“After extensive producer engagement and input from provincial beef organizations, the Canadian Cattle Association (CCA) does not support proceeding with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) currently proposed amendments to Part XV of the Health of Animals Regulations (Identification and Traceability),” the organization said in a post to social media on Monday.

It added that it supports livestock traceability for disease preparedness, market access and confidence in the beef sector. The association said it and provincial groups will convene a task force “to work for producers on a risk-based, industry-led approach to disease preparedness and emergency management.”

The stance comes after outcry from beef producers across Canada earlier this year, who expressed concerns about “government overreach” and burdensome regulation.

The changes, which included reporting animal move-ins within seven days and more robust requirements around premise identification numbers and required reporting, were first intended to roll out this spring. The Canadian Food Inspection said in January that it would pause the publication of proposed amendments after hearing producer concerns.

The proposed regulations are aligned with the industry-led Cattle Implementation Plan, which was established by all sectors of industry at the National Cattle Traceability Summit in August 2011 and adopted in 2016.

On Jan. 9, CCA president Tyler Fulton posted a message to social media platform X, noting those concerns from membership.

“Be assured the Canadian Cattle Association has and will continue to advocate for a traceability system that works for ranchers and feeders and beef farmers,” he said.

He added, however, that being able to. move quickly to disease threats is key to the beef sector’s business.

“Given the Canadian cattle industry’s reliance on export markets, we need to be prepared and have the tools available to manage animal disease events quickly and efficiently,” he said in the same post.

—With files from Janelle Rudolph

The post Canadian Cattle Association won’t back traceability changes appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Ermanno De Chino, CEO of Melita Bees, a firm based on the Mediterranean island of Malta, said Italian and Maltese bee biosecurity and quality are the subject of unwarranted “smears” coming from a Canadian beekeeping contingent. He said they’re “pushing for the opening of the border with the United States,” a country he said is extremely vulnerable to the tropilaelaps (tropi) mite threat.

“There’s little science and a lot of politics in all of this,” he wrote in a Feb. 10 email.

In a separate email, De Chino described the risk of tropilaelaps entering the U.S. as “very high” due to the “enormous” number of cargo ships from Asia arriving at the ports of California, Texas, and Florida: three states with tropi mite-friendly weather conditions.

“Swarms of Asian bees arriving in containers would have an easy time establishing themselves in these areas. The enormous concentration of hives in California’s Green Valley, dedicated to almond pollination, would make their spread almost immediate.”

De Chino said Italy and Malta’s biosecurity efforts are being “undermined” by the “political games” of a handful of Canadian beekeeping industry players — including the Canadian Beekeepers Federation (CBF) — wishing to re-open the border to U.S. bee “packages” (two or three pounds of bees with a mated queen).

“This comes after the CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), the only body with the authority to establish biosecurity criteria, reiterated that bees from Italy and Malta meet Canadian requirements,” he said.

“The CFIA is in constant contact with European authorities, who are gradually increasing their level of surveillance.”

An example is the ongoing development of a molecular testing protocol De Chino said will allow countries to certify bees sourced from tropilaelaps-free apiaries.

The initiative is a collaboration with United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Reference Center for Beekeeping, Bee Health, and Biosecurity.

Mite adapting

CBF director Peter Awram said De Chino’s argument underestimates growing knowledge about tropi mite, which is proving itself hardier in cold weather and out-of-brood survival than previously thought.

“It’s in South Korea, which is much, much colder than all the tropical places that were thought to be a problem. And we’ve seen it in Ukraine. We’re seeing it in Georgia.”

“The idea that it can’t survive in Canada has been proven to be totally false and the idea that it can’t survive in packages has also been shown to be false.”

Awram said Italy and Malta could be a tropi vector for a couple of reasons:

1. they’re part of a trade route starting in tropi-present India and,
2. a host of the mite called Apis florea — the Asian red dwarf honeybee — has been found in Malta.

“So the idea that all these ships that are coming from India through the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean don’t pose a threat is totally false.”

Its discovery in the transcontinental, Eastern Europe-bordering country of Georgia is also problematic, he said.

“If you look on a map, (Georgia is) not that far, on a land basis, from Italy.

