perception of biotech and the ability to access information on biotechnology. Particular emphasis shall be placed on food biotechnology.

We'd like to welcome our witnesses to the table. We may be interrupted with a vote in a very few minutes, ladies and gentlemen, but we'll try to get started as quickly as possible by introducing our witnesses.

Edna Einseldel is from the graduate program in communications at the University of Calgary. Dr. Milly Ryan-Harshman is a consultant from the Food and Technology Centre in Oshawa. Dr. Gordon Surgeoner is the chair of the Food Biotechnology Communications Network in Guelph. Christine Mitchler is the chair of the food committee for the Consumers' Association of Canada. Nathalie St-Pierre is the general director of the National Federation of Consumers of Quebec. And Burkhard Mausberg is the executive director of the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund in Toronto.

We'll take your presentations now—short presentations, I hope—and see what happens with the vote. We will then go to questions.

Mrs. Einseldel, would you begin, please?

Ms. Edna Einseldel (Graduate Program in Communications, University of Calgary): I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity to address its members today. I'm pleased to share with you some of the work that we have been doing over the last few years on public awareness and attitudes towards biotechnology, particularly food biotech.

There are three questions that I'd like to address. First of all, what do we currently know about Canadians' awareness and attitudes towards biotechnology? I'll focus on food biotech. Second, what are the implications for future efforts to communicate with Canadians? And third, how should we envision the public's role in our efforts to address the challenges in dealing with various applications of biotechnology?

I'll start by sharing some of the results with you. I have to say that there have been a large number of studies looking at public attitudes and awareness towards biotechnology. They have been conducted in Canada and the United States as well as in Europe. I'll very quickly share some of these findings with you.

The chart here shows that we presented six different applications to consumers, ranging from food biotech applications.... For example, would you buy food and beverages that have been genetically modified? Would you encourage the insertion of genes into crop plants for pest resistance? Would you accept medical products that have been genetically engineered? Would you accept the use of genetically modified animals to produce organs for human transplants? Those questions are just examples of the range of applications that have been presented to consumers. This particular set of questions was asked in Europe as well as in Canada and the United States.

• 1010

You can see the comparisons here. We just picked the five European countries of the G-7 and Canada and the U.S. This basically shows that North Americans, overall, tend to be a bit more positive towards these various applications than Europeans.

My second slide shows another international study done by one of my American colleagues, and again, this is a comparison of 19 countries. You can't read the labels, unfortunately, but the leftmost two bars represent Canada and the United States in this chart on the willingness to buy biotechnology products that have been developed to resist insect damage. Again, overall, Canadians and Americans tend to be more positively predisposed relative to the Europeans.

Third—and I apologize for the small labels—this slide basically reflects the same set of applications, the same six applications, but now it's asking consumers to indicate whether they would encourage the application on the basis of a number of characteristics: utility, which is the first bar on the left-hand side; risk, which is the black bar; moral acceptability, which is the white bar; and the last bar on the right-hand side, overall acceptance or encouragement of the application. Again, those are the six applications.

The two black bars that are jutting downwards refer to food applications as well as zeno transplants. So it seems that in terms of a perceived risk, it is most evident, if you will, in the area of food biotechnology and zeno transplants.

Basically, what that slide is showing you is that consumers are not just making decisions on the basis of the perceived utility of the product; they are also carrying forward judgments on the basis of other values, such as what is perceived to be morally acceptable, for example.

The Chairman: Excuse me for a minute, please. There's going to be a 30-minute bell, so we can take 15 more minutes before we go to vote.

Ms. Edna Einseldel: Here we have shown examples of statements that consumers were asked to respond to by indicating whether they thought the statement was true or false. For example, they were asked:

Ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes while genetically modified tomatoes do. True or false?

Genetically modified animals are always bigger than ordinary ones. True or false?

It is impossible to transfer animal genes into plants. True or false?

And the last statement here is:

Yeast for brewing beer consists of living organisms. True or false?

These are just examples of beliefs, if you will, or statements. Some might consider them factual statements.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Can we make a comment now on a particular slide, Mr. Chair?

Ms. Edna Einseldel: Sure.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I'm just looking at the top of the slide, regarding the tomatoes and that question, and the public understanding conflicts so much with previous slides. I realize that it all depends on what's being presented to the public. But there it's just.... I shake my head when I look at that.

Ms. Edna Einseldel: How do I explain that?

Mr. Larry McCormick: How does anybody? I'm not sure any of us can explain it, but go ahead if you wish.

The Chairman: Excuse me. We're going to be here an awful long time just getting through one presentation. Our practice is hear the presentations while questioners take note of what they want to ask and who they want to ask it to once everybody makes their presentations or otherwise we would never get everybody's presentations. We'd like to get your testimony first.

Just continue with your presentation. Or you can answer Larry's question—

Ms. Edna Einseldel: And that is a very good question to raise.

• 1015

Looking at all the results of various studies, we do find that there are low levels of awareness, if you will, on the issue of biotechnology. That does not necessarily preclude people from having opinions—

Mr. Larry McCormick: It never did.

Ms. Edna Einseldel: —so that's the short explanation, I suppose.

The last slide shows a very broad—and very shallow, if you will—perspective on the various studies that have been done on consumers. As you can see, Canadians demonstrate relatively higher levels of support for various applications when compared to Europeans. But that does not necessarily mean that the public here has not expressed concern over these products as well. Not surprisingly, Canadians have made distinctions among various applications, tending in general to be more supportive of medical applications over food applications.

We have also found that among Canadians two segments tend to be visible in these surveys. The first is what I will call “the technological supporters”. People in this group are more likely to buy genetically modified produce if it tastes better. They're also more likely to accept some risk in the interests of promoting economic competitiveness. These people have also been called “institutionalists”, because they tend to rely on and to trust various institutions, including government, the private sector and scientists, to do the right thing in terms of protecting public safety or providing credible information.

There's also a large group in the public which I will call “traditionalists”, who are—and I'm using this term not necessarily with negative connotations—more likely to prefer traditional methods of agriculture, are not particularly confident that current regulations are sufficient to protect people, are unwilling to purchase genetically modified food, and will insist on full information, expressed through the support of labelling initiatives.

I will also emphasize that in terms of these studies the element of trust in institutions comes out quite frequently in surveys of the public.

We also know that no technology is ever viewed in isolation. When publics are asked about biotechnologies, for example, they have drawn from a wide range of experiences with various other technologies. They extrapolate from what they see and hear about things such as mad cow disease, the blood supply and even the regulation of nuclear power. Our focus group studies and others using the same methods have found results along the same lines.

While Canadians have enjoyed the benefits of modernity in terms of the range of technological applications, what tends to be salient, at least in the focus group findings, are the technological errors or disasters. So the big challenge here is how to ensure that there is trust in the regulatory process, trust not just in terms of expertise but also in terms of the process that is involved. And I think we also know enough from various studies on technology assessment or studies that deal with risk and how risk is perceived by the public that public trust in sources is critical and will have an important affect on public acceptance.

The big challenge here, I think, just to make my story a little shorter, is that there is a role for raising public awareness and understanding, as you can see. Certainly there is a large gap in terms of public education and public understanding of certain aspects of biotechnology.

And this is where public educators, those in the communications business and those promoting various stakeholder views, can make important contributions. Many are already doing so and many will continue to do so. I would, however, caution against the belief harboured by many that the public is an empty vessel waiting to be filled by scientific words of wisdom. “Let them have information and they will come” is no longer valid or viable today.

So the question is, how do we balance these public education efforts on the public consultation side? I'd like to suggest that models of technology assessment being implemented by Europeans might be useful to look at.

• 1020

Europeans have made use of procedures such as consensus conferences, dialogue workshops, and scenario workshops, which allow members of the lay public and not just stakeholder groups to participate in the process of having a dialogue with experts and understanding the technology better.

I think we have an opportunity today to take advantage of these experiences in Europe and to employ them here in Canada.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We'll go now to Dr. Ryan-Harshman. If you can give us a ten-minute presentation, it might be all we can get in before the vote.

Dr. Milly Ryan-Harshman (Consultant, Food and Technology (Oshawa)): Thank you very much for requesting that I appear before this committee. I have prepared a statement, because those who know me also know I am not good with short conversations.

Public perceptions of biotechnology are difficult to evaluate, because these perceptions may be based on religious beliefs, knowledge and attitudes toward science and technology, political or moral convictions, or even choice of reading or viewing material.

A number of surveys have been conducted to determine if patterns in consumer awareness and acceptance of biotechnology can be discerned, yet in many of these surveys, respondents were only requested to respond yes or no, or perhaps to give an indication of the strength of their conviction by responding to a Likert-type scale.

