What we heard: Consultation on proposed changes to Canadian Food Inspection Agency Chronic Wasting Disease Control Program

On this page

Introduction

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) undertook an online consultation, as described in the CFIA's current consultation and engagement policy, on proposed changes to the CFIA's Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Control Program. The consultation opened on September 19, 2025 and closed on November 21, 2025.

Background

The CFIA's current program, launched in 2019, was designed to control CWD through prevention and early detection in farmed cervid herds. However, since its implementation, CWD has continued to spread into new areas of Canada, underscoring the need for updated approaches and stronger collaboration. The CFIA's analysis of the current program identified opportunities to improve disease risk management in farmed cervids and better meet the needs of partners and stakeholders.

The management of CWD in Canada is uniquely challenging due to the presence of the disease in both farmed and wild cervid populations. In addition, scientific uncertainty remains regarding zoonotic (animal-to-human) and cross-species transmission. CWD management is a joint responsibility that requires collaboration among multiple, diverse partners and stakeholders including federal and provincial government departments (agriculture, environment and health), the farmed cervid industry and those associated with wild cervids, producers, hunters, consumers and Indigenous Peoples. CWD is a reportable disease under the Health of Animals Act and the CFIA is the lead federal agency responsible for designing and delivering response programs for CWD cases in farmed cervids.

The CFIA's National Reference Laboratory for CWD, also designated as a World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) Reference Laboratory, conducts science activities related to CWD, including:

  • training, certifying and ongoing monitoring of provincial laboratory analysts to conduct diagnostic testing on surveillance samples submitted under provincial or territorial CWD surveillance programs for both farmed and wild cervids
  • conducting confirmatory testing on all non-negative surveillance samples
  • collaborating with international researchers on knowledge gaps related to CWD (such as detection and destruction methods, genetic approaches to disease resistance, CWD strain characterization and the risk of transmission to other species)
  • providing scientific advice related to regulated animal diseases with potential implications for food safety

In recent years, many partners and stakeholders have highlighted the One Health nature of CWD due to its known or potential impacts on people, animals, plants and their shared environment. Since 2022, the CFIA has been engaging with CWD partners and industry to obtain input on options to meet their needs for better management of CWD in Canadian cervids, while maintaining Health Canada's precautionary recommendation that no cervid known to be infected with CWD be consumed by humans. The CFIA focused on opportunities for improvement under the CFIA's current areas of responsibility for CWD management as well as the CFIA's mandate of mitigating risks to food safety.

Facts about cervid farming in Canada

  • Peaked around 2002, with over 170,000 cervids (deer and elk) on more than 2,500 farms
  • Currently 29,655 head on 402 farms
  • Elk are primarily farmed in Western Canada and red deer in Eastern Canada. Fallow deer, white-tailed deer and other cervid species are farmed throughout Canada
  • Slaughter: 843 deer and 1,666 elk slaughtered/yr in federally and provincially inspected establishments
  • Exports: 71,517 kg/yr of elk meat; Imports: 407 tonnes/yr of venison
  • Approx. 20% of herds export live cervids to USA (slaughter and bull elk to hunt farms)

These statistics reflect data from CFIA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) as of September 2025.

Three foundational elements of the proposal

Feedback gathered during pre-consultation engagement shaped the proposed changes, which would:

  1. Incorporate regional risk categories into CFIA policy

    This would allow the CFIA to implement more effective and proportionate CWD response measures for infected farmed cervid herds, based on the CWD status of both wild and farmed cervid populations within the surrounding region.

  2. Recognize that the range of effective management tools for CWD-infected herds is not limited to whole-herd depopulation.

    The proposed approach would better meet the needs of the cervid industry, who have advocated for CFIA policy on alternative control measures in parts of Canada where CWD exists in wild cervids. It also meets the needs of producers of infected herds who, under current CFIA policy, continue to operate under provincial control but would like access to CFIA advice and support for herd management approaches. In addition, it would align CFIA policy with the needs of provincial government partners affected by CWD who have already incorporated management of infected herds into their own CWD policies.