“And there’s no doubt if it can survive in Georgia, it can survive in those countries that are further south that are between it and Italy.”

U.S. safer bet

The CBF also questioned whether the CFIA’s list of approved bee package sources (Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Ukraine and Chile) are worth the risk to commercial apiarists. Honeybee queen trade is limited by the CFIA to those countries — except for Ukraine — plus the U.S., Denmark and Malta.

“From Italy we were getting 4,000 packages out of a total of around 50,000 to 60,000.

“And the reality is most of those replacements go to hobbyists.”

Awram also said the packages from some of the source countries, particularly New Zealand, are subpar and sometimes carry varroa mite (currently Canada’s most destructive insect parasite of bees) populations far above the maximum threshold.

“I’ve tested some myself and we see like six per cent mites in some of the highest ones. What is supposed to come in is less than one per cent,” he said

Many beekeepers consider these packages enough of a threat to call on government to consider the complete discontinuation of trade of all bee packages imported from offshore.

Last year, the Alberta Beekeepers Commission passed a resolution to work with Alberta Agriculture and Irrigation, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Health Canada and CFIA to close the Canadian border to all packaged honeybee imports, including queens from outside North America except for Hawaii.

The CBF considers the U.S. to have better biosecurity. In a Jan. 8 Co-operator story, Ian Steppler, chair of the Manitoba Beekeepers Association, recounted an incident in which the quick thinking of a New Jersey-bound, India-originating container ship crew prevented a hive of tropi mites from landing onshore.

Awram does not think the U.S. is impenetrable to the mite, but the incident — along with its highly-regulated stance on foreign bee entry — makes it a path of relatively high resistance.

“We are trying to do our best to minimize the easy routes,” noted Awram.

“To me and the CBF and to a lot of the beekeepers … this is an easy thing that costs a minimal amount that we can do to try and slow down the chance that we get (tropi mite). Certainly we can get infected. We don’t know how long these mites can survive, right?”

Certainty needed

Not all Canadian beekeepers are completely onboard with the CBF approach.

Another faction, led by the Canadian Honey Council (CHC), is working with CFIA and other government agencies on what executive director Rod Scarlett describes as a “comprehensive, integrated” tropi mite risk management plan.

In addition to CFIA, the council has also teamed with a who’s-who of agencies and individuals to keep tropilaelaps off North American shores. These include Canada Border Services, provincial apiarists, chief veterinary officers throughout the country and Transport Canada.

Although Scarlett also has some concerns about the CFIA-approved countries adjacent to tropi-present regions, he’s putting his faith in the agency’s judgment.

“We’ve been assured by CFIA that they have the complete faith in the inspections and the work done by individual countries to ensure that tropilaelaps is not in their country,” he explained.

The industry needs to find out for certain if CFIA-approved bee packages are the most likely vectors of the tropi mite, said Scarlett. That may mean a careful look at queen bees imported from California and Hawaii. This idea was floated at Bee Tech 2026 in Calgary held by CHC and the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists Feb. 12-14.

“We know … that queens from California and Hawaii are absolutely essential for the beekeeping sector in Canada. But we heard at Bee Tech that queens could be a bigger risk of tropilaelaps than packages.”

“We have to really be careful about how we are going to address the issue as a whole, not just piecemeal.”

Lead with research, says honey industry rep

Research on the tropilaelaps (tropi) mite needs to be a front and center priority for the Canadian beekeeping industry, says Rod Scarlett, executive director of the Canadian Honey Council.

The body of scientific knowledge on tropi mite is still in its infancy compared to varroa mite, currently Canada’s largest insect threat to honeybees, said Scarlett.

“There’s thousands and thousands and thousands of published works on varroa. There might be 100 on tropilaelaps,” he said.

And it’s not the only area where beekeeper organizations need to step up the research game. “Beekeepers have been saying we have amitraz resistance, but we’ve never had a scientific paper put out that says we have it.”

Science has been a bone of contention recently between some Canadian beekeepers and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

In 2025, a series of apiarist recommendations — including the rezoning of approved honeybee trade regions — met with Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) dismissal based on what it called a lack of robust science.

