On-Farm Food Safety Programs In Ontario: Background Paper

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Changing On-Farm Food Safety Practices
3. The Evolution of On-Farm Food Safety Programs
4. The Benefits of On-Farm Food Safety Systems
5. The Foundation of On-Farm Food Safety Programs
6. National Response to On-Farm Food Safety Issues
7. Ontario's Involvement in On-Farm Food Safety Programs
8. Recognition Options for On-Farm Food Safety Programs in Ontario
9. Implementation Options for On-Farm Food Safety in Ontario
10. Food Safety Standards
11. Traceability and Tracking
12. Brands and Symbols of Assurance
13. Meeting Changing Demands - On-Farm Possibilities

Introduction

Ontario has an excellent food safety track record. This, in part, reflects the close working relationship between government and industry. In recent years, global trade, new food production and processing practices, emerging food-borne pathogens, and changing eating habits and demographics have contributed to a higher awareness of, and increased concern about, food-borne illness.

In a recent survey of Canadian consumers, the majority of those polled identified food safety as a significant concern. As a result, consumer trust in the safety of their food is vital. A breach of this trust can have far-reaching and long-lasting consequences - as demonstrated in the U.K. in the aftermath of BSE (Mad Cow Disease) detection and the subsequent proof of its link to a fatal human disease.

The responsibility for safe food is shared by government and stakeholders all along the agri-food continuum. Traditionally, the focus for identifying food safety hazards has been through inspection and end-product testing at the processing and retail levels. Increasingly, prevention has been the focus. Complementary approaches are now being established to enhance traditional food inspection and testing all along the food chain, including the farm level. Such systems use preventative, risk management tools recognized around the world as contributing to the decrease of food-borne illness.

Food-borne safety concerns are identified as physical (i.e. splinters, broken needles), chemical (i.e. toxins, residues from drugs, pesticides), or biological (i.e. pathogenic organisms, allergens) hazards that could pose a significant risk to human health.

An effective and comprehensive approach to food safety involves a "multiple hurdle" approach. This means that risk prevention, detection and control measures must be in place at every step of the agri-food continuum to help to ensure food safety risks are minimized. This approach is already used within abattoirs where several key steps are used to remove any bacteria that might be adhering to a carcass surface. While zero risk is never possible, the "multiple hurdle" approach ensures backup systems are in place in case one system fails or is less than effective.

Ontario ’s goal is to continually, and proactively, strengthen the food safety system by updating standards and programs and by using new scientific knowledge and technologies to minimize food safety risks. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) is meeting with stakeholders to:

• discuss the implementation of industry-led, voluntary, on-farm food safety programs (OFFSP);
• examine opportunities and challenges facing stakeholders with regards to such programs, and;
• receive input on what role the Ontario government can and should play to help foster the efficient and effective adoption of coordinated, sustainable on-farm food safety programs in Ontario.

This discussion paper provides background information regarding on-farm food safety programs, and includes questions for stakeholders on areas that need to be explored further. Organizations are encouraged to distribute this paper to their Board of Directors and senior staff for comment.

| Top of Page |

Changing On-Farm Food Safety Practices

There are many ways to encourage and support the adoption of new technologies and production practices. Traditionally, change has taken place through a progressive process involving increased awareness, trial and evaluation leading to the adoption of new and innovative practices. In many instances, industry takes the lead in addressing emerging issues and new initiatives. In some cases, government regulation can be used to support an industry-led voluntary program. In other cases, a change in practice is so critical that it needs to be mandated by government regulation. The final initiative is often a blend of both regulatory and voluntary programs that support the adoption of new practices and technologies.

Factors that will influence the extent and rate of adoption of a new technology or practice include:

• the nature of the issue;
• the reason change is required;
• the desired rate and level of adoption, and;
• the challenges and opportunities change present.

The Evolution of On-Farm Food Safety Programs

Over the years, producers, commodity organizations, the agri-food industry and governments have been involved in a variety of on-farm initiatives that address food safety issues. In Ontario, education programs such as those focusing on pesticide use and livestock medicines have been successful in modifying on-farm practices and have resulted in food safety improvements. More recently, in response to increased marketplace demands, industry-led on-farm food safety programs have been, or are in the process of being, developed to minimize food safety hazards from entering the food chain. Some supply-managed commodities, such as broiler chickens, have announced intentions to make participation in national on-farm food safety programs a mandatory condition of licensing. In other, commodities, marketplace demands are making participation in on-farm programs virtually a mandatory, although non-regulated, requirement for continued production.

