SUSTAINABILITY 24 ONTARIO GRAIN FARMER the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. Obviously, if there are measures placed on market access for using certain technologies, that could disrupt our trade,” Dickerson says. Regardless of EU policy, EU farmers will still need to source grain from somewhere. Dickerson thinks finding product which meets all its regulatory restrictions might be a challenge. She also wonders whether the motivation for such restrictive maximum residue limits fits within a broader strategy, on the part of some groups, to fundamentally change European food systems. “I think there are probably some people in the EU that perhaps believe if they put these constraints in place, they may reduce their animal agriculture production and push people into more plant-based diets,” says Dickerson. “I don’t think that’s realistic. They need corn and soybeans from us to maintain food security, and not rely on imports from other animal products. Ultimately the consumer is choosing to continue eating animal products.” MAKING THE CASE TO EU PARTNERS Like other elements of EU food policy, Dickerson says the reciprocity approach to residue limits on banned products has generated significant pushback from those concerned about food prices and security within Europe. It’s hoped that pushback can be leveraged by other global partners to encourage policy change. “What we want to see in general is more harmonization and alignment in maximum residue limits and biotechnology, but we want it to be truly risk and science based. We feel in the EU, these decisions are more political,” she says. For Grain Farmers of Ontario’s part, the organization actively takes a leadership role in risk monitoring for products used, or soon to be used, in the production of Canadian grain. “We have an initiative every year where we work with industry exporters, crop protection registrants, and other partners to review regulatory alignment and flag risks before those technologies reach farmers,” Dickerson says. The Canada Grains Council recommends two actions for the Canadian government: maximize the use of existing bilateral mechanisms to oppose the EU’s pesticide reciprocity measures, and establish a coalition of like-minded countries to safeguard risk-based science regulation, while promoting trade-facilitative approaches for crop protection trade standards. “For Canadian exporters, the EU’s approach creates a multitude of standards in the markets we have globally. We also have some open questions on how the EU can do that within its World Trade Organization obligations,” says Ross, adding there is a broader need for the EU to conduct an impact assessment on their approach. While this will happen, however, it will be after some of the stated regulatory positions have been finalized. “Every country should have the sovereign right to determine what is safe for its citizens. But there’s a reason we’ve built international standards. It’s not like we’re saying ‘don’t put in place measures for your consumer base.’ It’s the opposite – we have those measures in place, but still support food security.” • continued from page 23
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQzODE4