HEAL Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Health

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

1110

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.))

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

1115

The Chair

Ms. Diane Gorman (Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health)

1120

1125

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Karen L. Dodds (Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health)

1130

Mr. Merrifield

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Merrifield

Ms. Diane Gorman

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Karen Dodds

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Karen Dodds

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Karen Dodds

Ms. Diane Gorman

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni, Canadian Alliance)

1135

Dr. Karen Dodds

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Karen Dodds

1140

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Karen Dodds

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Karen Dodds

Mr. Bart Bilmer (Director, Office of Biotechnology, Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

The Chair

Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis)

Dr. Karen Dodds

1145

Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis)

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Bart Bilmer

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.)

1150

Dr. Karen Dodds

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Dr. Karen Dodds

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Dr. Karen Dodds

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Dr. Karen Dodds

Mr. Dromisky

Dr. Karen Dodds

Mrs. Chamberlain

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

1155

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, BQ)

Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

1200

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

Dr. Karen Dodds

1205

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Bart Bilmer

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Bart Bilmer

1210

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Karen Dodds

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Bart Bilmer

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Bart Bilmer

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Bart Bilmer

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Bart Bilmer

Mr. James Lunney

Mr. Bart Bilmer

Mr. James Lunney

Dr. Karen Dodds

1215

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Mr. James Lunney

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

Diane Gorman

Mr. Bart Bilmer

1220

The Chair

A voice

Mr. Bart Bilmer

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

The Chair

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Greg Orriss (Director, Bureau of Food Safety and Consumer Protection, Canadian Food Inspection Agency)

1225

The Chair

Mr. Greg Orriss

The Chair

Mr. Greg Orriss

The Chair

Mr. Merrifield

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

1230

Mr. Merrifield

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

Mr. Rob Merrifield

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

1235

Ms. Judy Sgro

Ms. Diane Gorman

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska--Restigouche, Lib.)

Ms. Diane Gorman

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

1240

Dr. Karen Dodds

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay

The Chair

Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis)

Mr. Bart Bilmer

Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis)

Mr. Bart Bilmer

Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis)

Mr. Bart Bilmer

1245

Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis)

Mr. Bart Bilmer

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

The Chair

M. Ménard

The Chair

Mr. Réal Ménard

Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis)

The Chair

Ms. Fry

1250

The Chair

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

The Chair

Ms. Fry

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1255

Mr. Peter Brackenridge

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West--Mississauga, Lib.)

Dr. Karen L. Dodds

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Health

NUMBER 055

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1110)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's my pleasure to bring to order the first meeting of our study on genetically modified organisms in food and the possible labelling thereof.

I have one point of committee business. We have written to the Auditor General as per your request, and the Auditor General has agreed to come on Tuesday, February 26. We've sent out other letters, but we haven't had responses. But for that one there's a commitment for the 26th. Thank you very much.

Now may I welcome the witnesses who come to us today from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Department of Health. From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency we have Peter Brackenridge, vice-president of programs; Bart Bilmer, director in their Office of Biotechnology; and Greg Orriss, director of the Bureau of Food Safety and Consumer Protection.

I think we'll begin this morning with the agency, and I would ask whoever is speaking first to begin.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge (Vice-President, Programs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Good morning, Madam Chair, and thank you for inviting the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to make a short presentation here today on our role related to the labelling of genetically modified food. As indicated, I'm accompanied by Mr. Bilmer and Mr. Orriss.

Health Canada and the CFIA share accountability for food policies under the Food and Drugs Act. In this partnership, Health Canada's role relates to food safety and to establishing science-based policies and standards. As the single federal food inspection agency in Canada, the CFIA establishes policies for non-health and safety matters and enforces all federal food regulations, including those established by Health Canada.

[Translation]

We have over 5,000 staff across the country who carry out the CFIA's overall mandate to enhance the safety of federally regulated food, contribute to the health and welfare of animals, and protect the plant resource base.

The CFIA develops strategies to achieve compliance across a range of activities related to food, including inspection of registered establishments, product inspection, the investigation of potential health hazards and fraud, and follow-up on consumer and trade complaints.

The Agency also routinely conducts compliance audits and product sampling in order to assess food safety. This includes testing for microbiological, chemical, and physical hazards, as well as the control of allergens.

[English]

The CFIA also provides educational tools to assist and encourage industry to understand and take responsibility for issues related to regulatory compliance and to establish control procedures to prevent violations.

With respect to food labelling, the CFIA has responsibilities for federal food legislation relating to the prevention of misrepresentation and consumer fraud in food labelling and advertising and the provision of basic product-related information, such as the listing of ingredients, product common name, net quantity declarations, grade and quality designations, compositional and identity standards, and inspection and enforcement activities related to both health and safety and non-health and safety labelling. As such, the role of the CFIA helps to assist consumers in making effective product choices.

In Canada, voluntary labelling is an approach that is frequently used by food manufacturers or retailers who may wish to make a claim either on labels or in advertisements or to provide information to consumers that their product does or does not contain certain elements, examples being fat-free and kosher foods. However, under the Food and Drugs Act, food labels, whether voluntary or mandatory, must be truthful and not misleading to consumers.

Further details on the CFIA approach are contained in our guide to food labelling and advertising, which is also available on our website. Accordingly, the voluntary labelling of foods from biotechnology is permitted under current legislation, as a viable option for food companies that want to respond to marketplace demands.

As you are aware, the Canadian General Standards Board is facilitating the development of a national voluntary labelling standard for foods and food ingredients obtained and not obtained through gene technology. This initiative is being led by the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors. As it has from the beginning of this process, the CFIA will continue to be an active participant and supporter of this initiative.

If this national standard proceeds to a final consensus over the next few months, the establishment and publication of a national standard will be a significant step toward labelling that is meaningful, credible, verifiable, and enforceable. It should also be recognized, however, that there may be some enforcement challenges of note.

As a first example, validated detection methods for testing for the presence of products of biotechnology are still not widely available or necessarily proven in the field, either in Canada or internationally. Certainly at this time there's no one test that can identify all products of biotechnology, but the development of validated detection methods is ongoing in both the public and private sectors. The CFIA continues to work internationally in this area, and as methods are developed and validated it is hoped they can be put to appropriate use.

Secondly, while the standard allows a paper trail to be used to verify label claims, clear practices need to be identified in order to appropriately document the origin of product ingredients. Such questions are particularly important for biotechnology-derived foods and ingredients that no longer contain detectable protein or DNA, such as highly processed oils and sugars.

For example, documentation would be needed at all of the different stages of the gate-to-place food supply system--seed production, planting, harvesting, on-farm storage, transportation from the farm, large-scale storage--i.e., silos and grain elevators--further transportation to containers, ships, trains and processing facilities, and packaging and storage facilities.

[Translation]

Finally, further efforts through communication and information-sharing will also be required so that Canadian consumers are aware of the new national standard, understand what it means for them, and know where to go to find further information about biotechnology-derived foods.

It must be recognized that while labelling provides a mechanism by which consumers can obtain information about biotechnology-derived foods, it cannot address the information needs of all consumers.

Through consumer research, other ways of providing Canadians with various levels of information and detail on food biotechnology have been identified, such as point-of-sale literature, magazines, the Internet, television and toll-free numbers. Our efforts and those of others will need to continue in these areas.

Á (1115)

[English]

Canada is recognized as a strong player in helping to develop internationally accepted standards. Through a guideline of the Codex Alimentarius Commission...for the labelling of foods derived through biotechnology. Indeed, as part of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Canada chairs the Codex committee on food labelling, which will hold its next meeting here in Canada in May of this year.

The CFIA also plays a role in the safety assessment of agricultural products of biotechnology, including plants and seeds, animal feeds, biological fertilizers, animal vaccines, and disease diagnostic kits.

The environmental safety assessment for plants with novel traits involves a two-step process, including field trials and detailed environmental analysis. This involves characterizing the specific genetic change or changes involved through a molecular biological analysis; examining the characteristics of the novel plant, in the context of a traditionally derived counterpart that is already in the marketplace, for example to assess potential changes in yield, viability of seed, ability to last over the Canadian winter, etc.; and assessing the potential impact of the plant upon the environment, including its ability to become a weed, cross to related species, impact on non-target species, and impact on biodiversity.

[Translation]

Based on this analysis, CFIA scientists are in a position to determine whether a product poses potential risks to the environment, and whether they can be permitted for release. Again, this information is available on the CFIA's Internet site.