Industries must assess their needs for today and the future to determine where to best position themselves with regards to the development and implementation of on-farm food safety programs. Each of the stages illustrated on the chart below has proven effective in enhancing change. Factors such as market acceptance, stakeholder readiness and desired need for government oversight will influence decisions.

It is possible that producers of a specific commodity could be positioned all along the continuum depending on their market demands.

Figure 1. Change Continuum: Positioning On-Farm Food Safety Programs.

Text Equivalent

| Top of Page |

The Benefits of On-Farm Food Safety Systems

• Improved agri-food safety;
• Maintained or enhanced market access;
• Increased consumer confidence, and;
• Decreased liability through demonstrated due diligence.

Many on-farm food safety programs also involve quality assurance initiatives, which can lead to improved product quality and/or consistency. Side benefits from the implementation of on-farm food safety and quality programs, while largely unquantified, include increased production and management efficiencies. It has been well substantiated that added vigilance, examination of current practices and record keeping - all key elements of on-farm food safety programs - lead to improvements in efficiency as well as the safety of products. In fact, some sectors that have already implemented preventative on-farm food safety programs have demonstrated that the benefits realized can exceed the costs.

The Foundation of On-Farm Food Safety Programs

Many on-farm food safety programs are based on an internationally recognized system of identifying and addressing hazards - the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system. HACCP and HACCP-based systems are meant to complement and build on traditional methods of food safety assurances such as good production practices and inspection programs.

HACCP provides a science based and preventative approach to food safety. The system is endorsed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), an international organization which sets recognized standards for food safety.

HACCP programs identify where hazards may occur in food production or processing, and allow measures to be put into place to prevent or control them. Through monitoring of these crucial areas - or critical control points - the risk of introducing food-borne hazards is minimized. The seven principles of HACCP are:

1. Conduct a hazard analysis of the process
2. Determine the critical control points (CCPs) in the process
3. Establish critical limits for each CCP
4. Establish a monitoring system for each CCP
5. Establish corrective actions for process deviations
6. Establish record keeping
7. Establish verification procedures

| Top of Page |

National Response to On-Farm Food Safety Issues

Since 1994, federal and provincial governments in Canada have been working together through the Canadian Food Inspection System Implementation Group (CFISIG) to create harmonized national food safety standards and a common legislative base. The work of this group has led to such initiatives as national codes for dairy, horticulture and meat, which provide inspection standards that are consistent across all Canadian jurisdictions.

In response to increasing demands for food safety across the agri-food continuum, commodity groups, with assistance from governments, have begun to develop voluntary on-farm food safety initiatives. At the international level, Canada has demonstrated considerable leadership in the development of these programs.

In 1997, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced Canadian Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) funding to support the Canadian On-Farm Food Safety (COFFS) Program. The COFFS program provides matching funds for national commodity groups to identify their specific needs and develop national on-farm food safety programs, based on the HACCP system.

The COFFS program has four phases for the development of national commodity-specific programs:

To date, seventeen national commodity groups are participating in the COFFS program. The commodity groups are currently at these stages:

In 1998, the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Agri-Food Inspection Committee (FPTAFIC) began work on protocols to support on-farm food safety programs. A subcommittee was formed to work closely with industry to develop and implement voluntary, on-farm food safety programs.

The mandate of the on-farm subcommittee is to:

• develop science based national on-farm food safety standards;
• develop and implement a national recognition process;
• define roles and responsibilities of provincial and federal governments in the technical review and program recognition processes, and;
• ensure equivalency of programs.

| Top of Page |

Ontario's Involvement in On-Farm Food Safety Programs

On December 5, 2001 the Ontario government passed the Food Safety and Quality Act, 2001. This Act consolidates the food safety and quality components of six existing statutes, and provides a framework to modernize Ontario’s food safety system. This enabling legislation supports a science- and risk-based approach for safe food production and provides a mechanism for addressing food safety issues along the agri-food continuum. If necessary, regulatory support of, or mandatory involvement in, on-farm food safety programs or initiatives could be provided by developing regulations under this Act.