The post Malta bee exporter blasts criticism from Canadian beekeepers appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“Easing trade barriers is crucial for market expansion, and this new protocol will streamline the export process, diversify Canadian apple exports, and meet the evolving preferences of Mexican consumers,” said Canadian Produce Marketing Association president Ron Lemaire in a federal news release on Tuesday.

The change allows the CFIA to inspect and register cold treatment facilities which eliminates the need for in-person inspections by Mexican officials.

Cold treatment is a phytosanitary process related to control of pests, according to the CFIA’s website.

The CFIA will maintain a list of registered facilities in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Exporters will be required to use these facilities to ship apples to Mexico.

The post Mexico updates import requirements for Eastern Canadian apples appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“CCA has launched an online traceability feedback survey to ensure that producers have an opportunity to share their feedback,” the organization said on social media.

It includes 15 questions, including the importance of traceability to the Canadian beef industry, level of support for “enhancing” the current traceability system and the regulations’ importance to producers.

This gathering of information comes nearly one month after the Canadian Food Inspection Agency announced that it was pausing the publication of proposed amendments to Part XV of the Health of Animals Regulations, which that was intended to occur this spring.

The move followed weeks of outcry from beef producers across Canada.

The proposed regulations are aligned with the Cattle Implementation Plan, which was established by all sectors of industry at the National Cattle Traceability Summit in August 2011 and adopted in 2016. A summary of the plan can be found on the CCIA website.

Many worry that the regulations will unnecessarily burdensome for those who raise, move, feed, and purchase animals.

Across social media platforms and at meetings, producers expressed concern with “government overreach” and said they would not comply with the regulations.

Many producers and provincial organizations also said there had been insufficient communication on the part of industry leaders, the CFIA and the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency.

“The Canadian Cattle Association has, and will continue, to advocate for traceability systems that work for ranchers and feeders and beef farmers,” CCA president Tyler Fulton said in an X video Jan 9.

“Given the Canadian cattle industry’s reliance on export markets, we need to be prepared and have the tools available to manage animal disease events quickly and efficiently.”

Local cattle associations such as Alberta Beef Producers and the Saskatchewan Cattle Association have scheduled producer meetings, with SCA hosting two traceability information meetings in February, weeks after the annual general meeting where traceability and the CFIA were the hottest topics.

“We encourage Saskatchewan producers to take a few minutes to participate and ensure your experience and concerns are reflected in ongoing discussions around traceability,” said SCA on social media.

The post Canadian Cattle Association launches traceability survey appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Greg Meredith, former deputy agriculture minister in Ontario, said trimming the bureaucracy and taking a hard look at what is working and what is not presents an opportunity for rebirth and renewal.

“If departments come out of it smaller as a result, I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing,” he said during a recent webinar hosted by the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute and RealAgriculture.

WHY IT MATTERS: Steep cuts to AAFC and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have been panned by a list of farm groups, who worry the cuts will be extremely detrimental to agriculture and agricultural research capacity.

Soon after he was elected, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that almost all government departments would be required to cut 15 per cent of their budgets by 2028-29.

AAFC has already started announcing some of the cuts it will be making.

“I really do believe that the kinds of pressure that these departments and agencies are facing will stimulate innovation in the bureaucracy,” said Meredith.

For instance, he thinks the food safety system has been sclerotic for a long time and could benefit from a review.

Canada’s ability to examine and approve new agricultural technologies is behind virtually all other countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

He said it has become hugely expensive and time-consuming for creators of new technologies to get regulatory approval in Canada, to the point where they’re not even trying anymore.

“A trimmer, faster-moving, more agile CFIA is probably a good thing,” said Meredith.

Patching the patchwork

He also noted that provinces and the federal government need to take another look at the “hodgepodge, patchwork quilt” of food safety inspection rules and better harmonize with one another.

Francis Drouin, senior adviser with Capital Hill Group, agreed with him, noting that the CFIA has a shortage of inspectors, yet it continues to duplicate services in provinces such as Ontario and Quebec which have their own provincial inspectors.

“You mean to tell me that eating meat from a provincially regulated plant is not as safe as eating meat from a CFIA plant?” he said.

Drouin thinks the federal government should focus its work on provinces that don’t have their own inspectors.