I would also like to add that we have sought further guidance on the various roles played by the CFIA. Minister Vanclief has sought further advice from the Royal Society of Canada, and through the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, which was established in 1999.

As government agencies, we have collectively developed an action plan to respond to the Royal Society of Canada's report on the future of genetically modified foods in Canada, the first update of which was published last week on our Internet site. We are looking forward to the final report of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, which is expected in March.

[English]

In conclusion, I hope this brief overview helps to situate the role of the CFIA as you proceed with your study of this very important matter. We will continue to work hard with our colleagues and many stakeholders to achieve the best labelling system possible for Canadians--one that will work here in Canada and internationally, be credible and meaningful for consumers, but also be scientifically sound and enforceable.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brackenridge.

We'll move on now to the presentation by the Department of Health. From that body we have Diane Gorman, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Health Products and Food Branch, and Karen Dodds, Director General of the Food Directorate.

Perhaps whichever one of you is going to speak could begin, please.

Ms. Diane Gorman (Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for inviting Health Canada to appear today before the Standing Committee on Health. I am pleased to be here, as you mentioned, Madam Chair, with Dr. Karen Dodds.

The regulation of foods derived from biotechnology is important to Canadians, and Health Canada is committed to continued improvement of our regulatory approach. We look forward to this committee's study of genetically modified foods, and in particular the labelling of these products. My presentation is intended to provide background that we trust will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

[Translation]

At the federal level, both Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are critical in addressing the safety of GM-foods. Under the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations, Health Canada is responsible for provisions related to public health, food safety and nutrition.

With regards to foods, Health Canada establishes science-based policies and standards relating to the safety and nutritional quality of all foods, including those derived from biotechnology.

In his remarks, Mr. Brackenridge spoke of CFIA's responsibility for the federal enforcement of these standards. As well, CFIA is responsible for plant and animal health.

Á (1120)

[English]

I realize that the focus of the current study is labelling. However, I would like to review with you the processes the Government of Canada has in place to address the safety of genetically modified foods.

To date, only GM plants have been commercialized in Canada. Even before consideration of these as foods, the CFIA considers the potential impact on the environment of the GM crops. Since Mr. Brackenridge has described them, and officials are here from CFIA, I will not elaborate on their processes.

In order to address the safety of novel foods and food ingredients, including those derived from biotechnology, Health Canada has promulgated the novel foods regulations under the Food and Drugs Act. These regulations require pre-market notification for all novel foods to Health Canada, so their acceptability as food can be determined prior to sale.

Health Canada takes a comprehensive and rigorous approach to assessing the safety of all GM foods. Health Canada scientists consider how the food was developed, which includes a careful review of the genes introduced and the source of those genes at the molecular level. The composition of the food, both chemical and nutritional, is considered. The potential for the food to be toxic or to cause allergic reactions is assessed.

The data submitted by the petitioner is reviewed by a team of scientific evaluators representing expertise in molecular biology, toxicology, chemistry, nutritional sciences, and microbiology. Additional research or testing is required if Health Canada scientists are not satisfied at any stage in the safety assessment process.

Our approach to the safety assessment of novel foods is outlined in the 1994 publication Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods. Copies of these guidelines are available today for you. They are based on scientific principles developed through expert international consultation with agencies such as the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The approach used in Canada is similar to that followed by regulatory agencies in the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the United States, among others. It is only when Health Canada science evaluators have no concerns related to safety and nutrition that the food is permitted on the Canadian market.

[Translation]

Madam Chair, the responsibility for food labelling policies under the Food and Drugs Act is divided between Health Canada and CFIA. Health Canada's responsibilities for food labelling fall within the Department's mandate for health and safety issues. As Mr. Brackenridge indicated, the CFIA is responsible for the development of general food labelling policies and regulations not related to health and safety. In particular, the CFIA is responsible for protecting consumers from misrepresentation and fraud with respect to food labelling, packaging and advertising, and for prescribing basic food labelling and advertising requirements.

[English]

It is important to mention the federal government's current guidelines concerning the labelling of genetically modified foods. First, Health Canada would require special labelling for genetically modified foods where health issues such as compositional or nutritional changes have been identified. Special labelling might also be employed to address safety issues such as allerginicity if labelling would successfully mitigate the risk. In each of these situations, the labelling is required in order to alert consumers or susceptible groups in the population.

Second, labelling must be understandable, truthful, and not misleading.

Third, the federal policy on labelling genetically modified foods also permits manufacturers to voluntarily label foods as being derived from genetic modification, provided again that the label is truthful and not misleading.

Á (1125)

[Translation]

Madam Chair, Health Canada, along with other federal departments, recognizes that labelling foods derived from biotechnology is an important issue for consumers. Consequently, Health Canada supports a number of national initiatives examining mechanisms to provide information on foods derived from biotechnology in an effective manner.

[English]

One of these initiatives--and my colleague from CFIA has already mentioned it--is the development of a standard for the voluntary labelling of biotechnology-derived foods. The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and the Canadian General Standards Board have launched a project to develop a Canadian standard for the voluntary labelling of foods derived from biotechnology. Consumer groups, food companies, producers, environmental groups, general interest groups, and government have all participated. If consensus can be reached, a completed standard may be available within the next few months.

The issue of consumer choice is an example of a broad range of concerns, which include social and ethical considerations as well as human and environmental safety issues, that are currently being studied by the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. This committee of experts was established to provide independent advice to seven ministers on biotechnology issues. In addition to its general activities, CBAC is finishing a special project that concentrates on the regulation of foods derived from biotechnology. Through a process of research and public consultations, CBAC is preparing a report along with their recommendations, and this is expected to be released this spring.

The discussion on labelling foods derived from biotechnology often introduces the issue of post-market monitoring. Particularly, there is much debate about the desirability of monitoring for any possible long-term and unintended effects associated with genetically modified foods once they're on the market. Health Canada has been actively considering strategies for such a surveillance system. As potential adverse effects are not identified in detailed reviews and assessments, it is a difficult task to develop a surveillance system to deal with the issue of post-market monitoring.

[Translation]

It is anticipated that certain future novel foods will likely require post-market monitoring in order to assess the nutritional impact or the efficacy of a product. Health Canada participates actively in international efforts examining the issues of post-market monitoring of foods derived from biotechnology.

[English]

To conclude, Madam Chair, Health Canada continues to work with colleagues at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and with others, including members from the Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel, the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, health professionals, consumer groups, and industry associations in order to ensure that a rigorous, comprehensive review system is in place for GM foods.

Health Canada recognizes the interests of Canadians in having information concerning GM foods. We remain committed to sharing information with Canadians on how we regulate and assess products of biotechnology. Decision summaries for each new product, the novel foods regulation and the guidelines, along with fact sheets and answers to frequently asked questions to aid in understanding this subject, are available on Health Canada's website. My colleagues and I would be happy to answer any questions the committee might have.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Gorman.

Thank you to all the presenters. We'll now begin the questioning by the committee members, and we'll begin with Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): I want to thank you very much for coming. This is a very important subject for all Canadians from whichever way you look at the situation. I'm wondering, just as an overview, how long genetically modified foods have been in the food place, let's say for average Canadians in number of years.

Dr. Karen L. Dodds (Director General, Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health): I'll answer that. I think the first approval for a foodstuff by Health Canada was in 1994. We started work on developing our guidelines in 1987, and they were published in 1994.

Á (1130)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Obviously, genetically modified foods are in the human food chain. But in the animal food chain, which I guess would be a little bit more in the CFIA's department, is it the same time line or is it different?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I'm told that the first approval was in 1995.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: All right. Just as an overview of all this, from all of the testing since 1994-95, do you have any concerns that perhaps GM foods are not...? Is there something in your testing that would flag to you the potential of a health problem and concern in the food chain?

Ms. Diane Gorman: I can answer that, and I think Karen Dodds would like to add something as well. We would not approve a product if we felt that we had concerns about its safety, as I described in my remarks.

The issue I think is more about long-term effects, and this is a very difficult issue to appreciate from a scientific point of view. This is why we're looking at setting up a system for post-market surveillance, so that we might have some of that information.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Has there ever been a genetically modified product that you've refused after your testing?

Dr. Karen Dodds: There have been two examples of products developed that wouldn't have received commercial approval likely anywhere in the world. One was soy where they had introduced a gene from the Brazil nut, and the Brazil nut is known for causing allergies. Actually, the Royal Society expert panel considered the number one health concern with genetically modified foods to be the potential problems with allergies. We target potential allergenicity as part of our safety assessment. This was one where it was clearly identified from a very early stage that there may be problems with allergenicity, and the developer of that product did not continue further work.

The other product wasn't really developed commercially. The researcher in the U.K. who published the studies, Dr. Pusztai, had modified a potato to incorporate a lectin. Again, it's known that lectins cause problems in humans, and that kind of product wouldn't have passed toxicological tests. Knowing what our assessment is based on, the people developing them are identifying potential problems early in a product's development .

Mr. Rob Merrifield: I probably don't have a lot of time left, but I have another question. With regard to the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, which is going to be reporting in March, what are they studying that is different from the scrutiny you have gone through? Are they going into any more depth, or is it just a review of what you've done? What is the difference, and what do you expect in their report?

Dr. Karen Dodds: The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee started their work on genetically modified foods after we had already asked the Royal Society to do a scientific review. The Royal Society expert panel was focused on the science, looking at human health, animal health, and environmental issues. That was very much a technical review focused on science.

The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee--and I believe they will be witnesses here later--had a broader mandate and remit and have looked as well at such things as the regulatory system in Canada. This includes such things as what are Health Canada's responsibilities, what are the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's responsibilities. They've recognized that Canadians have concerns that are not necessarily related to the science, that may be related to social and ethical concerns. That was part of their remit, to look at how might you incorporate social and ethical concerns into our regulatory system.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay. To sum up, you're saying the advisory committee has more of a political flavour to it than scientific--coming from the other side, that is.

Dr. Karen Dodds: Yes.

Ms. Diane Gorman: I wouldn't say it's a political flavour, though. They're looking at broader issues than just science. They will be providing us advice as well in terms of whether we have the capacity within government to deal with some of the regulatory issues. They have also been going across the country, consulting with Canadians, so they have direct information, which we also do obtain, and I know the CFIA would. But because they are independent and at arm's length, they may have conversations with Canadians that we wouldn't have.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

Mr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo--Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being the lead-off people in what promises to be a very interesting study, I'm sure.

I would like to pick up on the review on the assessment that Health Canada makes. I note here, if I can quote, that Health Canada “takes a comprehensive and rigorous approach to assessing”, one, how the food was developed; two, the source of the genes; three, the composition; and four, the potential for the food to be toxic or to cause allergic reactions. Then finally, this data is reviewed.

Is that correct?

I notice this is basically a theoretical assessment. There's no reference to the term “substantial equivalence”. I wonder if you could explain to us how this substantial equivalence criterion is or has been used by Health Canada.

Á (1135)

Dr. Karen Dodds: That's an excellent question. I'm glad you asked it.

Substantial equivalence is never used as a criterion. Substantial equivalence, in the human-health safety context, simply describes an approach to structure, your human safety evaluation.

When in the mid-eighties it was recognized that genetically modified foods were being developed, regulatory agencies and scientists around the world started to think about how we would consider whether or not these were safe to eat.

One of the issues is that many foods are themselves not safe to eat under certain conditions. The example that I give most often is the potato. The potato contains a chemical called solanine, which is amongst the most toxic chemicals known. But through history we have learned how to eat potatoes without causing too much harm to ourselves. Solanine tends to be in a potato when its ripening, and in the green parts. Indeed, when CFIA registers varieties, they'll look at the levels of solanine in natural varieties of potatoes and watch it that way.

So we knew that if we looked at traditional foods using toxicological tests, many traditional foods would fail. So the approach to simply looking at toxicology was that we can use it, but we have to be careful in how we use it.

Substantial equivalence is an approach that says let's look at the genetically modified organism. Let's concentrate on where it is different from the naturally occurring substance. Let's really focus on that. So for me, the term “substantial equivalence” is misleading, because your focus then becomes where the differences are, not where the equivalence is. It simply allows us to say, are any of the changes themselves things that would concern us, or does the direct change cause a secondary change, which would concern us from a health perspective?

Does that answer your question?

Mr. James Lunney: That's a good beginning. Thank you.

I would just point out that with natural foods, we have the benefit of many, many generations before us and lots of observation to pick up on foods that cause problems and appropriate ways to cook them, and so on. And there's quite an interesting diversity worldwide, I might add.

However, with the new techniques that are developing, the novel techniques, with rDNA technique.... Is there someone here who can explain to us what rDNA technique actually employs? Or shall we save that for scientists who'll be coming later?

Dr. Karen Dodds: I can start the scientific lesson, if you like.

First, rDNA is recombinant DNA, and what we've typically seen internationally are plants that have been modified to contain just one or two traits. For example, there is a bacteria, bacillus thuringiensis--always shortened to Bt, for obvious reasons--that produces a protein that is toxic to many insects. So you have a bacteria that produces a toxin that kills insects. You know the gene that produces that protein. The scientists have identified the gene in the bacillus, have cut it out, and have used what's called a vector system to move it into the plant.

Now the plant is changed; it's new. But we had exposure to the gene, to the protein, to the effects of the protein from the bacillus thuringiensis, which is a natural bacteria, which has been in the environment, and which has been commercialized as an insecticide itself forever, as a pesticide for decades, and it's been introduced into a plant we also had experience with. What our scientists are doing is looking at that gene. Is it exactly the same as it was in the bacteria? When it gets introduced into the plant genome, does it remain exactly the same? Might it change some system in the plant that would lead to us having some concerns?

Now, we see this through several lines of evidence. When a product comes to Health Canada for assessment as a food, it has gone through generations in the field, so you have all of the history of the plant. The chemical composition will tell us if the plant is indeed reproducing in a typical manner, if the plant essentially remains the same. But then we also have the specifics at the molecular level, at the chemical and nutrition level...and looking at those specifics.

That's a very generalized description of rDNA.

Á (1140)

Mr. James Lunney: That's a good beginning.

Can I just ask you to verify the vector system. What are you referring to as the vector to introduce the novel gene?

Dr. Karen Dodds: To introduce the novel gene.... Maybe the simplest analogy would be your shuttle bus system. You need something to move the gene from the bacteria into the plant, and a vector is similar to your shuttle bus. Add the gene here, move it over, and get rid of the vector.

Mr. James Lunney: Would you define vector in some cases as something spelled “v-i-r-u-s”?

Dr. Karen Dodds: Bart, do you know?

Mr. Bart Bilmer (Director, Office of Biotechnology, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): In most cases it's from a bacterial system that is taken from nature. It's a bacteria that does the same thing in nature. But there are other techniques as well, where you can move the gene just directly, what they call--it's not the greatest term--a “gene gun”, and it can just fire the gene into the DNA of the plant.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunney. Your time is up.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Given the questions of the colleague who preceded me, I wonder whether one of the groups of witnesses might not be able to produce a mini-glossary for us which would enable us to follow the discussions a bit more intelligently. If we could be provided with some basic terminology so that we could understand more easily, I think that that would help us.

I was listening to the translation and, most of the time, the interpreter translated “genetically modified organisms” as “transgenic”. It was explained to us in the agriculture committee that there was a difference between genetically modified organisms and those that are transgenic. Could you elaborate?

[English]

Dr. Karen Dodds: We certainly can provide you with a glossary or a lexicon. Indeed, there are even different definitions of “genetic modification”. We have a definition of genetic modification in the regulation we have under the Food and Drugs Act, which is simply any intentional change to the genetic structure. So that includes recombinant DNA technology, but it also includes other technologies, such as mutagenesis, which again have been used for the last half century in plant breeding to introduce new traits.

Mutagenesis is for some scientists a much cruder technique, because you're exposing cells to a chemical or to irradiation, and you don't know exactly what mutation you are going to cause. So you don't know what genetic change you're going to cause, then you screen millions of cells that have been treated and try to select those you want; this versus the recombinant DNA techniques, which are very precise. You choose the gene you're interested in, and depending on the system used--the genetic gun, the gene gun--you don't know where you're going to insert it versus the case where if you pick a certain vector, you can actually say, this is about where we're going to put it into the genetic system of the host cell.

Á (1145)

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you. My question is for the gentleman from the agency.

This morning, The Globe and Mail reported that, according to documents it obtained under the Access to Information Act, your agency spent $3.3 million promoting GMOs. As an agency which is supposed to inspect foods and protect people's health, given their fear of GMOs, how can you take $3.3 million of taxpayers' dollars to promote GMOs? How do you feel about that?

[English]

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question. I'll start and I'll ask Mr. Bilmer to add some comments as well.

I think it has to be realized that the publications we were involved with were really responding to public demand. We are a regulator. We are not in the promotion business for this type of technology. We're in the business to regulate.

