Meeting Report for the Crop Inputs Division
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
Ottawa, ON
October 16, 2008
Prepared by:
The Intersol Group
205 Catherine, Suite 300
Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1C3
Tel: 613.230.6424
Fax: 613.567.1504
Table of Contents
On October 16, 2008, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Crop Inputs Division held a Mid-year regulatory workshop on Fertilizer Program Modernization.
Approximately 60 participants took part in the meeting, which had the following objectives:
- To provide an update on the Fertilizer Program backlog reduction and modernization initiatives;
- To hear the views of stakeholders and to discuss priorities for the CFIA Fertilizer Program;
- To discuss specific technical issues.
The agenda of the meeting is included in Appendix A of this report. This report summarizes the results of the first part of the meeting (update and views on Program priorities); and outlines highlights of the afternoon break-out discussions on specific technical Program issues.
The day included presentations, plenary discussions and break-out group discussions. The presentations are briefly summarized in this report; and copies of the presentations are available upon request.
Glyn Chancy, the Acting Executive Director of the Plant Health and BioSecurity Directorate, welcomed the group to the workshop. He highlighted the importance of the active engagement of the stakeholder community in this regulatory renewal initiative, and the importance of maintaining an ongoing dialogue.
The facilitator, Joanna Barclay, then briefly reviewed the agenda and approach for the day.
Kate Billingsley, Head, Crop Inputs Division, CFIA
Kate Billingsley provided an update on the following: the Backlog Reduction Action Plan and the progress made on file reviews; the re-organization which took place within the directorate, including the addition of new staff; as well as Fertilizer Program updates. The action plan to reduce the backlog includes various elements: a greater amount of evaluator's time is dedicated to file review; the initial focus is placed on files supporting innovation, while re-registrations and minor labelling amendments are temporarily delayed; and new staff has been hired. The goal is to eliminate the backlog and implement service delivery standards by April 2009 and good progress has being made to achieve it.
Kate also mentioned several other program-related updates. This included recent re-organization with the CFIA and the establishment of Crop Inputs which now includes the Fertilizer Section and the Fertilizer Safety Office. She also mentioned regulatory updates including the Organic Product Regulations (OPR) which are coming into effect on June 30, 2009; a regulatory package to reference the most up-to-date version of the Compendium of Fertilizer-Use Pesticides (CFUP) in the Regulations; and the CCME committee that was established to develop a Canada-wide strategy for the management of municipal biosolids. The regulatory amendment to extend the registration period is still a priority and discussions on other options are currently taking place.
After the presentation, participants were invited to ask questions of clarification. The following summarizes the key discussion points.
- With regards to the regulatory amendment and the options being considered, a full consultation will take place as part of the standard regulatory change process.
- The CFIA is committed to adhering to the service delivery standards once they are implemented to ensure timely product review and approval.
- The quality of submissions has been improving.
- The service delivery standard for new product applications includes three review periods, assuming that a full package is submitted. If there are deficiencies, the review process takes longer, as the deficiencies need to be addressed by the applicant.
- The service delivery model takes into consideration the type of submission and its level of complexity, as well as the amount of time needed to conduct the review.
Anthony Parker, A/National Manager, Fertilizer Section, CFIA
Anthony Parker presented a status update on priority projects undertaken by the Program. The following projects are expected to be delivered by March 31, 2009: T-4-108 - efficacy data requirements for fertilizers and supplements regulated under the Fertilizers Act; T-4-121 – requirements for phosphite and phosphorus acid materials represented for use as fertilizers; policy on micronutrients in oxide form (low solubility); policy on non-EDTA chelating agents; policy on low /no phosphate fertilizers; scientific review on metals in hydroponic fertilizers; review of the applicability of the fecal coliform test; regulatory foresight review on nanotechnology; risk assessment on the use SRM in fertilizers and their spread on land; inspector training on enforcement and compliance; creation of several new marketplace monitoring programs; web-posting of a searchable registered products database; development of guidelines for completing the Registration Application Form; and posting of registration checklists.
