RESPONSE OF THE FEDERAL
DEPARTMENTS AND
AGENCIES TO THE PETITION FILED SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 BY GREENPEACE CANADA
UNDER THE AUDITOR GENERAL ACT:
CONCERNING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S POSITION AND POLICY REGARDING
THE RELEASE OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FISH:
AN UPDATE
January 22, 2004
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
Minister of Health
Minister of the Environment
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Foreword
In responding to the petition about genetically engineered (GE) fish,
submitted by Greenpeace Canada under the Auditor General Act,
federal departments and agencies have worked together, contributing their
collective knowledge and expertise to this response. This effort has been
made in order to provide a considered, integrated response that would
be relevant to all Canadians who are interested in biotechnology-derived
products, specifically as this topic relates to GE fish and sustainable
development.
This response builds on previous responses to petitions submitted under
the Auditor General Act, which provided an in-depth look at the
existing regulatory system for biotechnology – aspects covering
health, the environment, trade and socio-economic questions, as they pertain
to regulation and sustainable development in this country. Those responses
provided an overview of the comprehensive manner in which Canada regulates
developers’ products. They also describe the "checks and balances"
in the system as well as such forward-looking developments as the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The specific
questions related to genetically engineered fish presented in the petition
are addressed in this response. The reader is invited to review previous
petition responses, which are publicly available on the website of the
Office of the Auditor General of Canada, for information on the overall
regulatory framework (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/petitions.nsf/english).
Canada has one of the safest and most effective regulatory systems for
biotechnology products in the world. In its renewal of the Canadian Biotechnology
Strategy, which followed extensive public consultations, the Government
of Canada expressed its goal of being a world leader in the responsible
development of biotechnology. This means that the Government must apply
rigorous standards to the manner in which it regulates and monitors biotechnology-derived
products, particularly as they relate to human and animal health and the
environment. The Government will continue to assure Canadians that the
products and processes of biotechnology are subject to the highest standards
of scientific testing for health, safety and environmental impact.
Internationally, Canada has a long and prestigious record for its science-based
regulatory system – a system that is in line with principles laid
out by organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United
Nations Environment Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
the International Plant Protection Convention, the Codex Alimentarius
Commission, and the Office Internationale des Épizooties. Canada
is a world leader in helping to shape international policy directions
in areas such as the labelling of biotechnology-derived foods.
One of the fundamental principles of the 1993 Federal Regulatory Framework
for Biotechnology is that the development of Canadian biotechnology regulations
be open and include consultation with Canadian citizens. Canadian values
must be at the heart of the public discussion on biotechnology. It is
in this light that the Government of Canada welcomes and values a transparent
dialogue with Canadians.
Table of Contents
Foreword
Acronyms
Background
The Response of the Federal Departments and Agencies
to the Petition
Concluding Remarks
Acronyms
AAFC - Agriculture and Agri-food Canada
CBAC - Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee
CEPA - Canadian Environmental Protection Act
CCFAM - Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers
CCRA - Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
CFIA - Canadian Food Inspection Agency
DFAIT - Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
DFO - Fisheries and Oceans Canada
EC - Environment Canada
FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization
IBSFC - International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission
GE - Genetically Engineered
HC - Health Canada
IC - Industry Canada
INAC - Indian Northern Affairs Canada
NASCO - North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization
NPAFC - North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission
NSNR - New Substance Notification Regulations
OECD - Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
OIE - Office International Des Epizooties
UNCBD - United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
UNEP - United Nations Environment Program
USFDA - U.S. Food and Drug Administration
WHO - World Health Organization
WTO - World Trade Organization
Background
On September 8, 2003, Greenpeace Canada (hereafter referred to as the
Petitioner) filed a petition pursuant to Section 22 of the Auditor
General Act with the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development. This petition, hereafter referred to as the Petition, deals
with the federal government’s position and policy regarding the
release of genetically engineered (GE) fish and provides an update to
a previous petition (Petition #38) for which a response was released in
April 2002.
The petition process is a means by which Canadians can express their
views and seek more information on matters of federal policy in the context
of the environment and sustainable development. The four responding Departments
wish to assure the Petitioner and their fellow Canadians that responsible
stewardship is a central priority to the federal decision-making framework
for biotechnology.
