Broad Support for ontario's food safety regulations among the farming community

Monday, April 6, 2015

by BARRY WILSON

Typically, it begins with an anonymous call or email to the Ontario government food safety snitch line. Farmer X is suspected of slaughtering and selling meat from his barn without a provincial abattoir license and inspection. Establishment Y is suspected of selling ready-to-eat meat products without a license and inspection. Farmer Z could be buying cattle to send outside the province without a cattle dealer license.

The tips are in response to a government plea to "report food safety violations and other alleged illegal activities. Ontario's laws and inspection programs are in place to reduce the potential of food-borne illness." Anonymity is promised.

The call could come from a neighbour, a competitor, a former employee or even a drive-by citizen who sees something that looks suspicious. With each tip, regulatory compliance officers in the Food Inspection Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), which is responsible for policing smaller operations that produce product solely for the Ontario market, make plans to investigate.

But first, officials try to assess the risk facing a compliance officer who shows up unexpectedly in uniform to investigate a suspicion of illegal activity. Does the object of the complaint have a history of violence or defiance in the face of authority? Does he or she have a gun? Is this likely a deliberate attempt to get around the rules by someone who knows the rules?

Although rare, working on the front lines to enforce Ontario's food safety rules can be dangerous work. OMAFRA's five compliance officers are issued bulletproof vests and have the ability to call for police back up.

"There have been some moments where I would say there has been tension and we have had police present and that is generally sufficient to address the risk," regulatory compliance manager Rodger Dunlop, a former front-line officer, said in an interview.

"Have we had injuries on the job before? Certainly nothing of significance that we've lost time for," he said. "We had one incident of assault which we reported to police but, beyond that, the industry is by and large very co-operative with us. But upon entering a premise, are they welcomed? No."

Dunlop said that, of the 180 to 250 complaints received in a typical year, 10 per cent or more are serious enough to warrant investigation that could lead to a date in court. "I wouldn't want to describe it as a fringe issue and I wouldn't want to describe it as rampant either – somewhere in-between."

In most cases, the subject of the complaint may not be fully aware of the rules, or claims not to be, and agrees to comply. But officers are instructed to deal with situations that turn darker. If there are concerns beforehand, two officers may be sent or the police may be asked to go along.

"Our staff is trained in dealing with incidents of obstruction and getting home safely," said Dunlop. "They are expected to assess their environment on an ongoing basis and withdraw if there are any safety issues. If there is something that surfaces during an inspection, they withdraw or call 911, whatever is appropriate."

A recent survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business found that regulation and red tape were the largest single irritants reported by agribusiness, including producers, often involving food safety and environmental rules. "Farmers feel the red tape burden is getting worse," says Marilyn Braun-Pollon, CFIB's vice-president for agribusiness.

A member survey by the Quebec Farmers' Association in 2014 came to the same conclusion. Rated as the top answer to the question "what are the top two challenges facing you as an agricultural producer?" was "too much paperwork and government bureaucracy." Environmental and food safety bureaucracy were high on the list.

Yet farm sector leaders and the government regulators and enforcers insist that, despite the "outriders" who try to get away with breaking the rules and general discontent among farmers about the "regulatory burden," there is broad support for the system among the Ontario farmers it affects.

That doesn't surprise Mansel Griffiths, director of the Canadian Research Institute for Food Safety, centred at the University of Guelph. In the quarter century since he emigrated from the United Kingdom, he has witnessed and analyzed an explosion of new rules and regulations often aimed at dealing with food-borne illness outbreaks or new rules developed internationally.

"I really do think there is broad acceptance from the farm up the chain," he says. "It is self interest. If there is a problem, if there is an outbreak, damage is not limited to the plant or the company, but the impact is commodity-wide. It is well recognized by the more enlightened companies that if one company has a problem, they all do."

Little sympathy for outriders
On the Fraser family farms at Stittsville on the outskirts of Ottawa, there is little sympathy for the complainers or the outriders. "I really don't have much," says 29-year-old Kent Fraser, manager of Carlmar Holsteins with a milking herd of 160. "If they are just in it to make it easier for themselves or to try to cut some costs or to save time, it really could hurt us all in the long run."

Up the road at R & J Fraser Farms Ltd., which operates a 43,000-bird poultry operation, manager Jonathon Fraser says those who defy the rules are a risk to the industry. A tainted food incident, or reports of "outlaw" farmers, could make consumers more suspicious of their domestic food supply.

