Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 15 - Evidence - Meeting of April 26, 2012
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 26, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:05 a.m. to examine and report on research and innovation efforts in the agricultural sector. (topic: The importance of innovation in agricultural practices with regard to environmental sustainability)
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order. As the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, I would like to welcome all the senators who are here this morning.
[English]
I want to say thank you to the witnesses we have this morning who have accepted to share their thoughts, their vision, and their views with the committee, in order to fulfill the mandate of the committee, which is to look at developing new markets, domestically and internationally, enhancing agricultural sustainability, and improving food diversity and security.
Honourable senators, with the indulgence of the chair, I would like to take this opportunity, since we are being televised, to say, on behalf of the senators sitting on this committee, to the people of B.C. in the forestry sector, who dealt with those two main fires, that our thoughts and hearts are with the families. We share with them our sympathy for the employees who died. Hopefully the ones who are in hospital will be back home with their families soon. I say this, honourable senators, because when we were in B.C. with the Forestry Committee, we were very honoured to have this great Canadian reception from those communities, Williams Lake and UBC.
To the families, our thoughts and our hearts are with you.
My name is Percy Mockler, chair of the committee and a senator from New Brunswick. I would now like to ask each senator to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Fernand Robichaud, Saint-Louis-de-Kent, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Merchant: Good morning. I am Pana Merchant, and I am from Regina, Saskatchewan.
Senator Mahovlich: Good morning. I am Frank Mahovlich from Toronto, Ontario.
Senator Plett: Senator Don Plett, and I am from Landmark, Manitoba.
Senator Buth: JoAnne Buth from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Pierre Claude Nolin, and I am representing the Province of Quebec.
Senator Eaton: Nicole Eaton, from Ontario.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais, Quebec.
Senator Rivard: Michel Rivard, The Laurentides, Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, honourable senators.
The committee is continuing its study on research and innovation efforts in the agricultural sector.
[Translation]
The purpose of today's meeting is to understand the importance of innovation in agricultural practices with regard to environmental sustainability. Joining us is Ms. Beth McMahon, Executive Director of Canadian Organic Growers.
[English]
We also have Dr. Andrew Hammermeister, Director of the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada. Thank you for accepting our invitation and being here this morning to share your vision, your thoughts and your recommendations with the committee.
I am advised that we will be asking Ms. McMahon to make her presentation, followed by Dr. Hammermeister. The senators will then be asking you questions.
[Translation]
On that note, the floor is yours, Ms. McMahon.
[English]
Beth McMahon, Executive Director, Canadian Organic Growers: Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators, for inviting us here today.
The Canadian Organic Growers is Canada's oldest organic organization, starting in 1975. In more than 35 years much has changed in organic agriculture, moving from a fringe, philosophical movement to what some may call now mainstream, with organic product sales in Canada estimated at $2.6 billion in 2010.
The full spectrum of organic agriculture is represented within our organization, from market gardeners, as well as exporting prairie grain producers. There are many beginning farmers as well as those with decades of experience. What is common between these diverse groups is their commitment to agro-ecological principles.
Despite what some may tell you, organic agriculture is not like farming like a pioneer. In fact, Canada's organic production standards recognize the most complex of biological systems through careful observation, research and science. The organic certification system also requires extensive traceability protocols and annual third party inspection above and beyond general production, food safety and commodity requirements.
Organic production is very sustainable, as well as innovative. Thanks to the efforts of the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada and other researchers across Canada, organic agriculture is found to have more than 30 per cent bio-diversity on its farms. This includes crops grown, pollinating insects, birds, as well as microbial activity.
Dr. Derek Lynch, Canada's Organic Research Chair, has recently published his findings in the Journal of Sustainability that organic farms use 20 per cent less non-renewable energy than conventional farms. Organic production is also finding increasing gains in yields and profitability especially evident during periods of weather volatility, including drought. In today's highly competitive marketplace, large- and small-scale organic growers must excel in their field in order to achieve yields and quality that meet and exceed value chain expectations. No matter how it is produced, no one will accept a blemished tomato; nor do organic growers want to provide anything but superior product.
Organic producers also embrace many qualities of entrepreneurship that are enviable in today's agri-food marketplace. Financial resourcefulness, marketing and communication savvy, comfort with social media and new technology, all of which is creating genuine consumer relationships.
These achievements are evident by the strong representation of organic growers in Canada's Outstanding Young Farmer nominees and award winners, including 2011's Annemarie and Kevin Kippenstein from Cawston, B.C. You may be interested to know that Atlantic Canada's 2012 Outstanding Young Farmers are organic producers Sally and Mark Bernard, who operate a mixed grain and soybean farm and soy roaster in Freetown, Prince Edward Island. These producers are leaders, developing new markets where none were before. They are succeeding and raising their families through full-time farming as well as being very active members and volunteers in their communities.
Organic producers are also leaders in the general farming community, which is helping bridge organic conventional agriculture. There used to exist a divide between the two; however, this is no longer the case. With all agricultural resources and programs limited, there is more willingness to work together for mutual beneficial outcomes. A good example of this is in Ontario, where Organic Meadow and organic dairy co-op with more than 100 farmer members, and Steen's dairy partnered to build the first new independent dairy plant in more than 20 years. This dairy now handles organic and conventional processing. Although it is small, at just 20,000 square feet, it can handle many new products and respond to shifts in the marketplace.
Out of necessity, the organic sector is also becoming expert at vertical integration and supply chain management. Through both private and cooperative models, organic businesses are leaders in developing the new agri-food system. Currently many challenges and opportunities exist for the organic sector. We have found that competition from imports is high, with more than 75 per cent of organic products being imported to Canada. The number of certified organic producers has also dropped between 2009 and 2010 and will likely continue to this decline when we receive the numbers for 2011, with the largest decline in the Prairies.
The only province in Canada with a mandatory organic provincial regulation was the sole region to demonstrate growth and that is Quebec. It now has the largest number of organic producers and processors in Canada, surpassing Saskatchewan. Due to Canada's implementation of the Organic Products Regulations, the federal government has signed recognition agreements with our largest organic trading partners, the U.S. and EU. This is an excellent development as it cuts down on the red tape and duplication for our exporting organic producers and businesses. However, our members are concerned about maintaining these agreements, especially when we have no mechanism in place to review and update our own Canada Organic Standards.
Ours is a very energized and optimistic sector, largely built on producer volunteer energy and contributions, which should be celebrated. I can think of no other agri-food segment that has donated as much as stakeholder time as ours to advancing the sector through sharing production strategies and research. We just have to look at all the organic conferences and workshops that take place across Canada to see that information transfer occurring, not to mention the new websites being created to share ideas on production and equipment.
The Canadian Organic Growers recognizes that there is still considerable room for further growth, research and innovation, and we look forward to working with the Government of Canada to ensure that organic agriculture is supported and valued for all its contributions.
The Chair: Thank you, madam.
Mr. Andrew Hammermeister, please.
Andrew Hammermeister, Director, Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada: It is a pleasure to be here today. I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak with you.
The Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada was established in 2001. Its mandate was to conduct and facilitate research and education in organic agriculture across the country. We also are presently managing Canada's organic science cluster, which is part of the Science Cluster Initiative of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Growing Forward policy framework. In that science cluster, we are supporting research of over 50 scientists and collaborators across the country, working at 36 different research stations and collaborator sites on 27 research and communication projects. It is a significant program that is ending in March of 2013 with the Science Cluster Initiative.
Today I have been invited to speak with you about the importance of innovation in agricultural practices with regard to environmental sustainability. I would like to propose to you that organic is a prescriptive, regulated and internationally recognized system of production that is driven by consumer demand and at its core is environmentally sustainable in terms of its principles that guide it.
When we talk about environmental sustainability, typically we are talking about minimizing the pollution to our environment as a result of our practices. We are talking about efficiency, recognizing that we have limited resources and that those resources are costly. We want to ensure there is great efficiency, so we maximize the efficiency of using those resources, using renewable resources where possible and also preventing the loss of the resources.
Lastly, when I think about environmental sustainability, I am also interested in biodiversity. I believe that through innovation, agricultural knowledge, science and technology, we can maintain the productivity of our ecosystem while still adhering to the principles of environmental sustainability.
In our past agricultural model, which we established after the Second World War and which is described commonly as "the Green Revolution," we saw tremendous increases in yield and profitability of agriculture. That was primarily a result of increases in the use of inputs, primarily fertilizers and pesticides, and irrigation water. It also involved the breeding of crops and livestock for intensive and high-input management systems. It involved the reduction of diversity on the landscape and much more monoculture of crops, and it also resulted in the intensification or concentration of livestock operations.
