In a March 9 letter to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Heath MacDonald, the group called for an “immediate pause on closures and employee terminations for a minimum of 24 months” so the government can re-evaluate decisions and protect “irreplaceable components of the research system, or offer enhancements to Canada’s agriculture landscape that may have been overlooked.”

WHY IT MATTERS: The planned closure of seven federal research centres and farms across Canada has been widely panned by agriculture groups, which say Canada could be less innovative and competative as a result.

The letter also calls for full transparency on the decision-making process and disclosure of any impact analysis done.

The group includes groups like the National Farmers Union (NFU), Canadian Organic Growers, Alberta Federation of Agriculture and Canadian Seed Growers Association.

The groups say the research cuts, which included over 600 staff and seven research stations, were made without consultation with farm groups or proper cost-benefit analysis.

It also criticized the suggestion universities and the private sector could make up for research cut by the government.

Universities “are cash-strapped, and grant funding is short term, precarious, and often tied to commercial partners,” the groups wrote. “They do not have access to the secure, dedicated land base or provide the stability required for long-term studies and multi-site plant breeding trials or agronomic studies.”

Private sector research, it added, is “shaped by commercial priorities and cannot address the range of research topics needed by farmers or for Canada’s long-term food and agriculture sector’s success.”

It also said research at the shuttered stations are vital to combating complex issues like climate change and disease.

“It is increasingly clear to us that the decision to eliminate this critical public research infrastructure was made without considering its true value to farmers, the Canadian public and the future of our food and agriculture system,” the groups said.

In hearings before the House of Commons agriculture committee, federal Agriculture Minister Heath MacDonald said it’s too expensive to keep all research facilities open. Operational costs had been allowed to get “out of hand,” he said in a February hearing, and the sites had substantial maintenance backlogs.

The cuts to AAFC research and staffing have also drawn criticism from opposition MPs.

The post Farm groups call on agriculture minister to pause federal research cuts appeared first on Farmtario.

This was one of the resolutions passed at the NFU’s annual general meeting in Moncton, N.B., Nov. 19-21.

“The idea of a guaranteed annual income pilot came from our Prince Edward Island membership. Part of the reason for that is in P.E.I., they’ve been kicking around this basic income guarantee idea for a few years provincially,” said Phil Mount, vice-president of policy with NFU.

“It’s been front and centre for them, and they’ve come up with the idea of a guaranteed annual income for farmers, specifically as a pilot project we should take on,” said Mount, who has a sheep farm and is based in Ottawa.

A guaranteed income would stabilize farmers’ incomes, which are often unstable.

“We have a long history with the NFU of supporting guaranteed annual income,” he said.

Challenging economics

In 2016, the NFU outlined a resolution for a basic income guarantee, but that was a Canada-wide, basic income guarantee support.

“This one is specific to farmers, and it’s basically meant to acknowledge the difficulties that farmers face, particularly new and young farmers getting into farming. That’s a critical area that we need to address,” said Mount.

The average age of farmers, across any Canadian province, is 56 years old.

Mount said the first 10 years of farming are critically important for setting down roots and expanding a business enough to make it stable and resilient for the long-term. Farmers currently must deal with rising input costs, as well as the rising cost of land.

“The price of land, pretty much now in every province, has been disconnected from basically the returns you’re going to see from that farmland. It’s no longer agricultural land tied to the price of growing crops. On that land, it’s been a complete disconnect now,” he said.

Mount said rising farmland costs have accelerated over the past 10 years. Prices were astronomical in Ontario in 2015, but now prices have jumped in Alberta and Saskatchewan too.

It’s even more challenging for farmers renting farmland.

“If you’re renting, you’re not putting that money into an asset that you’re going to have long term,” he said.

Paying for land has the additional benefit for farmers, as the money they are investing will come back eventually.

“That’s what the generations that went before have been relying on. You don’t have to make an incredible profit every year. You can put money back into your business and keep it viable, because you know you’re got that retirement income in the asset of the land,” he said.

Pilot specifics to be determined

The next step for the NFU in their attempt to secure a guaranteed annual income of $50,000 is to nail down the practicalities of the program.

Mount said the group needs to be prepared to speak with government, civil servants and other leaders across the country. Both federal and provincial governments will need to be involved, he said.

