Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency opened consultation on the proposed regulations late last month; the public consultation was closed effective March 25.

To date, only pesticides registered for use with drones, often called remotely piloted aircraft systems — can legally be applied by drones. Almost none are registered for drone application.

WHY IT MATTERS: The proposed regulations would make many existing pesticides available for application by drone. To date, almost no products have been made available for legal application by drone.

The PMRA proposes to allow any pesticides currently registered for aerial application — that is by fixed wing or rotary aircraft — to be applied by drone.

Applicators would need to comply with all the label directions for aerial application,such as spray volume, droplet size and buffer zones.

The PMRA has said that when using the aerial application directions, the value of the pesticide application shouldn’t be affected. Based on crop residue data, dietary exposure to pesticides shouldn’t be greater than with aerial application.

Based on global spray drift studies, aerial application buffer zones should be more than adequate.

While the PMRA acknowledged safety studies are too limited for a full risk assessment, “evidence suggests that the risk is unlikely to be higher than with conventional equipment,” the PMRA said.

“This is because some tasks, like mixing and loading, are similar and others —such as application — must be done by different people as required on pesticide lables for conventional aerial spraying.”

Drone operators would also need to be licensed according to Transport Canada requirements, and all workers who handle or apply the pesticides are expected to complete training on the handling or application of pesticides using drones or conventional aerial equipment.

To be recognized nationwide, these programs must follow the Standard for Pesticide Education, Training and Certification in Canada that was developed by the federal-provincial-territorial standing subcommittee on pesticide education, training and certification.

The good and the unclear

“There’s good and ‘question marks’ to this,” said Erica Carrasco, a partner with law firm MLT Aikins who has expertise in technology law, including drone regulation.

She spoke as part of an online panel discussion hosted by EMILI late last month.

Carrasco said it will be important to hear opinions from drone operators and chemical companies.

Do current product labels have clear, feasible and enforceable descriptions that are applicable for drones and conventional aerial application? Will they achieve the intended outcome of the pesticide? Companies may need to look at their labels and revise them.

The personal protective equipment requirements are significant.

If, for example, the drone operator is nowhere near the site or at risk of contact with the pesticide, will PPE requirements be strange, onerous or even not applicable?

The consultation process will be important because the industry has been waiting for these regulations, so it needs to ensure they’ll be usable and not need to be fixed again in a couple of years, Carrasco said.

She also noted that it still remains to be seen what the mandatory training and certification requirements will be.

“Right now, it doesn’t appear that there is that mandatory requirement across the board.”

In its proposal, the PMRA says it’s committed to working with provincial and territorial partners to inform development of training materials.

Lack of data

While the proposed rules would put drones on par with other aerial application, that doesn’t guarantee equality of outcome.

“Treating drones equivalent to conventional aircraft may simplify regulation, but scientifically, you know, it’s very different,” said Kevin Falk, a field modernization scientist for Corteva who has been conducting drone spraying field trials in Manitoba.

He spoke alongside Carrasco and EMILI Innovation Farms manager Leanne Koroscil.

“Spray drones can work, but with some caveats,” Falk said.

Water volume, drone speed, altitude and swath width all affect the the end result.

If drones are allowed to be used without guardrails, inconsistent results might be blamed on the chemical rather than application, he added.

These regulations, if passed, would remove some of the largest barriers to spray drone trials in Canada — namely the cost and difficulty of getting real-world spray drone data, said Falk. To date, generating that data has required special research authorizations.

However, there are hundreds of untried products and many will get tested in the marketplace rather than in a research plot.

“We saw in the U.S. Midwest a whole bunch fell on its face this year,” Falk said.

“There’s striping in corn fields across the Midwest because applicators were spraying in swath lines that were far too wide.”

To prevent negative outcomes, chemical companies might decide to opt out and — as the proposed regulations would allow them to do — prohibit application of certain products by drone.

There should be more questions around this ability to opt out, said Carrasco — “not just a blanket, ‘we won’t allow this.’ ”

It would be good to know why companies want to opt out, such as because of efficacy concerns.

When will these rules be ready?

On the whole, Falk, Koroscil and Carrasco were bullish on the proposed regulations.

Koroscil, a board member for the Canadian Agricultural Drone Association, said that organization’s position is that pesticides available for aerial application should be available for drone application.

