John Rafferty, CEO of Ontario Genomics, makes the case that Canada's combination of vast acreage, abundant water, and clean energy positions it to become not just an agricultural superpower but a biomanufacturing one — if it can close the capital gap in scaling infrastructure. Rafferty argues that genomics is moving from a specialised research field into the operating system of a circular economy, where biomass inputs from Canadian farms can replace petroleum-derived plastics, food colourants, and industrial chemicals. The episode is a call to action for policymakers, farmers, and investors to treat biomanufacturing not as a science project but as Canada's next major export industry.

Show notes:

In this episode, John Rafferty unpacks the twin missions of Ontario Genomics: precision health on one side, and food and industrial biotech on the other. His central argument is that genomics has spent twenty-five years generating research and is now at a commercialisation inflection point, one where Canada's natural endowments — land, water, and clean energy — make it uniquely positioned to lead a global shift from extraction-based manufacturing toward circular biomanufacturing. He frames this not as a moonshot but as an obligation: roughly sixty percent of everything humans consume, he contends, can be bio-manufactured from agricultural biomass inputs and returned to the earth in a genuinely circular way.

Rafferty is direct about where the bottleneck lies. Ontario, despite hosting the majority of Canada's genomics innovators and post-secondary talent, lacks accessible biomanufacturing scale-up capacity at the thousand-litre range that startup companies need to prove their unit economics. Companies that want to produce hundreds of kilogrammes of a bio-manufactured sweetener or food colourant — enough to demonstrate price competitiveness against commodity sugar — are currently forced to travel to Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, or another country entirely. Rafferty describes this as a capital problem, not a regulatory one, and he draws a deliberate analogy to the renewable energy transition: just as solar and wind power required patient investment before reaching cost parity with fossil fuels, bio-manufactured materials need that same scaling runway before they can displace petroleum-based plastics and chemicals on commercial terms.

A second tension runs through the conversation: the challenge of communicating a field where, as Rafferty puts it, there is a genome in everything. Ontario Genomics works across soil microbial health, cellular agriculture, rare-disease therapeutics, water bioremediation, and food ingredient innovation simultaneously — a breadth that risks dissolving into what he calls talking about world peace. His proposed solution is to pursue ground-level victories first: working directly with farmer groups to diversify revenue streams, demonstrating that Canadian-grown biomass can supply food ingredients currently imported at supply-chain risk, and letting those concrete wins build the narrative. He also raises the AI paradox squarely — acknowledging that artificial intelligence is accelerating genomic data analysis and commercialisation timelines while simultaneously carrying a significant and troubling environmental footprint of its own, a tension he says society has not yet honestly reckoned with.

For listeners in Canada's agri-food sector, this episode reframes a familiar question — how do we add value to what we grow? — at a much larger scale of ambition. Rafferty's vision is of Canadian farmers as feedstock partners in a national biomanufacturing industry that exports bio-plastics, proteins, and specialty ingredients the same way Canada has always exported grain and oilseeds, but with far greater value per acre. His policy ask is equally concrete: a national network of scaling facilities, challenge-based funding tied to specific import-substitution targets, and regulatory mandates with hard dates — the kind of policy signal that turned renewable electricity from an experiment into an industry. Whether Canada chooses to act on those assets or continues to send raw biomass across borders is, Rafferty argues, a question of political will, not scientific capability.

Topics: Biomanufacturing, Circular Economy, Genomics Commercialisation, Scale-Up Infrastructure, Agricultural Superpowers, Soil Microbial Health, AI and Genomics, Food Innovation Policy

Hi, I'm Jesse Hirsch.

Welcome to the Future Herd.

What if the next great chapter for Canadian agriculture isn't just about

what we grow, but what we build from it?

We talk a lot on this show about the pressures facing the AgriFood

sector, trade disruptions, climate volatility, supply chain

fragility, and those are real.

But every once in a while, a conversation comes along that reframes

the entire picture that shifts you from managing risk to seeing

genuine generational opportunity.

And today's conversation is one of those.

My guest is John Rafferty, the president and CEO of Ontario Genomics.

When most of us hear the word genomics, our eyes probably glaze over a little.

It sounds like something happening far away in a lab by nerds in white coats,

not something that touches a farmer's bottom line or a rural community's future.

But John changes that.

What Ontario genomics is working towards is something called biomanufacturing.

The idea that we can take agricultural inputs like corn, dairy, byproducts,

biomass, and instead of shipping them out or processing the way the way

we always have, we can ferment them, transform them, manufacture everything

from bioplastics to food colourants to proteins, circular, renewable, and

rooted right here in Canada's soil.

John came to this sector, not as a scientist, but as a leader.

He's reinvented himself across financial services, telecom,

and the charitable sector.

And now he's asking a question that I think every person in this industry

should be contemplating themselves.

Canada has the land, the water, the clean energy, and the talent.

So what's stopping us from becoming a superpower?

Yes, we often brag about our agricultural muscle, but what

about advanced biomanufacturing?

Taking that agricultural foundation and upgrading it, not just for the

global market, but for an entirely new sustainable circular civilization.

Sounds a little crazy, but entirely grounded in contemporary science.

And that's where we focus today's conversation.

Alright, let's hit it.

John, welcome to the Future Herd.

Thank you for having me.

Now I like to start every episode with a kind of ritual.

It's sort of an abstract question I'd like to throw to our guests.

There's no wrong answer, and it's what does the future mean to you?

Wow.

Uh, there's, it's always a challenging question.

I knew you were gonna ask it as well.

Um, so, uh, I, I think the future has, uh, a number of things.

Uh, for me, uh, the future is about hope.

