Consumer choice
Barry Wilson writes that french fry producer McCain Foods rejected
genetically engineered potatoes because of consumer fear (“Consumers
rule – even if they’re wrong”, Dec. 13).
However, consumers were never actually given a choice between
genetically engineered and conventional potatoes, and the actions by
McCain Foods only further exaggerated claims of so-called consumer
concerns.
Those consumer concerns were largely hypothetical. In Ontario, where I
have grown GE Bt potatoes along with Bt sweet corn, I gave my customers
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.
a choice. Bt potatoes were sold, fully labelled, right beside
conventional varieties, and I found most of our consumers were not
concerned about the genetic engineering and many preferred the fact
that the Bt potatoes and sweet corn did not have to be sprayed with
insecticides.
This year, the most common question from my customers was how could
they get GE potato seed for their gardens? Sales of the GE potatoes
were equal to sales of conventional potatoes while the GE sweet corn
outsold the conventional 2:1, two years in a row.
– Jeff Wilson,
Orton, Ont.
Frustrating years
Re: Grain monitor debates need for farmer survey (WP, Dec. 6.)
I will gladly supply information of circumstances/efficiencies to
Quorum, the Canadian Grain Commission or whomever. The last two years
has been both challenging and frustrating for grain producers in the
north Peace in terms of grain deliveries.
The closure/rationalizing of our grain handling system north of the
Peace River has left us with two sales/delivery opportunities –
producer cars or three large concrete elevators 2.5 hours from our
farm.
The producer car option has obvious advantages. The rationalized
elevators have advantages also, but for whom?
The local grain buyer collects farm samples and says “I’ll get back to
you.” Sometime later the truck shows up, even at midnight, to gain
efficiencies. Two or three days or weeks pass, still no grain cheque.
So a phone call to the concrete office confirms it hasn’t been mailed
yet.
Two of six loads delivered went missing for some time, they were
eventually found, and the grade of our wheat was downgraded.
“So what of the samples?” I asked. “Well, they are on a big table piled
up with all the other grain samples collected throughout the summer.”
After the CGC in Calgary confirmed Cargill’s grade, the samples that
were submitted to the CGC were returned to the local grain buyer who
brought them back to the farm. It wasn’t our wheat.
After many phone calls and frustrating days, my results were: Cargill
has the No. 2 and No. 3 CWRS wheat for which they paid CWB feed prices
for, the freight bill for the truck/Rycroft combination is more than
the local rail rate, and I was told I have to live with it, and the
John Deere payments are due.
When the grain is loaded on the truck it loses our identity as it turns
out of the driveway. Those who move it own the grain.
When the last small elevator is gone, so is the last of the honest
grain buyers, but we are fortunate because the extra grain company
staff now have time to tell us how to manage our farms.
– Rod Dechant,
Manning, Alta.
Real winners
The National Farmers Union has asked the federal minister of justice
and the solicitor general to investigate spending and advertising by
third parties during the 2000 Canadian Wheat Board directors
elections.
This spending appears to violate spending limits as set out in the CWB
act and its regulations. This spending came from parties that were not
registered as third party intervenors.
Some individuals or groups spent large sums of money placing newspaper
ads, sending letters and doing computerized phoning. This was all done
anonymously with the clear intent to undermine the value of the CWB in
the eyes of the farmers.
For many years the Alberta government secretly funded the Western
Canadian Wheat Growers Association and the Western Barley Growers
Association. Both are known for their work to discredit the CWB. …
If something is not done to put a stop to this, the democratic
elections process for the upcoming board elections will turn into a
complete farce. Farmers do not have the financial resources to compete
with large corporations.
When the upcoming elections for CWB directors draw near, one important
question every farmer should ask him/herself: Is it in the farmer’s
interest or in the interest of the corporate grain companies to have
the CWB weakened or destroyed?
That is, is it the farm sector or the corporate grain sector that would
be the real winners if the CWB is dismantled?
– Henry Neufeld,
Waldeck, Sask.
CWB impression
With respect to the Dec. 13 Western Producer page 3 article on Canadian
Wheat Board elections spending, readers could easily be left with the
wrong impression.