Money and patience are usually in short supply for those researchers who ask the open-ended question “Why?”. Sometimes the respondents do not know why, and sometimes the researchers cannot understand why, yet if we do not know why one believes something, then we know very little.

Knowledge can be defined as familiarity gained by experience. In the absence of knowledge, perception can become unchecked reality. We only have to remember the broadcast of War of the Worlds and the widespread public confusion it created to understand this statement. Then, the public had no experience with outer space that allowed them to judge the circumstances reasonably. By today's standards, War of the Worlds isn't even good science fiction. Today's books, with their rich and somewhat reasonable scientific explanations, and today's movies, with their outstanding special effects, have even further blurred the line between perception and reality.

To regain the distinction between perception and reality, we must focus on education—specifically, education that encourages the development of good critical thinking skills. A critical thinker is a lifelong learner who possesses such attitudes as curiosity, open-mindedness, and willingness to reconsider. It is through their examination of many points of view that critical thinkers are able to formulate their opinion. Non-critical thinkers generally conduct research to find facts that support conclusions already drawn. As a result, non-critical thinking can lead to the implementation of policies that lack vision. Such policies are not sustainable and hence will have little impact.

I can give you two examples of educational events that can encourage the development of good critical thinking skills. One is the KEY Foundation summer seminar series for teachers that covers environmental issues related to forestry, petrochemicals and packaging, agrochemicals, and biotechnology. The other is the Lay Public Consensus Conference. Such a conference was held in London, England, regarding plant biotechnology several years ago, and a similar conference will be held in Calgary in the fall.

I might add, this is the type of conference Edna Einseldel was referring to. It's been a very useful way of helping the public to understand the issues around something as complicated as food biotechnology.

Why do I bring the concept of critical thinking into this discussion? What we are faced with is not the lack of ability to access information but the lack of ability to evaluate information. For example, when one considers the number of newspaper and magazine articles, the number of web sites, or the availability of programs such as Agriculture in the Classroom, there is no shortage of information regarding farm practices. Despite the availability of information, though, many lack the ability to evaluate the information, because they have never visited a farm, and neither do they know any farmers to whom they can direct questions. Hence, their ability to examine different viewpoints is lessened.

• 1025

Where food biotechnology is concerned, we must complete two objectives—to improve science literacy and to improve knowledge of farm practices. We can complete these objectives if we invest in educational opportunities such as demonstration programs, seminars, site visits and materials that provide accurate, balanced information. We'll certainly hear about other organizations that do that. The Food Biotechnology Communications Network is being represented here today by Dr. Surgeoner, who does an excellent job in that regard.

If we take such educational objectives one step further, to provide participants with an opportunity to evaluate information, we have achieved the ultimate goal of creating a thinking society. No other measures, particularly those that misconstrue information to mean identification such as mandatory labelling, phrases or symbols, will help us to achieve our goal.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We still have eight minutes to go before we have to leave, so we'll go to Dr. Surgeoner.

Dr. Gordon Surgeoner (Chair, Food Biotechnology Communications Network (Guelph)): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Whenever I come to Ottawa, my name gets spelled wrong. I don't sell cars, but it gets me taxis very quickly, thank you.

I represent the Food Biotechnology Communications Network. I have provided the clerk with a pamphlet that provides background information on our organization.

The mandate of the Food Biotechnology Communications Network is to provide ready access to science-oriented, balanced and current facts about biotechnology and its impact on the agriculture and food system. We were established in the early 1990s because of a lack of access about food biotechnology and many questions that consumers and indeed farmers were asking about this new technology.

We are a not-for-profit organization. Our revenue is generated from our memberships and grants and projects that we are able to compete for, including a major grant from Agri-Food Trade 2000.

We have over 100 members, from a wide variety of clientele. We have multinationals such as Monsanto; we have the National Institute of Nutrition, Consumers' Association of Canada, and many institutions such as my own, the University of Guelph.

As an example, we do a tremendous amount of research on plant biotechnology. In my other life, I am the director of plant research at that institution. To me, it is absolutely key that we communicate with our producers, with our consumers, about the new science and the changes that are occurring in agriculture.

We have a board of directors, and by our mandate there are nine directors: three from industry, three from non-government organizations, and three from government. This year we have two honorary members as well, because we didn't get a farmer elected at our annual meeting, and we wanted to make sure we had a farmer, since they're the first users of this technology.

We have an advisory committee also that is jointly chaired by the representatives of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Consumers' Association of Canada, and you'll be hearing from Christine later. On that advisory committee, we have a similar balance of industry, regulators, and non-government organizations. You're going to hear the terms “balance” and “stakeholders” in a number of my comments.

What do we do? We are an information referral centre. So when the public and farmers have questions associated with biotechnology, we will answer basic questions. We often refer to experts in particular areas of regulation, science, whatever the issue happens to be, and we encourage others to take an active role in providing information to clients, customers, and employees.

How do we go about that process? Every month we send out a fax form, which is a monthly update on information, the newest knowledge base associated with biotechnology. Through that mechanism, we update our current programs and future plans to all of our members and anyone else who is interested.

We have a web site—you were asking about web sites. Ours is www.foodbiotech.org, and we have done a lot of work to make sure that when you do one of the search engines, like Lycos, and so on, we will be in the top ten, so that as you search around the world you will come up with our organization. We have about 150 hits each week, and that continues to grow. We've only been on-line basically since February.

In that web site, we provide basic information on a wide range of topics, including regulatory, what kinds of products have been registered in Canada, and very importantly, links to other sites where people can get information on biotechnology. It's currently being renovated. We will be bilingual on that web site to improve our readability. We are maintaining a strong tracking mechanism to understand where our people are coming from who are asking questions, and we have special areas associated with our members to pass on information as well.

• 1030

Another important project we were involved in was an information kit, in conjunction or partnership with the Consumers' Association of Canada. There were over 6,000 copies of that distributed. We are now in the process of revising a second consumer information kit associated with biotechnology, which should be available in early June.

We have developed a regional network of experts, because in many of the issues, what I will call local trust is very important. So we have in each province individuals, dietitians, farmers, and so on, who can answer questions associated with biotechnology and their own personal experience with that. We're heavily involved in ongoing education programs with these individuals for current science and skills training, how to work with the media, and those kinds of issues, and they provide valuable feedback of what's happening at a provincial level, because there are differences across Canada.

We are involved in issue management. Very often you will see what I call misleading information in the media. We provide, again I emphasize, science-based information in writing letters back to the editor, and those kinds of things. People will claim fish genes in tomatoes, as an example, for which there are not. So it's that kind of providing back science-based information.

We work with information multipliers, for example Loblaws, Cuisine Canada, the food writers. We're also heavily involved with educational resources, such as the KEY Foundation, Agriculture in the Classroom, and providing information for many university and college courses around Canada.

In the interest of time, I will try to summarize quickly.

We are the only organization in Canada where we allow a vast divergence of opinions. In fact, it makes for very interesting board of directors teleconferences at times. Many international audiences are looking at us, again, as a vehicle for that multi-stakeholder consensus that we can come to on issues associated with biotechnology.

We see ourselves as a resource for government, for industry, for media, and the public at large, and we believe success will be because of a strong and active partnership between the government, the industry, and non-government associations. That word “stakeholders”, partners, and consensus information that is what I will call factually based are the principles under which we work.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We'll recess now, committee members, and we'll come back as soon as possible.

Excuse us for half an hour or so.

• 1032

• 1110

The Chairman: I'll call the meeting to order and resume our hearings on biotechnology.

Our next presenter will be Christine Mitchler, the chair of the food committee of the Consumers' Association of Canada. Christine.

Ms. Christine Mitchler (Chair, Food Committee, Consumers' Association of Canada): Thank you for presenting me. I didn't know you'd done that.

First of all, I want to apologize that my national president was not able to join me today. She had planned to. She is ill at home with 104 degree temperature and a terrible case of the flu, so you get me for the whole thing.

Anyway, good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the standing committee. Thank you for inviting the Consumers' Association of Canada to speak to you about public perception and access to information on biotechnology this morning. My name is Chris Mitchler and I'm chair of CAC's national food committee.

CAC is a national volunteer-based organization founded in 1947. Our mandate is to represent the interests of consumers in the Canadian marketplace through research, education, and advocacy. Our consumer interest work focuses on the areas of food safety, health, financial services, communications, industries and marketplace issues like competition law, consumer protection and privacy.

Our national policies are developed within a framework of consumer rights and responsibilities as described in our brochure, which I've left copies of with the clerk. It identifies not only the consumer rights to information and choice but also their responsibilities that go alongside of that. It's described in our brochure, Be a Wise Consumer, which is available to you today.