“Being able to recognize drones as a legitimate aerial tool is going to be able to provide farmers with a safe and regulated access to additional tools in their belt,” she said.

Those tools will be “backed by manufacturer guidance and peer support but also, at the same time, being able to protect consumers and the public by having clear science based regulation.”

Carrasco said she hoped the takeaway was optimism around the proposal — the agriculture sector is much closer to being able to capitalize on drones’ potential.

How close?

Carrasco said it would depend on how many changes are made to the proposed rules.

New regulations go through a process of consultation and drafting, they’re published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, and further comments are taken under consideration before the regulations are updated and finalized, according to a federal explainer.

The final regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, and come into force on the day set out in the regulation.

However, it’s important to get the rules right, Carrasco said.

“I would rather see this done a little more carefully than just rolled out and have a whole bunch of issues that we didn’t think of,” she said. Small things such as wording around PPE “could have larger implications and drawbacks.”

The post Careful consideration urged for drone spraying appeared first on Farmtario.

“This package of regulatory changes is about building a regulatory environment that reflects and responds to the realities of today’s agriculture sector,” said federal Agriculture Minister Heath MacDonald in a Wednesday press release.

The changes to the Health of Animals Regulations and the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations fall into three categories: removing overly prescriptive requirements; increasing flexibility and speed; and levelling the playing field for the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector.

Industries of greatest impact are fruit and vegetable, and livestock — mainly poultry and veal.

For fruit and vegetable producers, the changes include:

• Fresh fruit and vegetables will no longer require prescriptive label.
• Produce intended for further processing, manufacturing, or preserving is exempt from mandatory grading requirements.
• Fresh fruits and vegetables grade standards will be managed by the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation to more effectively meet industry needs.

Changes for the poultry industry include:

• Reduction of traceability labelling requirements for hatching eggs and chicks to align with current industry practices.
• Required testing for Salmonella Enteritidis on hatching eggs imported from the United States to licensed Canadian hatcheries.

Changes to livestock regulation are:

• Increased efficiency and ease in updating animal import rules to align with international standards or new science.
• Updated import requirements for veal to give more flexibility.

The post CFIA says regulatory changes will cut agricultural red tape appeared first on Farmtario.

“This package of regulatory changes is about building a regulatory environment that reflects and responds to the realities of today’s agriculture sector,” said federal Agriculture Minister Heath MacDonald in a Wednesday press release.

The changes to the Health of Animals Regulations and the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations fall into three categories: removing overly prescriptive requirements; increasing flexibility and speed; and levelling the playing field for the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector.

Industries of greatest impact are fruit and vegetable, and livestock — mainly poultry and veal.

For fruit and vegetable producers, the changes include:

• Fresh fruit and vegetables will no longer require prescriptive label.

• Produce intended for further processing, manufacturing, or preserving is exempt from mandatory grading requirements.

• Fresh fruits and vegetables grade standards will be managed by the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation to more effectively meet industry needs.

Changes for the poultry industry include:

• Reduction of traceability labelling requirements for hatching eggs and chicks to align with current industry practices.

• Required testing for Salmonella Enteritidis on hatching eggs imported from the United States to licensed Canadian hatcheries.

Changes to livestock regulation are:

• Increased efficiency and ease in updating animal import rules to align with international standards or new science.

• Updated import requirements for veal to give more flexibility.

The post CFIA says regulatory changes will cut agricultural red tape appeared first on Farmtario.

On March 18, agriculture minister Kody Blois announced that one of his key priorities is” enabling a competitive advantage and (a) level playing field for Canadian agricultural products.”

Blois backed those words with actions to change Canadian Food Inspection Agency regulations. The proposals could cut the regulatory burden for farmers and agri-food processors, including plans to speed up approvals for alternative sources of feed.

“This measure will alleviate the burden of tariffs on animal feed producers by increasing the number of approved feed ingredients from within Canada or from other countries,” Blois said.

Too focused on ‘sticks’

Any reduction in paperwork or improvement in approval times is welcome news in Canada’s feed sector. Last year, the Animal Nutrition Association of Canada (ANAC) said the federal government has been too focused on regulatory “sticks.”

For instance, red tape prevents feed formulators from using feed additives that are available in the United States and Europe.

“We need the right (regulatory system) and policies in place to allow the feed industry to innovate,” Melissa Dumont, ANAC executive director, said last June.

