This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Genetically-engineered wheat and the future of Canadian agriculture

Petition: No. 88

Issue(s): Agriculture, biological diversity, governance, international cooperation, and science and technology

Petitioner(s): Greenpeace Canada

Date Received: 18 July 2003

Status: Completed

Summary: According to the petitioner, the federal government received a submission for approval of a variety of genetically engineered (GE) wheat in 2002. The petitioner is opposed to the environmental release of GE wheat. According to the petitioner, the introduction of GE wheat into fields, food, and wheat markets raises agronomic, health, economic, ethical, and social concerns. The petition seeks to clarify the federal government's policy and position on GE wheat and determine what action the government has taken, or will take, to prevent negative environmental impacts from GE wheat.  

Federal Departments Responsible for Reply: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, Finance Canada—Department of, Foreign Affairs and International Trade—Department of [1996-2003], Health Canada, Industry Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Parks Canada Agency, Western Economic Diversification Canada

Petition

July 18, 2003

Johanne Gélinas
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Office of the Auditor General of Canada
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0G6

Subject: Petition pursuant to Section 22 of the Auditor General Act on Genetically Engineered (GE) Wheat: The Precautionary Principle, Biosafety and the Future of Canada's Agriculture.

Dear Ms. Gélinas:

This petition is being submitted by Greenpeace Canada concerning genetically engineered (GE) wheat and the risks it poses to the environment and sustainable development. The petition is submitted in relation to federal laws, regulations and policies concerning genetically engineered wheat. Greenpeace seeks to clarify federal policy; to have existing regulations and policies reviewed and improved; and to determine what action has been or will be taken to prevent negative environmental impacts posed by genetically engineered wheat.

The petition is directed, where applicable, to the following federal departments (or to any other department with business related to genetically engineered wheat):

 

Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC)
Environment Canada
Finance Canada
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Health Canada
Industry Canada
Natural Resources Canada
Parks Canada
Solicitor General Canada
Transport Canada
Western Economic Diversification Canada

 

A. Preamble

  1. Greenpeace is opposed to the environmental release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) due to concerns about harmful environmental effects. Our position has been developed taking into account both the precautionary principle and scientific analysis and evidence. Accordingly, Greenpeace is opposed to the environmental release of GE wheat in Canada.

  2. There is enormous scientific uncertainty surrounding both the ecological and human health effects of GMOs. Because of the lack of scientific knowledge about negative effects, and the growing scientific evidence of environmental harm, it is incumbent on government regulators to follow the precautionary principle and ban the introduction of GMOs into the environment. Such a ban should be applied both to currently approved GMOs (e.g., GE canola, soy and corn) and those for which approval is under consideration, such as Roundup Ready® (RR) wheat.

  3. Supporting our demand for an immediate ban on GMOs is a proliferation of scientific research and expert analysis (see attached Greenpeace backgrounder entitled Resources Critical of Food and Agricultural Genetic Engineering). Noteworthy in Canada are the findings of the Expert Panel Report of the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) commissioned by the Federal government;1 the position paper of the Ontario Public Health Association;2 and a report produced by the Québec institut national de santé publique du Québec.3 An extensive list of scientific documents is referenced by these and other studies.

  4. Greenpeace supports the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety ("Biosafety Protocol") as a good initial framework to regulate the international movement of GMOs. Although Greenpeace welcomed Canada's signing of the Biosafety Protocol on April 19, 2001, we regret that the Canadian government has failed to ratify the Protocol, especially considering its imminent entry into force on September 11, 2003. Canada should immediately ratify the Biosafety Protocol and contribute positively to its effective implementation in order to avoid genetic contamination inside and outside Canada.

  5. Greenpeace is an independent, global campaigning environmental organisation. Founded in 1971 in Vancouver, Greenpeace has a presence in over 40 countries or regions with a global membership of 2.8 million. Greenpeace Canada (GPC) has over 84,000 Canadian supporters.

B. Background

  1. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) received a submission from Monsanto Canada Inc. for approval of RR wheat on December 23, 2002 for general cultivation (unconfined environmental release) or livestock feed safety. Health Canada received Monsanto's submission for food safety approval on July 31, 2002.4

  2. Greenpeace is opposed to the environmental release of genetically engineered wheat. As an environmental organization, our main concerns are the environmental risks associated with GE crops. Having worked closely with groups representing the interests of farmers, consumers, health advocates, wheat marketers and wheat buyers, we are also aware of the agronomic, health, economic, ethical and social concerns related to the introduction of GE wheat into fields, food and wheat markets.

  3. Greenpeace Canada has been working on the GE wheat issue for almost 3 years. We have published reports, videos and other materials describing the health, environmental, social and economic risks of introducing GE wheat. These include the enclosed materials: our report Against the Grain: The Threat of Genetically Engineered Wheat, another report entitled Genetically Engineered Wheat - Changing our Daily Bread and our video Slice of Life containing testimonials against GE wheat from North American farmers, economists and buyers of Canadian wheat.

  4. In February 2003, Decima Research conducted a poll on behalf of Greenpeace concerning GE wheat. The poll results indicated that 61% of Canadians would be somewhat or very likely to avoid buying foods made with genetically engineered wheat. More than two-thirds of women (66.1%) and homemakers (67.1%) surveyed responded that they would avoid GE wheat in their food. (The poll interviewed 2025 Canadians and is accurate to within 2.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.)

  5. In opposition to the introduction of GE wheat, Greenpeace participated in an unprecedented collaboration of 9 organizations representing farmers, wheat marketers, rural municipalities, environmentalists and consumers. The organizations involved were the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan (APAS), Canadian Health Coalition (CHC), Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), Greenpeace Canada, Keystone Agricultural Producers (KAP), National Farmers Union (NFU), Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM), Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD) and The Council of Canadians. The groups held a press conference on July 31, 2001 and sent a letter to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. The letter, which was endorsed by over 300 other organizations and experts, said, "Genetically-modified (GM) wheat raises concerns in many sectors, both domestically and abroad. Farmers and grain industry participants are concerned about market loss and risks to Canada's distinguished reputation for quality wheat varieties. In addition, farmers are concerned about agronomic impacts. Consumers are concerned about food safety and regulatory adequacy. Citizens are concerned about environmental damage. Organic farmers are concerned about negative effects on Canada's successful organic sector." The groups asked the government to "act immediately to prevent the introduction of GM [genetically modified] wheat into Canadian food and fields unless the concerns of Canadian farmers, industry, and consumers are adequately addressed." and to make market acceptance a requirement in the regulatory approval process for GE crops.

  6. Greenpeace also joined with the above-named organizations in testifying and making written submissions expressing opposition to the introduction of GE wheat to the Canadian Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry November 8, 2001 (a copy of the written submission is attached). On behalf of the organizations named in paragraph 5, Mr. Stewart Wells, current President of the National Farmers Union, placed four requests before the Senate Committee:

    1. Regarding GM wheat: Farmers and grain industry participants are concerned about market loss and risks to Canada's distinguished reputation for quality wheat varieties. In addition, farmers are concerned about agronomic impacts. Consumers are concerned about food safety and regulatory adequacy. Citizens are concerned about environmental damage. Organic farmers are concerned about negative effects on Canada's successful organic sector. Our organizations recommend that the Senate Standing Committee insist that the Government of Canada take immediate steps to prevent the introduction of GM wheat in Canada unless the concerns of Canadian farmers, industry, and consumers are addressed adequately.

    2. We recommend that the Senate Standing Committee ask the government to introduce market impact analysis into the approval process for genetically modified crops, including GM wheat; and that relevant government departments be directed to examine thoroughly all options to consider market impact. Where they identify possible barriers, they should be asked to develop creative solutions to overcome those barriers.

    3. We recommend that the Senate Standing Committee ask the Minister of Agriculture for a description and accounting of the money spent by the Federal government for the promotion of biotechnology or work in collaboration with biotech since 1990.

    4. We recommend that the Senate Standing Committee ask the Minister of Agriculture for a description and accounting of the money spent by the Federal government on public/private sector research on biotechnology since 1990.

  7. The Canadian Wheat Board has been a strong proponent of incorporation of economic impact criteria into the food biotechnology regulatory process. The CWB is well positioned to know of the economic risks associated with the introduction of genetically engineered wheat.5 According to the CWB, customers (both foreign and domestic) representing over 80% of Canadian wheat markets are concerned about GE wheat. This has prompted the CWB to ask Monsanto to withdraw its application for an environmental safety assessment of Roundup Ready® wheat (RR),6 a request refused by Monsanto. The CWB has a multi-pronged strategy in place regarding GE wheat that would require that a rigorous cost-benefit analysis be carried out on any proposed GE wheat; that the federal government include market impact as a criteria for introduction of a new variety; that controls be put in place to prevent the illegal production and/or importation into Canada of transgenic wheat; and that segregation, testing and sampling standards be established without which GE wheat could not be introduced.7 According to Clay Serby, Saskatchewan Deputy Premier and Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Revitalization (SAFRR), the SAFRR "supports the Canadian Wheat Board's position on delaying the registration of transgenic wheat until several conditions are met. These include, among other things, a functioning identity preservation system, identified end use markets, and risk/benefit analysis prior to unconfined release."8 Many scientists and grain industry experts have said that segregation of GE from non-GE wheat would not be possible.

  8. Some studies have already been conducted on the expected negative economic of GE wheat, including:

    1. The Optimal Time to License a Biotech "Lemon" by W.H. Furtan, R.S. Gray, and J.J. Holzman, Department of Agriculture Economics, University of Saskatchewan (senior authorship not assigned for this paper);9
    2. Costs and Risks of Testing and Segregating GM Wheat, William W. Wilson and Bruce L. Dahl, October 2002, Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report No. 501, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University;10 and
    3. GMO Spring Wheat: Its Potential Short-term Impacts on U.S. Wheat Export Markets and Prices, by Dr. Robert Wisner, University Professor of Economics, Iowa State University.11
  1. Farmers associated with the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate have taken legal action against Monsanto (and Aventis) seeking an injunction against the introduction of Roundup Ready wheat, fearing both agronomic and economic impacts that would be devastating for the organic sector should RR wheat be approved. This follows the destruction of the Canadian organic canola market due to GE contamination. The loss of Canadian markets for conventional and organic crops has had a positive trade effect for countries such as Australia at the expense of Canada and its farmers. All major canola-growing states in Australia have established moratoriums on the commercial production of GE canola. Australia has captured the former Canadian market in the European Union for non-GE canola. Despite the concerns of farmers, wheat marketers and others regarding the expected negative economic impacts of GE wheat, to date, the Canadian government has taken no affirmative action to respond to any requests for incorporation of economic impact criteria into the regulatory approval process. Further, the Canadian government's decision to join the U.S. in a trade complaint at the World Trade Organization over the European Union's moratorium on approving new GE crops could hinder the Canadian government's ability to incorporate a marketing impact assessment into the Canadian GE crop regulatory system. Accordingly, Canadian Wheat Board president and CEO Adrian Measner wrote to Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew and other Ministers urging the government not to join in the trade complaint against the EU, to no avail.12

  2. To date, Greenpeace's request to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has been declined; however, Greenpeace sent a 13-page letter dated May 27, 2003 to the members of the Committee to explain our concerns (copy attached). In that letter we suggested that the Committee recommend against the environmental release and commercialization of GE wheat. Greenpeace has requested , in vain so far , that the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, in collaboration with other relevant federal committees, hold extended, cross-country hearings on GE wheat. A purpose of these hearings would be to hear from numerous critical witnesses, including agronomic scientists, agricultural economists, wheat customers and other experts with crucial information about why GE wheat should not be approved and released into the environment.

  3. In Greenpeace's May 27 submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we argued that Monsanto's poor financial performance appears to be the driving force behind its relentless pursuit of commercial approval of the company's RR wheat; however, for the Canadian government this should not be of concern and certainly should not override its duty to protect the public interest including human and environmental safety and economic security for farmers. For details about Monsanto's poor financial performance, see Monsanto & Genetic Engineering: Risks of Investors.13

  4. Greenpeace submits that the close ties and contractual partnerships between the Canadian government and Monsanto puts the government in a conflict of interest situation, contrary to the concerns expressed and recommendations made by the Royal Society of Canada (see pp. 7-8 in our May 27 submission to the Commons agriculture committee, and the RSC report Elements of Precaution, pp. 211-219, including recommendations 9.1 , 9.4). The RSC Expert Panel recommended that "All the regulatory departments involved in the regulation of food biotechnology should seek to separate institutionally as much as possible the role of promoter from the role of regulator." (p. 212) The Expert Panel expressed concern that "such regulatory conflict of interest compromises the integrity of regulatory science and decision-making, as well as public perception of that integrity." (p. 212) In the case of GE wheat, added to the government's conflict as both regulator and promoter of biotechnology is its role as a co-developer of GE wheat (see next point). This situation contributes to the inadequate regulation of food biotechnology in Canada and places the interests of the U.S.-based transnational GE company Monsanto over the public interest of Canadians, notably human and environmental safety; and economic security for farmers.

  5. The inappropriate close relationship between the Canadian government and Monsanto and the effects of those ties are illustrated in Greenpeace's May 27 submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food through the following examples:

    1. AAFC providing prime, publicly-owned germplasm to Monsanto to develop its RR wheat;

    2. AAFC carrying out Monsanto's variety registration field trials for the company on contract, trials that serve to facilitate Monsanto's bid to commercialize GE wheat rather than to achieve a biosafety objective;

    3. AAFC providing Monsanto with at least $800,000 in Matching Investment Initiative funding; and

    4. Changes made by the CFIA to the variety registration process, eliminating an existing market impact provision that could have blocked commercialization of Monsanto's RR wheat.

  6. Another form of conflict of interest that favours industry arises out of the movement of personnel between government and the industries they regulate, allowing the latter sector undue influence over government policies, programs, decisions, funding, etc. This practice, sometimes described as a "revolving door," creates a conflict of interest that operates against the public interest and democratic governance; accordingly, some governments have established rules restricting this practice. In the field of genetic engineering, the revolving door been well documented in countries such as Canada,14 the United States15 and Great Britain16. Such movement of personnel is known to have occurred between Monsanto, or other pro-biotech entities, and the Canadian government, including personnel associated with the GE wheat file. A question related to this matter was asked by a Member of Parliament at a recent meeting (June 12, 2003) of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, to which an official within the CFIA responded, "at this point there is no one who has worked on the GM wheat file who is working for Monsanto."17

  7. Based on the precautionary principle, and based on scientific theory, analysis and evidence related to GE crops already in commercial production, those grown in confined field trials, and/or those currently under consideration for environmental release and commercialization, there is strong reason to believe that the environmental release of genetically engineered wheat poses risks to the environment, in both natural and managed (farm) ecosystems. Real-life examples of loss of control of GE crops resulting in contamination incidents have been well-documented (e.g., Aventis, StarLink corn, Advanta canola, triple-herbicide resistant canola in Canada, maize in Mexico, Monsanto's Quest canola, Prodigene's contamination of commercial corn with its GE pharma-crops, corn seed contamination in Italy, etc.).

  8. Many critics have expressed concerns about the risk of contamination (physical and biological) posed by GE wheat to natural and agricultural ecosystems. (i) On June 9, 2003, the Canadian Wheat Board released a report entitled An Environmental Safety Assessment of Roundup Ready® Wheat: Risks for Direct Seeding Systems in Western Canada (June 2003),18 prepared independently by Dr. René Van Acker, Dr. Anita Brûlé-Babel and Lyle Friesen, researchers with the Department of Plant Science in the Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences at the University of Manitoba. The authors warned, "The unconfined release of Roundup Ready wheat will negatively affect the environment and limit farmers' ability to conserve natural resources on farms in Western Canada. Under current conditions the release of Roundup Ready wheat in Western Canada would be environmentally unsafe."19 Various other reports and papers on this topic include: (ii) presentations made by scientists and economists at a conference hosted by the Canadian Wheat Board March 18-19, 2003 entitled Herbicide Tolerant Crops: Weeding Out the Issues;20 (iii) the Greenpeace report Against the Grain;21 (iv) the Greenpeace report entitled Genetically Engineered Wheat - Changing our Daily Bread;22 (v) A Discussion Paper on Agronomic Assessment of Roundup Ready® Wheat, published by the Canadian Wheat board;23 and (vi) Citizen Petition Before the United States (Department of Agriculture and Animal Plant Health Inspection Service); a "Legal Petition Seeking an Environmental Impact Statement Concerning the Deregulation of Genetically Engineered Wheat Varieties & Petition Seeking the Listing of Genetically Engineered Wheat Varieties as Noxious Weeds."24

  9. Contamination concerns raised about GE wheat to both managed and natural ecosystems include transgene flow to wild or related agricultural plants, leading to the creation of "volunteer" agricultural plants resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (which essentially act like weeds in a crop of a different species or variety) and/or wild relatives whose offspring may become more weedy or invasive; impacts on non-target organisms or on biodiversity; increased pesticide loads, particularly of more toxic pesticides like 2,4-D or of a single herbicide such as glyphosate, increasing selection pressure; an increase in glyphosate-resistant plants due to selection pressure; or a correlation between problems with fusarium head blight and the use of glyphosate.25 Also of concern are the secondary effects caused by changes in agronomic management practices in response to some of these problems. In this category would be impacts on the ecosystem caused by increased or more toxic herbicide use (e.g., addition of an auxin-type herbicide such as 2,4-D or MCPA) to control volunteers/weeds resistant to Roundup, a glyphosate herbicide. Indeed, the industry itself (e.g., Monsanto26) commonly recommends this as the solution to problems with volunteer plants. Van Acker et al report that adding 2,4-D or MCPA to the spray tank mix is now a common agricultural practice for dealing with glyphosate-resistant volunteers (June 2003, pp. 8-9). As well, advocates of direct seeding and reduced tillage options reliant on the use of glyphosate have raised soil conservation concerns, and concerns about negative secondary effects (e.g., see Van Acker et al, June 2003).