While these advances have had a significant impact on the yield, productivity and profitability of agriculture in the country, it has also resulted in significant concerns, because the focus of the Green Revolution was exclusively to increase yield. As a result, the secondary impacts were not necessarily clearly recognized.
As a result, we have had issues in agriculture relating to nutrient loading in our environment, such as nitrogen and phosphates in our groundwater and surface water supplies. We have seen non-target impacts of pesticides in the environment, as well as tremendous reductions in biodiversity in the landscape and impacts on global warming, and so on.
The United Nations, the World Bank and others have clearly indicated that business as usual is not really an option for agriculture. What we need is a diversity of approaches to deal with these agricultural issues. I would propose to you that organic agriculture is one of these solutions, and they recognize organic agriculture and integrated pest-management techniques as one of those solutions as well.
Organic agriculture is a model of food production that is guided by principles of sustainability in terms of environment, resources, economics and animal welfare. It is regulated and inspected, and it is driven by consumer demand, both domestically and internationally.
I provided for you a copy of the principles that are outlined in the organic standards. Again, this is a regulated standard. There are seven principles of organic agriculture, five of which directly relate to environmental sustainability, pretty much hitting on the three main points I identified earlier.
Here we have a prescriptive, regulated, internationally recognized system of production with environmental sustainability at the core of its principles. We have seen that this production system has been adopted by farmers around the world. We have seen science that has reviewed the impacts of organic agriculture in an environmental context around the world, and the scientists have identified clear and measurable benefits of organic agriculture, some of which Ms. McMahon has just pointed out.
What we have seen in Europe primarily, and in other parts of the world, is policy that has been introduced, agri-environmental policy programs, which clearly support the adoption of organic practices and the principles that it supports.
When we talk about innovation, we think of it as the application of knowledge, generated by science, that leads to an improvement in the way things are done or a new product that enters into the marketplace. I propose to you that organic agriculture is grounded in science in that it is grounded in the science of agro-ecology, which is a better understanding of how the ecosystem works: How nutrients interact within the system; how energy is captured and moves through the system; how we can prevent losses from the system; and how nature will control and avoid losses. It is tremendously efficient.
Agro-ecology is an advancing science that is fairly new, but it is at the core of organic agriculture. Organic agriculture has taken the knowledge that has been generated from agro-ecology and has applied it to principles, which, as I have mentioned, are regulated, applied internationally, and driven by consumer demand, at a premium price, I might add. I would argue that organic agriculture definitely is innovative in that it has taken that knowledge and has led to an improvement in practices in agriculture, and it has allowed new products to enter into the marketplace that consumers are demanding.
I have given you a map that outlines the projects that are part of the organic science cluster in Canada. You can see that right across the country we have projects. On the flip side, you can see the list of the different research activities. We will not have time to go through all of them today, but a number of those projects are directly related to promoting or supporting the environmental principles of organic agriculture.
In conclusion, I would like to say that organic agriculture is an established, viable, alternate production system, with environmental sustainability at its core. However, the potential of organic agriculture has not been fully realized. We have not yet fully advanced our knowledge in agro-ecology and fully captured the potential that it has.
I would recommend, then, that we adjust our policies in recognizing the benefits of organic agriculture that are applied to farmers — not just to organic farmers but to all farmers — and through all of society, including the consumers, and to the environment as a whole, that we should be adapting our agri-environmental policy initiatives to support organic agriculture and/or its principles.
I would agree in this case with Dr. Martin Entz, my colleague at the University of Manitoba, who would recommend that 60 per cent of agricultural research and policy incentives should be directed toward organic agriculture because of the services that organic agriculture provides to all of society.
With that, I certainly have appreciated the science cluster initiative. We have found that to be an extremely useful mechanism in advancing research in organic agriculture and recommend that it continue to exist. We support the further advancement of Canadian organic standards and the science to support it, in order to continue to meet the demands of the international marketplace as well.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Plett: Thank you to both of you for being here. I will display my ignorance here in a minute about my knowledge of organic foods. Before I do, I see on your map that you have a university or industry partner in Manitoba. Would that be the University of Manitoba?
Mr. Hammermeister: Yes. A number of the research projects are also being conducted by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada researchers. We have several researchers that are located there: Jennifer Mitchell-Fetch, who is doing oat breeding work; Stephen Fox, who is doing wheat breeding work, out of Winnipeg. Then, from the University of Manitoba, we have Martin Entz, who is doing cropping systems work.
Senator Plett: I am happy we are involved.
Ms. McMahon, you stated in your presentation that organic production is also finding increasing gains in yields and profitability, especially evident during periods of weather volatility, including drought. I would like you to explain that to me, and especially the profitability part.
I once almost, by mistake, bought some organic raspberries. When I went to pay for them at Metro, I found out that, for some reason, the price of my raspberries had gone up by $3. I asked what had happened, and they said, "These are organic raspberries." I said, "I will have the regular ones."
I did not buy them, simply because of the price. Would I be healthier if I were eating these expensive raspberries? If, in fact, organic food costs that much more money, is it profitable, or is it profitable only because it costs more?
Ms. McMahon: Thank you, Senator Plett. The raspberries question is interesting. Often when we see the fruit coming into the grocery store, it is imported product. Certainly there is a willingness from consumers to pay for the extra premium you are seeing in the store, so of course that does contribute to profitability.
One of the issues, of course, with fruit production is that it is not being treated with preservatives, so it does not last as long. Obviously, there is a built-in mechanism there within the pricing structure that is going to account for some of the waste that might occur on something as fragile as a raspberry.
If you look at apples, for instance, the yields are almost equivalent between conventional and organic. It has a long shelf life, and you are seeing the pricing about equal, especially if you are closer to a production region such as the Annapolis Valley or British Columbia, and that is growing. We are seeing more and more producers moving over to organic production because it costs less on the input side. If you do not have to pay for those chemical inputs, then of course you are lowering your costs, and that is also helping lead to profitability.
Senator Plett: Is that pretty much the only cost savings, with the chemicals? There is the cost of putting your seed in the ground and everything else. Obviously not with apples but with other products, would that be pretty much the same?
Ms. McMahon: Even with the reduced cost of fertilizers, of course, you are looking more at that holistic system and where you can compost, where you can take neighbours' waste and compost debris and compost it to build up your soil fertility. That also leads to some of those gains within the drought years. Because you are building up the soil, with the microbial activity and the stratosphere of the soil, when there is a drought it is more resourceful in terms of that plant to be able to access the nutrients that are there.
Mr. Hammermeister: In organic agriculture, because we are focusing on developing crops that are adapted to more stressful and lower input conditions, the plants tend to develop stronger root systems because the roots have to explore further for nutrients.
In the case of drought stress, a classic example is to see crops that may demonstrate a lower yield potential initially, but under stressed conditions, because they have a stronger established root system under a drought situation, those plants can adapt better to the drought and sustain the yield potential that they originally had. Whereas in conventional conditions, if you fertilize for really high yield potential under average moisture conditions, you might not be able to achieve those yields, and those nutrients you have applied are being wasted.
Along the lines of costs that I think is not being recognized is insurance. We have had plenty of issues in the Prairie region and elsewhere with regard to climate issues in the past few years. Conventional agriculture insures on the basis of all of the inputs that are being applied, and it could be hundreds of dollars per acre per year. I am not an insurance expert, but it is my understanding that the producer generally covers about one third of the cost of that insurance if there is a payout, and the public, in terms of provincial and federal support, accounts for roughly two thirds of it.
Society is subsidizing that high input use, and those nutrients and pesticides being applied are essentially lost if there is a crop failure. You have impacts on the environment with no return, and society is subsidizing it. Those risks are not seen in organic agriculture where we do not have that environmental impact and the insurance risks are lower.
Senator Plett: Chair, I will do a little plug for a local establishment here in Ottawa, since we are on television. I had the occasion of being at the Mill Street Brewery last night, a wonderful place, and they have a great steak. They also served an organic beer. I had one, and I am not sure whether I feel the way I do today because of the organic beer first or the amount of other beer that I had, one or the other. Let me tell you, I would never again order an organic beer. I would not. I am sorry. However, I am sure organic food I would eat.
