Yes, among other things, that part of it. This was the focus in the early years, but with the evolution of trade, the issue of spent fowl has been growing and growing over time. As you pointed out, given that this is multi-jurisdictional, early on we all worked on good intelligence, or we tried as much as possible. Indeed, we are very coordinated in our efforts despite the fact that various elements of policy fall under different departments. Our interdepartmental efforts have been ongoing over the last few years.
With respect to spent fowl, the issue is quite complex because there's a long-standing trade in spent fowl that is absolutely legitimate to go into processing. I think the Chicken Farmers of Canada made that point clear in its previous testimony before this committee. It accepts that there's a traditional, long-standing trade in spent fowl that is legitimate. The challenge is how we differentiate between the legitimate trade in spent fowl and the risk of circumvention.
The main problem that we face is that, first of all, spent fowl cannot be visually distinguished from broiler meat, so we have to find other ways. Physically, it looks pretty much the same in a pack where you have broiler meat or spent fowl, so this is why we are trying to look at innovative ways of addressing this issue.
We're looking at two main options, and the first is certification. The United States Department of Agriculture has a voluntary program of certification, and we are discussing with the United States to see how we can make use of that program.
The second element, and I made reference to it in my remarks, is whether we can try to see if we can use DNA testing to distinguish between spent fowl and broiler meat in spot checks. You can imagine that, if you use a DNA test, it has to be robust, it has to be thoroughly tested. This is exactly what we're discussing with colleagues at CBSA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, how we can make use of that.