1

Organic Regulatory Committee

DRAFT Regulation Questionnaire

This form completed by:

Date:

Introduction

This questionnaire is designed to collect and record the opinions of ORC members and their constituents for subsequent summary and discussion. The results of this consensus seeking exercise will be presented to the Federal and provincial governments.

The final Summary Report will record both assenting and dissenting opinions. The ORC (or a sub-committee) will then compile a “draft regulation” outlining an industry prospective of the system.

Preliminary Assumptions

In undertaking this consensus seeking exercise, The ORC is assuming that:

  • there is a need to regulate the use of the term “organic (biologique)” as it related to food (and fibre) produced, processed, handled and traded in Canada;
  • the Canadian organic regulatory system will be mandatory, accessible and affordable, and will be enforced by a Canadian regulation and regulator;
  • the proposed regulatory system will be implemented under the Canadian Agricultural Products (CAP) Act of 1985;
  • A&AFC and the CFIA coupled with a network of private sector Certifying Bodies and an industry oversight (advisory) body will be responsible for implementing and operating the system;
  • Provincial governments and provincial accreditation programs will have an opportunity to manage the regulation at the provincial level if they choose.

1.The Canada Organic Standard

A functional Canadian Organic Standard (COS) controlled by the industry which epitomises Canada’s unique organic food production potential and addresses it’s regional variability. The COS maintenance system would include a process for updating the Permitted Substance Lists and addressing emerging issues on a timely basis.

1.1.1.Option - The Canada Organic Standard is referenced in the Regulation.

Pro: Having the Canada Organic Standard referenced into the Regulation will provide for the full force of law and will give the Canadian organic community its own unique organic Standard. A functional Canada Organic Standard will remove the burden of standard maintenance from individual certification bodies.

Con: Changing the Standard will require changing the Regulation through an Order-in-Council. A unique Canada Organic Standard will require the Canadian organic community to maintain the Standard on a consistent basis. There will be a cost for this process.

I agree with option 1.1.1 I do not agree with option 1.1.1

1.1.2.Option - Some other standard (such as Codex, IFOAM, CAQ, or some other) is referenced in the Regulation.

Pro: Using another (internationally) recognised Standard will remove the burden of standard maintenance from the Canadian organic community. An international standard will (presumably) be recognised internationally. The costs (to the Canadian organic community) will be low or negligible.

Con: The Codex and IFOAM (IBS) documents are "standards for standards" - and still require more detail (CB standards) for organic certification. The Canadian organic community would lose control of the development and maintenance of its organic standard.

I agree with option 1.1.2 I do not agree with option 1.1.2

1.1.3.Other option

1.2.Canada Organic Standard Maintenance Options

1.2.1.Option - Maintained by the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB)

Pro: The CGSB provides a fair and consistent consensus process for determining standards revisions. The CGSB is recognised by government.

Con: The CGSB process is expensive. The AAFC has paid the costs of the CGSB for the second revision, while the organic sector has volunteered its own effort and costs. The AAFC has indicated the organic sector will need to pay the full (CGSB) costs for the next revision. The CGSB decides who will participate in the standards development process.

I agree with option 1.2.1 I do not agree with option 1.2.1

1.2.2.Option - Managed by the Canadian Organic Community but vetted through the CGSB process:

The organic sector will maintain control over revisions to the standard. A finished standard will be presented to the CGSB for voting. This allows the Standard to be a "Canada Standard," but allows the organic sector to control the standard-setting process.

Pros: CGSB costs for voting will be much less than for managing the entire revision process.

Cons: The CGSB will still decide who votes on the final draft standard. Costs for the CGSB voting procedure will have to be borne by the organic sector.

I agree with option 1.2.2 I do not agree with option 1.2.2

1.2.3.Option - Managed entirely by the Canadian Organic Community:

Pros: The organic sector will have total control over the organic standard.

Cons: The organic sector will have to develop a system to manage the standard. There will be a cost, either volunteer or money, but more likely, both.