The current approach to on-farm food safety in Ontario is largely based on education, awareness and voluntary adoption of new technologies and practices. OMAF is working with provincial and national commodity groups to provide:

• training, education and awareness of on-farm food safety issues, initiatives and programs to stakeholders, and;
• technical expertise for on-farm food safety guidelines and standards.

Through the Federal/Provincial/Territorial process, OMAF is also working with the other provinces, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA), and national commodity associations in the technical review of national on-farm food safety programs.

Issue 1: Recognition Options for On-Farm Food Safety Programs in Ontario

Recognition refers to formal acknowledgment that an on-farm food safety program meets or exceeds pre-determined standards for food safety. Recognition can lend credibility to such programs, and may be required for trade purposes. Traditionally, recognition is granted by a government, or an internationally recognized agency such as the Standards Council of Canada (SCC).

Some voluntary, industry-led programs - such as the Ontario Maple Syrup producers’ Seal of Quality - have been implemented without a formal recognition process. However, in many cases, formal program recognition is viewed as a needed driver to encourage adoption.

1.1 Meeting Producer and Consumer Needs

There are two key drivers that will determine how quickly and extensively on-farm food safety programs will be adopted:

1. the degree of food safety risk of the product produced, and;
2. marketplace demands.

As outlined earlier, changing on-farm food safety practices can be supported and encouraged through various mechanisms ranging from awareness and knowledge through to full regulation. There are several options or combined approaches that can be used to best support program development and implementation to meet specific needs or market demands.

An accurate assessment of marketplace demands, both today and in the future, is a critical step for commodities to take to best position and develop voluntary on-farm food safety initiatives. In addition, the scientific integrity of a program needs to be assessed, the degree of formal recognition required should be determined, and a plan developed for program implementation and continuous improvement.

For those commodities supplying products for the international market, international acceptance of on-farm food safety programs is critical. Currently, Codex has not established specific international standards or guidelines for HACCP-based on-farm food safety programs, although this is an active area of work. Of all the programs developed to date the Safe Quality Food (SQF) program, originally developed in Australia, is the most widespread in adoption and international acceptance.

SQF has two separate programs. SQF 1000 is a HACCP-based program that uses a generic model (applies to all farms producing that particular commodity) for the production of safe, quality-assured food. The SQF 2000 program is a true HACCP program that is specifically designed for an individual farm. The SQF programs use a widely recognized and patent-protected logo, which provides a visible symbol of safety and quality. SQF certified farms are validated by an independent and internationally accredited audit agency.

Commodity groups need to decide where their programs need to be positioned along the recognition continuum, or if formal recognition is even required. In addition, commodity groups need to assess the best approach to encourage adoption by their members; an approach which might conceivably involve a staged progression over time towards formal, or increasing levels of, recognition.

1.2 National On-Farm Food Safety Program Recognition Model

CFIA’s mandate is limited to the recognition of national programs. In order for a national on-farm food safety program to be recognized by the CFIA, it must go through a seven-step recognition process. National recognition will be granted for a single program within each commodity. The goal of the national recognition process is to encourage the development and implementation of a single, comprehensive program for each commodity that can apply equally to all production units across the country and can be promoted and accepted in the international marketplace. Additionally, nationally developed and recognized programs help to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers.

CFIA will recognize programs through contractual arrangements with national commodity organizations and has committed to ensuring national recognition protocols adhere to developing international standards established by Codex.

Step 1: Technical Review

Led by CFIA but with provincial involvement, this step confirms the technical soundness of the program and recommends changes required before proceeding through the recognition process.

Step 2: Management Structure

Industry group completes the description of the management structure, roles and responsibilities and frequency of functions such as validations, audits and program updates.

Step 3: Auditable Format

The content of the program is finalized in an auditable format that clearly specifies the requirements for the both the participants and national organization.

Step 4: Program Implementation

On-farm implementation - often initiated through a pilot project.

Step 5: Third Party Audit

The national organization identifies and contracts with credible third party services for a full systems audit of the implemented program.

