Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and
Forestry
Issue 6 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 6, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 9:00 a.m. to continue its order of reference to study the present state and future of agriculture in Canada, consideration of issues related to the production of raw milk cheese.
Senator Leonard J. Gustafson (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I wish to welcome our visitors from Health Canada. I apologize that we were not able to meet with them earlier as they requested. We have with us today Dr. George Paterson and Dr. Joost Harwig from Health Canada.
Please proceed.
Dr. George Paterson, Director General, Food Directorate, Health Canada: Mr. Chairman, we are here today to discuss the proposed regulatory amendments which were published in Part I of the Canada Gazette on March 30. The amendment aims to reduce the risk in Canada of human illness from disease-causing bacteria and other pathogens to a level as low as reasonably achievable using the best practical technology with respect to the cheese-making process.
At present, all dairy products marketed in Canada must be made from pasteurized milk, the exception being cheeses that require storage for a minimum of 60 days. Essentially, these provisions now only permit the manufacture of aged hard cheese varieties from raw milk. Soft cheese varieties require a much shorter ripening period than 60 days and have a maximum shelf life of approximately five weeks.
The current proposal in the Part I Canada Gazette would add two requirements to the present regulation. First, instead of raw milk, hard cheese varieties would have to be made from heat-treated or thermized milk. Being a relatively mild heat treatment, thermization of milk is less effective in killing bacteria than is pasteurization. However, it would still reduce pathogenic bacteria present in the raw milk by about two decimals; that is, a 99 per cent reduction.
Second, the cheese would have to be stored for a minimum of 60 days and must have a specified acid and low moisture level, the latter conditions favouring further die-off of the bacteria surviving the thermization.
I suppose the proposed amendment was drafted because of recognition that raw foods of animal origin, including raw milk, continue to expose consumers to a wide variety of disease-causing organisms, including salmonella species, listeria monocytogenes and pathogenic E-coli, including E-coli 0157, which is also called VTEC.
I realize that a lot of this is technical, but we will probably come back to it later.
Another reason for the proposal was that these organisms may survive the raw milk cheese-making process and further grow to infectious levels in cheeses that have low acidity and high moisture levels. These organisms are prevalent at a rate of 1 per cent to 3 per cent in milk as detected in surveys conducted in the province of Ontario.
Dairy herds in Canada have a prevalent rate for E-coli 0157 of 10 per cent to 50 per cent. Salmonellosis and VTEC infections have occurred in Canada due to raw milk consumption. These organisms have caused illness and death worldwide due to raw milk cheese.
With respect to compliance problems associated with imported raw milk cheeses, Canadian disease statistics, although limited in the number of persons reportedly made ill, indicate a higher relative risk associated with raw milk cheese than with pasteurized milk cheese.
I would like to move on to a summary of the consultation meetings we held across Canada leading up to the publication of the proposal. Meetings were held across Canada to determine stakeholder views on the proposal, and a variety of opinions were offered.
It was suggested that cheeses be labelled as to their source; that is, pasteurized milk, thermized or heat-treated milk, or raw milk.
There was varying reaction - agreement and disagreement - with respect to requiring labels carrying a warning to susceptible consumers.
With respect to problems for cheese producers in meeting the defined high acid and low moisture conditions defined in the proposal, the proposal was considered necessary for soft cheeses but not so for hard, aged cheese varieties. Comments related to: the need to define a variety of heat treatments equivalent to the one proposed; the requirement for a test in addition to record-keeping to determine whether a given cheese was manufactured from heat-treated milk; the need to permit technologies other than pasteurization and heat treatment; the disruption of the imported raw milk cheese trade if the proposal were to be implemented; serious financial loss if the inventory of raw milk cheeses presently being aged would have to be destroyed; loss of flavour of hard cheeses due to pasteurization and heat treatment of milk; heat treatment or pasteurization is not necessary if good hygienic production practices are followed on the farm for raw milk; the financial burden of purchasing, installing and operating pasteurizers.
Soft cheese manufacturers, in particular, are small enterprises; thus, some of these requirements would create a particular burden for them.
I have given you the scientific reasons why we proposed the amendment in Part I. I should emphasize that Part I of the Canada Gazette is a discussion and commentary. It in no way means that a regulation has been enacted. The comment period expires next week, June 13. Health Canada will then combine the views addressed at the various consultation meetings we have had, as well as individual submissions from Canadians, industry, non-governmental organizations, provincial governments and foreign governments, analyze them and have them reviewed. We will then provide them to a scientific expert advisory committee that we have convened to provide advice and recommendations to the department. That committee has met once to review its terms of reference and how it will operate. It will reconvene on July 8 and 9. Following that, we anticipate a report being submitted to the department within three to four weeks. The minister will consider the report, along with advice from his bureaucrats, and a decision will then be made.
The Chairman: Cheese is one agricultural product where the older it gets, the better it gets. Is that true? Time is a major factor in producing cheese.
Mr. Paterson: That is true, but with respect to some foods we eat, there are risks associated with time. Whether it is a hard cheese or a soft cheese, those risks either rise or fall.
Dr. Joost Harwig, Director, Bureau of Microbial Hazards: Dr. Paterson has hit the nail right on the head. If you are talking about aged, hard varieties, these bugs tend to die off in those acid and low moisture conditions. Indeed, not only would the product be better in terms of flavour if you like hard, old cheeses, but it is also likely to be safer.
