Canada – CFIA recognises a role for private standards within the regulatory framework

flag-of-canada

This interesting policy, released by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), has to be considered probably a “best practice” and I am sure in future we will see more and more similar public-private cooperation models.

Since the international private standards are so widely used in the food chain, and since they set higher standards then public regulations, why don’t we start to consider them as an helpful tool to prioritize official controls and optimise a risk based approach to food safety? Looking to the current globalisation and to the lack of resources that affect most of the competent authorities, it seems quite a reasonable option. This will be also an incentive to companies and private standard’s owners to ensure that their schemes are consistently implemented and auditing systems are effective. The application of a  recognised standard will result in less burdens and controls from the public competent authorities on the food business operator.

Here below some paragraphs from CFIA policy, that comes into effect on September 3rd, 2015.

Policy Statement

In determining the level of risk associated with a regulated party or their establishment, the CFIA may assess the requirements of a private certification scheme used by the regulated party against food safety regulatory requirements and factor the assessment results into its risk-based planning and prioritization.

It should be noted that there is no requirement by virtue of this policy for a regulated party to become certified to any private certification scheme nor does this negate regulatory oversight.

Objectives

  1. Support an understanding of voluntary, industry-adapted private certification schemes, and the role such private certification schemes may play in achieving compliance with CFIA food safety regulatory requirements;
  2. Provide direction on how industry’s investment in an appropriate private certification schemes will be considered within the CFIA risk-based regulatory framework; and
  3. Provide a foundation to inform future discussions on broader consideration of private certification schemes within the CFIA regulatory framework.

This policy aligns with the direction and requirements provided in the CFIA Program Policy Management Framework for the management of CFIA program policies.

Scope

As private certification has a much wider market penetration in food safety, and that the CFIA food safety program is more advanced in its modernization efforts, while initially this policy will apply to program design and delivery of CFIA‘s risk-based oversight of domestic and imported food, as it relates to food safety, the CFIA is committed to expanding the scope to other aspects (e.g. labelling) and the plant and animal health programs as applicable.

The CFIA will continue to explore other approaches to leveraging industry’s use of private certification schemes in support of public policy objectives.

Background

Private certification schemes are voluntary systems that set process and product requirements as well as the means of demonstrating conformity with these requirements. Companies implement private certification schemes to manage risk, facilitate effective management of products along the supply chain and differentiate products. In recognition of the importance of public endorsement by regulatory bodies, some private certification schemes have been developed with government support and regulatory oversight.

Private certification schemes are a prominent part of the world food supply system and are increasingly being used by industry as a means of achieving food safety and other outcomes. Demand for food safety private certification schemes comes from both the food industry and consumers.

There is a wide range of private certification schemes and many suppliers are facing requirements for multiple audits and certifications. As a result, international efforts are underway to harmonize private certification scheme requirements in order to help reduce costs and improve predictability in market requirements. With respect to food safety, there are global benchmarking initiatives such as the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) that provide a platform for collaboration between some of the world’s leading food safety experts from industry, international organizations, academia and government on global benchmarking of private certification schemes.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is transforming how it delivers its food safety programs and activities to better meet the needs of today’s consumer and industry. The CFIA recognizes that private certification schemes may play an important role in helping industry achieve food safety regulatory objectives, provided they can be assessed as being effective, credible and aligned with public policy objectives.

Private certification has been identified as one of several factors that CFIA will consider in its modernized approach to risk-based oversight. While the CFIA has always incorporated risk into its approach to food safety oversight, a modernized approach will enable improved risk-management by using private certification data to inform CFIA risk-based planning and prioritization within the regulatory framework, and as a resulting consequence, more targeted compliance verification.

Private certification is not intended to replace regulatory enforcement authorities; however, it may complement food safety regulatory oversight. The CFIA will continue to verify compliance of regulated parties; the type, frequency, and intensity of the CFIA‘s oversight activities will be proportional to the risks that need to be managed.

Changing Global Economy

The ways in which food, animals and plants are produced and marketed have changed dramatically. The complexity of the production and distribution landscape has increased, driven by changes in methods of production and processing and increases in international trade. As a result, the challenges of carrying out regulatory oversight are multiplying. Given the growing importance and prevalence of private certification systems, it is important and timely to understand the challenges and opportunities that they present to the CFIA.

Fixed Resource Base

Compounding the inherent complexities associated with a changing global economy, the CFIA is mandated to manage multiple demands and risks (e.g., safety, consumer protection, market access) across multiple sectors (i.e., food, plant, animal). Given that it operates within a fixed resource base, the Agency must optimize its resources by investing in priority areas (e.g. highest risk) and in areas that produce the most significant return (e.g. reduced risk) on investment of effort/resources.

