The debate over agricultural regulations needs a “more balanced dialogue” about the costs and benefits, says a new George Morris Centre study.
Senior research associate Al Mussell said in an interview from Guelph that the debate about regulations is often simplistic.
Opponents want “red tape” slashed because they argue it weighs industry down with paperwork and costs. Governments often oblige with promises of regulation weeding, including a recent Agriculture Canada vow that every new regulation enacted will see one unnecessary regulation cut.
Proponents see regulations as a way for government to regulate market excesses or failings. Proposals to “streamline” or “harmonize” food regulations with the United States leads critics to complain that standards are being lowered and consumers put at risk for trade or corporate interests.
Read Also
Supreme Court gives thumbs-up emoji case the thumbs down
Saskatchewan farmer wanted to appeal the court decision that a thumbs-up emoji served as a signature to a grain delivery contract.
“I think that simplistic division does a disservice to the debate, which is an important one,” Mussell said.
“We don’t necessarily need less regulation or more regulation. We need good regulations, necessary regulations.”
In his paper, Key Principles that Frame Agri-Food Regulatory Policy, Mussell argues that regulations should be created within a strategic approach: there is a cost, there must be an identified need and those being regulated must accept the need to comply.
“There are many demands for regulation but only limited capacity to regulate,” he wrote.
“Unequivocal statements implying that Canadian agri-food has the best regulatory system in the world, for all things all the time, should bear this in mind.
“Regulation also requires public approval, at least implicitly, or those regulated will disengage from it.”
Mussell cited government attempts to control tobacco use by raising taxes as ineffective regulation.
It has reduced sale of legal tobacco products but led to increased illegal tobacco product smuggling that deprives governments of tax revenue but does not reduce smoking.
And when governments make a display of reducing unnecessary regulation, it does not always mean costs or regulatory burden are reduced.
Since 1985, federal regulations define potatoes as an agricultural commodity under the Agricultural Stabilization Act.
“These could simply be struck from the books with no discernable effect,” Mussell wrote.
Mussell argued there is the need for regulators to balance the need to enforce, with the views of sectors being regulated.
Governments must make the case for the need to regulate without being so “overbearing” that the regulated turn against it.
