The letter is a bit rushed but I think solid response to a 120 page document.
Micheal Carr, Jemseg River Farm
Co-Chair, New
Brunswick Organic Committee
262 Rte 715,
Jemseg NB
506-470-1906
April 20,
2017
Richard Arsenault, Executive Director
Domestic Food Safety Systems and Meat Hygiene Directorate
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
1400 Merivale Road, Tower 1
Ottawa, ON K1A 0Y9
Domestic Food Safety Systems and Meat Hygiene Directorate
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
1400 Merivale Road, Tower 1
Ottawa, ON K1A 0Y9
Dear Mr Arsenault
We are all proponents of food safety and sound regulatory
and policy frameworks. As certified organic
farmers and processors, our goal is to grow and produce the healthiest, most
nutritious, and safest foods available for our customers. We are leading the
way in producing safe food in an environmentally sustainable manner. These are the values that drive what we do. Our
customers come to us because they identify our food as safe. Many are
recovering from illnesses or have compromised immune systems and we know that they
would be more susceptible to food borne illnesses. Not only do we value food safety, we also
know that one food safety incident has a high probability of destroying our
small businesses and is highly damaging for our industry. We and our families are
also typically the first consumers of our own product. We have a strong interest
in food safety.
Upon review of the proposed SFCR we observe that the numbers
quoted in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement present very little evidence
to justify regulatory change in the domestic organic and conventional vegetable
and fruit industries. The figures indicate the societal cost of all foodborne
illness in Canada regardless of the source. These numbers are highly misleading
and do not attempt to differentiate the problematic areas of risk to be
addressed by policy change. The risks are not broken down according to their
source and it is unfair to Canadian producers who actually represent very
little risk and have an excellent track record. The inherent risks associated
with domestic fruit and vegetable production are very low and do not warrant
the excessive regulatory burden that is proposed.
For example, the SCFR document reports:
“From 2011 to present, there have
been 84 recalls related to fresh fruits and vegetables as well as 1 573 recalls
related to food from the NFRS. Together, these represent more than 70% of all
recalls over this period.”
We found in the food recall listings on the CFIA website
from 2013 to present only one recall of Canadian fresh produce that originated
on a fruit and vegetable farm. This
recall concerned needles found in potatoes. This incident was not a foodborne
illness incident, but an act vandalism that could happen anywhere in the food
chain and did not result in any illness or physical harm.
Also from the proposed SFCR:
“A 2013 study in the Journal of Food
Protection demonstrated that from 2001 to 2009, 27 fresh fruit and
vegetable–related outbreaks occurred in Canada and resulted in over 1 500 cases
of illness.”
After examining the article it appears these were almost
exclusively related to imported foods or food processing and preparation facilities.
Only two of the described events originated on Canadian farms and although
serious in nature were rather limited in scope. This same study notes that as
of 2013, Canada imported approximately 86% of the fruit and 41% of the
vegetables consumed by the population. Imported food because of volume and
greater chance of contamination clearly bears a higher risk of foodborne
illness.
Therefore, a closer examination of the data clearly indicate
that the risks associated with food in Canada appear to be in two areas: (1)
The increased volume of imported food that often comes from countries with very
little in the way food safety practices and, (2) the food processing and
preparation in large commercial operations which have been subject to many
recalls. It seems clear that these areas are the target areas to regulate in
order to protect Canadians.
The cost of the administrative burden about to be placed on
small producers could be devastating as we survive on very small margins and
work in a context of a global system that produces very cheap food. It is clearly
foreign food that carries the highest risk as it is produced in unknown
conditions by producers that will face little or no retaliation for biological
or chemical contamination. According to
the SFCR proposal,
“The volume of fresh fruits and
vegetables and NFRS foods being imported into Canada has approximately doubled,
from $11.7 billion in 2006 to $22.8 billion in 2015. With respect to fresh
fruits and vegetables, a 43% increase in imports of these products from South
America has been observed over the past four years.”