The future is about unity.

Um, I, I think the future is about, uh, sustainability, uh, respect.

Uh, I think there are things that we've lost, from society and there

are things that kind of as human race evolves and we accelerate that maybe

gone two or three steps further and need a step back every once in a while.

Um, and I think that we're approaching a kind of, a bit of a place of

reflection where I think, uh, that would be, would be a good thing to do.

Right on.

Very powerful.

Now, part of the reason of course, we wanted to have you on the show is to dig

into genomics, and not just the kind of, uh, broader genre, but in particular the

exciting role that it is currently playing and will play within the AgriFood sector.

But a, a natural follow up to kind of get into the, the category of, uh,

origin stories is, is how did you get involved in agriculture in AgriFood?

And I ask that 'cause you do have quite a diverse, uh, uh, experience

both in terms of leadership, but also in terms of different sectors and,

you know, genomics in particular is not necessarily a place for beginners.

Uh, so I, I'm curious what, what drew you to the sector, uh, in

general in genomics in particular?

So, so this is I, I guess John version four or kind of

reinvention or reincarnation 4.0.

Um, uh, in terms of careers, um, I, uh, uh, I started in what would be called

financial services and, uh, then I spent a time within the telecom, organisations.

Um, then I ran, ran a very large, uh, one of Canada's largest and oldest

charities, um, uh, and leaving there, having been there for almost 16 years

in the end, or actually a little, little over 16, I, I wanted something that

would of bring startup entrepreneurship with my business leadership and my

experience working from a policy and a government regulations perspective.

And, you know, I'm not a scientist.

Um, you can ask me lots of things about genomics and, and I've

got a very good broad knowledge.

Um, we're on the verge of needing to commercialise a lot of what genomics is

has been producing over the last 25 years.

And while as an organisation, inter Genomics is now with our new

strategic plan said, we actually have two quite distinct missions.

One is in the world of precision health, the human side of rare diseases and

diagnostics and therapeutics, and the other is in food and industrial biotech.

It's in the way in which we can, um, stop being an extraction based society from a

manufacturing stop extracting, uh, from the earth and start doing things in a

circular way, start biomanufacturing.

Um, and a lot of research says that 60% of everything that humans

consume can be bio manufactured.

and if it, if its origin is from agriculture or biomass input, then

it can then on a circular basis go back into, into the earth as well.

And, and that kind of circular economy.

Uh, you know, I'm, uh, I'm not a closet environmentalist.

I'm an environmentalist.

I, I believe very fundamentally that, um, we need to, uh, focus on

a healthy planet moving forward.

shifting from extraction based manufacturing to circular manufacturing

is, I think a huge opportunity.

go ahead, Jen.

Yeah, I have a couple of questions, John.

Um, I guess the first question I wanna bring back to farmers, and when we

talk about genomics, it can be kind of a, um, an unknown, which has the

potential then to be a bit scary.

So why should farmers care about genomics as part of their business?

So I think that there are two, two places

where genomics plays a role.

It plays a role within traditional, uh, elements of farming.

So as our climate changes, as a profile of that changes, um, the risk profile

of pests, the risk profile of droughts, um, you know, there are things that

are be, that we are funding as an organisation, um, uh, research projects

that are looking at how to make crops more frost resistant, how to make crops

more drought resistant, how to help with, um, uh, with milk production levels

in, in, in, uh, uh, in dairy herds.

Um, so there is this traditional genomics world, um, uh, that has

had lots of breakthroughs, um, that farmers would be quite familiar with.

Um, and there are more to come, you know, and, and I think looking, going

down to the microbial health of soil, which is fundamental to all farmers,

whatever farming you're doing, um, and understanding the, the genomics

of, of soil, uh, and all of the microbes that are in it, um, is a

really, really, uh, fundamental piece.

So that, that's why farmers should be interested on, on that side.

what genomics is also presenting now is the ability for us to take a biomass

input, whether it's, um, lactose off, off of dairy or acid whe from a dairy

production, whether it's things as fundamental as corn or, or other inputs

from, from, um, uh, from grain growers.

Uh, and we can, we can bio manufacture, we can ferment using yeasts usually.

Um, uh, we, we are using the biomass as a form of sugar, um, uh, in that

sense, uh, of fermenting to produce almost anything we want from bioplastics

to to food colourants to proteins, um, not to compete with agriculture.

'cause that's not what it does.

It's to, it's to complement.

And I think there's a huge opportunity in Canada for our

farming community to understand how can they diversify revenue streams?

How can they, you know, create more value per acre by, um, us being able to

explore the, um, the biomanufacturing, uh, elements of fermentation.

and we've done it in our past with kind of fundamentals like ethanol.

Um, but we can do it in so many more ways because of genomics.

Now.

Well, and you were suggesting that on some levels you're

not competing with agriculture, but allow me to tease out your, the kind

of, uh, assertion of a circular economy.

what extent are we creating alternatives to the petroleum industry, to plastics,

to, you know, some of the more extractive industries that I, I, I think we do

want to be, at least speaking for myself, reducing our reliance upon.

I, I'd love for you to elaborate on that.

Yeah.

So I mean, absolutely.

I think that this, this is all, you know, complimentary to the agricultural, um,

and additive to the agricultural industry.

Uh, I suppose if it's competitive, it's competitive with petroleum,

um, uh, you know, uh, that kind of, that's a finite resource.

Um, I think that there, it would, would take decades and decades for, for that

to be viewed by the petroleum industry as something that's competitive.

But we need to stop extracting and wherever we can, replace, um, petroleum

with a biomass input, which is circular in its nature, then, then we have an

obligation, I think, to explore that.

