Minutes of Canada–U.S.
Consultative Committee on Agriculture
November 17, 2006
Washington, D.C.
Printable Version
-
CCA Business
-
Livestock/Meat Issues
-
Plant issues
-
Processed
Food Product Issues
-
Other
Bilateral/Plurilateral Issues
-
CCA Wrap Up
Annex:
1. Delegations
from the United States and Canada
2.
Agenda
1. CCA business
a) Introductions
The U.S. co-chairs welcomed the Canadian delegation and other
participants to the meeting and introduced the new U.S. CCA co-chairs. In
return, the Canadian co-chairs thanked their U.S. counterparts for hosting
the meeting and for their hospitality. In his opening remarks, the
Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) reiterated the
importance of the two countries’ trading relationship as well as the
coordinating and problem-solving role played by the CCA in the agricultural
relationship between the two countries. On the FAS reorganization, the
Administrator noted that since FAS was established in 1953, many events have
changed the work of the agency, but there has been no comprehensive
reorganization. He indicated that current agricultural trade issues, such as
BSE, Avian Influenza, and biotechnology require scientific expertise on a
regular basis and FAS must work closely with many agencies - within and
outside USDA - to address these complex issues. He reassured participants
that the reorganized FAS is well positioned to work on issues of interest to
U.S. domestic and international agricultural interests.
List of participants (Annex 1) and Agenda (Annex 2) are attached.
b) Provinces - States Advisory Group's (PSAG) issues review
In her handing over remarks, the outgoing USDA CCA co-chair noted that
during the CCA co-chairs’ August 2006 report to the P-SAG, the Group was
very appreciative of the issues that have been resolved or are being worked
on by the CCA. She also highlighted CCA achievements since its inception in
1999 and thanked participants for their support. Both countries expressed
their appreciation to the outgoing co-chair and wished her well in her new
assignment.
2. Livestock/meat issues
a) Canada's proposed ban on the use of carbadox in swine production
The United States thanked Canada for its cooperation on this issue and
reiterated concerns about Health Canada’s proposed regulations and their
potential to disrupt U.S. pork exports to Canada. The United States
questioned the need for the change in regulatory language, and stated its
view that the associated risks do not warrant such a measure. In response,
Canada noted that many other countries have taken similar measures on
carbadox and that Canada is mainly concerned with the residue
desoxycarbadox, which is a genotoxic carcinogen. Canada noted that officials
from Health Canada’s Veterinary Drug Directorate meet regularly with
representatives of the Food and Drug Administration’s Centre for Veterinary
Medicine (FDA CVM), and that the CVM understands Canada’s position. Canada
stated that it is seeking the development of a residue testing protocol that
would assure Canada that imported pork is free of desoxycarbadox residues.
Canada noted that CFIA has requested that FSIS develop a sampling protocol
to include testing methodology for desoxycarbadox. In the meantime, Health
Canada will continue to work on a regulatory proposal. Both countries agreed
to continue with on-going discussions, and indicated that U.S. and Canadian
experts will meet in the near future to discuss solutions that will be
acceptable to both countries.
b) Listeria testing in the United States
Canada noted that concerns had been raised by industry on both sides of
the border regarding equivalency of listeria testing for ready-to-eat (RTE)
meat and poultry products in both countries. The U.S. Food Safety Inspection
Agency (FSIS) responded that this issue was a regulatory one, with each
country having different regulatory standards, which made harmonization
difficult. FSIS also pointed out that their regulatory standard is based on
a risk assessment. Also noted was the fact that FSIS had previously been
petitioned by the industry to change the standard, and declined to do so.
This issue was discussed at previous equivalency review processes and that
due to differing testing environments, both countries agreed to implement
programs audited by the FSIS. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
said it is ready to resume discussions with FSIS to develop in-plant
testing, and on FSIS’ domestic sampling program. FSIS noted that its port of
entry requirements, which are one measure used to verify equivalence, are
applicable to all countries and if a change was made, it would have to be
applicable to all countries. FSIS proposed that this issue should be
discussed under the NAFTA Technical Working Group (TWG) on food safety.
Canada concurred with the United States and said the resolution of this
issue will be beneficial to the multinational corporations that operate on
both sides of the border. Canada also noted that food safety outcome may be
a better basis for equivalency discussions. The CCA co-chairs requested that
this issue should be referred to the NAFTA TWG and requested an update on
progress to be provided at the next CCA meeting.
c) BSE
i. Canadian access to the U.S. (U.S. rule-making process)
Canada said it is optimistic that the second rule will move forward
quickly and requested an update. The United States noted that USDA
Secretary Johanns recently commented that USDA is close to wrapping up
the second "minimal risk" rule, and it was likely that the proposed rule
would be published sometime within the next 60 to 90 days. Canada noted
that this was positive news. In response to Canada’s request for an
update on the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers
of America (R-CALF) case, the United States said it requested summary
affirmation from the 9th Circuit Court and that USDA will
respond to R-CALF’s brief. Given the importance of this issue, both
countries agreed to continue discussions. Canada noted its
disappointment that it did not receive prior notice when the rule was
withdrawn in August 2006 and thanked the United States for its
cooperation on this issue. Canada inquired as to USDA’s plans for a
third, more comprehensive BSE rule. The United States confirmed that
USDA will be working towards a more comprehensive BSE rule.