ANAC is just one of many industry groups that have lobbied against the regulatory burden on agriculture.

There are dozens of examples, but producers and industry representatives have loudly complained about the federal carbon tax, the paperwork and time required to hire a temporary foreign worker and federal plans to “transform” the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and how it oversees pesticides.

“The PMRA’s current direction threatens to cripple the regulatory system and drive innovation out of Canada, without any benefits for health and environmental protection,” says a CropLife Canada letter sent in January to the deputy health minister.

Tyler McCann, managing director of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, said Blois’ March 18 announcement about the CFIA may represent a real shift in Ottawa.

“It commits to action…. It makes competitiveness a priority,” McCann said on X.

“The biggest impact may be the signal sent to the bureaucracy that the old way of doing things is over. This should have ripple effects.”

Blois pledges to cut red tape

In his statement, Blois suggested that things have changed.

“We will continue to use all available measures to reduce red tape, streamline our processes, modernize our regulations.”

In addition to speeding up approvals for alternative sources of feed, the ag minister wants to reduce other CFIA regulations:

• Explore the idea of increasing the maximum slaughter age for feeder calves from 36 to 40 weeks.
• Examine removing unnecessary or outdated labelling requirements for fresh fruit and vegetables.
• Harmonize Canada’s BSE enhanced feed ban regulations with the United States.

The last one is a significant cost for Canada’s beef sector. Canada bans certain animal tissues, known as specified risk material (SRM).

The enhanced feed ban regulations are intended to ensure that SRM, which has been excluded from the human food supply since July 2003, is also excluded from animal feed, pet food and fertilizers, says the CFIA website.

“Removing specified risk materials (SRM) is costly and puts Canada’s beef industry at an economic disadvantage,” Canadian Cattle Association past-president Nathan Phinney told Glacier FarmMedia.

“The costs of the Canadian SRM regulations place a significant burden on our industry, costing approximately $31.7 million annually.”

The post Ottawa may deregulate the ag sector appeared first on Farmtario.

The meeting was held in Whitehorse from July 17 to 19.

According to a federal news release, ministers discussed the importance of improving business risk management (BRM) programs—in particular, improving the AgriRecovery program and its interaction with other programs like AgriStability and crop insurance.

They discussed adjustments to AgriStability for livestock and agreed to make further decisions on potential improvements at their next meeting, the news release said.

They also made general commitments to improving the timeliness and responsiveness of BRM programs.

Following an agreement this week from all major grocery retailers to participate in the industry-led Grocery Sector Code of Conduct, officials agreed to pitch in $1.2 million in short-term funding to support the code of conduct adjudication office.

The ministers also reviewed and endorsed the FPT (Federal Provincial Territorial) action plan to address the recommendations by the FPT pesticide management working group, and they agreed to create an additional working group to explore “approaches that meet the needs of producers and protect human and ecosystem health, while using a science and evidence-based approach to regulatory decisions,” the release said.

The ministers discussed efforts related to animal disease preparedness and response—e.g. African swine fever.

On African swine fever, “ministers noted the significant progress made on readiness to protect the health of animals and the importance of having measures in place, including international zoning arrangements to mitigate any possible risks of trade-related market disruptions.”

More to come.

The post Ag ministers meeting covers risk management, pesticides, animal disease appeared first on Farmtario.

On May 25, Health Canada closed consultations on a proposed policy change for cloned animal products; those from animals conceived through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and their offspring.

The transfer involves replacing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg with the nucleus of a non-reproductive cell from another animal to form an embryo. That embryo is then transferred to a surrogate.

One proposed change would eliminate requirements to report whether hog or cattle products came from cloned animals or to have risk assessments beyond what is expected of other, established hog or cattle products.

Health Canada says meat from healthy cloned animals is no different than that from sexually reproduced animals and there are no health concerns with consuming meat from a cloned animal. It also says a main aspect of cloning animals is to “enhance the propagation of unique, high-value animals.”

The agency further noted cloned animals would primarily be used for breeding.

Under current rules, animal clones and their offspring are considered new living organisms and are subject to pre-manufacture and import assessment requirements. Should the proposed policy change proceed, they would be considered novel foods, which do not have those requirements.

Scrutiny

The consultation was recently highlighted by CBC. That report stated the Quebec agricultural trade union, L’Union des producteurs agricoles, released a letter noting regret that it was not invited to consult with Health Canada on the matter, and that it believes it is premature to remove monitoring and traceability of clone-derived meat.

