Canada’s variety registration system has been getting heat from both sides.
Some groups believe the regulations that enable new varieties of crops are too restrictive, said Grant Watson, registrar of the system for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
“There’s other groups telling us they’re not strict enough,” he said.
And there have been more and more requests for removing some crops, like lentils and soybeans, from the system altogether, said Watson.
So this winter, he said an independent consultant hired by the agency will talk to stakeholders from farmers to exporters to find out how the system should change.
Read Also
Agritechnica Day 2: The future of tractor power, building quicker crop apps and large farms and tech
Agritechnica Day 2: The future of tractor power, building quicker crop apps with Syngenta and large farms and tech
“From an agency standpoint, we don’t feel that we’re in a position to play God and say, ‘This is the direction that should be taken,’ ” he said.
The review will be much broader than past examinations, and could create some sweeping changes to the 75-year-old system.
“We’re really open-minded on this, looking for ideas from people,” said Watson.
Until the review is over, the agency has put a moratorium on major changes to the process.
Kevin Falk, a canola breeder at the University of Saskatchewan, said the system should continue to ensure quality for crushers and exporters.
But he said the system could be simplified by removing tests done for yield, and even disease resistance.
“I’m very much in favor of letting the market decide what’s good and what’s not,” he said, explaining farmers will only buy agronomically suitable varieties.
Dale Adolphe, president of the Canola Council of Canada, said he hopes the review will bring more flexibility to the system, perhaps with more power given to expert committees or variety recommending committees.
For example, the council has been working with the government for two years to change regulations to include canola-quality mustard in the canola category.
Now, the change won’t likely happen until the review is complete, he said.
Legislation and regulations “are written and passed with the best knowledge at the time, but times change and it’s like pulling hen’s teeth to ever go back into the system to get a regulatory amendment or change the act,” he said.
The council supports variety regulations to keep quality high, he said. But the system hasn’t been able to manage the introduction of new genetically modified varieties.
Adolphe said it shouldn’t be possible to register a variety that could shut down the market for a crop. For example, the transgenic flax variety Triffid was approved for commercialization even though it hadn’t cleared regulatory hurdles in the all-important markets of Europe, Japan and the United States. The flax industry voluntarily agreed to shelve the seed until approvals came through.
So far, the grain industry has avoided any market disasters with the registration of genetically modified crops, “but it’s not a climate conducive to creating comfort and trust in customers,” he said.
The registration system was most recently reviewed in 1992, when the impact of genetically modified crops was not even foreseen, said Watson. The boom in biotech crops is a major reason behind the review.
Watson said some people believe the grain industry should follow the lead of the United States, and not have a variety registration system.
But Gord Flaten, director of market development at the Canadian Wheat Board, said Canada would lose sales by giving up quality control.
Flaten didn’t want to talk about the board’s ideas for improvements to the system before the review. But he said quality and marketability should remain top priorities in getting wheat and barley registered.
“It’s just not good policy to be registering varieties that are unacceptable to customers,” he said.