We're also in the business of providing educational materials and informing Canadians of the situation. One brochure that has been referenced is something called Food Safety and You, which was a brochure sent to every Canadian household. I can't remember when; I think it was about two years ago. That was really a broad, sweeping document that was to explain the Canadian food inspection and food safety system.

What we were trying to get across to Canadians at that point was the fact that it's a shared jurisdictional responsibility. At the federal level Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are involved, but as well, when you get to the provincial and municipal levels, there's a significant role played at those levels as well. It had a variety of tips for consumers and homeowners, and there's no doubt it did have a small section that was related to biotechnology and gene modification--what that meant--to try to provide some clarification to Canadians as to where we're at.

That was really the basis for that type of material, and it's largely in response to requests from consumers who are saying, what is this? Actually, these are many of the same questions I'm sure you'll be posing yourselves over the coming weeks. We felt that it was appropriate for the agency to invest some money in getting messages out to Canadians about what it means.

Perhaps Mr. Bilmer could add a couple of comments.

Mr. Bart Bilmer: The article also referenced some funding that was given to the Food Biotechnology Communications Network, but it was a bit unclear in the article itself. It indicated that $700,000 had been given to that organization, and according to our tallies internally we've given approximately $40,000 to the FBCN since 1993, so I think there was some confusion about who is giving funding to whom.

I would say that the Food Biotechnology Communications Network does provide information on a variety of topics related to food biotechnology, and as a result we thought it was appropriate to help provide further information on the role we play in terms of regulating products of biotechnology.

The Chair: Thank you for that.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay--Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much.

This is certainly an awesome task we have been presented with, and I'm hoping we'll be able to deal with it in the months ahead.

We're told that there are tens of thousands of food products on the shelves already that have some element or component within them that has been modified, genetically or through some process in the past. Right now, labelling is on a voluntary basis, isn't it? I don't know how many of those products sitting on the shelves have labels on them saying “genetically modified food” and notifying the public. We don't tell the public very much about what process was involved or how they've been modified; the public is just told that they're modified.

If the voluntary basis was wiped out and all foods and byproducts were to be labelled, would the health department be able to handle the workload? Would we be able to test? What would be involved here? And what would we really be testing? Are we testing the finished products, or are we just testing the actual basic food product that goes into the polished, finished product--in other words, just the basic grains and so forth?

Á (1150)

Dr. Karen Dodds: Perhaps I'll start by explaining why you get information such as that up to 80% of the foods in your stores may contain genetically modified organisms.

The crops that have been approved in Canada to date include crops such as corn, canola, and soy. A lot of corn production goes for corn oil, and canola goes for canola oil; and in processed foods, people are using corn oil and canola oil. Or you have corn starch, which again is an ingredient in many processed foods. So because some of the starting crops were used for oils or things such as corn starch, they then find their way into many processed foods.

Indeed, when you think of whole foods that you might buy in the grocery store, what we have approved so far are a kind of tomato, which originated in the United States and I don't believe was ever imported or grown in Canada; potatoes, which I believe to date go solely into further processing; and a squash, which I don't know the history of. But really, if you go into your grocery store today, I don't think any of your fruits and vegetables on the produce shelves are genetically modified. Clearly none of your meats, fish, or poultry are genetically modified, and none of your dairy products are modified. It's because of the processed foods that contain some oils, corn starch, and products like that, then--because there are so many products like that in the grocery stores--that it comes back up to 70% or 80% of the foods in your grocery stores may contain genetically modified organisms.

I'll turn to the CFIA enforcement--

Mr. Stan Dromisky: So you say that we would not find on our shelves the products I'm talking about--poultry, cattle, lamb, or anything like these products that have been modified genetically.

Dr. Karen Dodds: None have been approved for commercial use in Canada. No genetically modified animals have yet been approved in Canada.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Is there anyplace else in the world where they are?

Dr. Karen Dodds: No.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: So when you read articles about the 75-pound turkey, it doesn't exist?

Dr. Karen Dodds: That's through natural breeding.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Just from natural breeding. Okay.

Dr. Karen Dodds: Yes. That's a big turkey.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph--Wellington): There are a lot of them walking around.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Just a little humour there.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I hope the giant turkey wasn't intended to be me.

Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Oh, no, but I can name them....

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I think the member has pointed out the challenge we will face in the enforcement, as I was mentioning in my opening comments, in that there is no one test that could be used to determine whether or not it contains genetic modification. And in fact what we would presumably go back to is primarily a paper trace-back system whereby anyone who is putting a label claim on their product would be responsible for adequately demonstrating right from the field on through to the preparation of the finished product that they in fact had used products that did not have genetic modification. I'm using the narrow definition of genetic modification when I say that. So it will be quite a challenge to deal with it.

You've posed the question as to whether or not there were many products being labelled that way now. Certainly, to my knowledge, there is nobody indicating that their products are genetically modified. In fact, there are some companies that are indicating that they do not contain genetically modified ingredients, and we will follow up when those types of claims are made. But for right now that's what we would be tasked with looking at, not to prove that there are genetic ingredients within them but to look at those who claim that there are not. So it would certainly be a formidable task to deal with it. Again, we're working vigilantly with researchers and others to develop tests that will be helpful in this regard, but for the time being we do not have them.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Dromisky.

We'll now go to Mr. Ménard and then Madam Scherrer.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to be very sure that I understand. We have been given two kinds of information this morning: the first having to do with the process, and the second having to do with labelling, in other words, the information provided to consumers.

Labelling is voluntary. There is currently no legislation compelling a company to disclose this kind of information.

Here is what I want to understand. When, for example, a company markets genetically modified tomatoes, what is the process followed up until the tomatoes arrive in the grocery store, and what kind of monitoring does CFIA do? What are the various issues?

Peter Brackenridge: All that is a bit complicated to explain.

To begin with, I will say that there is an obligation to indicate on a label whether there has been any change in the safety of a product or whether an allergen or something has changed.

You mentioned that labelling of genetically modified products was completely voluntary. It is not voluntary if there is a change in the allergenicity of a product. I think that Ms. Gorman mentioned this.

In a situation such as that which you mentioned, the example of tomatoes, here again, we are depending more on the producer to show us what he has done all the way from the field until his product arrives at the store.

[English]

From our situation we do not go out and validate each step along the process. What we would be looking for is a paper verification by the distributor of the product that they have been able to keep products in isolation. Tomatoes may not be the best example because, as Mrs. Dodds indicated, there aren't products on the market, but if there were, we would be expecting them to demonstrate to us that the farmer in question did not use a genetically modified type of tomato to start with, that throughout the handling and distribution system they had kept the product segregated, completely separate, from other genetically modified tomatoes if these existed on the market, that there had been no commingling of genetically modified and non-genetically modified tomatoes.

We would be looking for the storage and distribution and how that product was handled. We would also be looking, once it was into final packaging state, at what types of controls there were, depending if it was into a prepackaged state or whether it was into a bulk display at a retail store. We'd be looking at what types of segregation were being kept at that point as well to make sure that there was no misleading advertising going on.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Throughout your presentation, none of you felt the need to give us definitions. Obviously, this affects our degree of understanding. For instance, is the issue for Canada right now to ensure that the consumer has information on what he is eating and knows to what extent it has been modified? In other words, what is the definition of genetically modified organism?

What representations have been made to the agency by those opposed to these modification techniques? We have not been given much information about the debates. We have not been given definitions, and all this seems to be being presented in a very legalistic manner, but I have the feeling that the issues have perhaps gotten somewhat lost, and this is probably more—

If you had to sum up, as it were, the pros and cons of labelling, what would you tell us? How far should we go? What are the issues?

[English]

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Maybe I could ask if Karen would like to add some comments. I think this whole area of definitions is extremely important to the whole debate.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But she is very scientific.

[English]

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Perfect! That's why she's so good.

An hon. member: I like her.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: That is the CGSB process for developing the labelling standard. They went to a great deal of effort to try to have a common set of definitions that people could agree upon.

Perhaps I could ask Mr. Bilmer to provide some clarification on this, Madam Chair. Certainly we would be willing to work with our colleagues at Health Canada, if it would be useful, to provide a standard set of definitions we use that would be helpful to the committee.

Â (1200)

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Scherrer.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I cannot say that I am worried, but I really have some questions about the time lags in this debate. From the time a product is genetically modified and then put back into nature, where it will come into contact with elements such as temperature, the use of varying qualities of soil, various products... Before it can be determined that the product has not been modified, or that it has not been modified in such a way as to become hazardous to health, how much time will have to go by? How much time will have to go by from the time a product is produced or harvested before studies can conclude, having taken all the possibilities into account, that the product in question has not become hazardous?

