Canada
August 3, 2005
Canadian Food Inspection
Agency
Plant Products Directorate
Workshop on
Adventitious Presence with emphasis on events approved in both
Canada and its export markets
Jointly sponsored
by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency
February 4, 2005
Ottawa, Canada
Executive Summary
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada (AAFC) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
jointly convened a stakeholder workshop in Ottawa on February 4,
2005, as part of the Government of Canada’s ongoing dialogue
with agriculture stakeholders on adventitious presence (AP).
Developers, the seed industry, producers, processors, exporters,
regulators and others, both Canadian and international, were
represented. The workshop focused on events approved in both
Canada and its export markets, with two main objectives: 1. to
build a greater awareness among industry and government
stakeholders on various aspects of
AP by
facilitating exchange of information and perspectives; and 2. to
explore integrated industry/government approaches to address
immediate and future challenges arising from
AP in seed and
in grain, oilseeds and special crops. Invited speakers delivered
presentations providing a general overview of
AP and
discussion of impacts of
AP in seed production and in handling, production and
export of grain, oilseeds and special crops. In table
discussions, participants communicated their sector’s
experiences with AP
and proposed a number of approaches to mitigate
AP issues.
Outline
Adventitious presence, or
AP, is defined
here as "the unintended, technically unavoidable presence of
genetically engineered material in an agri-food commodity." It
is a complex issue with cross-cutting implications for
regulations, marketing approaches, international trade and all
members of the crop value chain.
The Government of Canada has
initiated a dialogue with Canadian agri-food sector stakeholders
on the implications of AP,
i.e. the unintended
technically unavoidable presence of genetically engineered
material in agri-food commodities.
To this effect, a discussion
paper "Industry and Government Perspectives on Adventitious
Presence of Products of Genetic Engineering in Seeds, Grains,
Oilseeds and Special Crops" was commissioned in early Spring
2004. The paper was tabled for discussion with a limited number
of agri-food sector stakeholders in Winnipeg in June 2004, and
was subsequently
posted on Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada website. The
paper provided an overview of
AP in Canada
and concerns expressed by stakeholders such as export market
disruption due to AP
in grain, and the implications of
AP for seed
production.
To continue the dialogue,
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) invited stakeholders from throughout
commodity value chains to a "Workshop on Adventitious Presence
with emphasis on events approved in both Canada and its export
markets".
The objectives of the workshop,
organized jointly by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, were threefold:
- to seek stakeholder views
on issues arising from
AP in seed,
grains and oilseeds with emphasis on
GE
material approved in both Canada and its export markets,
- to build a greater
awareness of AP
issues and realities among various stakeholders within the
value chain, and
- to explore integrated
industry/government approaches to address immediate and
future challenges.
The workshop was designed to
provide a forum for stakeholders to share an overview of
AP, current and
expected future impacts of
AP, and
potential mitigation of impacts of
AP on seed,
grain and oilseed production and trade. It is a step toward
development of a strategy to address
AP issues in
Canada.
Workshop participants included
approximately 65 government and private stakeholders from across
Canada and from Mexico, the United States, Switzerland and the
United Kingdom. Participating organizations are
listed in Section 2. Participants were provided a
background discussion paper that set the context for the
workshop agenda. Summaries of the participants’ extensive
input in identifying
AP issues and
considering mitigation approaches are included in this report.
AAFC
and CFIA
recognize that AP
of GE material
that has not been granted health and safety regulatory approvals
in Canada and/or its export markets is also of concern to
stakeholders. AP
of unapproved material directly involves health and safety
regulators, both domestically and internationally, as well as
other government departments and private stakeholders, and must
be closely linked with import policies. Issues of unapproved
AP can only be
addressed appropriately in a wider forum that includes Canadian
and international bodies responsible for food, feed and
environmental safety of
GE material, and other stakeholders involved in import
of agricultural commodities, and were therefore not the main
focus of this workshop.
AAFC
and CFIA
will carefully consider the recommendations of workshop
participants with respect to
AP of approved
GE material,
and will continue to work with other government departments and
domestic and international stakeholders to address
AP of
unapproved material.