With respect to soft cheeses, though - I am thinking of camembert and brie - there are high moisture conditions and low acid conditions within the cheese. These are not hostile or inimical to the bugs that may be in the cheese. They may not only survive, but they may also grow to a level that may cause illness.
If you keep those cheeses stored for a long time at a refrigeration temperature, at least one of the organisms which concerns us - that is, listeria monocytogenes - can adapt and grow under refrigeration conditions. The answer to your question is yes and no.
The Chairman: My question arises from an experience as a boy in an old country store where I lived. There was always a big round block of cheese sitting out. It seemed that the owner liked it better if he could cut some mold off the end and get as close to it as possible; then he enjoyed his cheese. It is interesting that aging is an important process.
What percentage of raw milk is used in cheese?
Mr. Harwig: I am not clear as to your question. What percentage of raw milk cheese is being produced in Canada?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Harwig: In Canada, by far, a very large percentage of the hard cheese variety manufacturers are already using what we are proposing here in terms of the heat treatment. Something like 95 per cent is the figure indicated by the Canadian Dairy Council to me.
With respect to the soft cheeses, that is not a long established practice in Canada. In fact, it has only shown up since 1995, as we have become aware through our consultation and through the responses in the comment period. We are talking something in the order of 0.2 per cent.
The Chairman: So it is a very small percentage?
Mr. Harwig: It is a very small percentage. Right now, the door is just slightly open to raw milk soft cheese. However, if we open the door wider, that percentage may increase and we cannot quite predict to what percentage it will go. It depends on how enterprising the farmers and the end processors are and whether the growth will be restricted to Quebec or whether it will be spread across Canada.
Senator Riel: You have decided to amend the regulation which was passed, I believe, in 1991. Was there any particular incident or health concern which lead to amending this regulation at this point in time? It was published in the Canada Gazette on March 30. What was the reason?
Mr. Harwig: Within Canada, there were three incidents of salmonella food poisoning associated with raw milk aged cheese. The first two were not very impressive, involving only three or four people and relating to cheese produced in southwestern Ontario.
That does not mean only three people were affected. There was evidence of three people being affected, but our surveillance and reporting systems are quite deficient. When we discover three linked cases, we can probably safely assume there were 300 or perhaps even 1,000 others.
In this particular incident, it became clear that, unlike what we have in our present regulation, the salmonella was able to survive longer than 60 days. In fact, the longest period which was tested was 125 days.
In a second incident in 1984 or 1985, a cheddar product was distributed from a plant in Prince Edward Island. The cheddar was to have been produced from pasteurized milk but, through human error, the pasteurized milk subsequently was contaminated with raw milk. That raw milk actually carried into the pasteurization vat very low levels of salmonella.
The resulting cheese was not recognizably different from an ordinary cheddar both in acidity and dryness. That cheese was distributed right across Canada and caused recognized illness in 1,500 or more people. We can safely assume there were many more that did not make it to the reporting system. Once again, it became clear from that outbreak that salmonella was able to survive, even in this hard cheese variety, for as long as eight months. That made us doubt the validity of our present regulation calling for a storage period of 60 days.
Those are two reasons which led us to look at this regulation and to propose an amendment. We have seen Canadians become ill from salmonellosis and what we call Verotoxigenic E-coli, both of which are found in raw milk, even though raw milk consumption is very low in Canada. It is constitutes about 1 per cent of all fluid milk consumed. If these organisms go into raw milk cheese, they would actually survive.
Senator Riel: You had consultations with the producers of milk in Quebec, of course, and in Canada. We heard Mr. Rivard on May 9. He was speaking about inspection of cheese and labelling. Is it possible, by this process, to eliminate or to indicate to purchasers the age of the milk in the product and whether it is produced by raw milk so that we eliminate responsibility for the producers?
Mr. Paterson: That may be one of the many approaches which can be examined. In terms of Health Canada, we are not convinced that that necessarily would be satisfactory. We are aware of Mr. Rivard's presentation. We will be receiving an official response from the board of the Dairy Farmers of Canada.
That is one of the elements of their three-point suggestion for a different option. Certainly, labelling has been mentioned by dairy farmers and by others. It is something that we are prepared to examine. It brings into focus the whole aspect that the consumer has a responsibility, too. If the product is labelled as being made from raw milk cheese, there are certain risks which perhaps are greater found in cheeses made through a pasteurization process. We are aware of it and we are looking at it. I think we would most likely use a multiple approach as opposed to a single approach.
Mr. Harwig: If I may add, there are two possible types of labels. One is the neutral type of label stating whether or not the cheese was made from raw milk, pasteurized milk, or heat-treated or thermized milk. That would be neutral, but the meaning to the consumer may not be very clear.
The second type of label might be one which carries a warning to susceptible consumers, which would probably be more meaningful.
However, there is divided opinion from our stakeholders on this. I would think that most of them would be quite happy to provide the neutral type of label rather than the warning type label.
In addition, from a legal viewpoint, I do not think the government could force a manufacturer to use a warning-type label. For example, on cigarettes, it is Health Canada that issues the warning, not the cigarette manufacturer.
Senator Riel: You force the manufacturers to put the warning on the package.
Mr. Harwig: That is right.
Senator Riel: So you could do the same thing with any kind of food.
Mr. Paterson: We could. As Dr. Harwig said, we have received pretty clear indication that that would not be well received by the manufactures and sellers of these particular products. I am sure they would point to other areas where there might seem to be an apparent inconsistency in government policy, such as with alcohol warning labels, which we have not moved to introduce at this point in time. I do not think there is any food product at the moment that comes under that situation, is there?