ii. Canadian access to Mexico
Canada noted its concern that Mexico cannot import Canadian breeding
cattle as a result of current United States requirements. Canada noted
that industry is particularly concerned given that the United States has
now regained access to Mexico for breeding cattle. The United States
confirmed that if Mexico were to permit the import of Canadian breeding
cattle, the United States would be required under its current
regulations to change Mexico’s BSE status. The United States noted
Canada’s concern regarding access to Mexico for Canadian breeder cattle
and said this issue would be resolved by the previously mentioned BSE
rule. According to the United States, APHIS and its Mexican counterpart
worked out a protocol for heifers, and 64 head of dairy cattle have been
shipped to Mexico. However, trade has not been substantial.
iii. Regulatory update on Canadian and U.S. feed bans
Canada said its feed ban regulations were published on July 12, 2006,
with a one-year implementation period. (Please see item 2c(v) for
additional information)
Canada asked how FDA’s feed ban regulations were proceeding. FDA will
provide an update at a later date.
iv. Third country market access
The United States said it had regained market access for U.S. beef
exports in 39 countries, which were previously closed as a result of the
December 2003 BSE outbreak. Of the remaining bans on U.S. beef that have
been imposed by foreign governments, Korea’s ban on U.S. boneless beef
and beef variety meats ($365 million exported in 2003) represents one
third of the remaining market access ($1.0 billion). Canada distributed
a list of trading partners who have agreed to resume trade in Canadian
beef and cattle subsequent to the border closures following Canada’s
first BSE case in 2003. Canada noted that the three latest cases
discovered in Canada did not result in new closures, but did slow down
regaining access to certain markets, Korea and Taiwan for example. With
respect to Taiwan, progress is slow. Korea is the notable exception in
that Canada does not currently see a clear path forwards on regaining
access. The United States inquired as to Canada’s success in regaining
access to China. Canada stated that it has a process underway, and is in
the midst of exchanging information with China. Canada also noted that a
CFIA delegation will be visiting China the week of November 20th. Canada
noted that the United States and Canada share similar objectives with
many trading partners, including Japan.
v. Bilateral update on removal of specified risk material (SRM)
Canada noted that major changes will be implemented after July 12,
2007, that will prohibit the use of fertilizers and feed containing SRMs
and that will introduce a permit system. According to Canada, the CFIA
is modifying and developing new programs while industry continues to
work on how best to implement the programs in a cost effective manner.
In response to a U.S. question regarding the impact of the feed ban on
exports of small intestines, Canada noted that it will follow the U.S.
method of segregating distal ileum from small intestines. Canada
indicated that a forward move on its regulation would advance
U.S.-Canada harmonization efforts with Mexico, which could allow the
export of small intestines to Mexico to resume.
d) Bilateral update on collaboration on livestock health issues, (swine
pseudorabies and brucellocis and bluetongue restrictions for feeder/breeder
sheep and goats).
The United States said it is pleased with the significant progress made
by CFIA in removing mandatory bluetongue testing and asked when Canada’s
regulatory amendment will be published in the Canada Gazette, as well as
when the Administrative Order will be announced. The United States also
requested information on how Canada’s import permit would work. Canada
responded that the criteria and issuance of import permits requires only an
administrative order, not a regulatory change. The United States said it
hoped CFIA’s sectoral initiative on pork under the Security and Prosperity
Partnership and advances on the removal of mandatory testing for
anaplasmosis will continue and asked if the consultation document on
anaplasmosis will be out by year’s end. The CFIA confirmed that its
consultation document on anaplasmosis will be out by year’s end.
Canada stated that, in light of recent progress in the U.S. pseudorabies
and brucellosis eradication programs, the CFIA has agreed to review import
requirements for slaughter swine. The CFIA has also agreed to review import
requirements for feeder pigs from the United States, and will consider using
the restricted feeder cattle program as a model to develop a comparable
program for feeder swine. A draft risk assessment has recently been
completed and will be reviewed by program staff. Once reviewed, the CFIA
anticipates expanding the focus of the risk assessment to include feeder
pigs and breeding swine. The CFIA’s draft risk assessment found that
information is lacking on: management of transitional herds in the United
States, new U.S. surveillance plan for brucellosis and pseudorabies, and the
list of states that represent the greatest risk with respect to these
diseases. As a next step, CFIA will request additional information from
APHIS on pseudorabies, brucellosis and trichinellosis.
e) Access for U.S. cattle into Western Canada (bluetongue and
anaplasmosis restrictions)
Canada reported that, after consulting with stakeholders last spring on
revisions to Canada’s import policy, the CFIA announced in July 2006 the
removal of bluetongue related restrictions for cattle, deer, sheep, goats
and other ruminants imported from the United States, and the change of
bluetongue from a reportable to an immediately notifiable disease. The
implementation of this new import policy requires regulatory amendments that
are expected to be finalized over the coming months
With respect to anaplasmosis, Canada stated that the CFIA is preparing
for stakeholder consultation on a revised import policy for ruminants from
the United States. A science-based discussion paper (same as for bluetongue)
will be released for stakeholder comments in late 2006.