My other question has to do with the moment of consumption. We know that an allergy does not necessarily manifest itself suddenly in a person, but that it can develop over a period of years. How much time are you allowing, after a product becomes ready for consumption, to determine that it is safe for human consumption?

What follow-up methods are you using throughout this period? Once the product has been put on the market, how can you gather information to ensure that it has not harmed those who consumed it?

[English]

Dr. Karen Dodds: It's a long process to develop genetically modified crops, even longer to develop genetically modified animals.

To get back to Monsieur Ménard's question, really our focus today, I think, is recombinant DNA technology. Certainly the information we get from consumers is that this is where their concerns are, with what you might call modern biotechnology, or the rDNA technology. So I'm specifically now speaking about rDNA technology.

In the development of this, they're actually growing the plants in the laboratory first. They go through multiple generations in the laboratory before there's any discussion of taking them outside. The CFIA regulates even confined field trials.

You talk very appropriately of the immense variability. If you look at all of the chemicals in a plant and at, for example, what genes are active, it's different from one daytime to one night-time. Within the natural world, there is an incredible amount of variation.

So what we have done--and it's not only Canadian scientists but scientists internationally--is to ask, when we look at potatoes, for example, what is the variation we see in the non-genetically modified potatoes?

With the genetically modified potato we then look for each of the chemicals, each of the nutritional things, both vitamins and minerals, that are important in a positive sense for us. But foods also contain what we call anti-nutritional factors. We identify which are critical for a potato. Potatoes are an important part of the Canadian diet. It is the analysis of the composition that tells us if anything is out of the normal range. If we saw something out of the normal range, we would require toxicological testing.

As I said, we were very pleased to get the report from the Royal Society expert panel, because we know that what is coming is much more complex than what we have reviewed and approved to date. From what we have reviewed and approved to date, there is actually no totally new gene or protein. It's all moving genes and proteins from one known to another known. So the question arises very legitimately, what are the potential unexpected effects? Can something unexpected happen? That's where we do careful analysis of potential allergenicity.

We know there are certain characteristics of proteins that tend to cause allergies. So we look to see if in any of the proteins we see those same characteristics. In the scientific world there are huge databases of the actual sequence of allergens. So we'll go to the databases and compare the sequence information again to see whether or not we see any similarities that would lead us to have concerns.

It is because what we have reviewed to date are all knowns from somewhere moved to somewhere else, and we have not identified something that's totally new, that we've actually been able to have a fairly short developmental cycle. I believe it is estimated to be 8 to 10 years by industry from development through to commercialization.

When they start doing totally new things, it's already clear in our guidelines that we would require full toxicological testing. If we see a protein we have never seen before, we would require complete toxicological testing. If we see something that is outside of the normal range, we would require complete toxicological testing. Now, these are animal tests. Again, they can be multi-generations in the animal.

Â (1205)

The Chair: Thank you, Madam.

Just for your information, I have members Lunney, Thibeault, Merrifield, and Sgro. Is there anyone else who would like to get on the list?

All right; I've added Dr. Castonguay and Madam Tremblay.

We'll move now to Dr. Lunney.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just picking up on the 70% to 80% of foods containing some GM content, if I understood earlier comments, that 70% to 80% was linked back to corn, as in corn oil, corn starch, or soya. Was that correct?

The argument has been advanced that, because so much of our food contains this GM content, it's impossible to do anything about it. But is it correct that by simply removing these GM products and replacing them with non-GM corn, canola, and soy, in fact you could eliminate 70% to 80%, or at least that would revert back to natural product? Is that a correct conclusion?

Mr. Bart Bilmer: I think you're asking a very complicated question, because these corn and soy and canola products have been bred into a number of varieties. They're already in the system. They're already in the environment. Eliminating them would be an interesting challenge, I think, for seed breeders and plant breeders.

Mr. James Lunney: Can I just suggest that this is a concern to the people trying to grow normal canola? There's a big lawsuit about that, because the GM canola is 20 times more aggressive in pollinating than its natural relatives. If the current status goes on much longer, GM canola could potentially eliminate the non-GM products voluntarily trying to be grown. Is that correct?

Mr. Bart Bilmer: The point about the GM canola being a more aggressive pollinator I don't believe is correct. Canola in general outcrosses or pollinates more easily than other types of crops--for example, corn or soy--but I don't believe, in and of itself, it's more aggressive than any of the traditional canola varieties.

Â (1210)

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you. I will confirm that with a scientist, because I have that from one of the Royal Society scientists. So it would be interesting to confirm.

Going on to the Genome Project, as you know, it recently identified about 30,000 human genes. Interestingly enough, although they've identified 30,000 genes, we really don't know what a lot of them do. In fact there's a lot of uncertainty about whether the same gene does the same function in a different context--i.e., in a different cell.

We might suggest that there may be an element...when you're talking about, as Dr. Dodd did, moving one gene from a known to a known, when in fact you change the context of the gene functions and there's a lot of unknown. Is that correct?

Dr. Karen Dodds: As I said, that's a very careful part of our assessment. We recognize there is the potential for unexpected effects, and certainly that is a very detailed part of our assessment.

Mr. James Lunney: Moving on to the Bt toxin you mentioned, did the CFIA people confirm that the Bt toxin is what is used in StarLink corn? StarLink corn, I believe, has the Bt toxin.

Mr. Bart Bilmer: Yes.

Mr. James Lunney: And therefore is not licensed for human consumption.

Mr. Bart Bilmer: That's right. StarLink is not approved for any use in Canada, not for food, environmental release, or animal feed.

Mr. James Lunney: It's for animal feed. I'm sure the animals....

Mr. Bart Bilmer: It's not approved for animal feed either.

Mr. James Lunney: Oh, it's not. What do they use it for?

Mr. Bart Bilmer: In the U.S. it's approved for animal feed, but not in Canada.

Mr. James Lunney: I'm sure the U.S. cattle appreciate that very much; I'm sure our Canadian ones do anyway.

But the Bt toxin of course does a nasty job on the digestive tract of the corn borer. I think that's why they use it. I know there are concerns that it dissolves the digestive tract of the black swallowtail butterflies, and that led to the study concerns about monarchs and so on.

Just suggesting that the Bt toxin itself, of course, which is not supposed to be in the human food chain.... There was an incident recently where StarLink corn did get into the human food chain. It was reported quite widely and caused a little bit of alarm. Is that correct?

Mr. Bart Bilmer: Bt is approved for a number of uses. It's approved in potatoes, I believe, and it's approved in some types of corn. So it is in the food chain. As with other products, Health Canada would have done the food safety review, and the agency would have done the environmental safety review.

What I need to point out, however, is that there are many different types of Bts. From studies I've read, there are several hundred different types of proteins. StarLink was one of those. Because of its characteristics, it was not approved for human safety to this point in the U.S. But other Bts have been approved.

Mr. James Lunney: Thank you.

Finally, on “substantial equivalence”, the term Dr. Dodds didn't particularly like, the five points we considered in the way Health Canada assesses the safety of the foods have been described by the Royal Society scientists as the substantial equivalence argument, that basically it's the same as the other product, and therefore it's safe.

And as you know, the Royal Society soundly rejected that principle of substantial equivalence as satisfying the precautionary principle. I understood that Health Canada was considering a response to the many recommendations of the Royal Society report to reduce the level of uncertainty about the products.

Could you perhaps respond to that, and then give us an idea where Health Canada is at in looking at it?

Dr. Karen Dodds: Certainly.

There are two aspects. The Royal Society looked at substantial equivalence used in two ways. They did say--and it's very clear in their report--that when used as a comparator, when not used as a threshold, it was a very adequate and appropriate application of the precautionary principle. So indeed the Royal Society was very supportive of the way we used substantial equivalence for the human-health safety assessment.

Their concern was around making the conclusion that something's the same and then not looking any further. As I've said, with substantial equivalence, it leads us to concentrate on where the differences are, and we never make the conclusion that something is the same as.

With respect to the report from the expert panel from the Royal Society, we published on our website--I believe it was in late November of last year--an action plan in response to all of the recommendations from the expert panel. Health Canada took the lead, but we worked with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, which were also touched by some of the recommendations. That action plan is from all of those departments and agencies.