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada (AAFC):
- Strategic Policy
Integration and Development Division, Grain Policy Division,
Grains and Oilseeds Division, International Trade Policy
Directorate, Multilateral Technical Trade Issues - Markets
and Trade Team
Alberta Agriculture
American Seed Trade Association
Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies
BIOTECanada
Canada Grains Council
Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA):
- Feed Section,
International Affairs, Office of Biotechnology, Ottawa
Lab-Seeds, Plant Health Division, Plant Production Division,
Plant Biosafety Office, Seed Science and Technology Section,
Seed Section
Canadian Seed Trade Association
Canadian Seed Growers' Association
Canadian Special Crops Association
Canadian Grain Commission
Canadian Organic Growers
Canola Council of Canada
Comisión Intersecretarial de Bioseguridad y
Organismos Genéticamente Modificados (CIBIOGEM Mexico)
CropLife Canada
Environment Canada
Foreign Affairs Canada
Health Canada
Inland Terminal Association of Canada
International Seed Federation
International Trade Canada
Ministère de l'agriculture, des pêcheries et de
l'alimentation du Québec
National Farmers Union
National Millers Association
Ontario Corn Producers Association
Ontario Soybean Growers
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada
Pulse Canada
Saskatchewan Mustard Growers Association
Saskatchewan Organic Directorate
UK Department for
Environment Food and Rural Affairs
UNDP-GEF National Coordinator of Biosafety Project, Mexico
University of Manitoba
University of Saskatchewan
USDA-Agricultural
Marketing Service
USDA-Biotechnology
Regulatory Service
USDA-Foreign
Agriculture Service
Blair Coomber
Director General, International Trade Policy, Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada
Mr.
Coomber welcomed participants on behalf of Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and noted that the topic of Adventitious
Presence (AP) is of great importance to industry, regulators,
policy makers, marketers and consumers. Participants at the
workshop represent a broad range of Canadian stakeholders, as
well as representatives of Mexico, the United States,
Switzerland and the United Kingdom. He noted that the purpose of
the workshop was to increase understanding and awareness of
AP among
stakeholders to help ensure that future direction on issues
related to AP
is based on a common approach and a common vision.
He provided an overview of
AP and some of
the issues from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s perspective.
AP is part of
crop production and grain handling, and has been since long
before the introduction of genetic engineering (GE) technology.
However, the sensitivities around this new "class" of products
have brought adventitious presence under the spotlight.
From a broad federal government
perspective, innovation is a main driver of sectoral growth and
global competitiveness.
AAFC
is committed to ensure that Canadian crop and animal producers
have access to technologies that contribute to the production of
a safe, nutritious and affordable food supply. These
technologies include GE
crops that have, through scientific evaluation, been deemed to
be safe and nutritionally equivalent or superior to
conventionally bred crops.
AP stems from
our ability to apply scientific knowledge and technological
innovation to the production of food.
From
AAFC’s
perspective, AP
raises a number of specific challenges, domestic and
international. The Canadian agricultural sector needs to be
positioned to meet increasing market specifications, and as a
result access global markets. Furthermore, the treatment of
AP in
international fora should not lead to discrimination against
Canadian products of innovation.
AAFC
supports the development of policy, regulation, and good
agricultural practices that support both producers who
deliberately choose production of
GE crops and
those who deliberately choose to avoid them.
Industry must play a key and
constructive role in developing solutions to the challenges
posed by AP,
and AAFC
is committed to working collaboratively with all stakeholders to
address the challenges posed by
AP.
The question of
AP arises in a
number of fora including, from an environmental perspective, in
a context of the Biosafety Protocol. The federal government is
committed to work toward achieving a predictable multilateral
environmental agreement for the safe and responsible
transboundary movement of living modified organisms. In this
context we are working very closely with all stakeholders to
promote the development of predictable and pragmatic rules
necessary for the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector to
remain competitive and maintain access to the international
markets.
For some stakeholders,
AP of
unapproved GMOs
is of great concern. Mr. Coomber
emphasized that while the focus of the workshop would be on
AP of approved
GE seeds and
crops, the issue of unapproved events would also likely be
raised, as the approval status can change when Canadian crops
are shipped to foreign markets. The work done on approved events
will help to establish a framework for progressing on unapproved
events.
In closing,
Mr. Coomber noted that
AP is a complex
issue, with several cross-cutting implications on regulations,
marketing approaches, international trade and technical trade
rule setting. By creating a better understanding of these issues
and implications across stakeholder groups, it will be possible
to collectively set a clearer path forward that encompasses both
industry and government perspectives.
