This Web page has been archived on the Web.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) |
A. Preamble
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
Some studies have already been conducted on the expected negative economic of GE wheat, including:
- 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
- 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
- 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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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:
-
AAFC providing prime, publicly-owned germplasm to Monsanto to develop its RR wheat;
-
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;
-
AAFC providing Monsanto with at least $800,000 in Matching Investment Initiative funding; and
-
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.
-
-
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
-
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.).
-
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
-
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).
-
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."
-
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).
-
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).
-
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).
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. |
Éric Darier, Ph.D. |
enclosures*
*[not available]
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 |
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.
Department and Agency Acronyms
The Response of the Federal Departments and Agencies to the Petition
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:
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 |
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
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
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
|
| ||||
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:
|
|
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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.
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) |
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. |
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 |
Comp'd 2000 |
|
10
|
EU CIBS Project |
Mission to BIOFACH. |
EU CIBS - $8,000 |
Comp'd |
Regional Projects:
|
# |
Applicant |
Project |
Funding |
Status |
|
11 |
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. |
AFTP $12,750 plus
|
Comp'd |
|
12 |
Atlantic Canada Export Club |
ACEC Investigative Travel Mission to |
AFTP $2,412 (AIMS project) |
Comp'd |
|
13 |
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 |
|
14 |
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 |
|
15 |
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 |
|
16 |
Maritime Certified Organic Growers Coop |
Maritime Organic Industry Review and Profile. |
CARD $20,793 |
Comp'd |
|
17 |
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 |
Comp'd 2001 |
|
18 |
PEI Organic Crop Improvement Association |
Awareness and Training |
CARD $16,589 |
Comp'd 2001 |
|
19 |
Peter Noonan |
Natural Products Expo |
CARD $983 |
Comp'd 2001 |
|
20 |
Atlantic Canada Organic Regional Network (ACORN) |
ACORN Conference-supporting attendance by members of P.E.I. farm organizations |
CARD $2,440 |
Comp'd 2001 |
|
21 |
PEI Medicinal Plants Association |
Bio-Fach 2000 |
CARD $1,500 |
Comp'd 2000 |
|
22 |
Seaspray Organic Cooperative |
Marketing Organically |
CARD $2,475 |
Comp'd 1999 |
|
23 |
Raymond Loo |
Potato Breeding. |
CARD $3,342 |
Comp'd 1999 |
|
24 |
Raymond Loo |
Biosuisse Conference and Tour |
CARD $1,250 |
Comp'd 2002 |
|
25 |
PEI Certified Organic Growers Association |
IFOAM Conference |
CARD $1,425 |
Comp'd |
|
26 |
PEI Certified Organic Growers and ACORN |
Guelph Organic meetings |
CARD $630 |
Comp'd 2002 |
|
27 |
Agri-Nova Inc |
Organic Inspector Training |
CARD $1,040 |
Comp'd 2000 |
|
28 |
Maritime Certified Organic Growers Co-op |
BMP's in Organic Industry |
CARD $12,627 |
Comp'd 2002 |
|
29 |
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 Certified Organic Producers Co-op |
Bio-Agricultural Speaker |
CARD $1,400 |
Comp'd 2003 |
|
31 |
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 |
|
32 |
NB Federation of Agriculture |
Workshop on Organic Agriculture |
CARD $544 |
Comp'd |
|
33 |
NB Federation of Agriculture |
Options in Agriculture Conference |
CARD $3,677 |
Comp'd |
|
34 |
Fall Brook Centre |
Inspector Training |
CARD $8,945 |
Comp'd 2000 |
|
35 |
NS Organic Growers Association |
Inspector Training |
CARD $2,200 |
Comp'd 2000 |
|
36 |
Fall Brook Centre |
Basic Organic Training |
CARD $3,150 |
Comp'd |
|
37 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
|
41 |
Cégep de Victoriaville |
Intensification Des cultures d'engrais verts en culture maraîchère |
FCADR 60 000 $ |
Approuvé |
|
42 |
Compagnie de recherches Phytodata inc. |
Efficacité et paramètres d'utilisation du fongicide biologique CONTANS WG |
FCADR 67 130 $ |
Approuvé |
|
43 |
Les Produits de Marque Liberté inc. |
Nouveaux produits biologiques |
FCADR 94 633 $ |
Approuvé |
|
44 |
Fédération d'agriculture biologique du Québec |
Conception d'un outil informatisé de gestion Des productions diversifiées pour les fermes biologiques |
FCADR 46 300 $ |
Approuvé |
|
45 |
Fédération d'agriculture biologique du Québec |
Pour UN développement stratégique de l'agriculture biologique au Québec |
FCADR 116 186 $ |
Approuvé |
|
46 |
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 |
|
47 |
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 |
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 |
FCADR 72 913 $ |
Terminé |
|
49 |
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 |
|
50 |
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 |
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 |
|
52 |
Agro-Production Lanaudière inc. |
Validation d'une nouvelle formulation de neem comme insecticide biologique contre la mouche du chou en production de brocolis hâtifs |
FCADR 23 203 $ |
Terminé |
|
53 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Life Choices Natural Foods |
Life Choices Ontario Organic Agricultural Development |
CARD $30,000 |
Approved 2002 |
|
62 |
Dairy Farmers of Ontario |
Development of an Organic Niche Market for Dairy Producers |
CARD $79,000 |
Approved 2002 |
|
63 |
Jones Feed Mills Ltd |
Supply Chain Market Research & Organizational Planning |
CARD $28,000 |
Approved 2002 |
|
64 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
RIAF project |
Hotels & Airfares for 3 people to attend 2000 Organic Conference |
RIAF $3,600 |
Comp'd |
|
69 |
RIAF Project |
Contribution toward Lynn Miller seminar on organic industry at 1999 Organic Agriculture Conference |
RIAF $500 |
Comp'd |
|
70 |
OCIA Chapter # 5 of Sask Inc. |
Organic Agriculture Awareness Conference |
CARD $20,000 |
Comp'd 1998 |
|
71 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Comp'd |
|
79 |
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 |
Farm Gro Organic Foods Inc. |
Market Development - Phase One. |
CARD $60,305 |
Comp'd 2001 |
|
81 |
Northern Quinoa Corporation |
Western Canadian Quinoa Diversification Project |
CARD $35,310 |
Comp'd 1999 |
|
82 |
Prairie Institute for Human Ecology |
Locally Integrated Organic Food & Fertility Project |
CARD $2,095 |
Comp'd 2000 |
|
83 |
Schmidt Flour Inc. & Schmidt Manufacturing Inc. |
Schmidt Flour Inc. & Schmidt Manufacturing Inc. |
CARD $16,265 |
Comp'd 1999 |
|
84 |
InfraReady Products (1998) Ltd. |
Value-Added Legume Foods for the Latin American Market |
CARD $19,054 |
Comp'd 1999 |
|
85 |
Kitsaki Meats Limited |
International Market Development - Europe and Asia |
CARD $30,045 |
Comp'd 1999 |
|
86 |
Poplar Valley Organic Farms |
The Research and Marketing of Organic Horse Feed |
CARD $6,868.55 |
Comp'd 1999 |
|
87 |
Saskatchewan Organic Directorate Inc. |
Exploring Organic Alternatives Conference |
CARD $37,400 |
Comp'd 2000 |
|
88 |
Saskatchewan Organic Directorate |
Organic Agriculture Promotions |
CARD $20,845 |
Comp'd 1999 |
|
89 |
Wise Owl Herb Co. Ltd. |
Marketing Plan/Implementation |
CARD $5,000 |
Comp'd 1999 |
|
90 |
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 |
|
91 |
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool |
ISO 9000 Registration for SWP Special Crops Plants |
CARD $92,245 |
Comp'd 2001 |
|
92 |
Family Oven Bakery Ltd |
Business Plan to Expand into a Par-Bake Bakery |
CARD $5,000 |
Comp'd 2002 |
|
93 |
OCIA of Saskatchewan Inc. |
Linking Production to Marketing-Exploring New and Innovative Ways for Marketing Value |
CARD $5,000 |
Approved 2002 |
|
94 |
Northwest Organic Community Mills Co-operative Ltd. |
Marketing Study, Feasibility Study and Business Plan in Order to Develop a Prospectus |
CARD $38,000 |
Approved 2002 |
|
95 |
File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council |
File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council Bannock Project |
CARD $14,356 |
Approved 2002 |
|
96 |
Prairie Sun Grains Ltd |
Hold a 2-day Organic Food Conference March 13 & 14, 2000 |
CARD $5,000 |
Comp'd |
|
97 |
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 |
Comp'd |
|
98 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Serecon Management |
Organic Industry Value Chain Initiative |
CARD $77,460 |
Comp'd 2003 |
|
103 |
Alberta Organic Association |
Going Organic Conference - Red Deer - February 9-11, 2003 |
CARD $925 |
Comp'd 2003 |
|
104 |
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 |
COG |
IFOAM 2002 Conference - contribution toward speakers (note: also being sponsored nationally by $100,000 AFTP contribution). |
CARD 25,000 |
Comp'd 2002 |
|
106 |
Northwest Community College |
Northern Organics Field Day - |
CARD $1,435 |
Comp'd 2001 |
|
107 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
|
110 |
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 |
Organic Vegetable Processing Working Group |
Organic vegetable processing plant value chain - contribution toward a preliminary feasibility assessment. |
CARD $5,000 |
Comp'd |
|
112 |
Territorial Farmers Association |
Organic Certification |
CARD $10,000 |
Comp'd 2003 |
|
113 |
Territorial Farmers Association |
TFA 13th Annual Agricultural Seminar |
CARD $10,000 |
Comp'd 2003 |
|
114 |
Ken Gies |
Organic Verification Officer Farm Visits |
CARD $1,033 |
Comp'd 1998 |
|
115 |
Marilee Irwin |
Certification of the Yukon's first Organic Farm Inspector |
CARD $2,275 |
Comp'd 1999 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