Tell me, if you could, what would drive me to eating organically grown food versus regular food? Ms. McMahon, you state that not all organic foods cost more money. As a matter of fact, just two nights ago we had people here who were educating us in healthy eating. One of my colleagues explained that he had tried to make dinner for his grandchildren. He had wanted to give them all the healthy stuff, and at the end of the day he finally had to concede and take them to McDonald's because they did not like anything he had made that was healthy.
What would make us want to eat organic feed? Our children will want to eat what tastes good, such as McDonald's. Even us, when you look at me, I do not always eat the healthiest foods, as is evident, but what would make me want to go out of my way to eat organic food? Is it strictly health issues?
Ms. McMahon: I do not believe so. I have young children. I have a 3- and a 5-year-old. Dr. Hammermeister has children as well. They love healthy food. Actually, I sat at a table this past year with students who were graduating from a nutrition program, and when the server came and there was French fries and broccoli to choose from, my 3-year-old chose the broccoli. The nutrition students were in shock; they had never seen a child choose vegetables. This is what they are used to eating.
When you look at the process of how you are raising your family, my kids would not even know what the inside of a McDonald's looks like. For us, I think once you give them that foundation, that is what they seek out as that is the taste that is familiar to them.
A lot of people choose organic because at a local level they have a relationship with the farmers and they want to support young farmers. In organic, there are so many new entrants. I think organic is one of the most exciting places in agriculture because of the renewal and that energy, that information transfer that we are seeing. When you see those on-farm apprenticeships and mentorship programs, they are usually coming out of an organic place. People who are excited about food want that relationship with their farmer and want to support new entrants to farming. Organic is a very natural linkage there.
We also see a lot of older people who are choosing organic food because they are investing in it as a health RRSP, you might say. They are looking at ways to reduce their exposure to chemical residues. We have a lot of people who call our organization and have cancer or have had cancer, and their doctor has recommended that they eat as much organic food or grass-fed beef as they can, so they are looking at ways to minimize the chemical loading that they might see with products coming in from regions they do not know and trust.
Senator Plett: The answer is that it is primarily health issues? I would eat organic food not because it tastes better but because it is healthier?
Ms. McMahon: It is probably the number one reason, but it is not the only reason. There are people who want, as I say, to support that farm and that community economic development model.
Mr. Hammermeister: As Ms. McMahon mentioned, I have a daughter, and she pretty much refuses to eat at the school cafeteria because she thinks the food tastes terrible there.
There have been surveys done of consumers to find out why they are buying organic. Usually they centre around three reasons. One, are they buying it for health, environmental or animal welfare issues? That is usually what the questions are around.
In North America, the vast majority of people are buying organic food for health reasons, and environment and animal welfare are definitely smaller reasons. In Europe, still health is of primary interest, but animal welfare and environmental issues are also much more prominent in their minds, so we see a much greater component of that.
In the regulations for standards for organic agriculture, we do not certify the product per se or the nutritional value or the taste of it. What we certify is the production practices. That is the core of organic.
The result of that production system can be food that is at least as healthy as other foods, and I can get into scientific explanations for why it can be healthier in a lot of cases. We do definitely see that. We definitely see lower risk of pesticide residues. There are fewer numbers of pesticides in organic foods and a much lower concentration of pesticides in organic foods. That has been clearly demonstrated over and over again. Sometimes you do see some residues. Our detection limits for pesticides are so minute that we can detect parts per billion in science now of concentration of elements of pesticides if there are even traces of pesticides in the environment. Even though they are not applied on organic farms, you can find them on organic foods as well. Sometimes you will see in the media a report that says you might find a pesticide in organic food, but it is not because it is in the production system. It is external effects.
Senator Robichaud: I will follow along the line of Senator Plett saying he would put in a plug. I will put a plug in. I am sure Dr. Hammermeister is quite familiar with Hervé Michaud in Bouctouche which unfortunately is being unplugged by the government. It is due to be closed in a few months. Dr. Hammermeister, as the firm in Bouctouche, I see you have a D2 project in New Brunswick. Was it involved with your activities?
Mr. Hammermeister: Yes. The researcher Josée Owen was working at the Bouctouche research station.
Senator Robichaud: They have been contributing all along to the program?
Mr. Hammermeister: Yes, Josée has been very involved in organic research for years.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Mr. Chair, we are going to do everything in our power to try to keep that activity going in Bouctouche. According to the farmers in my part of the world, there is a connection between the farm, their research and the application in the fields. I think it is very important. In our studies, we often find that research comes to a standstill and we cannot do the transfer. The farm is quite small, and I think it has played a role in this area.
What can you tell us about the size of organic farms? We often wonder what the size of a farm should be so that it is profitable. What is the size of a typical organic farm?
[English]
Ms. McMahon: I do not know if I can speak to a typical farm size. It is probably contextual. When you look out in the Prairies at a typical grain farm, Dr. Hammermeister would know better about grain farm sizes. The ones that we work with, they could be a couple thousand acres, which in the context of commercial conventional scale is tiny, but when you speak to a market gardener in Ontario, I am thinking of one who has one acre and she makes $30,000 a year off of it for her summer season and feels that she is achieving a high value on her one acre. It is all relative to that marketplace. Whether there is an average farm size, it would be asking the same question within conventional agriculture. It depends on which region you are looking at.
I would say that some farms in organic are smaller because they are reliant on a lot more human labour, so they do not want to surpass the scale that they will be able to find labour for, or they are actively trying to achieve a scale that they can manage within their family unit and to minimize that outside reliance, because labour, as I realize on any farm, is a challenge, but it is of high demand in organic agriculture.
Mr. Hammermeister: I would concur with Ms. McMahon. It depends on what part of the country you are in and what crops you are growing. In the prairie region, I have seen organic farms anywhere from a few hundred acres, a section of land, 640 acres, up to 15,000 acres. In Central Canada, where you have higher temperatures and generally better growing conditions, higher moisture, you can grow crops that are higher value, higher yield potential, such as corn or soybean. You often see farms that are a few hundred acres that are quite sustainable in terms of profitability.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Is the market gardener in Ontario able to make a profit from her operations in addition to the vegetables for their own consumption?
[English]
Ms. McMahon: These are sold vegetables at the farmers' market. These are direct markets. We are also seeing, as I am sure you are, the rise in growth in the community supported agriculture model, that vegetable box, and it has expanded beyond vegetables now, so that is actually building into that profitability model where they do not have to set up at market and do not have to take ten hours of their day to sit at a stall. That is definitely contributing to the number of new farmers that we are seeing. It is a very appealing model because they are receiving that money at the front end of their season. It is something that I think we will continue to see. We are seeing it now in meats. We are seeing it in value-added products such as preserves, jellies and breads. It is actually quite exciting, and it means you do not have to have a large land base.
Mr. Hammermeister: With regard to the people who are interested in farming, we are seeing many new entrants coming into agriculture through organic agriculture. People who grew up in urban centres have environmental interests, and they want to get their hands in the soil and learn how to farm. Jumping into a large-scale, conventional operation that is very capital-intense is not feasible for them. In the organic sector, we have an amazing number of young people who are just volunteering on organic farms to get training to learn how to farm organically so they can enter this marketplace.
Senator Robichaud: When you say "new entrants," do you mean entrants that do not come from agriculture as we know it or new to organic? They are people who are not in the community at all that enter?
Mr. Hammermeister: There was a survey done in the United States. It is about five years old now, but I like to refer to it. They were looking at who the organic farmers are and where they come from. They identified that about 50 per cent were coming from conventional operations at that time and 50 per cent were absolutely new entrants to agriculture altogether. We see not only a lot of young people who come out of university with environmental program interests, but we also see people who are looking for second careers. They have had successful business careers, and they are looking for a farm in the country. Sometimes those are the people who have money to invest in capital and infrastructure and can establish businesses. They are in their 40s or 50s and coming into a second life.
Senator Eaton: This is fascinating. I would like to pursue the whole issue of export/ import. I just had a package turned away from England because I bought some hand-cut marmalade at a local shop. It has to go back to England. It could not come into Canada, so they will remove it from the package and send it back to me. I am very interested. One of the motions of this study was to see how we could expand our export market. Are you adding to the Canadian brand? Are you making it easier for us to export? Are more countries demanding the traceability of products and organic products?
Ms. McMahon: Actually, there is a large body of work that is being conducted within the organic sector to build our export capacity. Our colleague Matthew Holmes from the Canada Organic Trade Association is working within the agri-marketing program to encourage and build those export markets. There is often a very strong presence at a show called BioFach in Germany. It is the world's largest organic trade show, which Canada, with the support of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, has been a lead sponsor of. They have been putting up large advertisements, with the Canada branding, in the subways. They have footsteps — you know, "Follow these!" — and the amount of attention that it has garnered has been really amazing.
