We need to talk about a hard truth in our industry: regulations can drive innovation—but only when they evolve. When they don’t, they don’t just slow things down—they stop them cold.
We’ve got no shortage of powerful tools. But if the rules don’t allow us to use them, what’s the point?
Take seed vigour testing. It outperforms the standard germ test in meaningful ways—it’s more predictive, more useful—but because it’s not a required test under any regulation, it often doesn’t see as much uptake as it should. Better science. Less adoption. All because no one updated the rulebook.
Or consider Fusarium. A terrific DNA-based diagnostic exists for it. Faster, and more precise than traditional plating. But when the pathogen became widespread and presence/absence detection was no longer enough, the system pushed us backwards. We now ignore all but the most severe infections. Why? Because regulations for use of the seed are still based on per cent seed infected—not DNA presence or overall pathogen load.
Clubroot testing almost got it right. We started with a qualitative test detecting the pathogen at levels that cause disease, then switched to quantifying the pathogen load in genomic terms as research coalesced around a threshold number of spores/g soil tied to disease incidence. However, there is no standardized amount of soil tested, or extraction method used. Reports rarely indicate statistical error around amounts detected, and there is no interprovincial consistency. Australia, meanwhile, has a national system that ties genome based quantitative estimates directly to agronomic recommendations across multiple crop diseases. In Canada, we’re still figuring out how to align test methods.
The problem isn’t the science. The problem is our system.
Sometimes it’s cost. Everyone wants the cheapest test. But when price is the only priority, there’s no room for meaningful improvement. Cheap doesn’t equal better—it just discourages investment.
Sometimes it’s outdated technology and their limitations. When your standard is built around a 1996 protocol that doesn’t reflect the tools we have today, you’re actively choosing not to improve.
Sometimes it’s miscommunication. Labs are building diagnostics. Agronomists are walking fields. Regulators are writing the rules. But without collaboration and alignment, we can’t modernize the way we define risk, act on thresholds, or communicate value to growers.
So what needs to change?
Realize that we all can make a difference.
- Seed growers: You have influence. Ask for and use better diagnostics. Support the adoption of smarter tests. Push for standards that reflect the science of today, not the limitations of yesterday.
- Labs and researchers: Keep building the future. But also push for the frameworks that allow your work to have real-world impact. Innovation doesn’t happen in isolation.
- Business managers and industry reps: Work with regulators to update the definitions. Help make room for tools that already exist but can’t be used under current rules. Outdated standards don’t protect—they prevent.
We’ve got the science. We’ve got the technology. What we’re missing is alignment—and the courage to modernize how we operate.
