Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 13 - Evidence - Meeting of December 5, 2006
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 5, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 5:29 p.m. to study the present state and future of agriculture and forestry in Canada.
Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good evening, honourable senators, our very special witness and all of you watching the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on television.
We are meeting this evening to discuss the implications for farmers of genetic use restriction technologies, otherwise known as GURTs, a group of genetic tools that includes the commonly known terminator technology. This technology produces genetically modified plants that can grow to maturity but produce seeds that will not germinate. The terminator technology was first patented in the United States by Delta and Pine Land Company and the United States Department of Agriculture in 1998. Last year it received patent protection in both Canada and the European Union.
Our witness today, Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher, is one of the world's foremost experts on this issue. Dr. Steinbrecher is a biologist and geneticist. Her work focuses on genetic engineering in food and farming, and its risks and potential consequences on health, food, security and our environment. She is currently co-director of EcoNexus, a not-for-profit public interest research association based in the United Kingdom. She is advisor and consultant to many national and international organizations and has been closely involved with the United Nations international negotiations and implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety since 1995.
Please proceed, Ms. Steinbrecher.
Ricarda Steinbrecher, Co-Director, EcoNexus, as an individual: I thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about this important issue. My understanding is that the focus tonight is on terminator technology, which is, as was just stated, part of a wider technology called GURTs — genetic use restriction technologies. I will discuss the purpose of terminator technology, the design of it, and the difference between ordinary genetically engineered crops and seedless melons or hybrid seeds. I will then discuss the problems and risks associated with the technology.
The purpose of genetic use restriction technologies, as the name implies, is to restrict the use of genetic material for two purposes. The first is intellectual property protection. Companies have patents on certain genes and do not want them to be used by other breeders or by farmers for replanting without paying a technology fee. That was the original purpose of its design.
The second purpose is technology protection system, TPS, which is the category under which Delta and Pine Land is putting this technology forward in the international arena. There are brochures that state this technology is for the benefit of farmers, but it is also for the benefit of the company, because it is a protection system for their patents.
The third purpose is protection from contamination, and this is where many of us will have most interest. Is it a tool to prevent contamination from genetically engineered crops? There is presently a big problem of finding genetically modified genes not only in the fields where they are supposed to be, but also in neighbouring fields. They are found in volunteer plants years later, and even in other countries.
You may have heard about the contamination relating to StarLink in the United States. A crop that was not supposed to be for human consumption was found everywhere. It still turns up in tests occasionally, although no one is planting it. It got out there somehow, and it is still there. Can terminator technology protect against that? There is the suggestion it could be used for biocontainment.
I will go to the model behind the technology and then we can revisit whether it can accomplish this. The model is to produce a seed that, when planted, will grow into an ordinary plant and will produce seeds, but those seeds are sterile and will not give rise to a proper plant.
That is done at the very end of the formation of the seed, when the embryo develops. When the seed has set and developed, the growth of the embryo is the next stage. At that stage, a gene is becoming active — a cell lethal gene, a cell toxin. That is linked to a regulatory sequence that will only be active in the late embryonic phase. It is only in that last phase that the plant will be toxic. Some people call them suicide seeds, because they kill themselves by producing the toxin.
How can such seed be multiplied? For that purpose, the toxin should not be active. Therefore, a block is put between the regulatory sequence, the on and off switch of the toxin gene. The regulatory switch and the genetic information need to be next to each other in order to function properly. If I separate them by putting a block or sequence of DNA between them, it cannot work. That is what is done; a block is put between and it is fine.
Now I can multiply the seeds, but the mechanism will not work. In order to get the toxin active, I will put another set of genes in the plant that act as molecular scissors. If that gene is active, it will produce a protein called recombinase that will recognize the block I put in before and cut it out. Then the regulatory sequence, the promoter, moves to the gene and it is active; the toxin is produced.
We now have two sets of genes in there; but how is the activator of the gene controlled? I put in a third set of genes that has a repressor system. This represses the activator, which is now in the middle of it.
