Non-fertilizer supplements (“supplements,” hereafter) are products other than fertilizers that, by a wide variety of means and modes of action, improve soil physical condition, aid plant growth, or increase yields. They include biostimulants such as microbial inoculants; humic/fulvic acids; and seaweed extracts; and soil amendments such as biochar, compost tea, manure, and lime. Supplements can offer many benefits, including: direct nutrient contributions; enhanced plant physiological responses to stress; stimulation of plant growth not related to nutrition; disease protection; increased fertilizer use efficiency (and attendant reduced GHG emissions); and alterations to soil physical, chemical, and biological properties.
Many supplements have been used safely and effectively in agriculture for centuries. However, given that supplements can have multiple active ingredients and modes of action, they are best defined based on their claimed benefits to agriculture; it is therefore essential that these claims be tested and the data be made publicly available, so that farmers can make informed choices.
Until 2013, Canada had a science-based, federally regulated system for determining whether non-fertilizer supplements were delivering on their label or marketing claims. To demonstrate the validity of each benefit claimed on a product label, companies were required to conduct replicated field trials across multiple sites and years (including laboratory and greenhouse trials where appropriate). They would then submit their trial and test results to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) for validation and, once granted, their product could be registered for sale in Canada. This system was so highly respected that companies based in other countries used to register their products in Canada, as it would increase their market acceptance abroad to say that it passed Canadian standards of efficacy. The CFIA’s efficacy testing requirements for non-fertilizer supplements were not repealed because they were not working; they were repealed by the federal government as part of cuts to CFIA’s budget and mandate.
The NFU strongly recommends that Canada’s former efficacy testing (ET) regulations be reinstituted.
To facilitate the smooth reintroduction of ET, we further recommend that the number of CFIA Efficacy Evaluators be increased (a total cost of <$1 million per year); and products now on the market be allowed to remain on the market, with existing labeling and claims, for a period of 2 or 3 years, while ET can be conducted; i.e., the reintroduction of ET will not reduce farmers’ access to products currently on the market.
Reintroducing ET will be inexpensive for companies. Reputable companies are already conducting their own field trials and lab tests—to assess effectiveness and underpin usage recommendations and label, website, or marketing claims. Moreover, if CFIA processing fees under a renewed ET system are like those of the past, fees will be very low: just a few hundred dollars per claim.
Though costs are low, benefits will be large:
- Farmers will have independent validation and quantification of claimed benefits, enabling them to make cost-benefit decisions and purchase products with confidence;
- Non-performing products will be removed from the marketplace, increasing trust in the entire supplements sector;
- Some products will provide alternatives to fertilizers, enabling some farmers to reduce the use of these costly inputs;
- By providing alternatives to fertilizers, supplements will provide competitive options for farmers, potentially helping discipline fertilizer prices, a benefit to even the farmers who choose not to try supplements;
- Products that demonstrate the ability to reduce fertilizer use (or decrease emissions in other ways) could potentially qualify for government subsidies, making them even more affordable to farmers, increasing adoption and sales;
- Increased sales and use could accelerate the development and commercialization of promising new supplements and supplement types; and
- A wide range of farmers could gain important new production options, including farmers who want to take a lower-input approach, organic farmers, those seeking more resilience or to regenerate soils, and those who prefer to farm in ways that rely more on biological inputs and less on chemical and industrial ones.
There are many precedents for government-administered and -validated ET around the world: the European Union, the United States, Brazil, and many other major food-producing countries and regions all require scientific testing to justify the claims on supplement labels, websites, or marketing materials. Such jurisdictions have maintained their ET regimes to ensure that their farmers have products they can trust, and Canada should be no exception.
Reinstating Canada’s ET systems for non-fertilizer supplements is a crucial step toward fostering a more resilient and sustainable agricultural sector. By restoring the robust system of scientific validation that once distinguished Canadian standards, we can ensure that farmers have access to proven, effective products that genuinely support soil health and plant growth. This approach will not only enhance the credibility of the supplement industry but also facilitate greater adoption of innovative, environmentally friendly alternatives to conventional fertilizers. As a result, Canadian agriculture will benefit from improved nutrient management, reduced emissions, and more competitive pricing, ultimately advancing the country’s net-zero goals. Embracing a science-based framework for ET will align Canada with global best practices, providing farmers with the confidence and tools needed to drive sustainable agricultural practices forward.