We also made a commitment to working to increase our transparency on that, so we said we would update the action plan. I believe our first update was just last week. So we've not only published our action plan, we've also published the first update on our action plan.

Â (1215)

Mr. James Lunney: Would it be possible for you to describe your action plan for us?

The Chair: Maybe we can get it on paper, Dr. Lunney. You're at the eight-minute mark.

Mr. James Lunney: I would appreciate that.

The Chair: We'll move now to Madame Thibeault.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. If you like, we are going to speak about some less scientific matters for a few minutes.

In your presentation, Ms. Gorman, you spoke about a federal policy of voluntary labelling. I would like to know what sort of results you have obtained with this program. I would also like to know what sort of objections you ran up against, for I am sure there were some. Perhaps you could also identify particular groups which would be more resistant than others to this sort of labelling program.

Diane Gorman: Thank you for your question. Even if it was I who indicated to you that I should reply, I think that this falls more under the responsibility of the agency. But I will begin with the part having to do with the responsibilities and accountability of our department, the part on product safety.

As I mentioned, if there is an issue of allergenicity or change, either in the composition or the nutritional value, we have a responsibility. I checked with Dr. Dodds and, so far, we have not given approval to a product which would require such labelling. We have not yet approved a product in Canada which requires labelling with respect to a product's safety or composition.

Before the agency answers your question, I wish to say that the members of the public who have questions for the department would like information on our regulatory processes. They would like to know what we are doing to ensure that products are safe. I mentioned that we have information on our web site regarding the regulations which guided us for each product we approved.

So, the public would like to have two kinds of information: the measures in place for approval of these products and, second, some members of the public would like to have specific information in order to be able exercise their own control over choices. The main issue for them is knowing whether they have a choice in the market. They would like to have enough information to be able to make their own choices.

As for the other whole part of your question, since it is the agency's responsibility, I think that they should be the ones to answer.

[English]

Mr. Bart Bilmer: Just as a bit of context, voluntary labelling is allowed for all foods, including products of biotechnology, as long as the label claim is true and not misleading. When we knew genetically modified foods were coming to the marketplace, or could be coming to the marketplace, we undertook a series of consultations to ask questions about whether things should be done differently for products of biotechnology. We held a series of consultations, and one of the conclusions was that voluntary labelling was acceptable if it met those criteria of being true and not misleading to the public.

Ever since that time, the option to make label statements has been open to food companies that want to label their products. We have seen a number of examples of product labels. Some are labelled as a product of biotechnology, and then there's the inverse, that this is not a product of biotechnology, or whatever terminology is used. So we have seen examples of that, and we've noted them.

There was some interest and some questions were asked on some of them: Is this in fact true and not misleading? The agency followed up on a couple of cases, looked at the records of the company, and were satisfied with the information.

Â (1220)

The Chair: Do you want to pursue this?

[Translation]

A voice: Yes, please.

[English]

Mr. Bart Bilmer: Perhaps I can add something. Part of the reason the voluntary labelling standard started under the Canadian General Standards Board was that the food manufacturers were asking for further guidance on labelling foods from biotechnology. All we had legally, written on paper in our laws and regulations, was “true and not misleading”. There were requests for us to be more specific and give more guidance. That's why the Canadian General Standards Board and the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, whose members get a lot of questions from the public, embarked upon that process.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: So what you are telling us is that it is public pressure which pushes manufacturers, as you call them here, to provide more information on labels. This does not strike me as a very aggressive federal policy.

[English]

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Thank you, Madam Chair.

We are not on an aggressive campaign to oblige anyone to put additional information on a label, besides what's in the regulations. Our experience has shown that the driving force has largely been companies seeking market opportunities and market niches, which are very legitimate ways of marketing your products. If they choose to do that, no matter what type of voluntary statement it is--whether it relates to biotechnology or some other statement they feel will appeal to the consumers--we just want to make sure they're following the regulatory requirements to be fair and not misleading.

The Chair: Maybe I can add a question here. You're talking about voluntary labelling. It has been in the news for three or four years now. You're trying to come up with guidelines. The other thing that's been in the news is the pressure of consumers wanting to know. I think we're trying to find out here what you think the conformity rate is among our food producers--people who put things in the grocery stores--on packaging and labelling. What is the conformity rate? Are they all doing it?

I know basically the requirements, but beyond the requirements, how voluntary is the industry? What percentage of them are improving or have improved their labelling, to give more information to consumers? Are you monitoring that?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Mr. Orriss is the director of our Bureau of Food Safety and Consumer Protection. He has responsibility for our fair labelling practices program. Perhaps he can provide some clarification on that.

Mr. Greg Orriss (Director, Bureau of Food Safety and Consumer Protection, Canadian Food Inspection Agency): Thank you, Madam Chair.

We haven't received a lot of inquiries or complaints on the voluntary labelling of foods from biotechnology. On products such as StarLink corn, which are not in compliance with Canadian law, we are taking action to prevent their importation.

Through our verification of documentation--and greater than 10,000 entry verification activities have taken place relative to documentation accompanying shipments of corn products from the U.S.--we have found that we've had a less than 1% rejection rate, based on inadequacies in documentation.

If we find inadequacies in documentation, we ask the importer to clarify them or provide additional information to us, to demonstrate that the products do not contain StarLink corn or the Cry9C protein.

Â (1225)

The Chair: So it's all done on paper. You're talking about documentation and inadequacies of documentation, rather than testing the product yourself.

Mr. Greg Orriss: No, we do follow up. We carry out an audit sampling process to verify that the documentation is accurate. Of course, we do not have the resources to carry out the 10,000 analyses that would be associated with all of those importations. Our focus is on the control exercised by the importers and the documentation they can provide--the integrity of that documentation. But we audit to check, through periodic sampling, that the documentation is correct.

The Chair: I assume no one is willing to wager a guess as to what percentage of the industry has increased their labelling, under this whole discussion of voluntary labelling. In other words, what kind of impact is this having, all this discussion and development of guidelines, which has been going on for three years? Do you have any measure on that?

Mr. Greg Orriss: The only thing I can say that might add some context to this is that the debate we're having today has been ongoing for a number of years at the international level. Certainly the issues we're discussing today are challenging, with respect to labelling of foods associated with biotechnology issues, such as thresholds, methods of detection, exemptions and so on. What aspects should be voluntary and what aspects should be mandatory are subject to fairly intensive international debate. As yet, we haven't been able to achieve consensus on moving things forward on international guidelines for labelling of foods derived through biotechnology.

The Chair: Thank you.

Next is Mr. Merrifield, followed by Madam Sgro.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: It's a fascinating subject. We're all concerned here with the health of Canadians.

One thing you said earlier that struck me a little bit is that there is no one test to determine whether or not it is a genetically modified product. Is that because there's no difference in any of the DNAs regardless of how you test that? Or why is there not?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Perhaps I could clarify what I meant. I apologize; there are tests to determine those events, which have been approved in Canada. We can run tests on individual input products, as we call them, seeds and at that level. When I was referring to it , we were talking, I think, in the context of processed foods and how you would deal with that. The degree of processing the product goes under will break down the proteins and the DNAs. Therefore, it is very difficult to have individual tests that would determine whether or not there's genetic modification, again within the narrow definition of the product in question.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: So what you're saying is that for the food we eat, and that's really what we're concerned with, there is no difference, and that's why you're having a difficult time with the breakdown after the process. So there's very little difference between, let's say, a conventionally grown product and a genetically modified product when it comes to the table.

Dr. Karen L. Dodds: Peter, if I might, at the genetic level we can tell the different events because we have the genetic sequence. So at that level you can do an analysis. But it is specific for each of the now 50 genetically modified products that we've approved. So you would need at least 50 tests.

There's also the other challenge I have described for processed foods. Let's take corn oil, for example. Once you have corn oil, none of the DNA is present, nor is the protein present. There's only the oil, and the oil is exactly the same as non-genetically modified oil. That is why even with better methods you would need some system of paper documentation, because the purified oil is no different from a non-genetically modified corn.

Â (1230)

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Thank you. I just wanted to clear that up. That certainly was my understanding as well.

Just on the positive side of genetically modified foods, because we don't hear very much about that, there is some talk coming out of Europe that genetically modified foods might even be safer for the consumer than conventional ones.

The other thing is let's look into the future and look at a way of having vitamins, such as enhanced vitamin A, or perhaps cures coming from plants that are genetically modified. Those strike me as potential strong wins as a society and as a world. You say that in Canada it's 8 to 10 years before we hear of a product actually being on a shelf. Are there some strong wins on the health side that we might be working on right now?