Step 6: Full System Audit

According to internationally recognized audit principles (e.g. International Organization for Standardization (ISO)), CFIA undertakes a full system audit of the implemented national program. Industry is required to follow up on any corrective actions identified in order to achieve full program recognition.

Step 7: Program Recognition by CFIA

Based on a review and evaluation of the program management and third party audit reports, CFIA will grant recognition to those programs that have provided evidence of a consistent and effective national program meeting all stated program objectives.

To date, 17 national commodity organizations are at varying stages of developing and implementing commodity specific, HACCP-based, national on-farm food safety and quality programs. CFIA will officially recognize those voluntary, industry led programs that have successfully completed the seven-step recognition process.

In 2002, the Chicken Farmers of Canada On-Farm Food Safety Program was the first to begin the CFIA-led recognition process.

| Top of Page |

1.3 Implementation of National On-Farm Food Safety Programs

Models for program implementation are developed by each commodity organization. In some cases, programs will be administered and implemented from a central national agency. In many cases, provincial commodity groups such as Ontario Pork and Ontario Cattlemen’s Association are directly and actively involved with implementation of a national program at the provincial level. To date, program implementation functions have included both producer and validator training and the development and maintenance of a certified producer database.

1.4 Recognition of Provincial On-Farm Food Safety Programs

Through the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Committee process, each province has endorsed the development and implementation of a single, nationally recognized on-farm food safety program, where appropriate. However, within a province there may be a need to recognize programs that meet or exceed national standards. Additionally, there may be marketplace requirements for program recognition for commodities and food products sold only within provincial borders. In Ontario, a similar situation already exists for federally and provincially inspected abattoirs, where both systems are in place to meet identified, but differing, markets.

An example of a provincially developed program that will not be eligible for national recognition is the Ontario Corn Fed Beef program. This program, developed outside of the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association’s "Quality Starts Here" program, and is not eligible for national recognition.

The Ontario Certified Veal program also does not meet current requirements for national recognition. The Ontario Veal Association must determine where to position this highly successful initiative on the recognition continuum, both for today and the future. To be eligible for national program recognition, the program must satisfy all criteria to prove it is national in scope and can apply equally to veal farms all across Canada.

1.5 Staged Recognition

A commodity organization may wish to progressively develop programs, for example, from industry-recognized to government or international recognition. Any progression needs to reflect marketplace demands, adequate management of identified food safety risks, and producer acceptance. Some industries may choose to make participation in recognized on-farm food safety programs a condition of licensing.

1.6 OMAF's Role in Program Recognition

Given the wide variety of on-farm food safety programs available, the role OMAF could play in program recognition requires further analysis and discussion. The benefits of OMAF involvement in program recognition could include:

• faster and more extensive adoption of on-farm food safety programs;
• improved ability to meet local, regional and provincial marketplace demands;
• opportunity for Ontario programs to exceed nationally developed standards, and;
• increased consumer confidence.

1.6.1 Potential OMAF Role: Recognition of national programs

1. have no involvement.
2. Participate in the technical review of the program (current status).
3. participate in the technical review and have program recognition through CFIA without provincial involvement (through contracting auditing with a third party, independent and accredited agency).
4. participate in the technical review and have OMAF act as the recognition agency through an arrangement with CFIA to conduct or contract third party audits for Ontario farms participating in the national program.

1.6.2 Potential OMAF Role: Recognition of provincial programs

OMAF could:

• have no involvement, eliminating the option for government recognition of provincial programs ineligible for national recognition.
• recognize provincial programs by (a) conducting the audits, or (b) contracting with a third party to conduct the audits and providing the overall program oversight.
  

1.6.3 Potential OMAF Role: Recognition through non-government agencies

Program recognition can be provided by a non-government agency such as the Standards Council of Canada or SQF. OMAF would not be involved in this type of recognition protocol. Certified Organic is an example of a program accredited by the Standards Council of Canada.

| Top of Page |

Issue 2: Implementation Options for On-Farm Food Safety in Ontario

2.1 Implementation: Opportunities for Ontario

• training and education;
• administration, data collection and producer certification;
• third party auditing;
• validation and certification, and;
• information sharing, evaluation and continuous improvement.