The Petition deals with genetically engineered (GE) fish and was specifically
directed to the following Ministers on behalf of their departments (hereafter
referred to as the Ministers) for response:
- Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
- Minister of the Environment
- Minister of Health
- Minister of Foreign Affairs
The main focus of the Petition concerns the federal government’s
position and policy regarding the release of GE fish and in particular
GE salmon, including information on the authorization, regulation and
monitoring of GE fish. The Petitioner requests information regarding the
existing regulatory system for biotechnology (policies and programs related
to regulations, enforcement, compliance and institutional arrangements),
and the federal response to the potential approval of genetically engineered
fish in Canada.
The Petition was received by the Auditor General’s office on September
8, 2003. It was sent to the Ministers on September 25, 2003. For this
reason, the 120 days allowed for the government to respond to the Petition
began on September 25, 2003.
The Response of the Federal Departments
and Agencies to the Petition
Introduction
The Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment, Health, and Foreign
Affairs have provided this document as a joint response to Greenpeace
Canada, the Petitioner.
Providing a joint response is consistent with the federal government’s
commitment to improve its management and coordination of matters related
to biotechnology and the environment as reflected in several previous
petition responses, as well as other joint work referenced in those responses.
Overall, the Ministers believe that Canada’s existing regulatory
system provides for the risk assessment and management of biotechnology-derived
products from a sustainable development perspective. In previous responses
to petitions, the Government of Canada has already provided information
regarding:
- the 1993 federal regulatory framework for biotechnology, and
- the federal development of Sustainable Development Strategies.
Readers may refer to previous petitions for extensive background information
on regulating biotechnology in Canada at
www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/petitions.nsf/english.
Response to Questions of the
Petition
Question 1:
Could the Ministers provide a general up-date on the situation regarding
GE fish and in particular GE salmon since their response (dated April
4, 2002) to Greenpeace’s petition (#38) on the same topic submitted
in November 2001, using original 1 to 9 as a guideline for an up-dated
response?
Response to Question 1:
1. The four departments (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada,
Health Canada, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade) are pleased to provide you with a general up-date on the activities
of our respective departments with respect to genetically engineered (GE)
fish, and in particular GE salmon, by responding to questions 2 to 8,
inclusive, of your current petition #38B. Our earlier response to the
previous petition (Petition #38) provided you with information concerning
the policy of the government of Canada to the issues of the release of
genetically engineered fish, and this response limits itself, as requested,
to an outline of any changes in policy since April 4, 2002.
Question 2:
In particular, could the Ministers confirm if the Government of Canada
has received (or not) a formal request to authorize the release and the
commercialization of any GE fish and/or aquatic species in Canada since
April 4, 2002? If yes, could the Ministers give details about this request
and about the expected government timeframe for dealing with the request?
Response to Question 2:
2. The four departments have not received any formal request to authorize
the release and commercialization of any genetically engineered (GE) fish
and/or aquatic species in Canada. No such products have been authorized
for release and commercialization by the Government of Canada since April
4, 2002.
Question 3:
In particular, could the Ministers give details about any correspondence
and/or contact since April 2002 (numbers of correspondence/contact, dates,
topics, agreements/understanding, etc.) with any companies related to
A/F Protein, for example, AquaBounty Farms, Seabright and/or Genesis,
that made public its intention to request permission to release and commercialise
GE salmon in Canada?
Response to Question 3:
3. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency,
and Environment Canada have had discussions with companies involved in
GE fish research. Exchanges concerned publicly available scientific articles
related to research findings, to further understand the genetic engineering
technologies currently in development.
4. Other information requested by the Petitioner in this question may
include personal information, confidential third party information, advice
or recommendations to the Minister, or information subject to solicitor-client
privilege, and therefore may be protected under the Access to Information
Act. For this reason, the four departments believe that it would
be more appropriate for the Petitioner to submit these requests under
the Access to Information Act, in order to ensure that the Act’s
exemptions are properly applied.
Question 4:
Could the Ministers confirm that the current policy of the Government
of Canada is still the same as stated on April 4, 2002, and in particular
that the Government of Canada ‘supports the NASCO policy statement
that the use of transgenic salmon is to be confined to secure, self-contained,
land-based facilities’ (government’s response #29, page 12)?
Response to Question 4:
5. Fisheries and Oceans Canada continues to support the North Atlantic
Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) policy statement.
Question 5:
If the response to the previous question (#4) is positive, could the
Ministers indicate if this policy/position also applies to any transgenic
aquatic species and how it will be implemented? If not, please justify.
If yes, could the Ministers outline the measures at home and initiatives
taken abroad by Canada to make sure that this Canadian position and/or
policy is implemented and/or shared by the international community (multilaterally
– e.g. NASCO and CEC of NAFTA and bilaterally – e.g. US)?