Two consumer rights in particular are apropos of the subject of biotechnology today: the right to information and the right to choose. CAC absolutely supports the consumer's right to receive the background and the information they need to make informed choices regarding all foods and those derived from biotechnology. We have always advocated and supported the need for consumer information. However, consumer information must be accessible, must be meaningful, and must be accurate.

Many consumers are concerned about the long-term effects of products of biotechnology. As a result, consumers are insisting on the ability to choose. In order to better understand why genetically engineered foods are creating such a consumer concern, CAC's national food committee at a recent meeting discussed why and how genetically altered foods are perceived to be different from other foods.

Within the national food committee we arrived at a general consensus that these foods are perceived to be different from conventional foods by some segments of the consumer population, fuelled in part by inconsistent information and misinformation.

Nonetheless, this technology is providing a vehicle for profound questions about food production and food products. These include the rapid pace of technological development and how it is used to produce and process food, mechanisms needed to evaluate social, economic, and ethical impacts of biotechnology, and what systems are in place, if any, to evaluate and monitor potential cumulative long-term impacts on human, animal, and environmental health and safety or what the trade-offs are going to be now and in the future.

Other questions are who will bear the risks and who will receive the benefits and who will decide whether consumers and their representatives will be able to provide input on whether these changes are needed or desirable and whether consumers will have the information they need in order to make informed choices on whether they want to assume the risks and the benefits of food biotechnology.

Consumer acceptance of any new food product or technology is vested in three conditions. First, that the needed information for informed choices about the food product and its production processes be accessible, understandable, relevant, transparent and accurate, and presented in a consistent manner in a variety of ways. This means avoid the one-size-fits-all approach to communication. It also requres that consumers have the ability to make informed choices as a result of this information and that perceived benefits to consumers exceed perceived risks.

• 1115

In other words, CAC believes the information process is the means to an end, with informed consumer choices being the end objective.

One source of information that has consumed much of the discussion for consumers is the labelling of foods derived from biotechnology. CAC has always believed labelling is one way to provide consumers with information for informed choices, but labelling is by no means the only, or perhaps the best way, in all circumstances to provide consumers with information leading to informed choices.

It is of significant concern to the Consumers' Association of Canada that the biotechnology industry and our federal government have not invested as heavily in consumer education on food biotechnology as they have in marketing of food and the regulation of food products for health and safety.

While some organizations have vigorously supported mandatory labelling of genetically altered foods, CAC is not convinced of the utility of mandatory labelling for foods derived from biotechnology. Given the increasing pace of food biotechnology applications currently being commercialized in the Canadian marketplace, CAC is concerned that mandatory labelling such as “may contain” or a logo or a symbol could be on virtually every food product sold at retail within five to ten years. We question how useful and meaningful such a label will actually be for the consumer in the future.

At the same time, CAC is greatly concerned about the huge potential for market distortions that may occur with voluntary labelling. Specifically, CAC is concerned about the potential for marketing manipulation and distortion inherent in negative labelling. For example, under current federal labelling guidelines, any food company could put a label on a food claiming it is GE-free or not produced of ingredients that have been genetically modified. There is no cost-effective scientific or evidence-based way we are aware of to support or substantiate the accuracy of such a claim.

CAC has long held the position that labelling, advertising, and other promotional marketing materials for all foods, including those derived from genetic engineering, must be consistent. They must be transparent, understandable, accurate, evidence-based, and enforceable, with well-established methods of substantiation.

CAC believes the purpose of labelling for all foods is to protect health and safety while protecting consumers from economic fraud. To that end, labelling requirements, including point-of-purchase materials and advertising, must be consumer-focused and consumer friendly, well balanced with the regulatory ability to determine whether a claim is true and accurate from those that are not.

CAC therefore urges that if labelling of genetically engineered foods is to be federally legislated, then those regulations must also prohibit the use of negative labels, advertising and other promotional materials unless there is a clear ability to substantiate the claim.

CAC also recommends that federal labelling policy be reviewed within three years in order to examine whether effective consumer education has eliminated the need for a mandatory label. Regardless of the basis under which genetically modified foods will be labelled in Canada, consistent consumer information and education should remain the broader communication goal, of which labelling is but one tool in the communication tool basket.

In conclusion, consumers have a right to informed choice about whether they will buy genetically altered foods to feed their families. It is clear from the current level of concern and distrust that consumers need more information to make an informed choice about genetically altered foods and food products.

CAC urges that less time be devoted to debating the theoretical and practical pros and cons of mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods as the only option available for providing consumers with information and choices. We ask that discussion with stakeholders and the public be meaningful and focus on clearly examining a full and relevant range of potential cost-effective, relevant, and enforceable options that would provide consumers with the consistent, relevant, and accurate information they need to make informed choices about genetically engineered foods and indeed all foods in the Canadian marketplace.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We'll go now to Nathalie St-Pierre from the National Federation of Consumers of Quebec.

[Translation]

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre (Executive Director, National Federation of Consumers of Quebec (Montreal)): The National Federation of Consumers of Quebec, or FNACQ, was founded 20 years ago. It has focused its attention on the agri-food sector for the past seven years and on the field of biotechnology for the past decade. I want to thank you for inviting us to take part in the committee's hearings today.

The issues that I would like to share with you were raised in a study that the Federation conducted in 1996 and 1997. This rather comprehensive study looked at some of the solutions adopted by various countries with a view to consulting with consumers and keeping them informed.

• 1120

We have tabled a copy of this study with the committee clerk and it will be available for consultation. We have also submitted an executive summary for your perusal.

We advocate a much more practical approach to consumer information, an area that we seem to be focusing on a great deal this morning. We recommend that consumers receive general information along with information about the technical tools used and about the limitations, advantages and inconveniences of biotechnologies and their applications. Consumer groups and others should also have access to the names of individuals or certified industrial growers working in the field of genetic engineering.

Consumers need to get their information from a variety of sources, that is from the government, from interest groups, from the industry and so forth. They must have information about services, procedures and product composition and impact. Scientific data must be shared with the public and consumer groups, along with information about processing techniques, conservation and genetic modifications.

I'm not saying that each and every Canadian is about to study this data, but the fact that it is accessible would make the process more transparent and give academics, researchers and consumer groups access to credible information which could then be shared with consumers.

As I said, we seem to be focusing a great deal this morning on ways of not only informing consumers, but educating them as well. Therefore, we feel it is important for this data to be available.

We have briefly discussed the criteria for disseminating information. The information imparted to consumers must be balanced, fair and honest. As mentioned earlier, we advocate an educational rather than a marketing approach. When the task of imparting information is left to companies, they tend to adopt a business-like approach, rather than an educational one. In our opinion, this is one concern that must be addressed.

Let's talk then about the different ways of getting this information across to the public. As noted in the national strategy, we need an information source quite independent from promoters and parties with a vested interest in biotechnologies. One idea would be to establish an independent consultative body which would be responsible for getting information across to consumers.

The mandate of this organization could be broadened to make it a reliable source of information. It could operate a 1-800 number. We are talking hear about concrete ways of informing and educating consumers. This body could also issue opinions and conduct independent evaluations on biotechnology regulations. Furthermore, it could be empowered to look into complaints from members of the public. It could also have the authority to review regulations.

Risk management is another point that needs to be considered. Not a great deal has been said about this subject and it is nevertheless important to consumers. We talked about it a little this morning. Ms. Einseldel said that risk was one factor that must be taken into account. This advisory body should have the authority to assess the risk associated with new products.

This issue concerns us a great deal and it was discussed this morning. When insufficient data is available to ascertain the risk level or to determine whether criteria have been respected, the company in question is merely told to go back and do its homework. When it does supply the information requested, it is not made available to public interest or consumer groups or to scientists.

• 1125

We have requested such documents on numerous occasions in order to verify the methods used to assess risk. Our requests have always been denied. Greater transparency is needed and a consultative body could play an active role in this area.

As for the various ways of disseminating information, mention was made this morning of the Internet. However, this is not the only solution. We have to realize that very few people have access today to the Internet and that those who do tend to be well- educated individuals who are naturally curious about things. For the vast majority of members of the public, the Internet is still not a reality of daily life.

We would like to make a number of specific recommendations. First of all, the government should levy a special tax on new and genetically engineered products, the proceeds of which would be used to fund a special initiative to be reported on by the electronic media and in newspapers, books and magazines. A toll- free 1-800 number could be set up along with information centres. The proposed new consultative body could be responsible for overseeing these mechanisms.