Um, ultimately, commercial markets work on a cost per unit.

Um, a lot of the things we're talking about, just like they are in all elements

of, of the farming world are commodities that have a price, um, and they have

input costs, uh, and production costs.

And biomanufacturing is no different.

we're up against competing with what has been, you know, a hundred years worth of

developing and perfecting the economics of petroleum based manufacturing of product.

So it's not gonna be an overnight, just like it wasn't an overnight to

create solar energy or, or wind energy.

Um, you know, the cost per, um, uh, per unit, uh, initially of creating,

uh, energy that way was huge factor over that of traditional, uh, methods.

Now it's, uh, it's a very competitive industry and we're starting to see

an acceleration of movement away from, uh, energy, uh, electricity

production, uh, involving finite resources and into renewable.

and I think hopefully the same will be the case for, for all of our nylons

and polyesters and our plastics, um, that we currently make using petroleum.

Well, and, and that kind of nicely circles back to your earlier point

about the, not just focus, but I suppose challenge around commercialisation.

That, you know, commercialisation is obviously a key component of enabling

this kind of advanced manufacturing, but it has historically also been

something that Canada and Ontario in particular has a, a mixed track record on.

So what are some of the challenges?

What are some of the opportunities, what are some of the things that

Ontario Genomics in particular kind of sees as game changing when

it comes to improving the kind of commercialisation that is required to

en enable the kind of infrastructure and industry that you're describing?

Yeah, so, so we, we produced the, the second version

of a report called the Food Food Innovation Report, um, in 2025.

It was launched in, at the end of March, 2025.

Uh, and it speaks broadly to, um, to innovations across the sector.

Uh, and, and it calls out two things that are needed in

Ontario and and across Canada.

Um, and that is the ability for companies that are creating these

technologies to be able to scale, um, uh, in a meaningful way.

And the ability for regulators to keep up with, with novel ingredients, um,

uh, you know, in, in a way that makes sure that our regulatory framework

isn't getting in the way of innovation.

Uh, uh, and, and regulations are there for a reason.

And I'm not saying we, we need to get rid of all regulations.

I'm just saying we need to make sure that they don't become an

undue barrier, um, to innovation.

Uh, the control, the initial controllable piece of that is the ability to scale.

Um, on, uh, I referred a little while ago to the fact that we have two missions

within the precision health world.

Uh, they're discovering molecules for a therapeutic that have

a huge value per microgram.

Right?

They, that scaling in that kind of very, um, uh, intense, uh, and precise

way is, is, you know, people want to produce hundreds of grammes of something

if you're producing a sweetener, um, using, uh, you know, uh, input from,

uh, from a grain grower, uh, you are competing against sugar, which has a spot

market of whatever it is at the moment.

It's about a dollar Canadian per kilogramme.

so if, if, if you're producing that, you need to produce hundreds of kilogrammes

for sampling, not hundreds of grammes.

So the, the, the need that we have in Canada writ large, there are, there are

a few pockets where we do have this, but uh, in Ontario we don't is the ability

for our innovators, um, and startup companies to be able to move up the

progression of scale so that they're producing hundreds of kilogrammes and can

start demonstrating their unit economics.

'cause at the end of the day, if you're a food manufacturer and you are interested

in one of these bio manufactured products, it's still gotta compete on price.

Um, with what you currently have, we can wax poetic about how important it

is to have something that's circular economy based versus extraction

based, but it's still gotta on price.

Um, and that's kind of a real that, that we are currently

working to, to, uh, try and solve.

So, John, you said something really interesting there.

You said in other areas there is this capacity to have innovators

scale up, but not in Ontario.

What is the missing piece in Ontario?

What is, what's the major roadblock that.

is, is biomanufacturing, um, capacity at, at, you know, at a

thousand litres that is accessible and, uh, priced appropriately.

Uh, at the moment are startups in Ontario, they, they need to go to,

uh, to Nova Scotia, or they need to go to Saskatchewan, or they

need to go to another country.

so, uh, you know, Ontario's a pretty important, uh, part

of the Canadian economy.

It's got a huge AgriFood Um, and, uh, we, we've got a lot of the innovators are

based here in Ontario, and so we're, we're looking to solve that particular gap.

is that a capital issue or is that a regulatory issue?

Uh, at the moment it's a capital issue.

Um, you know, the more companies we have that are able to start

scaling, then they're gonna start putting pressure on the regulators.

Um, but the, you know, the regulating regulat, the regulatory issues are

in terms of speed and process, but they're not, you know, hugely onerous.

It's not, it's not that that's a, you know, a barrier.

It's not a missing thing.

It just is something that we've got to constantly pay attention to, uh,

to make sure that we don't, um, we don't discount innovative products.

Um.

So let me, let me ask you a, a what may be a digression, but at the

same time may bring us also to a, another way to approach some of these subjects

and some of the challenges you're facing.

know, you, you sort of, when we talk about regulation in general, it tends

to be a through line through a lot of conversations in the AgriFood

sector, partly because I think we are in a moment where we are

rethinking regulatory environments.

We are think rethinking the, the nature of, of regulations that apply both to

a, a changing global market, but also a, a rapid rate of technological change.

That's part of the point of genomics is we now have access to technology that

I, I think our current regulatory, uh, uh, environment just didn't anticipate.

But you've alluded a couple times to the dual mandate that your

organisation has that on the one hand, you know, I think precision

medicine is where most people engage.

Genomics is where the idea of genetics, especially around cancer, uh, uh,

uh, kind of hits home for people.

But obviously when it comes to food, health and safety is also a factor.

there an opportunity here to have both sides from a regulatory perspective,

collaborating so that you can not only be proactive either in the aspirational

sense of self-regulation or just in the sense of leadership of, of helping the

regulatory environment kind of upgrade, you have the people who are experienced

in navigating the medical regulatory environment, but also focusing on not

doing harm and looking at health effects compared to the other people who are

looking at productivity and prosperity and efficiency and optimization.

there an opportunity for Ontario genomics to kind of play both sides

of that and create a unique form of expertise, especially when it comes to

leading, uh, uh, uh, in an area like regulation that can be very contentious.

Yeah, no, I, I think you, you're spot on there.

I think that, that we, we need to learn the lessons from both sides, uh, of our

missions, um, to make sure that, that we're bringing, we're bringing what

we learn on the, on the therapeutic and diagnostic size of how, how to get

something, um, approved in Canada, uh, to the other side of the ledger as well

for Genomics, other side of the ledger.

Um, I, I think it's, uh, you know, anytime anything touches our food,

whether it's the packaging that's made by something different, we need to make sure

health and safety is really important.

And, and Canada is, has got a stellar reputation for, uh, for its standards.

Um, it, it, as I said, I don't think regulation in and of itself is a

challenge, but we need to move at speed.

Um, the, the more things, uh, are moving faster, it just creates challenge.

Um, and, uh, in and of itself, it isn't a problem.

But speed to market is, is a thing.

Uh, and we, we don't want unnecessary barriers or lags, um, uh, in, in the way.

where does complexity, uh, fall into that?

And, and sorry to preempt you, Jen, and, and hopefully you'll, you'll jump in and

I say complexity both on the regulatory sense, but really I'm coming back to

you as a leader and as a communicator.

Because on the one hand, it strikes me that genomics as a science and,

and certainly within the concept of an applied technology, us to engage

in greater complexity, allows us to entertain greater complexity.

How do you communicate that complexity?

To what extent is that complexity just par for the course, or is it another dynamic

to manage either on the regulatory end or to your point on the speed, on the getting

things to market, finding ways to scale?

I, I, I may be imagining, uh, that complexity as something that plays a

role here, but it, it just strikes me as a, a, a being a, a core element of

the environment that we're describing.

So it, it, it, I mean, I think your point there, there are com

complex pieces to this, but our, role is to talk about what the outcome that

we're looking for is, and to make sure we have clarity on the outcome, which is

really simple on the precision health.

You talk about, you know, uh, diagnostic and therapeutic

pointing to a particular thing.

We know, we know what the North Star is from a patient's perspective.

Um, we, we need to clearly communicate what the North Star is

within the Biomanufacturing world.

I think it's, it's easier and clearer to talk about that on things like

bioplastics, the ability for us to, to eliminate petroleum and, and the, the

ongoing increase of microplastics in the environment by producing plastics that,

that, uh, that are bio manufactured, I think has a lot of clarity.

Are there complexities in order to make that happen?

Yes.

Uh, our job is as we, we sit as a convener between the amazing people

that are the innovators and the kind of the regulators and the markets.

Um, and as that convener, as that trusted intermediary, our job is to

be clear in, in why it's important to clear on what the North Star is.

Uh, and, you know, ideally we are able to convince policymakers do a similar

thing in some of these areas as they did in the area of, of electricity

production, which is kind of mandating, you know, something as powerful as

mandating that by a certain date.

X percent of packaging has to be bio manufactured.

Um, from a a from a a, not just recyclable, but this is, this is about,

uh, it being fully biodegradable, um, and, and how we manage it, but we've also

built a whole infrastructure in how we manage waste at a municipal level, which

lends itself to different coloured bins.

Um, and if we're going to change the nature of plastics, then we need

to change the nature of how we, we manage them because, uh, uh, they,

they need to be dealt with differently than a petroleum-based plastic.

So there are lots of complexities, but if the North Star is, technology allows

it to happen, we're now able to start proving that the unit costs, the costs,

unit economics is getting close enough to parity that we can now get this across the

threshold and make a meaningful change the way that we, we bio manufacture versus,

uh, use extraction, um, manufacturing.

I just have, I just wanna expand the conversation a little bit because

I like what you were talking about the North Star and getting real clarity

on the outcomes, and I think in the health field it is a lot easier, but

when we look at what Ontario Genomics is doing, it's more than just bioplastics.

You're also looking at cellular agriculture.

And so how do you go about getting a North star for egg and food when it

comes to the Ontario Genomics umbrella?

And, and, and that's one of the biggest challenges that

we have as a communications exercise.

Um, I, I think Jen, to, to your question, we, we deal with,

um, microbial health of soil.

We deal with how we can help, um, microbes in water to help

the extraction of rare minerals.

We deal with modifications to help protect plants against the climate.

And, and so the breadth of what we do is so much, how, how do you have

a single North staff for all of that?

Because you, you start from a communications perspective, you'll

start, you're talking about world peace, you know, you're talking about

this nebulous thing that is, while everyone will agree to it, you know,

it, it's, it's not precise enough.

Um, so I think we, we need to define, uh, and start getting successes, you

know, on a, at a ground level, working with a farmer, a a co, you know, a

group of farmers in helping diversify revenues, in helping, showing how we

can start biomanufacturing products that go into our supply chain that

currently we import, that we talk about things that are, that are, you know, on

the margins, um, uh, currently because of where they come in the world and

us being able to buy or manufacture them creates supply chain security.

And then we can start taking those victories and, and scaling them forward.

This is not gonna be a, you know, one great campaign and

everyone knows what we're doing.

Um, uh, it, it is bit more complicated than that.

And that's, that's because, you know, there's a genome in

everything, you know, and, and the way down to the microbial level.