Canadian producers of fruits and vegetable have been under
siege by cheaper foreign food imports and have lost market share. The
imposition of the regulations and their associated costs may well be the nail
in the coffin for the remaining producers in Canada who are subject to this proposed
regulatory framework. With the implementation per licensed business at an estimated $6370 average annualised cost, this will dramatically impact any
business with gross sales below $500,000.00. Our industry has very low profit
margins and most farms are already experiencing low profitability and financial instability. Many farmers already have to work off farm to
sustain their operations because they cannot generate enough revenues. These
extra costs can only come from increased food prices to Canadian consumers and
will place Canadian growers in an even more disadvantaged position and lead to
business closures.
Although the cost of food imports looks low to the importer
and the consumer, the costs to Canada related to increased risk of foodborne
illness are clear. The data clearly indicates the need for a higher level of
scrutiny for imported food. The CFIA is
responsible for due diligence in the area of food safety, but we feel that it
is missing the target by dramatically and unnecessarily increasing regulation
in domestic agricultural production
while imported food that represents the
highest risk flows into the country
without sufficient scrutiny.
Although licensing for export may be a necessity for export trade
requirements depending on agreements with other countries, the proposed
interprovincial trade licensing requirement unfairly discriminates against farmers
near provincial borders, particularly in the Maritime provinces where the markets
in each province and the geographical areas are relatively small. There is no demonstrated
additional risk involved with food crossing interprovincial borders which are
an arbitrary line on the map. Canada is a nation that has never regulated
interprovincial trade except for tobacco and alcohol. This proposed
interprovincial restriction of trade may be unconstitutional given Section 121
of the Constitution which states,
"All articles of the growth,
produce or manufacture of any of the provinces shall, from and after the Union,
be admitted free into each of the other provinces."
We suggest that inspection and regulation of domestic food
supply up to the point of processing be transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture which is in a better position to comprehend the damaging
repercussions of regulations for farmers, while CFIA regulates imported foods
and foods to be exported. The CFIA SFCR admits it has little knowledge of these
operations and is therefore not in the best position to regulate farm
operations and support food safety advancement. We therefore request that (1) the interprovincial regulation is not
applied and (2) oversight of domestic on farm food safety be transferred to the
Ministry of Agriculture which has a mandate to support agricultural food
safety.
The burdensome effect of the proposed regulations will also be
in direct contradiction to the mandate letter issued by the Prime Minister to
the Minister of Agriculture regarding the promotion of Canadian production
which states:
“Government must use its policy and
financial tools to support the agricultural sector in its vital work. This
includes helping the sector, including getting product to market, water
management, research and innovation, food safety and export support.”
There is not sufficient evidence that the proposed regulatory
framework proposed will significantly increase food safety in our industry. It
is clear that the proposal will harm agricultural producers, reducing the
industry’s ability to be viable in the long term, irrevocably damaging national
food security. Without a viable Canadian industry we will be even more
dependent on food imports and therefore even more susceptible to the inherent
increased food risks within that supply line. Increased food safety could be better achieved
by educational programs and incentives for food safety prevention plans and
infrastructure development rather than regulation. The success of voluntary environmental
farm plan development is an example of this kind of policy.
The SFCR describes only two options going forward: the
status quo and the proposed regulatory approach. We disagree that there are
only two options. There are many other
incentive based policies to be considered that may be more cost effective and
productive. A much better approach would be to provide education opportunities
and manuals for small businesses that help them develop their own food safety
protocols and prevention plans. Canadian farmers want to provide healthy and
safe food for their fellow Canadians and need incentives and supports to aid
them in producing food safety protocols and infrastructure. If there are food safety issues on Canadian
farms, it is primarily because we lack the resources to address them. Government
programs should be supportive of small business enterprises which are the real
engines of economic health and the heart of local economies across the nation. The
proposed regulations would put Canadian producers at a disadvantage related to
foreign producers.
“With the
proposed Regulations, the CFIA would move to a single-food regulatory approach.
In general, this would mean that there would be a levelling of the competitive
playing field for all regulated parties across commodities. Imports would be
held to the same standards and requirements as domestic food.”
With no control over activities in foreign countries and
little understanding of the direct unsubsidized costs to producers, it is
doubtful that there will be a level playing field. Indeed, the SCFR impact
statement promises a decreased administrative burden for importers and increased
burden for domestic primary producers because the latter has “complicated
operations”. If the CFIA is truly going
to hold all imports to the same standards as domestic producers there might be
a lot of empty shelves in the supermarkets given the current levels of imports.