  3. Update the CFIA's CWD program goals to include limiting human exposure to CWD prions.

    This program goal will be met by updating Canada's CWD testing framework to incorporate precautionary testing (or testing conducted to meet Health Canada's recommended precautionary approach)

    This will allow the CFIA to provide support to CWD testing currently conducted under provincial and territorial animal health surveillance programs to ensure that testing is adequate to meet Health Canada's precautionary recommendation.

Consultation overview

The CFIA would like to thank everyone who participated in the consultation process for contributing their time and sharing their views. The participants' views expressed in this report do not reflect those of the CFIA or the Government of Canada.

The focus of the online consultation was to:

  • confirm ongoing support from partners and stakeholders on the proposed changes to the CFIA's CWD Control Program
  • determine potential impacts of proposed changes on key stakeholder groups (for example farmed cervid producers, hunters)
  • seek feedback on potential areas to further strengthen Canada's collaborative approach to CWD management

This report summarizes the comments received via:

  • online GC Forms survey posted as part of the consultation package (closed)
  • emails to the CFIA's generic CWD inbox (CWD-MDC@inspection.gc.ca)
  • letters to the CFIA's Prion and Equine Programs Section (PEPS) or Animal Health Programs Division (AHPD)

CFIA consultation activities

  • The CFIA published a consultation package on its website, including a detailed overview of proposed changes
  • The CFIA raised awareness of the opportunity to provide feedback on the CFIA's CWD Control Program through:
    • direct emails to federal and provincial partners and cervid industry associations, which could be distributed to their networks of CWD stakeholders (for example wildlife management departments, hunters, producers)
    • notification via the CFIA's animal and food email distribution lists
    • social media posts
  • The CFIA discussed this proposal on modifications to the CWD disease control program with its primary trading partner, through direct communication with officials, to ascertain any effects on trade.
  • During the consultation period, the CFIA participated in meetings as requested by partners and stakeholders to respond to questions and help clarify the proposed changes and their impacts.

Who we heard from

The CFIA received 63 submissions expressing support, outlining concerns, requesting clarifications or proposing different approaches from:

  • federal, provincial and territorial government partners
  • national cervid industry associations and lobby groups
  • provincial cervid industry and conservation associations
  • cervid producers
  • hunters and individuals interested in conservation
  • Indigenous organizations
  • CFIA staff
  • private veterinarians
  • researchers and academics

Approximately 60% of responses were received from individuals, groups or organizations located in the Prairie provinces that are currently affected by CWD (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba).

What we heard

The CFIA requested feedback on three main program elements:

  • regional risk categorization
  • precautionary testing
  • and the use of depopulation as a control tool for CWD

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they agreed, disagreed, or were unsure. They were also asked to assess whether the proposed changes would have positive, neutral or negative impacts on them, and for any additional suggestions they may have to strengthen CWD management in Canada, including suggestions beyond the CFIA's areas of responsibility.

All submissions were reviewed, and feedback was grouped into elements that were well-supported, not well supported, or received mixed reactions. Many respondents expressed strong views about CWD and its impacts on Canadian cervid populations and appreciated the opportunity to provide feedback on proposed changes to CWD management. This report also summarizes specific aspects of each proposed element that prompted requests for clarification or adjustments. In addition, an appendix has been included to expand on certain suggested approaches that fall outside the scope of the proposal and/or outside the CFIA's areas of responsibility related to CWD.

Elements well-supported

Regional risk categorization

The CFIA asked respondents to provide input on the following proposed categories for CWD status in Canada to be incorporated into CFIA policy for the purposes of CWD risk management:

  • Established: a province or territory where CWD has been detected in wild and farmed cervids for 2 or more consecutive years.
  • Emerging: a province or territory in which CWD has been detected in some wild cervid populations for 2 or more consecutive years, but not in farmed cervids.
  • Not detected: a province or territory in which CWD has not been detected in wild or farmed cervid populations in the last 5 years