“We could be looking at a provincial pilot somewhere. We could even be looking at a very local pilot project somewhere. We’ve had some local basic income guarantees in this country, so that might be an option as well. I guess what we are looking to do is iron out some of the options, talking with folks about this and talking with our allies in other sectors because it’s not an idea that is unique to farming,” he said.

Mount said he does not know when the NFU will approach the government, as they are still working with their own policy committees. People are already paying attention to the idea.

“There’s a huge amount of interest in this guaranteed annual income pilot from across the media spectrum,” he said.

Mount said the idea of a guaranteed basic income could have an opportunity for nation building projects in food and agriculture, particularly in regional infrastructure, that would allow farmers to feed their own communities and regions.

“We’ve lost of much of our regional infrastructure to just transport and store and sell food within our regions and provinces. There’s a nation building opportunity here, and I think tying this project to that is a piece that would resonate for folks,” he said.

Capping grocery profits

The media has also shown interest in another resolution passed at the NFU AGM.

The resolution proposes a concept of capping the profit of grocery chains.

“This links in because we did a report this year on what we call the ‘farmers’ share,’ which is looking at the research on what proportion of the share of prices that consumers pay at grocery retail gets back to farmers. That’s another piece of this viable farm income. We’ve seen this disconnect in the last 50 years between the incredible efficiencies farmers have created allowing them to produce more and more with less and less,” he said.

But at the same time, farmers are receiving less of the consumer dollar.

Members voted to lobby Ottawa for a cap on the profits of the major grocery chains, such as Sobeys and Loblaws, which have a monopoly on the market.

The post National Farmers’ Union proposes guaranteed basic income for farmers appeared first on Farmtario.

“This is a direct threat to food security, seed sovereignty and farmer autonomy,” the NFU said on its website.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is in ongoing consultations around plant breeders’ rights regulations as part of the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act.

What would change?

The proposed amendments would:

• Limit the scope of farmers’ privilege to save seed only to crop kinds where there is a long-standing practice of saving and reusing seed. According to an impact analysis statement posted in the Canada Gazette on August 9, this would preserve the ability to save small grain and pulse seeds, but remove the right to save fruit, vegetable or ornamental plant seeds or propagate those vareties through tubers or cuttings. It would also bar the saving of hybrid seeds.
• Extend the duration of plant breeders’ rights protection to 25 years for crops that take longer to breed and gain market acceptance.
• Narrow the concept of sale for filing a plant breeders’ rights application.
• Reduce the plant breeders’ rights application fee to encourage filing electronic applications.

The purpose of the changes is to increase plant breeder protections in relation to other jurisdictions like the United States and European Union, which the CFIA said offer stronger intellectual property protections for plant breeders.

“As a result, these jurisdictions may have a competitive advantage in attracting investment and innovation in plant breeding,” the CFIA said in a ‘what we heard’ report.

NFU pushback

However, the NFU says these increased protections will come at farmers’ expense. It argues the consequences will include:

• Higher annual production costs due to increased seed and royalty expenses.
• No access to protected varieties that might be discontinued before the protection period expires.
• No access to protected varieties not available through licensed nurseries or seed sellers.
• No opportunity for farmers to adapt new varieties to local conditions by using saved seeds or propagating material harvested on their farms.
• No ability to replace lost fruit trees from the farm’s stock of the variety.
• Further entrenchment of “largely foreign private plant breeding.”

“The ultimate goal of the corporate seed sector is to require annual purchase and royalty payments for all crop kinds,” the NFU said in a news release.

The NFU called for people to sign a Parliamentary e-petition that would call for the government to abandoned the proposed changes.

The e-petition had 2,525 signatures at time of writing.

Industry response to changes

According to the CFIA, the industry is largely in favour of the proposed changes.

The agency held online consultations between May 29 and July 12, 2024 and heard from producer groups representing the agriculture, horticulture and ornamental sectors, international horticulture and ornamental growers, the organic sector, plant breeders, seed companies and others.

Support was consistent across almost every sector, the CFIA said in the ‘what we heard’ report. About ten per cent raised concerns.

“A provincial group representing fruit growers strongly endorsed the proposed amendment, indicating that the farmers’ privilege should not extend to asexually reproduced ornamental and fruit varieties,” the report said.