"I don't think it's good for the industry," says the 33-year old, who joined the family farm business more than a decade ago. "I think the rules and requirements give our industry the credibility it needs with consumers. I follow them and they are not that difficult and don't take that much time. Why is it okay for someone else not to do it?"

Listening in to the conversation, Richard Fraser, his uncle and the 68-year-old president of Carl Fraser & Sons Ltd., lends a longer-term view. He started to farm in the 1960s, two decades after his father Carl began the operation and before the current emphasis on food safety rules and supply management was in place.

"I saw what happened when there weren't general standards and rules and the problems that caused," he says. "One concern I've always had is the danger of destroying the industry (through a few) bad apples. At the end of the day, it is a consumer issue."

A 2012 Angus Reid poll cited in a pamphlet distributed by OMAFRA to explain the benefits of the food safety and traceability system said 83 per cent of Canadians responded that they are "very" or "somewhat" concerned with the safety of the food they eat.

"Consumers react to what they read or what they are told, and there are lots of scare stories," says Griffiths. "But that doesn't necessarily have much impact on whether they buy or not. Everyone has to eat."

Fergus, Ont. dairy farmer and critical care nurse Janet Harrop understands the farmer pushback, the consumer skepticism and the benefit of the regulatory system. The vice-president of the Wellington Federation of Agriculture says consumers react to stories they have heard even if it is not their experience and few have any connection to the farm.

"Many of them don't know how sophisticated our businesses are," she says. "People still admire farmers, but they don't see us as the businessmen we are. There still is a perception that farmers are not that clever. But if you run any kind of a business and you don't have some kind of competence, you won't be in business very long."

Meanwhile, many farmers see regulations as a burden and push back. "No one likes to be told what to do and some resent it," she says. "There are some producers who don't get out of the laneway that often and it can be a very isolating industry. You work long hours and then someone comes in to say ‘this is what you have to change' and you resent it. But farmers have to keep in mind that, if the industry is decimated because of a problem, they're not going to have a business."

Harrop says regulations and rules have been a blessing for her family farm. "There is very high industry buy-in because, when you can prove it is a high-quality, safe product, producers recognize the benefit. Often the rules just require what we already do. No one wants more paperwork. But the goal is the key and meeting the goal helps the industry."

Gavin Downing figures part of the reason for industry support of the strict regulatory requirements is the way the Ontario government approaches the issue.

"In general, there is a high level of acceptance of the need for food safety regulations and we do take a co-operative approach through our programs to try to avoid an unnecessary burden on affected industries," says the director of OMAFRA's food inspection branch. "In general, I think there is a recognition in the sector that there is value to a credible food safety system."

Sensitive to small businesses
A perennial question in the Canadian food inspection world is whether the fact that there are federal inspectors responsible for products which trade across provincial or international boundaries and provincial inspectors responsible for smaller plants and farms that sell product aimed only at the provincial market creates duplication and confusion for industry.

Downing says the system allows Ontario to have rules that are comparable to federal rules, but with the flexibility to be sensitive to small enterprise realities.

"In Ontario, we would say that the outcomes of our legislation and regulations are comparable to those of federal legislation," he said in an interview. "But our system is really designed to be accommodating and affordable for small and medium enterprises, whereas the federal system is designed for larger companies. I think that division gives Ontario the ability to be sensitive to provincial conditions."

Late last year in a report published by the Conference Board of Canada, University of Guelph college of business associate dean Sylvain Charlebois said the present Canadian system is in the top tier of food safety regimes in the world. It tied for first place among 17 developed countries, notwithstanding its divided jurisdictions.

Still, there are questions about whether the new federal Safe Food for Canadians Act, which will be implemented within a year or two when regulations are written and ratified, is a step down the road to ending the split between federal and provincial rules, perhaps paving the way for one national (federal) system with common rules that apply to all food producers, large or small.

Paul Mayers, Canadian Food Inspection Agency associate vice-president for programs, insists it is not, although it will help make federal and provincial rules more compatible.

"This presents an opportunity for modernization in their (provincial) context as well, recognizing that the entire framework of legislation and regulation is founded on what has emerged in the international market and the best practices that focus on prevention," says Mayers.

Provincial changes to put their food safety regulations in line with the eventual new federal rules "could serve as the basis down the road for potential improvements in internal trade, opportunities for businesses that previously could only operate within the province."

Debate on the matter has been a federal-provincial point of contention for decades. It is a subject being raised before the House of Commons agriculture committee this year as MPs study internal trade barriers between provinces. The inability to sell products across provincial borders if they were produced in a provincially licensed plant is often cited as a prime example of an internal trade barrier.