f) Proposed U.S. bovine tuberculosis (TB) rule
The United States thanked Canada for providing information on its TB
program as requested at the May CCA meeting. Upon receipt of the information
in July, APHIS conducted a site visit in August for the purpose of comparing
and contrasting the bovine TB eradication programs of Canada and the United
States. The APHIS review team is currently drafting a report of its findings
and conclusions. The United States indicated that the proposed rule on this
issue will follow the standard rulemaking process so that CFIA and other
stakeholders will have an opportunity to comment. The United States also
said that the rule is not eminent and promised to provide updates as the
proposal nears completion. Canada said it considers this issue closed until
the United States releases the proposed rule.
3. Plant Issues
a) Canadian ministerial exemptions/bulk produce restrictions
The United States said it is pleased both countries resumed formal
negotiations in July 2006, and is hopeful that an agreement, which will
benefit potato growers and processors from both countries, should be
concluded by year’s end. Canada concurred with the U.S. assessment that this
issue may soon be resolved in spite of outstanding issues on language.
Canada also said it is conducting final discussions with its industry and
hopes that the resolution of this issue will serve as an example of
cooperation between our two countries and industry. The CCA co-chairs
commended the negotiators for progress made on this issue.
b) Update on potato cyst and golden nematode in the United States and
Canada
The CCA co-chairs thanked APHIS and CFIA for their work in restoring
bilateral trade in potatoes which was halted as a result of potato cyst
nematode detections (G.pallida and G.rostochiensis) in Idaho and Quebec,
respectively. APHIS informed Canada about the detection of additional potato
cyst nematode in the 4500 ha regulated zone in Idaho and said a letter on
the finding was sent to CFIA on November 8. The United States thanked Canada
for resolving issues regarding importation of strawberry plants from
nurseries in Quebec. Canada said it will respond to APHIS’ letter of
November 8 and stated that a bilateral phytosanitary agreement was signed
October 8th, 2006, between CFIA and USDA. This agreement
established a framework for dealing with future discoveries of potato cyst
nematodes in order to minimize disruptions of trade and to reestablish
movement of products across both borders. According to Canada, work is
on-going in the affected area in Quebec to prevent the spread of golden
nematode to other parts of Canada and the United States. Both countries
agreed to remove this issue from the CCA agenda and report it as a success
story.
c) Seed tag
The United States said at their August 2006 presentation to the
Provinces-States Advisory Group (P-SAG), the CCA co-chairs informed the
Group that a resolution on the long-standing issue of seed tags for wheat,
barley, rye and triticale was forthcoming. APHIS informed participants that
CFIA has accepted its proposal to use certificates of origin in lieu of
phytosanitary certificates and that this issue is now resolved. Canada is
finalizing the policy on this issue and the program would be up and running
by January 2007, which is before the next shipping season. Both countries
agreed to take this issue off the CCA agenda and report it as a success
story.
d) Seed certification grader accreditation
Canada noted that this issue has been on the agenda for quite some time
and that like the seed tag issue, this issue may be resolved before the next
CCA. The Agricultural Marketing Service proposed, and CFIA agreed, to
establish a program in the United States as well as sending U.S. staff to
Canada to learn about Canada’s seed grading. According to the United States,
Canada’s proposed agreement for the accreditation of U.S. residents as
graders will allow U.S. seeds labelled with Canada pedigreed names to be
marketed in Canada. CFIA will develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
that will recognize USDA’s accreditation program by 2007 and would apply to
shipments as early as spring 2007. Canada noted that a meeting of seed
agencies from the two countries will be scheduled in the future to take
stock and bring stakeholders up to speed on this issue prior to
implementation. The United States thanked Canada for progress made on this
issue and said it looked forward to its resolution. Both countries agreed to
keep the issue on the CCA agenda until final resolution.
e) Bilateral update on harmonization of pesticides
Canada provided information on initiatives under the NAFTA Technical
Working Group (NAFTA TWG) on pesticides. These initiatives include joint
reviews, data harmonization, and the Globally Harmonized System of
Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) and NAFTA pesticide
labelling. It was reported that 76 registrations have occurred through joint
review and work sharing processes among NAFTA countries. A pilot project is
underway to harmonize the evaluation of antimicrobial pesticides under the
North American Initiative (NAI). Canada also provided information on the
implementation of the GHS and reported that significant progress has been
made toward the development of a NAFTA label for agricultural products.
f) Proposed changes to Canada's maximum residue limits (MRLs)
Canada’s proposal to revise MRLs for a number of products was published
in June 2006 for a 90-day comment period. According to Canada, the proposed
changes would revoke Canada’s "general MRL limit" of 0.1 parts per million
(ppm) for products for which no MRL has been established. In replacing the
general limit of 0.1 ppm, Canada will make use of specific U.S. MRLs below
0.1 ppm, and will also consider Codex Alimentarius Commission standards.
Canada noted that this proposal will lead to further harmonization between
Canada and the United States. 28 comments were received on the proposal,
including a supportive letter from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Canada intends to publish a formal proposal for regulatory changes for
comment by late winter, 2007.
g) Update on release of biotech rice in the United States and Canadian
testing regime for imports of U.S. long grain rice
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) commented that U.S.-Canadian
information exchange pertaining to the "LLRICE601 unintentional release" has
been an asset. CFIA has completed its risk assessment on LLRICE601 and
determined that at low levels, LLRICE601 is unlikely to pose food or
livestock feed safety concerns. However, the presence of LLRICE601 is still
a regulatory contravention because the product is unapproved in Canada. By
Canadian law, any unapproved product that is released is considered a
regulatory infraction. The CFIA has posted technical recommendations on
their web site advising importers about how to demonstrate that they are in
compliance with the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations and the Feeds Act and
Regulations. It is recommended that shipments of single-ingredient long
grain rice originating from the United States be accompanied by
documentation indicating that the shipment has been tested for the presence
of LLRICE601 using at least a level of sensitivity of 0.5 per cent.
The CFIA will also randomly test long grain rice shipments only (not to
include long grain rice in multi-ingredient products). To date, all CFIA
testing on U.S. long grain rice has been negative for the presence of
LLRICE601. In the event of a positive test, the product would not be allowed
to enter the Canadian food or livestock feed marketplace, and would be
either re-exported to the United States or disposed of in an appropriate
manner.
Canada suggested that trilateral policy discussions among the North
American Biotech Initiative (NABI) countries could be useful on this issue.
Canada also indicated that a review of its compliance verification strategy
would occur in approximately a two month time frame, and the CFIA guidance
to industry may move from the 0.5% testing strip to PCR methods that can
detect 0.1%, in the very near future. Canada is currently reviewing comments
from rice importers and other sources about the implications of different
testing methods and will take these into account when revising the
recommendations to industry, which will be made available to U.S. regulatory
officials and posted on the CFIA website. The United States informed Canada
that it will deregulate LLRICE601 in the coming days and indicated that this
information could be useful to Canada as it moves ahead with its next level
of evaluations. The United States informed Canada that its industry is
concerned about additional costs should Canada require a lower detection
level. The United States hopes that 0.5 will remain the testing limit and
thanked CFIA for its cooperation on this issue.
h) Update on U.S. fresh spinach recalls, and Canadian import protocol for
U.S. spinach
Canada said that on September 25, CFIA banned imports of U.S. spinach
following the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak in the United States. On October 30,
after a series of bilateral meetings and visits to the affected areas, CFIA
resumed imports of U.S. spinach and agreed to a U.S. industry
self-certification scheme that allows imports from 49 states through the end
of the shipping season. For shipments originating from California, shippers
are required to include a statement indicating that the spinach did not
originate from the two affected counties (San Benito and Monterey).
According to Canada, no glitches have been reported since trade was resumed.
The United States thanked Canada for its cooperation on this issue and said
it is a success story of how both countries can work together on food safety
and trade. The United States informed participants that the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) will have an international conference in 2007 and is
working on regulatory policy for the safety of the agricultural food supply.
In response to a question from Canada, FDA answered that upon completion,
the investigative report on the spinach contamination will be published and
made available to stakeholders. Both countries agreed to take this issue off
the CCA agenda once it is fully resolved.
4. Processed Food Product Issues
a) Sugar Beet Thick Juice
The United States thanked Canada for comments
submitted on this issue and indicated that all comments on the Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) are available on the website of the
Farm Service Agency. The United States indicated there is no mandated
timeframe to determine whether a proposed rule will be developed, and that
if FSA decides to maintain the current status, no public notice will follow.
If the FSA considers a change, a proposed rule will be published. Canada
said that it hopes this issue does not move forward. The United States said
it will update Canada on any further developments.
b) Bilateral update on nutritional labeling
Canada reported that its mandatory nutritional
labeling rules became effective in December 2005 and that as a result, all
imports have to comply with the regulations. Small businesses (under
$1-million in sales before 2003), have an additional two years to comply.
Canada has implemented an educational approach to enforcement and will move
towards stronger compliance action in December 2006. Canada pointed out that
the two countries have different labeling panels and that in addition to the
National Institute of Health’s study which was contracted by both countries,
Health Canada bases its requirements on more recent information on daily
values. The United States was encouraged that discussions on nutritional
labeling are currently being held under the NAFTA Technical Working Group on
labeling. Canada noted that the United States requirements are based on
DRV’s set in the 1970’s, while Canada’s requirements are based on more
current science.
c) Bilateral updates on allergen labeling
regulations
Canada said its labeling regulations are moving
slower than anticipated and that it is hopeful the proposed regulations will
be published by late spring 2007. Once that happens, Canada will develop an
implementation plan to minimize regulatory differences between the two
countries. The United States noted that its regulations, which were
implemented in 2006, are working well and that a series of outreach
activities are on-going to inform/involve stakeholders.
d) Bilateral update on food fortification policies,
considering Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations
Canada stated that it is working on a timeline to
have all regulatory requirements completed by spring 2007. This will be
followed by publication in Canada Gazette Part I for comment, depending on
the approval process. In response to a U.S. question as to whether
implementation of Canada’s food fortification policy would increase
consumption of U.S. fortified cereals, Canada responded that its regulations
would be more compatible with U.S. regulations.
e) Canadian highlighted ingredients policies
Canada said it is following a staged approach to
implementing these policies and that based on feedback, it will proceed with
existing regulations and enforce truth in labeling regulations. In choosing
sectors to focus on, Canada will highlight ingredients for actual
representation, not percentage representation, though this may be difficult
for industry. Canada said it is working with industry to make sure labels
are truthful and are not misleading and hoped that implementation of the
highlighted ingredient policy will enable consumers to make informed
decisions. Canada noted that guidance will be available on CFIA’s website in
the future.
f) Container sizes for processed infant food in
Canada
Canada reported that a revised version of the
container size regulations will be posted on CFIA’s website for public
comments and that the revised regulations have been sent to the Department
of Justice for review. Previously anticipated in the fall of 2006, the
amendments will be at a later date, yet to be determined. According to
Canada, the long-standing container size regulations help consumers compare
brands easily and for infant food in particular, the regulations require
appropriate amounts to prevent waste. Canada is trying to be more flexible
in considering concerns from the United States and other stakeholders.
g) Canadian organic regulation
Canada’s Organic Production System regulations were
published in Canada Gazette Part 1 in September 2006 and the comment period
ended on November 16. The regulations, with a 3-year consultation period,
were created to ensure international market access as well as to provide
consumer protection against deceptive and misleading labelling practices.
Only products that meet Canadian requirements will be allowed entry into
Canada. The United States thanked Canada for the opportunity to comment on
its regulations and stated that there appear to be several minor differences
between U.S. and Canadian regulations, in addition to a few larger issues,
which include use of the Canadian organic logo and a prohibition on the use
of Chilean nitrate. The United States said Canada is its number one market
for organic products and re-exports and requested that both countries should
work on equivalency and or harmonization efforts, since they already have a
reciprocity agreement. Canada expressed interest in the U.S. request and
promised to provide contact information for follow up. In response to a U.S.
question as to whether Canada has an equivalency agreement with other
countries, Canada responded in the negative, noting that like the United
States, it hopes to discuss equivalency with the European Union.
5.
Other bilateral/plurilateral issues
a) U.S. border inspection fees
Canada noted its dissatisfaction with the U.S.
border inspection regulation that removed the exemption that Canada was
originally given when the fees were implemented for other countries.
Canada’s exporters are concerned the fee will result in higher shipment
costs and longer wait times for customers. Canada said it had provided
comments on the regulation and was disappointed that the rule was not
withdrawn. Canada appreciated the opportunity to discuss alternative
approaches to mitigate disruptions in trade, noting that a significant
portion of the US$489 billion of goods that cross the U.S.-Canada border
annually will be adversely affected by the regulation. The United States
recognized the special trading relationship between the two countries and
said the regulations would address the new trade profile caused by
bioterrorism and higher inspection costs due to increased interceptions of
pests in tropical and other plant products at the Canadian border.
The United States noted that earlier that day, APHIS
announced a delay of the effective date for the regulation. The fees on air
passengers arriving in the United States from Canada will be effective Jan.
1, 2007 and the remaining provisions of the rule will take effect on March
1, 2007, including the removal of the user fee exemption for all commercial
conveyances entering the United States from Canada. This delay would allow
affected industries time to prepare for the change.
b) North American Biotech Initiative (NABI)
The United States reported on the 8th
session of NABI which was held in Mexico. Topics of importance to both
countries, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, low level presence
of biotech products in commodity shipments, and socio-economic issues as
they relate to biotechnology, were discussed. Both countries noted that NABI
represents a useful forum for information exchange and stressed the need to
continue consultations on biotech issues, including potential concern over
the interpretation of Article 18.2 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
The United States appreciated Canada’s cooperation on capacity building
activities with Mexico and said both countries should work with Mexico to
implement the protocol on documentation. Canada reiterated the importance of
the NABI and its relationship with the Inter-American Institute for
Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) and said that NABI could be used to
encourage and strengthen North/South dialogue on agricultural biotechnology.
The United States suggested the expansion of NABI capacity building efforts
to include FDA food safety officials.
c) Security and Prosperity Partnership/Food and
Agriculture Working Group status report
Canada informed participants that the three
countries’ SPP Ministers released a progress report. A trilateral Ministers’
meeting is expected for January 2007 and will be followed by a Leaders’
meeting in June. The United States informed Canada that members of the North
American Competitiveness Council (NACC) are developing recommendations that
will involve the private sector in the Security and Prosperity Partnership
process and requested an update on Canada’s NACC activities. Canada
responded that it is working with its NACC group and that it remains to be
seen how the Council’s proposals on trade in agricultural food will be
implemented.
d) Security and Prosperity Partnership/Food and
Agriculture Working Group/Food and Agriculture Regulatory Systems/Good
Agricultural Practices Working Group report
The United States said that with its September
trilateral meeting, the Security and Prosperity Partnership/Food and
Agriculture Working Group/Food and Agriculture Regulatory Systems/Good
Agricultural Practices Working Group successfully completed its SPP
initiative in identifying similarities and differences in the three
countries’ Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs). Canada is currently writing a
report on the September meeting. The next step will be the identification of
the scientific basis for the differences in the countries’ GAPs.
e) Security and Prosperity Partnership/Cooperation
on Avian and Pandemic Influenza
Leaders from the NAFTA countries agreed to develop a
trilateral approach as well as a coordinating body on Pandemic and Avian
influenza (AI). As a first step, the three countries are working together on
a draft response plan by December 2006 and a full document is planned to be
available early 2007. Canada is drafting the sections on avian influenza and
emergency coordination, while Mexico is drafting the chapter on pandemic
influenza and the United States is drafting chapters on borders and
transportation and critical infrastructure. The United States said it hopes
the two countries’ agreement on AI would be included in the trilateral
approach, and requested that Canada shares its draft as soon as it is ready
for review. According to Canada, while the trilateral approach will cover AI
and Pandemic Influenza, it is important to discuss how borders and
transportation will be handled in the event of an outbreak. The United
States said the next trilateral conference call for the SPP Coordinating
Body is scheduled for November 29. Both countries agreed to coordinate their
activities with Mexico.
f) U.S. Country of Origin Labelling (COOL)
The United States informed Canada that its mandatory
COOL for wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish became effective on April
4, 2005. However, implementation of mandatory COOL for the remaining covered
commodities, including meat and meat products, has been delayed until
September 30, 2008. The United States said it is working with State
Departments of Agriculture to focus on appropriate labelling requirements
and that there is a program in place that monitors fish labelling. Canada
reiterated its opposition, as stated in submitted comments, to mandatory
COOL and wanted to know if changes in U.S. Congress, as a result of the
November elections, will impact mandatory COOL. Canada also requested an
update on Montana’s COOL requirements. In response, the United States said
it recognized that mandatory COOL is of great interest to its trading
partners and promised to provide a progress report on Montana’s COOL.
g) Update on Canada’s Next Generation of
Agricultural and Agri-food Policy
In response to a U.S. request for an update on this
issue, Canada responded that its Next Generation of Agricultural and
Agri-food Policy will replace the current Agricultural Policy Framework
(APF), which will expire in 2008 and that Canada has developed a
consultation document and undertaken an economic assessment on this issue.
From December through April 2007, Canada will enter into nation-wide
consultations with the provinces, which will be followed by formal
negotiations on the Agricultural and Agri-food Policy. Canada noted that
income stabilization will be part of its new framework and that overall
funding levels will be known after negotiations with provinces.
h) Update on U.S. 2007 Farm Bill
The United States informed Canada that the 2002 Farm
Bill will expire in 2007. Key issues affecting the 2007 Farm Bill include
the political landscape, equity and market issues, commodity and
non-commodity interests, as well as international trade commitments and
trade disputes. USDA has written 5 theme papers that explore these issues,
which are available on USDA’s website. The Administration expects to put
forth specific proposals in early 2007 and the Congress will draft new
legislation after the budget submission in spring 2007. The United States
distributed handouts on the Farm Bill.
i) NAFTA/Trilateral Committees
Canada provided an update on the last NAFTA Deputies
meeting, which was held in May 2006 in Ottawa and said that Canada looks
forward to attending the next meeting. Canada also said the three NAFTA SPS
leads are currently discussing a request to re-establish the NAFTA SPS
Technical Working Group on dairy, fruits and vegetables to work on Good
Agricultural Practices, an initiative under the SPP/Food and Agricultural
Regulatory Systems. The United States informed participants that it will
host the next NAFTA SPS Committee meeting in the spring of 2007 and looks
forward to receiving agenda items from Canada and Mexico. The United States
requested that the active Technical Working Groups should report on their
work at the spring meeting and said all three countries should discuss the
need for annual meetings. The two countries also discussed their respective
bilateral Consultative Committee on Agriculture arrangements with other
countries, including Mexico and Brazil.
j) EU Issues
i) WTO case regarding the European Union’s
biotechnology moratorium:
The United States reported that the WTO panel
ruling on the case against the EU’s moratorium on approvals of
biotechnology products has been publicly released. The EU has until
November 21, 2006, to appeal the ruling. The U.S., Canada and Argentina
have asked the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to formally adopt the
report at its next meeting, which is scheduled for November 21, 2006. If
the EU does not appeal the panel’s findings, the report will be formally
adopted on that date. The EU continues to claim that the moratorium is
over. However, all three complainants agree that that the moratorium
remains in place many products have been in the pipeline for several
years without being approved or denied approval. The U.S. also noted
that all approvals that the EU has granted to date have been for imports
only, none have been granted for cultivation. Canada said it has
encountered similar approval problems. National bans on biotech products
remain a key concern for both countries as well.
ii) EU’s new rules on traceability and labeling
of GMOs (EC Regulation 1830/2003):
The United States indicated that the impact of
EU’s implementation of its traceability and labeling regulations on U.S.
exports has been of great concern to U.S. industry for many years. U.S.
industry is particularly concerned that processed products sold in
Europe are being reformulated so that GM ingredients are not used and
the product need not be labeled. Canada said the U.S. industry has
engaged the Canadian Government on this issue as well, however the
Canadian industry has not specifically voiced concerns. Both sides
agreed to continue exchanging information on this issue.
iii) EU's hormones ban
The United States discussed its interest in
negotiating an agreement with the EU that would increase access for U.S.
Hormone-free beef into the European market. Canada noted that it was
also seeking a similar agreement.
k) Fruit and vegetable industry financial trust
protection in Canada
The United States reiterated its concerns about the
lack of statutory trust provisions in Canada to protect U.S. fruit and
vegetable exporters when Canadian importers default on payments. In
response, Canada said that the establishment of a system similar to the U.S.
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) will require substantial
federal and provincial resources. According to Canada, by June 2007,
provincial groups will report to the federal government on alternative
solutions to U.S. concerns. The U.S. mentioned that there had been several
recent cases of a Montreal buyer reneging on its contract payments and this
again highlighted the need for Canada to have PACA-like provisions, given
the fact that there was no legal recourse for a U.S. supplier if the
Canadian buyer defaulted on its payments and was neither a CFIA licensee nor
a DRC member. Canada requested information on PACA and cautioned U.S.
exporters to be careful when dealing with importers that are not registered
with the CFIA or a DRC member.
l) Access for U.S. mozzarella cheese sticks
The United States noted its interest in resuming
bilateral trade in cheese sticks as soon as possible. The United States
indicated its willingness to take the necessary steps to re-classify cheese
sticks under a new tariff line and requested Canada to remove its
retaliatory tariff to allow the flow of bilateral trade. Canada responded
that it was also prepared to discuss this issue further.
6) CCA wrap-up
The United States thanked participants for the good
rapport developed between the two countries over the past years and said it is
good to see a forward movement on several of the agenda items. Canada remarked
on the constructive dialogue between the two countries. Both countries said they
look forward to attending the next meeting, which will be hosted by Canada in
the spring of 2007.
Annex 1
Canadian Delegation List
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Blair Coomber - Co-Chair
Director General, International Trade Policy Directorate
Steve Lavergne
Acting Director, Western Hemisphere Trade Policy
Denise Climenhage
Deputy Director, Western Hemisphere Trade Policy
Radha Subramani
Trade Policy Analyst, Western Hemisphere Trade Policy
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Paul Robertson – Co-Chair
Director General, North America Trade Policy
Kirsten Hillman
Director, Technical Barriers and Regulations
Geoff Adams*
Deputy Director, Technical Barriers and Regulations
Brendan Sutton
Trade Policy Officer, Technical Barriers and Regulations
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Louise Carrière
Acting Director, Bilateral Affairs
Carla Barry*
National Manager, Fair Labelling Practices Program, Bureau of Food Safety and
Consumer Protection
Gary Briggs*
Officer, Organic Section
Helen Zohar-Picciano*
Chief, Fresh Produce Inspection, Fresh Products Section
Jacquelin Côté*
Chief, Safety Inspection, Processed Products Section
Michael Scheffel*
Chief, Seed Standards, Seed Section
Nathalie Bruneau*
Commodity Officer, Potato Section
Andrew Dawson*
Senior Commodity Officer, Grains and Field Crops Section
Ian Affleck
Plant Biosafety Officer, Seed Section
Krista Thomas*
Acting National Manager, International and Import Protocols, Plant Biosafety
Office
Glyn Chancey*
Director, Plant Production Division
René Cardinal*
Acting National Manager, Fresh Products Section
Dr. Samira Belaissaoui*
Veterinarian, Imports/Exports, Animal Health
Dr. Bill Anderson*
Director, Food of Animal Origin Division
Dr. Maria Koller-Jones*
Senior Staff Veterinarian, Disease Control, Animal Health
Michel Saumur*
Chief, Imports, Food of Plant Origin Division
Ray Rush*
Special Advisor, International Affairs
Health Canada
Kathy Dobbin*
Director, Strategic Planning and Stakeholder Relations
Lars Juergensen*
Project Manager, International Affairs
Janice Hopkins*
Special Advisor, Executive Director’s Office
Dennis Lein*
Senior Advisor, Food Regulatory Programs and Access to Information
Canadian Embassy in Washington
Susan Harper
Minister-Counsellor (Economic and Trade Policy), Canadian Embassy in Washington