In our opinion, the labelling issue has yet to be resolved. Various government departments have held consultations, but the results have not been made public. Once again, the problem is a lack of transparency. We have asked for copies of the submissions tabled, but these have not been made available to us. We feel that adequate follow-up has not been given and that greater thoroughness is needed to ensure that all parties have access to available information.

As for negative or voluntary labelling where a company can choose to indicate whether or not a product has been genetically engineered, this should not be considered a substitute for mandatory labelling because there is no way of verifying the veracity of the information provided. There is no mechanism in place to do so. If, as Christine said earlier, there is no way of checking whether a product was or was not derived from biotechnology, what is the point? This will only confuse members of the public who are going to wonder who did the checking and how it was done. In the case of biological products, efforts have been made to ensure that the certification process is credible, but this costs money. We would have to see whether certification would be relevant in this particular case.

In our opinion, it is important for consumers to make enlightened choices and to have access to a broad range of information. Labelling, whether by means of a symbol or something else, is critically important if consumers are to have real choices. Consumers are not necessarily going to reject biotechnology derived products, but at least they will be able to assess the risk associated with these products, according to their own criteria. Therefore, we advocate mandatory labelling.

I mentioned briefly consultation and cooperation mechanisms. In our view, transparency has been an ongoing problem. Our study showed that countries have taken different approaches, such as holding consensual conferences, organizing working committees and so forth. We have studied all of these mechanisms.

Specific criteria for consultation must be established. Often in the past, mandates have either not been clear or it wasn't clear that the outcome of the consultations would be taken into account. The proposed strategy calls for initial consultations with the public to establish criteria and to devise mechanisms for keeping them informed.

• 1130

This approach requires a commitment on the part of stakeholders. The process must be fully transparent. Fairness and openness are critical. Consumer groups need access to relevant information and not merely via the Internet. Considering that we are told to consult the Internet virtually half the time we request documents, we do not find this approach very user-friendly.

Participants in the process need to be properly briefed and a cross-section of opinions needs to be represented. Since we have many years of experience with the consultation process in the field of biotechnology and other areas, we feel that it is important to ensure that the composition of committees truly reflects all interested parties. Therefore, we recommend that company representation on committees be restricted. We occasionally found with some of the committees we worked on that fully 80 per cent of participants were industry representatives. Consequently, the findings of the committee did not necessarily reflect the public interest.

Moreover, it is important to adopt the right mechanisms. I apologize for emphasizing this point, as I imagine others before me have done. Participation in the consultation process can no longer be on a strictly voluntary basis. It takes money to review documentation, make a credible presentation, gather information and support experts. The departments of Health and Agriculture give very little money to consumer and public interest groups, whereas contributing to this process is an extremely costly exercise for them. This factor must be taken into account.

In terms of educating the public, we have talked a great deal about the roles of the various stakeholders. What purpose does information serve? Consumer groups are on the front line. We constantly field calls from consumers, but we don't have the financial resources to follow up on these calls.

In terms of criteria, when consultations are held, we need to ensure that the exercise is a useful one and an effective means of attaining objectives. Often, we tend to overlook this consideration. Once a consultative process is completed, we fail to assess the results or to weigh the opinions of the various parties involved. After all, it is important to respect the views of all stakeholders.

Therefore, we should start by having a broader public debate and then focus on more specific issues during consensual conferences at which time specific questions could be identified and dealt with. A formal committee could then propose detailed solutions. This three-pronged approach would help us to move from a discussion of general topics to a discussion of specific issues.

I will conclude in the other language.

[English]

It's our opinion that this process of dealing with information and what kind of information we should provide to consumers is discussing first what should be discussed last. Before we discuss what information to disseminate or how, we must and should talk about safety. We feel that this issue is not adequately addressed in the consultation documents that we received.

If Canadians rely on government to protect them, whether this is good or not, then the government must do what its citizens want. Risk assessment must be revised in that light. Regulations are required to protect consumers. The safety of Canadian consumers must not be compromised in order to satisfy the desire of corporations or the desire of the government to become a world leader in the development and sale of biotechnology products and services.

• 1135

If Canada wants to be a leader in promoting mechanisms to support health, safety, environmental, social and ethical matters, why are consumers calling us about the problems they're facing and why can't we provide the answers? Why are the studies not made available, and why is the issue of labelling not resolved?

Since time is running out, I think I'll just leave it at that. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Last, we'll go to Burkhard Mausberg.

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg (Executive Director, Canadian Environmental Defence Fund): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Burkhard Mausberg. I'm the executive director of the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund. We are a national charitable environmental group concerned with environmental rights for Canadians and trying to further environmental rights both in the courts and in legislation.

I've been working on this issue of biotechnology for the last eight years, and every time I give a talk, whether in a forum such as this or when I talk to citizens on the street, I want to define what I talk about before I talk about it.

When I use the word “biotechnology”, I am specifically referring to genetic engineering. So my remarks are only geared towards those sets of technologies that manipulate genetic material at the cellular level and are not dealing with those technologies that we have used since we stopped becoming hunters and gatherers and actually used the land and animals and plants for production of food.

In some ways I've had a very privileged position, because I'm in a position where I can be devil's advocate, where I can ask some tough questions without having to be in your chair, from which you have to make decisions based on those tough questions. I recognize that privileged position I'm in, in asking tough questions.

Before I ask any of those tough questions—I think they are tough questions—let me go back to a comment that Mr. Mayers made earlier this morning. He referred to biotechnology as just another tool in the toolbox. I think that is fundamentally wrong. When we look at what we are talking about, we have to provide a scientific context.

We have had four billion years of evolution—four billions years during which a cow mated with a cow to make another cow, where salmon mated with another salmon to make another salmon. Only since about the early 1970s have we had the opportunity and the technology to mix a plant with an animal, to mix a cow with a salmon, to put canola into fish. I'm not saying these particular examples currently exist. I don't want to fall into the trap of my colleague from the biotechnology information network and what he said about giving wrong examples. I'm just providing a framework.

For the last 25 or 26 years we've been able to do something that evolution previously was not able to do, and that is to mix the genetic material of totally unrelated species and make something new. At least in my view, that's the scientific context in which we should approach the topic of biotechnology. We're doing something that is fundamentally unnatural. It doesn't occur in nature.

So it's not just another tool in the toolbox, because what we are doing is mixing genes from a variety of organisms and species, putting them in a beaker, mixing them up, and hoping something new comes out that has desirable characteristics.

In that context, then, what is the public perception of this technology? My experience has been that it's mixed. We saw a whole range of surveys today, and as all of you will know, the kind of answer you get from a survey very much depends on the kind of question you ask. So are surveys trustworthy when 33% of the Canadian public think a tomato doesn't contain genes? Are those reliable surveys? I can put up surveys from a whole range of organizations, including the Canadian Dairy Bureau, which said in its survey that two-thirds of Canadians have said that biotechnology poses some or a lot of danger to society. So surveys can be manipulated to result in what you want to hear, in many ways.

Some of the surveys provide interesting tidbits of information, though, and I'm not looking at the numerical numbers, I'm looking at the comments people make. When you look at some of the Optima surveys that were done several years ago, you find things like people thinking we're playing God or that in using genetic engineering technologies we are playing God. That's the kind of framework I think we should look at when we talk about biotech.

• 1140

In terms of access to information, having worked on this issue for the last eight years, and having worked with colleagues from Health Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, I found a whole bunch of interesting scenarios.

In 1991 we raised the issue first, when I was working for Pollution Probe. We produced a large full-colour map of all the field tests that were occurring at that time in Canada. When we gathered the information, Agriculture and Agri-Food refused to release the exact location of those field tests, so we did not have the opportunity to find out where those genetic tests on Canadian soil occurred.

In 1993 I wrote a chapter in a legal book called Environment on Trial, on the regulation of biotechnology. I requested to see some of the risk assessments that were done for the various products under development. I received those risk assessments with whole sections blacked out. So again, we were not given access to information.

In 1995, when I wrote A Citizen's Guide to Biotechnology, we found out just before publication that the issue of labelling had been resolved. That is, there was not going to be any labelling of genetically engineered food. That, to me, does not reflect access to information.

For me the question is this. If as a consumer I make certain choices to purchase certain products, the choices are based on a whole range of issues. I may go to a car dealership to buy a car based on a number of criteria, such as the comfort of the car, where it was made, the gas mileage, and so on. If I go into a supermarket, I invariably make choices about nutritional value, cost, and so on.

What I find interesting in the argument that there shouldn't be labelling is that we are told the product is safe, and that therefore there should be no labelling. Well, my view is that because it's safe, that should be the criterion that allows it on the market in the first place.