Detailed feedback on regional risk categorization

Overall, partner and stakeholder groups and individuals supported regional risk categorization in CFIA policy. Some government partners in provinces affected by CWD supported the proposal as written and highlighted the importance of well-developed collaborative response plans to address incursions into new geographic areas. Some groups, including provincial governments and national cervid industry associations, supported regional risk categorization but asked for clarification on how the CFIA would categorize certain scenarios that do not currently exist in Canada (for example, a province or territory in which CWD has been detected in more than one cervid farm but not in wild cervids within less than 5 years), or whether the CFIA would consider adopting risk categories based on sub-provincial zones and prevalence in wild cervids. One conservation association and a group of individual hunters from a province affected by CWD supported the proposal that CFIA policy would recognize regional differences in CWD risk across Canada but are opposed to the ongoing farming of CWD-infected herds.

Partners and stakeholders who disagreed with this element of the proposal included a provincial cervid industry association and a group of producers affected by CWD who oppose the inclusion of CWD on the list of federally Reportable Diseases. These respondents also asked the CFIA to amend the proposal to prioritize expanded movement and trade options for CWD-infected herds. In contrast, a provincial conservation association, an Indigenous organization from a province affected by CWD, and a government from a jurisdiction not yet affected by CWD opposed the proposal because they do not support the ongoing farming of CWD-infected herds, either in all regions or in regions where CWD is emerging. In addition, a provincial conservation association, a group of individuals interested in conservation, and an Indigenous organization from a province not yet affected by CWD expressed opposition to the farming of cervids in general.

Among other individuals and groups who provided feedback, CFIA staff and private veterinarians expressed support for the proposal, with some requesting clarification on other risk scenarios. In contrast, some national lobby groups and researchers or academics either expressed mixed views or disagreed citing opposition to the ongoing farming of CWD-infected herds or, more broadly, to the farming of cervids.

Precautionary testing

Respondents were asked for their views on the CFIA's proposal that, in regions where CWD is emerging or established, all farmed cervids destined for the commercial food supply should be tested for CWD as a precaution.

Respondents also had the opportunity to provide input on precautionary testing when commenting on the CFIA's proposed program goal of limiting human exposure to CWD prions, as well as on how the CFIA's proposed changes could impact them as partners or stakeholders.

Detailed feedback on precautionary testing

Overall, partners and stakeholders supported this element of the proposal. Provincial governments affected by CWD stressed the importance of minimizing impacts of these changes on slaughter operations, test turnaround times and industry or producer costs as well as the potential impacts on current laboratory capacities. Some respondents recommended that the proposal go even further, suggesting that the CFIA develop a framework to require testing of all cervids being consumed by humans, regardless of regional risk categorization. Others recommended preventing all farmed cervids from provinces where CWD is established from entry into the commercial food supply.

Those who disagreed included national cervid industry associations, a provincial cervid industry association, and a group of producers affected by CWD who are opposed to the position that CWD is a human health concern and indicated that they consider CWD as only a trade issue.

Elements with mixed reactions

Depopulation as a CWD control option

Respondents were asked for their views on the CFIA's proposal to not order depopulation of CWD-infected herds in provinces or territories in which CWD is emerging or established. The CFIA clarified that compensation is not offered when animals are not ordered destroyed. The CFIA proposed a case-by-case exception to the policy in unique circumstances where CWD is detected in a herd located in a province or territory categorized in policy as established or emerging, but where the farm is located within a wildlife management area in which CWD has not yet been detected. In such cases, the CFIA may order destruction of the herd if this measure is considered likely to contribute to provincial or territorial efforts to prevent CWD spread.

Respondents also had the opportunity to provide input on regional risk categorization and how it may affect depopulation when commenting on the CFIA's goal of improving CWD management in farmed cervids, as well as on how the CFIA's proposed changes could impact them as partners or stakeholders. Respondents who identified themselves as cervid producers were also asked to assess advantages and disadvantages of depopulation as a CWD control tool.