Mr. Harwig: At this time, that labelling principle has not been applied to foods. In fact, within the principles of the food hygiene framework established internationally, the responsibility for the safety of food sold is squarely placed in the hands of the manufacturer.
If we were to start applying the principle to raw milk and soft cheese, we would have to start considering that for other products as well, maybe similar products, such as fermented raw meats like the various varieties of salami and bratwurst and so on. We do not know where this would stop. If we applied this as a principle, we would probably be required to apply that principle also in other situations.
Senator Riel: Mr. Rivard drew a great difference between the imported cheeses made from raw milk and the ones that are produced here. He mentioned that 25 per cent of the imported cheese does not qualify under the rules of Health Canada. Is that true?
Mr. Harwig: Agriculture Canada has supplied us with those analytical data, and yes, indeed, that appears to be true.
Senator Riel: The food that we import is inspected. We have inspectors, and I suppose these inspectors are yours, or are they from the Department of Agriculture?
Mr. Harwig: That responsibility now lies with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Senator Riel: Are you satisfied with the report they produced, and their work in general regarding health?
Mr. Paterson: If one strives for excellence, as we all do, one can never be satisfied. Under the realities of risk assessment and the application of resources, we are satisfied with the identification of products that require inspection. We are not satisfied with the level of rejection; but in terms of inspection protocol, we are reasonably satisfied.
I should like to add one thing, though, which is, as Dr. Harwig said, that inspection is done by our colleagues in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. As you know, Mr. Martin, in his March budget, announced the consolidation of all federal food inspection activities from Health Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada - the creation of a single food inspection agency. The purpose of this is to harmonize and to eliminate overlap and duplication, and to be a sort of precursor, we hope, to the eventual establishment of a national food inspection network or system that would incorporate what the provinces and indeed municipalities are doing. That is under way.
These things are always undergoing reassessment. I think one could surmise or speculate that once the agency gets going, any protocols that needed sharpening up or improvement would be reviewed. If something like the inspection of imported cheeses required priority, it may be much better handled through a single food inspection agency than it is at the moment.
In general, we are reasonably satisfied with the work that our colleagues are doing.
Senator Riel: What is happening to the 25 per cent of the imported cheese which is not in conformity with your rules of health? Is it destroyed?
Mr. Harwig: Agriculture Canada assures us that that product does not enter the market. It is either destroyed or sent back to the originator.
Senator Riel: I have been asked by the manager of my club in Montreal whether or not Stilton cheese, which is imported from Great Britain, is manufactured or produced with raw milk. I suppose he has been asked by some of his clients.
Mr. Harwig: Stilton can be made from either. Since it probably does require a reasonably long ripening period, and also has a reasonably long shelf life, it could be made from raw milk. However, whether it is or not is very difficult to determine, because the labels do not always indicate that.
Senator Riel: I will ask them to check with their supplier. Thank you.
The Chairman: Before I go to Senator Anderson, a question arises as a result of the statement you made regarding single food inspection, the combining of the agencies within Agriculture Canada and Health Canada, and so on. Does this include provincial regulations?
Mr. Paterson: Not at present. But, as I mentioned, the federal government clearly indicated in its announcement that the federal government was "getting its act in order" in terms of consolidating all food inspection.
There are already bureaucratic officials of the federal-provincial territorial levels working on a blueprint that would embrace all federal, provincial and municipal legislation that relates to food inspection and food safety; that is to say, one piece of legislation at the federal level which the provinces could adopt use as enabling legislation. The other is at the operational level and involves the development of national codes; for example, a dairy code that would be truly national and have common use throughout the country.
Both at the legislative framework level and the operational codes of practice, there is work afoot. We are optimistic that, as a country, down the road we will be much more harmonized and consistent. Within, say, the public service governance side, doing that will allow our industries to operate in a more competitive environment.
The Chairman: I will give you an example of what I encountered as a Member of Parliament dealing with a butcher at Cardiff who was trying to sell sides of beef into Manitoba. He could not do that simply because the regulations on his building were not up to standard. In Manitoba, you had to have a cement structure with cement blocks; in Saskatchewan, it had to be a steel-covered structure. As a result, he could not meet the regulations. We do not even have what I would say is provincial trade between Saskatchewan and Manitoba, let alone the whole of Canada. These regulations are very restrictive. That is the reason for the question this morning.
Senator Anderson: Dr. Paterson, I support fully the initiative taken by Health Canada with regard to the proposed regulations on the making of cheese from raw unpasteurized milk. To me, this is an issue of human health and safety. As was pointed out in the information we received, there are certain organisms such as salmonella, Brucella, campylobacter, and listeria. I would add to this list the tubercle bacteria. I remember distinctly attending a meeting a few years ago when the Deputy Minister of Health in my province stated that the incidence of tuberculosis of the bone in humans was directly related to the consumption of raw milk products.
I support the Health Canada regulations that cheese be heat processed so as to pasteurize it or that the other three requirements that you listed in your publication be met.
I believe very strongly that when the public health of Canadians is an issue, any amount of risk is too great. With free trade, there is much greater concern about the safety of food overall, and we must be even more vigilant than previously with respect to the safety of our food supply.
Specifically, which raw milk cheeses are actually manufactured in Canada. What are their names? You mentioned camembert, brie, Roquefort, Parmesan. Are these actually manufactured in Canada?