Even this year, booths were not filling up within the Canada pavilion because our organic exporters were already sold out. They were coming to the show as walkers, but because, as I mentioned, there has been that drop in production, especially in the Prairies, there is a supply gap right now. We could be exporting more.
Senator Eaton: What about things like if we get into the Trans-Pacific Partnership or our negotiations right now with the EU? Do you see yourselves as being able to help our negotiations? How do you see that playing out in those negotiations? It is very important.
Mr. Hammermeister: One of the key points to make is that Canadian organic products now have equivalency in Europe and in the United States, and are in the process of getting equivalency in Japan.
Senator Eaton: That means that we now have the same standards as the United States?
Ms. McMahon: Equivalent.
Mr. Hammermeister: They are not identical, but they are regarded as equivalent to facilitate trade, with a few exceptions.
Senator Eaton: With the EU and the United States, which is huge.
Mr. Hammermeister: It is absolutely huge. Without that equivalency, we would not be able to enter those markets right now. The European market has become very stringent in terms of what it will allow into those marketplaces. They are very excited and interested in organic products and the production systems that those supports, and so they do not want to just support anyone who calls themselves organic unless they can clearly identify that they have equivalency. Canada is a leader in the world in terms of achieving equivalency with other countries. In terms of international recognition, in France, last year, there was a plant inter-cluster meeting. It was a gathering, originating from France, where they were trying to gather plant science research clusters from around the world to come together to talk about how their clusters are formed and to develop interactions. We were invited as the organic science cluster. We were the only organic cluster that was invited in the whole group. There were 25 clusters present there.
I definitely think that we have international recognition. Two weeks ago, we had a request from China. They are talking about establishing a model for an organic science cluster in China. They have seen our model here, and they want to come and visit. Part of our issue is having the capacity to handle all of these requests. We are leaders, but we do not have all of the support that we need to really capture these opportunities.
Senator Eaton: That is a recommendation that you should make to the chair because, obviously, in our report, export markets are very important.
Educate me. Do genetically modified seeds fall within organics, or are they absolutely banned in organic production?
Ms. McMahon: They are not accepted in organic production.
Senator Eaton: They are not accepted in organic production. That leads me into my next question: What is your relationship like with research in universities? I can see that on your map, obviously. Is that a growing thing within universities? I am just thinking of one university in particular, which I know is looking at putting in, for instance, more vitamin D or altering some food products to lower the fat content. How is your relationship with research in universities?
Mr. Hammermeister: Ten years ago, I would have had a different answer. It was much more challenging for researchers interested in organic agriculture to receive funding and credibility. Now, it is very well-established. There is credible science, in the international literature, that supports organic agriculture, and there are, as I mentioned, 50 researchers who are receiving funding in the science cluster. In addition, there are another 30 or so who are collaborating on projects but are not necessarily receiving funding. The research community certainly is embracing the organic research. The reason for that is not so much because they agree with organics philosophically but more because they see organic agriculture as a defined alternative model with low inputs. They see it as a way of, in a defined system, studying how they can reduce inputs, capture a premium market, and do research that supports this.
Senator Eaton: Surely, at some point, will there not be a meeting of the minds? When you think of crop rotation, composting, hedgerows, organic fertilizers, and care of water, that is just good agricultural practice, is it not? A lot of things that you people have been advocating for years mainstream farming is now once again adopting big time. What bothers me, or what I do not understand because I am not a scientist, is that there are some crops that have been so beneficial, like genetically modified crops that do not require pesticides or that can survive drought. Do you ever see organic gardening accepting some of these seeds? Do you ever see a meeting of the minds between organic gardening and mainstream gardening philosophy, or do you think they will always remain far apart?
Mr. Hammermeister: I think we are still a ways away from accepting genetically modified crops in organic farming. The issue with genetic modification is that it is a system of development in which we do not fully understand the impacts. I attended a presentation recently where someone was trying to reduce the after-cooking darkening of potatoes. You know when you cook potatoes, and they turn grey afterwards?
Senator Eaton: I never cook them. Come on, that is not usual.
Mr. Hammermeister: They were looking at genetic modification to look at the after-cooking and to eliminate that issue. It is really a cosmetic issue, but what they found was that inserting this gene had triggered other changes in the genetics of the plant. Other genes were turned on or off, and that had other implications within the crop in terms of yield, nutrient uptake, and so on. This is some of the concern that there is with genetic modifications. You can insert a gene and try to target a single trait, but other traits might be turned on or off that we might not recognize.
We have seen other examples of that where genetic modification for drought resistance or increased yield has resulted in lower micronutrient issues, and, depending on whether or not you have a shortage of those micronutrients in your food supply, that could be a significant issue.
It is a lack of fully understanding the full implications of the genetic modification that is a concern.
Senator Eaton: I guess I am more optimistic. I see a day when we will know enough.
Senator Merchant: Regarding the funding, I am looking at the map of Saskatchewan that you have given us, and three of the projects are funded through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, while one is a university partnership.
Is this enough funding? Do you require private funding, and is it challenging to get private funding? How does that work?
Mr. Hammermeister: You would think I would have primed you for that question. Yes, first of all, Saskatchewan has the largest number of producers in organic agriculture in the country, and the largest acreage in production. We have three projects happening out there. No, it is not really enough funding; and yes, we do need to have industry matching funds to leverage these science cluster funds. The way the science cluster is established right now, we require 25 per cent industry cash to leverage the government money. It is particularly challenging in the organic sector to achieve this because the sector is still relatively small, albeit actively growing. In this science cluster, we were able to raise over $2 million in matching funds for this cluster, which was tremendous. However, the next science cluster will be very competitive and will be a big challenge.
Senator Merchant: Is that maybe because, generally, as a population, we do not have enough understanding of what organic really is? I must say myself that when I go to do my shopping, I sometimes buy organic. I do not buy organic all the time; I do look at the price. When I do buy organic, I think that I am buying something that is superior to the ordinary product that is there, but that is not necessarily the case. What I have learned from you this morning is that it is more environmentally sustainable practices that really define an organic product; it is not necessarily that it is better.
You did say there were traces of chemicals. Is that what it is? I am not sure how minute they are, what the difference is. I often read things that say that organic is no different, that it is not better, and it is more expensive.
If there were a benefit, and people understood that, maybe more people would be buying. The more that people buy, perhaps the more prices would come down. At the same time, I think you would get the community to invest in your research. It is symbiotic. Do you see it that way?
Mr. Hammermeister: Recently, just a week or so ago, I had an interview with a magazine. Their question was the following: If a consumer does not have enough money to buy exclusively organic, what would you recommend that they buy? You could go along the lines of reduced pesticides and improved nutritional value, which many organic products do have. It is not part of the system, but it is an end result of the system. You can look at environmental benefits, animal welfare and so on. There are many different potential benefits to organic agriculture.
The magazine wanted a list of the top 10 or 12 crops. However, to me, the response was simply that if you are going to buy organic foods — and you cannot buy all of them — buy organic foods that are locally produced, because that way you are getting the health and nutritional benefits, you are getting the environmental benefits — which are being accrued in your backyard, so you are seeing those benefits right in your own environment — and you are supporting the local economy and Canadian products. That is my advice there.
In terms of the question of whether organic prices should be lower, if you go to the farmers' markets, in many cases the prices for organic vegetables are not higher than what you see for conventional prices at a retail outlet because they have eliminated many levels along the value chain. If you are buying directly from a farmer, the prices are not necessarily higher.
However, we have to look at the real cost of food and the cost of the environmental impacts and subsidization that goes into conventional agriculture, and organic does not get that. It accounts for all of that in its price, or attempts to, barring the premium that retailers put on top of everything.
Senator Merchant: What will you be asking us to recommend to the federal government? What can they do to foster more innovation?
Mr. Hammermeister: I recommend that they continue to support the Science Cluster Initiative and the Organic Science Cluster. I recommend that they support the further development of the Canadian standards and Permitted Substances Lists for organic agriculture, because this is what provides us access to the international marketplace. If we do not keep up with those standards, then the international community will no longer accept our standard and regard it as equivalent. That is absolutely essential. I would further recommend that there be funding to help transfer the knowledge that is being attained in organic agriculture to the farmers.
Ms. McMahon: One thing I would like to point out is our lack of statistical information. Our organization, the Canadian Organic Growers, voluntarily solicits that information from the certification and verification bodies, and the information is inconsistent in how it is received. The amount of detail there is lacking because they are not being compensated for their time in collecting that information. As a result of that, we may get the number of certified organic producers or processors across Canada, but we do not accurately know what the acreage is, what they are producing and manufacturing, or where their markets are. The Government of Canada then comes to us and says, "Can we have your information?" because that information is not collected at the national level. The provinces ask for it too.
This is something that the industry is taking on, because it is important to see the growth and to see those opportunities. As I stated, because we are importing so much product, it is critical to even identify areas of opportunity for our own domestic producers to be producing more. We are often several years behind in that information, and then it is just a piece of the puzzle; it really leads to that many more questions.
We have heard that the Canadian Organic Office, which is housed under the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, is committed to developing some type of informatics system. However, that is years away and still at this point really, I would say, a dream. We do not know if it will happen because of those cutbacks that we are seeing happening.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Your presentation was eloquent. As to Senator Merchant and Senator Eaton's questions on funding, the picture you have painted is clear. And in terms of the impact of organic products on our economic partners, you have also provided good answers to Senator Eaton.
When we export organic products, they have to be approved by our clients. Can we say that we are as strict with our imports as our clients are with our exports? Is that comparable?
[English]
Ms. McMahon: Because of the Canadian Organic Products Regulations, any imported products must meet Canadian organic standards and the CFIA system that is put into place. They have to be recognized through an accreditation body that CFIA's organic office has reviewed and approved. We have a national approved list of those accreditation bodies.
Yes, Canadians can be assured, if they are buying an agricultural food product, that it is meeting Canadian Organic Standards. If it is a natural health care product, or even aquaculture, we do not have federally regulated standards for those products, and so those standards are not legislated.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Off the top of your head, do you have an example of an exported organic product that, once it came here, had a hard time being accepted because of our standards, be it a fruit or a vegetable?
[English]
Mr. Hammermeister: There is the nitrate issue from the U.S. That would be one example.
Ms. McMahon: In the United States, when we were looking for Canadian-U.S. equivalency on our organic standards, a couple areas of concern were highlighted. One was the use of Chilean nitrate, which was allowable under the United States standards. Canada had marked this as an area where we did not want products imported into Canada that were grown using this.
As a result of that, we saw products removed from the shelves in Canada. Primarily we were seeing salad greens from California no longer being imported. As a result of this, as well as I am sure other international pressures, the United States has sunset the use of Chilean nitrate from their own organic standards, so we are seeing that our influence has been positive in affecting other countries.
There is always, I am sure, debate within the United States of whether this product should be allowable, which provided that motivation to take it to the next step during the review process.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: That is sort of the problem with the strawberries from California that we import all year round, especially during the off-season for us. In the beginning, there were complications with the Canadian government as to the method of refrigeration and transportation. Those are examples of problems that you have to deal with.
Do you have any statistics that show what the percentage of organic products is compared to all the so-called conventional products? Is it 15, 20 per cent or another number? It must be going up. Do you have an idea of what the percentage of organic production is in Canada? Is it on the rise?
[English]
Mr. Hammermeister: Are you asking what percentage of vegetables in the marketplace are organic as opposed to conventional?
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: Generally speaking, you can get whatever fruit and vegetables you want. Does that go up from a year to the next? I suppose that things are not stagnating. More and more organic products are being produced. What portion of the whole marketplace do they represent? A quarter, a third or something else?
[English]
Mr. Hammermeister: No. In Canada, and Ms. McMahon can correct me if I am wrong, currently organic products occupy around 2 or 3 per cent of the marketplace. In parts of Europe, it depends on where you are and what product you are looking at. In some countries in Europe, with some products such as dairy, you might see 50 per cent of the product being organic. In many countries, you see 20 per cent or 25 per cent of the product being consumed is organic.
Right now, I think it is worth mentioning that an estimated 75 per cent of the organic product that is consumed in Canada is being imported largely from the U.S. and Mexico.
Senator Robichaud: 75 per cent of the organic product that is consumed in Canada is imported?
Mr. Hammermeister: 75 per cent of the organic product consumed in Canada is imported. It is a clear opportunity for us to capture some of that in certain product areas. We cannot grow bananas very well here, but lettuce, tomatoes, certainly.
Senator Mahovlich: I see there is production of organic cuttings and pot plants. By pot plants, do you mean floral, or do you mean chives and plants of that nature?
Mr. Hammermeister: In that research project, it is non-edible horticulture.
Senator Mahovlich: We are doing organic floral plants now?
Mr. Hammermeister: Yes. This is a very good example —
Senator Mahovlich: I did not know they were polluted.
Mr. Hammermeister: The flowers that are being produced in commercial greenhouses are being grown with pesticides and fertilizers, just like any foods. I have been exploring this to identify why people are buying it. My first instinct is that there is not a direct health connection — people are not buying for health reasons — so why are they buying it? It has to come back to the production system and the environmental benefits.
I have since talked with more people about that who said it is a mix. There are the environmental benefits, and people are seeing a healthier system. However, they also know that in a commercial greenhouse, pesticides are being applied to their plants, they are bringing these plants into their homes, many people have chemical sensitivities and do not want to be exposed to those risks. Along that line, they also have pets that may be eating those plants that they do not want exposed to those risks.
Senator Mahovlich: I see. The organic growers in Canada have been going for 35 years now. When I was a young boy, I guess about 45 years ago, my mother used to send me out to pick wild blueberries. Would you consider those wild blueberries organic?
Ms. McMahon: No. Wild blueberries would not be considered organic under the Canadian organic system standards and regulations because they are not inspected with that third-party verification process.
Senator Mahovlich: In the forest, it would be natural.
Ms. McMahon: It would be wild crafted.
Senator Mahovlich: There are not any pesticides.
Ms. McMahon: If you wanted to certify them, that would be entirely possible, but you have to come under a verification body because what is to say you could not pick or take blueberries off the shelf, repackage them and say you picked them in your backyard? Therefore, there must be some oversight. That is part of our consumer promise, that there is third-party inspection and verification of what is organic is really produced or grown that way.
Mr. Hammermeister: Just to be very clear on that point, the word "organic" is regulated in Canada.
Senator Mahovlich: It is not natural?
Mr. Hammermeister: No. You cannot use that word unless you have gone through the certification and inspection process. Even though a farmer may be following all of the principles and practices of the organic standards, unless they go through that verification system, they cannot use the word "organic" if they were trading outside of their province and crossing interprovincial boundaries.
Senator Mahovlich: However, you are using the word "wild." I see you have "organic wild blueberry production."
Mr. Hammermeister: Yes. That is a research project happening in Nova Scotia. Blueberries are — sorry?
Senator Mercer: Wild blueberries are a breed of blueberries as opposed to actually being wild.
Senator Mahovlich: You are using the word "wild." I think you are playing with words here.
Ms. McMahon: Oh, no.
Mr. Hammermeister: No.
The Chair: Would you clarify that? Senator Mercer mentioned it was possibly a variety. Would you please clarify that? It is important.
Mr. Hammermeister: In terms of blueberries, you can have high-bush blueberries that will grow on cultivated bushes that can grow at different heights above ground.
Senator Mahovlich: Are those the large blueberries?
Mr. Hammermeister: They are the large ones.
Senator Mahovlich: They are not as tasty.
Mr. Hammermeister: The wild ones occur in a natural environment. In order to harvest those, what happens is a forest is basically removed and the wild blueberries that were growing in that forested landscape in little patches before, suddenly the world is theirs and they expand and cover eventually whole fields.
In conventional wild blueberry production, pesticides are being used to control weeds and potential insect issues. This is not so in the organic system.
Senator Nolin: In the Lac Saint-Jean area, it is very wild and forested. Usually, the blueberries grow in areas that have been burned, and that is how they cultivate. It is quite unique. I will be in touch with them and ask why they are not asking for that certification.
The Chair: Senator Mahovlich, have you concluded?
Senator Mahovlich: Yes. Thank you, chair.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I come from Montreal and, over the past few years, I have been using boxes that we pick up at an ecocentre in the City of Montreal. They have agricultural products, mainly organic. A number of those products are grown on roofs across Montreal. So all those products can go through the distribution centres.
Ms. McMahon, in your opening remarks, you mentioned our foreign partners. Some of your members are afraid that the lack of evaluation mechanisms and the failure to improve our standards can affect the balance of our multilateral or bilateral relations with our foreign partners. Could you further explain what sort of mechanism you have in mind and what you are aiming at exactly? Have you thought about the costs involved in a proposal like that? I am sure that this would be of interest to our chair and those preparing our draft report.
