The PMRA’s approval of a food-only use label for lambda-cy products could bring difficulties to producers come the beginning of the farming season. This decision places them in an inconvenient circumstance.
Governmental regulations and procedures are the cause of an exceptionally difficult situation, according to Wade Sobkowich, executive director of the Western Grain Elevator Association (WGEA). This circumstance is not caused by any actors such as producers, grain handlers, or crop protection companies.
Advocating an inequitable situation, according to Sobkowich, the PMRA decision allowing lambda-cy on crops intended for food raises adverse circumstances for farmers, given that farmers can’t determine how their product might fare at the end of the year.
Producers delivering to a WGEA elevator must sign a declaration affirming that their crops were protected using products and active ingredients registered for Canada in compliance with the corresponding label directions.
Even though the farmer is obligated to follow the label for their product, often it is difficult for them to do so since they have no idea where the crop is going; or ensure that all byproducts are being used as food in case the crop was sold specifically for sustenance.
In contrast to the PMRA’s decision, the U.S., reviewing lambda-cy, concluded that keeping the existing label for food and feed purposes would be allowable. This highlights that different regulations can yield different results in various parts of the world.
At the border, it raises questions about how American feed grains are evaluated – will it be implemented by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)? The difference brings this into question.
“Does that mean now somehow there’s going to be testing of that grain as it enters. enters the livestock sector here in Canada, or, or are they not testing? And therefore, what’s the enforceability on that?”
“The other question is, what kind of a playing field does it create or unlevel playing field does it create between Canadian producers and U.S. producers when on each side of the border [as] they will be following different labels and coming up with different market opportunities.”
PMRA has been urged to expedite their reexamination of the data provided by the U.S. for farmers to be well-informed and make timely purchasing decisions come springtime. Sobokowich voiced his opinion on this matter recently and stated that the reviewing process should be sped up.
According to Sobkowich, most farmers comply with the law. Therefore, they must make difficult decisions about using agricultural products when facing pest pressure. Researchers expect against using it or not. He sympathizes with a situation, making them want to consider eradicating the problem quickly.
Sobkowich went on to say:
“We can understand why they would make that decision [to use lambda-cy], [but] they would be doing so with the knowledge that they could be limiting their marketing opportunities for for what they’re growing,”
The Lamda-cy label change has created an untenable situation for growers, particularly those in the agriculture industry. The decision to reclassify this popular pesticide as a restricted-use product has significant implications for growers who rely on it to protect their crops from pests and disease.
While the label change is intended to protect human health and the environment, it also challenges growers who must navigate complex regulations and restrictions to continue using this important tool.
Source: real agriculture