A soon-to-be-released study suggests that costly delays in approving veterinary drugs make Canadian companies and producers less competitive.
The George Morris Centre, an agricultural think tank based at Guelph, Ont., interviewed five animal pharmaceutical companies that claimed total lost sales of $91 million because of lengthy regulatory requirements in Canada.
“The key problem among those interviewed was that Canada is viewed as the last resort. It only accounts for about 10 percent of these companies’ sales,” said Cher Brethour, a researcher with the centre.
The Veterinary Drugs Directorate, which approves new pharmaceuticals, has already seen a copy of the research, she said.
Read Also
Calf hormone implants can give environmental, financial wins
Hormone implants can lead to bigger calves — reducing greenhouse gas intensity, land use intensity and giving the beef farmer more profit, Manitoba-based model suggests.
The companies provide medications for livestock and pets. They reported that securing an approval for a new drug took 402 calendar days in 1997. In 2002, approvals took 818 days.
“We need to see improved animal health product regulations specifically for the livestock sector,” she said.
“At a minimum we need it to stabilize our cost competitiveness and our productivity,” she said.
Commissioned by the Canadian Animal Health Institute, the study compared Canada’s performance to that of the United States, Australia and the European Union.
Although each jurisdiction had slightly different regulations, Canada appeared to lag when it came to getting new products to market.
Canada has the highest fees and longest approval time, with a target time of 180 days. The target was missed 80 percent of the time.
That has resulted in frustration with lost opportunities and has prompted some researchers to move their research out of the country.
The study also suggests that problems reach beyond the Veterinary Drug Directorate. Delays occur in other regulatory bodies as well, which are attributed to inconsistent application of rules and poor direction from management.
Brethour said the centre plans to measure the approvals system for labelling, vitamin and mineral restrictions in animal feed, pesticides, fertilizer and other farm products requiring regulation.
The findings then go to the federal government with suggestions for improvements.
Bob Church, a rancher and researcher at the University of Calgary, sits on a national agricultural advisory committee to develop “smart” regulations.
He blames bureaucratic intransigence for the holdup in streamlining regulations. Elected officials have found tweaking the rules here and there is ineffective.
“They fully recognize that regulations define the economic marketplace.”
Church said he is confident changes are coming but is unsure how long the process might take.
It might occur after the next federal election when new people are appointed into key government agency positions.