And, uh, and, and it's a very powerful thing and it is going to be

kind of the bio era moving forward.

And I know AI is gonna fuel a lot of that because the genomic research

is kicking out huge amounts of data.

and AI is accelerating how quickly we can therefore, and now analyse, interpret,

and make sense of, uh, all of that data.

and everything will go faster as a result.

I wanna come back to the AI stuff as well as the microbial stuff,

but to build off Jen's question, I think you and I politically at least certainly

environmentally, are, are kind of eye to eye and, and I appreciate that you've been

framing a lot of this within the context of the, our domestic needs in, in, in

terms of a population who obviously needs to eat and, and, and enjoys a very diverse

diet that we have to import a lot of.

But what about the export potential here?

And, and I say this 'cause I assume that that is very much part of the

kind of focus of commercialisation.

And I do think a lot of the AgriFood industry really does think of success

in the export oriented concept, right?

Like we, we as an industry really think of, think of it a, a, a

success within that context.

So spell out some of the opportunities and, and not just the

opportunities, but where, where does the com, the global market play?

Are, are we leaders?

Are we catching up?

Are who else in the world is, is kind of developing similar expertise

or centres of excellence that we should be paying attention to?

Yeah.

Okay.

Lot, lots of pieces to that and hopefully I'll, I'll weave in an answer

to all of your comments there, Jesse.

I think first of all, uh, if you wanted to define and, and rank by potential

countries in the world that that can play a role as an agriculture superpower, uh,

and, and therefore a biomanufacturing superpower, you need acreage.

We've got a lot of acreage in Canada.

Um, you need, uh, abundance of water.

We've got an abundance of water.

You need relatively low cost and clean energy.

We have low cost, clean energy, like we have always been one of the top countries

in the world in helping feed the world.

Um, uh, and, uh, I, I think we have dropped a little bit over the last while

as a, uh, in terms of global agricultural, um, ranking, but we're still, you

know, right up there we have all of the ingredients, no pun intended to, to

be, uh, a, an agricultural superpower.

The, the question is, do we want to, to.

Grow crops that we send overseas, or do we want to do something with

a portion of what we're, what we're growing and expand our acreage so

that we're also biomanufacturing products that, that go overseas.

So there is a huge global market for us to be able to be

a biomanufacturing superpower as well as an agriculture superpower.

And I think those two things, in my opinion, are the same.

Um, I, I think that there is a distinction between them, but they, they're both

using the natural resources of Canada in a circular way to help provide, uh,

food and ingredients for the world.

the countries who are doing it best, are countries that are, that

are starved for land mass they have to be more efficient, more, more

effective with every acre they have.

You know, the Netherlands, uh, you know, comes, comes to mind.

Singapore, um, uh, some of the other Asian countries come to mind.

You know, I think that we do things very well, but we've got a very

traditional agricultural export market in terms of what goes, what goes where.

And we've also been very, very intertwined with, with the us and

I'm not an international trade expert, but, but I, you know, those

relationships have been broken.

Um, with the US there is a huge opportunity for us to expand elsewhere.

Having said that, the US will always be the biggest market, know, on our doorstep.

Um, and therefore we also need to take advantage of that market as well.

We have a lot of what they need.

So, um, it's a huge export opportunity.

It's a huge global opportunity.

And Biomanufacturing, the jobs that come in a bio in, in, in the,

in scaled biomanufacturing, they kind of look like jobs that are in

an automotive plant in many ways.

You know, like the, these are, you know, there, there, there are thousands and

thousands of jobs that can be created in Ontario, in the Biomanufacturing sector.

Um, and I think that those are, are, are some of the jobs of the future.

Right on.

And that actually me to kind of ask the AI question, uh, kind of building off the

answers you've been giving in terms of building an ecosystem, building a culture

of commercialisation, of scale, of, of focusing on export oriented markets.

I mean, o obviously one of the strongest assets that we have here in Ontario are,

are post-secondary institutions, right?

Whether it's Guelph Kitchen or Waterloo, Toronto.

I mean, we, we have some of the best and, and brightest minds in the world.

But on the commercialisation level, to your point about the United

States, we are often heavily reliant upon their technology industry.

What role is Ontario Genomics trying to play when it comes to the AI side?

And I don't mean so much the technology angle, I mean the commercialisation angle.

I mean, kind of taking the phenomenal research that is happening at our

universities and weaving it into the industry or to your earlier evocation,

allowing entrepreneurs to create new companies and scale up those companies.

the business angle of the technology piece?

Or, or even if you want the policy or regulatory angle.

'cause I suspect they're also factors.

Kind of help me understand, to your point, not just the role that AI is playing, but

that what we need it to play in terms of the threads of our conversation that you,

you've so eloquently been bringing up.

Well, I, I think, um, there are a couple of

points that you bring up there.

So a ai, there isn't a project that we're helping fund or a company that

we're, we provide funding into that isn't using AI within, its within its work.

You know, some, some more overtly than others.

But, uh, it, it is a part of how we accelerate the discovery and the

learnings, whether it's at, at, you know, within the, the lab discovery

side, or whether it's in the process engineering side of, of understanding

how we can be more effective and more efficient to, to drive, uh,

unit costs to where they need to be.

Um, so AI is a huge piece.

One of the factors in North America, um, that is a truism that, uh, that will

not go away is that the US market is 11 times bigger than the Canadian market.

if you have a new company here in Canada, and you are gonna spend some

money to get something approved for a market, you can choose to do that

and get it approved in Canada, or you can choose to do that in America.

and America is 11 times bigger.

It's not that, you know, it's, there is just an economies of scale.