Mayers maintains the federal food safety legislation is not aimed at a single national system. "I think it creates some opportunity in that direction through more compatibility and regulatory alignment, but I would not be so bold as to suggest that it paves the way for a single system," he said. "I think that would be too much."

And with provinces historically unwilling to give up their jurisdiction over a provincial system, Ontario agriculture minister Jeff Leal is on the same page. One uniform set of rules does not work in a country as diverse as Canada.

"The federal legislation may be a step forward, but to date we have been working in concert with the federal government and the province of Quebec to develop compatible rules," he said in an interview. "To date, the multi-jurisdictional approach has worked and has guaranteed food safety for all Canadians. I don't see a reason to change it." BF

Regulatory compliance unit

• Responds to approximately 250 cases per year that may be related to any statute administered by the Ministry.
• Approximately 10 to 15 per cent of cases are referred to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Agricultural Investigations Unit for further investigation. A single case may lead to several charges against an individual and/or corporation.
• The result is approximately 50 to 60 MNRF charges per year.
• Progressive compliance actions that may be taken include education, advisory, product detention, orders, tickets (under limited legislation currently) and referrals for hearings or investigation with MNRF. The cases range widely; from production of meat products (often through unlicensed plants), produce sales and misrepresentation (fail to identify correct country or province of origin), dairy and eggs (like commercial sales of ungraded eggs), as well as dealing with animal welfare issues (like fallen animals).

Report food safety violations and other alleged illegal activities
Ontario's laws and inspection programs are in place to reduce the potential of food-borne illness. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs enforces legislation, and in some instances, may share information with other parties if it is pertinent to the enforcement of other laws.

• illegal slaughter of animals
• evidence of disease in food animals
• production, sale and/or distribution of ready-to-eat meat products without a licence
• distributing milk without a licence
• operating a dairy plant without a licence
• selling ungraded eggs somewhere other than at a farm
• selling livestock medicine without a licence
• misrepresentation of maple products and honey
• country of origin misrepresented on fruits and vegetables
• concerns surrounding livestock sale barns
• breeding or raising animals for research without a licence
• buying cattle without a livestock dealers licence
• receiving grain or operating a grain elevator without a licence
• installing tile drainage without a licence
• selling or distributing farm implements without registration

Food safety spared from budget cuts, leal says
As Ontario premier Premier Kathleen Wynne looks for ways to eliminate a $12.5 billion deficit within three years, she has warned all her cabinet ministers that their departments must do their part. That includes the ministry of agriculture, food and rural affairs. But OMAFRA minister Jeff Leal insists that at least part of his ministry is essentially immune to the directive.

"I want to tell the good folks of Ontario that food safety has been a priority of the government of Ontario," the Peterborough MPP said in an interview. There will be no budget cuts in food safety and inspection. "Food safety is too important and that's our brand in Ontario – safe, high-quality food," he said. "We will do nothing to jeopardize that. It's Ontario's brand internationally as well."

That priority was not evident last September when Leal was sworn in as Ontario's new minister of agriculture and received his marching orders from former agriculture minister Wynne. The four-page Sept. 25 letter did not mention food safety.

Like all new ministers, Leal was handed a "mandate letter" in which the premier told him what she expected. Agriculture, said Wynne, was to become a key provincial economic engine, doubling its growth rate and creating 120,000 new jobs by 2020.

The farm sector was to become a key contributor in fighting climate change and environmental degradation by decreasing nutrient run-off and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Agriculture was going to help sustain and revive rural Ontario. And the agriculture ministry, like all government departments, was expected to join the fight against the deficit. "Our 2014 budget reinforces our commitment to balancing the budget by 2017-18," the premier wrote. "It is essential that every area adheres to the program-spending objectives established for it."

Leal insists OMAFRA's contribution to deficit-fighting will not include reductions in food
safety and inspection budgets or staff, although he would not commit to increasing staff in the tiny food safety, inspection and compliance division of the department.

"Ontario has a stellar record when it comes to food safety," the minister said in response to a question about whether he would be fighting for more resources and staff if it is a government priority. "The staff within my ministry does a stellar job in terms of food safety. We will never do anything in Ontario to jeopardize that."

The manager of the regulatory compliance unit in the food safety programs branch of OMAFRA clearly holds out little hope of increased staff or an injection of additional resources in the current austerity atmosphere. Rodger Dunlop says, "In the environment today with the government, you continue to do your best with what you have."