  10. The risk of contamination has been acknowledged by AAFC in at least one AAFC Memorandum to Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief, which states that "If transgenic wheat is registered, it will be difficult and costly to keep it segregated from non-transgenic wheat throughout the production, handling and transport chain."27 Yet in another communication, Mr. Vanclief states: "Cross-pollination can be an issue, but wheat is a very highly self-pollinating crop and so experiences with other crops, particularly canola, are not transferable to wheat."28 This last statement defies expert opinion. Van Acker et al (June 2003:1) state: "The factors combing to form the Roundup Ready transgene bridge in canola will be similar for Roundup Ready wheat. This includes the factor that was unique to the Roundup Ready trait in canola; the extensive use of glyphosate in cropping systems in western Canada which would create a selective advantage for Roundup Ready volunteer wheat over non-Roundup Ready volunteer wheat. As in canola, this factor will make it difficult to contain the Roundup Ready trait within given wheat fields."

  11. Among the risks of biological contamination are those currently arising from GE wheat field trials that have been carried out in Canada each year since 1994. In 2002, there were 53 field trials in Canada. Most of those (46) were for Monsanto studying plants genetically engineered to be herbicide tolerant.29 To some degree the threat of pollen contamination has been acknowledged by the CFIA, as the agency increased for 2001 the buffer zones required to isolate wheat field trials from 3 to 10 to 30 metres; however, even the current 30 metre buffer zone creates a false sense of security. Field trials are designed to assume a small failure rate. Control/management problems have already occurred in Canadian wheat field trials. Serious real-life contamination events have already occurred in other GE crop field trials in other jurisdictions.30 Further, there has been insufficient scientific study of gene flow in wheat to even know if the current 30 metre buffer zone is adequate or in fact, what would be an adequate distance to prevent gene flow. According to University of California academics J.G. Waines and S.G. Hegde,31 "Rigorous and systematic gene flow studies in wheat are absent from the scientific literature. Gene flow data could establish an appropriate isolation distance between cultivars and genetically modified (GM) plants or hybrids." In reviewing the literature, the authors found that viable pollen movement was observed as far as 1000 m from the source, although substantial outcrossing beyond 30 m was not observed (p. 451). Van Acker et al (June 2003) note that "outcrossing has been reported as far as 48 m (Khan et al. 1973) and 80 m (P. Hucl, Univ. of Saskatchewan, pers. comm.) from the pollen source." Waines and Hegde note that weather conditions, day and night temperatures, light, moisture and wind direction and speed may influence gene flow (p. 460). Given the identified paucity of information on the subject, they draw important conclusions: (i) "Currently, the number of systematic studies on gene flow in wheat is too small to make any valid inference about the isolation distance between adjacent cultivars." (p. 460) and (ii) "There is a need for research in wheat gene flow studies to see if the greater distances recorded for pollen movement by Jensen (1968), D'Souza (1970), Khan et al (1973), and Virmani and Edwards (1983) are repeatable, and to see if this pollen movement results in substantial gene flow effect that is considered biologically important and meaningful in a recipient population.For any crop that sheds pollen, including wheat, a guarantee of zero gene flow is not possible." (p. 461) This last point is echoed in Van Acker et al (June 2003).

  12. The Royal Society of Canada expert panel in its report Elements of Precaution criticized the Canadian government for the lack of independence, objectivity and transparency of the science involved in the assessment of food and agricultural biotechnology. Their recommendations 9.3 and 9.4 call for implementation of a system of independent, peer review of risk assessments upon which the approvals of GE products are based; public access to the data and rationales upon which the risk assessment and the regulatory decision are based; an examination of domination of the public research agenda by private, commercial interests; and promotion and protection of fully independent research on the health and environmental risks of agricultural biotechnology. The RSC Expert Panel rejected the Canadian government's reliance on the non-scientific policy of using "substantial equivalence" as a decision threshold to exempt GMOs from a more rigorous assessment of the health and environmental risks GMOs (pp. 177-192; in particular, see Recommendation 7.1 and Recommendation 8.1 on p. 206). The RSC Expert Panel also called for adoption of the "precautionary principle" in the regulation of GMOs and use of the most rigorous scientific risk assessment (pp. 194 - 210 and Recommendations 8.1 - 8.5 on pp. 206-207). Indeed all of the above recommended changes would be consistent with the Canadian government's often-stated goal of relying solely on science-based risk assessment. Many experts have criticized the Canadian government's regulation of food and agricultural biotechnology (see the previously referenced Greenpeace "resources" backgrounder on this subject attached to this document).

  13. A report (attached) prepared for Greenpeace by EcoStrat, a Swiss scientific consultancy specializing in ecological assessments of biotechnology, found gross deficiencies in data submitted by food biotech companies to regulators in the United States and Europe upon which approvals were granted.32 The 5 regulatory studies on the effects of Novartis Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) corn on beneficial organisms were so poorly designed that there was virtually no chance that adverse effects would be observed. None were published or offered for peer review, a standard scientific practice that provides a mechanism of quality control and accountability. Recognising the harmonization of the Canadian and US regulatory systems for GMOs, the same studies may have been used to approve the Novartis (CIBA Seeds/Mycogen) Event 176 Bt corn in Canada for unconfined release. The report, entitled Review on Non-Target Organisms and Bt-Plants (April, 2000), also examined other laboratory and field trials, only some of which were published and peer-reviewed. Examples of deficiencies in the studies are that none of the regulatory studies demonstrated that the Bt toxin in the corn was ever actually ingested by the target species. In many cases considering the feeding preferences of the test species and the method of food delivery, it is likely that Bt toxin was not ingested by the subject organisms which would render the tests ineffective (e.g., studies 1 to 3). Most of the studies did not adequately look at long term exposure to the Bt toxin. Instead, they were designed to assess the acute toxicity of industrial chemicals on the environment rather than chronic, longer-term exposure, new routes of exposure and unintended genetic changes in the modified organism. None of the regulatory studies (and most of the studies reviewed) considered effects of the GE Bt toxin in the food chain (e.g., harmful effects on beneficial organisms whose prey consumed Bt crops or the emergence of other pests due to the elimination of the target species). Ironically, despite methodological flaws in the studies, many alarming adverse effects were still found and apparently ignored by US regulators (e.g., adverse effects from Bt crops on non-target organisms; adverse effects on non-target organisms from eating Bt-contaminated prey; negative food chain impacts).

  14. In another attached report prepared by EcoStrat for Greenpeace, Bt Proteins in Soils: Is Enough Known to Assess the Impact of Bt Plants on Soil Ecosystems? (May 2001)33, scientists analyzed the peer-reviewed research to see if the potential impacts on soil from Bt crops had been adequately assessed. Their findings were that they had not. The authors found that out of 15 studies in the peer-reviewed literature that investigated effects on soil from Bt crops, only 3 studies looked at impacts on soil organisms, and all of these were criticized for problems in experimental design and interpretation. Nonetheless, those three pointed to potential impacts of the Bt insecticide in soil on non-target soil life, including beneficial bacteria and fungi essential for plant growth. EcoStrat found that the 15 studies showed reasons to be concerned, notably, that Bt toxins can remain in soils and retain their insecticidal activity for up to 8 months, the longest duration studied. Further information about inadequacies in the state of peer-reviewed scientific research on the impacts of GE crops on soil are outlined in another Petition from Greenpeace to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada, dated July 9, 2003. That Petition is entitled "Petition pursuant to Section 22 of the Auditor General Act, Impacts of Genetically Engineered (GE) crops on soil health: Towards a Precautionary and Scientifically-sound Approach?"

C. Conclusions

The preceding information accentuates various areas of concern which can be grouped into the following three main categories:

  1. Government Conflict of Interest Compromises the Regulation of GE Wheat, Risking Environmental Safety. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and its regulatory agency the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, are in a triple conflict of interest as the promoter, developer and regulator of GE wheat, compromising the regulatory system and the government's ability to adequately assess the environmental risks of GE wheat and to prevent environmental harm.

  2. Environmental Risks Posed by GE Wheat Outlined/Regulatory System Inadequate for Assessing Those Risks. The risks of introducing GE wheat into the environment (both natural and managed ecosystems) have been well-articulated by experts. Gross inadequacies in the Canadian regulatory system for food and agricultural biotechnology have been well-established. The government has failed to repair a broken system, despite years of warnings by experts, including an expert scientific panel of the Royal Society of Canada, commissioned by the government to review Canada's regulatory approach.

  3. Predictions of Grave Economic Impacts Associated with GE Wheat Have Been Ignored by the Canadian Government. The government has failed to take any positive measures to include economic impact criteria into the regulatory process, despite the pleas of industry stakeholders.

D. Relief Sought

The above-identified weaknesses, deficiencies and gaps require prompt and decisive action. Will the Canadian government agree to take the following general measures? Please explain why or why not?

  1. While Greenpeace calls for an immediate ban on all GE crops, considering that no GE wheat has ever been approved for environmental release or use in human food or livestock feed; considering the range of opposition to GE wheat - farmers, consumers, wheat marketers and customers, environmentalists and health advocates; and considering the serious health, environmental, agronomic and economic concerns associated with GE wheat; we request that the Canadian government stop forthwith the processing of any applications for genetically engineered wheat, including Monsanto's current application for Roundup Ready® wheat. We also request that the Canadian government halt "Confined Research Field Trials" on GE wheat especially in view of insufficient scientific information about wheat gene flow/outcrossing.

  2. If the government fails to act on the above request, Greenpeace asks that the Government deny Monsanto's application for unconfined environmental release, novel livestock feed use, variety registration and novel food use of its Roundup Ready® wheat on the basis of the many health, environmental and economic issues associated with it.

  3. Greenpeace requests that the Canadian government overhauls the food and agricultural biotechnology regulatory system, establishing a comprehensive legislative framework for the regulation of genetically modified organisms, rather than the current piecemeal approach. A new regulatory regime should incorporate measures recommended in the various critical reports and analyses identified in this document, notably the reports produced by the Expert Panel of the Royal Society of Canada (RSC), the position paper of the Ontario Public Health Association, and the report produced by the Québec institut national de santé publique du Québec. Broadly, the government should abandon its current reliance on the ideological, non-scientific policy of "substantial equivalence" as a decision-threshold that eliminates the requirement for more rigorous health and environmental safety assessment, and instead establish the precautionary principle as the underpinning of the food and agricultural biotechnology regulatory system. The government should eliminate the triple conflict of interest that exists when one department acts as the regulator, promoter and developer of GMOs, and establish a truly rigorous safety assessment for GE crops. In the interests of transparency, objectivity and accountability, the regulatory process should be based on a multi-disciplinary, ecosystem approach using independent, peer-reviewed scientific data that is made available to the public. The process should include a genuine public consultation component.

Regarding the three areas of concern identified under "Conclusions", we request that the various departments to whom this petition is addressed, or any other relevant department, answer the following specific questions.

Government Conflict of Interest Compromises the Regulation of GE Wheat, Risking Environmental Safety.

In responding to the following questions, in particular, please reference Greenpeace's May 27, 2003 submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and paragraphs B: 12-14 in this Petition.

  1. How does the Canadian government defend the triple conflict of interest created by its roles as the promoter, developer and regulator of GE wheat? Please respond in more depth than the denial of conflict of interest provided on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency web site.34 Would the Minister for AAFC explain how he believes he has the ability to provide scientific independence, objectivity and transparency in the assessment of Monsanto's Roundup Ready GE wheat considering the government's close economic and development partnerships with the proponent? If the government intends to deny that a "real" conflict of interest exists, please explain why steps wouldn't be taken, at a minimum, to prevent a "perceived" conflict of interest (both real and perceived conflicts of interest were identified as problems in the Canadian system of regulating food biotechnology by the Royal Society of Canada.) What concrete measures have been taken to eliminate such real or perceived conflicts of interest?

  2. In the interests of full scientific independence, objectivity and transparency in the assessment of food and agricultural biotechnology, would the relevant Ministers, in particular the Minister for AAFC, supply a complete annotated list, as well as complete text, of all current and past agreements, including financial information, between the Government of Canada and Monsanto (or any other entities working directly or indirectly for Monsanto and/or one of its associated companies or subsidiaries and/or receiving direct or indirect public funding) for the development, research and/or promotion of Monsanto's Roundup Ready GE wheat? Please provide particulars about the agreement which resulted in the Canadian government providing high quality, publicly-owned BW 252 germplasm to Monsanto for the development of its RR wheat; about any agreements resulting in the federal government conducting RR wheat field trials on contract to Monsanto, and about the provision of funding to offset the costs of field trials. Explain why the government would conduct field trials, using public resources, that aid Monsanto in its quest to achieve variety registration for Roundup Ready wheat, a step that facilitates commercialization rather than contributing to biosafety research? If any of the above information is denied, please explain why?

  3. Considering that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada removed a "definition of merit" clause that allowed members of the Wheat, Rye and Triticale subcommittee of the Prairie Registration Recommending Committee for Grain (PRRCG) to look beyond agronomics, quality and disease resistance when considering new varieties, a clause that would have allowed economic impacts to be taken into consideration, would the relevant Ministers give a full annotated list of past and current agreements and/or communications, as well as complete text, between the federal government and Monsanto (or any other entities working directly or indirectly for Monsanto and/or one of its subsidiaries and/or receiving direct or indirect public funding) for the development, research and/or promotion of Monsanto's Roundup Ready GE wheat, and/or agreements or communications which make direct or indirect reference to the above-mentioned "definition of merit" clause? Since we know that the government rationalizes the removal of the definition of merit clause as being in non-compliance with existing regulations, would the Minister of the AAFC and the CFIA reveal details of the debate amongst regulatory officials both for and against removal of the clause? Please provide particulars about all previous occasions when the definition of merit clause has been invoked. Why would the government remove this clause suddenly, after it had been in place for over 10 years, at a time when the issue of economic impacts from Monsanto's RR wheat was paramount, at a time when likely never before in the history of the committee would the "definition of merit" clause be so urgently needed? Despite the government's defense for its decision to remove the clause, would the Minister of the AAFC agree that the timing and fact of removal of the definition of merit clause are suspicious and contribute to the real or perceived conflict of interest problem identified earlier?

  4. Referencing paragraph B: 14, would the relevant Ministers and in particular the Minister for AAFC, supply a list of instances in which personnel associated with their Ministries (including federal departments, political offices, consultants, advisors, or members of committees, groups, advisory bodies or agencies operated, supported or funded by the government) have worked (past or present) for Monsanto (or any other entities working directly or indirectly for Monsanto and/or one of its associated companies or subsidiaries and/or receiving direct or indirect public funding). Please identify if, in any of these instances, the personnel were involved directly or indirectly in any negotiations or consultations between the government and Monsanto (or any other entities working directly or indirectly for Monsanto and/or one of its associated companies or subsidiaries and/or receiving direct or indirect public funding) related to the promotion, development (including the government's provision of the BW 252 wheat germplasm to Monsanto), field testing, or regulatory approval of its RR wheat, and if so, in what capacity. Please include job titles, job descriptions and a description of the person's involvement on the GE wheat file. Please provide the names of personnel who have been associated in the above-referenced capacities with both Monsanto and the Canadian government. How many instances of movement of personnel (as previously outlined) between the government and the biotech industry, notably Monsanto, have taken place since 1990? In the context of food and agricultural GMOs generally, please apply the same questions to personnel (as previously defined), past or present, who have moved between the government and the biotech industry generally? How does the government rationalize the real or perceived conflict of interest that arises from the movement of personnel between government and the GE industry that it is charged with regulating, with a particular reference to GE wheat? What steps will the government take to eliminate such conflicts of interest?

  5. Would any of the relevant Ministers not directly involved in the authorization process for unconfined release of Monsanto's Roundup Ready wheat, for example: Environment Canada, Parks Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Industry Canada, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Western Economic Diversification Canada, the Solicitor General, Health Canada, Transport Canada and Finance Canada, give a complete annotated list of documents (reports, memoranda, etc.) received or produced by their ministries on the issues of the authorization of Monsanto's Round up Ready GE wheat? If no communications on Monsanto's Roundup Ready , or GE wheat in general , were received or produced by these Ministries, would each Minister provide an explanation as to why not, especially in relation to their Ministries, objectives and mandates in the context of sustainable development?

  6. Would the relevant Ministers provide a complete annotated list, description and accounting of the money spent by the Federal government on the following: (i) The promotion of biotechnology (domestically and abroad) or work in collaboration with biotech since 1990; (ii) On public/private sector research on biotechnology since 1990; (iii) The promotion of organic agriculture (domestically and abroad) since 1990; (iv) Public/private sector research on organic agriculture since 1990; (v) The promotion (domestic and abroad) of other non-rDNA, non-organic technologies related to crop improvement since 1990; (vi) Public/private sector research on other non-rDNA, non-organic technologies related to crop improvement since 1990? If the government has not made a comparable investment in organic agriculture as in GE agriculture, or indeed considering the environmental and health risks in the latter a greater investment in organic agriculture, why not?

Environmental Risks Posed by GE Wheat Outlined/Regulatory System Inadequate for Assessing Those Risks.

In particular, please reference the information provided in paragraphs B: 15-22 in answering the following questions.