Uh, and one of the challenges, and I, I've Canadian since the late 1980s.

I, I came as a landed immigrant in 1986.

Um, and, uh, and I, the reason I'm saying that is because whenever I say

anything that's a tall critical of Canada, I feel that my exit makes it

things like I'm a foreigner, you know, uh, making a comment and I'm not.

Um, but you know.

Canada, if you took not just our landmass, but if you took our economy

and you dropped it somewhere else in the world, if you dropped it in Europe,

it would be this really important economy within the European Union.

If you dropped it over, you know, off the coast of Australia, it would

be a bigger economy than Australia.

It would be a powerhouse in that kind of Southeast Asia.

Um, but because we sit on top of the biggest economy in the

world, we almost have a bit of a, um, a bit of a self-conscious.

We are not really that big an economy.

We we're a huge economy.

Um, we've got a great market and, um, but we, we have the challenge of proximity

to the biggest market in the world.

Um, and I think that plays into things, into the dynamics of, of where

companies go and how do we keep them in Canada when you've got this much

bigger market, just a short way away.

Ontario Genomics plays a role with wraparound support for the companies

we provide funding with, uh, you know, providing access to an introduction to,

um, to people in the, in the, in the VC world, in the venture funding, uh, world.

Um, uh, I think some of the work we are doing in our intake process and

our wraparound support is done in a way to help de-risk people investing.

And I think our, our bioc create brand in particular is building a, you know,

a reputation because of the amazing work that the companies we funded have done.

I think people are seeing that as a, oh, if, if Ontario Genomics has provided,

funded through Bioc create, think that maybe that's someone we should look at.

So hopefully over time we can play a role in that kind of de-risking

profiling the amazing Canadian, um, startups that we have.

I'm gonna ask you a question.

It's gonna take us off the AI topic for a moment, but then I think I want to

come back 'cause I have an AI question.

But first off, can you talk a little bit about that Bioc Create programme please?

Sure.

Biore is a programme that we launched, uh, years ago.

Um, uh, we fund, uh, we provide $150,000 worth of non-dilutive funding, uh, to,

uh, two companies that are, that are post discovery, uh, at that kind of inflexion

point, uh, generally pre-revenue.

Um, uh, but their, their product is been, has been validated as,

as strong, and it's pointing at a market that, um, that has value.

So don't just write a check and, and, uh, uh, provide it to them.

And the funding comes from a combination of, um, uh, of the federal and provincial

government, uh, through, um, through Fed Dev in Ontario as well as, uh, uh, as MQs

Um, and then we provide 18 months worth of wraparound support, which is a, which

is a, it's a requirement for the funding that, that people participate in it.

Um, and, uh, it, it just is got a lot of special source to it when you

bring those entrepreneurs together.

So we've got 32 companies now, some of which we just funded.

So if you look at the first 16 that we funded, they've raised, uh, $98

million worth of follow on funding now.

Um, so you know, there's some real winners there.

Uh, half of those companies are in the food industrial biotech ag space.

other half are, excuse me, the other half, so half are in the food ag space.

The other half are in the precision health space.

So.

Go ahead, Jen, you had

Sorry, Jesse and I think are fighting over who asked the next question?

the spot with your AI question.

Please go ahead.

Yeah, so I have a, a bit of a philosophical AI question,

and it's something that I'm just learning more and more about ai.

Um, but one of the hesitations I hear from people, or you know, I've been reading

about is the environmental impact of ai.

And so when we're using AI to build a circular economy, and yet AI is

also draining resources, how do we reconcile those two positions?

Yeah, I think, um, I feel the same way about the

environmental footprint of ai.

Um, and, you know, whe whether you, uh, and I, I, I'm also not sure because of ai,

which data points to believe or trust more than others, but, you know, the amount

of trillions of, of, um, uh, requests or, or, um, questions that are being asked

in the AI world, each of which takes this much water, a very tiny amount, but,

but it adds up the water consumption, the power consumption, the land, use

it, it, it's, um, it's pretty scary.

And how much of it is actually being used for things that are, are enabling,

you know, humanity, uh, versus creating a different circular challenge, not a

circular economy, but just circularity and of information and, and misinformation.

Um, so I, I think societies are starting to think about how do we,

how do we keep and capture all the things that could be good out of

AI and, and how do we find a way of partitioning off and discarding the rest?

And I, I think we're gonna, we're gonna have some significant challenges

along the way where it's gonna go off the rails, uh, on some things.

Um, but humanity finds ways to, to reign that in.

Um, sometimes it, you know, it's after something terrible has

happened that that allows us to realise that hopefully we can, we

can avoid the, that type of a thing.

Um, but I, I think that within closed data sets, like genomic data, know,

looking at, uh, uh, at how we can come up with a new therapeutic for a particular

disease needs to be enhanced and needs to be used, there's value in how AI

can, can accelerate that discovery.

Um, in, in other areas, we've gotta recognise the environmental footprint of

AI itself what things just don't justify the, the negative environmental impact.

So, uh, it's, it's challenging 'cause agree.

We're speaking out both sides of our mouth we say AI's doing these amazing things to

help us create a better circular economy.

But what's, what's, uh, the environmental impact of the AI that we are using?

And you know, you, your answers today have been, uh, fantastic,

both in terms of, to that last point, uh, acknowledging the nuance and,

uh, complexity of a lot of these situations while still having the,

the optimism, the hope to, to see a better future that permits me to, uh,

uh, uh, throw an even more advanced, uh, contentious question your way.

intellectual property obviously plays a, a key role both on the

commercialisation side, but also, uh, uh, on the research side.