Mr. Harwig: That is information that we are not entirely clear on, but certainly cheeses like cheddar - and those are the hard varieties - are definitely made by some manufactures from totally raw milk. But they are put through a storage period usually much longer than the two months required by regulation.
With respect to the raw milk soft cheese production, this is an issue that has come to our attention only through the present consultation. If soft cheeses are made from raw milk in Canada, and if they are marketed within the 60-day storage period required under the present regulation, that would be illegal at this particular time.
Whether or not this is just a desire on the part of the present producer processors or whether that is actually being practised right now is not entirely clear. But the people who would like to do this have stated during our consultation meetings that they would like to do away with that 60-day storage period. That makes sense, because those are the cheeses which permit conditions of high moisture and low acid; if you store them for a long time, you actually grow the bacteria that we fear.
Concerning your previous statements on tuberculosis, and so on, we completely share them with you. In our brief, there is one paragraph that I should like to read into the record, namely, that.
Globally, raw milk and raw milk products have been recognized to cause other diseases such as Q-fever, streptococcal infections, gastroenteritis due to...
And, as you mentioned, Campylobacter is one of the organisms, but there are also other organisms such as:
...Yersinia enterocolitica, brucellosis, and tuberculosis;
With respect to brucellosis and tuberculosis, we do not have a great concern in Canada because in cattle populations, those diseases are quite well controlled, but not to 100 per cent. For example, in the 1980s, one or two cases of brucellosis came to the attention of our surveillance and reporting system.
If we start to import those products, we would have much greater concern. With respect to brucellosis control of species other than cattle, for example goats, I think we would have to look into just how good veterinary control is in terms of raw goat milk production.
Mr. Paterson: Dr. Harwig covered that very well. I used to be with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. An old colleague who is behind me, Gilles Lavoie, provided me with a profile of the Canadian raw milk cheese industry, which I should like to table with you. It is very useful information.
As Dr. Harwig said, roquefort, camembert, some brie, some old cheddar, goat cheeses, and also two lesser known cheeses outside of the province of Quebec, Le Migneron and Le Saint Basile, are varieties of cheese made from raw milk of which we are aware, courtesy of our colleagues in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Senator Rossiter: You seem to be stressing the salmonella dangers of raw milk cheese. A previous witness, Mr. Rivard, referred more to listeria. Is it that we hear more about salmonella or is it that dealing with salmonella is more the goal of the regulation than dealing with listeria?
Mr. Harwig: In our previous replies, we have stated concerns about the dozens of organisms that can occur in raw milk. In Canada, we have particular concerns about three. One is salmonella, because we have seen salmonella survive in raw milk aged cheese causing illness. Although a relatively small number of cases have been reported, our reporting systems are such that we cannot rely on them solely to assess the risks.
The second concern is listeria monocytogenes. It is now our view that listeria monocytogenes, which causes listeriosis, does occur in raw milk. When cows are subclinically affected with a mastitis-like condition where the udder becomes infected, the organism is then shed into the raw milk. We recognize that if cheese is produced from raw milk, that organism will be carried into the corresponding cheese.
If that cheese happens to be an old cheese hard variety, that organism will not grow further. It will probably stay at low levels and will probably not be a great concern. However, if the strict standards of the United States, for example, were applied, that cheese would be rejected.
However, if raw milk infected with that organism at low levels is used for certain soft cheeses, that organism may grow to as much as 10,000 or 100,000 cells per gram, levels which may cause people to become ill.
You may ask why a lot of people are not coming down with listeriosis.
Senator Rossiter: What are the symptoms of listeriosis?
Mr. Harwig: The severe symptoms of listeriosis which make it to the reporting systems in Canada include things like blood poisoning. The organism gets into the blood stream, after which it may reach the brain and result in meningitis; inflammation of the brain's membrane. If the consumer happens to be a pregnant woman, she might come down with mild symptoms of gastroenteritis and the fetus may become infected, resulting either in a still birth at full term or a miscarriage. If the child survives, it may be seriously ill with septicemia and meningitis.
There are approximately 50 severe cases reported in Canada each year. However, the reporting systems are not perfect. In some provinces, Quebec being one example, listeriosis is not a reportable disease.
Also, when a child is born with a serious infection, culturing for listeria monocytogenes is not necessarily routinely done. Therefore, we do not have a full understanding of how often this happens.
Another difficultly is that it may be several days, weeks, or even months between exposure to the bug and the onset of the clinical symptoms. This makes it difficult to determine to what such an illness is due. The reporting system will not correct for that.
Senator Rossiter: You mentioned earlier, in reply to Senator Anderson's questions, that the reporting system is poor. How would you recommend that it be improved?
Mr. Harwig: Our laboratory centre for disease control has recognized this as a major issue. A committee has been formed which is starting to address this. It is a very complex situation because it involves many actors at different levels. It starts with provincial public health labs, hospital labs, private labs and so on. It is not a situation which will be readily remedied, but the intent is to improve it.
This is not a situation unique to Canada. The United States, the U.K. and many European countries are coping with the same problems.
Senator Rossiter: Are obstetricians and pediatricians involved in these consultations?
Mr. Harwig: With regard to the improvement of the system, there are provincial public health officials represented on the committee. With regard to advice to obstetricians about listeria control for pregnant women, for example, the department has, for many years, supplied such information to the medical community in the hope that that information would be shared with their patients.