Detailed feedback on depopulation as a control option

This element received mixed reactions from partners and stakeholders. Some partners and stakeholders, including provincial governments affected and not affected by CWD, CFIA staff and private veterinarians supported the proposal as written. These respondents highlighted the importance of well-developed, collaborative response plans, noting that CFIA-led depopulation of infected herds should remain available as a control tool when appropriate, to prevent incursion into new geographic areas.

Some partners and stakeholders, including provincial governments, cervid industry and conservation associations, researchers, and some Indigenous organizations, both affected and not affected by CWD, indicated uncertainty or mixed views. These respondents requested additional clarification on what collaborative response plans would involve before being able to agree or disagree with a change to the CFIA's use of depopulation as a CWD control tool.

National cervid industry associations, a provincial cervid industry association, and group of producers affected by CWD also expressed mixed views. They supported the CFIA's proposal that depopulation may not be appropriate when CWD is established or emerging in wild cervid populations in the vicinity of the farm and they highlighted the stress and trauma experienced by producers and other personnel when their entire herds are depopulated. However, they disagreed with the proposal overall. These respondents emphasized the importance of government compensation as a current management option for producers when CWD limits their ability to trade.

Other partners and stakeholders, including national lobby groups, some provincial conservation associations and governments, both affected and not affected by CWD, disagreed and opposed the ongoing farming of CWD-infected herds. They recommended that cervid farming be phased out, with compensation to producers, or that the CFIA return to the approach used prior to the Agency's shift from an eradication to a control program in 2019, under which all infected herds were depopulated, not just those enrolled in a CWD Herd Certification Program and compliant at level D or higher.

Elements that require clarification or adjustments

The CFIA will consider requests for clarification or adjustments as part of program development and will continue to engage with partners, stakeholders and Indigenous Peoples throughout this process. Partners and stakeholders requested clarification or adjustments related to certain aspects of the three main program elements (regional risk categorization, precautionary testing and depopulation as a CWD control option):

  • developing criteria for CFIA-led depopulation as an element of collaborative response to incursions into new geographic regions within provinces categorized as established or emerging, including consideration of prevalence and wild cervid population density
  • exploring options for the movement of cervids from infected herds located in established regions
  • exploring options for managing infected herds and contaminated premises located in established regions
  • adding a risk category for potential scenarios that do not currently exist in Canada but may arise in the future (for example, multiple affected farms but not detected in wild cervids)
  • clarifying the definition of "commercial food supply"
  • minimizing impacts on slaughter operations, test turnaround times and industry or producer costs and potential impacts on current laboratory capacities

Other suggestions to strengthen CWD management in Canada

In the request for feedback, the CFIA indicated that the Agency would continue to support administration of the CWD Herd Certification Programs and provide access to advice on herd management and training on live animal testing. Cervid producers were asked how else the CFIA could support their animal health goals. Respondents were asked if they had additional feedback on CWD management approaches. Partners and stakeholders provided extensive feedback to these questions. Common suggestions included the following:

Research

Respondents recommended conducting or promoting research related to:

  • live animal testing options for individual cervids and herds
  • genetic resistance to CWD
  • prophylactics and vaccines to prevent or delay disease progression
  • role of feed in CWD transmission
  • prion kinetics in elk
  • transmission to humans and other livestock species
  • testing solutions for wild cervids

Additional measures

Respondents suggested considering additional measures related to:

  • control of CWD spillover and spread via live cervids, cervid products, fomites and vectors
  • on-farm prevention and control strategies (including live animal tests and resistant genetics)
  • national cervid traceability
  • surveillance, monitoring and precautionary approach to testing for wild cervids

One Health

Respondents encouraged the CFIA and partners to:

  • commit to One Health goals through robust communication, collaboration and coordination across all parties involved with CWD in Canada
  • enhance engagement with Indigenous Peoples in the development of approaches related to wild cervids

CWD Herd Certification Programs not part of the proposal

The CFIA's proposed program changes do not include modifications to the CWD Herd Certification Programs (CWD HCPs), which follow a separate process outlined in the National Standards. The only impact on the CWD HCPs is that enrollment would no longer be linked to the CFIA's CWD response measures anywhere in Canada.