The following projects will either continue or will be initiated in 2009-10: Standard development and creation of assessment tools for hydroponic fertilizers; efficacy data requirements for Rhizobial inoculants; policy on dual property microbial products (Systemic Acquired Resistance (SAR) / Induced Systemic Resistance (ISR); policy on slow and controlled release fertilizers; sustainability labelling for specialty lawn fertilizers; pilot project on compost monitoring – Compost Quality Alliance (CQA); E-learning module on labelling for CFIA staff and industry; development and publication of the registration guidebook chapters.
The following projects have been postponed: research and policy on foliar applied NPK; risk assessment on endocrine disruptors and pharmaceuticals in biosolids; review and redesign options for CFQAP.
Service delivery standards are being implemented for some submission categories before March 31st, 2009; full implementation will start in April 2009; continuous review and improvement of the standards will take place on an ongoing basis.
Most of the recent effort has been on file review and significant progress has been made in this area; progress has also been made in the development of policies and program re-design; additional work remains to be done in order to realize the modernization strategy.
After this presentation, participants were invited to ask questions of clarification. The following summarizes the key discussion points.
- The review of submissions and registration of products is a key priority, and this work takes precedence over other projects; along with the implementation of service delivery standards, this will ensure that the backlog situation does not repeat itself in the future.
- Both in house resources and external resources can be used to complete some of the modernization projects (e.g. literature review work to establish the basis for policy development can be contracted out).
- When changes are made to registration requirements, these changes apply to new submissions, and a period of time will be provided for existing products to meet the new requirements; advance notice will also provided to registrants.
- Procedural improvements have been made (e.g. file tracking procedure), and additional improvements will be implemented in the future.
- Program modernization is an ongoing initiative: program improvements are made over time to increase efficiency. Currently the key efforts are dedicated to reducing the backlog, and implementation of the service delivery standards.
Ewa Madey, A/National Manager Fertilizer Safety Office, CFIA
Ewa Madey presented the context for priority setting for the upcoming year. The strategic action plan (SAP) has been developed jointly in consultation with the stakeholders; it lists issues and challenges facing the Fertilizer Program and the sector and proposes strategies to address them. Ewa pointed out that the objective of this particular session was to 1) Obtain stakeholder input on issues that have not been addressed; 2) identify Program priorities for the upcoming year; 3) review priorities identified by the Canadian Fertilizer Products Forum (CFPF) and identify areas of alignment and commonality; as well as identify long term strategies for program modernization.
The Fertilizer Program priorities for the upcoming fiscal include the development and update of policies; the development and review of standards; the development and dissemination of reference and training materials; and enhancements in program delivery.
In the area of new technologies, stakeholders are encouraged to request pre-submission consultation meetings with the CFIA, to facilitate preparation of complete submissions and collection of appropriate data to support product registration.
In closing, Ewa noted the importance of stakeholder views in identifying priorities and contributing to the CFIA's work planning process.
After this presentation, participants were invited to ask questions of clarification; there were no questions. This presentation led to the next discussion on priorities.
Participants discussed the following questions in small groups:
- What are other priority areas or issues facing the program and the sector that have not been mentioned?
- What, in your view as a stakeholder, are the most pressing priorities?
- What are the common priorities identified by the Program and the CFPF?
- What are some long-term program modernization strategies that should be considered?
The following represents the key points that emerged during the discussions. In addition, the detailed notes from table discussions generated in response to the four questions are available upon request.
1. What are other priority areas or issues facing the program and the sector that have not been mentioned?
- Remove outdated regulations and unnecessary paper burden; focus on the intent/purpose of the regulation
- Clarify the requirements between the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) and the CFIA particularly for products which have dual properties (pesticide and fertilizer, plant growth regulators). Harmonize (when possible and applicable) and facilitate dual registrations
- Harmonize with international standards.
- Communicate to the public (e.g. at trade shows). Ensure dissemination of policy information to the general public via the web. The CFPF website could also be used a communication tool.
- Ensure the protection of confidential business information for new technologies, especially until a patent is granted and the information appears in the public domain.
- Increase the registration period, and ensure that requests for amendments are treated differently than a full new submission
- Streamline the re-registration process.
- Enhance communications: electronic communication between CFIA and stakeholders.
- Ensure that current projects can be delivered: there is a concern that the amount of work planned is ambitious, and additional projects should not be undertaken.
- Ensure that backlogs do not re-appear in the future - senior management of the CFIA needs to be aware and committed to providing resources to prevent future backlogs in a proactive not just reactive manner
- Maintain dialogue on new policies and ensure the right balance (regulation vs. over-regulation).
- Implement modern IT tools to increase efficiency (e.g. file tracking, file bar-coding, information retrieval, shared databases, electronic submissions and file reviews etc.)
- Ensure that forms and guidance documents are clear (e.g. application forms) and designed to reduce the number of deficiencies and improve the quality of submissions.
- Communicate the purpose and scope of literature reviews; also how are science-based standards developed when the science is scarce
- Strengthen enforcement and compliance against unsubstantiated claims/product benefits
- Consider broader physiological measurements to support product efficacy including environmental benefits and crop quality
2. What, in your view as a stakeholder, are the most pressing priorities?
- Innovative products. Understanding the science; new and innovative technologies – SAR/ISR nanomaterials, consortia, slow and controlled release fertilizers, etc. Ensure appropriateness of current definitions to match innovative product types
- Science-based regulations should be implemented by all levels of government (e.g. provinces and municipalities).
- Time to market. Streamline the registration, re-registration and amendment process, ensure that backlogs do not re-emerge, implement electronic submissions and adhere to service delivery standards
- Harmonization with other regulatory departments (e.g. PMRA), other levels of government and internationally (long term)
- Priorities Focus on current priorities –ensure that sufficient resources are available to deliver on commitments
- Regulatory burden Reduce regulatory burden on well established products
- Communications Strengthen communications with the stakeholders and the public. Ensure that guidance documents are clear and accessible (registration guide book, E-learning modules, industry training)
- Funding. Ensure sustained funding for the Fertilizer Program despite other emergencies
- Enforcement and compliance – ensure that the same rules apply to both imported products and those manufactured domestically, address products that escape regulatory oversight, off-label advertising, use of unsubstantiated claims and environmental benefits, non-compliance at the retail and distributor levels
- Composts and biosolids – revise the current requirements to ensure sound management and regulation of products containing composts and biosolids
- Organic Product Regulations and their impact on the sector– certification requirements, why certify products – GM, organic production etc
3. What are the common priorities identified by the Program and the CFPF?
- Science-based regulations
- Communication with stakeholders and the public
- Time to market, service delivery standards, backlog
- Understanding new technologies
- Streamlining efficacy data requirements
4. What are some long-term program modernization strategies that should be considered?
- Stabilize and increase staffing level to ensure that there is a sufficient level of resources available to conduct the work.
- Streamline processes (i.e. work smarter with the resources available).
- Address the data requirements for efficacy (geographical restrictions).
- Revise requirements for micronutrients
- Increase the period of registration (e.g. 5 years).
- Foresee and prepare for changes in various areas (e.g. biofuels, nutrients from recycled raw materials, carbon footprint, etc.)
- Implement electronic submissions and electronic reviews to increase efficiency.
- Institute conditional registrations (would allow registrants to get into the market and generate capital).
- Strive towards international harmonization (with the US and other jurisdictions) and implement 3rd party accreditation; using resources from 3rd party accreditation to support registration process.
- Implement service delivery standards; and work towards improving these standards further for all stakeholders' benefit.
5. Priorities specific to the CFPF
- Fertilizer value/cost
- Impact on biofuels
- Changes in supply chain
The afternoon was devoted to break-out discussions that dealt with specific technical issues. The stakeholders were invited to join one of the four groups.