“That’s the kind of innovation I want to see,” he said.

However, he doesn’t think those types of recommendations will come from the public service. They will have to be politically driven.

Drouin also agreed with Meredith’s comments about Canada’s burdensome food safety regulations.

“We need change because it costs too much money to do business in the food industry in Canada right now,” he said.

Backlash to cuts

Cuts to agriculture research announced in late January drew concerned glances from agriculture after the announced termination of not only 665 staff, but the closure of seven research farms and centres.

The three Prairie provincial canola grower groups jointly called the cuts “alarming,” and called for urgent consultation with research funders to explore the impacts and possible alternatives.

Reynold Bergen, science director of the Beef Cattle Research Council, said that while all knew cuts were coming, they were disappointed “that it appears as though the cuts were made without much consideration of industry priority.”

Keith Currie of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture called cuts a “necessary evil,” but also noted the CFA’s repeated concerns about lack of publicly funded research, while Canadian Wheat Research Coalition (CWRC) chair Jocelyn Velestuk called them “a tremendous loss to Canadian agriculture.”

On Feb. 5, the Manitoba Seed Growers’ Association also criticized the cuts.

“The cuts to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada threaten the foundation of our nation’s food security, rural economies, and environmental resilience,” the association said in a release. “These reductions are not simply numbers on a balance sheet—they are cuts to the programs, research, and partnerships that sustain Canadian consumers, Canadian farmers, Canadian agri-entrepreneurs, Canadian value-added opportunities, and the Canadian communities that depend on them.”

The association went on to argue that “While it is true that private research capacity could pick up some of the vacuum left behind from AAFC cuts, there is concern that they won’t in every case.

“Research on organic production, agronomic pest reactions, forage, minor crops and soil health are not alluring, nor are they likely to appeal to private interests that are accountable to shareholders.”

An AAFC organic and regenerative research program out of Swift Current, Sask., is one of the programs known to have been cut.

Drouin said the devil will be in the details as to how damaging cuts will be to Canada’s agriculture sector, noting that bricks and mortar are the biggest expenses at those sites.

“Are they able to reorganize that research somewhere else without having to lose what research was done in that particular centre?” he said.

The post A bright side to AAFC farm research cuts? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The news came after disease investigations in the Netherlands, according to a Jan. 23 article published on Science.org. Officials found antibodies — evidence of prior infection — in a dairy cow’s milk. Officials thought to test cattle after a dead cat on a farm in the northern province of Friesland was found to have been killed by the H5N1 bird flu virus.

Veterinarians collected blood and milk samples from cattle. They did not find the virus itself, although the antibody finding suggested a recent flu contraction in that animal.

So far, there’s been no evidence cattle from other farms have been infected, the Netherlands agriculture minister said.

WHY IT MATTERS: Dairy cases of bird flu spread rapidly through the U.S. starting in 2024, infecting animals and leveling an economic hit to American dairy farms. Canada has not found any cases in its dairy herd so far.

Canada continues to be spared from dairy bird flu, despite proximity of the U.S. where, at one point in 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration did a survey in which one in five retail milk samples sampled found killed remnants of the virus.

Containment efforts have since gained considerable ground. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has reported no new cattle cases in the last 30 days.

But the recent Dutch infection is a reminder that bovine bird flu isn’t flapping its way into the history books just yet.

Cases haven’t quite cut off in the U.S. — there was one in Wisconsin as recently as December, although summer 2025 saw a distinct slowdown. In total, the U.S. outbreak has spanned 1,084 cases across 19 states since March 2024.

“It was quiet over the summer, which is expected with influenza viruses. This started to change in the fall, again this is typical for influenza viruses,” says Stacey Schultz-Cherry, of the St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., in an email to the Co-operator.

Schultz-Cherry and her fellow investigators are learning more about the virus and how it mutates. The HPAI strains in question — belonging to avian flu clade 2.3.4.4b — appear to differ from other bird flu types in their ability to infect and replicate in respiratory and mammary cells from cows and other species.

“The reasons appear to be a mix of changes in the viruses as well as what happens to the cells during infection,” she says.

“For example, our studies suggest that the bovine strains rapidly kill the respiratory, but not mammary epithelial cells. We are trying to better understand why this is happening.”