2.1.1 Training and Education

Awareness, education and training are critical to successfully introducing new practices and technologies. Many farms produce more than one commodity and will need to be involved and certified through several on-farm food safety programs. A coordinated approach to education and training programs for producers, validators and auditors is one way to support consistency between programs. Program efficiencies could also result from having on-farm validators and audit organizations trained in several programs. On-farm educators could also help producers understand and achieve program compliance before arranging for a costly on-farm validation.

2.1.2 Administration, Data Collection and Producer Certification

For each commodity to administer their on-farm food safety program and maintain a database of certified producers may present barriers to implementation. Efficiencies could be gained from pooling some or all of the administration, data collection and certification functions across commodities.

2.1.3 Third Party Auditors

Third party auditors assess adherence to standards and the effectiveness of the on-farm validators and the validation process. It may be possible to achieve efficiencies by contracting with a single organization to perform the audit functions for all on-farm food safety programs implemented within the province.

2.1.4 Validation and Certification

Validators assess the adherence of individual producers to program requirements compliance prior to certification. In the event of non-compliance, the validator would issue corrective action requests that need to be met to gain or retain certification. Work is still being done to minimize the potential for fraud and to define de-certification requirements for national on-farm programs.

2.1.5 Information Sharing, Evaluation and Continuous Improvement

Oversight, involving ongoing program monitoring and evaluation to ensure the implemented programs effectively meet all required standards and objectives, is a necessary component to ensure program integrity, credibility and continuous improvement. Credibility is enhanced when oversight is provided by an independent third party with no real or perceived conflict of interest. Information sharing is needed to monitor and evaluate the success of program implementation and to ensure continuous improvement. Analysis of information collected from on-farm validations can help to identify trends, assess scientific standards for their ability to effectively control or eliminate hazards and identify research opportunities. To date, processes and mechanisms for national on-farm food safety program evaluation and continuous improvement have not been sufficiently defined. Ontario could provide leadership in this critical area.

| Top of Page |

2.2 Implementation Models in Other Provinces

In Quebec, the CFIA will provide the technical recognition (Step 1) for national programs, and the agriculture ministry (Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pechêries et de l’Alimentation, MAPAQ) will verify implementation. The Bureau Normalization du Quebec (BNQ) is the accredited certification agency which will provide on-farm validation and third party audit services. Prior to validation, veterinarians will provide expert on-farm assistance to ensure understanding of, and compliance with, the program requirements. MAPAQ will provide government oversight by auditing the BNQ to ensure adherence to standards. MAPAQ will grant producer certification and may set provincial standards higher than national standards.

In Manitoba, CFIA will provide recognition of the national on-farm food safety programs. Through a Memorandum of Understanding with CFIA, Manitoba Agriculture and Food (MAF) will provide oversight of the third party auditors. MAF inspectors will act as on-farm validators. Manitoba Agriculture and Food’s role in the implementation of national on-farm food safety programs is laid out in their legislation.

A single provincial administrative body will administer and deliver the programs within the province on behalf of all participating commodities. The Manitoba government can also recognize programs that are not eligible for national recognition. Implementation and administration of national programs will include both a central organization and an individual provincial commodity organization approach.

2.3 A Staged Approach

Commodity organizations may wish to consider a staged approach to program implementation and/or recognition. This approach would enable commodities to respond to the changing needs of the marketplace, maturation of programs over time, practicality, or readiness of their members to adopt complex and comprehensive HACCP-based programs. Several options of "staging" are possible, some of which are described below:

2.3.1 Staged Implementation

Staging implementation at the farm level could take several approaches. One approach might be to introduce "single hazard control" programs such as the Absence of Prohibited Materials and Violative Residues program, which bans the feeding of ruminant by-products back to ruminants to control the risk of BSE. Over time, different single hazard control programs can be put together into one broader food safety program.

Another approach is to break down a "multiple hazard" program, such as the HACCP-based on-farm food safety programs, into distinct phases. In other sectors where HACCP has been adopted, a staged implementation model has been followed. This approach is encouraged by Codex.