Breakout Group 1
Topic 1: Micronutrient Discussion
Discussion Paper:
Prior to the Mid-Year workshop a discussion document on the topic of micronutrient-specific efficacy data requirements was distributed as background to this discussion. A brief overview of the document was given to start the discussion.
Summary of Discussion:
The beginning of the breakout session was organized around specific product questions from product proponents; this included if the CFIA should consider exempting EDDMA (a new chelator sold in Europe) from efficacy data, if amino acids as chelators would trigger data requirements, and how a scientific rationale can be used to support efficacy. Following this, the majority of the discussion was focused on the proposed solubility rule, its applicability to foliar fertilizers, and the test methods for determining solubility of micronutrient fertilizers.
Overall, stakeholders felt that the Fertilizer Program was on the right track for reducing the burden of efficacy data requirements, and that the application of any new policy to previously registered products would ensure a level playing field.
Key Outcomes:
It was stressed throughout the discussion that the CFIA must base policy on the best-available science, and that efficacy requirements should reflect the mode of action of the product. Industry expressed interest in forming a task team.
Topic 2: Polymer coats / Slow & Controlled Release and Inhibitory Products
Discussion Paper:
Prior to the Mid-Year workshop a discussion document on the topic of controlled release, slow release and inhibitor technologies was distributed as background to this discussion. A brief overview of the document was given to start the discussion.
Summary of Discussion:
The beginning of the breakout session was organized around definitions of these product types, with a review of the existing AAFPCO and EU official terms. It was quickly established that a CFPF working group had previously provided suggestions for revisions of Schedule II, which included proposed definitions of these technologies. CFIA has a copy of the draft report, and will consider these draft definitions, as well as the few responses received to the original slow/controlled release survey.
The remainder of the breakout session was organized around the specific efficacy data requirements that would be appropriate for these technologies. This included number of trials, type of available methodologies for slow release curve, and appropriate measurable parameters.
It was generally felt that a Trade Memorandum was long overdue, and that the regulatory requirements would need to be broadly communicated and consistently applied.
Key Outcomes:
Industry expressed interest in participating in a task team for further discussion of definitions and efficacy requirements.
Breakout Group 2
Program Design and Enforcement & Compliance
Discussion Paper:
Prior to the Mid-Year workshop a discussion document on the topic of Enforcement and Compliance was distributed as background to this discussion. A brief overview of the document was given to start the discussion.
Summary of Discussion:
The remainder of the breakout session was organized around some focussed questions to frame the discussion. The first question asked was if third party accreditation and monitoring models could be used in certain instances. The second question asked was if the CFIA should consider regulating manufacture in addition to the end product. The final discussion was focussed on incentives to increase industry compliance, methods that the CFIA could use to increase awareness of the requirements and the importance of off-label claims and advertisements to stakeholders.
In order for a third party model to work, companies need to see the benefit/value in the process. In a global market environment, it was felt that introducing yet another testing or QA/QC program will increase the cost to Canadian manufacturers while the US and other exporting countries are not subject to the same requirements. Companies need to be able to brand CFIA recognition of the program, and the CFIA needs to decrease monitoring for those participating. It is pointed out that currently there are few repercussions for non-compliances. Some participants stated that such programs would have to be mandatory to work.
Similar issues were conveyed in regards to the CFIA regulating the manufacture versus the end product including increased cost to Canadian companies and the lack of clear benefits to domestic industry. These, in turn, could create an uneven playing field because of a perceived lack of border control. The question of protecting Confidential Business Information was also discussed as a potential problem.
Stakeholders felt that the Fertilizer Program was on the right track for increasing awareness of the requirements with the new programs and the updates to the website. It was felt that regulating Websites was impossible and of limited interest to the stakeholders. Workshops such as this one are appreciated and allow interaction with the CFIA and allow stakeholders to get familiar with the processes and the requirements.
It was stressed throughout the discussion that the CFIA had to increase controls over imports to help create an even playing field. The second major point that came out of the discussion is the fact that companies that do comply and work with the CFIA are not recognized for their efforts. Finally, inspection activities need to be risk-based.