Other responses suggested the current regulation could be hindering research and innovation and that the changes could reassure foreign and domestic breeders about the strength of intellectual property protection in Canada. This could, in turn, improve access to new varieties.

“The fruit, vegetable, and ornamental sectors are highly dependent on genetics from foreign jurisdiction,” said Keystone Agricultural Producers in a July 12, 2024 submission.

“Adding clarity to farmers’ privilege will increase the confidence of plant breeders who are interested in doing business in Canada.”

The group also agreed with exempting hybrids from farmers’ privileges, saying saving of hybrid seed isn’t typical due to legal and contractual restraints and cropping issues like lower yields.

The post NFU says proposed plant breeders’ rights come at farmers’ expense appeared first on Farmtario.

“This is a direct threat to food security, seed sovereignty and farmer autonomy,” the NFU said on its website.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is in ongoing consultations around plant breeders’ rights regulations as part of the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act.

What would change?

The proposed amendments would:

• Limit the scope of farmers’ privilege to save seed only to crop kinds where there is a long-standing practice of saving and reusing seed. According to an impact analysis statement posted in the Canada Gazette on August 9, this would preserve the ability to save small grain and pulse seeds, but remove the right to save fruit, vegetable or ornamental plant seeds or propagate those vareties through tubers or cuttings. It would also bar the saving of hybrid seeds.
• Extend the duration of plant breeders’ rights protection to 25 years for crops that take longer to breed and gain market acceptance.
• Narrow the concept of sale for filing a plant breeders’ rights application.
• Reduce the plant breeders’ rights application fee to encourage filing electronic applications.

The purpose of the changes is to increase plant breeder protections in relation to other jurisdictions like the United States and European Union, which the CFIA said offer stronger intellectual property protections for plant breeders.

“As a result, these jurisdictions may have a competitive advantage in attracting investment and innovation in plant breeding,” the CFIA said in a ‘what we heard’ report.

NFU pushback

However, the NFU says these increased protections will come at farmers’ expense. It argues the consequences will include:

• Higher annual production costs due to increased seed and royalty expenses.
• No access to protected varieties that might be discontinued before the protection period expires.
• No access to protected varieties not available through licensed nurseries or seed sellers.
• No opportunity for farmers to adapt new varieties to local conditions by using saved seeds or propagating material harvested on their farms.
• No ability to replace lost fruit trees from the farm’s stock of the variety.
• Further entrenchment of “largely foreign private plant breeding.”

“The ultimate goal of the corporate seed sector is to require annual purchase and royalty payments for all crop kinds,” the NFU said in a news release.

The NFU called for people to sign a Parliamentary e-petition that would call for the government to abandoned the proposed changes.

The e-petition had 2,525 signatures at time of writing.

Industry response to changes

According to the CFIA, the industry is largely in favour of the proposed changes.

The agency held online consultations between May 29 and July 12, 2024 and heard from producer groups representing the agriculture, horticulture and ornamental sectors, international horticulture and ornamental growers, the organic sector, plant breeders, seed companies and others.

Support was consistent across almost every sector, the CFIA said in the ‘what we heard’ report. About ten per cent raised concerns.

“A provincial group representing fruit growers strongly endorsed the proposed amendment, indicating that the farmers’ privilege should not extend to asexually reproduced ornamental and fruit varieties,” the report said.

Other responses suggested the current regulation could be hindering research and innovation and that the changes could reassure foreign and domestic breeders about the strength of intellectual property protection in Canada. This could, in turn, improve access to new varieties.

“The fruit, vegetable, and ornamental sectors are highly dependent on genetics from foreign jurisdiction,” said Keystone Agricultural Producers in a July 12, 2024 submission.

“Adding clarity to farmers’ privilege will increase the confidence of plant breeders who are interested in doing business in Canada.”

The group also agreed with exempting hybrids from farmers’ privileges, saying saving of hybrid seed isn’t typical due to legal and contractual restraints and cropping issues like lower yields.

The post NFU says proposed plant breeders’ rights come at farmers’ expense appeared first on Farmtario.

“[We think] Bill C-2 creates even greater volatility and makes them even more vulnerable,” said NFU policy analyst James Hannay in an interview.

The union, in an August op-ed, urged the federal government to withdraw the sweeping Bill C-2, also called the Strong Borders Act. It cited concerns for migrants and refugees along with the bill’s impact on privacy rights.