This first set is the so-called switch mechanism. The repressor gene will have a responsive element to a chemical that can be sprayed on a plant. This is why I put this external control into the system. We have a highly complex, highly interdepartmental and interactive system. In that sense, there are a lot of vulnerabilities.
Does it work? We have no scientific data on it. There is no peer-reviewed scientific literature and no greenhouse trial data, which we need in order to look at it and its performance. We can only look at the individual components that have been put into the terminator plants. Having investigated them, I can say that none of them work 100 per cent. There are always glitches and hiccups.
Another problem is that the genes put in genetically engineered plants can often be switched off by the plant itself. We call that gene silencing. We have seen that mechanism again and again in genetically modified plants.
As well, sequences can suddenly leak, or in the multiplying process they might get segregated. There are many genes that need to stay together in one cell in order to work. In multiplying them they may be passed on to different plants, and then the process does not work. There are many vulnerable spots that could make the system inoperable.
That is the design, in brief.
What is the difference to ordinary GM plants or seedless melons? The difference is that we have this switch mechanism. It is different in that it has an external control mechanism in it. We have a system that is highly vulnerable. It may work sometimes and then it may not. We cannot rely on it. With regard to genetically engineered crops, it is highly complex and has this external control mechanism built in.
With seedless melons, they are not grown for their seed but their fruit. It is a product of breeding; it is not a genetically modified crop.
Many farmers will not replant hybrid seeds, because they do not breed true. They do not provide a uniform crop, but they are not sterile. Again, there is a difference here. Some farmers will use hybrid seeds for the breeding processes.
With regard to the problems we encounter, we said earlier the idea is for terminator technology, GURTs, to act as a containment system. We might have sterile seeds should the technology work. According to my assessment and that of many scientists, there is no chance it will work in the way it would need to in order to be a containment system. That would have to be 100 per cent and there is no way it can perform that.
Let us say it works to 80 per cent, whether it works or not, pollen is produced and it can flow to neighbouring fields and cross-pollinate there. There is no block built into this system; we still get all the genetic material.
Let us say we want to grow a pharmaceutical crop and prevent it from contaminating neighbouring fields; we cannot do it with this technology because pollen will cross-pollinate and carry all the genes across. As a result, we may have a situation where if the farmer, who has that neighbouring crop, tries to save the seeds to grow, they would not. Therefore, the contamination cannot continue through the next generations when we have contamination in the first generation.
The other factor is that if it does not work properly, we will also get contamination through the generations. That means it is inherited.
What problems do farmers encounter? It is an economic concern, because contaminated crops, if they contain pharmaceutical genes, cannot be sold on the food market. Also, many wheat farmers in Canada, for example, will save seeds. If they are contaminated with terminator technology and they sow them the next year, they have reduced crops growing, because some of them will have the sterile seeds. There can be many repercussions. The terminator technology can also go into related plants.
What is being used to switch it on or off as a chemical? Is it sprayed on or put on the seed coating? None of that is clear yet. The original suggestion was to use tetracycline, a substance that is also an antibiotic. Many people were saying it was not a good idea to use that, and Delta and Pine Land have agreed and say they will not use tetracycline. They are considering the use of a switch that is based on an alcohol-response mechanism from a bacterial background.
Many plants have the capacity to produce alcohol themselves. There are seeds that will start growing when put in the ground; yet if the field is flooded for a few days, plants will be able to survive, because they have a mechanism whereby they still produce energy without oxygen present. However, the by-product will be alcohol. Therefore, they can trigger the mechanism themselves. We never know whether or when something has been activated.
In brief, we have a highly complex technology that will not protect from contamination, certainly not from pollen. With seed, it is questionable; at times it will contaminate, at other times not.
Therefore, what is the interest of farmers to want the technology? What is the benefit? In that context, I would like to state that there is currently a moratorium on the use of the technology issued by the Convention on Biological Diversity. This moratorium is in line with the precautionary principle; because so much is unknown, and they are not clear about the ecological and socio-economic impacts on farm communities, et cetera.
In that context, there is a moratorium until further tests and implication assessments have been carried out in a transparent manner and conditions for safe and beneficial use have been validated. That is an interesting concept: The beneficial use needs to be validated.