At that point, should people have a choice based on their religious beliefs, based on their beliefs that this technology is indeed opposing four billion years of evolution, or based on the fact that they may be allergic to certain products? At that point, I will make a choice whether or not I purchase a genetically engineered product. So the safety issue does not neglect that choice. It's made up of many different factors.

For example, consumer boycotts have been very successful in a range of social policy questions. All day I've tried to think of the name of the young Canadian, the 12-year-old who's trying to fight child labour in various developing countries. He is trying to do a consumer boycott by having consumers not purchase those products, because he believes, in my view rightly, that children should not be working at 10 or 12 years old. They should be playing ball or hockey or whatever they like to do as children, to have a proper development. There a consumer boycott is being used, successfully or not I don't know, in order to influence consumers' decisions. How can consumers make those kinds of decisions if we do not know what product we are purchasing?

If I happen to be an intensely religious person—it doesn't matter what religion it is—and I believe that for various reasons we are put on this earth and we progress in reproduction the way we happen to, don't I have a right to exercise that religious belief? If I happen to be someone who has a preference towards organic foods—i.e., those foods that have not been produced with pesticides and herbicides and chemical input—don't I have a right to purchase those products and to be informed whether or not the product on the shelf fulfils those requirements?

I find these kinds of forums are best in a discussion, and that's why I leave my remarks short. At the end of the day what I would like to leave you with is that choice is not just a matter of one criterion—in this particular, safety. Choice is a matter of several criteria where individually we are all different. At the end of the day what it results in is freedom—freedom to choose those products that we individually believe are right for ourselves.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 1145

The Chairman: Thank you.

I thank everyone for their presentations.

We'll go immediately to questions, and Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. An interesting morning.

I want to hit more or less three different issues. I think they were expressed in each presentation, more or less. One is misleading information, which I heard from a number of presenters; the second is the right or access to information; and the third is the labelling issue. As well, Mr. Mausberg hit on something that got me thinking: How much influence in all these issues does the media have?

I'll just throw this out as a backgrounder to you. My Liberal friends know I've been quite critical of the Canadian Wheat Board, and I have had some interesting experiences. I did a news release on one of the issues for which I had documentation, and all of a sudden a farmer from the Peace River area who had heard about it phoned me and said, “You know, Jake, we can't get our media to print your news release or do a story on it”. I found that hard to believe, so I did phone some media people I knew, and I was astounded by the amount of pressure that is put on the media not to give the correct information.

When you have big organizations like Monsanto and other people, with billions of dollars at stake, how do you disseminate whether it's misleading information or correct information?

I was very interested, Dr. Surgeoner, in your statement that you could get no farmer to serve on the board. Was that because farmers weren't concerned about information or communication? Let's touch that one first.

Dr. Gord Surgeoner: The reason we didn't get a farmer is that we had a general meeting with an election, and unfortunately, the farmer who ran didn't win the election.

Actually, in the province of Ontario we have an organization called ABC Ontario, or Agricultural Biotechnology Coalition, which has the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers, and a whole variety of farm organizations. AGCare is another major Ontario organization.

They're very much involved, because they're seeing the leading value-added wave, if you like, associated with this technology. That's well labelled in their business, because it's where the value is occurring. A lot of it's not yet in the consumer market. So farmers are very much involved in this overall process.

To get back to your question about the media, I also have frustrations that way. The CBC did the documentary Field of Genes. We have quite a number of people who were more than willing to speak on the issues in a balanced format, but they wanted the extremes to create, I guess, energy around it. Balance doesn't seem to draw the big audiences.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: I was wondering further, Dr. Surgeoner, how you operate. You said that you have a board with different points of view. How do you critique these different points of view—which ones are right and which ones are wrong—to promote a certain topic or a certain direction in the information?

Dr. Gord Surgeoner: I think I'll use my colleague Chris as an example. We very often will write and rewrite various issues over and over again until we can come to consensus statements associated with these. In our consumer kit, we in fact had many rewrites on the same issue.

So it's a lot of back and forth and providing information to each side of the equation.

The Chairman: Ms. St-Pierre.

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: I want to comment as well on this subject of misleading information. It's not an easy subject. It's very complex.

An example that comes to mind is when we said numerous years ago that with the green revolution and pesticides, we were going to save the world, with no more hunger and so on and so forth. We would be able to produce enough food for all.

These are the kind of...uneasy feeling about what kind of information should be out there, and not just say that biotechnology will solve world hunger again. That was used a lot, and it's used a lot that biotechnology is the technology.

• 1150

Also, when we talk about misleading information, or balanced information, those are the statements we're saying we have to be cautious about. This is a technology that I agree is certainly not a tool. We're changing fundamentally the nature of things. So how do we deal with this? What are the pros and cons? There are some dangers. What are they? Where can you get information?

I know the FBCN exists. Of course, we were there as part of the process and all that. But consumers have never called us and said they got the information. If they want to know something about it from the consumer's perspective, they can call us. Providing balanced information is not easy. All stakeholders should sit down. Again, it comes back to the means. If the farmer maybe cannot join the association or was not elected, or if the consumer groups cannot go, maybe it's because they don't have the means to attend and to participate fully, which means you have to read; you have to keep up the expertise and everything. So this creates a difficult situation.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Seeing that we have a lot of big bucks today in communications, are we running into a problem with brainwashing more than advertising? I made a trip to the Soviet Union in 1981 and I was astounded what media can do to brainwash people.

When I looked at my own family growing up, when we got the first television in our home in 1961 my little kids, who were three or four years old, wouldn't watch the program, but, by cracky, when a commercial came on, they all gathered around the TV and it influenced them. You know they knew more about products than I did. I didn't pay much attention.

Are we in a society where this is happening to us? Because of big bucks and certain directions that multinationals want to take, information is geared in such a way as to lead us along and make them more successful than maybe the consumer or the people who use the products.

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: I think you're right. It touches upon what my colleague was saying about critical thinking. Maybe we are not educating our children to become thinkers, to be able to analyse information. You have to say, this is what I need, this is what I'm looking for, and this is what I will do with this information.

We see in the schools more and more pamphlets or brochures that are offered by banks or companies that have a product to sell instead of providing information. Certainly there should be a critical look about what's going on in the school at that level, the level of information.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Thank you.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Mausberg, I think you have something to say.

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: I wanted to respond to that question. Again, and I can't see the names and I apologize, but my colleague there put up a graph that showed the acceptability of biotechnology products in various countries. I'd like to make another slide and put that on top of it. That slide would show how much money has been spent in Canada and Europe on marketing and advertising biotechnology products versus those other countries. Because we've had a head start in developing these products based on our economy, which is very much based on natural resources and agriculture and forestry and so on, that's why we've seen the leadership in biotechnology products in Canada. Therefore, we've been ahead of the game. Therefore we've spent a lot more money on marketing and advertising. So I challenge my colleague from the University of Calgary.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Is that in brainwashing or marketing and advertising?

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: I think that's a tricky question.

The Chairman: We'll go to Ms. Alarie.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: We are hearing some rather disturbing information about this field. Biotechnology is, in my opinion, important if we are to ensure food safety, but if we want to go further with biotechnology, we need to educate people. This is a fundamental criterion. The people who are being educated need to trust us and above all, we need to be credible and transparent from a scientific standpoint.

• 1155

In this morning's focus groups, we heard how, on the one hand, consumers were worried about an ecological disaster, and how, on the other hand, government and other agencies currently overseeing this field were no longer trusted. Therefore, who can impart information in a credible manner so that people have confidence in what they are being told?

I believe you talked about setting up an independent body. Isn't that right?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: The subject does indeed generate a great deal of concern, but let me say first and foremost that I believe the state, that is the government, has a role to play. We must place our trust in someone. The public needs to get their information from a trustworthy source. Consumers cannot assess every bit of information themselves. The government has a responsibility to ensure food safety.

To restore public confidence, we need to change the way we do things. The consultation process needs to be more transparent and our methods more open. I talked about this earlier and I discuss it in my summary. Criteria are needed. Once we make the effort, confidence will slowly be restored.

Then, it will be easier to educate people because they will be more trusting and thus less demanding. People are quite demanding today because their confidence has been shaken. Labelling might become less of an issue when people realize that there are no risks involved. Religious or moral issues may indeed surface, but the important thing is to restore trust.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: A background paper on the consultation process into renewing Canada's biotechnology strategy mentioned a vast consultation process to be undertaken. The dates suggested were March and April. Did this consultation process in fact take place? Were you satisfied with the outcome? What exactly do you mean by transparent?

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: The consultation process did indeed take place. I wouldn't say that it was broad in scope. Because meetings were being held in Montreal, we wanted to send three representatives, but that wasn't possible. Although we weren't asking for much, but we were limited to one person.