Risk-Based Approach

With pressures from increased globalization and advances in science and technology, the CFIA is modernizing its approach to inspection to maintain a robust approach to human, animal and plant health and consumer protection. The move towards a more preventative and systems-based approach under the Integrated Agency Inspection Model (IAIM) enables both the CFIA and regulated parties to more readily adapt to emerging risks and global and scientific trends.

Furthermore, the CFIA is developing a systematic, transparent and documented method of comparing risks within and across its business lines in order to align strategies, priorities and resources accordingly. This will be accomplished through the development of the CFIA Integrated Risk Management (IRM) Framework.

Expanding Authorities in Food

Currently, the CFIA can license register establishments for activities that relate to some food commodities The new Safe Food for Canadians Act includes provisions that will enable the CFIA to use licensing and registration for all food commodities. In particular, the current non-federally registered sector is a large and diverse food sector that has not previously been subject to CFIA registration or licensing requirements. With an estimated 50,000 regulated parties, many of whom were previously unknown to the Agency, this sector alone represents a significant increase to the number of establishments for which the Agency must consider in its risk-based oversight. It is anticipated that many of these establishments will have implemented a type of private certification scheme. Certification to a private scheme that has been assessed as meeting some or all regulatory requirements will be extremely useful information in assessing risk and determining appropriate regulatory response and oversight for all food commodities.

Existing Agency Initiatives

There are several existing Agency initiatives that have informed the development and implementation of successful programming in support of this policy such as the Food Safety Recognition Program (FSRP), the CFIA use of the Animal Nutrition Association of Canada Feed Assure program, the Canada Organic Regime and Seed Certification System. The FSRP will be particularly instrumental to the development of programming in support of this policy.

The FSRP process involves an evaluation of the technical soundness and administrative effectiveness of food safety systems developed and implemented by Canada’s national (or equivalent) industry organizations. National food industry organizations from the on-farm or post-farm non-federally registered sectors can voluntarily submit their food safety systems to the CFIA FSRP team.

To date, the CFIA has not taken the investments companies have made in the FSRP into consideration in its risk-based oversight approach. The CFIA Private Certification Policy (Food Safety) will be a bridge between the FSRP and theCFIA risk-based oversight.

(Source: CFIA website)

Written QeA to EU Commission – Restrictions to the free movement of goods – Bottling of Sardinian myrtle liqueur (Mirto di Sardegna)

Myrtus_communis_10

An interesting Q&A with the EU Commission about the extent of GIs protection and requirements for the registration in the spirit drinks sector.

Question for written answer to the Commission,

Giulia Moi (EFDD), 30th October 2015

Subject:  Bottling of Sardinian myrtle liqueur (Mirto di Sardegna)

The Commission has still to recognise ‘Mirto di Sardegna’ as an agri‐food brand, despite the fact that the Italian Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policies issued a decree to that effect in July 2013.

The decree laid down that this myrtle liqueur could only be bottled on the territory of the Autonomous Region of Sardinia in order to guarantee its quality and ensure that the consumer is provided with precise information as to its origin.

The Commission seems to be opposed to this clause on the grounds that this would infringe principles of free competition. However, it is widely-known that transporting this liqueur over long distances can affect its stability and vitiate the qualities and characteristics that make it a unique product.

Does the Commission not consider that if a product similar to Mirto di Sardegna were to deteriorate during transport this could be attributed to risks associated with bottling and damage the reputation of the whole industry?

Answer given by Mr Hogan on behalf of the Commission – 8th January 2016

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-002992/2013 (1).

In the European Union spirit drinks are regulated by Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 (2) and the Implementing Regulation (EU) No 716/2013 (3). According to these Regulations, restrictions such as the obligation to package the spirit drink in a defined geographical area constitute restrictions to the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services. They shall be allowed if the restrictions are necessary, proportionate and suitable to protect the reputation of the geographical indication (4).

Following a first analysis of the technical file of the Italian geographical indication (GI) ‘Mirto di Sardegna’, the Commission services asked Italy for clarifications in relation to the obligation to bottle the spirit drinks covered by that GI in the area of production. Italy’s reply is under examination. Once the scrutiny is finalised, Italy will be informed about the results.

 

(1) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
(2) Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15.1.2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 (OJ L 39, 13.2.2008, p. 16‐54).
(3) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 716/2013 of 25.7.2013 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks (OJ L 201, 26.7.2013, p. 21‐30).
(4) According to the Recital 6 of Regulation No 716/2013 restrictions concerning the packaging of a spirit drink with a geographical indication, such as the obligation to package the spirit drink in a defined geographical area, constitute restrictions to the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services. Such restrictions should only be allowed if they are necessary, proportionate and suitable to protect the reputation of the geographical indication. Article 10 of the same Regulation states that if the technical file sets out that packaging of the spirit drink must take place within the demarcated geographical area or in an area in its immediate proximity, justification for this requirement shall be given in respect of the product concerned.

(Source: EU Parliament)