The Quebec Food Processing Council also told CBC it was not consulted, but was not worried about the change.

Sylvain Charlebois, a professor and researcher of food distribution and policy from Dalhousie University, said he is concerned with the proposed update because it could affect consumer trust in the food industry.

“There is no plan to label the product and when you don’t necessarily have any transparency out there, you won’t help consumers understand the value of certain products. And that’s really kind of the situation we’re in right now,” said Charlebois.

According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, many cloned embryos don’t develop into healthy individuals. In the past, researchers have noticed other issues, such as birth size, birth defects and shorter lifespans.

Health Canada’s scientific report notes that cloned animals are at higher risk of birth defects and pregnancy-related complications, and that “considerably less information is known about the long-term effects on health and fertility of SCNT animal clones, mainly because cloning in livestock animals is a relatively new technology, so few clones have reached the advanced stages of their normal life expectancy.”

In the global sphere, the European Union has banned the cloning of farm animals since 2015. Other regions have more leniency. Health Canada says its proposal matches that of the United States, Japan and New Zealand.

Charlebois said he is concerned that proposed changes will affect Canadian exports to the EU.

“Would that compromise our ability to trade with the EU, which is a very important partner of ours? That’s something that we need to consider here. There are probably some risks related to Canada’s global influence.”

He said there is potential benefit in implementing this type of technology, but it should be done in a way that is transparent to consumers.

“When it comes to assessing that one technology’s ability to make any sort of social economic changes, the bottom line is consumer trust. How can consumers benefit from these advancements when there is no labelling required?”

The Canadian Cattle Association participated in the consultation. In an emailed statement, it confirmed support for Health Canada’s science-based approach on the proposed policy update. It said a reliable, science- and risk-based food safety system is crucial to the Canadian beef product.

“It is important to note cloning is not a viable production practice in Canada for many reasons, including unrealistic economic feasibility,” CCA said. “We do not see this becoming relevant in the marketplace as a production practice.

“CCA will continue to keep open lines of communication with the federal government to ensure that the best interests of Canadian beef producers are well represented and that consumers can continue to rely on a safe and nutritious Canadian beef product.”

After Charlebois posted about the proposed change on X (formerly known as Twitter), ensuing comments were divided. Many commenters said Canadians should know where their meat comes from and conveyed a desire to obtain meat from local ranchers. Others said they saw no harm in the update.

In an email, Health Canada said it is reviewing comments submitted by stakeholders during the consultation period. According to its website, it plans to implement the proposed update by fall if no new scientific evidence warrants review.

The post Meat from cloned animals sparks debate appeared first on Farmtario.

“The more complicated the farm, the more controls they’re going to have to have in place,” executive director Melissa Dumont said during a question and answer session at the organization’s annual conference in May.

Why it matters: Modernized national feed regulations have been a work in progress for 13 years.

The feed industry operates a quality assurance program called FeedAssure, which some farms have joined. With new national feed regulations expected in 2024, farmers should check for updated requirements in FeedAssure and ensure they are in compliance with the law.

On-farm feed preparation has become more common as livestock operations expand. How FeedAssure and laws apply to those operations differs based on what they’re doing and for whom.

For example, making feed without medical components for on-farm use only probably won’t require extra steps. However, if meds are being added, more steps and documentation will be required.

If an on-farm mill supplies feed to other farms, it will need to do everything a commercial mill is required to do, as is already the case. Such an operation is “considered a commercial feed mill,” said Dumont.

“They have to meet every single piece of the regulations.”

That includes labelling ingredients, providing hazardous analysis information and ensuring that only approved ingredients are included in rations.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspections won’t likely be completely random because there aren’t enough inspectors. Instead, “what they’re going to try to do is identify the higher risk ones,” Dumont said.

A farm with multiple species of livestock will be more likely to attract scrutiny because the risk of disease spread is bigger than in a single-species operation.

“They’re still going to look at it from a risk perspective of animal exposure, residues.”

The post New feed rules may impact on-farm mills appeared first on Farmtario.

The proposed amendments were published in in Canada Gazette, Part I, and directly respond to input provided by stakeholders regarding the pesticide review process in Canada. This process began in 2022 with the targeted review of the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA), launched to bring strict standards for transparency and sustainability to pesticides in Canada.

“These proposed amendments would make the pesticide decision-making process more transparent. They will also address important stakeholder feedback and would lead to impactful changes that will ultimately improve our work, enhance public trust and help to build a more sustainable future for everyone living in Canada,” said Minister of Health Mark Holland in the news release.

The proposed amendments include the facilitation of access to confidential test data for Canadians and clarifying the information needed from applicants to set maximum residue limits (MRLs) on imported foods.

In conjunction with the PCPA, the proposed amendments would require the Minister of Health to issue a public notification once an application for an MRL for an imported food product has been accepted for review. This early notification would improve transparency and enable better public participation in the pesticide decision-making process. In addition, the proposed amendments would provide the Minister with the explicit authority to require applicants to provide information on both cumulative effects on the environment and on species at risk.

The proposed amendments will reportedly enable easier and more efficient access to data and information on pesticides for the public, while facilitating independent research and reanalysis.

New funding was recently announced in Budget 2024 for Health Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) to receive C$39 million over two years to further strengthen the pesticides regulatory system and monitor and promote sustainable pesticide use.

Health Canada also recently consulted on its proposed continuous oversight approach – a review of emerging science on pesticides for timely management of emerging risks to human and environmental safety.

The post Improved Canadian pest control product regulations proposed appeared first on Farmtario.

“All we are asking for is that the environmental and hygiene rules we impose on our farmers and other professions be the same”, Macron said, adding: “As of today, as the draft texts stand, France opposes and will continue to oppose to this free-trade deal”.

Speaking after a European Union leaders’ summit in Brussels, which was overshadowed by hefty protests staged by farmers from all over the continent, Macron said the EU also needed a joint mechanism to guarantee fair prices retailers and food giants pay to producers.

At a separate news conference around an hour earlier, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said he was a “big fan” of the Mercosur deal, which affects  Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay and has been in the works for around 20 years.

Time to go home

Two of France’s main farming unions on Thursday urged protesters who have staged hundreds of tractor blockades across the country to go back home, after the government announced measures to try to quell the anger in a movement that has spread across Europe.

While some local grievances vary, the unrest, also seen in Belgium, Portugal, Greece and Germany, has exposed tensions over the impact on farming of the EU’s drive to tackle climate change, as well of opening the door to cheap Ukrainian imports to help Kyiv’s war effort.

Farmers’ complaints across Europe include being choked by green rules, taxes, rising costs and unfair competition from abroad.

The frustration came to a head in Brussels earlier in the day, where farmers threw eggs and stones at the European Parliament, and started fires and set off fireworks as they demanded EU leaders at the nearby summit nearby do more to help them.

“We want to stop these crazy laws that come every single day from the European Commission,” Jose Maria Castilla, a farmer representing the Spanish farmers’ union Asaja, said in Brussels.

With the call from some of the French unions, the question now is whether farmers will they lift their blockades in France – and what will happen to protests that have spread across Europe.

French pledges

The French farmers had stepped up their tractor protests from Monday after more than two weeks of demonstrations. Wary of further escalations, the government promised on Thursday to offer them more protection, including by better controlling imports and giving farmers extra aid.

“Everywhere in Europe the same question arises: how do we continue to produce more but better? How can we continue to tackle climate change? How can we avoid unfair competition from foreign countries?,” Prime Minister Gabriel Attal said, as he announced the new measures in Paris.

In response to the array of pledges, Arnaud Rousseau, of France’s main farmers union FNSEA said it was “time to go home” and lift the blockades.

Arnaud Gaillot of the Young Farmers’ union said the same. But both warned that other types of protests would continue – and that they would take back to the streets if the government did not follow on its promises.

EU leaders meet farmers

The protests across Europe come as the far right, for whom farmers represent a growing constituency, is seen making gains in June’s European Parliament elections.

In Brussels, European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen and Belgium Prime Minister Alexander De Croo – who holds the EU’s rotating presidency – were set to meet the European farmers’ lobby COPA-COGECA after the summit of EU leaders.

Von der Leyen said the European Commission would work with Belgium on a proposal to reduce farmers’ administrative burdens.

“To the farmers that are outside. We see you and we hear you,” European Parliament President Roberta Metsola said.

Small groups had tried to tear down the barriers erected in front of the parliament – a few blocks from where the summit was taking place – but police fired tear gas and sprayed water at the farmers with hoses to push them back.