The research has split off into several avenues, including how humans are infected and how immune history to other kinds of influenza may protect people if exposed to the new bird flu strains.

Could have been worse

Bovine bird flu’s footprint has been sizable, but it could have been far worse, says University of Guelph veterinary professor Shayan Sharif.

The main reasons it didn’t, Sharif said, is a credit to the U.S. veterinarians and agencies who identified, studied and contained the virus as securely as possible. However, he added, it may have been a miracle it was discovered in the first place. Dairy cattle in the southern U.S. had been getting sick for some time before anyone thought to test for bird flu.

“I don’t know if it was serendipity that they connected clinical science in dairy cows to HPAI, because that would not have been he first thing that would come to anyone’s mind, because what they saw wasn’t anything very specific for a disease,” Sharif noted.

“What they saw was that cows were experiencing lack of appetite, dropping their milk production (and the) milk looked funny.”

Sharif calls the virus “unique” and — strong containment protocols by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) aside — he still wonders why it never slipped across the Canada-U.S. border to Canadian dairy cattle.

Wild birds are a known vector of the disease. Such migratory birds don’t recognize borders and, depending on species, travel back and forth between the U.S. and Canada on a biannual basis.

“It became something that was predominantly present in U.S. flyways and it seems to have been something really specifically in the U.S., because there is no mention of it (infecting dairy cattle) in any other parts of the globe (or) in Canada,” said Sharif — at least until the evidence from the Netherlands was found.

“It wasn’t because we didn’t look for it hard enough. We did actually look for it very carefully, but it was nowhere to be found,” he said.

Key bird flu discoveries

Sharif also commends USDA, APHIS and others involved in the response for quickly identifying risk factors, including possible animal-to-animal transmission vectors such as cow-to-cow, cow-to-calf and cows to other animals, such as barn cats and birds.

To name one example, they learned it could be spread from cow to cow through milking machines and other dairy barn equipment.

“That was, I would say, one of the best sets of studies that were done in the U.S. that led to the discovery that the virus can be spread from cow to cow,” Sharif says.

Transmission from cows to humans was also determined to be a low-level possibility, although it was reported in those exposed to dairy cattle and other livestock.

“It also became clear that humans that are in contact with the virus usually catch the virus through their conjunctiva (pink eye),” explains Sharif.

“Some of them become infected through the respiratory system, but it’s primarily because of the conjunctiva in in their eyes that they become infected.

“So if you have PPE (personal protective equipment) — for example goggles, gloves, coveralls and so on — you could actually protect yourself.”

Another component — one confirmed by the CFIA during the outbreak — was the role of pasteurization in preventing the spread of the virus to human consumers.

”They did a whole series of studies looking at milk and its capacity for harbouring the virus and what can be done in order to reduce the risk of virus transmission through milk such as … through pasteurization,” Sharif notes.

Finally, he commends U.S. and Canadian authorities for taking a risk-based approach to the outbreak.

Canada’s response included tightening the border for U.S. dairy cattle. Livestock fairs and exhibitions were also cancelled in the U.S. and greater scrutiny was placed around animal movement to reduce spread.

“They did it based on risk assessment of what this could pose to both human and also animal populations. So I think overall, it was a job well done, and I think that in Canada, the CFIA has done a really good job to ensure that the virus doesn’t come to Canada,” Sharif says.

The post Researchers stay on trail of bovine bird flu’s origin appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“Just a reminder, CCIA, we are the responsible administrator,” general manager Ashley Scott said during the Saskatchewan Beef Industry Conference.

“CFIA, they are the regulator and the enforcer.”

A responsible administrator is defined as “someone responsible for delivering a traceability program defined by federal regulations.”

These federal regulations are set by the Canada Food Inspection Agency, responsible for safeguarding food safety. It also sets the objectives of the National Livestock Identification and Traceability program.

“The Livestock Identification Traceability program provides accurate and up-to-date livestock identity, movement and location information to mitigate the impact of disease outbreaks and food safety concerns and natural disasters,” Scott said.

The traceability regulatory changes introduced in Canada Gazette I were working toward Canada Gazette II, which includes the proposed changes that the cattle industry was against.

