WE’VE BEEN hearing the stories for decades Ñ farmers caught in a cost-income crunch, with incomes failing to keep pace with the expenses of fuel, fertilizer, chemicals and other inputs.
Long-term solutions to this problem are perhaps the most complex issue facing governments, farm groups and farmers today. So when farmers take the initiative to become part of the solution, they should be applauded.
An example is an effort by Farmers of North America to bring in a cheaper glyphosate for its members.
The company said it has received verbal approval from the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to import from the United States a product called ClearOut 41 Plus glyphosate.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
The imports would be allowed under the “own-use” import program, which permits individual farmers to import the product.
FNA plans to help its members obtain the required permits if final approval is granted for the product’s use in Canada. There remains the hurdle of getting bilingual labels.
Access this season to a cheaper alternative would be important to give farmers more cost-control options, as long as the herbicides have met acceptable efficacy and safety standards and have been proven chemically equivalent to a product already on the market, as ClearOut 41 plus has been.
If it is approved, FNA expects it would cost farmers $4.50 per litre. The average retail price in Canada for glyphosate is $7.50 per litre.
The largest glyphosate player in the market, Monsanto, whose Roundup herbicide makes up 56 percent of the 32 million litres sold in Canada each year, has taken notice. Makers of the many other glyphosate products on the market have likely done so as well.
FNA recently suggested Monsanto was attempting to undermine the program by raising concerns about the registration of ClearOut 41 Plus in letters to dealers. The company obviously has a stake in success or failure of the FNA program. It’s also obvious that Monsanto and other manufacturers will do all they can to ensure their messages on the benefits of their particular brands over other glyphosates are heard. It is purely a good business move.
On the other side of the debate, FNA will emphasize its goals Ñ to give farmers more options, increase competition among chemical companies and perhaps extract savings for its members.
FNA must expect to compete on a level playing field with the chemical companies, and that means it must conduct business on the strength of its product, in this case pricing. It should expect vigorous competition from others in the business.
In the end, FNA should not be deterred by the marketing maneuvres of glyphosate competitors, just as they will not be deterred by FNA’s import idea.
Competition and pricing are what it’s all about.
