The U.S. Grains Council was pleased to learn the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has extended the comment period on proposed directive D-12-05 until Feb. 15, 2013, instead of allowing the directive to take effect Dec. 1 as originally planned. The directive proposed phytosanitary import requirements for grain and field crops including pulses, oilseeds, cereals (other than barley, oats, rye, triticale and wheat), forages and other special crops from the United States. The target was a list of four types of weed species, as well as the khapra beetle.

The Council had submitted comments to CFIA asking that the directive be delayed, as had other grain and shipping organizations in the United States. The Animal Nutrition Association of Canada and other organizations in Canada also opposed the proposal.

Depending on the use of the grain – feed, human consumption or processing – the directive would require import permits from the Canadian government or a phytosanitary certificate from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). While not every corn and sorghum importer will need a phytosanitary import certificate, the directive will require an import permit from the government certifying the grain will be processed into feed or ethanol. The directive would not affect distiller’s dried grains with solubles, a co-product of U.S. ethanol production.

In comments to CFIA, U.S. Grains Council President and CEO Tom Sleight said the proposed directive would affect virtually every Canadian corn and sorghum importer. While respecting the desire to mitigate pest infestations, he noted there appeared to be a lack of outreach and scientific exchange from CFIA and USDA/APHIS. The extension of the comment period will enable APHIS to fully engage, which is critical to U.S. exporting interests.

“Canada is a significant and long-standing market for U.S. coarse grains and co-products. The Council will fully analyze, comment and engage with Canadian authorities and end-users on the impact of this directive,” Sleight said.

An additional concern was the economic impact of the proposed directive, with the suggestion that a cost/benefit analysis study be done prior to the comment period and implementation.

Sleight said the delay gives more time to study the proposed directive and allow stakeholders to provide additional feedback. It also allows CFIA, APHIS and all stakeholders additional time to understand the directive should it be implemented next year.