Towards International Policies for Management of Low-Level Presence of Genetically Modified Crops in Imported Grain, Food and Feed.

Transcription

1 Towards International Policies for Management of Low-Level Presence of Genetically Modified Crops in Imported Grain, Food and Feed. Stephen Yarrow, Vice-President, Plant Biotechnology Canadian Seed Trade Association annual meeting, July 11-13, 2016

2 Biotech/rDNA-derived crops are an amazing success 2

3 But lack of synchronous approvals creates issues Once approved in one jurisdiction a rdna-derived/genetically modified product in grain may appear in another unintentionally - low level presence (LLP) Comingling can happen during cultivation, harvest, transportation or storage of grain Modern, efficient bulk grain handling systems are not designed for segregation of different grain sources Zero tolerance policies are 3 problematic

4 The Global Low Level Presence Initiative The Global LLP Initiative (GLI) was formed in 2012 following a 2011 meeting hosted by the Government of Canada for like-minded, interested countries to work collaboratively on the issue of LLP Consensus that global solutions are needed to reduce the likelihood of trade disruptions 15 members: Argentina, Australia, 4 Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Mexico, Paraguay, Philippines, Russia, South Africa, USA, Uruguay and Vietnam. Observers include: China, Colombia, the EU, Japan, S. Korea.

5 GLI consensus on the definition of LLP LLP for food as low levels of rdna plant materials that have passed a food safety assessment according to Codex Alimentarius guidelines* in one or more countries, but may on occasion be present in food in importing countries in which the food safety of the relevant rdna plants has not been determined * Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from rdna Plants (CAC/GL ) 5

6 LLP policy should provide trade stability Recognize that LLP is a compliance issue, not a safety issue Product has been approved, under CODEX guidelines, by at least one country, so no safety concerns Redefine zero to eliminate trade disruption due to GM detection from dust and grain particles Set a reasonable compliance or marketing threshold which maximizes the value of the grain and minimizes cost inefficiencies Industry seeking a threshold level of 5% 6

7 Proposed Canadian LLP model policy components Proposed policy based on: 0.2% level for LLP situations such as trace amounts rdnaderived material resulting from discontinued events, isolated foreign approvals, dust effectively redefines zero X% threshold* for LLP resulting from broad commercialization of rdna-derived crops not yet approved in the importing country * Industry seeking 5% Model offers a risk-based management approaches that: Permit regulatory enforcement measures to be taken in proportion to the negligible risk Afford predictability on how LLP situations will be managed 7

8 Compliance threshold requirement proposals LLP % rdna event approved for food use in one other country Approving country must have followed Codex guidelines Detection methods /samples provided Data package for full authorization submitted Proactive LLP-type risk assessment completed by importing country 0 0.2% X% > X% Policy does not apply 8

9 Fourth GLI meeting, February 2016, Rome: 9 Government attendees: Argentina Australia Canada (Secretariat; co-chair) China (observer) Costa Rica (WTO & FAO mission reps) EC (observers from DG Trade and Health) Mexico (co-chair) Netherlands (observer) Paraguay Peru (observer) Uruguay (FAO rep) USA Vietnam Other participants: Codex Secretariat IICA FAO Secretariat

10 Fourth GLI meeting, February 2016 Rome: Presentations from: Canada Grains Council: overview of why LLP polices are essential GAABT: global industry views on policies Univ of Missouri: threshold costs study by Dr. Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes Government of Canada: proposed domestic policy outline Discussions emphasized that the fundamental element that overarches the various models to address LLP is that products have undergone safety assessments completed by other countries following Codex Guidelines/Annex. 10

11 Fourth GLI meeting, February 2016 outcomes: Well-attended and highly successful - adoption of a more ambitious and substantive work plan. Work plan includes the development of a guidance document on solutions to facilitate the management of LLP in imports. Strong participation by key importing countries (with observer status), such as the EU and China- indicative of increased interest in following more closely the international dialogue on LLP. The positive tone and constructive engagement that the U.S. delegation demonstrated contributed to the general success of the meeting. 11

12 Fourth GLI meeting, February 2016 outcomes: 12 Members adopted 2 statements/communiqués: asynchronous approvals transparency of data, and agreement to use in advocacy with third markets. Argentina will be working on developing a concept paper on its proposal to organize a workshop on the Codex LLP Annex. Mexico is working on a concept note designed to provide additional details on its proposal to organize a workshop on LLP risk assessment. US is leading the development of a statement/guidance document on pragmatic and practical approaches to mitigate and address LLP situations in imports.

13 Fourth GLI meeting, February 2016 outcomes: Industry via the Global Association for Ag-Biotech Trade (GAABT) to provide current tools needed to assist the objective of managing LLP, i.e. stewardship practices 13 Plus: Canada will continue to serve as the GLI secretariat for another three years. No GLI member country offered up to serve as chair going forward, or to host the next meeting, but there will be continued consultations in this regard. There was also no mention of timing for the next meeting. Industry supports before the end of 2016 to maintain momentum.

14 However. 14 The entire LLP discussion over the last ten plus years has been predicated on trade concerns regarding the presence of rdna-derived material in grain this is a priority. rdna biotechnology is a year old technology New breeding techniques are rapidly being deployed and products derived from them starting to be commercialized (gene editing, site-directed mutagenesis, etc.) GMOs, GM, GE, PNTs, NBTs definitions are blurring Inevitably there will be asynchronous approvals of these products around the world, plus asynchronous policies on regulation Forward thinking policies will be essential to further protect trade in the near future

15 15 Thank you!