[English]
Ms. McMahon: The Canadian Organic Standards are externally referenced in our national organic products regulation. It is a very modern system under CFIA that we can continue to improve upon our standards as new information comes forth or trading parties make requests of us that we deem to be relevant. However, the organic standards are housed within the Canada general standards board. It is a very expensive, concensus-based process to update these standards. We have actively through the organic value chain round table, and you are familiar with the round tables, been looking at how we can continue to upgrade our standards. We also have a process within our standards that we have to complete a review every five years, and we are coming up on that time.
However, in the past, our upgrades have been funded through Government of Canada funding and support. We have been told that that funding and support no longer exists because it is a costly process to go through. I believe the figure right now is about $200,000 a year. However, all our major trading partners and countries that have an organic systems regulation have funding mechanisms to update their own standards. Canada is left behind. There is quite a discrepancy in the way that Canada handles its standards compared to our trading parties.
Senator Nolin: How much money are we talking about?
Ms. McMahon: $200,000 a year.
Senator Nolin: Not more than that?
Ms. McMahon: That is what our estimates are saying.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Hammermeister, in looking at your map, there is nothing happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. Why is that? Do not tell me it is because of climate and the ecozone from the boreal shield. I am sure the clerk is anxious to hear your answer.
Mr. Hammermeister: Certainly it would be very nice to say we are in every province. Unfortunately, we are not in Newfoundland and Labrador in the science cluster. I think you are getting the impression that the funds are limited. In organic agriculture, we are covering all aspects of agriculture. We are talking about dairy, cereal crops, wheat, fruits and vegetables. We are spreading this money across the entire country, across all sectors. When we make prioritization decisions, we go through a prioritization process. This becomes a concern.
In Newfoundland, ultimately what it comes down to is that if we want to carry out research, we have to have researchers within those provinces that are able to carry out the work. Newfoundland at this point does not have a well established research community in organic agriculture. There are some people who are interested in biological controls and so on. The level of production is very small in Newfoundland, and there is very little commercial production. There are a few smaller, farmer-market scale producers. I am sure Ms. McMahon could give you numbers on that, or estimates. In terms of having impact on the farmers in that region, the impact was generally regarded as small. That, coupled with the lack of industry funding and researchers present, just left them out.
Senator Nolin: Ms. McMahon, it is not only a province, but there are also Canadians living there, and they too want their raspberries and fruit and vegetables. What is the status of the organic industry in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Ms. McMahon: It is under development. Certainly they are importing product to the province. If you go into any major grocery store, you will find the same organic products you can find here in Ottawa. What you are not seeing, though, is the number of farms certifying, and that is for a variety of reasons. There is a bit of an isolation factor. There is expertise lacking. In terms of extension support, other provinces are quite lucky to have full-time staff working with organic producers to increase that capacity and provide that knowledge transfer. It really does not exist at a scale that is manageable for Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe they have one staff person with 25 per cent of their job responsible for all of organic for the entire region. This person, although very committed, has to travel to Labrador to meet with a lot of the berry producers, and there is interest in Labrador. We certainly have provided support to growers in Labrador and receive information requests from that region.
Senator Nolin: Are you talking about blueberries?
Ms. McMahon: Berries is big. There is an annual organic conference that occurs in the Maritime provinces. We had I believe about 10 people from Newfoundland and Labrador come to the conference this year. There is certainly interest there, but it is still under development.
Senator Mercer: Thank you, witnesses. I guess Senator Plett did not like the organic beer. Maybe if we can find an organic single malt, that might tickle his palate, or organic French fries.
Senator Mahovlich threw me off when he started to ask about pot plants. I am quite happy to talk about it, but I do not want to talk about whether I inhaled it or not.
Dr. Hammermeister and I are from Nova Scotia, which we claim to be the blueberry capital of Canada. Maybe when we visit Nova Scotia, we could have a look at some blueberry operations while we are there, both organic and non-organic.
The question I want to talk about is the production of livestock in an organic setting. A number of years ago, when we were doing a study on rural poverty, we visited a farm outside of Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia. The farmer had an organic operation. He was also trying to produce organic beef. In our discussion with him, it became apparent that one of the real difficulties in producing organic livestock is that, unlike plants, although plants do suffer from outside influences, of course, livestock are much more prone to disease, wherever it may come from, and need to be treated for those diseases. You cannot let it go untreated. Therefore, that starts to compromise the organic status of a cow, a sheep, a hog or chicken. Have we made any advances in that? Have we broadened the definition of organic when it comes to the production of meat products to allow for organic farmers to stick to their principles of organic farming but also not sacrifice the health of their animals for the end product labelling of organic food?
Ms. McMahon: I know the exact producer you are speaking of. He is a seventh generation producer, and a strong compliment to organic values. I know that there are still challenges around accessing veterinary care that understands the organic systems and what is allowable within the veterinary permitted substance list.
That being said, the ultimate concern is for the well-being of that animal. If a producer does treat an animal with antibiotics — a beef cow, for example — that animal is just sold as conventional. It is not that they are giving up the sale of that animal. They just cannot put the organic label on it.
I wanted to let you know, as I spoke earlier about community supported agriculture, that that very producer is now using that system, as well as social media, to access urban customers in the Halifax region and is selling beef and other meat packs into the city on, I believe, a monthly basis. It is a very interesting to see this farmer, from multi-generations, being able to take technology to the next step.
Senator Mercer: When we visited, he was just starting on that process, and he brought us to the realization that today's farmers really need to be wired in. They are more wired in than a lot of other businesses are on a daily basis. Dr. Hammermeister?
Mr. Hammermeister: I just wanted to follow up on this issue as well. The organic standards are intended to be proactive and preventative in terms of dealing with diseases. The idea is to create an environment for the animals that reduces the risk of them having those diseases and does not put them under significant pressure, through intensive feeding systems, so that they become more susceptible.
Dairy is a common example that is given. I have talked with a number of dairy farmers who switched from conventional to organic production. Their first question is always, "How am I going to replace all of the medications that I am currently giving my dairy cows?" They want substitutes. They are worried about vet bills and so on. When you talk with them a few years later, after their herd has transitioned fully, they find that vet bills are actually lower and that their cows are actually healthier. They are a little less productive, but that is a part of the system. We have put so much pressure on our livestock to maximize their productivity that we have jeopardized their health. By easing off 10 per cent in terms of the production, we see the benefits in terms of health.
Senator Mercer: We have heard in this committee that, over the past 30 or more years, the yield from dairy cattle has gone up significantly, but the birth rate in dairy cattle has gone down. The cows have become less fertile. When we were in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec we talked to doctors at the University of Montreal veterinary school who were doing research on this. Is there research that shows that cows in an organic dairy operation have a higher fertility rate than those who are not in an organic farming operation?
Mr. Hammermeister: One of our research projects, number G1, is benchmarking the organic dairy production system. That project is actually in process. It is not looking organic farms specifically; organic farms are included. It is trying to look at all the production practices on dairy farms and identify those that are having the biggest health benefits or those where there are health risks and to develop correlations. The preliminary results that I have seen have shown that there are definitely benefits, from organic management, for the health and fertility of those animals.
Senator Mercer: It is an interesting link, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, both of you. Dr. Hammermeister, I certainly hope that the change of the AC from the Nova Scotia Agricultural College to a part of Dalhousie University will be a positive one as opposed to a negative one. We in Atlantic Canada need a good, healthy agricultural college in Truro.
Mr. Hammermeister: Thank you for that comment. We are certainly very much looking forward to becoming part of Dalhousie University. It will offer us many opportunities there. We just have to go through the transition time and adjust to the different ways of management, but it is definitely going to be an advantage for all of us in the long run.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Ms. McMahon and Mr. Hammermeister. In the Canadian Arctic, off the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec, how are you going to certify fish as organic? How are you going to be able to do the certification?
[English]
Ms. McMahon: Currently, organic aquaculture standards have been developed using a consensus-based system, such as the Canadian Organic Standards. This would not apply to a wild-caught fish, however. They are for a farmed product, a managed product. As it is, certification, from what I understand, could never apply to a wild-caught fish off of the North Atlantic.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: In terms of a person's health, what is the difference between certified aquaculture fish and fish from Labrador, Newfoundland and northern Quebec? What is the difference?