Dr. Karen L. Dodds: We know that there are such products under development. Golden rice is perhaps the best example known internationally, where they have been working to increase the level of vitamin A in it. This would be of assistance primarily in developing countries where their diets may often be deficient in vitamin A. This is an example of where our policy for labelling, if there is a health or nutritional aspect, would come into play, because although vitamin A is necessary for life, there are times when you can have too much vitamin A. So again the consumer would need to know that this is a product with an elevated level of vitamin A.

We also know of another product, which I think is fairly close to commercialization, where they are changing what's called the profile of fatty acids to try to have an oil that is more healthy. Again, that is the kind of change where we would require an indication and industry would want to signal to consumers that there's a potential health benefit in that product. So we know that there are some under development.

Mr. Rob Merrifield: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.

Next is Madam Sgro.

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Thank you very much for starting us off on the issue here. Some of us have not been involved in this issue a whole lot.

I know there's a lot of opposition to the issue of labelling and the impacts, and so on and so forth, but if you go right back.... As we go through this process, I guess I want to feel confidence in the work Health Canada does in the area of saying, yes, you can go ahead with this particular process because we believe it's safe. My fear is that we're going to go down a certain path, and then 10 years from now we'll find out that the reason there's an increase in a variety of illnesses, and so on, goes back to corn oil, as an example, or whatever the issue may be.

So you can have a lot of documentation, but I'm always concerned that, somehow, somebody thinks they're doing something that's good, but it isn't watched closely enough or guarded enough. I guess I just don't have that huge level of confidence to go blindly down a road thinking it's good and has some benefits to it. How are we going to monitor these things more carefully from Health Canada's perspective?

Dr. Karen L. Dodds: We do have an investment looking at developing a surveillance system for what's called “late” human health effects from exposure to genetically modified products. It has been a very difficult project from a scientific perspective, because, as Ms. Gorman said in her opening remarks, in our initial review of the products we don't approve them until all concerns have been addressed. So there is no indication from our review that, you know, after 10 years of exposure, this might happen, so start looking for this.

But we certainly recognize that there are things we don't know, and there is concern from the public also that there is information we don't know. So we are looking into surveillance for the human health effects.

The Royal Society's expert panel has said in their report--and said more clearly in meetings we've had with them--that they consider allergenicity to be the number one health concern with genetically modified foods. There is an enormous amount of work going on internationally to further improve our ability to detect problems with allergens before market, but also to increase our surveillance systems after marketing.

Â (1235)

Ms. Judy Sgro: Why do we have to go there?

Ms. Diane Gorman: If I could just add to that, I think you've touched on what to me is one of the most fundamental questions, and that is our investment in long-term research. Karen has talked about surveillance, but in order to have effective surveillance you need to have baseline data to begin with. We need to know what people are consuming. If we want to look at these products, we need to know what the trace-back process is.

Although it's very difficult, we have recognized, both as a department and through the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy, that these are priority areas in which we need to invest more in research and more in terms of long-term health effects. We have been working across departments, looking at how we might accomplish that. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research might be an example of closer collaboration with other partners and other countries as well.

But the fundamental issue is really the baseline data that we have. If there is a health effect change, how do we know it's attributable to that particular element as opposed to another? It's a very complicated issue, but I think it's an important one.

The Chair: Thank you.

I still have five more questioners and less than 25 minutes, so I'm going to try to limit you to about four and a half minutes each.

We'll now move to Dr. Castonguay, followed by Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska--Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here.

I would like to come back to a point which was raised at the beginning. It is very important to use the same language. We will be using scientific jargon throughout our deliberations and, if we want to communicate, I think that it is extremely important to use words that mean the same thing. Otherwise, we could become confused. I think that many members of the public will be listening to us and, for the benefit of all Canadians, we must ensure that we understand one another.

Let us now talk about follow-up. Once a product which has been genetically modified—this is the term I use—has been marketed, is it realistic to think that follow-up can be done? I will take the example of prescription drugs. In this instance, there is a sort of forum of physicians representing a number of physicians throughout the country who write prescriptions. But when it is a question of products for consumption which are available to the public, which anyone can eat, how can follow-up be done? Is it realistic to think that a monitoring system can be put in place? For me, one of the important aspects is knowing what the short-, medium- and long-term effects will be. I would like your views on this.

[English]

Ms. Diane Gorman: Certainly if you're talking about the population at large

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: From the point of view of the people who will consumer these foods, is information made available so that there is some sort of feedback in cases where there are complications, whether they be allergies or other problems, which people think are related? Are there mechanisms now in place, or are any planned?

Â (1240)

[English]

Dr. Karen Dodds: That's directly related to one of the initiatives I have described, how you would undertake this or how you would build a surveillance system for this.

Mrs. Gorman has mentioned the difficulties about knowing what consumers eat. We know the Canadian diet is becoming more and more variable. What Canadians eat today is quite different from what Canadians ate in the 1980s or the 1950s. It's a global food market in many senses, and there's increased variety.

There is discussion, as I said, on the allergenicity aspect, building better databases and linking specialists. The CFIA will also respond to consumer complaints, and they may wish to elaborate a bit on consumer complaints.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay: I have a final question, Madam Chair.

Does this reflection not demonstrate the importance of ensuring that people know whether or not what they are eating has been genetically modified? This is a complex issue, and people could at least make a choice, because they would be told whether or not what they are eating has been genetically modified. Is this not one more reason why this should be made mandatory?

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Castonguay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I listened to Dr. Castonguay, I wondered whether we could not devise a system making it mandatory to disclose serious food allergies so that you could do a sort of investigation into the cause. That is not my question, but it seems to me that this is perhaps worth pursuing.

Let us come back to genetically modified organisms, such as the tomato with a modified ripening gene. These tomatoes are now commonly sold on the market. They are allowed. At home, they can be left for a whole week on the counter without spoiling. You know that something has been done to them when they last a week after you take them home. But nowhere in the store were we told that these were genetically modified tomatoes. Why were we not told that the ripening gene of these tomatoes had been modified so that they could be stored for a long time?

[English]

Mr. Bart Bilmer: If you got a tomato that didn't rot, I think you're probably very lucky.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: No. It is because the ripening gene of this tomato has been reversed that it stays wonderfully red and firm for a week on the counter. Have you never eaten these tomatoes?

[English]

Mr. Bart Bilmer: I should say, if you'll give me a minute.... The tomato you're speaking about was developed in the United States and was never sold on the Canadian market. Those tomatoes never came up to Canada. So you were probably lucky and got a traditionally developed one that had similar characteristics.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: No, but we see tomatoes that come from the United States.

[English]

Mr. Bart Bilmer: I'd like to pick up on the point about information. On the tomato example, there's information on our CFIA and Health Canada websites about the fact that the tomato was assessed in Canada. As I said, it never came on the market, but it was assessed here. So there's information on that. There's information on our processes,on our environmental safety assessment process, and on our approach to labelling and voluntary labelling in Canada.

Another point on the tomato you spoke about is that this product was labelled in the U.S. to indicate that it was a product of biotechnology. They had literature available with the tomatoes, which we've seen. I think we asked the company for a copy of it back at that time. As I said, that tomato never came on the Canadian market.

Â (1245)

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Nowadays, more of the tomatoes in our stores come from the United States than from anywhere else. Are you saying that there is no danger of our getting these tomatoes?

[English]

Mr. Bart Bilmer: The reason it didn't come to Canada is that they made a marketing decision not to continue growing it. Our understanding of it is that they had trouble transporting it. The developers of it weren't used to the marketing of it. What happened was that there was a lot of damage to the fruit, and they just decided not to pursue it. Often this kind of thing will happen and the company will decide not to pursue the marketing of it.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Tremblay.

We'll have Dr. Fry, followed by Mrs. Wasylycia-Leis and Madam Beaumier.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I rise on a point of order, Madam Chair. I would like some information—

[English]

The Chair: No. You'll ask after the meeting.

Dr. Fry.

[Translation]

M. Réal Ménard: It is a point of order, Madam Chair. You must give me the floor immediately.

[English]

The Chair: On a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you still plan to get the committee together to discuss future business?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: It says on the notice that future business will be discussed at 12:45 p.m.

[English]

The Chair: Oh, that can be done rather simply today in the sense that.... I'm not sure if everybody has read that proposed work plan.

Are people ready to discuss the work plan today?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Okay. They're not ready. I just wanted to ensure today that everybody did have the copy and that we could discuss it on Thursday. We brought more copies for that purpose. So there will not be any real discussion of this.