The changes, which face opposition by some in the cattle industry, include:

• Identification and registration of premises where livestock are kept or collected.
• Identification of livestock.
• Domestic movement reporting of livestock.

The changes align with the Cattle Implementation Plan developed by the Canadian beef industry in 2016.

The biggest adjustments for producers include:

• Obtain or keep current a premises identification number (PID) from a provincial government.
• Include a PID when purchasing CCIA approved tags.
• Report information related to identification of cattle and their movement.
• Report move-ins within seven days.

“The proposed regulations do contain a permission that if a producer does not have a PID (premises identification) … that they can report all the necessary PID associated information, such as the legal land description, contact info, etc., when movements of herd (occur) or tags are purchased,” Scott said.

In Saskatchewan, PIDs have been required by the provincial government since 2017, and origin and destination PIDs must be included on livestock manifests as of 2025.

The CCIA and the Saskatchewan Cattle Association developed a cheat sheet for understanding the incoming regulations that was shared during the SCA’s recent annual general meeting.

According to that document, reporting requirements vary for producers, transporters, feedlots and auction marts, but most of the onus is on producers.

They must report move-ins to their sites, community pastures, vet clinics, cattle shows and exhibitions, although the requirements of each move-in varies slightly.

For yard move-ins, producers would be required to report the PID of the departure and arrival sites, the date and time of cattle departure and arrival, individual tag numbers of arriving cattle and the license plate number, including province, territory or state of the truck that delivered the animals.

It’s the same for community pastures, except instead of individual tag numbers, producers must report the number of head being moved. Reports of both departure and return are required.

A few more steps are required for veterinary clinics and cattle shows, including the date and time when the cattle left the departure site and when they returned and time of arrival to the clinic or show, and when they leave.

Auction marts are required to report the move-in, but the transporter or producer is required to provide information such as departure PID, date and time the cattle departed and license plate information.

Auction marts will not need to report individual tag numbers, but feedlots will.

Scott didn’t answer any specific questions from the floor and advised producers to ask the SCA to forward their questions to the CFIA or contact the agency directly via email.

“In the CLTS Resource Centre, you will find those step-by-step guides and instructions that will make using the CLTS easier,” Scott said.

She said the CLTS is the easiest way to report movements to the CCIA by using the web portal or mobile app, uploading an Excel file or using web services, which is the best option for software providers and high-volume reporters.

The CLTS also works offline, allowing producers to enter information and save it to upload when they have access to Wi-Fi or cellular data.

A less preferred option, though still accepted, is sending tracking information via mail.

“It wouldn’t be our preference if everybody submitted a paper record,” Scott said.

“We still take them, and when we receive them, we will reach out to that client and we’ll confirm the information. We do enter it in the system on their behalf.”

She said the CCIA has updated the CLTS in an effort to ease reporting and ensure compliance. Certain fields were added, such as arrival date and time, as well as a movement reporting module, both of which are optional right now but will be mandatory when the CFIA regulations take effect.

“The movement record is an alternative reporting option, primarily when the departure site chooses to initiate the process,” Scott said.

“The preexisting movement event in the CLTS is a recommended method and allows the destination site to report movements.”

Producers at the conference voiced concerns that producers don’t know enough about the CLTS and aren’t using it.

Scott assured the audience that the system and its uses would be better explained in the coming year.

She said the focus in 2025 was on educating dealers, while in 2026 the CCIA will concentrate on producers and auction marts.

This will include explanatory videos and training sessions if producers and industry groups are interested in helping organize them.

However, changes to the regulations are still to come, and no one is quite sure what to expect.

“Based on everything being paused right now, we could see further changes,” Scott said.

“The information shared is just what was readily available from CFIA after industry consultation.”

The post CCIA prepares to make traceability transition appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The Agriculture Union represents 4,500 of the approximately 6,400 CFIA workers.

A union press release issued Jan. 28 said 1,370 jobs will be cut due to the federal government’s austerity measures. There were no details yet on where and when the cuts would occur and which operations would be affected. However, Agriculture Union president Milton Dyck said cutting food safety leads to obvious outcomes.

