OTTAWA — A committee of MPs studying the issue of whether Canada should approve sale of a dairy growth hormone is likely to recommend delaying BST’s introduction.
The agriculture committee may also recommend that the government develop a broader test for judging whether biotechnology products should be approved.
“I think a number of people see this as a test for how the government will treat biotech products that come on the market in the future,” Commons agriculture committee chair Bob Speller said March 14. “I think it has become a much bigger issue than just this product.”
Read Also
August rain welcome, but offered limited relief
Increased precipitation in August aids farmers prior to harvest in southern prairies of Canada.
The specific issue before the agriculture committee is whether bovine somatotropin (BST) should be approved for sale in Canada, as it was in the United States last month.
Dairy farmers, dairy processors, consumers and some anti-BST campaigners from the U.S. used the sometimes-heated hearings last week to argue there should be a delay of at least six months and perhaps as much as two years to allow consumer education and an assessment of the U.S. experience.
Product is safe
Manufacturers of the drug, including Monsanto Canada Inc., sent representatives from universities and the companies to argue that the product is safe, has been extensively tested, will cause no consumer backlash, will be a good competitive tool for dairy farmers and should be approved.
BST, a manufactured version of a naturally-occurring hormone in dairy cows, can increase the milk production by three to five litres a day in an average dairy cow.
Two applications are before the health department and a decision from officials could come as early as the end of the month. The department will judge it on the basis of health and safety for cows and consumers and whether it will increase milk production as promised.
However, many of the witnesses and a number of the agriculture committee MPs argued the health department test is too narrow, even though few argued that the product is a human health hazard.
They said the government should intervene in this case, imposing a broader definition of what test a new product must meet before it is approved for the market.
Will it do economic good or harm? Wayne Easter (Lib.–Malpeque) insisted that a milk-increasing hormone would drive many smaller dairy farmers out of business.
Will there be a backlash? Kempton Matte from the National Dairy Council of Canada said consumer resistance could reduce demand for dairy products.
Is the product needed? Jean-Paul Marchand (BQ–QuŽbec East) asked virtually every witness who would benefit, since there is enough milk already, and farmers and consumers are not demanding it.
Some MPs clearly were uneasy about making recommendations that could be seen as anti-science.
“When something new comes on the market, we on the Prairies tend to treat it as a new management tool and not something to run from,” Leon Benoit (Ref. — Vegreville) said at one point.
Both these views will be argued this week and next as the committee prepares a report.