Glyn Chancey
Director, Plant Products Division, Canadian Food Inspection
Agency
Mr.
Chancey welcomed participants on behalf of the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA), and noted that there is a rich and
diverse group of people representing a wide range of stakeholder
interests both from within and outside of government.
The subject of the workshop –
genetically engineered events that have been approved in both
Canada and its export markets – is indicative of the specific
complexities of AP
and the importance of clearly defining the issues to be
addressed. Sensitivities regarding
GE technology
have created a business and public policy environment that,
rightly or wrongly, recognizes differences in seed or grain
quality and safety based on whether or not it is produced
through genetic engineering.
The issue of the adventitious
presence of genetically engineered products is extremely
complex, with both product marketing and quality concerns and
health and safety issues inextricably mixed in the public debate
and in the reality of doing business. From a regulatory
perspective, this creates particular challenges, from the
definitional and policy perspective to the practical aspects of
ensuring public confidence in the science-based regulatory
regime.
For this stakeholder workshop,
AP is defined
as "the unintended, technically unavoidable presence of
genetically engineered material in an agri-food commodity." The
CFIA
is a partner in the workshop because of its role in the
regulation of novel varieties, including regulated genetically
engineered varieties, for environmental safety and livestock
health and safety.
CFIA’s
assessment framework in this regard is firmly routed in science
and is focussed strictly on health and safety issues.
The
CFIA
is also a partner in this workshop initiative in its role as
Canada’s seed regulator.
CFIA
has a mandate that includes a mixture of health and safety,
plant protection, and seed certification. These
responsibilities, which include oversight of seed varietal
purity and identity, have numerous complexities and challenges
and are inextricably linked to
AP. Canada’s
bulk commodity handling system, the system of regulatory
approvals, and enforcement, compliance and certification systems
are also inextricably linked and a thorough understanding of
these systems is fundamental to developing the options for
addressing the challenges associated with
AP.
Today, we are ready to move
forward in one area of the broad, complex issue of adventitious
presence, focusing on the aspects relating to
GE material
that has been granted regulatory approvals in both Canada and
its export markets. In these cases,
AP can cause
trade disruptions and other challenges where there are quality
or marketing requirements for seed or grain related to its
GE status. For
example, Roundup-tolerant soybeans are approved for planting in
many countries. In certain countries, they are approved for food
and feed purposes only, in some countries there may be mandatory
labelling thresholds, and certain customers or markets may have
additional specification requirements.
A standard or specification
does not exist in a vacuum. It is firmly rooted in a series of
procedures to measure the specific characteristics of concern.
In the sampling and sub-sampling of seed or grain, in the
handling and preparation of material to be tested, in the
methods and procedures for testing, in the reporting and
interpretation of results, and in the application of tolerances
to second and subsequent test results – all of these need to be
understood and accepted by both buyers and sellers. And in the
absence of reliable, practical and internationally agreed upon
systems and testing methods, absolute guarantees are not
possible – only qualified assurances.
This workshop of
AP of approved
events is part of a larger process of developing and clarifying
Canadian domestic policy that also includes efforts to address
AP of
GE material
that has not been granted regulatory approval in either the
importing or the exporting country. This is clearly an important
area of concern for many stakeholders. Clarifying issues around
AP of varieties
that are not approved in Canada or the destination country will
continue to require extensive analysis, policy development and
refinement, and consultation with domestic and international
government regulators as well as importers and exporters. This
is a work in progress.
The
CFIA
is undertaking efforts to strengthen its consultative framework
to support the operation of its specific regulatory mandates.
The Seed Sector Review and the proposed permanent consultative
framework is a key example, as is the industry-government
committee on AP
and coexistence to be reconvened by the
CFIA
this year.
In closing,
Mr. Chancey emphasized the
importance of the workshop as an opportunity for government to
hear stakeholders’ views and experiences around these issues and
to collectively develop approaches to address these challenges
today and into the future.
The following presentations
provided context for the workshop discussions:
Gord Harrison,
InterSect Alliance Inc.,
provided an overview of stakeholder perspectives on the issues
and implications of AP.
Dale Adolphe, Vice
Chairman Canada Grains Council and Chairman, Canada Grains
Council Biotechnology Committee, spoke about the impact
of AP on
production, handling, and export of grain, oilseeds and special
crops.
