What we heard report: Winter 2024 consultation on seed regulatory modernization (excluding seed potatoes)

Common themes among the 348 additional stakeholder comments received by the CFIA include:

• CFIA taking over the responsibility of the Form 300 process is in line with the CFIA's role and would provide a level of transparency, however this change should only proceed if CFIA is able to maintain the expediency and efficiencies currently delivered by the Canadian Seed Growers Association (CSGA)
• The current variety listing service provided by CSGA using their Form 300 process has been effective. Adding lengthy service standards to Form 300 crops would negatively impact the timeliness of new varieties and newer technology entering the marketplace, particularly compared to other countries, reducing the competitiveness of Canadian farmers
• With the potential for additional crops to opt out of variety registration, harmonizing Part III variety registration and Form 300 holds the potential to streamline and simplify the seed system in Canada, but it requires adequate resourcing to maintain service standards that align with the needs of industry

Common themes among the 333 additional stakeholder comments received by the CFIA include:

• It is important to note that further regulation adds additional costs, and those costs must be proportional to the risk that is being addressed by the imposition of regulation. Adding requirements could make it a less viable option for both common seed sellers and farmers who buy and plant common seed
• Those who buy common seed practice due diligence, and those who sell common seed are mindful of their reputations. These safeguards are effective, so there is no need to impose additional requirements
• Since common seed is in the grade tables and does have minimum standards, it should be enforced. Sellers of common seed of the crop kinds listed in Schedule II should be licensed to ensure that the CFIA has information to conduct its monitoring activities. This would help raise awareness of the minimum requirements of common seed and help protect consumers

Common themes among the 343 additional stakeholder comments received by the CFIA include:

• With respect to standards development, the current system is working well. It is efficient, effective and flexible and already encourages a high level of participation from those involved. Adding an advisory body into the standards setting process will not streamline it or improve quality, and it would not prioritize farmer's interests or those of the public
• We support the CFIA in having ultimate authority for setting standards. Since standards impact the entire value chain, decisions on standards should involve representation across the value chain and be made in a neutral manner to avoid conflict of interest
• An advisory committee should only provide guidance. It could allow for more consultation with the entire industry and greater objectivity

When responding to this question, respondents were able to choose from the following options:

• Yes, on a mandatory basis
• Yes, on a voluntary basis
• No
• I don't know

Overall, more than 60% of respondents chose "yes" on either a mandatory or voluntary basis. However, support for "yes on a mandatory basis" was mixed at below 60%.

A majority of the respondents saw two important advantages of a digital end-to-end seed certification information management system:

• Expedites information flow and decision making
• Ability for CFIA to conduct more efficient/effective oversight

There were four concerns that a majority of respondents had with a digital end to end seed certification information management system:

• Data security and privacy
• Who should be able to access different information
• How the information/data will be used by the administrator
• Whether payment for access will be required

Common themes among the 336 additional stakeholder comments received by the CFIA include:

• This may lead to more efficient oversight and could expedite information flow and decision making however it will be important to understand the scope of mandatory reporting and the potential implications and/or benefits to farmers, given the very concerns outlined in the survey related to data security, privacy and access. Further, it is not clear if any additional costs to an end-to-end seed certification information management system would increase systematic costs ultimately passed on to farmers through seed sales
• Expanding SeedCert to provide a digital 'single window' for all seed certification services would expedite data access, provide value-added traceability opportunities for the seed sector and its customers, and improve monitoring and regulatory oversight of the sector
• The system must be secure. There must be full transparency regarding who has access to the data and how the data can be used. More consultation on this topic is needed and clarity of how the information would be used and how it would be protected (e.g., who can access the data). Transparency for any fees related to data access is needed

Although a majority of respondents supported the Canadian Seed Growers Association (CSGA) taking on additional seed certification tasks, there was not a clear indication of which tasks should become their responsibility.

Common themes among the 326 additional stakeholder comments received by the CFIA include:

• The CSGA has demonstrated that they have the ability to take on additional tasks that would improve the current system. This presents an opportunity for both the CFIA and the CSGA to continue working together towards additional ways in simplifying and streamlining the certification process
• CSGA has been reliably administering the national seed crop certification program. CFIA must continue to oversee Canada's seed certification services while providing for agility through delegating authority to a non-governmental entity. The CFIA should work with the CSGA to provide further efficiencies and transparency in the seed system for the benefit of producers and a competitive agricultural sector
• Without seeing a cost-analysis by CFIA, proposed cost of service delivery by CSGA and understanding the process by which decisions will be made by CSGA, it is not possible to assess if any processes would be improved by CSGA taking on additional tasks. All parties who may have these capabilities should be explored and CFIA should remain the responsible authority to oversee these tasks undertaken by an ASD partner. As more and more tasks are taken over from the CFIA by ASD partners, it should be made clear to farmers, and the value chain stakeholders, any implications related to the consolidation of power and decision making within the seed regulatory system