In fact, the food safety and compliance branch of OMAFRA consumes a very small part of a ministry's annual budget of more than $1 billion. For example, the food safety regulatory compliance branch has just nine employees, including five front-line compliance officers, to police a vast province with hundreds of small food businesses that fall under provincial law.

However, an agricultural investigations unit housed in the Ministry of Natural Resources supplements the OMAFRA compliance unit's efforts if compliance officers decide, after visiting a premise subject to a complaint, that further investigation is warranted. BF


‘Modernization' of Canada's food safety laws in limbo
Implementation of the federal Conservative government's centrepiece food safety legislation has been delayed for at least a year as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) struggles to craft regulations that will bring it to life.

More than two years after the Safe Food for Canadians Act was proclaimed into law on Nov. 22, 2012, with much federal government fanfare, CFIA has conceded it will miss the two-year deadline it was given to create the regulatory rules needed to flesh out the legislative skeleton. This means that Ontario's plans to revamp its own food safety regulations to synchronize them with new federal standards and procedures also are on hold, creating uncertainty for both regulators and the industry being regulated.

"My ministry will examine the complete (federal) package of regulatory changes when it is available to determine its impact on Ontario," says Ontario agriculture minister Jeff Leal. "We're going to take our time, obviously, and continue to consult with CFIA. We anticipate it will require a technical update of Ontario's food safety legislation."

Meanwhile, the much-touted "modernization" of Canada's food safety laws is in limbo, leaving provinces, including Ontario, uncertain about how it will affect them.

"The Ontario folks meeting these standards are going to find themselves needing to make some changes, but the problem is they have to wait for Ottawa to get its act together," says federal New Democratic Party agriculture and food safety critic Malcolm Allen. "If they try to get ahead of the curve and then the regulations are slightly different from what they expected, they will have to change again. The ball is in the air federally and the provincial guys don't know where it is going to land."

CFIA officials say implementation has been postponed from 2015 to 2016. Allen predicts it could slide into 2017 and that the drawn-out process of crafting the regulations could cost the agency well over $10 million.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. When the bill was approved by Parliament with all-party support, it was heralded as a major upgrade to federal food safety rules following serious incidents of tainted food being shipped out of plants in Ontario and Alberta and a post-crisis report from Sheila Weatherill, a health expert from Edmonton, calling for a major overhaul of food safety rules, practices and oversight.

The Safe Food Act consolidates four separate existing pieces of legislation, toughens rules on food imports and switches the emphasis of the system. "The emphasis will be on prevention, so there will be shifts from the more prescriptive end-product focus to desired outcomes," says CFIA associate vice-president for programs Paul Mayers.

CFIA was given two years to write enabling regulations that will bring the legislation into force and agency leaders confidently told farm meetings throughout 2013 that they would meet the deadline. Then reality paid a visit.

Mayers says the consultation produced thousands of responses and progress on designing regulations and was put on hold early this year to allow further consultation and refinement. "Our intention is getting it right."

Inside the agricultural industry, there is some suspicion that part of the reason for delay is a pushback by affected small business interests complaining about an added regulatory burden through more stringent rules. Small business is a key Conservative constituency in an election year.

Albert Chambers, Ottawa-based executive director of the Canadian Supply Chain Food Safety Coalition that represents much of the food industry on the matter, says his members were surprised to find out in late January that the CFIA's process was on ‘pause'.

"CFIA really has been trying to do it right with lots of consultation and it was our expectation that a final version of the regulations would be finished and published this summer to begin the formal public consultation period," he says. "The delay was unexpected. We've been quite surprised by this sudden hoist."

Chambers says the assumption of small business pressure makes sense, although he has seen no direct evidence. "I can see why some people could come to that conclusion," he says. "CFIA has been very aware of the of the government's small business lens. They have been reaching out to small business."

Mayers confirmed that small business concerns have been part of the consultation feedback. "The issue of implications for small business is an important consideration, part of why we consider it important that we get it right. We want to make sure we understand the impact of this comprehensive set of regulations."

The senior CFIA official also acknowledged the provinces' interest in seeing the final product, because they likely will require changes in provincial rules to make them more compatible with the new federal requirements. "But we have to take the time needed to make sure the regulations are as good as they can be," he adds.

It means the Conservatives will not be able to brag about having new food safety legislation in place during the October 2015 election campaign, but they will be able to promise it will be coming soon to a food establishment near you. BF