A vast consultation process isn't quite as simple as all that. A certain amount of expertise is required to understand what is being discussed, along with an awareness of the issues involved. Consultation does not imply a public debate. It implies consultation on very specific components of the Canadian strategy.

As for the meaning of transparency, it refers to the way of doing things and to the way of involving people in the process. The process cannot be not transparent when no follow-up is conducted and no documentation distributed. We have attended meetings and subsequently received no follow-up information. Getting information of any kind has not proven easy. That is what we mean by lack of transparency.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Ms. Mitchler, you mentioned negative labelling. What do you mean by that?

[English]

Ms. Christine Mitchler: Negative labelling is when you are saying something is, for example, fat free. A fat-free product claim on a label would be an example of a negative labelling claim.

Another one would be, for example, if rBST were to be approved in this country, if I dare say the B word. It has not been, but let's just say for the sake of argument that Health Canada approves rBST. That's not to say they have. I do not have inside knowledge on that issue, but let's say they do.

• 1200

Assuming, first of all, that Health Canada approved the product and it's deemed to be safe for animals, humans, and the environment, and so health and safety is not an issue, I am concerned that under current labelling guidelines a milk processor could, in theory, slap a label on there that says this milk has not been treated or derived from rBST-treated cows. There's absolutely no way I'm aware of to substantiate or verify whether that claim is true at this point in time. I'm concerned about having negative labelling claims out there that there is no way to verify or substantiate. If there is a way to provide the substantiation for such labelling claims, be it for rBST, for fat free, or whatever it is, that's fine, but it has to be substantiated with very well-established and very well-supported evidence that government feels it can enforce and regulate.

Dr. Milly Ryan-Harshman: I wanted to comment with respect to negative labelling. Negative labelling is part of the voluntary labelling system that is currently practised by CFIA and Health Canada as partners. The purpose of that is to allow for specialty market development.

If you look at what we have currently in Canada in specialty markets, we have organic foods. Organic foods, of course, are growing in popularity, so there is a necessity to have voluntary negative labelling that says, for example, in the future this does not contain genetically engineered organisms. That's indeed what this system allows us to do. That's very important, and it is substantiated. It's very important that this message be gotten across; it can be substantiated, because through organic labelling now, whatever are the criteria to be called organic...then those can be substantiated.

The same would be true if we had voluntary negative labelling for genetically engineered food products. If one were to say there are no genetically engineered organisms present in this food, you could substantiate it in the same way organic foods are substantiated. There may not be a test to determine whether rBST is genetically engineered or otherwise, because all cows will have rBST regardless. So that's an important distinction to make there. I think voluntary negative labelling is very crucial and substantiated.

The Chairman: Mr. McCormick.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity, and thank you all for being here.

Perhaps I need to put something at rest in my own mind. I thought I knew where we were on labelling. If my wife were to plant more tomatoes than what she's probably going to plant, and she used an heirloom variety of tomatoes, which are very popular throughout North America, and if we wanted to sell those tomatoes on the corner market, can we label them as organic or not today? Please clarify this for me, Dr. Ryan-Harshman.

Dr. Milly Ryan-Harshman: I'm not certain if that decision has been made about organic.

Gord, has the final decision been made about the labelling of organic foods?

Dr. Gord Surgeoner: My interpretation was you were using an old variety when you said an heirloom variety, so there was no genetic engineering involved.

Mr. Larry McCormick: No, not at all.

Dr. Gord Surgeoner: In order to label it organic, you have to have it certified. So you have to have three years of a certification process showing no artificial chemicals, either pesticides or fertilizers. If you've had that certification process over three years, you could then sell that product as organic.

Dr. Milly Ryan-Harshman: Then, of course, it could be labelled as such.

Dr. Gord Surgeoner: Yes.

Mr. Larry McCormick: And that certification process is administered by the organic association themselves? They set the standards—

Dr. Milly Ryan-Harshman: Yes, they do.

Mr. Larry McCormick: —and they allow whatever farmer meets those standards to be able to sell under that label?

Dr. Gord Surgeoner: That's correct. In fact, there are several different organizations, so there isn't exactly one common standard. The U.S. is undergoing some extreme controversy right now under the terminology of what will be organic, because the initial USDA recommendation said that biotechnology could be, and there's quite a backlash against that, which I would agree with.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Again, just for clarification, if I obtain seeds from a source of grains from some country where there have not been any changes to that seed, can I grow that grain and can I label it that it's free of any altering of genes of any kind? Can I do that today? Who can clarify that for me? Health Canada could, I'm sure.

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: That's what I understand from the guidelines.

Mr. Larry McCormick: We can do that today. Okay, thank you very much.

• 1205

Now, Doctor, from Food and Technology in Oshawa, you're a consultant. I just hope that in the answer you're going to say who your clients are and your funding.

I had a lot of people in eastern Ontario get into this rBST, and they're still watching it very closely. They have concerns. All these tests are being conducted in the United States and in some other laboratories, and it seems to be funded by the company that does have the product available, Monsanto in this case. So I'd like to get you to share your thoughts on that.

There doesn't seem to be a great concern or a great challenge when we use biotech for seeds or for grain. It's just when we get into certain cases, most certainly with milk and with animals—that's where the resistance seems to be. So much more good is going to come continually from biotech that we do have to be involved in the education. So I just want to get you on the record here.

Dr. Milly Ryan-Harshman: Okay.

The best way to preface the answer to your question is by saying my background is as a public health nutritionist. I left public health nutrition about two years ago to become more involved in food and technology consulting. The reason I left is I wanted to be more involved in the breaking issues of the day, which included labelling of genetically engineered foods and that sort of thing.

What I'm most interested in is protecting the public health system we have created in Canada in terms of how we address issues—for example, risk assessment and safety concerns of genetically engineered foods. I want them to proceed in the fashion they have proceeded in in the past, which has been very good at protecting food safety. That's very important.

Certainly a number of questions come up, and almost everyone has asked me, “So who do you work for? Everyone wants to know.” Well, I will tell you that I have worked for Monsanto. I have also worked for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency doing some education. I have volunteered time to Dietitians of Canada and to the Food Biotechnology Communications Network.

My practice is one of education, so even if I work for a company, my role is that of an educator, not a marketer of product. I have not marketed any product for any company, because that is the opposite of education. Advertising is not education, and I am in it for the education side.

We have a very good regulatory system. People don't have a clue what that regulatory system is all about, because it's very complicated. It takes people like me, who are willing to provide that type of education, and that's why I'm where I am.

Mr. Larry McCormick: Thank you.

I certainly, Mr. Chair, want to put on the record that I'm not at any time ever questioning the ethics of any doctors or scientists or whatever.

I notice that in the United States they say one-third of their vegetables and fruits are imported. Of course that's probably a trade concern, when you have a country that touches as many places on the globe as they do. But also they're very concerned because of the food safety; they've had some problems with raspberries and so on. I just wonder if there's something we might look at later.

I'm sure we'll have no concerns and it will be well looked at when we bring in biotech products, but when we put so much attention on biotech, will that leave us open for...? We'll have to watch these other products we're bringing in from other locations on the globe. I certainly trust the people there, but we have to be a watchdog sometimes with our multinationals.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Does anybody want to attempt that?

Ms. Mitchler.

Ms. Christine Mitchler: A year ago, I would say probably 60% of the presentations I was asked to give, as a CAC representative, to industry, government, and interest groups were on biotechnology or topics relating to it. Within the last year, that emphasis has switched over from biotech to food safety. So the bulk of my time is now spent on food safety presentations.

• 1210

I would also like to say that I have to disagree with Madame Alarie that consumers have a high level of distrust in government. I think consumers have a high degree of trust in government in terms of food safety.

I think that's true relative to the concern and perception about food safety in the U.S., certainly if the media is any indicator of that. The U.S. is getting a lot of scrutiny around food safety. Canada has been getting less of that. Part of that is because consumers do have that high level of confidence in our food safety system.

I find it interesting that we as consumers will have a high degree of confidence in the safety of our foods, but all of a sudden, with biotechnology and genetic engineering products, that confidence goes right out the window. I guess that was one of the issues that we looked at during our national food committee meeting: why is that?

I think there are fundamental questions and a sense of uneasiness raised by the vehicle of biotechnology and genetic engineering. It causes questions about how food is produced and processed in this country. Biotech just happens to be a lightning rod for that.

