Feed Ingredient Assessment and Authorization – Modernized Regulatory Framework Proposal – Consultation Summary – Respondent Comments and CFIA Responses
What We Heard

Respondent Profile

Table 1 provides a summary of the number of written comments received and from whom they were received.

Key Respondent Messages

• There was general support for the range of CFIA proposals, particularly those related to the modification of requirements associated with the assessment of feed ingredients, including:
  • the Agency's proposal to accept applications for ingredient authorization in Canada based on those prepared and submitted to other jurisdictions (for example, the US and European Union) for assessment and authorization;
  • undertaking a process to evaluate the authorization systems employed in other jurisdictions with a view to recognizing equivalency of approaches to streamline the authorization process in Canada; and
  • focus the assessment of ingredient performance to only situations where health and safety may be negatively impacted
• There was widespread support for continuing to manage authorized ingredients by way of a positive list; and
• Regulated industry was supportive and willing to work collaboratively with the CFIA to
  • update the positive list of authorized ingredients; and
  • develop and implement a list of allowable claims to replace the process of pre-market assessment and authorization of claims by the CFIA.

Classification of Feed Ingredients [Section 4 of Proposal]

A few (4) responses included comments that current feed versus veterinary drug classification criteria and associated guidance falls short of recognizing that "a continuum of products/substances exist that go beyond providing nutritional benefits to animals but do not fall within the definition of a drug i.e. to prevent, treat, mitigate or cure disease. The regulatory framework should recognize this continuum and risks and be clear on which substances are feeds or drugs".

Process-specific Comments

Notification of Applications [Step 2 in Figure 1, Section 5. 3 of proposal]

• Several respondents (11) provided feedback on this proposed new process step
• Eight (8) respondents were generally supportive; one (1) was not, remaking that notification should be done on a voluntary basis only by applicant if they wish to.
• It was noted that from a feed industry perspective, the notification step would offer an opportunity to reduce effort on the part of applications (i.e. proponents may choose not to submit an authorization application if it can be seen that one for the same ingredient is already in the queue).
• Respondents encouraged the CFIA to look at how this process is administered by other jurisdictions (for example the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada)

Assessments [Step 3 in Figure 1, Section 5. 4 of proposal]

• General comments (4) that the proposed ingredient assessment and authorization process needs to be more responsive and timely, the focus should be on assessment of safety.
• International data [Section 5. 4.1 of proposal]
  • Many (15) respondents commented on this aspect of proposal;
  • There is general support for CFIA's proposal to accept modified application packages for an ingredient that is already authorized as a feed in another country as well as authorizing ingredients in Canada that have been authorized by another jurisdiction provided the CFIA considers the other jurisdictions' authorization process to be equivalent to Canada's where the CFIA's criteria are met. One respondent even suggested that Canada consider evaluating the processes employed by Australia/New Zealand, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, and the United States for equivalence.
  • It was also suggested that the CFIA be transparent about the process they plan to use to determine equivalency and that a published listing of countries that are considered equivalent in the authorization process would be useful to the Canadian feed industry.
  • Some respondents felt the proposal failed to clarify how it would serve to harmonize the list of authorized ingredients in different jurisdictions.
  • Two (2) respondents suggested the CFIA accept/recognize the authorized feed ingredient list published by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) in lieu of maintaining a Canada-specific list.

  CFIA Response

  The CFIA will further investigate an approach to assess the equivalency of ingredient authorization processes used by other jurisdictions and will elaborate further on this commitment in future.

• Intended Purpose [Section 5. 4.2 of proposal]
  • Several responses to this section of the proposal were submitted (12)
  • The majority of feed industry and producer organizations who commented on this section of the proposal generally supported it, noting that the marketplace should determine whether a feed ingredient works or not and that the proposal would reduce burden, time and cost to regulated industry.
  • Much additional clarification, however, is sought by many of the respondents. For example, it was requested that the CFIA more clearly define the terms "purpose" and "claim", identify which ingredients would/would no longer require evidence to demonstrate performance, if/where a number of ingredients would fit into existing purpose groups (e.g. enzymes, direct-fed microbials), how a proposed new purpose for an already authorized ingredient would be brought forward and how the proposal serves to harmonize ingredients authorized in Canada with those in other jurisdictions.
• Claims assessment [Section 5. 4.4 of proposal]
  • Several responses to this section of the proposal were received (12)
  • Feed industry organizations and two (2) producer organizations commented that they are generally supportive of the proposal regarding a positive list of pre-approved claims for ingredients Two (2) producer orgs commented that CFIA oversight as to the appropriateness of claims would be important to them.
  • Only two (2) respondents commented specifically that they generally supported the refocus of oversight on claims to those with health and safety implications alone.
  • Again, several respondents requested more clarity on the process that would be followed to have claims added to list.

  CFIA Response

  In collaborating with regulated industry to develop a positive list of permissible claims, a mechanism to add claims to the list will also be identified as a part of this project.

Consultation on Proposed Outcomes [Step 4 in Figure 1, Section 5. 6 of proposal]

Several comments were received in response to this section of the proposal (10):

• A number of respondents were generally supportive of the proposal to consult on the outcome of applications prior to final decisions being taken (6) but three (3) others were not supportive
• For those who were not in favour, they expressed concerns with the potential for additional time being required to complete the authorization process and public/competitor comments might be frivolous, irrelevant or anti-competitive.

Positive List of Authorized Ingredients [Step 5 in Figure 1, Section 5. 7 of proposal]

• Nine (9) respondents commented
• Feed industry respondents were particularly supportive of the proposal to retain a positive list of authorized ingredients.
• Several organizations expressed an interest in working with CFIA to update current authorized ingredient descriptions of importance to their respective sectors (for example, the oilseed and animal protein meals and fats sectors, the enzymes sector).
• One (1) feed industry business has consistently advocated that ingredients already authorized by US and EU governments (and not on our positive list) should be added without the benefit of a proponent application ("grandfather-in") while revisions are being made to the list.

Other Areas of Potential Regulatory Change [Section 6 of the proposal]

• Mechanisms for Proprietary Approvals [Section 6.3]

  Out of eight (8) comments received on this part of the proposal, four (4) respondents were generally in favour but an equal number were not supportive

  • It was noted that under the current regulatory system, there is no specific mechanism which provides for exclusivity of data that is provided by an applicant and used during the ingredient authorization process. Stakeholders requested that a mechanism for data exclusivity be considered as part of a modernized framework, contending that a data exclusivity mechanism would recognize and protect feed ingredient innovations, encourage new ingredient development and allow sponsors to recoup their research and development costs.
  • Some feed industry and the animal health products sector respondents expressed general support ("The aquaculture feed industry has no issues with the CFIA initiative to include a mechanism to provide data exclusivity.").
  • Other individual feed industry respondents and a producer organization did not support the proposal, citing, for example, that "CFIA's business not to grant exclusive commercial rights to anyone".