Next steps

The CFIA thanks everyone who participated in the consultation process. Based on feedback and general agreement received from partners and stakeholders for the elements of regional risk categorization and precautionary testing, there is sufficient support to proceed with adjustments, program planning and implementation.

The CFIA will consider feedback received regarding depopulation as a control tool and re-engage with impacted partners and stakeholders to discuss potential modifications prior to implementation of this aspect of the new program.

The CFIA will provide timelines of the above activities to partners and stakeholders and through the CFIA's email notification service as soon as these are available.

Appendix

This summary reflects specific recommendations and comments received during the consultation to explain why the CFIA considers them out of scope or not aligned with the broader CWD management goals shared by partners and stakeholders in Canada.

Recommendation: Remove CWD from the list of Reportable Diseases

CFIA comments:

Reportable diseases, as outlined in the Health of Animals Act and Reportable Diseases Regulations are diseases that can impact human health, animal health and the Canadian economy. Changes to Acts and Regulations require consultation with partners, stakeholders and rightsholders to determine if there is sufficient support within Canada to proceed. The Government of Canada, trading partners and the majority of those who provided feedback to this consultation on proposed changes to the CFIA's CWD control program agree that CWD is an important prion disease to monitor due to its known impacts on animal health and the Canadian economy, as well as its potential impacts on human health. CWD is also reportable to provincial, territorial and State authorities and the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS). Federal oversight of CWD, including its status on Canada's list of Reportable Diseases, is important to maintain market access for Canadian cervids and cervid products. For these reasons, removing CWD from the list of Reportable Diseases is not supported by CWD partners and stakeholders or in keeping with the CFIA's mandate to continually improve its animal health program design to minimize and manage risks, thereby supporting the Canadian economy.

Comment: CWD is not a human health concern

CFIA comments:

To date, there is no direct evidence to suggest that CWD may spread to humans. However, experts continue to study the zoonotic potential of CWD and the conditions under which transmission could occur. In managing potential human health risks from CWD in Canada, CFIA follows Health Canada's recommendation (supported by federal health officials in the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and Health Canada and food safety officials in CFIA) that precautionary measures be taken so that no cervid known to be infected with CWD be consumed by humans. This position also aligns with the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation that agents of all known prion diseases be excluded from the food chain, and with the scientific opinions of the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Recommendation: Order destruction of all CWD-infected cervid herds

CFIA comments:

CFIA acknowledges that the ongoing presence and spread of CWD in farmed and wild cervid populations presents significant management challenges. CFIA currently only orders destruction of CWD-infected cervid herds if they are enrolled in a CWD Herd Certification Program (CWD HCP) and found to be compliant at level D or higher through CFIA's compliance evaluation. CFIA considers that the proposed program change to remove the pre-requisite for CWD HCP enrollment, along with the proposed policy to allow CFIA to order destruction of infected herds located in sensitive areas of established or emerging regions, will enable more targeted response efforts to help control CWD spread.

Feedback from cervid industry associations and producers highlighted that cervid farms, particularly those with CWD-infected herds, represent unique opportunities for controlled research to address knowledge gaps such as vaccines, genetic resistance and live animal tests. These research opportunities could lead to better prevention and control options for both wild and farmed cervid populations. This approach aligns with the One Health concept promoted by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), which emphasizes leveraging the strengths of different sectors and disciplines to enhance preparedness and response and achieve common goals.

Recommendation: Phase out cervid farms (with compensation to producers)

CFIA comments:

As indicated in the introduction of this report, the number of cervid farms in Canada has continued to decrease over time. In some parts of Canada, wild cervids pose a more significant CWD transmission risk than farmed cervids and phasing out cervid farms would not address the ongoing spread of CWD. In addition, licensing of cervid farms is not currently part of CFIA's responsibilities within Canada's CWD management framework. CFIA considers that other measures may be more achievable in reducing risks between wild and farmed cervid populations, while remaining within CFIA's mandate and commitment to a One Health approach. Examples include enhancing early detection through improved testing (both postmortem and live animal) and developing herd management programs to keep herd prevalence low.

Date modified: