REFORMS planned for the farm chemical registration system, advanced by a task force studying the Own Use Import program, are welcome but overdue.
Canadian farmers have long wanted a farm chemical registration system that puts them on par with their American neighbours. Government harmonization of the Canadian and American systems has been promised for years, but progress was slow.
The pace picked up only recently when farmers challenged the system by flooding it with Own Use Import requests for a cheap glyphosate available to U.S. farmers but unavailable in Canada, highlighting how the system hinders them.
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
The proposed reforms call for a faster, simplified registration system for generic farm chemicals, a retained but modified OUI program and a commitment to step up registration system harmonization among Canada, the United States and Mexico, the three partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The first two reforms are important because patent protection on many herbicides will expire over the next 10 years, allowing low cost generic chemical manufacturers to broaden their product lines. Canadian farmers must have access to these products to maintain competitiveness.
It is also important to shift emphasis to effective registration.
OUI should be reserved for unusual circumstances such as specialty products. When it comes to widely used generic farm chemicals, farmers and consumers deserve a system that efficiently assesses their safety and worthiness for registration and stipulates stewardship and environmental safeguards.
The third reform, improved NAFTA harmonization, is more complex. It requires agreement on standards such as residue limits and work sharing among the partners. Some fear that harmonization means adopting the lowest standard, but judging by the time and number of meetings allocated to the task, it appears no party has capitulated on its standards.
The real value of harmonization is equal treatment in each country, not weaker regulation. The standards agreed upon must be rigorous and scientifically defensible to maintain public confidence in the safety of the system.
Harmonization could improve public confidence, particularly if it becomes global, as recommended by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Consumers would feel safer knowing that in a global food system, pesticides used on imported foods meet the same stringent regulations as those produced at home.
Canadian farmers would know their competitors, now often located in the former Soviet Union and South America, are using the same farm chemical with the same registrations and restrictions.
As the playing field becomes global, the tools and rules must do the same.