Bernard Le Buanec,
Secretary General, International Seed Federation,
looked at AP
and its implications for changes to international seed standards
and seed production systems.
For copies of any of these
presentations, please
contact the
CFIA’s Plant Production Division.
The following are
comments raised by one or more participants. Note that consensus
was not necessarily reached on any of these comments.
Drawing on the
presentations, their experience and the perspectives of their
sectors, participants considered (i)
the ways in which AP
is currently an issue and the extent of those issues, (ii)
how AP issues
may continue in the future, and (iii)
new issues that may emerge in the future. For this discussion,
AP included
approved and unapproved
GE material in domestic and international markets.
(i)
Most participants noted that adventitious presence is currently
a significant issue for many sectors, as Canadian products may
be restricted from existing markets or entering new markets and
opportunities may be lost. For example, adventitious presence of
GE canola in
mustard may result in the loss of access to European Union
markets. In the corn industry, shipments of sweeteners derived
from glyphosate-tolerant varieties may be rejected by European
markets. For the organic sector, adventitious presence may
result in lost markets and revocation of organic certification.
There are also issues related to varietal purity, traceability,
labelling and end use (food vs. feed
vs. industrial uses).
It was noted that the
complexity of issues related to adventitious presence depends
greatly on how adventitious presence is defined. For example,
most markets test for same species adventitious presence (e.g.,
GE corn in
corn shipments, GE
soybeans in soybean shipments); however, adventitious presence
of GE canola
in mustard or wheat also raises concerns. Similarly, there are
significant differences between health and safety issues related
to unapproved GE
material and trade issues related to approved material.
A participant cautioned that
care must be exercised when using terms such as "contaminated,"
especially in reference to grain. It was noted that, as set out
in the Canada Grains Act, grain is considered
contaminated only if an unapproved event is present; presence of
approved events does not result in contaminated grain. Other
terminology concerns raised by participants included the use of
"co-existence" and "containment."
Some participants noted that
there are liability issues associated with adventitious
presence, particularly for growers. It was suggested that
knowledge of economic risk, communication and contract
negotiation skills will be increasingly important as this issue
will likely continue and become more complex in the future.
There were also concerns raised
that organic production costs may increase if crop rotation
options are reduced and/or new agronomic management methods and
testing are needed.
(ii)
Participants noted that many of the issues associated with
adventitious presence will continue in the future. Some
participants suggested that strict regulations are needed to
prevent adventitious presence consequences from worsening. Other
participants noted that Canadian standards regarding
adventitious presence need to be well balanced to maintain our
competitive advantage and market access, while not limiting
innovation or farmers’ ability to utilize innovation.
(iii)
It was noted that new issues will emerge as new technology
develops, including containment and confinement issues
associated with large-scale plant molecular farming operations
and liability/responsibility issues. The impact of these issues
will be affected by the level of consumer acceptance of products
containing GE
material, and consumer confidence in the regulatory framework.
Communication and education are important to raise public
awareness of risks and benefits of
GE products
and of the roles of government and industry.
Some participants noted the
importance of synchronous approvals amongst different government
departments and trading partners. It was suggested that
validated detection methods should be made more available as a
requirement of a submission for approval.
The need for international
harmonized standards was raised. Some participants felt that
there is a high level of standardization around health and
safety assessments, for example the food safety assessment
requirements under the Codex Alimentarius of the
FAO and WHO.
Environmental assessments were seen to be less amenable to
harmonization, due to geographical, ecosystem, climate and other
factors affecting agriculture and the environment.
Internationally standardized
testing methods are also needed, especially to detect unapproved
events. It is important that testing methods are cost effective
(not an economic burden on producers).
It was suggested that the seed
certification process move toward an approach that allows
GE presence to
be considered separately from traditional varietal purity,
rather than including AP
status as part of offtypes. It was noted that this may be
necessary only for certain markets, and that there would be new
costs associated with separate testing.
The current Canadian regulatory
system related to adventitious presence was seen by some
participants to be working well in terms of risk assessments.
Further development is needed in the area of risk management,
especially as the next wave of bioengineered products emerges.
Risk communication needs to be improved, as it affects consumer
acceptance and confidence. Data collection and management around
both approved and unapproved events also needs to be improved.
It was suggested that a study be undertaken to determine the
extent and scope of issues associated with adventitious
presence, particularly those related to loss of
markets/opportunities.
