Agriculture and Agri-Food

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food met to study the importation of broiler meat mislabelled as spent fowl. Witnesses included Tim Klompmaker (Chair, Chicken Farmers of Canada), Christopher Kyle (Director, Natural Resources DNA Profiling and Forensic Centre, Trent University), Geoff Lumby (Founder, Sterisense), Yves Ruel (Associate Executive Director, Chicken Farmers of Canada), Diane Allan (Associate Vice-President, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency), Alexander Lawton (Executive Director, Commercial Programs Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency), and Cathy Toxopeus (Director General, Commercial Programs Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency).

Tim Klompmaker and Yves Ruel, representing Chicken Farmers of Canada, stated that fraudulent imports of broiler chicken mislabelled as spent fowl have persisted for over a decade, with 2025 data showing a 25% increase in spent fowl imports compared to the previous year, representing 115% of total U.S. spent fowl slaughter. They noted that over $361 million in duties, interest, and penalties have been assessed by the CBSA, but the problem continues, and they urged the committee to direct the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canada Border Services Agency to implement a DNA test developed with Trent University, which Chicken Farmers of Canada has funded with $250,000 and committed an additional $350,000 to update. They argued that the test would serve as a deterrent and improve food safety traceability, as mislabelled products cannot be traced in a recall, and estimated that 45 million kilograms of illegal imports displace 3,600 jobs and $394 million in GDP.

Christopher Kyle explained that Trent University developed a three-stage DNA test in 2014 to distinguish broiler meat from spent fowl, using sex identification, genetic differences, and a third phase to identify parental stock. He noted that a 2018 proficiency test of 90 samples correctly assigned 73, with 13 unassigned due to missing genetic variants and one misassigned, but no further government funding or action followed until recent weeks. He emphasized that the test could be updated and deployed relatively quickly with proper resources, and that a "none of the above" option is critical for forensic validity.

Geoff Lumby added that the mere threat of the DNA test had previously deterred fraudulent imports, as industry parties believed the government had already deployed it. He supported updating the test and noted that the cost of deployment is separate from development costs.

Diane Allan stated that the mislabelling of broiler chicken as spent fowl is not a food safety or labelling issue, as all chicken products are sold as "chicken" and the distinction matters only for import tariffs, which is the CBSA's responsibility. She emphasized that the CFIA ensures traceability through USDA-certified health certificates and the Safe Food for Canadians licensing system, and that the risk of egg protein in spent fowl is managed by industry through good manufacturing practices and allergen labelling.

Alexander Lawton reported that the CBSA has conducted 176 verifications of spent fowl between 2010 and 2025, assessing $377 million in duty, interest, and penalties, with non-compliance rates declining from 38% in earlier rounds to 15% in the most recent round launched in 2023. He explained that the CBSA uses post-release audits of documentation from importers, exporters, and customers to verify compliance, and that the new CARM system improves data analysis and speeds up detection. He noted that the DNA test could be useful as a risking tool but would not be determinative for tariff classification, as it does not confirm the age of the chicken, and that all significant importers have been or are under audit.

Cathy Toxopeus clarified that the CBSA and CFIA share information through a single-window system, with CFIA making release decisions for poultry imports at the border. She noted that the operational implications of DNA testing would depend on whether samples are taken at the port of entry or inland.

During questioning, witnesses disagreed on the utility of the DNA test: Chicken Farmers of Canada and Trent University argued it is a reliable deterrent and should be implemented, while CBSA officials stated it would only be one indicator among many and not determinative for tariff classification. CFIA maintained that the issue is not a food safety concern, a position challenged by some members who cited traceability risks. No procedural debate, motions, or votes occurred during the meeting.