I'm sorry, Dr. Fry, please go ahead.

Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Thank you.

Mr. Castonguay actually touched on many of the things I wanted to ask, and since he's already asked them, what I would like to do is pull together some really important pieces. His concern, and mine, is about the short-, medium-, and long-term effects. I think you said there are difficulties doing that right now. I think you also said that it's difficult to do surveillance, but that you do surveillance.

My question is simply this. At the end of the day, most people don't want to know just because they want to know; they want to know what is in the food they eat. If you say to them “We can't tell you what are the medium- and long-term effects of this food, because we don't know, and we can't tell you whether the voluntary labelling is true or not misleading, because we just take the word of the producer for it and look at their past record, but we don't have the resources”--I heard that being said--“to be able to assess whether they are indeed true or misleading”, then we have a problem. We cannot really verify any of the things the producers say they're doing.

So what the consumer wants is for you to say “This food may contain genetically modified components”--and you say “may” because you may have little bits of soya or corn or whatever in it--so that the consumer can make the choice. They can make the decision based on the fact that we don't know a lot of this yet, that you don't have the resources to do surveillance, or to monitor, or to ensure that the voluntary statements made by any company are indeed true.

You don't have that, and my concern is simply around what consumers want to know. My question is, why not have some sort of mandatory labelling that says “This may contain genetically modified products”? If you say that, then the person knows whether they want to take the risk, and if you don't know, whether they're prepared to go with that. But you're not giving consumers a choice unless you put that kind of statement.

The point I'm making is that if you don't, and twenty years down the road we suddenly find out that the new proteins.... Even allergenicity...we know that allergens specifically. You may have known allergens today, but there may be unknown allergens, and you won't know the allergenicity of anything unless somebody has been exposed to it, possibly for a long period of time. Then it will show that this is a new allergen and they're allergic to it.

So really, since we don't know, why can't we just allow people to make choices based on simply saying, “This may or may not contain genetically modified foods”? It becomes a caveat emptor then.

I just want to have that question answered. That's all.

Â (1250)

The Chair: You have 55 seconds to answer.

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I'll try to be brief, Madam Chair.

This is much of the substance of the debate that has happened. The use of the words “may contain” is always challenging. I believe the feedback we've had from consumers in a general sense...because you will see labels now that will use the terminology “may contain”. A lot of the time that's put on a list of ingredients because of the potential allergenicity issues associated with it. We have had concerns from some consumers who say it doesn't help them. If it says it may or it may not, how are they supposed to know if it does or does not?

I think in this particular case, because the assessment to date has been that nothing in this country that's genetically modified, under the narrow definition, is considered to have a health and safety concern associated with it, the use of the term “may contain” is something which is difficult to make mandatory for someone to put on the label under the current scenario. So it's a very difficult question. It's one that I think is maybe more appropriately posed to consumer groups or others who you'll be meeting with over the next couple of weeks. But right now, from my perspective, the term “may contain” is related to concerns about allergenicity.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Fry.

Ms. Hedy Fry: He didn't answer my question.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis is next.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I apologize for being late. There have been many conflicts with other committees.

I hope this question hasn't been raised.

The Chair: We're down to four minutes, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My concern is one I've raised before, about the perceived conflict of interest at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the fact that there is certainly an understanding and a belief that the agency is involved in both the promotion of foods--including GMO foods--and the safety and regulation of safety concerns. I think that concern was made more apparent today with theGlobe and Mail article suggesting that the government, or the agency, or the government and the agency together, have spent more than $3 million on advertising and promotion, and convincing consumers that GMO foods are safe.

First of all, I'd like to know what the real figure is. How much has been spent on promotion of GMO foods, and why is the agency spending any money on promotion? Isn't that the role of the industry, and aren't you running the risk of being seen as the mouthpiece for the biotech industry?

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: Thank you, Madam Chair.

We did have a similar question, although not specifically the same. In terms of the numbers that are quoted, particularly in the newspaper article today, we'll have to go back and verify exactly what dollar amounts we have spent. But what I would say that our role is not to invest money in the promotion of biotechnology. Our role is to invest money to provide Canadians with information about the regulatory system. When some of these documents are being prepared, it's important that consumers know what role the government does and doesn't play with this, whether it be with Health Canada's role, with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's role, or other government agencies.

One document in particular that was referred to, this Food Safety and You brochure, was really in response to requests from Canadians about how the Canadian food system works. We went far and wide with this document to explain that it's a shared jurisdictional responsibility, federally, provincially, and municipally. We explained the federal role in some detail. We talked about microbiological and chemical contamination. And we did put in some paragraphs on biotechnology so that people would understand what it is and what it's about.

But our reason for providing that information is to inform Canadians about the regulatory systems from the CFIA perspective, and who they can contact should they have any questions about the enforcement of any of the laws.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Chairperson, I appreciate the response. However, I still feel that there are significant concerns being raised here that we need to delve into as a committee.

Perhaps rather than have the debate now, we could get assurances from you--and perhaps you already have given these--to give us a complete breakdown of how much has been spent on publications. Perhaps you could see that a complete accounting of this, whether that is defined as promotional, or descriptive, or informational, is provided to this committee with the breakdown by amount, and publication, and any other programs that you're engaged in of that nature. Is that possible?

Â (1255)

Mr. Peter Brackenridge: I think what we could do--and I'm just asking some questions here--is provide you with the publications that we have contributed and the dollar amount.

What I'd have to say that we haven't put a dollar into promotional activities. So I think it's important to understand the context with which it would be given, that we have contributed certain amounts of money to certain publications and documentation, but it's for the purpose of explaining the regulatory system, not for the purpose of promoting biotech.

I'm not sure, Madam Chair, how you would like us to present that. But we will provide you with information on moneys for public record. Access to information requests have already been made.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think it would be useful to know the amount of money spent and where it actually went, because there are obviously different interpretations about what is promotional or not. I think we need to be able to judge that, just to understand how much Canadians are being made to believe that everything is safe when in fact there are serious scientific and safety issues that as a committee we have to look at.

The Chair: Thank you. Just as a follow-up, we're looking for perhaps a list of the expenditures on publications we might be able to see, and maybe a few examples of the wording of some of these sections on biotechnology so we can judge whether it is promotion or simply information-sharing.

We'll move on to Madam Beaumier, please.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West--Mississauga, Lib.): Thank you.

Because of the regular appearance of corn products and wheat products in so much of our processed foods, I'm wondering if you would think that maybe a large-scale public education program would be more beneficial than having products saying “product may contain”. I think we get too many warnings on too many products, and we've become somewhat immune to them.

I think the fear of the public is based on the fact.... I mean, there's talk of fish genes in tomatoes and so on. They begin to look at food products similar to Dolly, when there are other issues we look at that are really much more serious, such as irradiated food. I understand in Canada we irradiate only spices, basically, while in the States there are different requirements. They allow more irradiation of foods.

I just wonder if we're starting to look at this as science of the future, and if this is what frightens us instead of the “this product may contain”. Because I think we're all getting pretty immune to warning labels.

Dr. Karen L. Dodds: If I might address it in some fashion, I want to be clear that my background is as a scientist, and science can never prove the absence of something. Certainly, for the short-, medium-, and long-term effects from currently approved genetically modified products we see absolutely nothing to give us concerns.

We would love for Canadians to really be interested in good health information about the foods we eat, which is why last spring we had the prepublication of nutrition labelling...to make nutrition labelling mandatory.

There are so many things in your food that we know affect your health--how much fat you're eating, whether you're eating a healthy diet, whether you're balancing your caloric intake with your level of physical activity. We know how important that is, and that's information we really want to get to consumers.

That we know beyond a doubt, versus genetic modification, where what we know now is that we see no cause for concern from a health perspective--not from a consumer information perspective but from a health perspective; the science identifies no concerns at the moment.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Beaumier, and thank you very much, witnesses.

You will understand that this is our very first exploration of the subject, and therefore our questions probably seemed a bit eclectic around the various issues. It's a learning process for us and we're just beginning. I would assume we want you to come back when we really know something, and then the questions might be a bit tougher. But thank you for today.

If I might say this to the committee members, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis and anybody here from the PC/DR Coalition, we don't have any witness list from your parties as suggested, and we would like to look over the witness list when we do the planning exercise at our next meeting. That is all the business for the committee today.

Thank you for your attention, and thank you to my colleagues for being so succinct and watching the time. I appreciate your cooperation.

This meeting is adjourned.