The paper from Agri-Food Economic Systems said this could include food inspection.

Follow all our tariff coverage here

Co-author and research associate Douglas Hedley said U.S. president Donald Trump’s administration is trying to deliver promised tax cuts that will cost US$500 billion to $1 trillion per year, starting in 2026, and add significantly to the country’s debt. It is using tariffs to try to pay for these.

“What’s at stake is the potential for sharp changes in inflation, interest rates, currency valuations and U.S.-international trade relations, and that could just be the beginning,” he said.

Al Mussell, research lead and co-author, said Canadians have to understand how the new policies are not in their best interests.

Deregulation presents specific concerns, he said.

For example, it’s unknown if state and local agencies could manage food inspection at a consistent level across the country if the Food and Drug Administration steps back.

“It also raises the issue of how the U.S. manages its obligations of like treatment of imported products, which must meet federal standards, versus what actually occurs on the ground under state and local administration of food inspection,” the paper said.

“And to the degree that state/local inspection could be lower cost than U.S. federal inspection, it raises the worry that the U.S. may come to view federal inspection requirements of other countries, and associated costs, as a barrier to trade.”

Mussell said there has been no official announcement regarding deregulation, but it is part of a trend.

“This administration takes action first and worries about the consequences later,” he said.

“Fundamentally, the U.S. can’t afford the tax cuts the president wants to put through, and now they’re simply pulling out all the stops to try and eke this out somehow.”

Canada could become collateral damage as the U.S. attempts to generate every last efficiency through deregulation done “in the crudest possible manner,” Mussell said.

In terms of food inspection, he said deregulation presents risks to the public that aren’t currently present, such as possibly more incidents of illness. People might not discriminate between imported and American meat, for example, when it comes to which caused the problem.

“If this goes badly enough, then Canada and other countries may have real concerns about importing from the U.S.,” Mussell said, and that then raises the risk the U.S. won’t take products from those countries.

The paper said how the risks are interpreted for imports compared to domestic U.S. products is unknown. U.S. imports could be at a cost disadvantage if they have to meet federal standards at origin but compete against domestic products inspected at a lower cost.

Mussell said deregulation will also form a regulatory baseline the U.S. will bring to any international trade talks. Any differences from their regulations could become viewed as discriminatory costs on exports of U.S. products.

As well, there could be pressure on U.S. trading partners to harmonize regulatory standards. Mussell said this should concern Canada and Mexico because a U.S. executive order already encourages the two to align on the American policy of Chinese vessels.

Meanwhile, as the U.S. negotiates country-by-country trade deals that are more like purchase orders, he said that could seriously hamper Canada’s market access.

Mussell added that dealing with regulations requires the use of a scalpel and not the sledgehammer the Trump administration is using. He said the administration appears willing to burn the house down to get its tax cut in place.

“That would be merely intriguing political drama that we could be watching from north of the border if it didn’t affect us, but it does affect us,” he said.

Those effects include inflation, rising interest rates and a weaker Canadian dollar.

Contact karen.briere@producer.com

On March 18, agriculture minister Kody Blois announced that one of his key priorities is” enabling a competitive advantage and (a) level playing field for Canadian agricultural products.”

Blois backed those words with actions to change Canadian Food Inspection Agency regulations. The proposals could cut the regulatory burden for farmers and agri-food processors, including plans to speed up approvals for alternative sources of feed.

“This measure will alleviate the burden of tariffs on animal feed producers by increasing the number of approved feed ingredients from within Canada or from other countries,” Blois said.

Any reduction in paperwork or improvement in approval times is welcome news in Canada’s feed sector. Last year, the Animal Nutrition Association of Canada (ANAC) said the federal government has been too focused on regulatory “sticks.”

For instance, red tape prevents feed formulators from using feed additives that are available in the United States and Europe.

“We need the right (regulatory system) and policies in place to allow the feed industry to innovate,” Melissa Dumont, ANAC executive director, said last June.

ANAC is just one of many industry groups that have lobbied against the regulatory burden on agriculture.

There are dozens of examples, but producers and industry representatives have loudly complained about the federal carbon tax, the paperwork and time required to hire a temporary foreign worker and federal plans to “transform” the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and how it oversees pesticides.

“The PMRA’s current direction threatens to cripple the regulatory system and drive innovation out of Canada, without any benefits for health and environmental protection,” says a CropLife Canada letter sent in January to the deputy health minister.