[English]
Ms. McMahon: I am sure it depends on which fish product you are looking at. Within the context of the aquaculture standards, a lot of the discussion has been around farmed salmon versus wild salmon. I am certainly not a scientist. I have only heard that the omega levels within the farmed salmon are quite a bit lower than in the wild-caught salmon. However, in terms of that production system, it is a different business; it is a different type of model. I could not really say.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Earlier you said that you daughter refuses to eat at school if the food is not organic. It is a good thing that residential schools are closed because she would not have eaten at all. I would like to talk about marketing. I am interested in consumers. I look around my supermarket to see who buys organic products. Of course, Senator Nolin is a new customer; it took his wife 30 years to convince him. I look at who buys organic products and it is not your average Canadian. Certified organic products are not accessible to the average Canadian family. Why? It is because they are too expensive. There is a big difference in what goes in the shopping cart of a family of five — a mother and a father with three children. In the future, could those products become accessible to average Canadian families, not just a small elite?
[English]
Ms. McMahon: We know from our market research data that the primary consumers currently, in Canada, are women aged 25 to 35, with university education, often entering that market looking for organic products when they have their first child or are pregnant.
Those are usually consumers in larger urban settings where they have access to more organic products and opportunities.
We are also seeing significant number of consumers of organic products who are often, again, women over the age of 55 who are looking for more healthy products, whole foods to cook with.
I stand there in the grocery store line; I see what is going through, and I think that it is that people are not cooking whole foods.
Certainly if you buy a frozen organic pizza, it might cost you $10, where you could get it for $3.99 at a conventional level, but if you were buying those whole ingredients and preparing food at home, it really should not cost very much more at all, especially, as I say, if you are taking advantage of direct sales channels. Those CSA vegetable boxes and the farmers' markets have experienced exceptional growth across Canada. There is an amazing amount of organic affordable product in Canada that really should not be preventing many people from accessing it.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I take issue with this because I did some checking. For the same bag of carrots, there is a $1.25 difference. I am putting myself in the place of a mother with a family who has to go buy a pound of butter somewhere farther away, telling herself that she will save $1.25. From what you said earlier, we are to understand that 2 per cent of the population buys organic products.
In a previous life, I had the opportunity to work for maple syrup producers from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec. I went to Chicago for the Drug & Foods exhibition, one of the largest agricultural shows in the United States. Americans recognize maple syrup as being a completely organic product. Is that also the case in Canada?
[English]
Ms. McMahon: There are maple standards within the Canadian Organic Standards. Regularly produced maple would not be considered as organic. Quebec is a leader in developing these maple standards. They have an incredible commitment to organic maple products, and the export markets are only growing. In New Brunswick, it has been estimated now that 25 per cent of the maple being produced in that province is now certified organic.
Some of the reasons that there are standards around maple include the size of the tree that can be tapped, the number of taps and how many years it is and that management of the renewable resource. The chemicals that can be used in cleaning the filters, those acids, can be quite strong. There is other process around that maple processing.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Let me go back to the fact that maple syrup is 100 per cent natural, without pesticides or fertilizers, given that maple trees grow naturally. The only pollution that can be found in maples is air pollution. You will agree with me that the same goes for your organic tomatoes or carrots.
I do not understand why this product should be de facto certified 100 per cent organic. I am not talking about maple products, I am talking about natural maple syrup that has to be certified organic right out of the kettle.
This is something that bothers a lot of producers. You talked about New Brunswick, but let me tell you that Quebec buys almost 80 per cent of the maple syrup production from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and 100 per cent of Ontario's production. Quebec also buys from Vermont and Maine.
You talked about wild blueberries, but we could also talk about wild strawberries and raspberries. If a product has no pesticides or fertilizers, it should be certified organic; it is shocking for producers to have to go to an organization for the seal of certification. In my view, products without pesticides or chemical fertilizers should be certified organic.
[English]
Mr. Hammermeister: There are a number of related comments. I am not a maple producer either. First, the organic certification system not only looks at the production in terms of what happens in the field and the pesticides, but also how the food products are handled after they leave the field in terms of all the processing mechanisms, additives and so on. That is part of the standard as well. Again, the word "organic" is a regulated word in Canada so, in order to use that word, it has to fall under the standards. That is why, even though they may follow those production practices identically, they cannot use the word unless they have gone through the inspection system.
Organic, because of its principles, has commanded a premium in the marketplace. People are willing to pay more. Whenever you have people willing to pay a premium, there are people who want to take advantage of that premium. We want to protect the consumer and ensure that they are getting what they are paying for and not someone who is substituting conventional products for organic and calling them organic in the marketplace.
I agree with you. A farmer could be growing in a perfectly natural way that is completely in compliance with the organic standards. Often we see some farmers who are selling locally who do this. They do not necessarily get their organic standards or their certification because they know the consumers. The consumers come to their farm. They see what the farmer is doing. They understand what the farmer is doing, and they trust the farmer. The whole system of certification came into place when the consumer lost contact with the farmer, and then you had to question who is this person and can you trust them? That is why we have certification.
Senator Eaton: There was great talk in B.C. about the difference between Canadian farmed salmon and American Alaskan ranched salmon. In fact, they ran a very successful campaign to "demarket" our farmed salmon to the benefit of Alaskan ranch salmon. Can you elucidate or enlighten me on the difference?
Mr. Hammermeister: No, I have no familiarity with ranched salmon.
Ms. McMahon: Nor do I.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: There is nothing preventing producers from labelling their products as natural products. Does that not go against your definition of organic products?
[English]
Mr. Hammermeister: An issue that the organic value chain round table is definitely very concerned with is the word "natural." Since consumers have identified with organic because of the principles that it has, they are trying to capture similar principles, or the consumers, by using "natural." There is no regulated definition of "natural." There is a general description offered by the CFIA, but no regulated definition.
What happens in the marketplace is that there might not be additives and preservatives, colouring and so on added to food in natural products, but almost always those products are made from conventional produce or grains. The consumer thinks that they are buying natural products, but in fact there is absolutely no guarantee that fertilizers and pesticides were not used on those products or that those products were handled in the processing chain according to standards or principles that organic follow.
Senator Buth: Thank you very much for being here. My experience has been that presentations on organics can often be philosophical or ideological, so I really appreciate you being here and presenting the industry in terms of the facts and what it is doing. That is really important for the credibility of organics in the conventional industry.
I was really pleased at your comment about organic working much more closely with conventional because, clearly, they are two different systems, even though, in conventional, they are also working towards environmentally sustainable practices and trying to reduce input costs. It is a move towards a more sustainable system.
Ms. McMahon, what is the total value of agricultural production in Canada?
Ms. McMahon: This is one of the questions that we do not have a precise answer around.
Senator Buth: What is it worth to the Canadian economy?
Ms. McMahon: We know that the sales figure is $2.6 billion, but that mostly consists of the imported product.
Mr. Hammermeister: While we know the number of organic farmers in the Prairies, for example, we do not know the volume of product that is being exported and the value that that brings in. We have estimates, but we are lacking the funding and ability to track that information.
Ms. McMahon: We are expanding in terms of that export data. There is work under way to expand the number of HS codes that track organic export, which will provide a little bit more information, but it is still unclear.
Senator Buth: Just to follow up on that comment about knowing the number of organic producers on the Prairies, you also made a comment that the number has been declining. Why is that?
Ms. McMahon: We found that there was the big boom year of 2008, followed by recessionary years and high conventional pricing. Many producers, we have been told — this is anecdotal — dropped their certification and went back to conventional sales. Now that the pricing for organic is going back up again, there is a gap in the system. It takes three years to transition a conventional farm to organic. Right now, we are finding that the demand exceeds the supply. That is why we are not filling up the export shows in Germany. I would like to comment, if I have a moment, on the pot plant comment. Canada is a major producer, as you know, of hemp, and, because you cannot legally grow hemp in the United States, it is a very lucrative organic product. We are seeing that these sales are exponentially growing.
Senator Mahovlich: Is it in Nova Scotia?
Ms. McMahon: No, it is actually mostly in the Prairies. It is a great story, and it is a real vertical integration value chain product. Anyway, it is a very successful story.
This is not medicinal.
Senator Nolin: Do you want to know where it started? Across the hall here where the Senate committee changed the law to allow industrial hemp to be grown in Canada. It started in 1997. Across the hall, right here, is where it started.
Ms. McMahon: Bravo.
Senator Nolin: Thank you. That was my comment.
Ms. McMahon: I wanted to expand on that. I just read a story where, every time Oprah and Dr. Oz promote the omega values and health benefits of hemp, the sales in Canada surge, and they cannot keep up with that demand. It has been an important success story.