There is a third organism, which I did not mention in response to your earlier questions, and that is Verotoxigenic E-coli or the E-coli 0157.H7. It is of great concern to us that this organism finds its source in beef products as well as raw milk. People have come down with this illness in Canada from raw milk consumption; not from raw milk cheese consumption, because there is hardly any being consumed so far.
The organism causes serious illness. There may be an initial bout of diarrhea, either bloody or not. As important are serious after-effects. Particularly in children, this illness may lead to kidney conditions and kidney failure resulting in the need for long-term kidney dialysis and even kidney transplants.
Senator Rossiter: Does freezing of hard cheese affect any of this?
Mr. Harwig: It does not do much other than make it very crumbly. The organisms are quite resistant to freezing.
Senator Landry: Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe what I hear from representatives of the Government of Canada who are trying to hide behind a label as if we were a bunch of Mafia. It does not make sense. It is probably all right for people who live in a country like Indonesia, for instance. Those people have incredible immune systems. If we were to eat what they do, it would kill us. However, their life expectancy is about 20 years less than ours.
To me, there are no "buts"; it has to be done. I cannot believe that Health Canada does not check cheese or other products that come into Canada for bacteria. It does not matter what product it is. All the health laws I know of are federal laws. We cannot ship product into the United States; none of that could go through the United States or any other country. Every country has its own health regulations. If a certain group wants to make cheese and eat it - as someone said the other day, "If I am going to kill myself smoking or drinking, that is fine."
We cannot go back 50 years. We have to produce products and not hide behind labels. We have to produce a product in the best way we can; and even then it is not good enough.
Mr. Paterson: I appreciate your comments, Senator Landry. There are others who have different views, obviously. That is where we are at in the democratic process of setting public policy. Again, I say the obvious: Dr. Harwig and I do not make the policy. In terms of the parliamentary system, our minister will set the policy. We are there to provide policy advice, guidance and recommendations. This is the process we are going through. The Canada Gazette Part I process is part of that.
We have put forward a proposal that we believe is responsible, one that is based on good science. Again, you all know about the BSE situation in the U.K. Science is not infallible. Science is changing. There is new knowledge coming onstream every day.
We think we have good science in the department. However, we are looking for input from the scientific and the technological communities. We are looking for input from industry and ordinary consumers. That is where we are at.
Senator Riel: Mr. Chairman, I have indicated that I should like to ask a few more questions. They involve communication and publicity.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: When I saw the proposed amendment, I was really scared. I spent 20 years of my life on a dairy farm where everyone in the family drunk milk literally straight from the tank. We must have run terrible risks that we were not aware of, for it was obviously raw milk that we were drinking.
Before Health Canada submitted its proposed regulations, for the scientific reasons you mentioned, had any concerns already been expressed at the international level, relating to that specific issue of raw milk cheese? Have any rules or standards already been set in that area? Do you happen to attend seminars or have you been involved into some projects where concerns similar to those raised by Health Canada have been expressed?
[English]
Mr. Harwig: I, too, as a child, drank raw milk on the farm. We must realize that those of us who survived probably have a certain immunity to the organisms that occur.
You must also realize that the organisms that are now in raw milk may be different from those which were present in the past. That is because these organisms are capitalizing on dense animal and human populations; they are evolving in order to capitalize on those populations.
With respect to your question related to international consultation, senator, Canada is a member country of Codex Alimentareus, which is an international body under the World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization, Food Program. The issue of raw milk soft cheese has been under debate for as long as I have been attending those meetings, which is about three years.
Essentially, there are two opposing views apparent within the Codex committee on food hygiene which deals with that issue. One view, which is largely represented by France, but also accepted by the rest of the European community, is this. If you produce on the farm raw milk under strict hygienic conditions, combined with veterinary oversight with respect to tuberculosis and brucellosis control, for example, standards for that raw milk, as well as a method to test bacteria in the resulting product, then that cheese is at a level of safety equivalent to that of cheese made from pasteurized milk. That is one view.
The opposing view has been spearheaded in particular by the United States, but it has been supported to date by Canada, New Zealand and Australia. They say that these practices do not yield a product at a level of safety equivalent to that of cheese from pasteurized milk. The reasons given are that no matter how hygienic you are on the farm, some fecal contamination - that is where the organisms get into the milk - is always possible. You cannot totally avoid even a low level of fecal contamination.
That is apparent when you look at the standards for E-coli. When you look at any cheese, particularly in raw milk, there is a fair E-coli population in there. The E-coli population to which I refer may or may not include the ones which are of serious concern. Some of them are quite innocuous; others give rise to severe illness.
Second, on the farm, and we have seen this in Canada also, within a herd, there may be, say, a single cow with a subclinical mastitic condition which leads to the shedding, intermittently, of salmonella and/listeria into the raw milk.
These are the arguments on the other side and these arguments are continuing. I cannot predict when this point will be resolved.
Mr. Paterson: As an additional comment, as Dr. Harwig says, the Codex Alimentareus mechanism is the one that we used to develop this international consultation.
You also mentioned conferences or other international bodies. The World Health Organization is an important one. It is interesting to note that in their most recent annual report, they identify raw milk as a potential hazard in terms of risk for disease-causing organisms.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: Within the European Economic Community, does France support any particular position?