  1. Referencing the various environmental risks identified (and any other unnamed risks of concern to the Canadian government) and referencing the various documents mentioned in this submission concerning the environmental risks in both managed and natural ecosystems posed by GE wheat, would the relevant Ministers, especially for AAFC and Environment Canada, explain what steps the government is taking to prevent negative environmental impacts? What independent, peer-reviewed studies is the government considering related to the biosafety of RR wheat? What studies has the government commissioned or undertaken? Has the government refused to fund any academic studies related to the various identified areas of concern, or any others not mentioned in this document?

  2. Considering (i) that both in Canada and the US over 90% of consumers now demand that GE food be labeled and many would reject GE food if given the choice; (ii) that 61% of Canadians would be somewhat or very likely to avoid buying foods made with GE wheat according to a Decima poll conducted on behalf of Greenpeace Canada; (ii) that the EU has now extended mandatory labeling to animal feed (as well as starch and oil) that represents 90 percent of current EU GE imports, (iv) that the Biosafety Protocol will come into force in September 2003 even if Canada doesn't ratify it, and (v) the breadth of opinion and information about the environmental risks of RR or GE wheat, and in the context of the widely-adopted precautionary principle, would the relevant Ministers, in particular the Ministers of AAFC and Environment Canada, offer a detailed rationale about why Canada is still proceeding with the authorization process of Monsanto's Roundup Ready GE wheat? Would the Ministers agree that it would seem wiser for the Government of Canada to abandon entirely , or at least suspend , the authorization process for GE wheat? If not, please offer a detailed rationale? If yes, please outline what action and initiatives the Ministers will take.

  3. Referencing paragraphs B: 20-22, would the relevant Ministers reveal the following: (i) Did Canadian regulators rely on any of the same studies mentioned in the above-referenced paragraphs and documents to approve GE crops in the past? (ii) What steps has the Canadian government taken to eliminate the identified problems that contribute to inadequate risk assessment of GE crops? (iii) What steps will the Canadian government take to improve risk assessment related to GE and RR wheat. Identify specific studies that Monsanto will be required to provide and specific studies that will be commissioned by or carried out by Canadian regulators? In responding to the above questions, discuss how the government will satisfy the requirement for independent, peer-reviewed studies? In view of the government's assertions that the assessment of GE crops must be based on "sound science," why does the government continue to rely on the ideologically-based, non-scientific concept of "substantial equivalence" to rule out more rigorous testing of GMOs (see B: 20)?

Predictions of Grave Economic Impacts Associated with GE Wheat Have Been Ignored by the Canadian Government.

In particular, please reference paragraphs B: 4-9 and B:11 in answering the following questions.

  1. Recognising the many markets lost due to the introduction of GE crops, and the trade advantages for countries which, as global agricultural competitors to Canada achieve a trade advantage by ensuring the integrity and purity of non-GE crops; and referencing the economic concerns outlined in B: 5-7, would the Ministers supply any assessments done by them on the economic and trade impacts on Canada and especially on Canadian farmers and the wheat-producing Western provinces, should the Canadian government authorize the environmental release and commercialisation of Monsanto's Roundup Ready GE wheat, especially considering that there is already strong and public domestic and global export market rejection? Would the Ministers supply any assessment done by them on the economic and trade impacts on Canada should the Canadian government authorize the environmental release of Monsanto's Roundup Ready GE wheat even if Monsanto doesn't commercialize its GE wheat on a wide-scale immediately. For e.g., what if Monsanto allows GE wheat to be sold under specialty contracts in closed loop systems, or as feed grains in the domestic market, without requiring variety registration? What if this leads to contamination of organic or conventional wheat and market loss? How does the Canadian government intend to prevent this from occurring should approval for unconfined released be granted? Similarly, would the Ministers supply any assessments on the economic and trade impacts should Canada refuse to approve the unconfined release and commercialization of RR wheat, especially in the context of various scenarios of competing wheat producing countries such as the United States approves or does not approve RR wheat? If no such studies have been done, why not, considering the importance of wheat to the Canadian agricultural sector?

  2. Would the Ministers discuss what steps they will take to respond to the request of the Canadian Wheat Board and other agricultural industry stakeholders to incorporate economic impact criteria into the GE regulatory process? If no steps will be taken, explain the rationale.

  3. Would the Ministers explain why they have ignored the request of the Canadian Wheat Board not to join in the U.S. challenge at the WTO over the European Union's moratorium on approving new GE crops, considering the CWB's concern that it could jeopardize the Canadian government's ability to factor market impact into the Canadian regulatory approval process for GE crops?

We await your reply with great anticipation.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by Holly Penfound and Éric Darier]

Holly Penfound, B.A.
Campaign Coordinator , Environmental Health, Greenpeace Canada
250 Dundas Street West, Suite 605
Toronto, ON M5T 2Z5
Ph: 416 597 8408 x3050

Éric Darier, Ph.D.
GE Campaigner, Greenpeace Canada
2444 Notre-Dame ouest
Montréal, QC H3J 1N5
Ph: 514 933 0021 x3017

enclosures*

*[not available]


[top of page]

Joint Response: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, Finance Canada—Department of, Foreign Affairs and International Trade—Department of [1996-2003], Health Canada, Industry Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Parks Canada Agency, Western Economic Diversification Canada

Government of Canada

RESPONSE OF THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND
AGENCIES TO THE PETITION FILED
August 14, 2003 BY GREENPEACE CANADA
UNDER THE AUDITOR GENERAL ACT:

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED WHEAT: THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, BIOSAFETY AND THE FUTURE OF CANADA'S AGRICULTURE

December 11, 2003

Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Minister of Canadian Heritage

Minister of the Environment

Minister of Finance

Minister of Foreign Affairs

Minister of Health

Minister of Industry

Minister for International Trade

Minister of Natural Resources

Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification

Foreword

In responding to this petition on genetically engineered wheat, federal departments and agencies have worked together and contributed their collective knowledge and expertise. This was done to provide a considered, integrated response that would be relevant to all Canadians who are interested in biotechnology-derived products, and specifically on the topic of genetically engineered wheat.

The Government of Canada's response builds on previous responses to petitions submitted under the Auditor General Act, which provided an in-depth look at the existing regulatory system for biotechnology - aspects covering health, the environment, trade and socio-economic questions, as they pertain to regulation and sustainable development in this country. Those responses provided an overview of the comprehensive manner in which Canada regulates developers' products. They also describe the "checks and balances" in the system as well as such forward-looking developments as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The specific questions related to genetically engineered wheat presented in the petition are addressed in this response. The reader is invited to review previous petition responses, which are publicly available on Government of Canada Web sites, for information on the overall regulatory framework (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/petitions.nsf/english).

Canada has one of the safest and most effective regulatory systems for biotechnology products in the world. In its renewal of the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy, which followed extensive public consultations, the Government of Canada expressed its goal of being a world leader in the responsible development of biotechnology. This means that the Government must apply rigorous standards to the manner in which it regulates and monitors biotechnology-derived products, particularly as they relate to human and animal health and the environment. The Government will continue to assure Canadians that the products and processes of biotechnology are subject to the highest standards of scientific testing for health, safety and environmental impact.

Internationally, Canada has a long and prestigious record for its science-based regulatory system—a system that is in line with principles laid out by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United Nations Environment Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Plant Protection Convention, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, and the Office International des Épizooties. Canada is a world leader in helping to shape international policy directions in areas such as the labelling of biotechnology-derived foods.

One of the fundamental principles of the 1993 Federal Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology is that the development of Canadian biotechnology regulations be open and include consultation with Canadian citizens. Canadian values must be at the heart of the public discussion on biotechnology. It is in this light that the Government of Canada welcomes and values a transparent dialogue with Canadians.

Table of Contents

Foreword

Table of Contents

Department and Agency Acronyms

Background

The Response of the Federal Departments and Agencies to the Petition

Introduction

Response to Questions of the Petition

Question 1:
Question 2:
Question 3:
Question 4:
Question 5:
Question 6:
Question 7:
Question 8:
Question 9:
Question 10:
Question 11:
Question 12:

Concluding Remarks

Annex A

Annex B

Department and Agency Acronyms

AAFC

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

CFIA

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

NRC

National Research Council

OECD

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PRRCG

Prairie Registration Recommending Committee for Grain

WHO

World Health Organization

Background

On July 18, 2003, Greenpeace Canada (hereafter referred to as the Petitioner) filed a petition pursuant to Section 22 of the Auditor General Act. The petition deals with the topic of genetically engineered wheat and the potential risks it poses to the environment and sustainable development (hereafter referred to as the Petition).

The petition process is a means by which Canadians can express their views and seek more information on matters of federal policy in the context of the environment and sustainable development. The Government of Canada wishes to assure the Petitioner and their fellow Canadians that responsible stewardship is a central priority to the federal decision-making framework for biotechnology.

The Petition deals with the federal government's enforcement and regulation of genetically modified organisms and was specifically directed to the following Ministers on behalf of their departments (hereafter referred to as the Ministers) for response:

  • Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
  • Minister of Canadian Heritage
  • Minister of the Environment
  • Minister of Finance
  • Minister of Foreign Affairs
  • Minister of Health
  • Minister of Industry
  • Minister for International Trade
  • Minister of Natural Resources
  • Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification

It should be noted that where the Petitioner refers to "Agriculture Canada," a response is provided that reflects the roles and responsibilities of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in the context of this matter.

It should also be noted that where a response to the Petitioner refers to the "National Research Council (Plant Biotechnology Institute)", "Western Economic Diversification Canada", "Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council", or "Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council", the response that is provided reflects the roles and responsibilities of each of these organizations as a member of the Industry Canada portfolio.

The main focus of the Petition concerns the role of the federal government in relation to the development and regulatory approval of genetically engineered wheat in Canada. The Petitioner requests information regarding the existing regulatory system for biotechnology (policies and programs related to regulations, enforcement, compliance and institutional arrangements) and the federal response to the potential approval of genetically engineered wheat in Canada.

The Petition was received by the Auditor General's office on July 18, 2003. It was sent to the Ministers on August 14, 2003. For this reason, the 120 days allowed for the government to respond to the Petition began on August 14.

The Response of the Federal Departments and Agencies to the Petition

Introduction

The Ministers of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Canadian Heritage, Environment, Finance, Foreign Affairs, Health, Industry, International Trade, Natural Resources, and the Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification have provided this document as a joint response to Greenpeace Canada, the Petitioner.

Providing a joint response is consistent with the federal government's commitment to improve its management and coordination of matters related to biotechnology and the environment as reflected in several previous petition responses, as well as other joint work referenced in those responses.

Overall, the Ministers believe that Canada's existing regulatory system provides for the risk assessment and management of biotechnology-derived products from a sustainable development perspective. In previous responses to petitions, the Government of Canada has already provided information regarding:

  • the 1993 federal regulatory framework for biotechnology, and
  • the federal development of Sustainable Development Strategies.

Readers may refer to previous petitions for extensive background information on regulating biotechnology in Canada at www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/petitions.nsf/english.

Response to Questions of the Petition

Question 1:

How does the Canadian government defend the triple conflict of interest created by its roles as the promoter, developer and regulator of GE wheat? Please respond in more depth than the denial of conflict of interest provided on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency web site1. Would the Minister for AAFC explain how he believes he has the ability to provide scientific independence, objectivity and transparency in the assessment of Monsanto's Roundup Ready GE wheat considering the government's close economic and development partnerships with the proponent? If the government intends to deny that a "real" conflict of interest exists, please explain why steps wouldn't be taken, at a minimum, to prevent a "perceived" conflict of interest (both real and perceived conflicts of interest were identified as problems in the Canadian system of regulating food biotechnology by the Royal Society of Canada). What concrete measures have been taken to eliminate such real or perceived conflicts of interest?

Response to Question 1:

1.

The Government of Canada believes that it is important to keep regulatory and industrial promotional functions separate. These functions are kept independent of one another by the assignment of different, distinct mandates to separate departments and agencies. These mandates are established by legislation, and all departments and agencies are accountable to Parliament for their performance in fulfilling assigned duties.

2.

In its report, the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology urged the federal departments that regulate food biotechnology to ". . . seek to separate institutionally as much as possible the role of promoter from the role of regulator.

3.

In responding to the Expert Panel's report, the Government of Canada acknowledged the importance of separating its regulatory and promotional functions. The government response stated that regulatory agencies involved in assessing and approving products of biotechnology do strive to maintain an objective position. Indeed the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act separated the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) from any part of the government involved in research and development of biotechnology products. In addition, the CFIA is separated from other arms of the Government that are responsible for trade promotion, market information, and policy-related issues such as farm income and rural development.

4.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) provides information, research and technology, and policies and programs to achieve the security of the food system, the health of the environment and innovation for growth.

5.

By developing and transferring innovative technologies, AAFC research contributes to the competitiveness of a diversified and environmentally sustainable Canadian food and agriculture sector.

Question 2:

In the interests of full scientific independence, objectivity and transparency in the assessment of food and agricultural biotechnology, would the relevant Ministers, in particular the Minister for AAFC, supply a complete annotated list, as well as complete text, of all current and past agreements, including financial information, between the Government of Canada and Monsanto (or any other entities working directly or indirectly for Monsanto and/or one of its associated companies or subsidiaries and/or receiving direct or indirect public funding) for the development, research and/or promotion of Monsanto's Roundup Ready GE wheat? Please provide particulars about the agreement which resulted in the Canadian government providing high quality, publicly-owned BW 252 germplasm to Monsanto for the development of its RR wheat; about any agreements resulting in the federal government conducting RR wheat field trials on contract to Monsanto, and about the provision of funding to offset the costs of field trials. Explain why the government would conduct field trials, using public resources, that aid Monsanto in its quest to achieve variety registration for Roundup Ready wheat, a step that facilitates commercialization rather than contributing to biosafety research? If any of the above information is denied, please explain why?

Response to Question 2:

6.

For the last decade, AAFC has been involved in collaborative research projects with the private sector. Over half of these are with public grower organizations. A few are with large companies such as Monsanto Canada Inc.

7.

With respect to trials for genetically modified wheat, some research trials have been authorized in the 2003 growing season for Roundup Ready® wheat. There are about 40 separate trials. Some of them relate to the development of the information on the lines themselves and some on the agronomic impact, if any, for genetically modified (GM) wheat in western Canada. Since 1989, Monsanto Canada Inc. has conducted nearly 1,800 trials on plants with novel traits in Canada.

8.

With regards to the development agreement with Monsanto Canada Inc, AAFC provided non-exclusive access to developmental germplasm so that the company could integrate its own proprietary technology. AAFC has already released the material to the sector through a Canadian seed company. As a result, this germplasm is now available to all breeders worldwide for their use in research.

9.

The National Research Council's Plant Biotechnology Institute had a collaborative agreement with Monsanto Canada Inc. (approx. 1992-93). The emphasis was on the development and optimization of transformation (genetic engineering) technology for wheat using genes for resistance to the herbicide Roundup®. This was a two-year project and did not involve commercial development activities.

10.

The agreements requested by the Petitioner in this question could possibly include personal information, confidential third party information, advice or recommendations to the Minister, or information subject to solicitor-client privilege, all of which can be protected under the Access to Information Act. For this reason, the government believes that it would be more appropriate for the Petitioner to submit these requests under the Act, in order to ensure that the Act's exemptions are properly applied.

11.

Should you require more information pertaining to the specific documents referenced in this question, please forward your request in writing mentioning the Access to Information Act, along with a $5.00 application fee (made payable to the Receiver General of Canada). Send your application to the Access to Information Coordinator of the institution holding the information.

Question 3:

Considering that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada removed a "definition of merit" clause that allowed members of the Wheat, Rye and Triticale subcommittee of the Prairie Registration Recommending Committee for Grain (PRRCG) to look beyond agronomics, quality and disease resistance when considering new varieties, a clause that would have allowed economic impacts to be taken into consideration, would the relevant Ministers give a full annotated list of past and current agreements and/or communications, as well as complete text, between the federal government and Monsanto (or any other entities working directly or indirectly for Monsanto and/or one of its subsidiaries and/or receiving direct or indirect public funding) for the development, research and/or promotion of Monsanto's Roundup Ready GE wheat, and/or agreements or communications which make direct or indirect reference to the above-mentioned "definition of merit" clause? Since we know that the government rationalizes the removal of the definition of merit clause as being in non-compliance with existing regulations, would the Minister of the AAFC and the CFIA reveal details of the debate amongst regulatory officials both for and against removal of the clause? Please provide particulars about all previous occasions when the definition of merit clause has been invoked. Why would the government remove this clause suddenly, after it had been in place for over 10 years, at a time when the issue of economic impacts from Monsanto's RR wheat was paramount, at a time when likely never before in the history of the committee would the "definition of merit" clause be so urgently needed? Despite the government's defense for its decision to remove the clause, would the Minister of the AAFC agree that the timing and fact of removal of the definition of merit clause are suspicious and contribute to the real or perceived conflict of interest problem identified earlier?

Response to Question 3:

12.

Under the Seeds Act and Regulations, the CFIA is responsible for administering the variety registration program in Canada.

13.

In 1990, the Prairie Registration Recommending Committee for Grain (PRRCG) added a clause in the their Operating Procedures that allowed the committee members to consider production or marketing factors over and above merit. The PRRCG was one of 30 Committees across Canada whose Procedures were recognized by the CFIA at that time. It was not envisaged at that time by the PRRCG that they would use this clause to prevent the registration of a genetically engineered plant due to lack of foreign market approval (the first genetically engineered variety, a canola variety was not registered until 1995). This clause was put in place by the PRRCG to address situations where a wheat variety did not meet the Canadian Grain Commission's requirements for Kernel Visual Distinguish ability for milling wheat (e.g. to prevent the registration of a low quality feed wheat variety that was kernel visually indistinguishable from high quality milling wheat).

