Canada’s seed regulations are about to be rewritten — and the CFIA’s proposed plan could upend how seed is tested, sold, and imported.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has laid bare its blueprint for the most significant overhaul of the country’s seed regulations in a generation. Speaking to stakeholders at the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association (CSGA) annual meeting last week — albeit by recorded video — Wendy Jahn, national manager of CFIA’s Seed Section, introduced a policy paper that distills five years of consultation into a roadmap for seed regulatory reform.
This is no mere administrative tidying. The coming policy paper, which contains over 50 proposed regulatory changes that came out of the Seed Regulatory Modernization (SRM) process, represents an attempt not just to modernize Canada’s seed system, but to make it nimbler, more competitive, and more inclusive — while safeguarding the country’s farms and fields from biosecurity threats.
The changes could not be more timely. As global seed markets become increasingly consolidated and digital technologies transform everything from breeding to distribution, Canada’s regulatory regime — long admired for its rigour — has begun to show its age. The CFIA’s proposals aim to change that, with a model rooted not in top-down fiat, but in co-development: a consultative approach that has engaged over 130 stakeholders from across the value chain.
“We’ve signalled that we’re open to substantive change,” said Jahn, underscoring the CFIA’s decision to bring farmers, seed growers, and grain traders into the policymaking tent from the start. “This is not business as usual.”
A New Machinery of Governance
Perhaps the most far-reaching proposal is the plan to incorporate by reference many of the technical standards that underpin Canada’s seed regulations. This seemingly arcane procedural change — effectively moving detailed requirements out of the regulations themselves — will allow the CFIA to update standards more flexibly, sidestepping the glacial pace of federal rulemaking. That means faster adaptation to new technologies, evolving market demands, and emerging threats.
Complementing this regulatory agility is the proposed creation of a permanent, external seed sector advisory committee. For the first time, stakeholders will have a structured forum to provide ongoing input on seed regulation. It is a shift from episodic consultation to continuous dialogue — one that aligns CFIA more closely with 21st-century governance norms.
“We’re not going to wait until modernization is over to realize the benefits of this type of forum,” Jahn said, noting that an interim advisory body will be launched within months, populated by volunteers from the SRM working groups.
From Seed Tags to Small Lots: Where Innovation Meets Implementation
Many of the proposed reforms may sound technocratic — digital seed tags, third-party inspection services, and modernized varietal blends — but they are grounded in real-world implications for competitiveness and risk mitigation.
Consider the CFIA’s proposal to shift seed import assessments to before the seed enters the country, rather than after. It is a simple inversion of workflow with profound consequences: reducing the risk of planting contaminated seed, and tightening Canada’s biosecurity shield against invasive weed species.
Other proposals aim at reducing red tape for farmers and seed companies. Registered seed establishments would be able to use a single-window digital system — possibly operated by the CSGA — for submitting certification data, effectively replacing static government forms. Meanwhile, the CFIA is signalling support for varietal blends and cereal mixtures within certified seed — a nod to the need for genetic diversity in an era of climate volatility.
“This isn’t about loosening standards,” Jahn noted. “It’s about making them more adaptive and responsive to what’s happening in the field.”
The End of Form 300?
Among the most potentially disruptive changes is CFIA’s willingness to assume responsibility for assessing varietal eligibility — historically a domain of the Form 300 process administered externally. Bringing that function in-house, and integrating it with variety registration, could consolidate regulatory authority and streamline the path to market for new seed varieties.
But as with any centralization of control, it raises questions. Will CFIA have the resources to carry out these assessments at scale? How will the agency balance transparency with efficiency?
The agency has taken pains to signal that such moves will not be made unilaterally. Many of the proposals — particularly those dealing with service delivery — envision new roles for private actors, accredited labs, and digital platforms. In effect, CFIA is recasting itself less as an enforcer and more as a standards steward in an ecosystem of regulated service providers.
Common Ground and Common Seed
Notably, the policy paper does not ignore the often-contentious terrain between certified and common seed. One proposal would require common seed sold under a common grade name to be graded by an accredited grader — effectively raising the bar on quality assurance, and perhaps nudging more producers toward certification.
This is one of several provisions aimed at protecting both farmers and consumers. Others include a reduced weight threshold for small-lot exemptions on imported large-seeded crops, and stricter limits on who can conduct purity analysis for imported seed.
If implemented, these rules would significantly reduce the risk of contaminated or misgraded seed entering circulation — an issue that, while arcane to the public, carries enormous consequences for producers.
What Comes Next?
The release of the policy paper — expected shortly — will open a new phase of consultation. Unlike previous rounds, this will not be a survey-driven exercise. Instead, stakeholders are invited to offer open-ended feedback on the proposals, including their direction, feasibility, and implications for implementation.
An Indigenous engagement process is also set to begin this summer, a nod to the growing recognition of Indigenous knowledge systems and governance rights in Canadian agriculture.
Assuming the policy paper is well-received, a “What We Heard” report will be published in early 2026, followed by the formal regulatory amendment process through Canada Gazette Part I in winter 2026.
If successful, the initiative will do more than update a set of federal rules. It will mark a shift in how agricultural regulation is conceived, implemented, and maintained in Canada — less command-and-control, more partnership and pragmatism.
“We’re not just fixing today’s problems,” Jahn concluded. “We’re designing a regulatory framework that can evolve.”