What does the bill cover?

The Liberal government introduced the bill in late May, and it passed its first reading before Parliament rose for the summer.

The bill, if passed, includes provisions purported to combat organized crime and fentanyl trafficking, expands the RCMP’s ability to share information with domestic and international partners, and introduces measures to combat money laundering.

It also would authorize Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to share more client information with federal and provincial partners. It would allow the government to cancel, suspend or change groups of immigration documents immediately, pause acceptance of new applications or pause or cancel applications already in the queue.

“These new authorities… could be used for matters of public health or national security,” a government backgrounder says.

Other amendments in the bill include intentions to set a one-year deadline to claim asylum.

Bill C-2 does not specifically mention temporary foreign workers.

Effects uncertain

If passed, the government would have the ability to cancel or modify work permits or impose new conditions on them.

“We don’t understand yet how this will impact temporary farm worker program. We would like some explanation on that,” Hannay said. “Theoretically, this could make migrant workers coming into Canada more vulnerable to changes in status.”

Many workers come to Canada with employer-specific work permits, Hannay said. This means they could lose their status if they leave their employer due to poor working conditions or treatment.

The NFU’s view is that the easiest way to guarantee workers’ rights is to give them a pathway to permanent residency status.

“Bill C-2 does the opposite of that,” Hannay said.

Temporary foreign workers and workers under the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program have some ability to move between employers, the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association noted in an August 2024 article.

For instance, vulnerable workers who are victims of abuse can apply for an open work permit.

Seasonal workers can also request to be transferred to a different approved employer by their country’s liaison office without having to apply for a new work permit, the association said. Federal rules also provide protections for workers who report poor working conditions.

Labour trafficking concerns

Groups that work with migrants and refugees have also pushed back against Bill C-2.

“Having temporary or precarious immigration status is by far the greatest risk factor to experiencing labour trafficking in Canada,” said Julia Drydyk, executive director of the Canadian Centre to End Human Trafficking, in a June article about the bill.

Labour trafficking is defined as a form of human trafficking that involves coercion, control or deception, the article said. “It most often affects migrants who are in Canada legally but have precarious immigration status — including many temporary foreign workers.”

For instance, the worker might arrive at the workplace and realize the promises the employer made aren’t being fulfilled, but they are kept there by threats of deportation, James McLean, the centre’s director of research and policy, in an interview.

“The majority of farmers treat workers fairly,” he said. “But there are systemic issues that create vulnerabilities… employer-specific work permits make it very difficult for workers to report abuse or to leave unsafe conditions, and that allows exploitation to take root.”

“One of the reasons that the centre has really pushed back against recent legislation is because we’re starting to see stigmatization of migrant workers,” said McLean. “The Canadian economy depends on migrant workers to function… we want to make sure that the focus remains on those who are exploiting these workers, and not on punishing or restricting these workers.”

To become law, Bill C-2 must be considered by a parliamentary committee, which may propose amendments, and pass its second and third readings. It would then be passed to the Senate, where it would go a similar process.

The post Strong borders bill could increase temporary foreign worker vulnerability says National Farmers Union appeared first on Farmtario.

In his work with the NFUO,Thompson coordinated the International Projects committee and conducted farmer interviews for policy research.

Thompson’s experience is primarily academic, with degrees from the University of Victoria, Queen’s and the University of Ottawa, covering Canadian history and social and political thought. His work has focused on the history of labour and activism.

Thompson will inherit the role from previous Executive Director Mara Shaw, who has served in the role since January of 2020.

In a March 31 news release, NFU President Jen Pfenning called Thompson “the kind of deeply knowledgeable leader who brings everyone along while staying firmly committed to the mission and values of the NFU.”

“We look forward to working with Dave to continue to advance the issues that NFU farmer and farm worker members democratically determine.”

Thompson will officially begin the role April 7.

The post David Thompson announced as new NFU Executive Director appeared first on Farmtario.

While immediate measures are critical to addressing the situation, the NFU says a more long-term strategy is necessary.  This should include a more substantial policy to increase resilience and improve preparedness for external disruptions, and to reduce dependence on the United States, which is no longer a reliable trading partner.

“President Trump’s disruptive strategy and lack of respect for rules means we can no longer consider trade agreements reliable,” the NFU said.