The view was expressed that
government has a role to establish thresholds/standards along
the value chain and to ensure that quality management systems
are in place to assure those thresholds. It was suggested that
thresholds and standards must be set much higher than what is
actually required, as mistakes will inevitably occur. Some
participants felt that government, industry and the research
community should continue to take a leadership role at the
global level, particularly with Canada’s key trading partners.
In addition, Canada should work with developing countries to
help them gain from our lessons learned.
Some workshop participants felt
that while adventitious presence cannot be avoided, it may be
managed by building on the IP (identity preservation) experience
and strengths. A participant noted as an example an
industry-led, non-legislated
IP program for
food grade soybeans which has enabled exports to Europe and
Japan. Managing AP
includes setting a rational balance between a
de facto zero tolerance and what can
be achieved by industry practically and cost-effectively.
Industry should have the flexibility to meet market demands.
Building on
these issues, participants considered the short- and long-term
challenges and opportunities that emerge for industry and
government. For this discussion, participants were directed to
focus on challenges and opportunities related to events approved
in both Canada and its export markets.
Again, issues around the use of
terms were raised. A participant advised that the term
"adventitious presence" should always be qualified with either
"approved" or "unapproved." The term "zero tolerance" is another
example. It was noted that "zero tolerance" does not appear in
any Act or Regulations, and that its use has resulted in
misinformation and unscientific expectations.
There is a fear that markets
will be lost due to customer perception of Canada’s inability to
limit AP. A key
challenge noted by some participants is the potential for
occurrence of unknown adventitious presence levels in seed,
which could jeopardize well-established, market driven
IP markets such
as the food grade non-GM
soybean market. This is compounded by the limitations of current
testing methods which do not provide quantitative measures. For
example, a strip test that returns positive for
GE presence
could result in the shipment being rejected, even though the
actual level of AP,
which may be within the acceptable amount, is unknown.
Similarly, the potential
co-mingling of different species within a shipment is a concern.
For example, a wheat shipment (there are no
GM wheats) in
which canola is found (there are
GM canolas)
could result in loss of market and erosion of customer
confidence.
Another key challenge is the
lack of harmonized international regulations and requirements
for thresholds, testing methods, quality assurance protocols,
risk assessments, etc. Therefore,
it is important to be aware of the standards of other countries
and markets.
In looking to the future, there
will be a need to balance government’s regulatory responsibility
with industry’s ability to meet "reasonable and rational"
expectations along the value chain as well as those of end-use
customers. This may require a new industry/ government
partnership, and possibly a new governance model. It was noted
that reasonable and rational customer expectations may be
achieved through improved communication about risks, the
technology, production practices, and merits/benefits of
products, to create understanding and acceptance. This is a key
challenge, however, given the level of consumer scepticism and
mistrust.
Building on the suggestion in
the previous discussion that an
IP approach may
be an answer to AP
challenges, some participants noted that evidence will be needed
to demonstrate that IP
systems meet customers’ requirements. It cannot be assumed that
a government’s standards will satisfy the customer –
customer/market demands may be more stringent than those set by
the regulatory authority.
Some participants felt that the
next wave of biotechnology will likely be much more difficult to
detect, and thereby to regulate. Liability challenges will also
continue in the future.
Participants noted that some of
these challenges offer opportunities for industry and
government. For example, an opportunity exists to "sell science"
to others who are just starting on their regulatory framework
for AP. New
testing methods, production designs, non-GE
products, new industrial bioproducts, and
GE products
that focus on outputs (i.e.,
to meet customer demand) rather than inputs, were other
suggested opportunities.
The following are
comments raised by one or more participants. Note that consensus
was not necessarily reached on any of these comments.
Participants
developed recommendations to explore or pursue in response to
the challenges and opportunities that had been identified.
6.2.1 Strategies for
the grain, oilseed and special crop sectors
Some participants felt that
add-back of foreign material should be phased-out; an
industry-government voluntary approach is preferred. However,
other participants opposed this.
The applicability of
IP systems to
AP issues was
again raised. As the current
IP systems are
considered effective, some participants felt that these should
be strengthened and expanded.
Another strategy suggested by
some participants was for the government to consider certifying
production processes to minimize or control
AP, rather than
setting AP
thresholds which may not meet the requirements of all markets.