Level 1: Regulatory Compliance

Producers need to demonstrate compliance with all regulatory food safety requirements (federal and provincial). This may involve regulatory requirements that address hazards such as BSE or multiple hazards such as the mixing the of medicated feeds.

Level 2: Prerequisite Programs

Producers demonstrate compliance with all regulations and with industry-developed or recommended Good Production Practices. This is regarded as a "pre-requisite" step needed before committing to a full HACCP-based program. For example, livestock farms may need to demonstrate good sanitation, disinfection an biosecurity practices as part of a the prerequisite phase. Other sectors have shown that this phase is critical to the successful implementation of a full HACCP plan- without good basic production practices such as sanitation and disinfection, a HACCP plan will not be effective.

Level 3: HACCP-based

• met all regulatory requirements;
• participated in industry-developed prerequisite programs, and;
• successfully implemented their commodity specific HACCP-based on-farm food safety program.

The HACCP-based plan includes specific requirements for the monitoring of critical control points and record keeping.

Within a single sector, it may be possible and practical to permit producers to self-identify their own level of involvement depending upon their unique market demands (for example, be certified at Level 1, 2 or 3).

The national programs currently in development utilize a single-phase approach to program implementation and include all requirements as outlined above in Level 1, 2 and 3.

Issue 3: Food Safety Standards

A preventative approach to food safety requires each segment of the agri-food chain, including farms, to identify and minimize food safety risks, and adopt good production practices, record keeping and monitoring of critical control points to contribute to the overall food safety system. Most of the current on-farm food safety programs strive to balance food safety, what is practical to implement on farm, and what meets current and projected market demands.

Canada’s national on-farm food safety standards are still in development. For trade purposes, Canada will be seeking equivalence or harmonization with the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) on-farm food safety standards. Equivalent standards recognize and accept that different food safety systems are capable of meeting the same objectives. Harmonization involves identical standards; in this case, those of Codex.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) was formed in 1962 by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. It is an intergovernmental organization mandated to safeguard the health of consumers, enhance fair international trade practices, co-ordinate work on international food standards, and manage the compilation and updating of food safety standards. Currently, Codex has 165 member countries, including Canada.

Codex is the world's authoritative reference on food standards, and is utilized by national food inspection systems, health authorities, the World Trade Organization (WTO), the food industry, scientists and consumer advocates when examining food safety systems.

3.1 Technical and Program Standards

Technical standards can exist in many forms including:

• industry (market driven);
• government, and;
• verifiable (science based).

In addition, program standards exist for program implementation, for example, the training and certification of validators, the qualifications of a 3^rd party audit organization and the frequency of validations and audits.

Market driven standards are most appropriate for areas that are not legislated or required as a component for program recognition. They may vary widely and may not be internationally recognized. For producers who supply product to more than one market, complications and extra costs may arise without a single, agreed upon set of recognized standards.

Some countries that have not invested in the development of national technical program standards have seen a rapid growth in market-specific programs, such as those specific to an individual processor, retailer or export market. Producers in these countries may be faced with requirements to meet several, possibly conflicting, sets of standards with potentially costly consequences.

Food safety standards need to evolve to be responsive to changes in food safety issues, scientific developments and market demands.

| Top of Page |

Issue 4: Traceability and Tracking

Traceability can exist in many forms. The simplest tracing system involves the marking and recording of farm products in such a manner as to be able to identify and track their movement from their point of origin (i.e. farm) up to and including the first post-harvest destination (e.g. processor). Identification in such a system is usually specific to an individual animal or load of grain. In other cases, identification of the farm, field or flock of origin provides sufficient information and is less costly to implement.

A comprehensive traceability system continues to identify and track the food product through every additional step in the food chain - from field to fork, and from fork to field. In Germany, this comprehensive traceability system is being implemented through bar code identification of animals and products throughout the entire agri-food continuum.

A tracking system involves the collection of information obtained through traceability programs. This data is then available for analysis and decision making.

4.1 Why are traceability and tracking systems important?

Traceability and tracking programs provide the means for an effective and rapid response to an identified food-borne hazard or a plant or animal disease. As a result, the impact on human health, market access, producer liability and financial loss may be minimized. Traceability programs also allow for effective recovery and recall in non-emergency situations. A traceability and tracking system can help level the playing field by allowing for identification of non-compliant producers, and reduces the potential for fraud. A fully implemented traceability system can help to maintain, and potentially open up, new market opportunities.

