by SUSAN MANN
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has issued a “mea culpa” to the Canadian Pork Council following incidents in 2015 when inspectors mistakenly turned away pigs missing ear tags from processing plants.
In October 2015 CFIA inspectors in both Nova Scotia and Ontario refused to allow the delivery of pigs that didn’t have the ear tag identification. In Ontario, the processor where this occurred is a very small facility processing possibly 20 pigs a week, said Jeff Clark, PigTrace Canada general manager.
PigTrace administers the country’s pig traceability system on behalf of the council. Under the system, those who handle pigs are required to identify, record and report the movements of animals in their care.
Compliance, which is enforced by the federal agency, has been mandatory since July 2014.
However, pigs lacking identification cannot be turned away at abattoirs — as cattle and sheep are under similar traceability programs — because of biosecurity risks, Clark said.
Plants could be a reservoir for infectious diseases which the returned animals could pass on to others in an operation, he explained.
“It defeats the whole purpose of the traceability program,” he said.
Instead, producers can face fines and prosecution for non-compliance.
Clark, who shepherded the council’s case through the CFIA’s complaints and appeals office, said “it was just confusion on the part of the inspectors.”
The pork council filed the complaint at the end of October/early November.
Clark said the investigation included interviews he had with a CFIA case file worker and he had to submit supporting evidence and documents. “They did an internal review, which probably took about a month.”
The CFIA’s decision handed down by letter “confirms CFIA inspectors should not be doing that (turning away unidentified pigs), and that they (the inspectors) have been notified,” Clark noted.
CFIA spokesperson Tammy Jarbeau said by email she is unable to release details about the case “due to privacy reasons.”
However, she noted “written documentation on livestock traceability requirements have been developed and circulated to regulated parties to ensure consistent implementation of the policy.” Furthermore, “inspectors have been provided with training to provide a consistent understanding of requirements.”
According to the Canadian Pork Council’s annual report, PigTrace now has about 9,771 producers registered across Canada. Registrations with PigTrace have continued to increase and since Aug. 1, 2014 there has been a 24 per cent increase, mostly due to hobby farms and backyard producers.
“Particularly notable is the significant growth in Ontario with over 900 new registrations between August 2014 and November 2015,” the annual report said.
Pig movement numbers were also reported. From July 1, 2014 to October 19, 2015 there were 705,549 movements reported or 10,690 a week or 1,527 a day from a total of 5,780 premises. Since July 2014, more than 1.8 million ear tags have been sold. BF
Comments
I'm very disappointed with the negative word spin Susan Mann quoted me as saying in this article. I made time to answer her interview questions last week, and I find that she completed ignored any of the constructive points I had to make about CFIA complaints and appeals process. I will definitely think twice before answering any questions in the future.
- Jeff Clark, PigTrace
EDITOR'S NOTE: This story was edited and condensed from the reporter's original report.
The article doesn't have a negative spin...it tells what happened and the outcome. Don't be so sensitive Mr. Clark.
D. Linton
It might be more enlightening if Mr. Clark could offer some specifics. As things stand we don't know where the alleged inaccuracies are so it's hard to know what the problem is.
Maybe "negative spin" was too strong a choice of words; however, I thought I had emphasized in my interview that I was very impressed with the CFIA internal review process. Unfortunately that positive message did not come through in the article.
In my opinion, the CFIA Complaints and Appeals Office was incredibly fast and efficient at completing their internal investigation. It was not my intent in any way to criticize government inspectors. As an example, the phrase "it was just confusion on the part of the inspectors" can be construed in two very different and opposing ways: (1) critical and insulting of the intelligence of inspectors, or (2) understanding and forgiving of misinterpretation on the part of inspectors. My intent was the latter.
... It is these vague nuances in the wording, open to interpretation by the reader, that irk me about the article. Granted, I may have to be more careful in my specific choice of words in order to guard against reporters taking only small snippets, devoid of my original intent.
In the end, no hard feelings Susan and Better Farming; I do appreciate your attention to the PigTrace program, and all that you do to inform Canadian farmers.
- Jeff
Post new comment