14.

The clause has never been used by the PRRCG to not recommend a variety for registration due to lack of foreign market approval.

15.

Although CFIA officials initially thought in 2001 that this clause could be used for this purpose, upon further investigation the CFIA determined that if the PRRCG used it to refuse to recommend a genetically engineered wheat variety for registration due to lack of foreign market approval, it would be overstepping its mandate and authority. The CFIA has determined that a lack of foreign market approval (market risk) is not a criterion that the CFIA can consider under the Seeds Regulations when making a registration decision.

16.

As a result, the PRRCG was advised by the CFIA it had to adhere to its mandate which was to conduct scientific trials for new varieties and recommend to CFIA the registration of those varieties which met the committee's criteria for merit (e.g. in the case of wheat: agronomic yield, disease resistance and milling and baking quality compared to other registered wheat varieties). The PRRCG has not yet removed the clause but will when other revisions are made to its Procedures as part of other housekeeping changes the committee has under review.

17.

The action taken by CFIA was appropriate in that it treated the PRRCG the same as it would any other Recommending Committee if it was brought to the CFIA's attention that certain clauses in a Committee's Procedures were inappropriate or outside of their mandate.

Question 4:

Referencing paragraph B: 14, would the relevant Ministers and in particular the Minister for AAFC, supply a list of instances in which personnel associated with their Ministries (including federal departments, political offices, consultants, advisors, or members of committees, groups, advisory bodies or agencies operated, supported or funded by the government) have worked (past or present) for Monsanto (or any other entities working directly or indirectly for Monsanto and/or one of its associated companies or subsidiaries and/or receiving direct or indirect public funding). Please identify if, in any of these instances, the personnel were involved directly or indirectly in any negotiations or consultations between the government and Monsanto (or any other entities working directly or indirectly for Monsanto and/or one of its associated companies or subsidiaries and/or receiving direct or indirect public funding) related to the promotion, development (including the government's provision of the BW 252 wheat germplasm to Monsanto), field testing, or regulatory approval of its RR wheat, and if so, in what capacity. Please include job titles, job descriptions and a description of the person's involvement on the GE wheat file. Please provide the names of personnel who have been associated in the above-referenced capacities with both Monsanto and the Canadian government. How many instances of movement of personnel (as previously outlined) between the government and the biotech industry, notably Monsanto, have taken place since 1990? In the context of food and agricultural GMOs generally, please apply the same questions to personnel (as previously defined), past or present, who have moved between the government and the biotech industry generally? How does the government rationalize the real or perceived conflict of interest that arises from the movement of personnel between government and the GE industry that it is charged with regulating, with a particular reference to GE wheat? What steps will the government take to eliminate such conflicts of interest?

Response to Question 4:

18.

Employees within the federal government who work on biotechnology-related files represent a diversity of disciplines. As such, their background, like that of any public servant, may have included service in the private sector and academia.

19.

Government employees, in carrying out their official duties, are required to arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest from arising, in accordance with the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service. The Code sets forth the values and ethics of public service to guide and support public servants in all their professional activities. Further information on this code can be found at www.tbs-sct.gc.ca.

20.

Employees are also required to observe any specific conduct requirements contained in the statutes governing their particular department or organization and their profession, where applicable. They are also required to observe the relevant provisions of more general application including the following: the Access to Information Act, the Criminal Code of Canada, the Financial Administration Act, the Official Languages Act and Regulations, the Privacy Act, the Public Service Employment Act, and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

21.

The information requested by the Petitioner in this question could possibly include personal information, confidential third party information, advice or recommendations to the Minister, or information subject to solicitor-client privilege, all of which can be protected under the Access to Information Act. For this reason, the government believes that it would be more appropriate for the Petitioner to submit these requests under the Act, in order to ensure that the Act's exemptions are properly applied.

22.

Should you require more specific information pertaining to the specific documents referenced in this question, please see paragraph 11 above.

Question 5:

Would any of the relevant Ministers not directly involved in the authorization process for unconfined release of Monsanto's Roundup Ready wheat, for example: Environment Canada, Parks Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Industry Canada, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Western Economic Diversification Canada, the Solicitor General, Health Canada, Transport Canada and Finance Canada, give a complete annotated list of documents (reports, memoranda, etc.) received or produced by their ministries on the issues of the authorization of Monsanto's Round up Ready GE wheat? If no communications on Monsanto's Roundup Ready—or GE wheat in general—were received or produced by these Ministries, would each Minister provide an explanation as to why not, especially in relation to their Ministries' objectives and mandates in the context of sustainable development.

Response to Question 5:

23.

Again, the information requested by the Petitioner in this question could possibly include personal information, confidential third party information, advice or recommendations to the Minister, or information subject to solicitor-client privilege, all of which can be protected under the Access to Information Act. Please see paragraph 11 above for further information.

Question 6:

Would the relevant Ministers provide a complete annotated list, description and accounting of the money spent by the Federal government on the following: (i) The promotion of biotechnology (domestically and abroad) or work in collaboration with biotech since 1990; (ii) On public/private sector research on biotechnology since 1990; (iii) The promotion of organic agriculture (domestically and abroad) since 1990; (iv) Public/private sector research on organic agriculture since 1990; (v) The promotion (domestic and abroad) of other non-rDNA, non-organic technologies related to crop improvement since 1990; (vi) Public/private sector research on other non-rDNA, non-organic technologies related to crop improvement since 1990? If the government has not made a comparable investment in organic agriculture as in GE agriculture, or indeed considering the environmental and health risks in the latter a greater investment in organic agriculture, why not?

Response to Question 6:

24.

It should be noted that there is considerable variation among government departments and agencies (and even among divisions within such departments and agencies) in how spending is reported in the specific areas for which information is being sought in this question. As such, exact comparisons between spending on different areas (e.g. research on biotechnology vs. research on organic agriculture) are difficult to extrapolate.

6i) Promotion of biotechnology

25.

AAFC contributes to the strength and vitality of Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector for future generations through the Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development (CARD) Fund. Through this initiative, the Government of Canada fosters the increased long-term growth, employment and competitiveness of Canada's agricultural and agri-food industry and agricultural rural areas. Started in 1995, the $60 million-per-year CARD fund supports initiatives in six adaptation priorities: research/innovation; human resource capacity-building; capturing market opportunities; environmental sustainability; food safety and quality; and, rural development. Programs and projects are delivered both nationally and through industry-led adaptation councils in each territory and province. To date, CARD has funded almost 3,000 national and regional agriculture and agri-food projects and initiatives. Projects which target the promotion and research of both biotechnology and organic agriculture have been funded. The Petitioner is directed to the CARD website at www.agr.gc.ca/card-fcadr for additional information.

26.

AAFC's Investment Secretariat (IS) undertakes activities designed to foster investment in Canada's life sciences sector. These activities include ensuring Canadian presence at agri-biotechnology trade fairs and events; distribution and development of literature and databases promoting Canada as a place to invest; organizing outgoing missions to other countries to examine the applicability of their technologies; and organizing incoming missions of foreign scientists and business people to examine Canadian capabilities. Yearly expenditures since 1999 have varied (Table 6i).

27.

Industry Canada's Life Sciences Branch (LSB) undertakes activities to promote or encourage collaboration with the biotechnology sector. The Life Sciences Branch has funded five main projects, either completed or ongoing (Table 6i).

28.

Western Economic Diversification Canada (WEDC) has had two major projects. The first project provided funding to a private-sector organization for product development, equipment purchases and marketing of a lance herbicide injection system for use in the forestry industry. The second project provided funding to an NGO in Saskatchewan which undertook research on the genetically modified food industry in Canada to examine social and business aspects of this industry and to provide recommendations for public policy development and action (Table 6i).

Table 6i. Expenditures on the promotion of biotechnology.


Organization

Branch

Project Name or Recipient (if applicable)

Year(s)

Amount


AAFC

IS

Fostering Life Sciences Investment

1999-2000

$90,000

 

 

 

2000-2001

$185,000

 

 

 

2001-2002

$350,000

 

 

 

2002-2003

$500,000


Industry Canada

LSB

International Business Development

1990-1996

$600,000

 

 

Biotechnology Industry Organization Events

2001-2003

$1,900,000

 

 

Biopharmaceutical Technology Road Map

2001-Present

$200,000

 

 

Novel Protein Production Systems/Molecular Farming

2002-Present

$29,000

 

 

Industrial and Environmental Biotechnology

1996-Present

$600,000


WEDC

 

Monsanto Canada Inc.

1991

$37,803

 

 

Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy

2000

$13,046


6ii) Public/private sector research on biotechnology

29.

It is prudent for AAFC to be involved in research that has the potential to significantly improve pest and stress resistance and nutritional values of crops through genetic modification—a practice that is as old as agriculture itself. Our new knowledge of gene function and our ability to introduce specific, beneficial genes into crops is an extension of the science that plant breeders have employed for thousands of years.

30.

Since 1977, AAFC has been tracking agriculture and food research programs in Canada through the Inventory of Canadian Agri-Food Research (ICAR) database. The ICAR is a comprehensive database for agriculture and food research in Canada and is a product of the Canadian Agri-Food Research Council (CARC). It contains detailed information on current research projects in agriculture, food, human nutrition, aquaculture and related areas of biotechnology. It is a publicly available database that contains all AAFC research studies, those of other federal and provincial institutions and, as well, university and some industry projects. Information of interest, dating as far back as 1977, can be found on the database at www.carc-crac.ca.

31.

AAFC's CARD program funds projects with a biotechnology research component (see paragraph 25). Information on the CARD program can be found on the website at www.agr.gc.ca/card-fcadr.

32.

Industry Canada's Office of Consumer Affairs (OCA) offers financial assistance to non-governmental consumer organizations (NGOs) through its Grants and Contributions program. Since 1990, this assistance provided NGOs the opportunity to conduct research in areas of importance to Canadian consumers. Total expenditures for OCA from the first line in Table 6ii represent funding for research projects related to agriculture and food biotechnology. In addition, OCA has funded a major publication on consumers and biotechnology, as well as organizing a conference and other initiatives to understand the consumer interest in biotechnology. Expenditures for these initiatives are reflected in the second line of Table 6ii.

33.

The National Research Council (NRC) has invested close to $1 billion in its biotechnology program since 1990 (Table 6ii). This investment has been in research and development activities in its research institutes: Institute for Biological Sciences; Institute for Marine Biosciences; Biotechnology Research Institute; Institute for Biodiagnostics; and Plant Biotechnology Institute (PBI). For reference, over the noted timeframe, NRC research expenditures at PBI have been approximately 16 percent of the total investment.

34.

The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) has been funding research in the social sciences and humanities in the area of biotechnology for the last three fiscal years (Table 6ii).

35.

The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) has provided substantial funding for research in the natural sciences and engineering areas of biotechnology since 1998 (Table 6ii).

36.

The Enabling Technologies Directorate (ETD) of Industry Canada has been approving and supporting research projects through repayable contributions as a part of the Technology Partnerships Canada program since this program's inception in 1997 (Table 6ii).

Table 6ii. Expenditures on public/private sector research on biotechnologya


Organization

Branch

Project Name or Recipient

Year(s)

Amount


Industry Canada

OCA

Grants and Contributions

1990-2003

$494,490

 

 

Consumers and Biotechnology

1998-2003

$307,562b

 

NRC

Biotechnology Program

1990-2003

$1,000,000,000

 

SSHRC

Social Science in Biotechnology

2000-2001

$1,138,450

 

 

 

2001-2002

$1,263,757

 

 

 

2002-2003

$1,601,002

 

NSERC

Natural Sciences in Biotechnology

1998-1999

$38,900,000

 

 

 

1999-2000

$44,000,000

 

 

 

2000-2001

$44,600,000

 

 

 

2001-2002

$48,600,000

 

 

 

2002-2003

$50,300,000

 

ETD

Technology Partnerships Canada

1997-Present

$237,061,586c


37.

Through the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy (CBS), the Government of Canada works to ensure that Canada will realize the benefits biotechnology can offer while continuing to manage its core stewardship responsibilities to protect the health and safety of Canadians. The CBS Fund in particular helps departments and agencies to be on the cutting edge of new opportunities and challenges presented by biotechnology, and to ensure that federal decisions are based on expert advice and knowledge.

38.

In 2002, the CBS Fund was renewed at $9.52 million per year from 2002 to 2005. In 2002-2003, a total of $6 million was allocated to the CBS Fund projects: Stewardship—$3.32 million, Innovation—$1.68 million, and Citizen Engagement—$1.0 million. In addition, $3.52 million supported foundation work for the CBS for the policy development and coordination, the operations of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee and the Emerging Issues Fund to advance emerging initiatives for the CBS. For further information, please consult the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy web site at www.biotech.gc.ca.

6iii) Promotion of organic agriculture

39.

AAFC supports efforts in strategic planning, training and education, research, market development, market access, consumer awareness, and accreditation. Projects in these areas are broadly supported by the organic sector and contribute to the development of the sector as a whole. Some regional initiatives are company specific.

40.

Financial support in excess of $4 million is being provided, or has been provided, since 1998 under several programs including the national and regional Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development (CARD) programs (see paragraph 25) and initiatives under Canada's International Business Strategy (Table 6iii). More detailed information on AAFC support to the organic sector and the CARD program is provided in Annex A.

41.

Industry Canada's Standards Initiative Program provided funds to develop the National Organic Standard which was published in 1999 (Table 6iii). The Standard is currently being revised under the auspices of the Canadian General Standards Board and is funded by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (Table 6iii).

Table 6iii. Expenditures on the promotion of organic agriculture.


Organization

Project Name or Recipient

Year(s)

Amount


AAFC

Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development - National

1998-Present

$1,143,234

 

Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development - Regional

1998-Present

$2,303,234

 

Agri-food Trade Program

1998-Present

$382,999

 

Regionally Initiated Agri-food Fund

1998-Present

$29,931

 

International Business Strategy

1998-Present

$20,000

 

Canadian General Standards Board

Present

$300,000


Industry Canada

Standards Initiative Program

1999

$375,000


6iv) Public/private sector research on organic agriculture

42.

AAFC has a strong commitment to organic agriculture. For example, AAFC has pioneered research into Integrated Pest Management (IPM) with investments in research that span over 40 years (some of the earliest IPM research conducted in the world was undertaken by horticultural entomologists working for the Canadian Department of Agriculture in the 1950s and 1960s). In 2003-2004, the total investment in IPM alone under the Environment National Science Program exceeded $11 million (Table 6iv). Similarly, a whole science theme under AAFC's Sustainable Production Systems (SPS) National Science Program is devoted to the study of organic agriculture and receives substantial annual financial support (Table 6iv).

43.

The commitment of the AAFC to organic agriculture research extends beyond the Department. In 2001, the Minister announced financial support for the establishment of the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada (OACC) at the Nova Scotia Agricultural College in Truro (Table 6iv). OACC will pursue research and education in organic agriculture, in collaboration with colleges and universities across Canada, and with AAFC.

44.

Within Industry Canada, the OCA's Grants and Contributions program has awarded funding to a consumer organization to conduct research regarding the marketing of organic foods (Table 6iv).

Table 6iv. Expenditures on public/private sector research on organic agriculture.


Organization

Branch

Project Name or Recipient

Year(s)

Amount


AAFC

 

National Science Program - IPM

2003-2004

$11,000,000

 

 

National Science Program - SPS

2003-2004

$260,000

 

 

Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada

2001

$914,700


Industry Canada

OCA

Grants and Contributions

1990-2003

$34,500


6v) Promotion of non-rDNA, non-organic technologies related to crop improvement

45.

The named Departments/Agencies do not categorize expenditures using the specified criteria. Further information can be found on departmental/agency web sites (e.g. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada at www.agr.gc.ca.).

6vi) Public/private sector research on other non-rDNA, non-organic technologies related to crop improvement

46.

A list of projects from the year 2002, based on information available in the ICAR, is attached (Annex B). The list is divided into two sections: AAFC non-organic projects, and other projects, those which are not easily classified. The ICAR is a comprehensive database for agriculture and food research in Canada, which contains detailed information on current research projects in agriculture, food, human nutrition, aquaculture and related areas of biotechnology. It is a publicly available database that contains all AAFC research studies, those of other federal and provincial institutions and, as well, university and some industry projects.

47.

The National Research Council's PBI annually commits financial resources to the development of microspore (pollen) culture methods, including induced mutations, for crop improvement (Table 6vi).

Table 6vi. Expenditures on public/private sector research on other non-rDNA, non-organic technologies.


Organization

Branch

Project Name or Recipient

Year(s)

Amount


AAFC

 

See Annex B

2002

See Annex B


Industry Canada

NRC

Plant Biotechnology Institute

1990-present

$250,000a


Question 7:

Referencing the various environmental risks identified (and any other unnamed risks of concern to the Canadian government) and referencing the various documents mentioned in this submission concerning the environmental risks in both managed and natural ecosystems posed by GE wheat, would the relevant Ministers, especially for AAFC and Environment Canada, explain what steps the government is taking to prevent negative environmental impacts? What independent, peer-reviewed studies is the government considering related to the biosafety of RR wheat? What studies has the government commissioned or undertaken? Has the government refused to fund any academic studies related to the various identified areas of concern, or any others not mentioned in this document?

Response to Question 7:

48.

The Governor-in-Council has determined that the Seeds Act and Seeds Regulations administered by the CFIA provide an equivalent notice and assessment for effects on the environment and human health to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999). Based on this determination, the Minister of the Environment is not responding directly to this question.