You know, while AI is, is often criticised in terms of the copyright

elements, in terms of training, you know, putting that stuff aside, about

the reverse engineering side of ai?

And, and I say this because I think we are still trying to wrap our heads,

especially some of the latest frontier models like, uh, anthropics, uh, mythos.

To what extent does the intellectual property elements does the

intellectual property protection the environment, both of capital

funding and of regulation relation?

H how does that become complicated?

How do some of the, the communities that you're involved in, the

companies that they're starting, do they worry about this stuff?

Do they worry about protecting their intellectual property?

and again, from a sectoral perspective, from Ontario or a Canada

perspective, how do we be proactive?

How do we anticipate that?

How do we on the one hand, enable the kind of research collaboration

that we have that is required?

Well, on the same time anticipating the intellectual property challenges and the

competitive advantages that any advanced technology like this would encounter.

So you're asking, it's a huge philosophical

question that's in there as well.

And I, I, I mean, I think we can, from six years ago, point to a

galvanising issue that was global in its nature in, in COVID-19.

Uh, and the need for us to, to use genomic research and, and researchers around

the world to say, we, we need a vaccine.

and I think that we know when we have to, we can, it's a shame that we can't

just say, Hey, that works really well.

Why don't we do that for lots of other human issues that we face?

Um, but we don't, we, we've, we, we get these, um, protectionist,

um, market-based views of how do I create more value for me?

You use the word open source.

Um, you know, you, you're gonna make me wanna start talking about Star Trek and,

um, kind of the, the kind of the ultimate kind of what, what do we want to create

as, as a, as a society of humans globally?

Um, and we're a long way from, from that, but, you know, we, we do need to

a landing place for, um, how, how AI moves forward in a way that is a tool

that humans use and is enabling more humanity, um, some sort of a combative,

anti-human tool that's going to take jobs and, you know, anyway, so you,

you, there are lots of camps on it.

I don't pretend to be an AI expert.

Um, I'm sure I, I, I hear many of the things you do, but probably not as many.

Um, but I think that you've got CEOs of the large, you know, mega corporations

are either gonna approach this as a way of eliminating jobs and driving more money

into their pocket, or as a tool that's gonna allow them to grow employment and a

quality for the people who work for them.

there was, uh, I think it was Walmart, CEO that made, made a, a quote about

that, you know, that this is going to enable them to employ more people, um,

uh, versus other companies that say this is gonna allow them to cut jobs.

Uh, it, it, it is, the potential to be equal parts good or bad?

Um, let's keep the good and throw the bad away.

It's an over simple way of saying it, but uh.

Now we, we are, uh, uh, getting close to the end of time.

I, I have a few more questions I want to ask.

This is me also probing Jen to jump in if she has more questions to ask.

I, I, I've been wanting to come back to the microbial piece only because it

is, uh, an area of interest to mine.

'cause I do find it fascinating.

To what extent, and, and this is me coming back to the literacy piece

and kind of your role as a leader kind of communicating these issues to

other leaders, to society as a whole.

extent is genomic literacy and microbial literacy connected?

And I say this because both are obviously a lot smaller than us, and

I think certainly in my lifetime, we're getting to a point where we're

starting to value those tiny things.

We're starting to recognise that there are systems that we can't immediately

scrutinise that are incredibly powerful, incredibly impactful.

Do me a favour and, and, and help me try to connect these two, and, and, and

whether you see a connection in terms of fostering the awareness, especially

amongst decision makers, as to why the work that you guys are doing at

Ontario Genomics is so important both near term, but more importantly also

to, as you've been evoking throughout our conversation towards the long term.

Yeah, I think so.

F first of all, the word genomics for 99 point whatever percent of people,

um, kind of makes them glassy-eyed and, you know, not want to listen

to the rest of your sentence.

Um, so, which is a, which is a challenge.

Um, and those who, three of us and others who have dug into and know, and I'm not

a scientist, so I I'm not saying this from that perspective, but understand

the power of, uh, uh, of knowledge that we can get through, through the, of

genomics and therefore turn that into action that is powerful and positive.

I mean, we, we have known in our history that we don't want to plant the same crop

in the same field two years in a row, and if we rotate them effectively, that, so

we've had this kind of innate knowledge of, of how we create healthy soil.

Um, how can we make that more precise over time?

I think some of the fundamentals are, are and always will be there.

Um, but the, the power at the microbial level is, is incredibly important.

Um, and whether it's the, the health of the soil or whether it's the ability

for us to kind of do bioremediation work, um, in, in other areas, whether

it's about, you know, recognising new pathogens, new threats, um, uh, for

disease that are coming into the soil.

So, uh, you know, I, I think you know, we care, it, uh, Ontario

genomics, we, we care about the molecule, um, and not many people do.

Um, and so it is a difficult narrative to break through.

Um, I am, I am a convert because, you know, I, I came into this world 15 months

ago, uh, and every day I learn more.

Um, uh, I'm, I'm blessed to have an amazing team of, of

people who truly understand it.

Um, and, and I think that the, know, what we learned from, you know,

from COVID is what, what will, what will kill us or make us healthy is,

is gonna be a molecule somewhere.

Um, so we, we need to understand it.

Um, uh, yeah, so I, I think, um, I think the, the future is very bright

when it comes to turning the corner on putting the importance of, uh,

soil health and microbial health.

Um, uh, there, I think it's important at a human level.

We talk a lot more now about our, our gut health and our microbial health.

Um, so that narrative's happening, it will become, um.

Kind of more ubiquitous.

I think that 20 years ago, genomics was a really specialised field.

Now it is almost a part of everything.

You know, there isn't it?

It it was a thing and now it's a part of everything.