The group said improvements to resilience and preparedness initiatives would strengthen Canadian agriculture and reduce vulnerability in supply chain disruptions, income loss, price increases and food shortages. It calls for changes that would not only address the current situation, but any future storms as well.

The statement acknowledges the crucial role of domestic and international markets for imports of farm equipment and inputs, and for exports of products.

The NFU calls for the prioritization of defending supply chain management, diversifying export markets, promoting and improving regional and local markets, protecting agricultural workers, upscaling domestic farm equipment manufacturing and preventing corporate profiteering.

It says short-term solutions include increasing domestic production of food goods and products and equipment fabrication to current demands and government measures to prevent corporate price gouging and to increase agriculture support.

While supports such as AgriStability are available for price drops and rising input costs, the organization says there isn’t a program to deal with a crisis such as tariffs.

The NFU says long-term solutions include adoption of a similar multifunctional policy framework similar to what’s in place in the European Union to provide market diversity and support to farmers and agricultural workers. Increasing food processing and equipment manufacturing will also support future economics through reliable food supply and infrastructure, it says.

“Punitive American tariffs and a potentially expanding trade war create uncertainty that is harmful to our livelihoods and our communities,” the NFU says.

”We urge the government to move swiftly toward this goal.”

The post National Farmers Union calls for ‘serious response’ to tariffs appeared first on Farmtario.

The current system, where it’s unknown if products work or not, is a cost and a risk for Canadian growers, the NFU says in a report published Oct. 21.

“’Farmer buy-and-try’ should no longer be the norm for non-fertilizer supplements,” said James Hannay, an NFU policy analyst.

“Farmers should not bear the costs of testing non-fertilizer supplements, nor can farmers deliver statistically significant results to prove that they work.”

The NFU report comes at a time when hundreds of novel supplements are now available to Canadian producers.

There are bio-stimulants, bio-fertilizers, seaweed extracts, humic acids and many other products on the market, with more being introduced every month.

Along with the hundreds of products, there are dozens of claims on the benefits of fertilizer supplements.

“Biologicals like nitrogen-fixing bacteria can … reduce the need for applied N fertilizer without reducing yields, a solution that can help farmers with their productivity and sustainability goals,” says the website of one firm, promoting its bio-fertilizer.

It’s difficult for farmers to make sense of these claims and all the noise.

Prior to 2013, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency tested fertilizer supplements to check their efficacy, and the NFU is calling on the feds to restore those regulations.

“Given that supplements can have multiple active ingredients and modes of action, they are best defined based on their claimed benefits to agriculture; it is therefore essential that these claims be tested and the data be made publicly available so that farmers can make informed choices,” the NFU says in a summary of its report.

There is testing and publicly available data on the efficacy of fertilizer supplements, but producers do have to search for the results.

For instance, the Western Applied Research Corporation (WARC), a non-profit in Saskatchewan, has tested nitrogen-fixing biological products and their efficacy on spring wheat. The results are available on the WARC website.

Manitoba Pulse & Soybean Growers has also looked at the efficacy of biological products as part of its on-farm research network. Those results have been presented publicly and can be found on the MPSG website.

So, efficacy testing of fertilizer supplements is happening in Canada, but the CFIA isn’t leading the charge.

The NFU argues that handing this responsibility back to the CFIA will actually be helpful for the supplements industry.

“Farmers will have independent validation and quantification of claimed benefits, enabling them to … purchase products with confidence,” the NFU says.

“Non-performing products will be removed from the marketplace, increasing trust in the entire supplements sector.”

The NFU is hoping other farm groups will join the effort to restore efficacy testing in Canada. It is hoping that the program will be included in the 2025 federal budget.

The post NFU calls for efficacy testing of non-fertilizer supplements  appeared first on Farmtario.

The demonstration was organized by the NFU Youth Caucus and Farm Workers’ Working Group. The goal was to demand protection of food sovereignty and help farmers, especially young ones, gain more access to farmland.

Why it matters: Investor ownership represents a major barrier for Canadians to enter a shrinking agriculture industry.

NFU Youth president Jessie MacInnis said young farmers in particular have been feeling the strain of a lack of access to affordable farmland.

“As young people, this is a really critical issue,” MacInnis said. “There are already so many barriers for young people to get into agriculture, and the fact that land prices have risen so much due to the speculative nature of farmland now… that’s a barrier that’s hard for all of us to overcome.”