Breakout Group 3
Topic 1 - "Low" and "No" Phosphate Policy for Lawn and Turf Fertilizer
Discussion Paper:
Prior to the Mid-Year workshop a discussion document on the topic of Low and No phosphate policy for lawn and turf fertilizer was distributed as background to this discussion. A brief overview of the document was given to start the discussion.
Summary of Discussion:
Many jurisdictions (municipal, county, provincial, and state) are placing "Low and "No" phosphate (P) use restrictions on lawn/turf fertilizers. The CFIA conducted a literature search looking at the use of fertilizer and features of urban environments that make P loss from lawns unique. The CFIA then set out to establish appropriate standards (rates and guarantees) for No P and Low P fertilizers for use on Lawn/Turf based on best available science. From reviewing the scientific studies, it was clear that poorly fertilized or non-fertilized lawns can actually result in higher P losses to environment when compared to well-fertilized lawn with dense healthy growth.
Stakeholders were concerned about whether the CFIA had the authority to regulate product application (e.g. use). It was explained that the CFIA's regulatory responsibility is limited to sale and product labelling. Therefore, the CFIA would only define a Low-P and No P lawn/turf fertilizer for the purpose of determining if products do, or do not, comply with labelling representations of a Low or No P specialty lawn/turf fertilizer products and an established standard for nutrient guarantees. The CFIA is proposing a standard consistent with what is being proposed by Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO), and has already been adopted by Florida.
Stakeholders were in agreement with the proposed CFIA Low/No P lawn fertilizer policy, and hoped it would be adopted by jurisdictions (provinces and municipalities) regulating fertilizer use.
Industry posed questions whether the definitions for Low and No P, were applicable to other "Specialty fertilizers". Research suggests that P losses from fertilizer application to gardens and flowerbeds were insignificant; therefore CFIA will not expand the definitions and policy outside of lawns/turf at this time, but possibly in the future.
Stakeholders had no objections to the proposed policy. Once the policy is posted on the CFIA website for consultation, members of the Urban Fertilizer Council indicated that they would likely send a letter of support for the policy. It is expected that the proposed policy would become official before the end of March 2009.
Topic 2: Specialty Fertilizer Stewardship – Labelling Statements
Discussion Paper:
Prior to the Mid-Year workshop a discussion document on the topic of stewardship labelling statements for specialty fertilizers was distributed as background to this discussion. A brief overview of the document was given to start the discussion.
Summary of Discussion:
The conclusions of the Low and No P literature review search suggest that the urban environment is unique (hard surfaces, etc.) and can often accentuate nutrient losses to the environment. Additionally, homeowners are typically not as familiar with fertilizers application as those working in the agriculture sector.
The Urban Fertilizer Council, indicated that they have taken the general stewardship approach for agricultural fertilizers (right rate, right time, right place) to the homeowner level (read instructions, apply with proper spreader, do not apply before heavy rainfall, before winter, do not apply where water is running through, leave a buffer strip). Responsible fertilizer use is encouraged by the sector, therefore in principle, they would be supportive of mandatory stewardship labeling requirements.
CFIA's proposed stewardship requirements for lawn and turf fertilizers would include sets of mandatory statements that would appear on the product label (some States are already using them on their products). The statements were developed with the intention of giving the user of the product better directions so as to minimize misapplication, and therefore mitigate nutrient losses to the environment. Such statements would be regulated under 11(1) of Fertilizers Regulations, "a fertilizer… shall not contain any substance in quantities likely to be detrimental or seriously injurious to vegetation... or the environment". A non-compliant product would be any lawn/turf fertilizer that fails to bear these statements on the label.
Canadian Fertilizers Institute (CFI) suggests a meeting of the Urban Fertilizer Council and other interested parties (Scotts, SureGro, Agrium Advanced Technologies, etc), to review what the essential messages are, and suggest editing of the statements if necessary (would like to keep them to minimum length if possible). Additional suggestions were for statements such as: "A healthy lawn (or good lawn fertility) reduces erosion", and explanation of what constitutes an acceptable buffer strip would be helpful.