Response to Question 5:
6. Fisheries and Oceans Canada agrees that the potential consequences
of genetic and ecological interactions must be considered and that reproductively
capable GE fish and aquatic organisms must be kept in secure land-based
facilities. The measures and initiatives that have been taken are described
briefly below.
7. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency,
Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Health Canada developed
an Action Plan to respond to the Expert Scientific Panel of the Royal
Society of Canada report entitled: Elements of Precaution: Recommendations
for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada. The Government Action
Plan was released on November 23, 2001 and is posted on the Government
web site at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/protection/royalsociety/index.htm.
8. The Government Action Plan describes specific actions and projects
that the departments intend to carry out in response to the Expert Panel’s
recommendations. In its commitment to transparency, the government reports
on its progress on key initiatives undertaken in response to these recommendations.
Five progress reports on the Action Plan in Response to the Royal Society
of Canada Expert Panel Report have been published detailing technical
information regarding the key milestones achieved for each of the different
actions underway for which a reporting date was identified. These documents,
including the latest progress report (posted December 2003) may be found
on the Health Canada web site (at www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/protection/royalsociety/index.htm.
Subsequent progress reports, including actions underway relating to genetically
engineered animals, including fish, will be published in June 2004 and
December 2004.
9. Currently, any intention to manufacture or import aquatic organisms
with novel traits (including GE fish) requires notification and assessment
under the New Substance Notification Regulations (NSNR) of the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999). Such notification
under CEPA 1999 must properly address all of the information and data
items outlined in the NSNR. Fisheries and Oceans Canada provides sector
expertise to Environment Canada and Health Canada in processing the notifications
and the assessment of the environmental and indirect human health effects.
10. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is developing regulations under the Fisheries
Act for aquatic organisms with novel traits, which includes genetically
engineered fish. These will meet the CEPA 1999 requirements for the protection
of the environment and indirect human health. Regulations will be based
on objective scientific data generated from regulatory research programs
being conducted at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, which are peer reviewed
by international scientific authorities. As part of the Government of
Canada’s policies and practices, the public will be provided the
opportunity to review and comment upon this regulation prior to adoption.
The proposed regulations will be accompanied by a full Regulatory Impact
Analysis Statement that will address the issues raised in the Petition.
11. In addition to the current regulatory requirements, the Fisheries
and Oceans Canada general approach to the prevention of importation of
unapproved GE fish and fish products is augmented by ongoing discussions
with national and international organizations.
12. Recommendations and discussions with scientific and policy experts
at international meetings (North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization
(NASCO), North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC), International
Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC)) will assure the approach used by
Fisheries and Oceans Canada is shared and remains up to date with new
knowledge and experience.
13. Fisheries and Oceans Canada actively participates in several national
and international fora and closely follows issues relating to the developments
of GE fish. For example, the NASCO ‘Guidelines for Action on Transgenic
Salmon' for the protection of wild stocks, identify actions to ensure
that GE salmon will not have an impact upon wild salmon stocks, including:
- Advising the NASCO Council of any proposal to permit the rearing
of GE salmonids and provide details of the proposed measures to safeguard
the wild stocks.
- Taking all possible actions to ensure that the use of GE salmon,
in any part of NASCO Convention Area, is confined to secure, self-contained,
land based facilities.
- Taking steps, as appropriate, to improve knowledge on the potential
impacts of GE fish on wild stocks and their habitat.
Further details of the guidelines can be found on the NASCO web site
at:
http://www.nasco.int/pdf/nasco_cnl_03_57.pdf
14. Finally, in conjunction with the regulatory departments and agencies,
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade officials play important
roles in facilitating inter-governmental information sharing, helping
to increase sector awareness of regulatory obligations between and among
countries, assisting in the resolution of bilateral or multilateral market
access concerns, and providing effective leadership in trade negotiations.
15. There is ongoing dialogue between Canada and the US on several fronts,
at which Canada’s views and requirements relating to genetically
engineered organisms are made known, including discussion amongst regulatory
and trade officials. Under NASCO, these parties will continue to provide
comprehensive information to the council in advance of each annual meeting,
concerning the measures in force to limit impacts upon wild salmon stocks.
Question 6:
If the answer to question #4 above is positive, could the Ministers
indicate if they participated (formally or informally and while respecting
constitutional divisions of powers) in consultation processes organized
by lower levels of government relating to aquaculture or conservation
proposal in order to make sure that there is an explicit provision that
the use of transgenic salmon is to be confined to secure, self-contained,
land-based facilities.
