The idea of forming an advisory body for the seed sector to set standards and make recommendations to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) — a central idea being discussed as part of the Seed Regulatory Modernization (SRM) process — is up in the air after the CFIA released its latest SRM What we Heard report on Oct. 2.
According to the report — which reveals the results of the CFIA’s winter SRM survey sent out earlier this year — respondents overwhelmingly felt that an advisory body should not be involved in standards setting. That puts up a roadblock for Seeds Canada as it looks for support for its Independent Standards Setting Body (ISSB) idea.
The overall concept of an advisory body designed to make recommendations to the CFIA on how to improve the seed regulatory system — also embodied by the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association (CSGA) idea for a Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Committee — received less than 60% support from survey respondents as well.
That begs the question of where the two organizations go from here, and how to forge ahead with the idea for an advisory body.
But there may be light at the end of the tunnel. Both the CSGA and Seeds Canada are expressing a willingness to engage in dialogue about two competing governance models.
In an interview with Seed World Canada, CSGA Executive Director Doug Miller said it’s time for CSGA and Seeds Canada to sit down and iron out their differences when it comes to the advisory committee concept.
“If we’re both aiming for the same outcome — shaping standards and making recommendations to government — then maybe we’re closer than we think,” Miller says.
According to Miller, CSGA has already reached out to Seeds Canada with a formal letter proposing to bridge that gap, and has indicated CSGA is open to exploring a joint recommendation to government.
“We’ve seen all the details on the evolution of the ISSB idea, and it sounds very similar to what we’re looking for,” he says. “At the end of the day, we don’t care what it’s called — whether it’s an advisory committee or something else — as long as it works. What’s important is showing leadership and collaboration to get this over the line.”
Seeds Canada CEO Barry Senft offered a slightly more cautious perspective. While Senft acknowledges the open lines of communication between the organizations, he’s uncertain about how close their concepts are.
The ISSB was envisioned by Seeds Canada to play a crucial role in setting standards, but in light of the survey results as reported in the What we Heard report, the idea may not have enough support to move ahead.
Still, it may not have mattered — CFIA Seed Section National Manager Wendy Jahn said in July that implenting the ISSB idea might have required changing the Seeds Act, something that could take up to a decade.
Sticking Points
Both the ISSB and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Committee proposals evolved over the last number of months prior to the release of the survey results.
Senft said the CSGA had initially proposed its advisory committee would report to its own board of directors, but later changed that to the CFIA. For Seeds Canada, the issue is ultimately one of accountability.
“That’s where we feel our ISSB idea has an edge,” he says. “CFIA currently has no oversight responsibilities over CSGA. So even if the advisory committee advises CFIA, CSGA still holds the authority to set and deliver standards, as well as establish prices for services.”
Still, both sides remain committed to finding common ground.
“We’re always willing to collaborate,” Senft said. “It’s just that, for now, I think we have a ways to go before we agree on the advisory body concept.”
Ultimately, both Miller and Senft agree that the goal is to modernize the system.
“We need a process that aligns with the demands of today’s farmers,” Miller says. “It’s all about creating something cost-effective, efficient, and responsive to their needs.”
Senft echoes this sentiment, while also asserting that the process needs to align with the realities of the modern seed industry. As such, putting standards back into the hands of government without any input from regulated and impacted parties isn’t what Seeds Canada is advocating for in any case.
“If your operations fall under the Seeds Regulations, you need to have a voice. It’s that simple. We can’t have a single stakeholder making all decisions without government oversight or input from all regulated parties, and we can’t have government setting standards in isolation of industry,” Senft says. “At the end of the day, we’re still of the opinion that the ISSB has a role to play in the future of the seed system.”
Despite the disagreements that still exist, Michelle Wall, seeds regulatory lead for Syngenta Canada who currently sits on the Seeds Canada board, believes that constructive outcomes may be on the horizon.
“I feel like we’ve reached a point where something constructive is going to come out of this, hopefully leading to an amicable resolution or agreement on how this body will move forward,” Wall says.
“Honestly, the biggest difference — or maybe even the only real sticking point — is how they each envision the reporting structure,” Wall adds. “That’s a significant roadblock I can see from both perspectives.”
Despite these challenges, she remains optimistic. She views Canada’s the Plant Breeders’ Rights Advisory Committee as a successful precedent.
“There’s a real opportunity here for our industry to do some good.”