49.

The submission from Monsanto Canada Inc. was received on December 23, 2002 and is currently under review. The Minister, when making a decision under Part V, subsection 111.(1) of the Seeds Regulations, shall consider all relevant information including an evaluation of the potential impact on and risk to the environment. If any part of the information provided is insufficient, evaluators will require the applicant to supply further studies or information. Products are not approved until evaluators are satisfied that the application addresses all regulatory requirements and the science has been properly carried out and no significant environmental risks are found.

50.

The CFIA is assessing the environmental safety of Roundup Ready® wheat, following the same rigorous science-based procedures as for all plants with novel traits, including genetically engineered crops. As with all submissions for approval for general cultivation, the CFIA is assessing the novel wheat for its potential:

  • to be weedy or invasive;
  • for gene flow to wild relatives;
  • for becoming a pest or to be otherwise harmful to plant health;
  • to have negative impacts on other species; and
  • to have other impacts on biodiversity.

51.

The above includes an assessment of potential changes in agronomic management practices, since the CFIA recognizes the importance of sustainable agriculture as part of the environmental safety assessment of any plant with a novel trait, such as a genetically engineered crop. Any significant changes in, for example, addressing herbicide tolerant volunteers, will be considered. In addition, the CFIA is aware that the current use of glyphosate (Roundup®) herbicide is integral to direct seeding and reduced tillage management options, and that the adoption of glyphosate tolerant wheat has the potential to compromise these practices.

52.

A technical workshop was held in September 2003 on the initiative of the CFIA to discuss a broad spectrum of environmental issues related to herbicide tolerant crops, including Roundup Ready® wheat. This workshop allowed participants (scientists from public sector, industry representatives and CFIA officers) to share forefront scientific information and will contribute to the updating of guidelines and to the assessment of herbicide tolerant crops.

53.

Approvals are granted only once the submission is reviewed and it is determined, based on a body of scientific evidence, that the plant poses no significant risk to the environment. The evaluators use all available published literature on the biology of wheat including compatibility with wild relatives, the Roundup Ready® trait, and the interactions of wheat with the environment including the current agronomic practices associated with cultivation of wheat in Canada.

54.

Three ongoing research projects are currently being commissioned by the CFIA's Plant Biosafety Office (PBO) related to the environmental impact of herbicide tolerant wheat. Two of them are dealing with wheat pollen movement and the third one is examining volunteer wheat emergence in the Canadian prairies.

55.

All the proposals (see paragraph 54) received by the PBO that could assist in determining the impact of herbicide tolerant wheat on the Canadian environment have been funded.

Question 8:

Considering (i) that both in Canada and the US over 90 percent of consumers now demand that GE food be labeled and many would reject GE food if given the choice; (ii) that 61 percent of Canadians would be somewhat or very likely to avoid buying foods made with GE wheat according to a Decima poll conducted on behalf of Greenpeace Canada; (iii) that the EU has now extended mandatory labeling to animal feed (as well as starch and oil) that represents 90 percent of current EU GE imports, (iv) that the Biosafety Protocol will come into force in September 2003 even if Canada doesn't ratify it, and (v) the breadth of opinion and information about the environmental risks of RR or GE wheat, and in the context of the widely-adopted precautionary principle, would the relevant Ministers, in particular the Ministers of AAFC and Environment Canada, offer a detailed rationale about why Canada is still proceeding with the authorization process of Monsanto's Roundup Ready GE wheat? Would the Ministers agree that it would seem wiser for the Government of Canada to abandon entirely—or at least suspend—the authorization process for GE wheat? If not, please offer a detailed rationale? If yes, please outline what action and initiatives the Ministers will take.

Response to Question 8:

56.

Precaution is already integrated into the current risk management framework for products of biotechnology.

57.

Canada has a well-established and rigorous regulatory system that is based on mandatory, pre-market safety assessments of novel food, novel feed or plants with novel traits before they may be made available in the market place. To assess safety for Canadians, animals and the environment, the CFIA and Health Canada subject products of agricultural biotechnology to comprehensive review that is based on the best available science. The CFIA will assess the environmental and livestock safety of Roundup Ready® wheat following the same rigorous science-based procedures as for all plants with novel traits, including genetically engineered crops.

Question 9:

Referencing paragraphs B: 20-22, would the relevant Ministers reveal the following: (i) Did Canadian regulators rely on any of the same studies mentioned in the above-referenced paragraphs and documents to approve GE crops in the past? (ii) What steps has the Canadian government taken to eliminate the identified problems that contribute to inadequate risk assessment of GE crops? (iii) What steps will the Canadian government take to improve risk assessment related to GE and RR wheat. Identify specific studies that Monsanto will be required to provide and specific studies that will be commissioned by or carried out by Canadian regulators? In responding to the above questions, discuss how the government will satisfy the requirement for independent, peer-reviewed studies? In view of the government's assertions that the assessment of GE crops must be based on "sound science," why does the government continue to rely on the ideologically-based, non-scientific concept of "substantial equivalence" to rule out more rigorous testing of GMOs (see B: 20)?

Response to Question 9:

58.

Government of Canada evaluators review all data submitted by the applicants and all available scientific literature before making their decision. If any part of the information provided is insufficient, evaluators will require the applicant to supply further studies or information. Products are not approved until evaluators are satisfied that the application addresses all regulatory requirements and the science has been properly carried out and no significant risks are found. The evaluation of Monsanto Canada Inc.'s submission has not been completed.

59.

As for all plants with novel traits (PNTs), CFIA scientists evaluate the environmental safety data provided by the applicant by examining the biology of the plant species, the novel trait which has been introduced into the plant, including molecular characterization data, and the environmental interactions of the plant with the novel trait. The results of the studies contracted by the government (see paragraph 54) as well as the output of the workshop on herbicide tolerant crops (see paragraph 52) will constitute a part of the body of scientific data on which the evaluators will base their decisions.

60.

The CFIA's Feed Section assesses the potential impact of the use of novel feeds derived from PNTs on livestock and worker safety and on livestock nutrition. The CFIA scientists evaluate the livestock feed safety data provided by the applicant which includes molecular, compositional, nutritional and toxicological data. As part of this assessment, the modified plant and its components, such as levels of key nutrients, anti-nutrients and endogenous toxins and allergens, are compared to an appropriate counterpart.

61.

The CFIA conducts safety assessments based on familiarity and substantial equivalence. Familiarity with the plant/feed is knowledge of the characteristics of a plant species and experience with its use in Canada. Substantial equivalence is based on the comparison of properties between the modified plant and an appropriate comparator. Taking into consideration both intended and unintended effects, similarities and differences between the modified plant and its counterpart are identified. The safety assessment then focuses on the differences. The concept of substantial equivalence is endorsed by international groups such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO).

62.

Health Canada uses substantial equivalence as an aid to direct the safety assessment of genetically modified food by determining whether there are any differences or new characteristics between the genetically modified food and the traditional food with a history of safe use. This approach allows Health Canada to include in their consideration the history of information related to foods which have long been safely consumed in the human diet. This approach aids in the identification of potential safety and nutritional issues associated with the novel food. The value of this comparative approach in food safety assessment has been clearly and effectively demonstrated in its application to the regulation of genetically modified foods in Canada and is also currently applied by regulatory agencies around the world in countries such as the European Union member states, Australia/New Zealand, and Japan.

63.

Health Canada's approach for the safety assessment of genetically modified foods is also consistent with the approach recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission which recognizes the concept of substantial equivalence as a key step in the safety assessment process of these foods. The Codex Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants, at ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/alinorm03/Al03_34e.pdf, clearly articulates that the concept of substantial equivalence is a starting point of the safety assessment. It also notes that substantial equivalence is considered the most appropriate strategy to date for safety assessment of genetically modified foods. The Codex Alimentarius Commission guidance with respect to the concept of substantial equivalence is based on the outcomes of the 2000 joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods derived from Biotechnology, at www.who.int/fsf/GMfood/FAO-WHO_Consultation_report_2000.pdf.

Question 10:

Recognising the many markets lost due to the introduction of GE crops, and the trade advantages for countries which, as global agricultural competitors to Canada achieve a trade advantage by ensuring the integrity and purity of non-GE crops; and referencing the economic concerns outlined in B: 5-7, would the Ministers supply any assessments done by them on the economic and trade impacts on Canada and especially on Canadian farmers and the wheat-producing Western provinces, should the Canadian government authorize the environmental release and commercialisation of Monsanto's Roundup Ready GE wheat, especially considering that there is already strong and public domestic and global export market rejection? Would the Ministers supply any assessment done by them on the economic and trade impacts on Canada should the Canadian government authorize the environmental release of Monsanto's Roundup Ready GE wheat even if Monsanto doesn't commercialize its GE wheat on a wide-scale immediately? For e.g., what if Monsanto allows GE wheat to be sold under specialty contracts in closed loop systems, or as feed grains in the domestic market, without requiring variety registration? What if this leads to contamination of organic or conventional wheat and market loss? How does the Canadian government intend to prevent this from occurring should approval for unconfined released be granted? Similarly, would the Ministers supply any assessments on the economic and trade impacts should Canada refuse to approve the unconfined release and commercialization of RR wheat, especially in the context of various scenarios of competing wheat producing countries such as the United States approves or does not approve RR wheat? If no such studies have been done, why not, considering the importance of wheat to the Canadian agricultural sector?

Response to Question 10:

64.

The Minister and officials of Agriculture and Agri-Food have corresponded with hundreds of Canadians on matters related to Roundup Ready® wheat. This topic has been discussed with numerous stakeholders, including representatives of producer groups, the grain handling and distribution sector, variety developers, major buyers, consumer groups and individual firms in the wheat sector. Some stakeholders have expressed their concern that the introduction of Roundup Ready® wheat to the marketplace at this time could have significant market impacts. The Government of Canada is committed to working with the agriculture sector to ensure that the introduction of any products that have been approved for food, feed and environmental safety, is done responsibly and in such a way that takes into account producers' requirements and consumers' preferences, and results in net benefits to the agricultural sector as a whole.

65.

It is difficult to isolate the possible effect of biotechnology on developments in trade, as many other factors play a role, such as changes in competitiveness, transportation costs, methods/levels of production, consumer attitudes (preferences, awareness and confidence) and weather conditions. Attempt to attach overall monetary value to the costs and benefits associated with commercialization of new genetically modified organisms (GMOs) would rely heavily on some arbitrary assumptions, and could be potentially misleading. International policy environment, public attitudes, and the state of science may well change over the years.

Question 11:

Would the Ministers discuss what steps they will take to respond to the request of the Canadian Wheat Board and other agricultural industry stakeholders to incorporate economic impact criteria into the GE regulatory process? If no steps will be taken, explain the rationale.

Response to Question 11:

66.

Stakeholders have proposed a variety of approaches for ensuring that new agricultural products bring economic benefits to the sector. Analysis of these approaches by AAFC officials is ongoing. Consultations with stakeholders on this issue are also ongoing.

Question 12:

Would the Ministers explain why they have ignored the request of the Canadian Wheat Board not to join in the US challenge at the WTO over the European Union's moratorium on approving new GE crops, considering the CWB's concern that it could jeopardize the Canadian government's ability to factor market impact into the Canadian regulatory approval process for GE crops?

Response to Question 12:

67.

Canada requested a World Trade Organization (WTO) panel on the issue of the European Union moratorium on regulatory approvals of GMOs on August 29, 2003. Many considerations were taken into account when determining whether Canada would request a WTO panel. One such consideration was the position of industry. The Government received letters of support from those industries that were affected by the moratorium, indicating their strong support for the WTO panel to resolve the issue. Although the Canadian Wheat Board raised concerns related to the Canadian panel request, it should be noted that wheat farmers have not been affected by the Economic Union (EU) moratorium. The Wheat Board raised a number of concerns, including its fear that this might jeopardize Canadian Wheat Board efforts to include market factors in the regulatory system. However, the Canadian panel request relates to the EU moratorium on approvals and not to the EU regulations in and of themselves. Moreover, the panel will not examine the Canadian regulatory system.

Concluding Remarks

The Ministers named in this Petition remain committed to:

  • an effective domestic regulatory system that embodies the concept of sustainable development as it seeks to protect the health of Canadians, and the environment; and
  • the broader responsibilities of global stewardship, which Canada shares with other countries, to see that practical and effective measures to protect humans, biodiversity, and the environment are achieved through the design and operation of a science-based, rules-based, and transparent international regulatory framework.

Annex A

AAFC Support for the Organic Sector from the CARD Program

National Projects:

#

Applicant

Project

Funding

Status

1

Nova Scotia Agricultural College (NSAC) on behalf of the Organic Industry Committee for the Development of an Organic Industry Strategic Plan.

Develop long-term strategic plan to enhance environmental stewardship; identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats of the organic sector; identify production methods and requirements for education, research & technology transfer; develop industry workplan.

CARD $27,000

Comp'd 2002

2

Nova Scotia Agricultural College (NSAC)

Organic Agriculture Centre (NSAC)
Web Course Development; Transition Strategies; Information Access
Market Research.

CARD $914,700

Approved 2001 (ongoing)

3

Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada (OACC)

Implementation of the National Organic Strategic Plan: Building organic sector capacity to work effectively with governments.

CARD $32,534

Approved 2003

4

Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada (OACC)

1- Develop appropriate model to select mentors in order to provide cost-effective and timely support to transitional farmers.
2- Market and Laboratory analysis regarding GM issues for organic farmers.

CARD $119,000

Approved 2003

5

Canadian Organic Growers (COG)

Organic Field Crop Handbook To incorporate the new Canadian Standards for organic production, and provide information on new heritage crops to fill niche markets.

AFTP $130,000

Comp'd 2002

6

Canadian Organic Growers (COG)

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) World Congress. Coordination and management of world congress to be held in Victoria in 2002. (Note - also received $50,000 from BC Regional CARD - shown below).

AFTP $100,000

Comp'd 2002

7

Canadian Organic Growers (COG

Managing the Transition to Organic Farming Handbook.

AFTP $130,000

Approved 2002

8

Certifying Bodies

Assistance toward SCC Accreditation.

CARD $50,000

Comp'd 2003

9

RIAF project nos. 202253 (Sask) and 202262 (Alta) AFTP Atlantic Canada Export Club

EU Organics Market Information Seminar Sept 2000. As part of CIBS strategy for EU, a series of seminars organized across Canada to bring together two European organic agriculture/food products buyers, and Canada's certified organic producers/processors. Seminars held in Sask, Alta,Quebec, were hosted by the ACEC in the Atlantic region.

RIAF
- Sask $425
- Alta $1,696
AFTP $801 (ACEC AIMS project)
-EU CIBS - $12,000
- Quebec RO budget $1,943

Comp'd 2000

10

EU CIBS Project

Mission to BIOFACH.

EU CIBS - $8,000

Comp'd
2000

Regional Projects:

#

Applicant

Project

Funding

Status

11
ATL

Atlantic Canadian Organic Regional Network (ACORN)

Plan and implement a major regional conference "Atlantic Organic Conference and Trade Show" in Charlottetown, March 16-18, 2001 as part of building the organic infrastructure in Atlantic Canada and to explore export and marketing opportunities.
NF CARD approved for 2 people to attend conference in PEI.

AFTP $12,750

plus
NF CARD $1,500

 

Comp'd
2000

12
ATL

Atlantic Canada Export Club

ACEC Investigative Travel Mission to
Biofach
—Two people traveled to the Biofach Organic Trade Show in Nuremburg, Germany from February 17-20, 2000 and gathered information on market opportunities that was then provided to members.

AFTP $2,412 (AIMS project)

Comp'd
2000

13
ATL

Atlantic Canada Export Club

ACEC Investigative Travel Mission to Natural Products Expo East—One representative from ACEC traveled to the NPEE Show in Baltimore, Sept. 20-24, 2000 and gathered information on market opportunities that was then provided to members.

AFTP $1,036 (AIMS project)

Comp'd
2000

14
ATL

RIAF proj no. 200064

Organization of an outgoing mission to the Natural Products Expo East held in Baltimore, October 20-24, 1999 and the sponsorship of an Educational Program.

RIAF $8,053

Comp'd
1999

15
ATL

RIAF Proj no. 202162

Investigative Travel to Natural Gourmet Food Show, Boston, MA. PEI office of MISB(Atl) organized and accompanied a select delegation of Atlantic food association executives to the Natural Gourmet Food Show April 29-May 1, 2000 in Boston. The purpose of the mission was to undertake a critical assessment of this show as a venue for Atlantic Canadian specialty food processors to exhibit at in the future. A MISB officer and representatives of provincial food and beverage associations and the Atlantic Export Club audited the show and produced a written assessment for use by specialty food processors in the region.

RIAF $2,376

Comp'd
2000

16
ATL

Maritime Certified Organic Growers Coop

Maritime Organic Industry Review and Profile.

CARD $20,793

Comp'd
2001

17
PRA

Canadian Organic Livestock Association (in co-operation with the Canadian Classic Wild Boar Association, Western Canadian Wild Boar Co-op, Buffalo Meat Company of Prince Albert)

Study to determine the feasibility of marketing Canadian organic beef, bison and wild boar on an international scale. Funded jointly between the three contributing Western CARD Councils (Alta, Sask, Mtba).

AFCA $69,000
CARD $34,409
MRAC $20,000

Comp'd 2001

18
PEI

PEI Organic Crop Improvement Association

Awareness and Training
To increase viability of the "organic" foods industry on PEI. To provide training opportunities for organic growers to improve their skills.