The demonstration was part of the NFU’s “Lobby Day” ahead of its annual convention, running Nov. 23-25 in Ottawa.

“We’re here today, as one of our lobby asks, to ask the federal government to have discussions with provincial lawmakers to talk about ways that we can actually ban all farmland investment,” she said.

“Essentially, we just want to keep the farmland in the hands of farmers and keep it accessible for young people.”

Ontario farmer Rav Singh said she has had trouble finding land since she began farming two years ago.

“I cannot afford to buy my own land because, again, land prices are increasing.

“We are the next generation of farmers and we are facing a lot of land speculation, the cost of land is rising, which means it is harder for us to start our farms and operate and have job security,” Singh said.

“It’s really important for me to support causes like this, because I would like to continue growing food for as long as I can.”

Singh did not come from a farming background, and lived in the city her whole life before she began farming.

“Up until recently, a lot of people who were farmers were intergenerational farmers. But now, it’s a new wave of people coming in.”

Singh said she thought the wave of young people getting into farming was a way of taking action to build a better future amid concerns about climate change.

Regional board member and Fraser Valley, B.C. organic vegetable farmer Ari Westhaver
said the Agricultural Land Reserve, a provincial designation in B.C. which designates agriculture as the primary use of 4.6 million hectares of land has not done enough to prevent the loss of farmland.

“It’s not preventing investors from buying up farmland,” Westhaver said. “So, while physically it protects farmland from being lost, it does not prevent loss of farmland from farmers into the hands of investors.

“The reason I’m here today as a young farmer is that we’re currently in the midst of a transition crisis, we’re seeing a generational shift where 40 per cent of farmers in … Canada are planning to retire in the next few years, but nobody has a transition plan,” he said.

“The only plan that they have, as deeply indebted farmers is to sell their land for a profit, and the reason they’re able to do so is farmland has been kind of divorced from its productive value, and it’s now something people speculate on.”

The NFU published an open letter ahead of the demonstration outlining its concerns.

“Farmers have the right to determine how their food is produced and need equitable access to productive resources,” the letter read. “Young farmers are up for the challenge. But land speculators and multinational investors are snatching up Canada’s farmland, and with it, our future.”

— Jonah Grignon reports for Glacier FarmMedia from Ottawa.

The post NFU takes demand for ban on investor ownership to Parliament Hill appeared first on Farmtario.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has confirmed its president, Dr. Siddika Mithani, has retired from the federal public service effective Jan. 20.

Mithani has led CFIA since February 2019, having served until then as president of the Public Health Agency of Canada.

She also came to the post with a doctorate in psychopharmacology and experience at senior management levels across several federal departments, including agriculture and agri-food, fisheries and oceans, health and environment and climate change.

“We congratulate Dr. Mithani on her planned retirement at the culmination of a decades long career in the public service and wish her all the best in this next chapter,” the agency said in an emailed statement.

Jean-Guy Forgeron, CFIA’s executive vice-president, now leads the agency on an interim basis until a replacement is announced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The job of CFIA president is among those senior leadership positions in the federal public service appointed by the Governor in Council, on the advice of the Clerk of the Privy Council. The term “Governor in Council” refers to Canada’s governor general acting on the advice of the federal cabinet.

Forgeron was named to the executive VP post last April, coming from a stint as senior assistant deputy minister at Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), responsible for fisheries and harbour management. He previously worked for the Treasury Board of Canada and at the federal Privy Council Office.

For Mithani’s replacement, Canada’s National Farmers Union (NFU) on Tuesday called on Trudeau to name someone “who will uphold an unwavering commitment to preventing regulatory capture, and will provide the leadership needed to protect the interests of Canadians, our food and our environment and restore the CFIA’s reputation and credibility.”

The NFU and several other groups had jointly written to Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau last October calling for Mithani to be replaced, citing “serious concerns about the CFIA enabling corporate lobby groups to have inordinate influence over its regulatory decisions.”

CFIA at that time refuted the specific basis for that claim and called out “inaccuracies” in the NFU’s statement. The agency said in October it remains “an independent, scientific and evidence-based federal regulatory agency committed to ethical transparency and accountability.” –– Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post CFIA president retires appeared first on Farmtario.