Is red tape strangling innovation

[melvill]

No, this isn't a new thread about the CWB. However, an interesting editorial on a web site containing comments from the former head of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

See it at www.farmcentre.com/english/cbc/index.htm?id=344

[melvill]

Forgot to add my question: Have you developed or wanted to be part of a new innovation, that would likely find market demand, only to have red tape cut you off?

Examples, please.

Again this is not a CWB discussion. It's more basic than that.

[wd9]

Melvill, can you explain exactly what you mean by red tape?

[melvill]

If you read the editorial on the web site, you'll see what I mean.

One example of what some people consider "red tape" is the issue of KVD for wheat and durum. Some feel that Canada has lost valuable genetic improvements because varieties that were being developed with significant improvements in desirable characteristics, couldn't be registered because they didn't pass the KVD test.

Now I don't want to start a debate on the KVD issues. Rather, I was wondering if anyone had ideas of other situations in our industry where a product with good market potential wasn't allowed to be produced or developed.

Again, read the editorial.

[wd9]

You mean like Roundup Ready Wheat?

[Braveheart]

Melville, an interesting and relevant question. The answer is a resounding YES!!!

Here's my example. I have been involved in the Pesticide Free Production (PFP). We got to the point where there was enough production from the interest generated from research that a small marketing co-op was started. We wanted to capture the value that in the niche PFP fell into (between conventional production and organic). PFP grains and oilseeds were interesting to the processing industry (especially pre-911). Some growers had received $22 per bushel for flax. There was tremendous interest from at least one brewery for PFP barley. PFP oats were being talked about for by the breakfast cereal processors. An eastern European country was actively seeking a cargo of PFP hrs wheat.

However, the CFIA decided to take a strong stand against the phrase, "PFP". The CFIA and their legal beagles maintained that "PFP" on the label may mislead some consumers into thinking that the product carrying the label would be completely free of pesticides. They had no interest in disclaimers. They were were adamant the phrase and it's definition were a no go.

Intense lobby efforts and attempts to pick logos/trademarks/definitions,etc. that differ but yet capture the essence of Pesticide Free Production have not been successful.

The CFIA has stifled innovation that had the opportunity to contribute untold dollars to farmers. The irony is, if we had just used the trademark (PFP) without prior approval from CFIA, we could have continued until or if someone raised an objection. We chose prior approval, being upfront, doing due diligence, and got shot down.

[melvill]

Thanks, Braveheart. Did the CFIA give any other specific reasons for its objections to the PFP label?

Any other examples?

[Braveheart]

Melville, the CFIA stuck "officially" to the consumer protection reason. However, (and I have no proof) people within the CFIA hierarchy told us off the record, that a high ranking official had said that we were trying to "get away with something"?!

As I mentioned there was intense lobby efforts involved. Professors from the U of M made presentations and pressure was brought from MPs, but all for naught. It especially rankled one when on one hand part of the Gov'ts' APF was innovation, and here it was, and yet another branch of Gov't, regulatory in nature, said NO.

[wd9]

Braveheart, did you write a letter to the Fed Ag Minister as a voting member of the public explaining this? If you did, what was the response?

Did you enquire what the hoops are in order to create a classification like "organic", except the guidelines and certification being no pesticides?

[Braveheart]

Hi wd9. Sorry it took so long to bet back. We've been combining perennial ryegrass and swathing canola.

The ag minister was contacted directly and copied on most correspondence.

We received a letter talking about the "innovation" that is part of the APF. If I remember correctly, we were advised that the CFIA would be undergoing a review shortly. (This was last year however.)

Your suggestion as to finding out what it takes to create a new classification has merit. But, here is where the problem is. The classification would be "Grown without using pesticides". eg. Our protocols allow glyphosate as a pre seed or pre emergent application. That is not on a growing plant, or it would be dead. The CFIA says if we use a pesticide, even glyphosate this way, we are using a pesticide during plant growth and are therefore not being honest. That being said, finding out what hoops need to be jumped first is a good idea and one more lesson learned.

[wd9]

Thanks for the reply. Seems to me the pony oats market has a pesticide free product exactly as you describe, preseed burn OK, but nothing post emergent or in-crop. Perhaps one more avenue.

Personally I think the idea of a pesticide free (PF) product has tremendous potential. CFIA certainly has a point that no pesticides should be used in order to be PF, especially with ingredients such as ethalfluralin (edge), not incrop, yet detectable in the final product. Over 2700 pesticides can be checked for now, but is costly.

A creative name for the end product claiming nothing post emergent may be all CFIA is after as oppposed to completely PF. Making sure the consumer gets the product as is designated on the package is their purpose, and of course safe for feed, food and the environment. Call it green pesticide free production or something like that, or living PFP.

[charliep]

Just an interesting comment that the US is close to having a more defined process for making health claims for food products. That will be important as we work to develop novell trait crops/use processes like fractionation to pull out high valued products. An issue will be when we can sell a crop into/processed product into the US with a health claim/benefit and yet Canadian rules prevent us from doing the same thing here at home.