Common themes among the 352 additional stakeholder comments received by the CFIA include:

• It is important that all seed being purchased is of high quality and meets the standards of the grade, but to ensure that weed seeds and disease inoculum aren't introduced into the environment. Seed quality testing is highly technical and any seeds that are imported into or sold in Canada should be tested by trained professionals working within a quality management system
• Requiring all seed to be tested by official laboratories would increase the costs to growers that sell common seed and would be particularly onerous for domestic vegetable seed producers who provide locally adapted seed that is otherwise unavailable in Canada
• Farmers want to know the quality of the seed they are purchasing. The accredited lab system ensures that the labs are producing results that could be replicated
• There is no need to regulate farmer-to-farmer sales of unadvertised, ungraded seed. However, to ensure reliable test results for producers, all seed testing should be done by officially recognized, accredited, or supervised laboratories

Common themes among the 345 additional stakeholder comments received by the CFIA include:

• Requiring an accredited grader to label common grade seed may add complexities and increase costs for farm-to-farm sales
• Accreditation of a seed grader is the necessary assurance and accountability for an individual to be able to apply a common seed grade name. It ensures that all growers can trust the seed that they buy as the grade names are a sign that quality standards have been met and potentially exceeded
• Producers need to be able to trust the seed they buy, and Grades signal that certain standards have been met. However, producers buying common grade seed are often interested in seed test results, and providing this information could exempt seed from being graded by an officially accredited grader. The seed would still have to meet minimum seed standards to sell seed in Canada (usually Common No.2)
• Non-pedigreed seed (i.e., common) requires greater regulatory requirements and oversight, and this is one measure which can be implemented to work toward this goal. The CFIA will need to invest in additional oversight of common seed

Common themes among the 320 additional stakeholder comments received by the CFIA include:

• There should be a consistent standard requiring all seed to be pre-cleared regardless of whether one is an authorized importer or not. Strict import requirements for seed are essential to protect and preserve Canada's environment
• Pre-clearance and post-clearance by CFIA approved authorized importers allows flexibility for authorized importers to get seed to its Canadian destination. This flexibility would not be available for non-AIs who would only have a pre-clearance avenue (i.e., the CFIA or an AI) to import seed into Canada. The risks of seed being planted without post-clearance could be addressed through compliance education of non-AI seed importers
• Clearing seed before it is imported could streamline the process for importers who are not authorized importers since the seed will be known to meet the minimum standards before it is imported into Canada. This may be particularly important in the spring when many seed lots must be evaluated in a short period of time. It also reduces the potential for non-compliance and release of a product into the environment that has not, and may not, pass the import conformity assessment
• Requiring pre-clearance for non-authorized seed importers could result in delays and impact access to foreign seed

Common themes among the 344 additional stakeholder comments received by the CFIA include:

• An advisory committee would tend to be most accessible to those able to make it a large part of their work for an extended period. Farmers would be unable to participate in such a committee because they are busy farming. To participate, it would mean personal sacrifice and time away from their farms
• Farmers would be underrepresented, and it would not be a balanced forum. It would be easily influenced by industry representatives that have the capacity to advocate for their own interests already. Farmer's voices would be diluted
• Only if it truly has "balanced representation from across the value chain". It could provide a forum for stakeholder views to be shared, to strengthen connections along the value chain, promote continuous improvement and monitor the effective implementation of SEED-RM recommendations

Common themes among the 319 additional stakeholder comments received by the CFIA include:

• Small seed lots that are imported for personal use can pose risks to Canada's domestic ecosystems that can not only impact native species and urban communities but spread into agricultural production. Ensuring seed is free of weed seeds of concern prior to import will help mitigate these potentially costly risks
• Small lot imports for research purposes should be exempt
• The CFIA and Canada Border Services Agency should explore other policy and program-based tools to support seed imports that serve gardeners, farmers and their community's needs for access to biodiverse and culturally appropriate seed. These tools should also prevent the introduction of serious diseases and/or harmful new weeds and prevent seed companies from using the small lot exemption as a loophole to sell substandard seed
• Reducing the quantities eligible for a small lot exemption (e.g., 1 kg for large-seeded and 100g for small-seeded crop kinds) should reduce the risk of weeds and/or diseases to Canadian agriculture is worth exploring

Common themes among the 375 additional stakeholder comments received by the CFIA include:

• Rather than cancel varieties, they can be phased out over time
• Allowing registrants to cancel a variety where there are no safety concerns reduces famers choice and will have a negative impact on the marketability of grain derived from that variety leading to lower returns
• Commercial realities associated with the remaining presence of the variety on-farm and in the handling system must be taken into account. Consideration must be given to allow growers, handlers and exporters to continue to receive top value for the variety, while providing them enough notice to transition to other varieties
• Variety owners and registrants should have the ability to cancel the registration of their variety and remove it from the marketplace. Development and registration are significant investments for the seed industry and cancellation decisions are not made arbitrarily