The Convention on Biological Diversity, to which Canada is a signatory, is not legally binding; it is an agreement amongst nations. I just wanted to provide that background information.
Senator Mercer: Thank you for appearing. We are in the middle of another study, but it is worthwhile having someone with Dr. Steinbrecher's credentials to talk to us about this, because it is an unusual but important topic, which we have not covered before.
As a result of the need to purchase seeds yearly, would that drive the price up for the farmer and consumer? Is there a price benefit to this for both farmer and consumer?
Ms. Steinbrecher: I wish that was a question I could answer with my expertise, but it is not within the realm of a genetic scientist. This is why there should be an impact assessment done in terms of socio-economic effects, which has not been conducted.
I agree with you; that is a question that needs answering.
Senator Mercer: The opponents to terminator technology fear that it can be accidentally transferred to other plants. If that is possible, what are the risks environmentally? I understand this is part of the assessment we are continuing to complete, but I am seeking your opinion.
What are the risks to the environment or protecting farmers' varieties by use of this? Are there ways of minimizing these risks other than banning the technology? We have a technology that is interesting, but we must find a practical way to use it.
Ms. Steinbrecher: I have briefly outlined certain elements that can go wrong with the technology. I feel the risks to other farmers and their varieties is that if I was a neighbouring farmer who saves my seeds, for reasons that they are either specialty seeds that have been bred on my farm or seeds that have adapted to certain conditions, and if contamination through terminator seeds occurred, a certain percentage of my seeds would not germinate. I may actually lose trust in my own seeds, not be able to use them any longer and then would have to buy seeds from the seed market. That would mean I would lose my special variety or my farm-bred seeds, plus I bear the expenses of buying different ones. I see that as a negative.
Also, in terms of the environment, we do not know what it may mean. If other transgenes are in it, let us say they are pharmaceutical crops or any kind of substance, we do not know what that would do if the plant outcrosses. The idea is that terminator seeds will offer a protection; therefore, the risk taking would be much higher when we put genes in it that we would otherwise not think of putting into crops that are used for food purposes.
That would be done under the illusion or wish that it would not outcross. However, as I said, there will always be a percentage that will not only outcross, but will be viable and continue to be inherited. That is the big danger. That is why some people will say it will actually increase the risks of genetic engineering, because there is a false sense of security.
Senator Mercer: You have mentioned, and we have read, that the producers announced in 1999 that they would not use terminator technology. However, it was patented in Canada in 2005 and in the European Union. We said we will not use it, but we have patented it. That means we are moving down the road and getting closer to its use.
To your knowledge, has there been any discussion between the government and the owners of the genetic technology to use restriction technology regarding the regulatory evaluation process? Have there been any discussions that will get us closer to that — that we may start to experiment a little bit?
Ms. Steinbrecher: I have not been informed about discussions within the government. All I can tell you is based on observations from being part of the international negotiations and processes; for instance, the Convention on Biological Diversity or at the subsidiary meetings on science and technical and technological advice.
Canada is one of the countries that have repeatedly tried to undermine the moratorium. I do not know why, or what the discussions are within Canada — whether it is an agreement among the House of Commons or the Senate that says Canada should try to get rid of the moratorium. In any case, that is what I see that Canada is doing.
Senator Mercer: We are blessed in this country with experimental farms operated by the Department of Agriculture in various parts of the country. It seems to me this would be the kind of technology, if we are going to get into this, that we would want our experimental farms to experiment with, to follow the logic.
Are there other countries in the world that are presently experimenting? Are there practical, on-the-ground experiments in using this technology somewhere in the world? Obviously, it is not happening in Canada or the EU. Is there someplace it is happening?
Ms. Steinbrecher: Are you talking about terminator technology?
Senator Mercer: Yes.
Ms. Steinbrecher: As I mentioned earlier, to my knowledge, there is no functional terminator plant out there. There is not even data from greenhouse trials. This does not mean that somewhere someone is not trying to see if it works by field trials. However, no matter which country you are considering — and the applications or notifications for genetically modified organisms, which a country would have to agree to — there is no such notification anywhere. That does not mean someone is not trying the technology somewhere without notifying anyone; I do not know.
