• “Agricultural products derived from animals must be produced according to livestock stocking rates as set out in
CAN/CGSB- 32.310-2006 (amended October 2008).” The USDA has indicated to
CFIA that it does not currently have
the necessary information in order to
assess its stocking densities in organic
livestock operations and so has instructed certification agencies to collect this information and will provide
it to CFIA by August 2010, at which
time the variance will be reviewed.
Due to this review, at this time, U.S.
livestock products can still enter
Canada under the terms of the
Stream of Commerce policy. In the
meantime, the U.S. pasture rule is a
significant move closer to Canada’s
standards, which themselves are also
undergoing a review of their livestock
sections.
Not described in the actual agree-
ment, but relevant, is the difference in
scope of the two systems. Currently, Canada only regulates organic
food, feed, livestock and primary crops. Therefore, personal care or
other items that qualify for the USDA organic seal or third-party or-
“T“The equivalency agreement between Canada and the U.S. makes Canadian and U.S. organic products among the world’s most accessible.
ganic claims may continue to be marketed in Canada but will not be
eligible to bear the “Canada Organic” logo. As long as a product meets
the aforementioned requirements, it may be marketed as organic in
both countries.
The singularity of this agreement is that it’s a system-to-system
equivalency rather than simply a country-to-country equivalency. Unlike the one-way U.S. to Japan agreement, in which NOP products exclusively from the U.S. are allowed to flow into the Japanese market,
this arrangement allows NOP- or COR-equivalent products from any
country to flow into either market. The importance of this “
third-country” aspect of the equivalency agreement between Canada and
the U.S. cannot be understated: it makes Canadian and U.S. organic
MAY — JUNE 2010
23
