Changes to fertilizer act regulations | Some farm inputs will no longer be regulated for efficacy
The federal government plans to eliminate efficacy testing for fertilizer registration next year.
The move is included in proposed changes to the Fertilizers Act regulations and will come into effect April 1, 2013, if approved.
The changes would apply to fertilizers and other inputs that aren’t pesticides.
“It will be buyer beware,” said Bob Friesen of agricultural inputs retailer Farmers of North America.
“It works in the United States. It is an advantage that (as farmers) our largest competitors have that we don’t.”
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
Friesen said FNA has long lobbied for elimination of efficacy testing.
“Safety, yes. That needs to be proven. Efficacy, farmers know if something works or not. They won’t be buying questionable products,” he said.
Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan president Norm Hall isn’t surprised by the proposed change.
“We have always been able to count on these products doing what they are supposed to. Like a guarantee. And that fertilizers contain the proper percentage of (nutrients). Now we just have to trust our suppliers,” he said.
He said the changes also seem consistent with the federal legislative agenda, which reduces government involvement in business.
“It should eliminate the cost of testing and if that means cheaper products for producers it’s a good thing,” he said.
Friesen said efficacy testing adds cost and delays availability of new and novel inputs, which hurts Canadian farmers’ profitability and their ability to compete with U.S. farmers.
He said the improved availability of American products might create new competition for existing fertilizer sellers.
In the U.S., companies can make claims about products without having to prove their effectiveness to authorities.
However, Canadian researchers are not convinced that the elimination of efficacy testing will benefit farmers.
Experts, who prefer to remain un-named because of their roles in the industry, feel the financial benefit to farmers might not be as great as the cost of unproven products.
Some agronomists say products that work in other regions of North America don’t always perform well in Western Canada, and without testing it falls to producers to experiment with their crops and dollars.
It is suggested that without efficacy testing, producers might also avoid potentially profitable new products because of a lack of trust in the marketing materials.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency brought in a change last fall that allowed for provisional registration of inputs based on trials performed in locations other than Canadian regions where the product was to be marketed.
The latest proposal would take that one step further.
Proper labelling of products to avoid misrepresentation and consumer fraud is part of Sections 16-19 of the act, but the government hasn’t said whether that will be changed as a part of the legislative amendments.
Friesen said his organization would also like to see efficacy testing eliminated for pesticides.
“I don’t know if the (Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada) will go there, but it would put us on a more competitive footing with the Americans,” he said.