A statue on the square was damaged. Security personnel in riot gear stood guard behind barriers where the leaders were meeting at European Council headquarters.

The pockets of unrest diminished during the day and the tractors began leaving in the afternoon.

Farmers have already secured several measures, including the bloc’s executive Commission proposals to limit farm imports from Ukraine and loosen some environmental regulations on fallow lands, which several EU leaders welcomed as they arrived at the summit.

And Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar echoed French President Emmanuel Macron’s opposition to signing a trade deal with the Mercosur group of South American countries in its current form – another key demand for farmers. But German Chancellor Olaf Scholz reiterated his support for the deal.

Supply chain impacts

Farmers across Europe staged protests during the day.

In Portugal, farmers used tractors to block at least three roads linking their country to Spain.

Hundreds of Greek farmers with black flags – to symbolise what they say is the death of agriculture – drove their tractors across the centre of Greece’s second-biggest city Thessaloniki.

“No farmers, no food, no future” one banner read. One tractor was carrying a black coffin.

“We hope to shake them up (with our protest), we hope they are frightened and change the laws they have enacted,” farmer Vassilis Kanods said.

At a protest in Italy, a tractor carried a sign reading: “You are destroying our future.”

Meanwhile, one of Belgium’s biggest supermarket chains Colruyt said on Thursday three of its distribution centres were blocked by protesting farmers, leading to disruptions in its supply chain.

Belgian media reported that 1,400 trucks were stuck at the port of Zeebrugge, blocked by farmers.

In France, Eric Hemar, the head of a federation of transport and logistics employers, said delays had cost transport firms about 30% of their revenues over the past 10 days.

—Reporting for Reuters by Sudip Kar-Gupta, Johnny Cotton, Yves Herman, Kate Abnett, Phil Blenkinsop, Erol Dogrudogan, Petra Wischgoll, Julia Payne in Brussels, Geert De Clercq, Nicolas Delame, Elizabeth Pineau, Tassilo Hummel and Kate Etringer in Paris, Piotr Lipinski in Gdansk, Catarina Demony in Lisbon, Angeliki Koutantou and Lefteris Papadimas in Athens, Alexandros Avramidis in Thessaloniki, Charlotte van Campenhout in Amsterdam.

The post Europe needs to ‘profoundly’ change its farming rules, says Macron appeared first on Farmtario.

Earlier this week, MacAulay travelled to Washington to meet with his American counterpart, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, MacAulay’s office said in a Jan. 18 news release. He also met with other officials and agri-food industry members.

“During the meeting, Minister MacAulay raised proposed changes in voluntary “Product of USA” labelling regulations for meat and livestock and California’s Proposition 12,” the release said. “The Minister reaffirmed Canada’s concerns that these rules have the potential to restrict trade and disrupt supply chains.”

VCOOL and California’s Proposition 12, often called ‘Prop 12’, have been sources of concern in Canada.

Prop 12, which took full effect at the start of the year, imposes animal welfare regulations on certain meat and animal products sold in the state of California, including imported products.

The hog industry in particular is concerned that, given its integration with the U.S. industry, this will have a chilling effect on pork and live hog exports. The Canadian Pork Council has likened Prop 12 and other similar state regulations to non-tariff trade barriers and has insisted the Canadian government speak out about them. The actual effects of the rule are still unknown.

The sector has also asked the government to take a stand against proposed VCOOL regulations.

In early 2023, the Biden administration proposed rules that would require any meat, poultry or eggs labelled as a U.S. product to be derived from animals raised and slaughtered in the country, not just processed there, as current rules allow. Canadian meat producers fear this will hamper exports to the U.S.

MacAulay met with representatives from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Canadian Cattle Association to “discuss reducing trade barriers and the important integrated nature of our beef supply chains,” the release said.

MacAulay’s office said he and Vilsack also discussed  the importance of sustainable agriculture.

“Canada and the U.S. are working together to accelerate global agricultural innovation on climate change through increased research and development,” the release said. “This includes efforts to identify innovative tools to support decision making, monitoring and measurement of enhanced sustainability and resiliency in agricultural landscapes.”

—Geralyn Wichers is associate digital editor of AgCanada. She writes from southeast Manitoba.

The post Ag minister talks Proposition 12, VCOOL with the U.S.’s Vilsack appeared first on Farmtario.