As far as I know, we are still talking about something in the making. Terminator technology does not seem to properly go anywhere; maybe as a result of the difficulties of making it work. This is all I can say to that.
Senator Gustafson: Is this technology being advanced by Monsanto?
Ms. Steinbrecher: There are a number of biotechnology companies that have an interest in the technology and that have different patents on it. Monsanto does have a patent — I am not sure if it was a patent application or to what stage it has gone. I have seen a description of the patent, so Monsanto is interested. In this case, it is also Delta and Pine Land Company and also Syngenta.
A lot of companies have patents on it. That does not necessarily mean they are advancing in it in terms of research. Sometimes companies will ensure what they have researched is their intellectual property and nobody else can touch it. It is sitting there and might not go anywhere.
Senator Gustafson: If this technology were advanced, it certainly gives the company that controls it an awful lot of power. Farmers would not be able to go to their granaries and take out seeds and seed crops. They would have to go back and buy the seed, and they would be at the mercy of the company that controls the seed. That is happening to a certain extent.
It can be argued that the positive side of the amount of bushels that were grown, because of the genetically modified grains, is a great advantage. On the other hand, it could be argued that farmers are at the mercy of the companies that sell the seed, because it is against the law for farmers to use that seed again, even though they can.
The strength of this argument would be much greater than the first as something for the farmer to overcome in terms of cost. In the farming industry — I speak as a farmer — we are at the mercy of everybody. We take what we can get. This would be a real case of that situation. On the other hand, it might be possible that they could increase yields to such an extent that it would be an advantage.
My concern would be the dangers of having a technology that is out of control, which could not be controlled. We know that, to a certain extent, it is not a great problem. However, even with canola, it has drifted from fields and can be seen growing along the roadsides. It takes several rotations to be able to put fields into a position where only certain crops can be planted. Certainly, it is not a good practice to plant canola year after year, or even every second year.
There is a lot of concern here. There is no question about that. I suppose the farmers are at the mercy of the regulators and the government that protect us against advancement in this field until a time that they are satisfied that many of the questions have been answered.
Ms. Steinbrecher: There was no question, so I would just like to add a comment.
In the international negotiations, and at certain workshops within that, there is a concern not just in terms of the erosion of biodiversity, but also of agro-biodiversity, which means there are less and less different seeds available. There used to be so many different crops farmers would grow and we would eat. Therefore, we had a very varied diet, which is also quite beneficial for the consumer.
As you might know, if a vitamin is taken from one source, the body makes less use of it than if it is consumed from different sources. We do not know why. It is just something we can observe.
Therefore, from a public health perspective, not only is it important that we keep variety, but also we need it in terms of food security, because in certain seasons and areas a crop will grow better than in others. The problem, of course, is that one cannot save seeds any longer; one must keep going back to buy them. What is being saved and who is saving what seeds that one can go back to? This is another question that is opening up.
Some organizations are now forming to take stock of what is still left in order to preserve it. There are some international research programs in that area, an area that is definitely a concern.
With respect to terminator technology and yield, I can understand that farmers are interested in higher yields, and if a seed will cost more but gives higher yields, that may give an extra edge. Terminator technology is not designed to increase yield. It is designed to — and that is all in it — to have seeds that will not germinate. Then there might be another genetic alteration done to it, another modification to that purpose; but to that purpose one would not need terminator technology, if you know what I mean.
It would actually make the whole matter more risky, because there would be so many extra stages of genetic engineering and modification that can go wrong. One might want to stay with the original modification rather than add that one on top of it, if one wanted to go the genetic engineered route.
Senator Gustafson: It is true that that has already happened to some extent. When we first planted canola, there were tremendous yields of Roundup Ready canola, genetically modified. If we planted on the same field, even after rotation, we could not get the yields that we were getting at the beginning. I would not say that that is everyone's experience, but it has certainly been our experience.
