Registration
SOR/2008-20 January 31, 2008

HEALTH OF ANIMALS ACT

Regulations Amending the Health of Animals Regulations

P.C. 2008-0176 January 31, 2008

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, pursuant to subsection 64(1) (see footnote a) of the Health of Animals Act (see footnote b), hereby makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Health of Animals Regulations.

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE HEALTH
OF ANIMALS REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. The heading before section 111 and sections 111 and 112 of the Health of Animals Regulations (see footnote 1) are replaced by the following:

MEAT, MEAT BY-PRODUCTS OR CARCASSES
IN FEEDING LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY

112. No person shall feed meat, meat by-products or food that is suspected to contain meat or meat by-products to swine or poultry, or permit swine or poultry to have access to the meat or by-products.

2. Section 113.1 of the Regulations is amended by adding the word “or” at the end of paragraph (a) and by repealing paragraph (b).

COMING INTO FORCE

3. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

REGULATORY IMPACT
ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Description

The purposes of the Health of Animals Act (the “Act”) and the Health of Animals Regulations (the “Regulations”) are, in part, to prevent the introduction of animal diseases into Canada, to prevent the spread within Canada of animal diseases that either affect human health or could have a significant impact on the Canadian livestock industry, and to provide for the humane treatment of animals during transport.

“Edible Residual Material” (ERM) is edible material that remains after, or is not used in, the processing, manufacturing, preparing, serving or sale of food. In Canada since 2001, ERM permits have restricted the use of meat or meat by-products as ERM. ERMs, such as restaurant and table waste, stale dated bread, dairy manufacturing by-products, etc. are used by some producers to feed swine and poultry.

In Europe and the United Kingdom (UK), there have been a number of significant outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and Classic Swine Fever (CSF) that have been traced to the feeding of uncooked, illegally imported contaminated meat. The 2001 outbreak of FMD in the UK was shown to have been caused by feeding swine improperly cooked table scraps containing meat from restaurants serving illegally imported pork from China. In reaction to the UK FDM outbreak in 2001, many countries reviewed the status and regulations dealing with the feeding of waste food products to swine. The European Union studied and evaluated the risks and subsequent controls in place over the feeding of waste food from prohibited sources to farm animals, namely swine. France, Ireland and Great Britain banned the feeding of swill (ERM plus slaughter waste), and New Zealand and Australia also banned this feeding practice following their risk assessment of the feeding of swill to swine and poultry. Texas, (previously the largest ERM feeding state), along with many other states, have banned the feeding of food waste (ERM) which contained meat or meat by-product to swine following the UK FMD outbreak.

ERM permits were initially created at a time when a minority of Canadian producers fed food waste containing meat to swine and poultry. The provision for ERM permits in the Regulations was a disease control measure dealing with risks associated with ERM containing meat potentially infected with FMD and other exotic diseases. Original permit conditions required that ERM be cooked. In 2001, a policy change, reflected in the ERM permit, was implemented prohibiting the feeding of meat/meat by-products not listed in Schedule IV of the Feeds Regulations in order to mitigate the risk of introducing an exotic disease through the feeding of ERM that contained meat or meat by-products to swine or poultry.

The amendment to the Regulations strengthens disease control measures respecting ERM by making explicit the prohibition of the feeding of meat and meat by-products to swine and poultry through regulation. By so doing, the continued issuance of ERM permits will no longer be required since the feeding of meat and meat by-products to swine and poultry will be explicitly prohibited. This amendment will also reduce the Health of Animals regulatory burden on producers, and will, at the time of coming into effect, cancel all existing annual permits to feed ERM to swine and poultry.

The changes to the Regulations will not affect the regulatory requirements for livestock feed as found in the federal Feeds Act and Feeds Regulations. Feed manufacturers and livestock producers will still be subject to the Feeds Act and Regulations with respect to the manufacture, sale and import of feed. Sections 3 and 4 of the Feeds Act clarify the scope of this legislative authority. Although the safety of any by-product/material fed is ultimately the responsibility of the feeder, the manufacturer is not excluded from producing safe feed.

The major association representing swine producers (the Canadian Pork Council), poultry producers (Chicken Farmers of Canada) and the dairy industry support the regulated prohibition of feeding those meat and meat by-products not listed in Schedule IV of the Feeds Regulations, due to the negative stigma associated with “garbage” feeding. Several potential export markets have been negatively impacted by the continued existence of ERM permits, which have an international connotation of ERM as garbage/swill containing meat.