Senator Buth: I have a couple of questions on the science and the technical portions of it and a bit of the challenge in terms of some of the terminology often used in organic, that it is environmentally sustainable. I see this environmental sustainability as a continuum all the way from conventional through to agro-ecology or low input. If you look at zero tillage across the Prairies, you see tremendous benefits in terms of environmental sustainability, especially in term, of carbon emissions.
Dr. Hammermeister, can you talk about the issues regarding fertilizer sustainability because there are some in relation to organic? If you are just using cover crops or even just using manure, you can still get the same issues in terms of runoff and movement into groundwater with the use of manure. My understanding is that there are some nutrients, essentially, that are missing, in terms of cover crops or manure, that could put organic agriculture in a difficult situation over the long term. Can you talk about some of the research that is being done?
Mr. Hammermeister: We have five minutes.
Senator Buth: I have another question for you after that.
Mr. Hammermeister: First, in terms of energy efficiency, you talked about the efficiencies and carbon benefits of low till. A couple of projects that we are working on are actually low-till or no-till organic production systems. I will mention that first. As to the whole issue of carbon credits and carbon sequestration in organic soils, in a nutshell, organic soils are not losing carbon any faster than conventional agriculture.
Comparing no-till systems is a whole different discussion. Some studies show that organic systems do actually increase carbon levels in the soil as compared to conventional systems, but it all depends on what you are comparing it with.
In terms of energy costs and fertilizer efficiency, roughly 40 per cent — and sometimes higher — of the energy costs of operating a farm relate to nitrogen fertilizers. That is because nitrogen fertilizers are produced, in conventional agriculture, using natural gas. Forty per cent of all the energy being used to produce is going into fertilizer for nitrogen, and then there are development pesticides and so on as well. That is really huge. That is something that is not part of the organic system. Instead, what we do is grow legumes, which are plants like peas and beans that form a relationship with the bacteria. This is how nature captured nitrogen and put it into the landscape. They take nitrogen out of the air, and they put it into the soil and into the plant. That is what organic agriculture uses as a management system to give the land a rest to build the soil and to capture nitrogen so that we do not need to use that nitrogen from fossil fuel-driven sources.
In terms of issues, phosphorus is a huge issue for organic agriculture. In conventional agriculture, excess phosphorus is an issue. In organic agriculture, a deficiency of phosphorus is more likely to be a problem. That is because we have standards that limit our use of chemical fertilizer phosphorus. There is a project that relates to phosphorus fertilizers in here, but we should be aware that, in about 50 years, it is projected that our readily accessible sources of phosphorus in the world will be depleted. We talk in a 30 to 50 year time frame. Organic is dealing with this challenge. However, this depletion of phosphorous is a challenge that all of agriculture around the world will be facing and is facing already. Organic is a model for dealing with these low input production system issues that are coming.
Senator Buth: I have another question in another area. I repeatedly hear this comment that organic food is more nutritious. Consumers are bombarded with information about what is good for you and what is not good for you. It is like, "Eat broccoli one week; do not eat it the next week." There is a lot of confusing information out there.
Are you aware of a recent review paper — I am sorry; I do not have the reference right now — from the U.K. that looked at all studies of nutrition in organic versus conventional? It was a meta-analysis, and the final conclusion was that there were no nutritional benefits in terms of organic.
Mr. Hammermeister: That was a general conclusion. It comes back to the question of what you are comparing. It is a huge issue. We do not often do this kind of work because of the complexities associated with it. There are also research projects that do show that there can be benefits. The reason for it is that under organic management, they are growing under low inputs, and sometimes stresses, including insects, that cause the plants to activate a self-defence mechanism, which puts antioxidants into the fruit to help protect it. Under conventional management where those stressors are not present, you do not see that benefit.
Also, in conventional production, yield and colour are often the key characteristics. You want big tomatoes with a nice colour. A lot of the nutritional value and the antioxidants, and we are doing research on this on black currants right now in Nova Scotia and P.E.I, is in the skin of the product, and that is where the defence mechanisms are. If you have a really big tomato, you do not have as much skin to volume ratio. If you are eating the same amount of two tomatoes, same weight of tomatoes, a basket or kilogram of smaller tomatoes will have more nutritional value than a kilogram of larger tomatoes. With organic production, because it does not promote really big plants and fruits, rather concentrated and more sustainably developed fruits, they tend to be smaller, and therefore you have a higher concentration of nutrients.
Senator Buth: Those are great examples, but I caution that we have a tendency to take a few examples and relate them to everything when that is not necessarily the case. I think that doing the research on this is really important, and I commend you for the projects that you are doing. Thank you.
Mr. Hammermeister: Thank you for that comment.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we have approximately four minutes left. On the second round, we have Senator Robichaud followed by Senator Plett, so please be precise.
Senator Robichaud: I will use up the four minutes. My question is in relation to science, research and innovation.
[Translation]
In the research cluster program, in terms of science and the application of science in the fields or with people, is science much more ahead of the way scientific research is applied?
[English]
Mr. Hammermeister: In some areas, we are validating what organic agriculture is doing and the benefits of organic agriculture. In that case, we are observing or seeing what is being done. In other areas, yes, we are doing very innovative things, such as the low-till organic production system. If you look at the work that is being done on greenhouse production in Quebec, that is very innovative, and it is industry leading, whether organic or conventional. It is driven by producers who are seeing the need for innovation and energy efficiency and environmental sustainability as part of their system.
It depends on which project we are dealing with. Sometimes it is simply developing management practices, like I am working on black currents, developing agronomic practices for growing them. Other times it is leading and innovative research.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Let me go back to Hervé Michaud's farm; it is a good example that concerns you. If local producers set up their production in a tunnel where they can control the humidity and many other things, they can start producing much earlier on and continue until much later. Results have demonstrated that it is very profitable. That did not involve a lot of research, but it simply had to do with applying people's knowledge by helping them start using that method of production. I think producers really appreciated it.
[English]
Senator Plett: I have three precise and short questions, and I am sure the answers can be equally short. I did go on line after Senator Mercer talked about single malt whiskey, and I found that indeed there is some, but I also found out that some of it cannot be imported to Canada. I will read here. I am not sure if I am pronouncing this correctly, elegant, peated and single classic malt Scotch whiskey from a company called Bruichladdich. It is with regret that we are unable to ship our whiskey to the follows countries due to import and delivery restrictions, Canada being one of those countries. Why?
Ms. McMahon: Very likely they are not recognized by a certification body that has applied to Canada for recognition. They would be obviously in Scotland, and so they are outside the EU. If they are within the EU, that would probably be easier. That is my guess, obviously.
Senator Plett: But of course, other than one company in Nova Scotia, true Scotch is only brewed in Scotland.
Ms. McMahon: There are accreditation bodies that CFIA recognizes, but across the world there are hundreds of accreditation bodies. It is a free market. You have a choice of which certifying body you want to go with. They could either change or ask their body to apply to Canada for recognition.
Senator Nolin: Are they accepted in the U.S.?
Senator Plett: No, Canada and the U.S.
Ms. McMahon: No, they would not be.
Senator Plett: How much does it cost a company to get certified?
Ms. McMahon: It varies. If you are a small market producer, direct sales, you are looking at about $600 a year. The more products you have or if you are a processor, it can cost several thousand dollars.
Senator Plett: In your presentation, you talked about Sally and Mark Bernard who operate a mixed grain and soybean farm and roaster. What is a roaster?
Ms. McMahon: They do the soybean roasting. In order to make soy digestible for the pork producer they are selling it to, they roast it, and then that pork producer who is in P.E.I. ships his hogs to Quebec and it is processed there.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. I would like to just emphasize a point. Last week, I was in The Hague in Holland and, as we were shopping, I saw two farmers delivering their produce. One was marked organic and the other one was marked natural. I did ask both farmers, and like Senator Mahovlich said, I saw there was a difference in prices of the product. I talked to the organic producer about his market. I said, "Have you seen some changes in consumer behaviour in your market for your product?" I want to emphasize what you just said, Ms. McMahon. The younger consumer, below the age of 35, as they were progressing, they were looking at organic products compared to the traditional vegetable and fruit production. When we look, as you have shared with us, at only 2 or 3 per cent of what is being consumed in the Canadian market being organic we can still grow, and I hope we will continue to grow in the organic production.
Witnesses, thank you very much for your information. There is no doubt in our minds that it was a quality presentation this morning. Thank you for accepting our invitation.
(The committee adjourned.)