Different varieties have been a very key issue in Canada, because we always prided ourselves in having the best hard red spring wheat in the world in terms of varieties, and we have disallowed the American varieties coming into our country.
However, if you are saying that this could be used in oats, barley, wheat, canola, mustard, whatever, this could certainly change the whole direction of varieties.
Ms. Steinbrecher: That is also why there should be impact assessments before one goes further with it.
Senator Callbeck: This is not an easy topic.
The material talks about the year 2000, where a conference of the parties of the UN convention recommended that GURTs, or terminator technology, not be approved for field testing until there was more scientific data.
As you know, Canada did not go along with that, and I believe you said you did not understand the reason why.
Ms. Steinbrecher: I do not have any information why.
Senator Callbeck: Do you have information on other countries that did not go along with that, that took the same position as Canada, and why they took that position?
Ms. Steinbrecher: I am trying to remember what the argument was of certain countries. Sometimes the argument was that one should be able to just assess further, to do the research and not block a technology per se, but examine it on a case-by-case approach.
Most countries would agree with that approach, if it was anything else but terminator. However, terminator technology is a certain class on its own in its implications and its impacts on farmers. There are issues of socio- economic impacts, aqua-biodiversity, biodiversity, food security and control over seeds. Different groups feel threatened by it. Therefore, the Convention on Biological Diversity said, ``Hold it, this is a technology that needs to be treated separately.'' In the countries that are speaking up for further research, I believe there is an interest where the biotechnology industry also is very active. However, that is not true for all of them either. Brazil has a moratorium, its own national law on terminator — India as well. There are also biotechnology activities there. I wish I were a political analyst, but that is not my strength. I can observe and give you my observations.
The Chairman: You are a happier person for it.
Senator Callbeck: They recommended that it not be approved for field testing until there was further scientific evidence or data. Where are we with the research? What is the state of the research now? In your estimation, how long will it take before we have scientific data, or will we ever have it?
Ms. Steinbrecher: Those are good points. The scientific data, which is required, is really that of greenhouse trials, of whole plants that have all the different elements built into them, and there is no data for that. As I said earlier, it might well be because it is so complex and difficult that it might never work for the length of time that would be necessary in order to have it working even to 80 per cent success. It might be for that reason that this cannot be produced.
I know some colleagues who are doing research on different elements for different purposes. They are not researching it because of GURTs; they just want to know about certain mechanisms.
They do that separately; there is no interest to follow the whole because there are not many scientists who are necessarily interested in producing sterile plants. However, they are interested in the mechanisms, so it is a research tool. There I can see more data being produced. The question is, should one go there?
That is a good question. That is not for me to say, but I can see many problems that would need to be addressed if one really wanted to go down that road; problems that one should look at beforehand rather than releasing something and then trying to mop up afterward.
China has a situation with genetically modified poplar trees. China has a big problem with desertification. The desert is moving in. It was deforested before, and there was very intense agriculture. There was no protection for the soil that was left, so the desert is advancing quickly. Big dust storms are coming into Beijing.
They are now saying, ``Let us reforest it fast.'' They were trying that. Part of the program was to plant a lot of poplars. By doing it fast, however, there was not enough analysis from all possible angles by their scientists. It was a monoculture planting of poplars, which are highly susceptible to pests. Therefore, they genetically engineered — and planted widely — the poplar with a Bacillus thuringiensis, Bt, toxin that will actually kill certain kinds of moths, which were the pests of the poplar. It is only now that the scientists are saying, ``We no longer know where they are going. We have a problem.'' Sometimes people do something because it is possible, but afterward they start to think about it and assess the situation, and there is no way they can undo a technology that can multiply.
I believe there is some assessment needed here also concerning the use of genetic use restriction technology, terminator, for potentially genetically modified trees. That is an idea here amongst the delegation. I have talked to scientists. Something has been found that can be used in order to prevent pollen from fertilizing other trees, but it was not terminator technology. That is different. There are different ways.
I am saying that it is not wise to let something run that far and then start to assess. It is best to do it at once — that is, consider it hypothetically and then do a few other tests. I do not know whether that helps with your question.
