Organic numbers
In his Oct. 25 letter, “Stewardship,” Arnold Taylor charges that I exhibit a “narrow, short-sighted rationale” in accepting genetically modified organisms as a fact of life, and claims I run counter to the philosophy of a “large number of organic farmers” who support legal action against the makers of GM crops.
But, just how large is that number? Are we supposed to take the activists’ word for it when they claim they’re standing up for the rights of organic farmers as they drag these cases through the courts?
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?
I’ve met over 1,000 organic farmers and the majority are fed up with this battle. They want something meaningful done to reduce pesticide contamination instead of trying to topple Monsanto and Bayer.
They wonder why they have to fill out 20-page forms, sit through mind-numbing audits and pay exorbitant certification fees when inexpensive tests on their crops will readily show that they’re not using prohibited chemicals and that they’re following good environmental stewardship.
I respect Mr. Taylor; it was a pleasure to inspect his organic farm in 1999. But I recall we spent far too much time poring over paperwork. And at the end he said I should’ve looked at more of it.
“No thank you,” was my reply as I went out with his son to have a look at the real world.
Still, Mr. Taylor is most definitely organic, and I don’t doubt his sincerity in everything he does. But can he please put his money where his mouth is and tell us what percentage of organic farmers his group actually represents? Does he even know?
We got where we are today through competition in the marketplace, not through lawsuits. And we have some great places to go when we return our focus to what really matters: farming our side of the fence in as natural a fashion as possible. Who cares what Monsanto and Bayer are doing on the other side of the fence?…
Lawsuits and paper trails as long a country mile do nothing for what organic farming is really about.
It’s time to get back to what’s important: purer crops, fertility building and a cleaner environment. Mandatory labelling misses the mark on all three.
– Mischa Popoff,
Osoyoos, B.C.
Fictional $
I have been reading several articles printed recently about increasing royalties in Alberta and would like to comment on them.
Big oil says we have to pay the price we pay at the pumps because of a fictional world price for oil.
Yet they whine like babies when asked to pay an increase in royalties.
If we have to pay the magical, fictional world price for oil, which appears to be driven by whim, hurricane and wars, etc., in far away lands, then they too can pay the world price for royalties for our oil.
It should be based on what countries like Norway are charging. (Alberta) premier (Ed) Stelmach needs to learn from premier Danny Williams of Newfoundland when dealing with these companies.
The oil companies care not the hardship that their fictional excessive world oil pricing at the pumps, gas and power meters create on Albertans.
If big oil can afford radio ads against the royalty report in attempts to create fear in Albertans for losing their jobs, homes and possessions, and if they can afford paid days off for workers to attend rallies, they can afford to pay the royalty increase.
It is our oil, not theirs.
Albertans will need this extra cash to clean up the mess they are going to leave us when big oil has exhausted our resources.
– Neil Peacock,
Sexsmith, Alta.
Angered by ads
I will subscribe to your paper for one more year although I was angered and disappointed by your “good news” hoax (advertisements) in Sept. 27 and Oct. 4 (issues.)
This reduced your paper to the level of a tabloid like the Star.
I would certainly hope your paper never accepts advertising like this again.
– Mavis Brown,
Fort Nelson, B.C.
Sweet deal?
Our Conservative government has just taken another run at western grain farmers with a sweet deal that gives total control of the hopper car fleet to the railroads. This is just one more example of this government’s commitment to big business.
Though the previous Liberal government was reluctant, it did agree to sell the rail cars to farmers through the Farmer Rail Car Coalition. The FRCC had proven that the railroads were charging far more than the actual cost of upkeep of the hopper cars and had established frugal means of car maintenance that would have seen costs to farmers reduced.
According to FRCC president Sinclair Harrison, this deal will instead see farmers pay an extra $4.50 a tonne to buy new hopper cars that the railways will now own, and rail car maintenance will be undertaken by the railroads without competitive bids.
How a government that included 12 MPs from Saskatchewan could so cruelly undercut the FRCC is beyond belief. Already reeling from the unscrupulous attacks of this government on the Canadian Wheat Board, Saskatchewan farmers must be asking themselves just exactly what it was they saw in Stephen Harper.
Once again, the Harper government is trying to put a positive spin on its actions. For the good of Saskatchewan agriculture, all electors in the next federal election had best pay attention to the actions of this government rather than its words.
– Duane Filson,
Liberal candidate
Woodrow, Sask.
Heroes & villains
Golder and Associates were hired to do a feasibility study on whether there should be another dam on the North Saskatchewan River, the proposed Highgate Dam.
They came to the conclusion that it would be an impractical project. The environmental damage would be shattering and, to be completely practical, the cost alone, over $4 billion, with a return of only $2.9 billion, would not be good business.
A new study group, the Jordon Group, has just put out a report in which they claim that two of the biggest wasters of water presently are the tar-sands development and hydro-electric dams. …
In spite of all this there are some “big interests” who are determined to build not just this dam but a series of dams and diversions all the way to the U.S. border.
At one time anyone who voiced concern for the environment was sneered at as a tree hugger. Now we are called narrow minded or said to be whistling in the dark, and the dam proponents claim that they alone are working for our grandchildren.
It’s not very likely that any of those label-writers have ever walked along the river, canoed it or tried to study it, yet those of us who have done even a little of the above apparently are the villains while they are the heroes of the piece.
And, no matter what Golder or any other group of experts state, we know that those heroes intend to bulldoze right over us if they can. A troubling fact is that none of the political candidates in this part of the province have any background of environmental concern.
I would like to be contradicted on that but most politicians seem more concerned with throwing insults at one another and protecting their own concerns.
– C. Pike,
Waseca, Sask.
Benefits some
(Federal agriculture minister Gerry) Ritz just admitted to me via a letter from him that both the federal/provincial changes made to Canada’s main farm program called CAIS (Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization) of changing CAIS’s cash margin to an accrual margin is going to negatively affect some producers.
And that this negative effect of some outweighs the number of farmers that might benefit from higher support levels.
Now, seeing that I haven’t heard of any new agriculture dollars being applied by either government to CAIS to shore up the farmers that just got financially hurt from their CAIS change, then all I can assume is that both governments are quite happy on bankrupting another bunch of Canadian farmers!
How dare governments steal farm support dollars from some farmers to bankrupt them, only to benefit some other farmers.
This is just proves another CAIS dysfunctionality, that when a change is made to it that 100 percent of all Canadian farmers don’t benefit, just some do, hurting or destroying others….
– Lloyd Pletz,
Regina, Sask.
