Seed regulatory review reveals industry split

Glacier FarmMedia – Canada is in the midst of a “once-in-a-generation” review of its seed industry regulations.  

But the Seed Regulatory Modernization (SRM) process is also revealing fractures within the country’s seed sector.

Animosity appears to be lingering over the Seed Synergy process that led to the formation and launch of Seeds Canada in February of this year.

That five-year project ultimately saw the amalgamation of four groups — Canadian Plant Technology Agency, Commercial Seed Analysts Association of Canada, Canadian Seed Institute, and the Canadian Seed Trade Association.

A fifth group, the Canadian Seed Growers Association — whose members are mostly farmers — opted at the last minute to stay out of the tie-up.

CSGA’s decision to leave Seeds Canada at the altar revealed irreconcilable differences, and now it appears those could affect the current review process.

Why it matters: It’s been more than three decades since Canada’s seed regulations have been reviewed, and they have not kept pace with advancements.

For example, before the merger there was industry consensus to make seed certification easier through a single service window.

Now instead of a ‘one-stop-shop’ approach Seeds Canada had promoted, the group wants to explore removing CSGA’s “monopoly” and perhaps let others certify seed crops too.

“They’re (CSGA) the ones that not only set the standards, they’re the only approved quality management system for varietal purity,” Lorne Hadley, Seeds Canada’s director of policy, said in an interview Oct. 7.

“No one else is allowed to present a quality management system. Why that is important is the technology is changing… and there may be new tools that would be appropriate in a quality management system. But in this service of varietal purity management it’s essentially a monopoly at this point… and that’s part of the challenge.”

According to one industry observer, had CSGA joined Seeds Canada it wouldn’t be musing about such a policy, if for no other reason than that CSGA members would dominate the organization.

Indeed, before the merger vote an argument for joining Seeds Canada was to influence its direction. Some speculated without CSGA, Seeds Canada might seek to take on seed certification.

Seeds Canada’s musings were “a stab in the back,” for the CSGA, one industry observer said.

Asked on Oct. 7 for his reaction, Mike Scheffel, CSGA’s managing director of policy and standards, replied: “Obviously it’s not good.”

The CSGA has the regulatory authority for seed crop certification and varietal purity standards for all crop kinds except potatoes. It’s also responsible for certifying breeder and select seed.

Seeds Canada carries on the seed institute’s role in auditing seed establishments that process and store pedigreed seed.

Seeds Canada also represents seed development companies, as well as a number of seed growers and retailers.

Lofty goals

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Seeds Section is overseeing the review.

Wendy Jahn is the national manager of the section, and she sees the potential for “substantive change” that could affect the seed industry, farmers and end-users of the crops.

“We really want to introduce some flexibility and to make changes that keep pace with the advances in the industry,” she said in an interview Oct. 5.

The whole seed system, which many agree is key to Canadian grain quality, including pedigreed seed certification, common seed and variety registration, are being scrutinized.

The current legislation started with the Seed Control Act in 1905, proclaimed a year after the Canadian Seed Growers Association (CSGA) was founded.

The act was amended in the 1920s to help protect farmers from unscrupulous seed sellers with measures including variety registration.

There’s been some updating over the years, but the last major review was many years back.

“We haven’t had a holistic look at them for about 30 years now,” Jahn said.

While there’s some common ground on the need for more flexibility, efficiency, transparency and digitization in the seed system, there are differing views on how to achieve it.

Even though the federal government is open to making big changes it will be informed by the seed industry and farmers first, Jahn said.

“There’s no guarantee that it will happen, but right now we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to step back and take a holistic look… to ensure that (the regulatory framework and regulations) meet today’s needs,” she said.

“We have signalled that we are open to substantive change, but under the context of hearing from our stakeholder communities and having a balanced process.”

Jahn said her group needs to hear from the producer community because as the consumers of seeds, they’ll be affected by any changes. She also said the grain industry was another key stakeholder group, because seed quality and availability has an impact on their operations.

“We want to find out what they’re thinking,” Jahn said.

With everyone in the same room CFIA hopes to find consensus.

A number of farm groups (see below), including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, are on the Seed Regulation Modernization Working Group.

Role refinement

There’s also discussion around the role of government regulation through the CFIA, which administers the Seeds Act, and where the Canadian Seed Growers Association (CSGA) and Seeds Canada fit in.

Crop certification, which CSGA has done for more than 100 years with government oversight, is a regulatory function, not a normal market, Lorne Hadley said.

The CSGA is there to serve Canadian agriculture, Scheffel said, pointing to CSGA’s articles of incorporation: “To represent members, advance the interests of seed industry and provide a program of seed crop certification for the benefit of Canadian agriculture.”

Having multiple certification organizations runs counter to the single window of service goal the industry agreed to.

To achieve a ‘one stop shop’ CSGA proposes to expand what it already does, taking on some of the CFIA’s day-to-day duties. However, CSGA wants CFIA oversight to remain, Scheffel, said in an interview Oct. 6.

“During the ‘Seed Synergy’ discussions there was agreement that we have an industry-led, government-enabled seed system,” he said.

“We just think this is a really good opportunity for CFIA to step back a little bit, or for the seed sector to step up a little bit and to take charge of its own destiny and assume that responsibility for its own standards and for changes. CSGA is changing its rules and procedures on an almost annual basis because it’s our core business — a seeds crop standards and certification body.”

CFIA could then focus more on food safety and animal health.

“We’ve had a partnership with the government for 120 years,” Scheffel said. “We’d like to renew that. We’d like to make it better.

“We basically still want to work with the government and to have the best possible seed system that people are willing to pay for, for the benefit of agriculture.”

How much regulation?

But Hadley questions how much regulation is necessary.

“I think from Seeds Canada perspective we want a broader, big-picture discussion about whether regulation is appropriate or if the marketplace can look after it more efficiently because conditions have changed so drastically,” Hadley said.

“Are we regulating what’s necessary?”

Regulations cost money and that hurts small and medium-size seed development companies, which are the most likely to bring innovation to farmers, he said.

Communications, including through social media, have improved since the 1920s and farmers are better educated and more sophisticated, Hadley said.

“The Seeds Act doesn’t provide consumer protection, is what I am telling you,” he said. “It is provided through the commercial market.”

If a farmer has a problem with seed they go to the seller to resolve it, not CFIA, Hadley said. Disputes are usually settled amicably because seed companies want to keep customers.

“If I sell a variety and make a promise that, that variety doesn’t live up to, they (farmers) are going to tweet from the field, using the monitor on their combine, that this is a bad variety,” Hadley said.

The SRM process hasn’t discussed the main issues yet, he said.

“We haven’t talked about the role of government,” Hadley said. “How does the market demand get supported by regulation? What needs to be regulated and what needs to be handled through transparency? What is the cost of maintaining the status quo? What is the cost of building on the restrictive system that we have today?

“The discussion to date has been groomed in a way that has been talking about improving the status quo without validation if the status quo serves the commercial producer and end-user as well as it could.”

The working group started meeting in September 2019.

The COVID pandemic caused some delays, Jahn said.

The recent federal election also delayed the release of results on a survey conducted on the seed sector last winter.

If all goes well, farmers will be consulted on possible seed regulatory changes in the winter of 2022-23, Jahn said.

The government hopes to post its proposed regulatory changes in the fall of 2023 in the Canada Gazette Part I, she added.

That’s a requirement before regulatory changes are implemented.

For more information on the CSGA and Seeds Canada positions on the review:

Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator. His article appeared in the Oct. 21, 2021 issue.