Response to Question 6:
16. The four departments, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Environment Canada,
Health Canada, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade have not participated in a consultation process with lower levels
of government relating to aquaculture or conservation proposals on the
potential commercialization or release of GE fish to date. The reason
the federal and provincial governments have not consulted on this issue
is because there is no commercial production of GE fish at this time,
nor is there any request to authorize the release and the commercialization
of GE fish. If such situations arise, the Canadian Council of Fisheries
and Aquaculture Ministers (CCFAM) could be one of the mechanisms for such
federal/ provincial/ territorial discussions. As indicated in earlier
responses, the regulation of any commercial production and release falls
under existing legislation such as CEPA 1999 and the Fisheries Act.
Question 7:
If the response to question #4 above is positive but if the response
to question #6 above is negative, could the Ministers indicate if, how
and when, they communicated their position/policy to lower levels of government
in Canada (e.g. provinces and territories) to make sure that all levels
of government adopt a precautionary approach and refuse the release of
GE fish and aquatic species in Canadian waters?
Response to Question 7:
17. Fisheries and Oceans Canada developed the 'Draft Policy on Research
with, and Rearing of Transgenic Aquatic Organisms'. The draft policy articulates
guidelines for the physical and genetic containment of GE aquatic organisms
in research laboratories and the environment and it provides a framework
for the assessment of risk to the environment where there is a possibility
of access to the natural environment. The intent of the policy is to provide
information regarding the roles and responsibilities of the Department
in assessing information that proponents and users of GE aquatic organisms
will provide. It also outlines the roles and responsibilities of proponents
and users.
18. In June 1998, Fisheries and Oceans Canada distributed the draft policy
to the provinces and territories, as well as to industry and environmental
groups, which was followed by an extensive comment and consultation period
with the recipients.
19. Environment Canada has not communicated directly with other levels
of government but continues to direct its compliance efforts in this regard
to facilities that carry out R&D activities. Environment Canada makes
R&D facilities housing transgenic salmon aware that they are responsible
for meeting the R&D exemption criteria listed in s.29.16 of the NSN
Regulations of CEPA 1999.
Question 8:
Could the Ministers provide a detailed breakdown of government funds
made available since April 2002, specifically and only for studies to
design test protocols, regulatory requirements and general understanding
of the potential impacts of GE fish and/or aquatic species and estimated
funds for the forthcoming budget years? Could the Ministers provide a
detailed breakdown of government funds made available since April 2002,
specifically and only for the development and promotion of GE aquatic
species with the view to commercialize GE aquatic species.”
Response to Question 8:
20. The government is investing in the Canadian regulatory system for
biotechnology. Under this government investment, $1.495 million per year
is devoted to developing the science base and the in-house capabilities
at Fisheries and Oceans Canada for the regulation of biotechnology-derived
aquatic organisms, including GE fish, for the protection of the aquatic
ecosystem and the conservation of marine resources.
21. No government funds were made available for the development and promotion
of GE aquatic species with the view to commercialization of these species.
22. As outlined in the progress reports on the Government Action Plan,
Health Canada is currently in the process of developing specific guidance
for the safety assessment of genetically engineered livestock and fish.
Consultation on the first draft of Health Canada's Guidelines for the
Safety Assessment of Novel Foods Derived from Livestock and Fish is now
planned for 2004. These guidelines are a necessary prerequisite to Health
Canada conducting any safety assessment of animals or fish derived through
biotechnology.
23. As part of ongoing research to generate knowledge to support the
regulatory system and to allow an improved scientific basis for detailed
assessments from potential risks of new foods derived through biotechnology,
Health Canada had committed $0.19 million to research on genetically modified
fish in 2002-03, and has committed $0.3 million for 2003-04. It is estimated
that another $0.6 million will be committed to these projects over the
2004-2006 period. Specifically, Health Canada has projects underway to
assess long-term toxicological and health effects of GE fish in animal
models. A project to develop DNA testing techniques for identification
of GE fish through analysis of different parts of the fish is being completed
and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Additional details on
these research projects are available in the progress reports.
Concluding Remarks
The Ministers named in this Petition remain committed to:
- an effective domestic regulatory system that embodies the concept
of sustainable development as it seeks to protect the health of Canadians,
and the environment; and
- the broader responsibilities of global stewardship, which Canada
shares with other countries, to see that practical and effective measures
to protect humans, biodiversity, and the environment are achieved through
the design and operation of a science-based, rules-based, and transparent
international regulatory framework.
|