Tyler McCann, managing director of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, said Blois’ March 18 announcement about the CFIA may represent a real shift in Ottawa.

“It commits to action…. It makes competitiveness a priority,” McCann said on X.

“The biggest impact may be the signal sent to the bureaucracy that the old way of doing things is over. This should have ripple effects.”

In his statement, Blois suggested that things have changed.

“We will continue to use all available measures to reduce red tape, streamline our processes, modernize our regulations.”

In addition to speeding up approvals for alternative sources of feed, the ag minister wants to reduce other CFIA regulations:

• • Explore the idea of increasing the maximum slaughter age for feeder calves from 36 to 40 weeks, which is something that is welcomed by Canada’s veal industry.
• • Examine removing unnecessary or outdated labelling requirements for fresh fruit and vegetables.
• • Harmonize Canada’s BSE enhanced feed ban regulations with the United States.

The last one is a significant cost for Canada’s beef sector. Canada bans certain animal tissues, known as specified risk material (SRM).

The enhanced feed ban regulations are intended to ensure that SRM, which has been excluded from the human food supply since July 2003, is also excluded from animal feed, pet food and fertilizers, says the CFIA website.

“Removing specified risk materials (SRM) is costly and puts Canada’s beef industry at an economic disadvantage,” Canadian Cattle Association past-president Nathan Phinney told Glacier FarmMedia.

“The costs of the Canadian SRM regulations place a significant burden on our industry, costing approximately $31.7 million annually.”

Contact robert.arnason@producer.com

That didn’t happen.

Instead, the committee of experts reviewing the Cannabis Act barely mentioned hemp in its 91 page report published March 21.

The Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance said the report fails to provide “meaningful guidance” on how Canada should manage and oversee hemp production and processing in the future.

“The expert committee … were focused virtually 100 per cent on public health and safety, protection of youth. And they had no expertise and no mandate to consider hemp,” said Ted Haney, president and chief executive officer of the CHTA.

“But they pretty much just kicked the ball down the court.”

CHTA chair Clarence Shwaluk made a similar comment.

He said the committee could have recommended changes to the Cannabis Act that would separate hemp from “drug regulations and removed obstacles to our industry’s growth and development.”

Health Canada has regulated the cultivation of hemp since hemp was first grown in Canada in the late 1990s, requiring farmers to get a license to grow the crop.

Initially, farmers accepted those constraints. But over the last 10 to 15 years, growers and hemp advocates have lobbied the federal government to de-regulate the crop and free it from Health Canada regulations.

In 2018, the federal government legalized the production and recreational use of cannabis. Folks in the hemp industry assumed that legalization of cannabis would help liberate hemp from the Health Canada regulations.

However, the federal focus on cannabis has created more problems, Haney said.

“Being regulated under Health Canada became more difficult after the legalization of cannabis,” he said.

“The focus of the structures … became all cannabis, all the time.”

One major obstacle for hemp is that some bureaucrats and policy makers in Ottawa did understand hemp and the opportunity for Canada’s agriculture and agri-food industry.

However, in the last five years or so, many of those bureaucrats retired or moved on to other opportunities, Haney said.

“We ended up with new officials … (with) very little expertise (and) very little knowledge of agriculture,” he said.

“The mandates of Health Canada aren’t related to agronomy … variety approval, licensing, food safety.”

Hemp has been grown in Canada for about 25 years, but the industry has never lived up to its promise. In the 2010s, hemp leaders were predicting that acreage would hit 250,000 by 2018. That target was never reached as the industry went through several boom and bust cycles.

In the last few years, farmers have seeded 35,000 to 50,000 acres of hemp across Canada for the food industry or for fibre.

The expert committee report and the lack of recommendations to de-regulate hemp are a disappointment for Canada’s hemp sector, but Haney believes opportunities remain.

The report and the minimal mention of hemp in 91 pages illustrates that hemp has nothing to do with cannabis.

“They (Health Canada) convened a legislative review, the expert panel has been clear that hemp really isn’t related to their mandate. It doesn’t represent the kind of risks that Health Canada is adept at dealing with” Haney said.

The panel did make one recommendation regarding hemp, saying Health Canada and Agriculture Canada should create an expert advisory body to look at hemp regulations.

For Shwaluk, it’s obvious how that regulatory framework should be structured.

“The government of Canada must fully recognize that hemp is not adult use cannabis or medical cannabis and start treating hemp as a normal agricultural crop.”

Contact robert.arnason@producer.com