Stakeholders generally supported this concept, and submitted technical comments, but they were not representing the Lawn and Garden group. CFI urges the Lawn and Garden group to support the policy.
Overall, the group agreed that this was a good policy to develop environmental stewardship point of view, and good to be proactive on this issue. There are no major problems with principles, just some minor details to iron out. The Lawn and Garden Industry groups (including CFI) plan to meet to discuss this further and provide comments to the CFIA. Consensus based recommendations will be sent to the CFIA within the next few months.
Break group 4.
Topic 1: Rhizobia specific efficacy requirements.
Discussion Paper:
Prior to the Mid-Year workshop a discussion document on considerations for efficacy data requirements for rhizobia was distributed as background information for discussion. A brief overview of the documents was given to start the discussion.
Summary of Discussion:
The key points of discussion included the possibility of reducing efficacy data requirements for rhizobia products. There were suggestions to move towards 1 year of testing in any five locations in Canada for national registration and placing the onus on industry to select locations relevant for the crop in question. The stakeholders further commented on the fact that the reduced efficacy requirements should be based not only on taxonomy but also on pre-established safety/history of use (historical precedent). As such the product should perform to the expected standard of past use.
There was also discussion on whether field trial data is at all required to substantiate product efficacy especially for well established strains. This option could only be considered if there was strong evidence that performance of a typical rhizobial strain does not vary between regions (not influenced by climate, soil, past cropping history etc). There was a question raised as to what type of data/review should or could be used to generate such a rationale. Whether company data could be used for this purpose and how would confidential business information be treated/protected in those instances. It was pointed out that published literature could complement company data. The stakeholders also raised the point that in the absence of field trials, there must be adequate measures in place to ensure that the product is efficacious so that public confidence is retained. Even though most companies are putting a lot of effort and resources to produce high quality products to maintain their market share the consumers must be protected from snake oils and fraud. There was also some discussion about measurable parameters and there was a strong feeling that the experiments demonstrating product efficacy must be designed around the claims made on the label.
Another topic of discussion as part of session 1 was centered around planting window data and product quality. Currently, majority of the rhizobial products appear to be over-formulated i.e. the number of viable cells in a product significantly exceeds the label guarantee. This, in turn, allows the companies to claim a longer planting window and survival on seed. To ensure that commercial products are formulated consistently the CFIA is proposing that 3 sets of analysis showing the actual concentration of the organisms per gram of product be required at the time of registration and when amendments to the planting windows are made. It was agreed that further clarification of the issue and the proposal is required.
Keys Outcomes:
The stakeholders recognize that strong scientific rationale will be required to reduce the current efficacy data requirements. No proposals were put forward at the meeting, however a decision was made to form a working group giving the sector an opportunity to influence the decision and policy making process.
Topic 2 – Dual property products SAR/ISR
Prior to the Mid-Year workshop a discussion document on Systemic Acquired Resistance and Induced Systemic Resistance was distributed as background information for discussion. Additionally, the CFIA conducted a detailed literature review on SAR and ISR in plants; this document was also provided to the stakeholders prior to the workshop. A brief overview of both documents was given to start the discussion
There was general recognition that the interest in plant growth promoting bacteria other than rhizobia is increasing. Some of these organisms promote growth, but also have biocontrol properties. The mandate of the CFIA is, however, limited to plant growth promotion while pest control properties are regulated by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. As such, in order to delineate between the supplemental and pesticidal claims, the CFIA requires that efficacy trials conducted to support product registration are done under reduced pest-pressure conditions. This, in turn, ensures that the product performs consistently regardless of the pesticidal effect advantage.