Senator Callbeck: Yes. Thank you very much.
Senator Mercer: I imagine what we are talking about is hypothetical. We have the technology and we have no practical use for it. You talked about deserts. One of the major problems in this country, and one of the most significant problems that we will be debating for the next who knows how many years, is global warming and climate change. I know your answer cannot be yes or no, but is this possibly the technology that will help us if we continue down this road of global warming and climate change? Will this technology allow us to maybe survive on the planet longer, because of the technology being able to grow genetically modified plants, trees and food?
Ms. Steinbrecher: Are you talking about GURTs or genetic engineering in general?
Senator Mercer: Both GURTs and terminator technology.
Ms. Steinbrecher: I believe your concern is very valid. Quite a number of different groups are assessing the effects of global warming. The climate will change. All of a sudden, there will be storms and changes that we cannot predict. However, it might well be that the plants we have now will no longer be able to produce in the way they are supposed to or that we are accustomed to, and we might have to change to different crops. We might have to extend the planting areas — I do not know. Temperature, moisture and many different elements can change. As a biologist, the best course of action is to have as much diversity left as possible, so that we can actually resort to that. There is quite a lot, but it continues to vanish fast.
We should also plant more diversely. We could consider crops that can be mutually supportive. Let us consider an example from Africa: Corn is planted there, but corn is also badly impacted by the corn borer. Do they spray a lot? Do they use Bt corn? What can they do? Is there something in their environment that can be mutually supportive? At the same time, they also have a problem with Striga weed, which strangles the plant.
In combination with farmers, scientists have developed the push-pull system. They found a grass — Napier grass — that they can grow outside the borders of the corn, which actually attracts the corn borer. The corn borer likes the smell better than the corn, but it traps it; it has a sticky liquid. At the same time, they found another plant — a Desmodium plant — that can be grown between the corn. It is a very small nitrogen-fixing plant that has a smell that repels the corn borer. At the same time, the Striga weed also does not like it. In addition, it fertilizes the soil. The Napier grass can be used as an animal field, and they have an additional income by bringing that to the market. All of a sudden, we have an opportunity to use genetically engineered or to use many pesticides or to resort to a system that is mutually supportive.
Farmers have tested it and are going for the mutually supportive option. This is where a lot of research is not being done — that is, how would it work in a bigger farming system? It is also a matter of field sizes, of machinery, and so on.
We also need to know mechanisms. I believe genetic engineering as a tool to learn more is highly valid, because there is so much we must still learn and understand. In marker-assisted breeding, for example, we can use the tools of genetics to see what kind of characteristics are ending up in plants and in breeding. There is much we can use that can help us.
I cannot see terminator technology being part of the global warming scenario you were saying. I cannot say anything about other genetic engineering mechanisms, because I do not know what will be required or whether we will have the answer for that.
Senator Mercer: It is interesting that genetically modified foods are unpopular and the technology is viewed with some suspicion. This is a country where we grow and have developed food, whether it is grain or fruit or vegetables, which has never existed before. We have crossbred and developed strains of plants that grow in a difficult environment, which we had before global warming. I find it interesting that people are against it, but we have been doing modification of some sort for many years.
This is fascinating research and technology. I am concerned that Canada may not be on the leading edge of it.
Where is the lead research of this type happening in the world? You are one of the lead researchers in the world. Where are you located, and where are the other major research centres around the world that are dealing with this type of research?
Ms. Steinbrecher: Do you mean the people who are actually doing the genetic engineering on terminator technology or on understanding plants or on collecting seed? I am not sure.
Senator Mercer: On all aspects of using new technology in the growing of foods and development of foods.
Ms. Steinbrecher: There are so many. There are also some interesting farmer-scientist collaborations where one can do research together and see what is meaningful.
Of course, money is always the regulatory backing as well. Sometimes processes take longer and the money does not come first, so they might need some financial support. There is much involved in that, obviously. There is no main place; there is a great deal happening in various regions and countries in the world, and it depends on the particular angle that you are talking about, because some will be more advanced than others.
With respect to genetic engineering in general, I began using it in the field of human gene therapy when I ran a lab in a hospital in the U.K. Our utmost concern always was to not develop something that could eventually harm. We are well aware that that entire system of gene therapy is like its own ecosystem. Our genes have evolved over time, and there are interrelationships that we do not even know about. We might believe there is something when there is nothing. We always maintained that when we genetically engineer and bring genes in, it is crucial that it not injure or interfere with other genes, because in human gene therapy, injuries or interferences could cause cancer or other fatal diseases and problems.
In the mid-1980s, when I was working on gene therapy to treat hemophilia we thought that 10 years ahead we would have such therapy. According to our knowledge of genetics at that time, we should have had it. However, we are now twenty years ahead and we still do not have a therapy. Sometimes we believe we understand, but there are certain factors that we are not even aware we should be considering. We still do not have the technology for the precise insertion of genes into certain places, including plants. That means genetic engineering places the gene just somewhere, so each time we will have to test so that we can determine the specific impact in each application.
For the information of the committee, the transformation process to insert the gene into the plant involves using tissue and cells from the plants that can take up the DNA. For that, we need to use many chemicals. We get the gene in one way or another to one place or another, but from that tissue we need to grow the plant again. For a plant to do that, it needs much support from hormones and other chemicals. Even using that process without putting an extra gene in it, the cloning process of the plant, introduces hundreds of thousands of mutations. In fact, it is used by breeders as a mutational technique.
When we talk about genetic engineering, we should not consider just the one gene that is put in, because other processes are happening as a result. It is always a slow process, not a fast one. Sometimes it is said that the process will speed up things but it does not necessarily do that because we need to backcross at least 10 times to remove the background mutations and assess other interactions. That is just for your information.
Senator Mercer: Thank you.
Ms. Steinbrecher: It is not simple.
The Chairman: You mentioned China. Does the science that you work with hold out any opportunity in Africa?
Ms. Steinbrecher: I am sorry but I did not follow your question. Would you mind repeating it?
The Chairman: You mentioned China earlier. Does your area of genetic study hold any hope for African nations who are having severe problems with growing produce? Does this science give any kind of hope for them?
Ms. Steinbrecher: At the negotiations of the Convention on Biological Diversity, listening to the debate on terminator technology, Africa with one voice is saying that no, this is not the way to go forward. They believe it will cause farmers, biodiversity and agro-biodiversity many problems, so this is not the way we should go. They were the ones who fought for the moratorium. Africa is one continent with one voice. It is interesting to observe that, given that Africa has agricultural and drought problems. Many have said that the technology could be extremely helpful in Africa and that it could feed the world, but I feel it was being used as an offering. Yet, it is not regarded as that in Africa; in part, because the technology of genetic engineering is not regarded as the way forward given that it is not in the hands of the farmers. As well, the impact assessments might be done in the U.S., but that does not mean it will be the same in Africa. They need to do their own testing, and they might decide that there is another way they would rather go forward.
For example, as I said previously, there is supportive agriculture whereby different plant combinations are used. They are farming on a completely different scale, small plots. It is also an issue of access to water and land, which genetic engineering cannot resolve. It is a political problem. As we all know, any kind of complex problem cannot necessarily have a technical solution — a techno-fix. With respect to GURTs, it is being strongly rejected by Africa.
The Chairman: You are bringing your message here, to Parliament Hill. Where else will you deliver your message while you are in Ottawa?
Ms. Steinbrecher: I will appear before the standing committee of the House to speak with some MPs. As well, I will meet with other scientists to discuss it. There is much that we have to learn and at times, we forget how to ask good questions to the matter before us. It is always good to meet up with scientists to view something from different angles. That is my primary focus while in Ottawa.
The Chairman: We wish you well. You have come to Canada when the weather is getting very cold. You must come back during our summer. I am sure you would find people who would be very interested in hearing your story.
Ms. Steinbrecher: Thank you.
The Chairman: We are grateful that you have appeared before the committee this evening. We admire your efforts and your achievements.
Ms. Steinbrecher: Thank you. I hope you are able to utilize the information in your deliberations.
The committee adjourned.