Al Looy, a Vancouver Island dairy farmer, has no illusions about how much support he would receive from most consumers if he tried to enlist them in a campaign to save the supply management system.
Very little, he figures. Consumers might utter words of support but their wallets would speak a different language.
“The bottom line is, consumers will go for the price, no matter what they say.”
He thinks he has supporting evidence.
Vancouver-area consumers are among the most enthusiastic cross-border dairy product shoppers.
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
The Canadian government estimates the B.C. dairy industry loses tens of millions of dollars worth of local market share every year to the cross-border shoppers who buy milk in Washington State.
“Consumers here might say they support local industry but if there is what they figure is a bargain somewhere, they’ll chase it,” said Looy.
It is a point the national supply manage-ment lobby might want to keep in mind as they struggle to defend the industry’s protective tariffs from American challenge.
In their campaign, farm leaders are claiming consumer support.
It is good politics, but they should not put too much stock in the assumption. It probably isn’t true.
Canadian consumers, at least as represented by their organized lobby, never have been fans of supply management.
It is hard to imagine they ever will be.
In the 1980s, the Economic Council of Canada enlisted university economists to calculate the “cost” of the supply management system to Canadians.
They claimed billions of dollars in excess pricing because of monopolistic marketing board price fixing and the Consumers’ Association of Canada quickly embraced the findings.
The CAC demanded American-based pricing to lower consumer costs and supported “reform” of supply management.
So why do farm leaders think consumers have reversed that attitude? Because a polling company told them it was so.
Carleton University-based COMPAS Inc. asked 1,000 consumers late last year if they would pay more for their products “to maintain the Canadian industry.”
COMPAS reported 67 percent said they would pay as much as 7.5 percent more if it meant the product was Canadian.
This proves, the pollster concluded, “that Canadians are in fact prepared to back up their opinions with their pocket books.”
Not exactly. It proves only that consumers, when asked a question in a survey weighted to elicit support for Canadian interests against American ‘aggressors’, SAID they would pay more.
Surveys and anecdotal evidence suggest the contrary.
Consumers complain about child labor in Third World countries and then buy products from there because they are a better bargain.
Consumers fret about what chemicals Canadian farmers use, but buy cheaper imported produce from countries where chemical use is less well regulated.
It’s fine for farmers to claim consumer support in their campaign.
In their private planning, however, they would likely be wise not to put too much faith in it.