Ron Krystynak
Agriculture Counsellor, Canadian Embassy in Washington
Fred Gorrell
Agriculture Counsellor, Canadian Embassy in Washington
U.S. Delegation List
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)
Michael W. Yost
Administrator
Office of the Administrator
Charles Alexander – Co-Chair
Deputy Administrator
Office of Country and Regional Affairs (OCRA)
Patricia Sheikh
Deputy Administrator
Office of Capacity Building and Development
Jocelyn Brown
Assistant Deputy Administrator
OCRA
Merritt Chesley
Division Director, Western Hemisphere
OCRA
Bruce Zanin
Deputy Director, Western Hemisphere
OCRA
Brian Grunenfelder
Division Director
Office of Negotiations and Agreements (ONA)/Regional and Bilateral Negotiations
and Agreements Division
Charles Bertsch
Division Director
ONA/Multilateral Negotiations and Agreements Division
Michelle Moore
International Economist
ONA/Multilateral Negotiations and Agreements Division
Carol Goodloe
Agricultural Economist
Office of the Chief Economist
Beverly Simmons
Assistant Deputy Administrator
Office of Scientific and Technical Affairs (OSTA)
Kelly Strzelecki
Agricultural Marketing Specialist
OSTA
Clay Hamilton
Branch Chief, Animal Branch
OSTA
Ronald Lord
Branch Chief, Office of Trade Programs
Sugar and Dairy Branch
Pauline Simmons
International Economist, Canada Desk
International Trade Policy
Asia & the Americas Division
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
Catherine S. Fulton
Trade Director
International Services & Trade
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Agricultural Affairs
James M. Murphy – Co-Chair
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative
Darci Vetter
Director for North American Affairs
Mary Sullivan
Director, Canada Affairs
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Robin Woo
Senior Policy Analyst Technical Assistance, International Affairs Staff, Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Annex 2: Agenda
9:00 – 9:10 am
1. CCA business
a) Introductions
b) Opening remarks and new FAS organizational
structure
c) Provinces - States Advisory Group's (PSAG) issues
review
9:10 – 10:30 am
2. Livestock/meat issues
a) Canada's proposed ban on the use of carbadox in
swine production
b) Listeria testing in the United States and Canada
c) BSE
i. Canadian access to the United States (U.S.
rule-making process)
ii. Canadian access to Mexico
iii. Regulatory update on Canada and U.S. feed
bans
iv. Third country market access
v. Bilateral update on removal of specified risk
material (SRM), including small intestine regulations
d) Bilateral update on collaboration on livestock
health issues, (swine pseudorabies and brucellocis and bluetongue
restrictions for feeder/breeder sheep and goats)
e) Access for U.S. cattle into Western Canada
(bluetongue and anaplasmosis restrictions)
f) Proposed U.S. bovine tuberculosis (TB) rule
10:30-11:00 Break
3. Plant Issues
a) Canadian ministerial exemptions/bulk produce
restrictions
b) Update on potato cyst and golden cyst nematode in
the United States and Canada
c) Seed tag/wheat/barley exports to Canada, update
on pilot project
d) Seed certification grader accreditation
e) Bilateral update on harmonization of pesticides
f) Proposed changes to Canada's maximum residue
limits (MRLs)
g) Update on release of biotech rice in the United
States and Canadian testing regime for imports of U.S. long grain rice
h) Update on U.S. fresh spinach recalls, and
Canadian import protocol for U.S. spinach
12:30 – 1:30 Lunch (provided, The Lincoln Room,
Secretary’s Dining Room)
2:00 – 3:00
4. Processed Food Product Issues
a) Sugar Beet Thick Juice
b) Bilateral update on nutritional labeling
c) Bilateral updates on allergen labeling
regulations
d) Bilateral update on food fortification policies,
considering IOM recommendations
e) Canadian highlighted ingredients policies
f) Container sizes for processed infant food in
Canada
g) Update on Canadian and U.S. organic regulations
3:00 – 4:00
5. Other bilateral/plurilateral issues
a) U.S. border inspection fees
b) North American Biotech Initiative (NABI)
c) Security and Prosperity Partnership/Food and
Agriculture Working Group status report
d) Security and Prosperity Partnership/Food and
Agriculture Working group/Food and Agriculture Regulatory Systems/Good
Agricultural Practices Working Group report
e) Security and Prosperity Partnership/Cooperation
on Avian and Pandemic influenza
f) U.S. Country of Origin Labelling (COOL)
g) Update on Canada’s Next Generation of
Agricultural and Agri-food Policy
h) Update on U.S. 2007 Farm Bill
i) NAFTA/Trilateral Committees - info
Items
i. NAFTA implementation
ii. NAFTA SPS Committee Meeting
iii. Canada/Mexico and U.S./Mexico CCAs
j) EU issues
i. WTO case regarding the European Union's
biotechnology moratorium
ii. EU's new rules on traceability and labelling
of GMOs (EC Regulation 1830/2003)
iii. EU's hormones ban
k) Fruit and vegetable industry financial trust
protection in Canada
l) Access for U.S. mozzarella cheese sticks
4:00 – 4:30
6. CCA wrap-up
Back to U.S.–Canada
Trade Main Page