We currently have a food safety agreement with the US only, so that would
preclude imports of fruits and vegetables from other countries. How will the CFIA
ensure that imported foods are not contaminated with biological or chemical
contaminants such as unregistered pesticides? What new protocols will be used with imported
food to insure food safety from countries without equivalent food safety
programs? The high number of food
recalls and illness outbreaks related to imported food has already demonstrated
the challenges in this area.
Business Size
If food risk is not related to business size as claimed by
the SFCR impact statement, then why have the $30,000 licencing trigger which is
also an arbitrary choice based on HST requirements which are a relatively low
administrative burden for small businesses. Even for small food related
businesses, the arbitrary $30,000 licensing trigger is unrealistic as the
administrative burden would be so overwhelming that it would destroy these businesses
and prevent new businesses from ever getting started. A one-size-fits-all approach will be
untenable and will destroy livelihoods across the food industry. The arbitrary
$30,000 trigger has no relationship to associated risk and is merely one of
convenience for the CFIA based on HST requirements. When does the risk actually
increase? Clearly there is a risk
related to the amount of product and potential impact on number of consumers. We should have hard evidence on which to base
such a decision. The equivalent
regulations in the US have a lower regulatory burden allowing farm selling to
qualified equivalent food safety program has less stringent requirements for
small businesses with less than US$500,000 average annual sales that sell over
half of their production direct to consumers, restaurants, retail
establishments not more than 275 miles (445 kilometres) away. Instead of
requiring a formal PCP, these businesses are able to design, monitor and
document their own food safety programs and must be able to provide a report to
the Food and Drug Administration if asked to do so. No interstate restrictions
are applied. Since these businesses are primarily direct marketing or supplying
a local retailer, traceability in the event of a food safety incident would not
be a difficult. This approach would seem to provide an adequate way to reduce
risk without imposing unnecessary costs. . We
therefore recommend that any licensing requirement based on sales be removed
until research provides actual data that indicates increasing risk justifies
regulation.
Organic Products
The proposed changes to the organic regulations proposed in
the SFCR are unrelated to food safety.
The proposal for a 12 month validity (section 342(3)) restriction
is impractical as variation in annual inspection times and small backlogs in
certification administration beyond the growers control could leave growers
without valid certification for months at a time. The current regulations allow
for extended certification with revocation privileges for certifying bodies in
the case of non-compliance. A minimum
validity time frame would be 20 months to allow for annual variations in
inspection dates and certification processing. There is no clear indication that
a change from the current regulations would increase food safety or organic
integrity and no reason is given for the regulatory change.
Regarding (342(1)c), it will be highly unlikely that the
entire supply chain such as conveyance firms and abattoirs will certify due to
the associated certification costs and administrative burden relative to the small
market size. This discrimination will cause significant harm to Canada’s
fastest growing agricultural sector, denying access to services required for
normal business operations. The organic
sector has stringent voluntary traceability and accountability requirements that
reduce risk of contamination and co- mingling.
The SFCR impact statement claims as a positive benefit,
“Increased opportunity for organic
certification and ability to market products with the Canadian Organic Logo”
We fail to see how this benefit will be realised with the
proposed changes and are quite sure that
the opposite effect will be felt. Since
these regulatory changes to organic products do not involve food safety we request that
they be removed from the SFCR and be
deferred until the next organic standards review is finished or further
consultation with our industry takes place which would require an extension of
the 90 day comment period.
We see the proposed SFCR as problematic on many fronts and are
deeply concerned that it would negatively impact our liveliehoods and food
safety for Canadians who may eventually be denied a safe and efficient domestic
food supply. We therefore request a
deferral of the regulations involving domestic produce until extensive consultation
with the industry that could lead to more effective policy. We are more than ready to participate in such
a consultation and policy development, but would need at minimum a full year
given that we are just entering our busiest season.
Sincerely
Micheal Carr, M.Phil.
Policy Studies
Co-Chair NB Organic Committee,
on behalf of NB Organic Producers.