It was mentioned that some companies prefer to apply for registration to the CFIA and for that reason do not wish to claim disease control. Inclusion of pesticidal claims on a dual property product is not mandatory even if biocontrol properties are known. Therefore the supplemental claims must be adequately supported. Also, some companies have observed yield increases following pesticide application independent of disease control (growth stimulation) which may introduce further difficulties in separating the supplemental vs. pest control properties.
There was some discussion regarding alternative solutions for removing pest pressure (outside of the conventional pest management practices). This is of particular importance in instances where the pesticide regime impacts the viability of the active organism intended to be registered as a supplement.It was agreed upon that some general requirements could be developed by the program but then conditions for reducing pest pressure for some products will need to be developed on case-by-case basis.
There were also concerns raised regarding foreign data which, according to the revised T-4-108, can account for 50% of the trials submitted in support of product efficacy. This presents a challenge as the foreign trials do not require a research authorization and the experimental protocols are not reviewed before trials are conducted. As such, some may not have been conducted under reduced pest pressure. There was a suggestion to consider requiring only a subset of trials to be conducted under reduced pest pressure. Furthermore, it was pointed out that while developing trial conditions PMRA requirements should be consulted.
The applicability of greenhouse trials to support product efficacy was also discussed. According to some companies, everything except yield (vigour, growth) can be demonstrated in a greenhouse environment. It was suggested that the optimal solution may be to use a mix of both – specific claims may be substantiated using greenhouse trials while yield would be demonstrated in the field.
Keys Outcomes:
As consensus it was decided that another working group be formed that includes representatives from the PMRA.
The report from this meeting will be distributed. CFIA will develop their 2009-10 work plan, taking into account today's discussions. The list of projects being undertaken will be shared with stakeholders.
Kate Billingsley thanked participants for their valuable input, and thanked the meeting organizers and facilitators. She noted that there is a lot of commonality between what CFIA and the stakeholders view as priorities. She re-affirmed CFIA's commitment to address the current backlog and to put measures in place to prevent a similar situation from re-occurring; excellent progress has been made to date, and work continues in the same direction. The implementation of service delivery standards is a priority for both CFIA and the Government of Canada.
Mid-year regulatory workshop on Fertilizer Program Modernization Held by the Crop Inputs Division Canadian Food Inspection Agency
October 16th, 2008
Albert at Bay Hotel, The Seasons Salons
(435 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario; phone # 613-238-8858)
Agenda
| TIME |
SESSION |
SPEAKERS |
7:30-8:30 |
Breakfast |
|
8:30 - 8:50 |
Welcoming Remarks |
Glyn Chancey, A/Executive Director Plant Health and Biosecurity Directorate |
8:50 - 9:00 |
Review of the Agenda and Approach |
Joanna Barclay, Intersol |
9:00 - 9:20 |
Fertilizer Program Updates and File Backlog Reduction |
Kate Billingsley, A/Head, Crop Inputs Division |
9:20 - 9:45 |
Fertilizer Program Modernization Progress Update – Priority Projects |
Anthony Parker, A/National Manager, Fertilizer Section, CFIA |
9:45 -10:00 |
Break |
|
10:00 -12:00 |
Discussion on Priorities for 2009/2010
- Program Priorities
- CFPF Priorities
- Small Group Discussions and plenary reporting
|
Ewa Madey, A/National Manager Fertilizer Safety Office, CFIA All |
12:00 - 1:00 |
Lunch |
|
1:00 - 2:45 |
Issue-specific breakout group discussions
- Group 1 - Micronutrient specific efficacy requirements and Slow / Controlled Release Fertilizers
- Group 2 – Program Delivery / Enforcement and Compliance
- Group 3 – Low /No Phosphate Policy for Lawn/Turf Fertilizers and Lawn and Turf Fertilizer Stewardship
- Group 4 – Dual property microbial products / Rhiziobia specific requirements
|
All |
2:45 - 3:00 |
Break |
|
3:00 - 3:45 |
Plenary debrief from breakout discussions |
All |
3:45 - 4:00 |
Wrap-Up, next steps and closing remarks |
Kate Billingsley |