I agree with option 1.2.3 I do not agree with option 1.2.3

1.2.4.Other option

1.3.Permitted Substances List Maintenance

1.3.1.Option - The Canadian Organic Sector Subscribes to OMRI (Organic Materials Review Institute)

Pro: OMRI is professional and competent; their list is inclusive and provides instant answers to thorny questions. There is great value in not having to do this work ourselves. OMRI's Brand Name list provides a competent source of determinations on Brand Name products.

Con: OMRI is expensive (though there may be a discount for a Canada-wide program). It is a US list and must still be amended for the Canada context. We would still need a committee to manage the OMRI List.

I agree with option 1.3.1 I do not agree with option 1.3.1

1.3.2. Option - The Canadian Organic Community Develops their own Expert Committee System

Pro: It may be cheaper to have a committee decide on the PSL instead of hiring OMRI.

Con: We would have to develop the expertise to deal with the scientific questions about the PSL. We would have to deal with Brand Name products on a product-by-product basis. It would be a lot of work.

I agree with option 1.3.2 I do not agree with option 1.3.2

1.3.3.Other option

2.The Accreditation Body

The Canadian organic system requires an accreditation program that is acceptable (to other jurisdictions), affordable, and competent.

2.1.1.Option - Standards Council of Canada

The SCC is the ISO accreditation body for Canada. The SCC is willing to develop partnership agreements with provincial accreditation programs.

Pro: SCC is promoted by the government and is likely to receive favourable recognition throughout the world.

Con: SCC is expensive - higher fees for regions that are further from Ontario.

I agree with option 2.1.1 I do not agree with option 2.1.1

2.1.2.Option - Recognition of different accreditation programs

The Canada organic system will provide recognition for competent accreditation programs to provide accreditation to the accepted criteria. Such accreditation programs may be the SCC, CAQ, COABC, and IOAS.

Pro: This allows provinces the opportunity to manage their own accreditation and gives CBs some choices for accreditation. Some accreditation programs are less costly than others.

Con: This scenario may not be acceptable to other jurisdictions. May not be acceptable to the Federal government.

I agree with option 2.1.2 I do not agree with option 2.1.2

2.1.3.Option - A Canadian Organic Oversight Body provides accreditation in partnership with the SCC.

The Canadian organic sector develops an oversight body. This entity provides the accreditation service (registration, audits etc.) to the CBs and then provides this information to the SCC. The SCC makes the accreditation decision and issues the certificate.

Pro: Probably less costly than dealing directly with the SCC, especially if there are volunteers involved. The organic sector would have more control over the accreditation process.

Con: More work.

I agree with option 2.1.3 I do not agree with option 2.1.3

2.1.4.Option - The Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Pro: This would be one way to get the CFIA interested in the organic sector.

Con: CFIA operates on a cost recovery basis - accreditation would be expensive. CFIA may opt for an "outcome-based" system - certification requirements based on previous performance.

I agree with option 2.1.4 I do not agree with option 2.1.4

2.1.5.Other option

3.The Oversight Body

3.1.Structure

3.1.1.Who belongs?

Certifiers / Consumers / Organic advocacy
Fed Govt. / Environmental / Processors
Retailers / Official organisations only / Informal groups
Prov Govt. / Non-organic Agriculture Associations / Small body (< 15)
Province-based / Large body (>30) / Medium size body (15-30)
Other

3.1.2.Style

Incorporated society / Coalition / Limited company
Informal group (committee) / Co-operative / Other

3.2.Mandate

Advocacy & lobbying / National representation
Accreditation management / Standards Management
Certification Criteria management / PSL management
Enforcement / Surveillance of program
Promotion / Market development
Education / Research
Communication / Recognition of accreditation programs
Recognition of foreign programs (imports)
Other

3.3.Funding

Accreditation Fees / Membership fees
Sales check-off / Applications for recognition for imports
Project-based / Charity (advocacy)-based
Trademark fees / Other

4.Other Issues

Draft ORC Questionnaire July 16, 2003