CARD $16,589

Comp'd 2001

19
PEI

Peter Noonan

Natural Products Expo
Peter Noonan attended the Natural Products Expo West March 7-11, 2001 to research product lines, packaging and markets for the Atlantic Canada Organic Regional Network.

CARD $983

Comp'd 2001

20
PEI

Atlantic Canada Organic Regional Network (ACORN)

ACORN Conference-supporting attendance by members of P.E.I. farm organizations
The project offered two free passes to a three day major organic food conference and trade show held at the Delta Prince Edward March 16-18 to various Island farm organizations.

CARD $2,440

Comp'd 2001

21
PEI

PEI Medicinal Plants Association

Bio-Fach 2000
To attend World Organic Trade Fair in Germany in order to secure quotable market prices for commodities or product produced on PEI and to make strategic alliances with companies who could assist development of the natural foods and nutraceutical industry.

CARD $1,500

Comp'd 2000

22
PEI

Seaspray Organic Cooperative

Marketing Organically
To communicate with producers who are interested in becoming organic and market their produce cooperatively. To raise awareness to consumers of the availability of organically grown produce.

CARD $2,475

Comp'd 1999

23
PEI

Raymond Loo

Potato Breeding.

CARD $3,342

Comp'd 1999

24
PEI

Raymond Loo

Biosuisse Conference and Tour
Investigative travel to Switzerland to find information to help build the organic industry on PEI

CARD $1,250

Comp'd 2002

25
PEI

PEI Certified Organic Growers Association

IFOAM Conference
The association sent one delegate to an international organic conference held in British Columbia.

CARD $1,425

Comp'd
2002

26
PEI

PEI Certified Organic Growers and ACORN

Guelph Organic meetings
The project provides financial assistance to offset the cost of transportation, accommodations, meals and registration for three organic farmers to attend the 22nd annual organic agricultural conference in Guelph, Ontario.

CARD $630

Comp'd 2002

27
PEI

Agri-Nova Inc

Organic Inspector Training
To assist two participants from Agri-Nova Consulting to attend a training program to be licenced organic certification inspectors. These individuals will complete inspections on PEI and pass the funding assistance they received for their training onto industry participants whose farms are being reviewed.

CARD $1,040

Comp'd 2000

28
PEI

Maritime Certified Organic Growers Co-op

BMP's in Organic Industry
This regional project was designed over a three year period to document the state of the organic industry in the maritime region—problems, needs, present strengths and best management practices.

CARD $12,627

Comp'd 2002

29
PEI

PEI Heritage Milling Inc

Product Market and Technical Development The project explored the feasibility of an organic flour mill for PEI including a business and financing plan.

CARD $12,500

Comp'd 2002

30
PEI

PEI Certified Organic Producers Co-op

Bio-Agricultural Speaker
The PEI Certified Organic Producers Association sponsored a workshop featuring Gary Zimmer, a well-renowned North American expert on the topic of biological farming.

CARD $1,400

Comp'd 2003

31
NB

Fédération des agriculteurs et agricultrices francophones du N.-B.

Collogue Biologique: To raise awareness and encourage production of organic crops in the province of New Brunswick.

CARD $2,392

Comp'd
2002

32
NB

NB Federation of Agriculture

Workshop on Organic Agriculture

CARD $544

Comp'd

33
NB

NB Federation of Agriculture

Options in Agriculture Conference

CARD $3,677

Comp'd

34
NB

Fall Brook Centre

Inspector Training

CARD $8,945

Comp'd 2000

35
NS

NS Organic Growers Association

Inspector Training

CARD $2,200

Comp'd 2000

36
NS

Fall Brook Centre

Basic Organic Training

CARD $3,150

Comp'd

37
NS

Atlantic Canada Organic Regional Network (ACORN)

ACORN will sponsor one delegate to attend the 14th International federation of Organic Agricultural Movements conference in Victoria, B.C.

CARD $1,100

Comp'd 2002

38
NS

ACORN

Organic Growers Conference: The organic growers regional association is organizing a workshop and conference to educate organic growers and potential growers on production and certification issues.

CARD $24,500

Comp'd 2003

39
NS

ACORN

The applicant will sponsor one Nova Scotia delegate to attend the 22nd Annual Organic Conference in Guelph Ont. The Conference includes marketing seminars and workshops for dairy and vegetable producers.

CARD $320

Comp'd 2003

40
PQ

Conseil d'accréditation du Québec

Mise sur pied du Conseil d'accréditation de l'agriculture biologique. Mettre sur pied un conseil d'accréditation pour divers domaines agroalimentaires. Son premier mandat consiste à accréditer le secteur de l'agriculture biologique.

FCADR 82 243 $

Terminé
2000

41
PQ

Cégep de Victoriaville

Intensification Des cultures d'engrais verts en culture maraîchère
Le projet consiste à adapter au Québec Des systèmes intensifs d'engrais verts en culture maraîchère, dans une approche de culture biologique, et à les faire connaître pour en favoriser l'adoption dans la pratique Des fermes maraîchères québécoises tant
conventionnelles que biologiques.

FCADR 60 000 $

Approuvé
2002

42
PQ

Compagnie de recherches Phytodata inc.

Efficacité et paramètres d'utilisation du fongicide biologique CONTANS WG
Le projet vise à apporter une solution efficace, durable et respectueuse de l'environnement aux problèmes occasionnés par la pourriture blanche dans plusieurs cultures. Plus spécifiquement, il vise à évaluer l'efficacité et déterminer les paramètres d'utilisation d'un nouveau fongicide biologique (CONTANS7 WG) dans le contexte agricole québécois.

FCADR 67 130 $

Approuvé
2002

43
PQ

Les Produits de Marque Liberté inc.

Nouveaux produits biologiques
Le projet vise la fabrication de nouveaux produits biologiques. IL consiste à favoriser l'adoption de technologies ou de procédés de transformation modernes et innovateurs de production permettant de développer de nouveaux produits.

FCADR 94 633 $

Approuvé
2000

44
PQ

Fédération d'agriculture biologique du Québec

Conception d'un outil informatisé de gestion Des productions diversifiées pour les fermes biologiques
Le projet consiste à développer UN outil de gestion informatisé pour la production biologique permettant la planification et le suivi Des cultures, la gestion globale de l'entreprise et l'élaboration du dossier de la certification.

FCADR 46 300 $

Approuvé
2002

45
PQ

Fédération d'agriculture biologique du Québec

Pour UN développement stratégique de l'agriculture biologique au Québec
Le projet consiste à analyser la situation du secteur et à identifier Des outils pour faciliter le positionnement Des produits issus de l'agriculture biologique du Québec sur différents marchés. L'étude prospective se fera au moyen d'enquêtes, de consultations, de revue de littérature, de recensement, d'exploration et d'autres recherches.

FCADR 116 186 $

Approuvé
2001

46
PQ

Conseil d'accréditation du Québec

Implantation généralisée de l'appellation biologique réservée. Mettre en opération Des mécanismes de gestion de l'appellation biologique réservée, selon les exigences de la Loi sur les appellations réservées.

FCADR 100 000 $

Terminé
2003

47
PQ

Fédération Des producteurs maraîchers du Québec

Évaluation d'un biofongicide contre la brûlure de la feuille de l'oignon causée par le Botrytis Squamosa. Le projet visait à développer et à sensibiliser les producteurs à une méthode de lutte contre la brûlure de la feuille de l'oignon basée sur la réduction de la production de spores ainsi que sur la mesure en temps réel de la quantité de spores de Botrytis squamosa présentes dans l'air.

FCADR 25 000 $

Terminé

48
PQ

Fédération des producteurs maraîchers du Québec

Optimisation de l'utilisation des trichogrammes pour le contrôle biologique de la pyrale du maïs en culture de maïs sucré
Le projet visait à réduire de 20 à 25 p. 100 le coût d'utilisation des trichogrammes pour le contrôle biologique de la pyrale du maïs pour la rendre comparable ou inférieure au coût d'un traitement aux insecticides standard, tout en maintenant le niveau d'efficacité actuel.

FCADR 72 913 $

Terminé
2000

49
PQ

Centre de recherche et de développement technologique agro-forestier de la Petite-Nation (CRÉDÉTAP)

Expérimentation en production biologique d'aubergines. Comparer deux cultivars d'aubergine et participer à deux programmes de production biologique en serre. Mettre au point une méthode de taille ainsi qu'une fertilisation biologique adaptées aux conditions québécoises.

FCADR 40 809 $

Terminé
1999

50
PQ

Centre de recherche et de développement technologique agro-forestier de la Petite-Nation (CRÉDÉTAP)

Expérimentation en production biologique d'aubergines. À la suite d'une première année d'essais ayant permis de préciser les méthodes culturales de l'aubergine en serre, ce projet portait sur la mise au point d'une méthode de taille performante pour une culture annuelle continue. Des essais de fertilisation permettront d'optimiser les rendements.

FCADR 59 191 $

Terminé

51
PQ

Syndicat de base Municipalité régionale de Comté de La Côte de Gaspé

La chitosane comme moyen de lutte biologique contre les champignons racinaires des cultures. Définir les modes d'utilisation et les caractéristiques de la chitosane pour assurer une amélioration de la résistance générale et du rendement des plants de tomates en production biologique.

FCADR 36 400 $

Terminé
2000

52
PQ

Agro-Production Lanaudière inc.

Validation d'une nouvelle formulation de neem comme insecticide biologique contre la mouche du chou en production de brocolis hâtifs
Le projet visait à vérifier le potentiel d'une nouvelle formulation de neem (Azadirachta indica Juss., méliacées) comme insecticide biologique contre la mouche du chou (Delia radicum L.) en production de brocolis hâtifs. Le projet a permis de comparer le traitement au neem avec des méthodes couramment utilisées par les producteurs de brocolis.

FCADR 23 203 $

Terminé
2003

53
ON

Veg-A-King Foods

Ontario Soydrink Production in Ontario for Canada-Wide Distribution. This project is a partnership between Veg-A-King Foods, a producer of organic tofu and soy products, and OntarBio Organic Farmers Co-operative and Steen's Dairy for the production of the first refrigerated, organic soydrink in Ontario. The project involves product and label development as well as the promotion and marketing material.

CARD $15,391

Comp'd 2000

54
ON

Great Lakes Organics

GLO Integrated and Strategic Business Project. This project is to develop and implement a business strategy for the food industry that expands the organic fanning base and profitability of the GLO membership. Included is the development of diversified crops, development of certified organic CSGA seed, implementation of strategies to build product supply relationships with Canadian and US food processors and retail operations.

CARD $37,930

Comp'd 2001

55
ON

OntarBio Organic Farmers Cooperative

Organic Meadow Frozen Vegetable Product Introduction. This project received CanAdapt Small Projects Initiative funding to develop and launch a line of frozen organic vegetables grown and packed in Ontario.

CARD $30,435

Comp'd

56
ON

Canadian Organic Growers (Ottawa Chapter)

Eastern Ontario Organic Agriculture Awareness Campaign. Expand awareness and education program to help farmers and consumers understand and benefit from organic agriculture. The project is to run an outreach campaign which is a series of town hall meetings for farmers in Eastern Ontario addressing the benefits of organic farming.

CARD $1,728

Comp'd 2000

57
ON

Homestead Organics

Homestead Organics Grain Elevator. Homestead Organics 1997 Inc, is a corporation that deals strictly with organic products. The project involves the support to establish a grain elevator, cleaning and processing facility, and feed mill dedicated to organic grains and organic animal feed.

CARD $15,000

Comp'd

58
ON

Christina's Hemp Treats

Christina's Cool Hemp. This project is to develop a solid business and marketing plan for Christina's Hemp Treats, which will support the launch of the company's first edible hemp product, a frozen dessert called Christina's Cool Hemp which utilizes organically grown ingredients. N.B. see also The Cool Hemp Company Inc.

CARD $5,000

Comp'd

59
ON

The Cool Hemp Company Inc.

Cool Hemp Marketing Phase 1. This project involves the marketing and promotion of Cool Hemp Frozen Desserts. The activities include both trade and consumer marketing activities

CARD $20,000

Comp'd

60
ON

Mapleton Organic Dairy

Dairy Processing - On Farm. Support for marketing and promotional activities for start-up of an on-farm dairy processing facility. Facility will use certified organic milk to make ice cream, low fat frozen yogurt, initially marketed in the Golden Horseshoe, Ottawa, Vancouver natural food markets.

CARD $70,000

Comp'd

61
ON

Life Choices Natural Foods

Life Choices Ontario Organic Agricultural Development
This is a project to develop packaging design and collateral material design and production for Life Choices Natural Foods. Life Choices will work with a co-packer to retail new SKU's using Ontario organic products.

CARD $30,000

Approved 2002

62
ON

Dairy Farmers of Ontario

Development of an Organic Niche Market for Dairy Producers
The DFO will partner with three existing organic organizations in Ontario to provide funding for education and training for producers who are interested in converting to organic production. Education and training efforts such as seminars, barn meetings, one-on-one consultations, development of handbooks and print materials would be the main activities. As well an Organic Dairy Symposium, a newsletter and a transitional Producer Binder and other materials would be created.

CARD $79,000

Approved 2002

63
ON

Jones Feed Mills Ltd

Supply Chain Market Research & Organizational Planning
This project will engage a consultant to assist with a range of market research, organizational development and business planning activities related to the branding of identity preserved and organic livestock feed business.

CARD $28,000

Approved 2002

64
MB

Organic Producers Association of Manitoba

OPAM ISO 65 Accreditation: Strengthening Global Market Opportunities for the MB Organic Industry. To integrate new activities and administrative functions necessitated by the accreditation of OPAM to the ISO/IEC Guide 65 standards and regulations.

CARD $99,920

Until 2005

65
MB

Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada

Coordination of Organic Research and Education on the Prairies. Hire a Co-ordinator to facilitate communication amongst organic researchers across the prairies, coordinate on-farm organic research and publish related educational material. Joint Initiative: MB: 33% $35,000; SK: 33% $35,000; AB: 33% $35,000.

CARD $35,000

Until 2005

66
MB

University of MB

Delivery of a Web-based Organic Field Crop Production Course. Develop a web-based organic field crop production course through the University of Manitoba open to students, farmers and the agricultural industry.

CARD $10,000

Until 2004

67
MB

Manitoba Forage Seed Association

Provide producers with information regarding markets, organic production practises and strategies for maximizing profit

CARD $7,470

Comp'd 2002

68
MB

RIAF project

Hotels & Airfares for 3 people to attend 2000 Organic Conference

RIAF $3,600

Comp'd

69
MB

RIAF Project

Contribution toward Lynn Miller seminar on organic industry at 1999 Organic Agriculture Conference

RIAF $500

Comp'd

70
SK

OCIA Chapter # 5 of Sask Inc.

Organic Agriculture Awareness Conference
Conference to promote organic agriculture.

CARD $20,000

Comp'd 1998

71
SK

Saskatchewan Trade & Export Partnership (STEP), Regina

Natural Products Expo West 2001 March 9-11 - Anaheim, California. Organize a trade mission and a group display showcasing Saskatchewan products at this show. The objective of this project is to develop export markets for Saskatchewan-based companies in the organic and natural products sector.

CARD $26,280

Comp'd

72
SK

Paradise Herbs Inc.

HACCP Certification. To provide assistance with HACCP certification, which will allow a value-added processor of Saskatchewan-grown organic herbs and spices, to enter larger markets and secure customer contracts.

CARD $7,500

Comp'd

73
SK

FarmGro Organic Foods Inc

International Natural/Organic Food Conference To attend an international natural/organic food conference in California.

CARD $2,092

Comp'd 2000

74
SK

InfraReady Products (1998) Ltd

Market Investigation: Pre-cooked Legume Products for Spain. To pursue market research activities that will assist an innovative Saskatchewan value-added pulse processor to establish a presence in Spain, as a producer and marketer of top quality organic pulse products.

CARD $5,000

Comp'd

75
SK

Wise Owl Herb Co. Ltd.

Market Development/Trade Shows. To allow the penetration of the U.S. market, of Saskatchewan-grown and processed organic herbal products.

CARD $3,718

Comp'd

76
SK

Harvest Sun Seed & Grain Company Ltd.

Market Research Preparation. To conduct market research into the pet and natural foods markets in the United States to assess the potential market for organic bird seed that could be promoted as a new crop to be grown by Saskatchewan organic farmers.

CARD $4,450

Comp'd 2001

77
SK

FarmGro Organic Foods Ltd.

Organic Flour Mill - HACCP Process Certification. HACCP process certification and GMP process certification will allow this applicant, a major processor of Saskatchewan organic semolina and wheat flour, to access and serve national and international retail marketer of organic foods.

CARD $17,380

Comp'd

78
SK

Saskatchewan Nutraceutical Network

SNN Trade Mission to Natural Products Expo West 2000, Anaheim, CA. A trade mission of 10 industry members to this event will increase their awareness of opportunities available to Saskatchewan companies, as well as constraints and barriers to the international nutritional product marketplace.

CARD $5,000
RIAF $4,300

Comp'd

79
SK

InfraReady Products (1998) Ltd.

Value-Added Feed Peas and Food Products for the Mexican Market. Funding to assist applicant to attend a Mexican food exhibition to investigate the feasibility of a new market for Saskatchewan feed peas and food products. Applicant wishes to further develop this market by arranging for large-scale feeding trials, and to specifically identify the key Mexican food companies that may be interested in purchasing pre-cooked Saskatchewan-grown organic legumes and cereal grains.

CARD $4,767

Comp'd 2001

80
SK

Farm Gro Organic Foods Inc.

Market Development - Phase One.
Phase I of client's marketing development plan - a startup project in a growing niche market in the organic food industry.

CARD $60,305

Comp'd 2001

81
SK

Northern Quinoa Corporation

Western Canadian Quinoa Diversification Project

CARD $35,310

Comp'd 1999

82
SK

Prairie Institute for Human Ecology

Locally Integrated Organic Food & Fertility Project
To form a new generation co-operative of organic poultry producers, to produce and process organic chickens for local markets.

CARD $2,095

Comp'd 2000

83
SK

Schmidt Flour Inc. & Schmidt Manufacturing Inc.

Schmidt Flour Inc. & Schmidt Manufacturing Inc.

CARD $16,265

Comp'd 1999

84
SK

InfraReady Products (1998) Ltd.

Value-Added Legume Foods for the Latin American Market

CARD $19,054

Comp'd 1999

85
SK

Kitsaki Meats Limited

International Market Development - Europe and Asia

CARD $30,045

Comp'd 1999

86
SK

Poplar Valley Organic Farms

The Research and Marketing of Organic Horse Feed

CARD $6,868.55

Comp'd 1999

87
SK

Saskatchewan Organic Directorate Inc.

Exploring Organic Alternatives Conference
To host an "Exploring Organic Alternatives" Conference, wherein participants will share research results from different aspects of organic agriculture. Conference to provide a forum for farmers, scientists and administrators, to exchange ideas and experiences. Participants will determine how this knowledge can be used in low-input and conventional agriculture. Participants will identify gaps in research and technology transfer.

CARD $37,400

Comp'd 2000

88
SK

Saskatchewan Organic Directorate

Organic Agriculture Promotions

CARD $20,845

Comp'd 1999

89
SK

Wise Owl Herb Co. Ltd.

Marketing Plan/Implementation

CARD $5,000

Comp'd 1999

90
SK

RIAF proj no. 202252

Saskatchewan Organic Processors Directory. The Saskatchewan Organic Opportunity Area Team (consisting of representatives from Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) identified a need to identify processors of certified organic food, feed, and non-food products to establish a base for communicating with the industry concerning industry and market and/or export development programs and services available from the federal and provincial governments, and to foster dialogue about industry opportunities and constraints and their implications for future development. Enhanced working relations will contribute to effective government/industry co-operation and collaboration to advance the sector.

RIAF $2,000

Comp'd
2001

91
SK

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool

ISO 9000 Registration for SWP Special Crops Plants
To implement an ISO 9000 at three special crops processing facilities and one organic grains facility in Saskatchewan.

CARD $92,245

Comp'd 2001

92
SK

Family Oven Bakery Ltd

Business Plan to Expand into a Par-Bake Bakery
To assist the client in the hiring of a professional body that would put together a business plan that details the move from a retail/wholesale bakery to a certified organic par-bake bakery.

CARD $5,000

Comp'd 2002

93
SK

OCIA of Saskatchewan Inc.

Linking Production to Marketing-Exploring New and Innovative Ways for Marketing Value
Project is to hold a seminar will focus on the marketing, product quality, and production of organic field crops. The seminar will offer farmers an opportunity to hear from world experts in the marketing of organic field crops and to discuss topics and concerns specific to their own situations.

CARD $5,000

Approved 2002

94
SK

Northwest Organic Community Mills Co-operative Ltd.

Marketing Study, Feasibility Study and Business Plan in Order to Develop a Prospectus
A marketing study, feasibility study and business plan will form the basis for the development of processing facility and marketing business for organic field crops.

CARD $38,000

Approved 2002

95
SK

File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council

File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council Bannock Project
To attend trade shows to promote and market an organic bannock food product in California, Montreal, and Germany.

CARD $14,356

Approved 2002

96
AB

Prairie Sun Grains Ltd

Hold a 2-day Organic Food Conference March 13 & 14, 2000

CARD $5,000

Comp'd
2000

97
AB

Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Special Crops Product Team

Growing Global Conference Mar 5-7, 2001 (The 5th Western Canadian Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Conference held jointly with the Going Organic Conference)

CARD $10,000
AFTP $6,000

Comp'd

98
AB

RIAF proj no. 202266

Natural Products Expo West Trade Show and Conference - EXTUS/NEBS missions - In 2000, 3 of the 8 participants were from the organics industry, and in 2001, 5 of the 36 members represented organics interests.

RIAF $1,981

Comp'd 2001

99
AB

RIAF proj no. 200233

Organic Foods: Marketing Issues and Opportunities Conference. The MISB Alberta office, AAFRD Marketing Services Division, Alberta Value Added Corporation (AVAC), and the Alberta Food Processors Association (AFPA) are collaborating to sponsor the province's first conference on organic food.

RIAF $5,000

Comp'd 2000

100
AB

Alberta Organic Association

Sponsorship for the 3rd Annual Growing Organic Conference: March 11/12 2002 at the Capri Centre In Red Deer.

CARD $4,943

Comp'd 2002

101
AB

Alberta Organic Association

Support for establishment of a provincial organic growers association with a mandate for promotion and certification activities

CARD $189,450

2004

102
AB

Serecon Management

Organic Industry Value Chain Initiative

CARD $77,460

Comp'd 2003

103
AB

Alberta Organic Association

Going Organic Conference - Red Deer - February 9-11, 2003

CARD $925

Comp'd 2003

104
AB

Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada

To establish a prairie OACC representative located at the University of Saskatoon to assist with development of the organic industry in the west.

CARD $35,000

2005

105
BC


COG

IFOAM 2002 Conference - contribution toward speakers (note: also being sponsored nationally by $100,000 AFTP contribution).

CARD 25,000
(plus $50,000 repayable contribution)

Comp'd 2002

106
BC

Northwest Community College

Northern Organics Field Day -
Development of an organic industry in northern BC. Hold a one day workshop consisting of: Introductory session by the Caribou Organic Producers Association (COPA) and the Organic Advisory Service of the Certified Organic Association of BC (COABC); Field tour (Q&A format) to 2 local organic farming operations.

CARD $1,435

Comp'd 2001

107
BC

CEDCO Victoria

Organic Marketing and Distribution Co-op: Undertake a feasibility study and develop a business plan for a cooperative approach to improved marketing and distribution systems for the development and expansion of the organic industry on Southern Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands.

CARD $7,350

Comp'd 2001

108
BC

Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia (COABC)

B.C. Organic Advisory Service - To further develop organic industry in BC by providing practical information, advice on organic production systems. Develop, distribute program information materials; Develop list of qualified advisors (successful organic farmers) to provide consultative services; Implement an "organic helpline" to provide information relevant to organic farming and directed to individuals who can answer specific questions; Advisors undertake 55 farm visits to provide 1 days worth of information and instruction on organic standards, certification processes, market opportunities, production practices and outline an organic conversion plan.

CARD $11,000

Comp'd 2002

109
BC

COG

To develop an Organic Livestock Handbook. Preparation and production of the publication via: literature search; producer survey questionnaire; telephone interviews farmers & veterinarians; writing/editing/review; final draft preparation; production.

CARD $6,000

Comp'd
1998

110
BC

North Okanagan Organic Dairy Producers

A detailed feasibility study of the organic cheese market to maximize the possibility of a successful venture in B.C.

CARD $10,000

Comp'd 1998

111
BC

Organic Vegetable Processing Working Group

Organic vegetable processing plant value chain - contribution toward a preliminary feasibility assessment.

CARD $5,000

Comp'd

112
NT

Territorial Farmers Association

Organic Certification
To research and implement standards for organic agriculture in the Northwest Territories. The need, function, and feasibility of forming an organic certification body was also researched and the information compiled for future need.

CARD $10,000

Comp'd 2003

113
NT

Territorial Farmers Association

TFA 13th Annual Agricultural Seminar
The Territorial Farmers Association hosted its 13th annual agricultural seminar on Organic Farming. The speaker, Janine Gibson, president of Canadian Organic Growers, spoke on Certification processes, best practices for organic growing, and backyard composting. The day was finished with round table discussions.

CARD $10,000

Comp'd 2003

114
YT

Ken Gies

Organic Verification Officer Farm Visits
This project is to have an Organic Verification Officer inspect and certify organic farms in the Yukon. The Verification Officer will also meet with people who are interesting in getting involved in organic farming.

CARD $1,033

Comp'd 1998

115
YT

Marilee Irwin

Certification of the Yukon's first Organic Farm Inspector

CARD $2,275

Comp'd 1999


Annex B

AAFC public/private research on non-rDNA, non-organic technologies from Inventory of Canadian Agri-Food Research 2002

AAFC Non-Organic Studies

ICAR ID

Study number

Title

Prof FTE


88880004

360-2113-9703

Development of integrated cropping systems to manage weeds, optimize crop production, and enhance the sustainability of cropping systems in the Parkland.

1

88880005

360-2113-9706

Integrated potato management systems for the Parkland

1.7

88880021

410-2126-9702

Plant virus disease control

4

88880022

410-2126-9703

Baculovirus genomics and investigations into the molecular biology of baculovirus pathology: Development of environmentally sustainable biological control agents.

1

88880030

410-2127-9711

Integrated Pest Management on Horticultural Crops

4.8

88880039

410-2128-9718

Population ecology and biological control of arthropod pests on small fruit and greenhouse crops

1

88880040

410-2126-9715

Population ecology, behaviour and novel physical, cultural and chemical control of arthropod pests on small fruit, potatoes and other vegetable crops

1

88880099

222-2122-1278

Soybean Improvement: Breeding of early maturing soybeans for improved agronomic performance, adaptation, protein quantity and quality and specialty markets.

1

88880106

326-2131-9701

Prévention des pertes de production et de qualité du lait par la modulation des mécanismes naturels de défense contre la mammite

2.3

88880108

326-2132-9702

Développement de régies et biotechnologies simples et économiques afin de valoriser les effluents d'élevage et d'industries agroalimentaires et de réduire leurs impacts sur les environnements humains et physiques.

2

88880120

385-2140-9801

Identification of molecular markers for improving meat and carcass quality traits

1

88880129

300-2128-9701

Native berry production and protection in a cool climate.

1.3

88880130

300-2123-9801

Cool climate forage production and utilization systems

0.82

88880138

306-2127-9704

Development and evaluation of management practices that improve and sustain orchard performance

1.7

88880139

306-2126-9708

Development of modern management techniques for field grown vegetable crops.

0

88880002

360-2113-9701

Development of variable management of soil properties and crops to facilitate environmentally sustainable land use, and improve soil quality and crop yield in landscapes of the Parkland.

1.7

88880023

410-2127-9704

Genetic regulation and engineering of horticultural crops.

2.8

88880027

410-2141-9708

Microbiological quality and safety of fresh fruits and vegetables

0.95

88880033

410-2126-9714

Crop diversification

1

88880037

410-2126-9719

Integrated disease management of Greenhouse Crops

1.05

88880038

410-2128-9716

Development of semiochemically-based IPM strategies for horticultural crops especially berry crops

1

88880132

300-2128-9901

Development of small fruits suitable for cultivation in cool climates

1

88880136

306-2128-9702

Improved technology for the production and distribution of high quality strawberries

2.7

88880137

306-2128-9701

Development of technology to improve sustainable production and quality of lowbush blueberries

3.35

88880143

306-2141-9709

Innovative technologies and strategies to enhance the shelf-life, safety and sensory properties of value-added foods

4.8

88880145

309-2125-3100

Development and assessment of chemical, physical, and biological control techniques against aphids and Colorado potato beetles for sustainable agriculture in potato

1.2

88880147

309-2125-3700

Spread, transmission and diagnosis of potato viruses and viroids

1

88880148

309-2125-3600

Development of regeneration and tissue culture strategies in support of the Canadian potato nuclear stock and rapid multiplication industries and germplasm enhancement research.

0.85

88880149

309-2125-3800

The Production of Superior Potato Selections For Commercialization by the Canadian Potato Industry

2.9

88880175

336-2123-9703

Technologies visant à améliorer l'efficacité de l'utilisation des éléments fertilisants et la qualité des plantes fourragères

0.8

88880140

306-2127-9705

Development of integrated pest management technology for integrated fruit production

2.45

88880141

306-2128-9703

Improvement in production and quality of underutilised berry crops in Eastern Canada

1.3

88880156

309-2125-4400

Improving processing quality of potato by molecular genetics and biotechnology.

1.45

88880158

309-2113-4000

Precision Farming Tools for the Management of Within-Field Soil Physical and Chemical Property Spatial Variability

0.5

88880179

336-2123-9702

Diminution des infections cryptogamiques ayant des répercussions post-récolte chez les cultures fourragères.

0.7

88880182

344-2126-5397

Develop and transfer technology, including germplasm, to increase disease resistance, yield potential, and quality of processing tomatoes and improve the long term economic viability and competitive marketability of processing tomatoes in southwestern Ont

0.2

88880186

326-2131-9803

Ecosystème microbien ruminal responsable du haut potentiel de digestion des fibres alimentaires chez le ruminant

0.9

88880189

326-2131-9806

Development of analytical procedures to evaluate the genetic merit of Canadian livestock

1

88880199

344-2126-9701

Etiology, Epidemiology and Control of Foliar Diseases of Greenhouse Vegetables, and Hydroponic Production of Oriental/Ethnic Vegetables

0.9

88880213

333-2141-9902

Development of Technologies for the Enzymatic Production of Bio-ingredients for Flavour and Nutraceutical Use

1

88880215

222-2121-586

Barley Breeding

3.5

88880216

222-2121-567

Molecular Pathology/Pathologie Moléculaire

4.6

88880178

336-2113-9707

Développement de technologies pour la gestion spécifique des cultures selon les caractéristiques des sols

1.1

88880183

344-2122-5421

Soybean biology and agronomy

0.6

88880188

326-2134-9801

Développement de méthodes de production d'embryons chez l'espèce ovine

1

88880190

326-2132-9705

Identification et utilisation des marqueurs moléculaires pour améliorer la génétique porcine au Canada

0.9

88880192

326-2132-9808

Development of molecular and quantitative methodologies for the application of marker-assisted selection to swine breeding

1

88880195

309-2113-4600

Reduced impact of potato production on water quality from genetic and cultural approaches to increase crop N use efficiency

0.9

88880211

280-2129-9920

Integrated management of pests and diseases of greenhouse ornamental crops

1.2

88880217

222-2122-569

Environmental Stress Resistance

2.9

88880219

222-2121-591

Short: Crop Genomics
Long: Crop Genomics and Molecular Genetic Markers for the Improvement of Barley, Oats and Soybeans

1.9

88880226

222-2122-572

Regulation of Gene Flow and Fertility

1.5

88880228

222-2121-593

Separation Technology and Value-Added Phytochemistry

1

88880240

360-2113-9901

Environmental and Economically Sound Cropping Systems

1

88880250

375-2122-9803

Improved Resistance to Insects

0

88880257

281-2140-9601

Application of probiotics to improve food safety and quality

3.2

88880266

375-2122-9906

Molecular Genomics of a Tool for Crop Improvement

2.6

88880272

280-2126-9901

Baseline Susceptibility of European Corn Borer, Ostrinia nubilalis, in Ontario to Bt - Proteins in Transgenic Corn

0.4

88880274

280-2113-9906

Defining and Evaluating Management Practices for Enhancing Soil Quality in Sustainable Agricultural Production Systems

1.15

88880278

280-2126-9909

New technologies for control of lepidopteran and other insect pests of vegetable crops

0.8

88880283

280-2126-9913

Insecticide resistance management

1.15

88880285

280-2124-9917

Legume, Insect and Fungal Genomics

2.7

88880218

222-2122-570

Control of Gene Expression

1.1

88880221

222-2122-568

Insect Resistance

0.7

88880225

222-2120-571

Functional Genomics

3

88880227

222-2121-585

Oat Breeding

0.6

88880230

222-2115-611

Integrated Pest Management

2

88880264

375-2122-9807

Improved Resistance to Pathogens

0

88880265

375-2114-9905

Conservation, preservation and enhancement of plant germplasm of economic importance to Canada

3

88880271

280-2111-9905

Cropping for Coarse Textured Soils

0.85

88880273

280-2124-9902

Molecular Farming: New Uses for Traditional Crops

0.6

88880276

280-2113-9908

Crop Protection /Biological Control of Pests and Diseases of Field Crops

0.4

88880281

280-2126-9914

Genetic modification of crucifer vegetable crops

1.6

88880284

280-2122-9916

Genetic Determinants of Disease Resistance and Seed Quality in Soybeans

1

88880286

280-2127-9912

Development of an Integrated Pest Management Program for the Management of Crown Gall Disease of Grapevine

2

88880288

280-2127-9919

Nematode Management With Alternative Practices to Soil Fumigation

0

88880289

280-2127-9923

Strawberry Plant Resistance for Nematode Control

0

88880293

280-2127-9922

Fire blight control in pear and apple through genetic improvement of host resistance, and use of biocontrol agents

1

88880309

309-2125-4700

Improvement of Potato Resistance to Common Scab

1

88880313

344-2124-0000

Genomic analysis of soybeans and dry beans for the development of an efficient crop breeding system and better understanding of plant-microbe interactions

1

88880321

281-2140-11

Development and application of molecular and cellular biology to enhance food production, quality and safety

6.8

88880290

280-2127-9924

Toxicology of Pesticide Resistance in Pest and Beneficial Insects and Mites and Assessment of Resistance Management Strategies in IPM Systems for Tree Fruit Insects and Mites

0.7

88880291

280-2126-9925

Plant Expression Platforms

0.5

88880306

333-2140-9908

Production, conservation et utilisation de bactéries lactiques et propioniques.

1

88880308

333-2140-0002

Développement de technologies utilisant la microbiologie, l'enzymologie et la biologie moléculaire afin d'assurer la qualité organoleptique et l'innocuité des produits carnés.

1.25

88880311

344-2126-5431

Development of cost-effective production management systems for fresh market and processing vegetable crops in Ontario.

1.1

88880318

344-2122-5437

Breeding of improved processing soybean cultivars and germplasm with high yield, disease and nematode resistance, and quality traits for soyfood.

0.9

88880333

333-2141-0110

Identification, Isolation and Testing of Active Ingredients in Probiotic Foods

1

88880336

300-2126-0102

Vegetable crop production and protection in cool climates

0.6

88880354

303-2125-0111

The biology/ecology and sustainable management of soilborne potato pathogens.

1.1

88880361

303-2121-0105

Weed Management in Barley, Soybeans , Corn and Forage Crops

0.5

88880367

360-2121-0102

High value six-row barley for diversified markets.

1

88880369

364-2129-0105

Breeding, germplasm development and conservation of hardy landscape crop plants to increase the value and diversify domestic and export production potential.

0.75

88880373

364-2120-0101

Molecular genetic approaches toward improved end use traits in western Canadian crops.

2.1

88880376

344-2126-2890

Development of new growing methods and technologies for improved yield and quality of Canadian greenhouse products.

1

88880387

335-2126-0006

Pulvérisation de précision en horticulture légumière
(Precision crop spraying in vegetable production)

2.5

88880389

303-2125-0201

Integrated insect pest management

1

88880332

333-2140-0108

Microflore intestinale et alimentation: probiogénomique, validation technologique, études chez l'homme

0.9

88880341

385-2121-0189

Genetic improvement of oats for value-added traits, disease resistance, wide adaptation, and nutraceutical, pharmaceutical and industrial uses.

0.84

88880342

333-2140-0103

Development of molecular imprinting technology for extraction, fractionation, separation, and value-added processing of milkfat for enhancing utilization of milk

1

88880355

303-2125-0107

Reduce the risk or impact of Phytophthora and Verticillium species, and dependency on chemical control treatments in potatoes.

1

88880374

364-2120-0103

Tools for gene discovery and implementation for trait improvement in western Canadian crops.

3.9

88880385

335-2126-0104

Rationalisation des applications de fertilisants dans les cultures maraîchères par diagnostic des besoins nutritionnels / Rationalisation of fertilizer needs of vegetable crops by crop diagnosis and determination of yield potential and maturity status.

2

88880392

280-2122-0202

Genetic Regulation of Soybean Storage Protein Genes

1

88880395

222-2120-6001

Control of Cereal and Soybean Diseases for Eastern Canada

1

88880397

335-2126-0207

L'entreposage de la carotte: une gestion intégrée

1.2

88880408

387-2120-0215

Genetic Enhancement and Cultivar Development for Sustainable Production of Soft and Hard White Spring Wheat

1

88880414

387-2125-0220

Development of sustainable disease control strategies for the Canadian potato industry through biotechnology

1

88880416

387-2130-0223

Genomic resources of gastrointesinal microbial communities: characterization, manipulation, and exploitation in agriculture and industry

1.1

88880401

387-2130-0227

Strategies to reduce the presence of pathogens, the use of antibiotics and the excretion of nutrients in ruminants while ensuring the safety of food products.

2.2

88880404

387-2124-0232

Development of economic and sustainable crop and weed management practices for field crops

1

88880412

387-2125-0218

Plant disease: Characterization, diagnostics and control.

1

88880413

387-2125-0219

Molecular breeding approach for the sustainable control of diseases and insects for the western Canada

1

88880415

387-2125-0221

Development of disease resistant cultivars for the Canadian potato industry

1

88880422

387-2115-0208

Development of microbial control strategies for integrated insect pest management

0.9

88880426

387-2120-0212

The enhancement of the sustainable production of winter wheat and soft white spring wheat in western Canada

1

88880428

387-2130-0222

Functional Genomics Tools for Livestock Improvement

1

88880431

387-2112-0202

Environmental transport and fate of agrochemicals in water and air

1

88880452

335-2126-0201

Diversité génétique des Bacillus thuringiensis
(Genetic diversity of Bacillus thuringiensis)

0.8

90005495

344-2114-5413

The preservation and distribution of disease-free, clonally propagated fruit crop germplasm for fruit breeders and other users globally.

2

91005025

344-2122-5418

Development of cost-effective decision support systems and management practices for those weeds with an economically significant impact as part of field crop production management systems in Ontario.

1

92005015

336-2113-9104

Élaboration des programmes de lutte intégrée aux mauvaises herbes dans les principales cultures du Québec.

2

92005094

336-2113-9103

Développement de technologies microbiennes pour améliorer la durabilité et la productivité des cultures

3

93005139

280-2126-9904

Integrated Management of Selected Insect Pests of Ontario Vegetable Crops

1.95

88880427

387-2120-0214

Molecular genetics for abiotic and biotic stress resistance and value-added for improving wheat sustainability

1

88880439

387-2130-0243

Nutritional science and innovation for sustainable ruminant production systems

3

88880444

387-2130-0248

Genetic Evaluation and Improvement of Beef Cattle

1

88880447

387-2130-0258

Biotechnological approaches for enhancing the sustainability of the beef production

1.2

88880451

387-2120-0257

Platform technologies related to cereal genetic engineering, functional genomics and gametophyte screening.

1

88880455

280-2123-0201

Molecular Genetics and Genomics of the Model Legume Lotus japonicus: Impact for Legume Biology and Breeding.

1

88880456

336-2123-2201

Génomique fonctionnelle et biotechnologie des plantes fourragères

1

88880458

375-2122-0201

Enhancing sustainability and diversity of oilseed crops in Canada through traditional and molecular genetics approaches

1.3

96005026

360-2113-9605

Development of soil management practices to optimize crop yields and soil, water and crop quality.

1.6

96005039

375-2122-9601

Disease Resistance of Oilseed Crucifers for Canada

2.2

96005040

375-2122-9605

Genetic Improvement of Brassica Rapa L. and Brassica Carinata A. Braun

1

96005042

375-2122-9602

Genetic improvement of oilseed Brassica napus, B. juncea and condiment mustard. (new title as of 1997/98)

0.8

96005050

222-2115-1248

Morphological and molecular diagnostics of agriculturally important plant disease fungi

3

96005063

364-2121-0109

Oat Germplasm Enhancement and Breeding Oat Cultivars for the Eastern Prairie Region of Canada

4.9

96005036

375-2115-9612

Integrated Management Tactics for Weeds, Insects and Diseases in Oilseed, Cereal and Pulse Crops Grown in Western Canada - Title change: Development of Integrated Management Tactics for Weeds, Insects and Diseases of Forage Crops in the Prairie Provinces

3

96005037

375-2113-9613

Efficient Crop Production Systems

3.5

96005043

375-2122-9606

Oil and Water Quality Improvement in Seed of Brassica Species and Sinapis Alba

1.5

96005051

222-2114-1250

Crop germplasm

3

96005068

364-2120-0111

Developing new germplasm and cultivars of wheat for the eastern and northern prairie areas.

4.83

AAFC—other studies

ICAR ID

Study number

Title

Prof FTE


88880114

385-2140-9807

Antimicrobial strategies to improve the safety and extend the storage life of meat.

2

88880115

375-2141-9801

An Integrated Total Utilization for Buckwheat

0.8

88880118

375-2141-9802

An Integrated Total Utilization of Fenugreek

0.5

88880119

385-2140-9806

HACCP Implementation and Quality Management: Prevention of contamination with and growth of pathogens and spoilage bacteria during meat processing and distribution.

1

88880121

385-2140-9802

Antemortem management of livestock stress, meat yield and quality

2.67

88880122

385-2140-9803

Postmortem evaluation and control of the variation in composition and quality of carcasses and meat.

2.26

88880123

385-2140-9804

Development and assessment of methodologies and instrumentation for the estimation of carcass meat yield and grade.

0.97

88880124

385-2140-9805

Factors affecting the palatability of meat.

1

88880142

306-2141-9706

Development of postharvest technologies to add value to fresh fruits and vegetables

3.3

88880144

306-2141-9710

Innovation and evaluation of technologies in food processing, distribution and retailing for the benefit of the value-added agri-food industry

2.05

88880160

333-2141-9801

Développement et optimisation de procédés de chauffage et de déshydratation de systèmes alimentaires en vue d'obtenir une qualité optimale tout en minimisant les coûts énergétiques

1.4

88880177

336-2113-9706

Inventaire de la ressource-sol et développement de banques de données pédologiques pour l'interprétation et la modélisation des sols du Québec

2.57

88880185

326-2131-9802

Behavioural measures of cow comfort to improve stall design

1

88880187

326-2131-9805

Effet de la supplémentation protéique et/ou énergétique et de l'utilisation des fourrages sur la production, la reproduction et l'immunité de la vache laitière

2.2

88880191

326-2132-9804

Influence des cytokines sur la prolificité, la croissance et la réponse immunitaire chez le porc

1.2

88880194

326-2131-9809

Destin métabolique de l'azote chez le bovin : de l'aliment à la protéine consommée par l'humain

0.7

88880229

222-2111-577

Soil Taxonomy and Databases

4.2

88880233

326-2132-9901

A behavioural and environmental study to develop improved gestation and farrowing accommodation for sows and litters

1

88880246

375-2141-9805

Exploration of Enhanced Opportunities for Value-Added Processing of Prairie Crops and Crop Residues for Food and non-food uses

0

88880259

360-2113-9904

Biochemical technology for improving crop and livestock market security, production sustainability and product quality.

1

88880260

335-2126-0001

Développement de méthodes post-récoltes pour mieux conserver la qualité des légumes et des fruits entre leur récolte et leur consommation. (Development of post-harvest methods to better preserve vegetable and fruit quality between harvest and consumption)

1.3

88880261

335-2126-0002

Développement d'une récolteuse de choux.
(Development of a new cabbage harvester)

1

88880296

303-2133-0002

Nutrition and management of chickens

1

88880301

333-2140-9903

Optimisation de méthodes pour le contrôle de la flore microbienne en hygiène alimentaire.

0.1

88880302

333-2140-9904

Étude des facteurs et développement de technologies de production et de transformation favorisant l'expression de tissus musculaires et adipeux plus stables et fonctionnels en sur transformation.

1.25

88880303

333-2140-9905

Élaboration de nouvelles stratégies permettant d'assurer l'innocuité et la salubrité des produits carnés, en tenant compte de l'impact de l'adaptation au stress, et du développement de protections croisées sur la microflore.

1.25

88880304

333-2141-9906

Interactions aliment/emballage : influence des propriétés des emballages sur la qualité des aliments en transformation et en conservation

1

88880305

333-2140-9907

Développement d'une approche intégrée pour l'optimisation des procédés de fabrication des produits carnés

1.25

88880307

333-2141-0001

Développement de technologies pour la production et l'utilisation de polysaccharides agroalimentaires

1

88880310

344-2126-9901

Development of criteria for evaluating soybean quality for domestic and export soyfood markets and construction of a database of attributes.

0.7

88880322

281-2141-21

Diversifying and Enhancing Wheat Utilization in Canadian Food Industry

1.2

88880323

281-2141-22

Cereal Polysaccharide Functionality - Milling, Quality and Health Benefits

2.7

88880324

281-2141-23

The role of starch molecular structure on potato quality and development of multifunctional starches for food and non-food application
Subtitle 1: Starch structure and functional properties during the potato growth, storage and processing
Subtitle 2: D

1

88880325

281-2140-31

To identify, characterize, and determine the bioavailability and mode of action of minor functional components in plant and animal foods that promote health and reduce the risk of chronic diseases and to develop nutraceutical and functional foods through

4.65

88880326

281-2142-24

Polysaccharide Gums from Agriculture Products (Oil Seeds and Legumes): Chemical Structure, Functional Properties and Value Added Processing

1.1

88880327

281-2142-41

Development and application of food preservation technologies for the control of food-borne microorganisms, and to enhance food quality and safety

4.6

88880328

360-2130-0103

Alternative systems for environmentally sound and profitable production of beef.

3

88880330

385-2123-0183

Reduce risk and cost of overwintering beef cows in the parkland region of western Canada

0.4

88880331

333-2140-0107

Utilisation optimale des composantes du lait

1

88880338

364-2120-0104

Cereal Grain Composition and Functionality: Identification of Novel Traits and Improvement of Product Quality.

4.5

88880339

300-2128-0103

Rural Technology Development in Cool Summer Agri-ecosystems

0.5

88880340

410-2141-0103

Grape and Wine Quality

0.41

88880345

385-2123-0184

Develop systems which maximize and optimize beef production per unit area and meat from forage-based and pasture systems

0.4

88880346

333-2141-0105

Caractérisation chimique, physique, spectroscopique et mathématique de nouveaux ingrédients/additifs alimentaires et produits nutraceutiques/aliments fonctionnels.

1.5

88880347

333-2140-0106

Développement de connaissances de nature scientifique et technologique pour l'optimisation de la transformation du lait de vache et du lait de chèvre à l'aide de procédés à membranes.

1

88880358

379-2111-0102

Land Resource Spatial Database Development and Management for Western Canada

3.7

88880359

410-2141-0102

Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals

1.61

88880363

333-2141-0101

Optimisation de la qualité des farines et des sous-produits de boulangerie-pâtisserie

1

88880375

333-2141-0104

Utilisation des électrotechnologies et d'autres nouvelles techniques non thermiques, pour transformer et stabiliser des ressources végétales.

1.6

88880377

410-2113-0101

Control and abatement of soil, water and air pollution with advanced management of whole-farming systems

4

88880378

410-2126-0102

Sustainable production and post-harvest systems for enhancement of nutritional value and quality of high-value food crops.

1.8

88880379

335-2126-0106

Développement, implantation et validation de modèles mathématiques utilisés dans la protection et la régie des cultures maraîchères, fruitières et céréalières.

1

88880396

335-2126-0203

Sustainability of vegetable production systems by alleviating environmental stress with microclimate and genetic modifications.

0.9

88880399

387-2130-0224

Study of factors affecting oocyte nuclear maturation and oocyte competence; development of a new feed additive to improve the resistance of calves to intestinal pathogens and feed efficiency.

1

88880400

387-2130-0225

A molecular ecological approach to the discovery, characterization and application of unique products from the rumen

1

88880434

387-2130-0239

Anti-quality factors in rangeland and pasture forages

1

88880437

387-2130-0242

Nutritional and physiological strategies to enhance cattle productivity, health, and product quality and health benefits to the consumer

2

88880438

387-2130-0244

Nutritional strategies to enhance cattle productivity, health, and product quality

1

88880440

387-2130-0245

Manipulation of ruminal ciliate protozoa to enhance productivity, product quality and environmental impact of ruminants.

1

88880441

387-2113-0226

Economics of new and alternative production technologies.

1

88880443

387-2130-0247

Assessing and Reducing Stress in Beef Cattle (387-2130-0247)

1

88880448

387-2120-0255

Seed image analysis for quantitative characterization and identification of wheat and other cereals

2

88880457

375-2111-0202

Utilization of oilseed crops with enhanced lipid compositions

1

90005097

344-2126-5410

Enhancement of sturdy seedling growth, crop yield and quality.

1

93005087

336-2123-9012

Traitements mécaniques pour améliorer la récolte, la conservation et l'utilisation des fourrages

1.2

95005012

336-2123-9501

Développement de nouvelles méthodes de prédiction de différents paramètres de qualité dans les aliments des ruminants.

1.1

95005059

375-2141-9201

Appropriate Processing of Oil Bearing Crops: Industry Specific Extraction of Food, Health Food and Fuel Oils.

0

95005060

375-2141-9501

An Integrated Total Untilization of Flaxseed Meal into Components with Potential Use in Food and non-Food Sectors.

0

95006111

344-2126-9602

Development of technologies for controlling major fungal and bacterial root diseases in greenhouse vegetables.

0.6

96005001

326-2131-9601

Amélioration de la fromageabilité du lait et de la valeur nutritive du gras laitier par la manipulation des facteurs associés à la synthèse des composants du lait

1.2

96005002

326-2131-9605

Study Title: Handling Dairy Cattle to Reduce Their Fear and Improved Their Welfare, Safety and Productivity

1

96005003

326-2131-9606

Développer des stratégies alimentaires et métaboliques pour améliorer les processus de digestion et d'absorption en vue de maîtriser la synthèse du lait chez les ruminants

0.9

96005004

326-2131-9607

Étude des besoins en acide folique des ruminants.

2.25

96005008

326-2132-9602

Développement d'une méthode de régie de la truie impliquant des facteurs hormonaux et environnementaux, afin d'augmenter la production laitière de la truie et, par conséquent, augmenter le poids et la vigueur des porcelets au sevrage.

1.1

96005009

326-2132-9603

Impact éthologique, zootechnique, économique et environnemental d'une alimentation à haute teneur en fibres chez la truie en gestation.

0.9

96005010

326-2132-9604

Importance de certaines vitamines du complexe B dans la nutrition et la reproduction chez le porc.

1

96005012

326-2132-9611

Développement d'une méthodologie d'optimisation permettant d'améliorer simultanément le rendement économique et écologique des systèmes de production de porc à l'engrais à l'aide de la modélisation mathématique sur ordinateur.

2

96005021

379-2112-9602

Climate, Water and Crop Growth and Adaptation for the Semi-arid Prairies

0.9

96005055

222-2115-1247

Fungal resources (mycorrhizae, mushrooms, host-plant databases)

3

 

 

TOTAL

115.39