[English]
Mr. Harwig: Yes. As I described, France, generally supported by the EEC, believes that raw milk soft cheese can be produced safely, at the same level of safety as that given by making soft cheese from pasteurized milk, if you go through this whole number of steps: veterinary oversight of the herd, very good hygienic practices on the farm, very hygienic practices with respect to the milk collection, standards for the raw milk, strict restrictions as to the hygienic conditions for the raw milk cheese production, and perhaps also an additional label that says this cheese was made from raw milk.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: Is Health Canada satisfied or concerned with the way the inspections are done at the producers' level in Quebec, where most of the dairy production are concentrated in Canada? Should any additional measures be taken? Are you satisfied with the work being done at that level? Could the adoption of additional measures be sufficient to keep Health Canada from taking an initiative like the one you mentioned in the proposed regulations?
What worries me a bit, as you might guess, is the fact that the National Assembly of Quebec adopted an unanimous resolution requesting the withdrawal of that proposed regulations. I don't ask you to comment on that issue which is now under debate at the political level. However, on a scientific standpoint, I hope that motion does not prevent you from cooperating with the different Quebec and Ontario government departments in the search of alternatives which could meet the same objectives and replace the initiatives you referred to in your presentation.
[English]
Mr. Paterson: I believe your question asked whether we are satisfied with the inspection methods, what can be done to improve things, and what about the Quebec-Ontario collaboration.
As I mentioned earlier, one is never completely satisfied. One is always striving to improve the processes. As new information comes available, we should be dynamic, particularly in a regulatory environment. Government has been criticized in the past of being too moribund and not being dynamic.
A superficial answer is, no, we are not completely satisfied with inspection methods. Obviously, inspection is working because we are, particularly with the imports, finding 25 to 30 per cent rejection.
Again, as I mentioned, with the initiative that the government announced in March and the eventual harmonization and more cohesive development of a national food inspection system, things will improve, over all, in terms of food inspection and specifically with respect to cheese inspection.
We are satisfied, yes, within the constraints that we have, both in terms of resources and technology with what is available at the moment.
What could be done to improve things? I think I have addressed that. Institutionally, there are moves afoot which will lead to improvement through better collaboration and one-stop shopping, if I could use that expression. Again, as new technology and information comes available, that will get plugged in. We are moving now much more to science-based technological methods of inspection, from the old visual, organoleptic type of inspection. One can envisage inspectors in the field in two or three years having tests which will allow them, if not instantaneously, certainly within 30 minutes or an hour, to come up with determinations which now take us 24 or 48 hours, or even longer.
There will be continual improvement in our ability to detect and make adjustments and decisions more quickly. There are things that can be done. Those are some of them. Dr. Harwig may be able to add to that.
Regarding the National Assembly in Quebec, yes, we are aware of that situation. Yes, we are collaborating with Quebec and other provinces, but particularly Quebec which has created a consultative committee. That consultative committee has finished its consultations. They have submitted a report to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in Quebec. That report is being considered by the government and will, as we understand it, be forwarded to us as part of the response to the Part I tabling of the proposal.
We have a lot of interaction and collaboration at the working level, with both Health Canada and Santé Québec, as well as with our colleagues in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and their colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and Food in Quebec.
The collaboration is there. We are confident that all available technical information and solutions will surface and be examined, whether it is generated within the federal system or the provincial systems in Quebec or Ontario, or indeed through industry organizations like the Dairy Farmers of Canada, who, as you probably know - I think Mr. Rivard mentioned it - held an all-day stakeholders meeting at which they considered options to this proposal. So I think we have the best minds in the country examining this issue.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: Concerning the Government of Quebec's report, you don't know anything about its findings relating to the scientific aspects of that issue, do you? What is included in that report?
[English]
Mr. Paterson: Not at this moment, Senator Rivest. That report is confidential, or perhaps even secret. It is being studied within the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and Food. As I understand it, it will then come forward as an official Quebec government proposal or submission to Health Canada. We have not received that report yet, but we anticipate receiving it.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: Will the federal department of Agriculture wait until someone in the department sees the report before making a final decision about those proposed regulations?
[English]
Mr. Paterson: Yes, the onus or the responsibility is with Health Canada. However, there is no issue that is uni-dimensional nowadays - they cross jurisdictions - so we have been working very closely with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and even with Foreign Affairs and International Trade because, as you mentioned, there are international dimensions here. We have a working group with our colleagues in other departments studying this issue. The accountability will be with us to respond to the Government of Quebec's report and recommendations, but we will certainly do that in collaboration particularly with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Mr. Harwig: I am not quite sure what else I can add to that.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: Some people suggest that to ensure health safety for all consumers, milk can be pasteurized. There is also aging which does not seem to be used enough as a process. Are there any other techniques which the consumer could rely on? If there are some, which are they? Why did Health Canada choose the technology proposed in the regulatory amendment?
[English]
Mr. Harwig: Yes. Perhaps I could respond first to your comments on pasteurization. In our view, pasteurization of milk for all cheeses would be an optimal situation. However, that clearly is not acceptable to the industry at this time, perhaps because of flavour development, consumer preferences, and so on. Obviously, we must look for a compromise. A compromise that exists at present is that the hard cheese varieties, the ones that can stand storage for at least 60 days, would have to be stored for that period of time. Most of them, as I said, are stored much longer than that because the acid conditions and the dryness conditions that develop in these cheeses tend to lead to a die-off of the organisms of concern.
However, that aging is not an option for the high-moisture, low-acid cheeses like some of the soft cheeses that I mentioned earlier. It is not an option. In fact, it would make the situation worse.