Traceability is not just associated with product safety. It can provide an effective means for information sharing on parameters such as quality and grade, and can facilitate decisions at the farm level. The "Closing the Loop" project initiated by Ontario Swine Improvement is an example of a traceability and tracking initiative linking information on production, product quality and food safety from processing through production.

Traceability and tracking is integral to the concept of regionalization which permits certain regions to continue marketing products/livestock even in the event of a widespread outbreak.

Some brand name food "giants" are demanding their suppliers have complete traceability programs for their products. This trend, which places responsibility for safe food production on each link in the food chain, is expected to continue to develop.

4.2 National Identification and Tracking Programs

One example of a national identification program is the National Cattle Identification Program, which requires that all cattle be identified with special ear tags before leaving their farm of origin. When the animal is slaughtered or collected by a deadstock operator, the ear tag and its associated information is forwarded to a centralized agency where a national database is maintained. In the event of an animal disease outbreak or food safety recall, the CFIA has access to the database to facilitate traceback and risk management.

In Canada, the National Cattle ID program does not record animal movements, but the federal system for farmed deer and elk involves both individual animal identification and animal movement permits. In many parts of the UK and the E.U., animal identification and passport systems are used to trace individual animals as well as their movements. Some systems in place around the world are highly automated, making extensive use of information technology systems, while others require extensive manual recording and paperwork.

In New Zealand, an aggressive individual animal identification and traceability program uses DNA testing. Evolving technologies, such as retinal scanning, may overtake physical identification systems such as ear tags.

4.3 Provincial Identification Programs

In Ontario, the BBQ pig identification and certification program is an example of a traceability system. The program was implemented in 2000 to ensure residue-free weaner and suckling pigs. OMAF maintains a database of the performance record of each BBQ pig producer, and adjusts the frequency of residue testing accordingly.

In Quebec, an independent agency, Agri-tracabilite Quebec, collects information on cattle prior to forwarding the information to the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency. The Quebec data collection model is designed to provide additional information to producers and retailers beyond that required for the National Cattle Identification Program (i.e. grade and marbling information, pathological conditions). In the event of a food-borne illness or outbreak, Quebec could quickly access information critical to an effective and rapid emergency response. The agency plans to track identification and data for other livestock and produce commodities in the future.

By establishing identity preservation programs for some varieties of soybeans, Ontario producers have been able to maintain and gain access to foreign markets. These identity preservation programs ensure that the soybeans are not mixed with other beans and that they can be tracked from the farm through the distribution system. Some U.S. companies are starting to request that suppliers be able to track produce back to the farm of origin.

| Top of Page |

Issue 5: Branding and Symbols of Assurance

Brands, or symbols of assurance, are recognized marks or symbols that signify a product has met certain specified criteria. These symbols can help establish greater market access, customer confidence, preference and loyalty. Consumers traditionally equate brands with product consistency and quality.

Increasingly, symbols of assurance are being used to certify adherence to specific production practices. Certified Angus and Certified Organic Produce are examples of products that supply specific production practice guarantees to consumers. More and more, products bear several symbols - indicating adherence to more than one assurance program and/or inspection standard.

5.1 Brands and Symbols of Assurance in Ontario

Corn-fed beef and Ontario Certified veal are two examples of provincially developed programs that provide certain assurances about production and processing standards and practices.

Issue 6: Meeting Changing Demands- On-Farm Possibilities for the Future

Interest appears to be growing in having brand programs that provide assurances of food safety, environmental protection and/or animal welfare. In Europe the agri-food sector has responded to consumer demands by developing and implementing identification programs which brand products that meet not only food safety standards, but also animal welfare and environmental standards. Within Canada, a fledgling movement largely centred in Western Canada, is introducing the Freedom Food type of program which provides assurances of compliance with specified standards for animal care and housing.

While there are a multitude of such initiatives being developed and implemented around the world, preliminary analysis suggests that such programs must be credible, transparent and involve an independent, third party audit system to gain long-term acceptance in the marketplace.

| Top of Page |