And I think that's a good thing.

uh, so we, we maybe need to speak about it less and just do it more.

Well, and if anything, to kind of validate your role.

I think part of the reason there is a legacy of people thinking that the

molecular is boring is 'cause there haven't been enough outsiders brought

in to become part of the ecosystem to become insiders, to become communicators.

So that, I I, if anything speaks to, to more people like yourself

engaged, uh, you know, very briefly.

Yeah, very briefly.

'cause we are almost outta time.

You know, the, the second last question I like to ask people is, you know, if,

if, if you had organizationally all the resources you had, you could have, if

you had access to the right people in power, what would be the kind of policies,

what, what would be the kind of broad frameworks or even, you know, kind of

broad regulations in, in a kind of blue sky scenario would, would really make

a difference for not just Ontario, but the Canadian, uh, uh, genomics industry.

Yeah, I think I, I think that, uh, we, we would have a

network across the country of, of bios scaling facilities for people that are

discovering we would be talking to and listening more to industry and to farmers.

So, so the two ends of the equation, we sit in the middle, um, about what problems

need to be solved and, and, uh, hopefully we're having more and more dialogue, um,

as an organisation with both those sides.

So we create challenges of things that we need to solve together when, whenever

humans are faced with a challenge to solve, and you bring people into a

table saying, we want to solve this.

Um, and, and I, you know, whether it's a, a, a food ingredient that we are a

hundred percent of an importer for, that we can start building our own capacity

for, and therefore de-risk supply chains, whether it's something like plastics or

nylons where we currently, the process, um, is, uh, is, uh, petroleum based and

extraction based, and we can turn it into circular or whether it's something

that's chemical additive, something that has hugely negative, uh, impacts.

We've, we've seen a recent transformation in the area of food colourants.

Um, the future of food colourants is bio manufactured.

We have a, a great Ontario based company that does that, um, that we funded

through bio, uh, through Bioc create.

Um, and so looking at a challenge-based way to solve it, if we had the resources,

um, and ability to do that, we would also, at the policy level have some things that

would mandate targets and dates similar to things that we've done on the, uh, on the

power generation electricity side, that by this date percent of these chemicals

will be eliminated from food production.

That, uh, you know, that food colourants will be eliminated.

That, that all food packaging will be, um, uh, bioplastics.

Uh, so the, the things that we would do would, would move a lot

faster, um, if we had the resources.

Right on.

Uh, Jen, any final questions?

So the last question, uh, that I tend to end on, it's kind of like

the first, it's meant to be intuitive kind of gut response, but who, who

are the people that you look up to?

Who are the people that you follow, uh, could be living, could be

dead, uh, that you think the rest of us, uh, should be tuning into?

So I, I have a lot of places I'm gonna start with someone

who's dead and not necessarily a person I look up to, but kind of philosophically.

Uh, Raja Kipling, uh, wrote a poem, uh, titled if, and I think if we

had more people that adhered, it's, it's written in a male gender,

but put it into a neutral gender.

'cause it was written a hundred years ago now.

Um, uh, if, if all of us spoke to each other the right way, if we cared about

each other the right way, and if we put 60 seconds worth of effort into every

minute, um, so philosophically, I think that would land us in a great place.

Um, I, I feel that, um, you know, we, we need to talk more.

We need to engage in conversation more.

Um, I have spent a, a lot of time trying to increase my knowledge into the, into

the farming world, uh, from the Ottawa Valley, um, uh, you know, which is, uh,

a real bed of farm farming communities.

We've got such an amazing network of, of a hundred acre farmers in Ontario.

Yes, we've got large farmers as well, but that kind of a hundred acre plot,

whether, whether it's, uh, it's dairy or beef, or whether it's mixed use or, or

grain, um, you know, I, I think that's just something we need to tap into more.

Um, and I'm looking forward to, to this learning journey, this kind of

phase four of my, uh, of my journey.

Um, and, uh, hopefully I can become a really good storyteller in this area and,

and therefore bring policy makers along, bring the funding that we need along.

Um, we don't need as an organisation to be the solution.

We, we need things to be solved and whatever role we can play

is what, what we will do.

Right on.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, John, for what was a fantastic, uh, conversation and another

really inspiring episode that for me at least pushes a lot of the stereotypes that

we think of when it comes to AgriFood.

I'll acknowledge that I like to take on the role of the agent provocateur.

I try to ask questions and kind of push the envelope of discussion to areas

that provoke thought that, uh, allow us to not only engage our curiosity,

but take on the moral responsibility of finding better ways of doing things.

And what I really enjoyed about John's perspective is the way in which he

fuses the kind of radical elements that science allows us to entertain with

the responsible elements of research and sustainability and enterprise.

And that's where, again, I feel that the domain of AgriFood affords

us a certain privilege when it comes to imagining the future.

A, a kind of empowerment, a, a kind of collaboration that's

rarely seen in other sectors, rarely seen in society as a whole.

And it speaks to what we're trying to do here on the Future Herd, which is

bring together different perspectives, bring together different elements of

Canada's food system so that we can all learn from each other so that we can

become the kind of global superpower, the, the kind of global force for

good that many of us are motivated by.

And that if anything, our chaotic world kind of mandates.

So thanks again to John.

Thanks again to Jen, uh, who is really turning into a fantastic cohost.

Uh, Jen, of course, deserves credit for producing, uh, today's episode.

And we've got a, uh, great set of panels coming up that I think

will further augment what we're doing, uh, here on the future herd.

So thanks again.

Uh, if you're enjoying the show, give us a rating, share it with your

friends, and we'll see you soon for another episode of the Future Herd.