With respect to your comment on technologies other than pasteurization, we anticipated comments like that. For example, the wording of the proposed regulation, or even the existing regulation, could be modified to state "pasteurization or equivalent means".
Are there any equivalent means around the corner? At this time, we are aware of different technologies. Some of them are referred to as microfiltration or maybe ultrafiltration. These, to our knowledge, have not been applied practically. Some information is becoming available suggesting that perhaps California is considering that. The door is open to these technologies, provided it can be proven that they are indeed equivalent in terms of safety and removing those disease-causing organisms. We do not know much about them at this time.
Really, the onus is on the industry. If they wish to shift from a heat-pasteurization technology to, say, a filtration technology, they would have to submit a petition to Health Canada, under the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations, and provide the data to show that indeed that process would be safe. Does that help?
[Translation]
Senator Riel: I would like to exchange with you about publicity and information. As Mr. Rivard mentioned it very clearly, that proposal, which was brought up so abruptly, was extensively publicized in every single newspaper of the province of Quebec by the importers of raw milk cheese. They claimed that those measures were directed against the young raw milk cheese industry in Quebec. They argued that this proposal was no more than a further federal attack against Quebecers. The soundness of such charges are depending upon the political position you have. Sometimes, facts may be misinterpreted.
[English]
Senator Rivest obviously has another view of the general situation in Quebec from mine. Both of you have been very diplomatic in treating the question.
To come back to my proposition, this situation has been brought to the public by the media in Quebec, and coverage has been slanted.
To prove that statement, I wish to tell you that when there was a meeting of the federal Liberal Party in Ste. Thérèse - and you have referred to that, I believe - the importers attended. None of the parliamentarians who were at that meeting was aware of this amendment to the regulations. They were not aware - nor was a minister of Italian origin - that Parmesan cheese was made from heated milk.
It was a free day for the media. That is how they went to the National Assembly of Quebec and obtained a unanimous resolution which reads exige du gouvernement. It is more than a demand. It orders the Canadian government not to continue with these regulations.
The approach to the department involves a question of communication. The department will probably have something else to regulate in the near future. You will probably give us a presentation that will paint dreadful pictures about sickness that could be inflicted upon us. God knows, we are full of sickness. We have cigarettes, alcohol and AIDS. Yet we are not prohibiting practising sex because some people can get AIDS.
This department could render a great service to the people of Canada and the province of Quebec by publicizing why they are adopting these regulations. They should also communicate with parliamentarians before issuing public statements so that parliamentarians would know how to answer questions from the public.
As a senator, I am not an elected official. I received phone calls from farmers in the Eastern Townships of Quebec. They thought that they were being persecuted by the federal government. I was very shocked to hear that. That is why I asked the committee to start an inquiry into this matter. We know better now. We know that you are doing a good job. But you must tell the people the reasons for your actions so that other people will not steal what you have done and misrepresent it by saying that it is directed against a certain part of the population or a part of the country.
Mr. Paterson: The reproach is justified, 20/20 hindsight, which is always perfect.
Before we published in the Canada Gazette, we went through a fairly extensive technical consultation with the province of Quebec, the dairy industry in Quebec, the National Dairy Council, the dairy farmers of Canada, and various other stakeholders, but it tended to be of a technical nature. That process took well over a year.
We will then do a more detailed post-mortem of this process. Everything you have said is true. All I can do is take our lumps here.
We then put it into the process of getting it ready for regulations. Several months went by. One could criticize the length which that process took. During that time, we did not sensitize and inform key groups of a non-technical nature that should have been informed. You made reference to parliamentarians, ministers, the media and other stakeholders. When it appeared as a proposal, as Dr. Harwig said, the world had changed a bit. Approximately nine months had gone by and there was a flourishing industry, particularly in Quebec. A referendum had been held last October. I am sure all of us were very glued to our television sets that evening. We were insensitive to a key element of public communication and public information. Consequently, when Part I of the Canada Gazette hit, we were ill-prepared for the reaction.
Will we learn from that? Absolutely. We have others in the pipeline, not necessarily relating to micro-organisms; for example, the United States has approved Olestra, a fat substitute, which some of you may know about. It is very controversial. We have an application within the department at this moment reviewing it. Whatever our decision is, we had better make sure that we do a much better job, learn from this initiative, and, yes, inform a broader audience in a more timely way of what we are doing, why we are doing it, or what we are proposing to do.
The reproach is well deserved, and we will take our lumps.
Senator Landry: Senator Riel said that he received a lot of phone calls. So did I. We went through the very same thing with the fisheries 25 years ago. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans told us at that time that we had to get rid of wooden tables and make stainless steel tables. The older people were in an uproar. But it was for our own good.
You cannot depend totally on pasteurizing. I have seen that happen, too. When we were ordered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to pasteurize, some of them would forget their hygiene and would say, "Why must it be pasteurized anyway?" You still need the best of hygiene, yet pasteurizing is important because without it you could be leaving yourself open to bacteria that could come from anywhere.
I believe in pasteurizing and hygiene at the same time.
Senator Rivest: You have your regulation. What is next? When will the minister make his decision?
Mr. Paterson: We have had discussions with the minister. To say that he is not interested in the file would be an understatement.