“More people will get sick from preventable food-borne illnesses, more poultry and livestock will die from avian flu and other diseases, and our food production industry will suffer,” he said.

The union said staffing at CFIA has declined three per cent in the last 10 years, compared to the overall 30 per-cent rise in the federal public service.

It noted U.S. president Donald Trump’s administration has also gutted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, putting the quality of imported food in doubt as well.

It also cited a media report saying the CFIA can’t handle multiple emergencies.

Dyck said food recalls rose by 150 per cent in the last decade. The government is putting short-term savings ahead of health, he added.

The CFIA has not yet responded to a request for more information.

Job cuts affect meat, poultry inspection

In a letter to staff obtained by Western Producer, CFIA president Paul MacKinnon said decisions were guided by four principles: protecting front-line inspection capacity and emergency readiness; not reducing positions without reducing work; staying focused on the core mandate of food safety, animal and plant health, science and emergency response; and simplifying the structure for clearer accountability and faster decisions.

A screenshot, provided by the union, of where savings will occur indicates the highest number of jobs affected, at 299, are categorized as “realignment for clear accountability.”

However, 117 jobs related to meat inspection operational efficiencies are impacted and 98 are cut for poultry slaughter inspection modernization.

Forty job cuts represent reduced daily shift inspections in non-export meat plants.

Effective April 1, the agency will also have a new organizational structure.

“The agency will move to a business-line model focused on Food Safety and Science, Animal Health, and Plant Health, supported by a Policy, Trade and Business Enablement Branch,” MacKinnon wrote. “This structure will better align accountability with the risks we manage, and the outcomes Canadians expect from us.”

He also said established employment transition processes will be used, including voluntary departure and selection for retention.

“My commitment is to minimize impacts, proceed with fairness and respect, and offer concrete support to impacted employees,” he said.

The post Canadian Food Inspection Agency hit by job cuts appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Glacier FarmMedia — The Canadian Food Inspection Agency says it will hold off on posting new traceability regulations for now.

The agency issued a statement Jan. 10 after public confusion about whether the amendments to the Health of Animals Regulations, announced in 2023, were actually in force. Some thought they took effect Jan. 1, but they had not yet been introduced in Canada Gazette, Part II, which is a key legislative requirement.

CFIA had expected to publish the regulations, developed along with industry organizations, in the spring. They would have included required premises identification numbers to purchase ID tags, movement reporting when cattle leave their home operations and reporting the arrival of cattle within seven days.

Producers said these regulations would be costly and onerous.

Last week, provincial and national beef organizations issued statements about the issue, noting the regulations weren’t in place but also that producers had concerns. Some asked for CFIA to postpone the introduction until these could be addressed.

On the weekend, CFIA said it was aware of the concerns.

“These amendments are not currently in place and have not been finalized,” it said.

“The CFIA has consulted with industry, associations and governments regarding the proposed amendments and will continue to do so. The CFIA will pause any publication of the regulations until the proposed changes are more widely understood and concerns are heard and taken into consideration.”

Some producers on social media suggested CFIA had “snuck” in the regulations late last year as a way to exert control over them. But the draft regulations were published in Part 1 of the Canada Gazette in 2023 and a 90-day comment period followed. The agency published a What We Heard report in 2024 to summarize what it had heard.

The proposed changes will be phased in once they are published.

The post Cattle traceability regulations on hold, for now appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

This is the last of its informal seed modernization consultations before it publishes draft amendments to seed regulations the agency said in a news release. The process of modernizing Canada’s seed regulations has been ongoing since 2020 — since 2019 for the potato sector.

Up for feedback are a series of proposed changes to seed potatoes and Part 2 and 3 of the Seeds regulation. The proposals fit into three categories:

• Reduce red tape
• Support the well-being of the industry
• Protect farmers, consumers, markets and the environment

Feedback on the costs and benefits of the proposed policy decisions is also welcome, the CFIA said.

The online consultations are open to any interested parties, including industry members and the general public. They close Feb. 5.

The agency said it will report results of the consultation early in 2026. It will then seek targeted input from stakeholders before publishing draft regulatory amendments in the Canada Gazette.

The post CFIA looks for feedback on proposed seed potato rule changes appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.