This approach would be similar to the seed certification
process, and would include production protocols and quality
standards (e.g., requirements
for crop isolation, control of volunteers, equipment use and
cleaning, etc.).
Other suggestions included:
- Government should take a
leadership role to establish market-driven standards by
negotiating bilateral/multilateral agreements that meet
industry-identified market priorities for thresholds.
- Government should
recognize and support a flexible approach that recognizes
and supports voluntary standards for specific products and
specific markets. This would concentrate associated costs,
rather than spreading them across the sector.
6.2.2 Strategies for
the seed sector
The seed sector is generally
well prepared to deal with
AP, as it has
had strong success and experience with its seed certification
system and quality control procedures. Participants noted that
there is a need for the seed sector to monitor changing market
conditions and remain flexible and responsive to those changes.
The sector should continue to monitor for
AP, follow
established practices, encourage good on-farm record keeping,
and more widely communicate information about the quality
control procedures that exist. It was suggested that the Seed
Sector Review could provide a suitable communication vehicle.
It was also suggested that
there is an opportunity for the proposed seed sector
consultative process to build consensus around a science-based,
global centre for the development of certified reference
materials.
Voluntary protocols could be
established for GE
testing of seed of varieties grown for specific markets,
e.g.,
GE-free
soybeans. Existing Canadian Seed Growers’ Association (CSGA)
provisions for additional certification requirements could also
be used to ensure low levels of
AP in seed.
Some participants suggested
that developers of new
GE varieties should seek regulatory approvals in all
markets that would be affected by
AP of the
variety.
6.2.3 Strategies that
would support all sectors
Some participants noted that
AP of approved
events should be positioned as a marketing/industry issue rather
than as a safety issue.
AP needs to be perceived interdepartmentally as a
trade issue, beyond health and safety regulatory concerns.
A communication strategy should
be developed to facilitate a common understanding among value
chain members, including customers, of the system capabilities
to deliver a practical level of purity (GE
or non-GE).
This would include a coordinated information exchange and
knowledge building mechanism to better communicate the risk
assessment process, the safety of products on the market, and
Canadian standards in relation to the standards of other
countries, and to build confidence in the system. However, it
was also noted that millions of dollars have already been spent
on this type of communication, with little effect.
Some participants felt that
developers should be assisting in control of
AP from new
events by developing and promoting risk management strategies
for growers as well as appropriate testing methods. This raised
concerns regarding liability issues. Developers should also
ensure that their submissions are done in a synchronous manner
across regulatory authorities and with countries with regulatory
frameworks in place. While this may be ideal, it was noted that
it is a highly unrealistic expectation.
Although the international
harmonization of standards is desirable, some participants felt
it is unlikely to be attained given the track record to date.
The question was raised as to the appropriate forum for
international coordination on standards, methodology, certified
reference material, for example, Codex Alimentarius,
Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) and
International Seed Testing Association (ISTA). It was suggested
that
OECD might be most appropriate for food/feed areas,
and International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) for
environmental issues [particularly plant health].
Canada has the international
credibility required to take a leadership role on a number of
fronts, including:
- establishing Canada as a
global centre for certified reference materials;
- development of
international harmonization of regulatory assessment
procedures, internationally acceptable thresholds, sampling
procedures, testing methodology, and environmental safety
assessments in similar agro-ecological regions;
- promoting science-based
decisions regarding standards, tolerances and thresholds,
and the acceptance of results of other countries regarding
food and feed safety assessments.
It was suggested that Canada
and industry work together to develop and establish thresholds
that are reasonable and practical, and promote those to
international fora. The development process should take an
approach that considers all perspectives – developer, producer,
exporter, importer, negotiator.
Stakeholder input in the
development of policy and regulations is an ongoing commitment
of AAFC
and CFIA.
The issues raised and comments received at this workshop help
create an improved understanding among industry and government
stakeholders of the issues and implications related to
adventitious presence, particularly related to material approved
for environmental, feed and/or food use in both Canada and its
export markets.
AAFC
and CFIA
are working with the Canadian Grain Commission in considering
each of the recommendations made by participants of this
workshop, particularly those related to the role of government.
As part of the Government of
Canada’s ongoing initiative on adventitious presence,
AAFC
and CFIA
will continue to work with other government departments,
international partners and public stakeholders in addressing the
larger, more complex issues of adventitious presence of material
that has not been granted environmental, feed and/or food use
approvals. |