I just wanted to clarify that point about trust.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Three points were raised here on biotech: awareness, implication, and the public's role. I found the charts that were shown to us to be very interesting. For instance, look at the public's perception of how yeast is used for making beer, 77% to 12%, versus how genes are used in better tomatoes, which was 15% to 33%. So right off the bat, those percentages tell me that the public knows more about making beer than about food production.

A voice: Priorities.

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes. Go figure.

Also, we got into some of the other ones here. The public seems to know more about how bacteria figures in vaccines for medicine—those percentages were the same—than what they know about how biotech is basically used in food. Is there a lack of knowledge or a resistance in the general public in dealing with biotech in food production?

I have a few more questions to go from there.

Dr. Gord Surgeoner: In my opinion, one of the key issues is that it has to personally affect you. Once it starts to personalize itself to you then you become interested and you want the information. So as the second wave of biotechnology comes through with the reduced fat and that which is better for your health, those kinds of things, in my opinion, will be labelled because the consumer benefits. Then their interests will mean that they will become involved.

Right now, most of it is at the agronomic stage with farmers. The farmers are involved. They're looking at the Roundup Ready soybeans and Bt corn because the value-added component affects them. Once the value-added component starts to personalize itself with consumers, like beer, then I think they will start to spend more attention on it and pick up the information. Consumers are inundated with information, and until it starts to personally affect them, they're not going to spend a lot of time on it. That's my opinion.

Mr. Murray Calder: Okay, I agree. I'm going to deal with the awareness just a little bit more. As for the implication, I think you're already touching on that right now, Gord.

I can think of one of the reasons why the consumer right now is becoming more and more interested. You have to remember the demographics here. I'm a farmer in my other life, and we farmers make up 2.8% of the population, yet 100% of the population is involved in what I am producing. Therefore, they should be interested in what I'm doing.

But at the same time, the population wants its cars and houses and everything else along with that, yet every time I fly out of Pearson International Airport to come to Ottawa, I see another subdivision going on top of prime agricultural land.

I feel there has to be an education process here, because the implication—we're heading toward the public's role here—is the fact that I have less land to produce food for more people. I know the demographics right now are that, by 2030, there will be nine billion people on the face of the Earth. So you're putting me in a corner here. I have less land on which I have to produce more food. How am I going to do that?

• 1215

Ms. Edna Einseldel: I see the issue of biotechnology as something that you can't keep in a vacuum. I think that as part of the educational process people do have to understand the larger context in which the technology operates, so I don't think it's just a matter of talking about the science or some of the impacts on the environmental side or the wonderful economics that the industry will reap. I think you have to look at all of these issues in total.

Mr. Murray Calder: Which basically brings us down to the last two points—and Mr. Mausberg will probably want to comment once I finish.

There were two comments made to the effect that we need to have labelling of a product that is GE-free. My question is, starting from when? In 1970 we were doing plant cross-breeding and were very successful, and that's why we're currently feeding six billion people. The projection then was that we were going to have five billion people by 1995. We're past that already and we're producing much more per acre now than what we were in 1970 when we were afraid we couldn't feed 3% of the population. That's the first point.

Second, we are going to be more intensive in food production per acre, which means that if we're going to do that we're probably going to have to use more pesticides and herbicides. And it makes sense to me that.... Okay, we're changing DNA—I will give you that—instead of cross-breeding because we've had to speed up the process, but the benefit from it is going to be that we're not going to be using as much herbicide. And pesticides would be a better example, if you take a look at the potato versus the Colorado potato bug. I'd like your comments on that.

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: If I may, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the argument that biotech—and particularly genetic engineering—ought to be used to feed the world is a laudable one. Nobody likes to see starving people.

But I challenge you to find out how many applications currently being pursued in Canada actually deal with an increase in food production rather than a particular application whereby somebody was ingenious enough to make more money at it.

When you look at Monsanto's applications, for example, whether it's the canola or the soya bean or the cotton, most of their applications deal with how they can sell more Roundup.

Mr. Murray Calder: I can give you an example right now if you want an example. I'm a chicken farmer. Twenty-five years ago it used to take me 12 weeks to produce a four-pound chicken. My feed conversion at that time was overtopped at 3:1. Now I'm producing a chicken at four pounds, a male in approximately 39 to 40 days and a female in approximately 41 to 42 days. That has been done through cross-breeding and everything, and my feed conversion is now 1.85:1. There's an example.

Mr. Burkhard Mausberg: But that is traditional biotech, not genetic engineering, and that's what I'm talking about. When proponents of the microtechnology—how you're mixing up genes and DNA among species—talk out, they always talk about promoting increased food, and again, it's a very laudable goal, but when you look at the actual applications being pursued in the lab, in the field, and commercially, they have nothing to do with it—or very few have anything to do with that. Most applications deal with increasing the profits of the company producing it. That's my first comment.

My other comment is that you're absolutely right with respect to something like the potato beetle: if we can engineer a potato to cut out the pesticide use in order to have a better yield for farmers in the maritimes, that may very well be a suitable application.

But then again, at the same time, look at how much we are ingraining and manifesting herbicide use with one scientist's Roundup product. There we're saying, “buy this product”, and you have to apply herbicide in order to make the value of that product worthwhile. They're not even giving you a choice to do IPM.

The Chairman: Thank you, Murray. The time is up. We have to go to Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: I'll just pick up on Mr. Calder's point. It's quite interesting. As you know, in today's food basket the producer gets about 11% to 14% of the cost of that food basket.

• 1220

I was interested in Ms. Mitchler's comment about the Competition Act. We know that with the biotechnology and all the cross-breeding and whatever, we have more breeder's rights, we have extended patent protections, we have intellectual rights. How do you get the Competition Act to work in a society that is controlled totally by different rights?

We know we have to have safe food, but we also have to have affordable food. If the safe food isn't affordable, you ain't going to eat it. You're going to go for something else. How do we as a producer and a consumer get some political or judicial clout to protect our interests, instead of protecting all the interests of the middlemen?

Ms. Christine Mitchler: I have two ways to respond to that. First of all, the reference to the competition issue was an example of the kinds of consumer interest issues that my association tends to get involved in. That remark was part of my introductory remarks about CAC in general.

The second part of my response is that it gets to one of the comments I made in my presentation about who bears the risks, who bears the benefits, and who gets to decide. I think that's a very complicated issue. The issue around intellectual property and patenting is a very complicated issue. I don't think it's black and white. I think there needs to be a lot more discussion and debate around that, just as there is around how to label and how to provide consumers with information.

It's always been my belief as a consumer representative that it would be very, very difficult to only do the kind of work that I do as a CAC rep and only look at what is in the consumer interest without looking at how this particular consumer interest would affect the farmer. How would it affect the processor? How would it affect the distributor and the retailer? I don't think any of this happens in isolation one unto the other. It's part of a system, and I think all the inputs provide input into the system.

If you make a change at the farm end, you're going to, by direct relationship, create a change or an input or an impact on the consumer end. It falls all the way through the chain. I think we have to consider all the impacts on everybody and all the points along the way within the food distribution system and the food chain.

I really believe that if you do something that is going to be blatantly unfair to the producer or the processor, it's going to end up being unfair to the consumer, because they're going to end up paying for the cost of it. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: What I'm trying to get at is that we've had different complaints about the input costs—you know, they're being regulated, there's no competition between the fuel companies or fertilizer companies, and the farmer has to pay the cost. The farmer, however, has no mechanism of passing that cost on to the wholesaler or to the consumer.

Somewhere we have to have some kind of mechanism. We had one presenter here over a year ago from the United States tell us that if the Canadian government didn't regulate or institute some legislation that would be more stringent on the anti-combines act, that would reduce the—what do you call it?—the combines of certain conglomerates and the controlling of prices, farming would not stay viable, and it would be impossible to operate a farm.

When I look today at the average income of a farmer in Manitoba, it's $ 8,000. You know, that's half of the poverty income. Where are we going with this whole issue?

Ms. Christine Mitchler: I think this is an agricultural issue in general. It certainly is outside the purview of my area of expertise as a consumer representative on food issues. I don't think I can answer that in the specific terms. I think it's an agricultural issue that is not only an issue perhaps with biotechnology, but an issue that's of concern within the agricultural industry as a whole.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Doesn't it go in to the education, the communications?

• 1225

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: My comment on that—to respond also to what you were saying before—is that if producers are more and more hostages, basically, or becoming hostage, to the companies producing the seeds, producing the pesticides, producing the herbicides and all that, then indeed we will feel there would be less competition. As a result, I think, it's inevitable that the price of food will probably go up.

So the use of biotechnology is probably exacerbating this problem, because farmers and producers are becoming more and more dependent on these technologies, and they're supplied by very few manufacturers. It is a concern, and how to deal with that—

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: That's the first time I've heard somebody admit that. That's been my position all along, that the more we get into the technical field, the more we produce, the more hurt we experience.

Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre: And if—

The Chairman: We have to go on to the next questioner.

Madam Alarie.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Let me set you straight, Ms. Mitchler. I was only reporting what I heard this morning. In the focus groups, we heard that there was little trust in institutions. I was only repeating what I heard.

I have a question for Dr. Surgeoner. Is the kit you talked about available to the public? Could we get one? I would be curious to see what kind of information it contains.

[English]

Dr. Gord Surgeoner: Chris, did you leave a copy of the kit for the committee?

Ms. Christine Mitchler: The revisions aren't completed yet.

The Chairman: Could you give it to the clerk whenever it's complete? Then we'll get it out to the various members.

Dr. Gord Surgeoner: Yes.

Ms. Christine Mitchler: It's not likely to be available until the end of May, early June. I'm still receiving comments within CAC from my people. I think we're now up to the second or third draft.

Ms. Hélène Alarie: Merci.

The Chairman: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: We've touched on a number of angles, if I can put it that way, with respect to this subject of biotechnology. I think a number of speakers have spoken to the fact that information, when it comes to biotechnology, is somewhat scarce at times, sometimes misleading, or perhaps sometimes just plain wrong.

My friend from Manitoba, Mr. Hoeppner—of course, I come from Manitoba as well—was pointing out that when his children were young, they were more apt to pay attention to the commercials on television as opposed to the program material being transmitted. I think that's a good observation, but we have to remember that resources are critical. Leading sponsors, national and international, have the wealth to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes millions of dollars, to prepare one minute of material. One minute of commercial may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, or millions. But the programmers, the networks, don't have any money like that to spend on their programming. So resources are critical.

It's interesting that in this country, the only network that has resources anywhere near adequate to provide information is the CBC, because it's publicly funded and it has a mandate to tell stories about Canada and what's going on here. Yet it's Mr. Hoeppner and his party who would love to destroy the CBC. Isn't that interesting.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: We just want to privatize it, John.

Mr. John Harvard: Yes, make them just like the rest of the networks that have no resources to provide information. Isn't that interesting.

I have one question for Madam Einseldel. I think you mentioned off the top—if I heard you right—when you were alluding to the graph on the screen, that there was perhaps a link between the acceptance of technology on one side and the support of public institutions on the other.

• 1230

I really wonder about that, because I know a lot of people in public life who are quite ready to accept technology to improve profits, to make all kinds of money, to make the country more competitive, and yet on the other hand will slam public institutions every day. I might even get back to my friend, Mr. Hoeppner, again.

A voice: Leave Jake alone for a while.

Mr. John Harvard: Yes, we'll leave Jake alone, but when you belong to that kind of party, you're open to attack.

Anyway, do you really believe there is a linkage between those two? I have my doubts, and I guess I'm trying to be a critical thinker, as suggested by our friend here at the end of the table.

Ms. Edna Einseldel: There are many factors that determine acceptance of a given technology. I'm not saying trust in institutions is the only factor that helps to explain acceptance. It's quite possible that you'll have a situation where there is trust in an institution but non-acceptance of the technology. It's also quite possible that the opposite can happen. All I'm saying is there is a connection between trust in institutions and acceptance, but that is not the only factor.

Mr. John Harvard: I have one more question. Do you think there is something to what Mr. Mausberg said, that perhaps the reason there is a greater acceptance of biotechnology on this continent as opposed to that in Europe is because in North America we have been world leaders when it comes to biotechnology and there has been more promotion of the industry, more than what exists in Europe?

Ms. Edna Einseldel: There has been promotion of the industry in North America. Certainly if you look at the United States, that's certainly where a lot of the early products of biotechnology have come onto the market. That's also where some of the early consumer battles on biotechnology have occurred. I think the fact that there is a lot of promotion of these products is just one factor.

Another factor might be that North Americans certainly have been ahead in terms of the production of these products. Certainly in terms of Canada being a resource-based economy, that could also be another reason why there is some support for these products. The example of potatoes in P.E.I. was mentioned. I presume that in Saskatchewan you might have higher levels of support in terms of wheat crops, for example. That's another factor that might explain why there is some acceptance here.

A third factor might be that we don't have perhaps as much activity that's visible on the interest groups side. We don't have a Jeremy Rifkin who commands media attention. So I think it's a whole bunch of factors. In Germany, for example, you have the Green Party that's institutionalized and able to promote an agenda within the institutional setting that's not available in other settings.

Mr. John Harvard: And who want to increase the price of gasoline from $ 4 a gallon to $ 8 a gallon.

The Chairman: We've run out of time, but I have a small question I'd like to ask. Mrs. Ur has a small question also.

Would you like to go first, Mrs. Ur?

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Unfortunately we've run out of time. I want to have two points on record.

Madame St-Pierre made the statement that if Canadians expect government to protect them...and I don't know if this is good or not. What did she really mean by that? Who or what has created or led to this mistrust?

The second point is, I think Dr. Surgeoner said there's enough information out there, but it only seems to get to the public when it affects them personally. I agree with you there.

Maybe we've missed the communication aspect. Biotech isn't anything new. I think consumers are seeing that as being new, and when anything is new, they are apprehensive. So in our great communication skills, why are we not explaining to them the biotech from way back when, say, insulin or whatever, and how positive it can be? We're just presenting the day-to-day things. Why don't you go back and say how wonderful it has been in the past, to kind of get them on your side?

Dr. Gord Surgeoner: That is a very strong method that we use. But I do agree with the comments that we are making a leap forward. We are saying we're building on past technologies. We use bread and wine, and it's in our consumer kit that we do that.

• 1235

But Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make one comment. We hear this term “a product of biotechnology” over and over again. I want to emphasize to the committee the complexity of that.

We had a big Industry Canada debate on labelling of products of biotechnology. Somebody made the comment that McDonald's claims they don't have products of biotechnology, but here becomes the issue.

McDonald's buys beef and chicken from Canada that's probably fed with corn and soy beans that we grow in Ontario and that are products of biotechnology. So is that chicken and beef now a product of biotechnology?

All of the cheese, or at least 60% to 70% of the cheese, now has chymosin in it to create the rennet to make the cheese itself. Is your cheeseburger now a product of biotechnology?

The cooking oil to make your French fries may well have been canola oil. Let alone that we're using the P.E.I. potato, but just the cooking oil, is this a product of biotechnology?

Then when people really get upset is with your can of Coke. Our second use of corn in the province of Ontario is to create fructose. So we take that corn, we make fructose, and we put it in a can of Coke. Is that Coke a product of biotechnology?

So you suddenly see the complexity of the issue we're dealing with when you personalize it from the McDonald's standpoint, or Wendy's, or what have you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

My little question is this. I was told recently by a person from your university that in the near future nutritionists are going to be more important than doctors, because we're living longer. Every generation we add on three or four years, in spite of pesticides and chemicals, and maybe even in spite of biotechnology.

Dr. Ryan-Harshman, you are a nutritionist yourself and you have done studies for large companies and so on. Do you think this is correct, that we're going to be more into preventative medicine rather than curing disease?

Dr. Milly Ryan-Harshman: Absolutely. There's a definite trend, and that's part of what Paul Mayers was mentioning this morning about the whole concept of nutraceuticals and whether they would be novel foods or whether they might be considered drugs. That area is just beginning. In the next 15 to 20 years, we'll see a number of products become available. Those products could vary from drugs to foods.

I'll give you a very specific example. Lycopene in tomatoes has been heavily researched in the last couple of years because of its ability to reduce incidence of prostate cancer, for example. It is possible to produce a supplement that would be taken by people who are at risk for prostate cancer to reduce the possibility that they would get that cancer, and that may be considered by the current definitions a nutraceutical or a drug-type supplement.

However, it's also possible through biotechnology to insert the genes that code for the proteins that make the enzymes that make lycopene, which is incidentally the red pigment of tomato, so that you would get maybe broccoli that contained lycopene. Then broccoli, which already contains important phytochemicals for fighting cancer, would be even better, which would certainly benefit those who don't like tomatoes. Tomatoes are probably the primary source of lycopene for most people's diets. There are some other sources, such as watermelon, which is more of a seasonal fruit.

So absolutely, there's a lot of potential there for that to take place. It's going to demand that we have greater funding for education. As I've always said as a public health nutritionist, give me the money and I'll do it.

The Chairman: Okay.

A voice: Show me the money.

Dr. Milly Ryan-Harshman: That's right; show me the money.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Thank you all very much. It's been a very interesting morning. Thank you all for your input.

The meeting is adjourned.