So you have a nebulous question about vague policies that may or may not even exist and you expect a timely and concise answer. I wish the world were that easy. Referring to a department that works more closely with such policies on a day-to-day basis is the correct move.
Also, as noted, this sounds more like an EPA thing. The USDA would be concerned that the foodstuffs produced are of a certain minimum standard, no?
Really, the problem is with media not citing the ****ing source. I mean, look at how ars does this ****.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/need-a-warrant-to-unmask-internet-users-not-if-canada-gets-its-way.ars
This is completely nebulous non-existant policy right now (parliament isn't even in session right now, so it obviously can't exist). You have a link to a previous attempt by the Conservatives at similar policy (you can even refer to it by name: Bill C-52), so expect similar in the future. You know exactly how far in the pipe it is and what to expect.
--
assert(!hotterThan(foo, "Hot Nymphomaniacal Lesbian Mind-Controlling Dominatrix Fairy Doctors with glasses"))