June 13 is the closing date for submissions. As I mentioned earlier, a scientific expert committee will meet on July 8. We must give that committee time to deliberate and submit its report. This is not official yet, but I predict that a report will come from the expert advisory committee early in August. That would allow the department to study the report and make some pronouncement. The minister would be able to take a position on this by the end of August or early September. The minister has not yet agreed to that. He is anxious to take action on this file, but not without the input we need, and a key piece of input is the deliberations and the representations from the expert advisory committee.
May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Certainly.
Mr. Paterson: We are here today as witnesses responding to questions of this committee. Can we anticipate a report from this committee which we could also use as part of that process? What are your time lines? It would obviously be a useful input.
Senator Riel: The purpose of asking you and the producers to appear here was to learn about the situation. We were not aware that there was a problem. Now we are informed. Perhaps through Senator Rivest we could obtain a copy of the Quebec report. It is possible that we could also receive other reports from Mr. Rivard. This committee may have another meeting in camera, after which we could send you some representations.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your presentation.
Mr. Paterson: Thank you. We have appreciated the opportunity to appear before you and explain our proposal to you. We thank you for the courtesy with which you have treated us.
The Chairman: We have several other orders of business.
You will recall that Senators Taylor and Spivak had indicated an interest in looking at the forestry end of the committee's commitments. A budget has been put forth, which has been distributed to you. We can look at that and either accept it or make recommendations.
Mr. Blair Armitage, Clerk of the Committee: If I may, by way of explanation, Senators Taylor and Spivak spoke to me about this last week. They indicated that they would like to do a fact-finding mission to various fibre processing plants through Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. They indicated plants at certain locations, and we have put together a fact-finding trip for four senators and three staff. The locations they are considering are The Pas, Manitoba; Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; and they would like to go to Peace River, Edmonton, and Athabasca, all of which are located in Alberta. I believe there is a closed loop processing plant somewhere in Peace River. Senator Taylor says there is a hemp production facility there.
The Chairman: I suppose there is some question about how thorough this issue could be. I wonder whether you can deal with forestry without dealing with B.C. They are such a major player in the industry.
Mr. Armitage: They are very mindful of the fact that British Columbia and the Maritimes also have significant forestry practices and issues. They were mindful of the fact that the committee has only so many members and a limited amount of time to travel. There are fact-finding trips planned to the Canadian Wheat Board and Washington in the fall. They did not want to take up senators' time too much. They thought they would begin with what they were familiar with, and they were the ones with the most active expression of interest in forestry issues. They also had in mind that once they covered the issues that they felt were present in those three provinces, they could use that as a base for turning to silviculture in British Columbia, the Maritimes and Quebec.
Senator Riel: What are the dates?
Mr. Armitage: They have not chosen dates yet. They were hoping to do it in the fall before the Senate began sitting. That is why the process is being pushed somewhat without them being present. I believe Senator Spivak is travelling with the Energy Committee out west. We need to get this budget through our committee and then through Internal Economy next week before the Senate rises.
The Chairman: It sounds to me like we will have a very busy summer on our side of the House. There are several things that are already in the planning stages. The discussion on dates can take place later when Senator Taylor and Senator Spivak are here.
Mr. Armitage: If I may suggest, next Thursday, if we are successful in getting the cattlemen here, we could have a preliminary discussion with those two senators.
The Chairman: Must the timing be there in the request before Internal Economy?
Mr. Armitage: I will work with them in preparing something to present.
Senator Rossiter: Part B, participation at conferences by committee members and/or staff, is that related to forestry products?
Mr. Armitage: We have a similar section in the agriculture budget.
Senator Rossiter: The witness expenses on the last page, is that witnesses coming here to Ottawa?
Mr. Armitage: That is correct. We have an overall organization motion that we pay for the expenses of only one member of each organization.
Senator Rossiter: I have no objection to this.
The Chairman: I have one question in regards to the travel. Is it correct that they would rather that we not use our travel points?
Mr. Armitage: That is correct.
The Chairman: I am not sure of the reason for that, but that would reduce our budget considerably.
Mr. Armitage: The thinking behind that is, first, it is not a transparent practice to use your points for committee work. Second, it unfairly penalizes those who already have high travel budgets, because of where they live, to also subsidize committee work. At the end of the year, you take unfair criticism for being a high-spending traveller.
The Chairman: Coming from Saskatchewan, I understand that. Are there any other questions about the submission of this budget?
Senator Landry: Will we wait until Senator Taylor returns?
The Chairman: There is urgency in terms of time.
Mr. Armitage: They would like the budget passed before then.
Senator Riel: This is satisfactory.
The Chairman: Do you care to place a motion?
Senator Riel: I so move.
The Chairman: It is seconded by Senator Rossiter. Are there any other questions before we vote on it?
Senator Anderson: I am not familiar with the three places in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, and whether they would be quite similar, or whether it would not be better to have one of these in the Maritimes.
The Chairman: And one in B.C.
Mr. Armitage: Their intention was to continue the work through the next fiscal year and to cover British Columbia and the Maritimes as well.
Senator Anderson: All right.
The Chairman: That could probably be altered in terms of destinations.
The Chairman: Are we in favour of Senator Riel's motion to accept this budget?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
The Chairman: The Minister of Agriculture has called an agricultural convention and conference on the future of agriculture and agri-foods in Winnipeg for June 25 and 27. We have had a request from our researcher, June Dewetering, to attend that. I think that that would be advisable. She could bring us back a report and a general overview.
Senator Rossiter: I so move.
The Chairman: It is seconded by Senator Anderson. All in favour?
Hon. Members: Agreed.
The committee adjourned.