Glyphosate issue
I find the comments from Mr. Lorne Hepworth of CropLife Canada concerning the importation of generic glyphosate into Canada to be a bit disingenuous (Western Producer, Sept. 22.)
For years, CropLife Canada has been arguing that there should be harmonization of regulatory rules between Canada and the United States. Well, we now have a product that has been approved in the United States and they don’t want it to be sold in Canada.
Shouldn’t CropLife Canada be using the example to show how Canadian agriculture can benefit from harmonization rather than arguing for increased regulation?
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?
There is another question here. Why is the price of generic glyphosate so much lower in the United States that producers can afford to go to all the work of bringing the product in themselves and still save money?
– Terry James,
Vegreville, Alta.
For shame
Re: “Countervail action…” article, WP, Sept. 22: Interesting that during the BSE scare (which) caused the U.S. border closure to Canadian beef, everyone supported our cattlemen with “I Love Canadian Beef” bumper and window stickers.
However it appears that our beef, pork and other groups don’t love our grain producers.
Our grains are every bit as good as U.S. corn. Even better with less subsidy. The grains sector is hurting not only from weather problems but U.S. actions against us and yet other Canadians don’t give a ….
I, as a grain producer, stood beside my livestock producers in their time of need and those self same have no time for our grain producers’ needs.
For shame. Next time our livestock sector needs help, I’ll double think before supporting them.
– Delwyn J. J. Janzen,
LeRoy, Sask.
Easter strategy
Re: “Easter report is not strategic” by Russell Jeffrey, WP, Sept. 22.
Mr. Easter’s report is strategic. Mr. Easter reports that the single most important issue hurting farmers’ incomes is their lack of power in the marketplace.
Strategists helping farmers boost their net incomes must address that issue head on by clearly demonstrating how they intend to empower farmers.
Mr. Easter further reports on political, economic and business challenges that serve to keep farmers from being empowered.
Strategists helping farmers boost their net incomes must demonstrate how they manage each of these challenges and how and why they can be expected to succeed.
Mr. Easter reports that farmers want to succeed in the market without relying on government support. Farmers want entrepreneurial solutions.
Strategists helping farmers succeed must demonstrate their strategies’ relevance to the market. The strategies must be flexible to meet the needs of each farmer individually as an entrepreneur.
Mr. Easter drew up his policy agenda by relying on information from farmers to guess what regulatory, trade and other production and marketing infrastructures might be required for farmer empowerment.
Evidence of successes and failures arising from entrepreneurial initiatives will inform legislators where to withdraw, amend or create support programs and tell them what sorts of programs will likely be effective.
Ongoing communication between farmers and politicians must be a key strategy in development of new initiatives with ongoing relevance in changing circumstances.
I think Mr. Easter’s “grocery list” is a powerful step delivering farmer empowerment strategy.
– Mike Klein,
Calgary, Alta.
OUI attack
Lorne Hepworth and the chemical lobby group he represents (CropLife Canada) are dead wrong in their attack on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency managed OUI (Own Use Import) program for farm importation of Clearout 41 Plus glyphosate packaged in the U.S.
Hepworth cites environmental concerns, dangers and liabilities of generic glyphosate; lack of copy protection when chemical company patents have expired and various other implied sound reasons to stop farmers from using the OUI program.
All his expected but erroneous logic does not dwell on the easily saved $2 to $2.50 per litre.
It’s amazing that this spring about 2,000 Farmers of North America members sucked multimillions from the excess profits of the established Canadian chemical companies. As the word spreads, companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta would do well to expect losing a major chunk of their market share.
Sure, there will be some price reductions this winter, but it may be too little and too late as farmers contemplate why the price change materialized and become aware of how rewarding and simple the OUI paperwork really is. It is true that a farmer does not even have to be affiliated with FNA to use this own use import program….
The lobby group’s crocodile tears about someone copying a patent expired product are self-explanatory. This isn’t the first generic product, and I believe even the lobby group would have to admit generic products are widely accepted for both human and animal medical practice.
When the active ingredients are identical, it shouldn’t be necessary to debate that issue further, nor should it be acceptable for professionals to try to raise alarm within the public who initially know few of the facts.
As I see it this lobby group (CropLife) provided no credible arguments or concerns for significant changes to the OUI program. Hepworth claims that “in short term and long term this (OUI program) isn’t the right answer to the farm income problem.”
I guess the chemical lobby group has concluded and is telling everyone this is not in the best interest of farmers. Presumably as a former Saskatchewan agriculture minister, Mr. Hepworth would have had the same opinion. …
A window has opened to spray glyphosate for a lower cost per acre then ever before. I would recommend this opportunity as a breath of fresh air to take control over the cost of one input….
If it comes to having to protect these small but significant gains, please don’t let it be easily lost.
– Murray C. Johnson,
Oxbow, Sask.
NAFTA breach
Re: “Hog producers oppose corn duty,” (WP, Sept. 22): Hog producers want access to global prices for imported corn, but their own pork export markets are at risk because captive Canadian feed grains are not globally priced.
It is only a matter of time before Americans realize that the Canadian Wheat Board weakness lies not in actual board marketing but rather in the regulation of grains that the CWB doesn’t market.
For prairie grains, the CWB creates a distinction between board and non-board feed wheat and barley by denying export licences for non-board grain. This therefore favours Canadian livestock producers, who are the only ones able to access non-board feed grains. North American Free Trade Agreement, Article 309, forbids such export prohibitions of goods. This NAFTA breach may be in the interest of a state grain trader, but it is all the livestock people whose export markets are on the line.
– John Husband,
Wawota, Sask.
Global warming
Thank you for the global warming related story on the impacts of the melting glaciers and the volume of snow pack on the level of waters on our prairie river systems but more on that later.
Reference the Oct. 3, 2005 issue of Time magazine, the letters section. June LaBrech Herbert’s letter stated a very significant fact:
“The majority of people … were in a state of denial.” There was lots of warning but people just could not bring themselves to believe the horrific predictions!
Are we here on the Prairies not in the same boat? We just cannot bring ourselves to accept the fact that our daily weather bears the imprints of global warming.
How can this be? Well, it is really simple. If Mother Nature moves heated air north, cooler arctic air must move south. The resulting mixing and collisions are giving us our lousy daily weather.
You say “can’t be.” Maybe the Western Producer could contact a source – university, climatologist, etc. – which could throw a much more scientific light on this aspect of global warming.
– Alex Bauer,
Whitecourt, Alta.