It is recognized that by-products of food manufacturing can provide valuable nutrition to livestock. The use of these by-products as livestock feed is environmentally favorable, reducing the amount of materials being disposed of in land-fill sites. CFIA’s Feed Program is currently developing a policy document for guidance on the safe manufacture and use of these types of food by-products as feed.

Alternatives

Status quo

Keeping the provision for ERM permits in the Regulations is a regulatory burden unsupported by science. It will also prolong a situation in which importing countries are not accepting Canadian pork, as some countries do not support the practice of feeding ERM. For example, Indonesia and Singapore have stipulated that they will not accept pork from pigs that are fed ‘swill’ (ERM containing meat and/or slaughter waste). For that reason, a complicated system of identification of abattoirs accepting pigs being fed ERM is required to accommodate that market. This is a market barrier for producers and processors due to the difficulties involved with determining whether swine being accepted for slaughter are fed ERM.

Preferred option

To regulate the prohibition of feeding meat and meat by-products not listed in Schedule IV of the Feeds Regulations to swine and poultry, and to remove the permitting provisions for ERM from the Regulations.

The elimination of the provision for ERM permits in the Regulations will remove this regulatory burden which no longer serves a disease control role.

Benefits and costs

Benefits

The removal of the provision for ERM permits from the Regulations enhances the regulatory framework around livestock and poultry feeds through the regulated prohibition of feeding meat or meat by-products not listed in Schedule IV of the Feeds Regulations to swine and poultry.

There will be an immediate reduction in regulatory burden on producers by removing the need for ERM permits to feed products not considered an exotic disease risk.

Costs

The Agency may incur marginal costs for compliance purposes. CFIA inspectors will be trained with respect to the change to the Regulations regarding the continued prohibition of feeding meat and meat by-products to swine and poultry, and the removal of ERM permits. Efforts will be made to combine inspections with other activities. The cost to the livestock industry of a Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak would be so substantial that an investment of this nature is well justified. CFIA inspectors will continue random occasional inspections of previous ERM permit holders for a limited time as a follow-up to the removal of these permits.

Consultation

The industry organizations of the Canadian Animal Health Consultative Committee, have voiced their concern about ERM feeding in Canada. Groups that participate are the Canadian Pork Council, Chicken Farmers of Canada, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, the Dairy Processors Association of Canada, the Dairy Farmers of Canada, etc. as well as all provincial veterinarians and veterinary schools in Canada. This proposal has received strong support.

Pre-publication comments

The majority of the comments received following prepublication in the Canada Gazette Part I on June 16, 2007 were from the dairy processing sector. Although supportive of regulating the prohibition of feeding meat and meat by-products not listed in Schedule IV of the Feeds Regulations, there was a common concern and misunderstanding that with the removal of ERM permits, milk by-product and stale-dated milk could no longer be provided to swine producers. In light of this misconception, they requested an extension to the ERM permit program in order to allow dairy processors additional time to make alternate arrangements for by-product disposal. A letter clarifying the outcomes of ERM permit removal, and the need to satisfy the provisions of the Feeds Regulations for the manufacture of safe feed responded to their concerns.

The dairy industry also commented on not being consulted prior to this prepublication, however all livestock industries were consulted through the Canadian Animal Health Consultative Committee, on which the dairy industry is represented.

The swine industry also supports this regulated prohibition and ERM permit removal due to the associated disease risks and the negative connotation associated with feeding ERM. However, concerns regarding the application of the Canadian Pork Council On Farm Feed Safety Quality Assurance (QA) program with the removal of ERM permits were presented. A meeting with the Canadian Pork Council determined the need for the industry to revisit their QA program to address the QA program reference to the use of feeds allowed under ERM permits.

Compliance and enforcement

Section 65 of the Health of Animals Act, S.C. 1990, c. 21 establishes offences for refusing or neglecting to perform any duty imposed by or under the Act or its Regulations.

Contact

Dr. Carolyn Inch
Animal Health and Production Division
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
59 Camelot Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0Y9
Telephone: 613-221-4757
Fax: 613-228-6143

Footnote a
 S.C. 1993, c. 34, s. 76

Footnote b
 S.C. 1990, c. 21

Footnote 1
 C.R.C., c. 296; SOR/91-525

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).