First, the title, “Wheat board to reform elections spending”, is
inaccurate. The CWB cannot rewrite its own act and regulations. The
only body that can change the election regulations is the Federal
Government of Canada. The Canadian Wheat Board can recommend changes to
the government, just as others can, but only the government can
actually make changes to the regulations.
Secondly, the writer of the article introduced the phrase that the
National Farmers Union had “jumped the gun” by asking the federal
government to investigate last year’s election spending by anti-CWB
groups.
People familiar with the issue know that the NFU has been working on
these problems for four years. The NFU was active before and after the
1998 CWB elections in attempting to ensure a fair and transparent
process.
The NFU was the only organization to register as a third-party
intervenor in the 2000 elections and report our spending to the
elections co-ordinator. We worked again, before and after the 2000
elections and sent two letters to Minister (Ralph) Goodale asking him
to look into specific potential violations of the CWB Act and its
regulations.
We have raised the issue again recently because there are still many
unanswered questions about the money spent by anti-CWB activists in the
2000 election process. …
Also, there are still anti-CWB activists hiding out there who refuse to
accept responsibility for their anonymous letters and misleading
advertising and computerized phoning that surfaced during the last
election.
With the sophistication involved, this amount could easily reach into
the tens of thousands of dollars. In theory, this money could even be
coming from outside Canada.
These anti-CWB groups or individuals have talked non-stop about
transparency, accountability and responsibility over the last several
years. But when it comes to their own actions, the rhetoric disappears,
and it turns out that they have no intention of being transparent,
accountable or responsible.
The NFU has never stopped working to ensure fair and democratic CWB
elections. We are very pleased that the CWB is now also calling for
changes, and we hope that farmers in general will help us create a fair
and open election process. We trust that government ministers will now
act.
– Stewart Wells,
President,
National Farmers Union,
Swift Current, Sask.
Ignored point
Thanks to Malcolm McIlroy who hit the nail on the head when he wrote in
the Dec. 20 letters to the editor that Alberta Agriculture minister
Shirley McClellan and the Klapstein Committee missed the point that was
being made by municipalities.
But Malcolm was being too polite. The agriculture minister and the
Klapstein Committee ignored the point that all we needed was more
technical assistance, monitoring and enforcement from the government
and that we do not need more concentrated animal feeding operations
foisted upon rural Albertans who do not care to give up their quality
of life so that others can profit.
What kind of … comment was that for McClellan to say that local
residents not wanting an operation in their area is not a good enough
reason to stop it?
I would like to add that the Code of Practice still falls short of
protecting human and environmental health. For example, it does not
include the cumulative affects of many livestock operations in one
geographical area. As well, a 1999 study on the potential environmental
effects of livestock expansion in Alberta predicts that much lower
growth targets would pose major problems for human health, air, water
and soil quality.
How can McClellan say that the protection of health, air, water and
soil will not be compromised by this legislation? The Alberta
government knows full well what will happen to the environment if their
target of a 400 percent increase in hog production comes to fruition.
Add to the increase in pigs an increase in cattle feedlots. Political
power lies in urban areas, not rural, so they could not care less what
rural residents will suffer.
Premier (Ralph) Klein states that shifting the decision-making
authority from municipal bodies to a provincially appointed board is to
ensure proper environmental assessment.
What rubbish. His government has not listed intensive livestock
operations as an activity under the Alberta Environmental Protection
and Enhancement Act. Not only that, Alberta Environment has not been
given the money or resources to do their existing jobs. The same
government promoting livestock expansion will do very little to stifle
it.
– Debby Gregorash,
Coaldale, Alta.
Not capable
In the special report by Karen Briere (WP, Dec. 13), Ralph Goodale,
minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, wants to wash his
hands of the CWB. All concerns and criticisms are deferred to the CWB
farmer directors. Meanwhile, his so-called farmer-run institution …
(has) admitted to Parliament that they are legally unsure of their
legislation. Quite the circus.
This CWB confusion over their legislation has ramifications that
implicate not only minister Goodale, but the Government of Canada. All
Canadian wheat and barley licensing costs are being paid for out of
Prairie farmers’ pooling accounts. The law of the land says those costs
must be borne by the federal government. So why aren’t they?
Minister Goodale cannot continue to download his responsibility. His
CWB must follow the laws of Parliament, and if he is not capable of
responsibly overseeing his portfolio, a reference in the Federal Court
is needed to resolve this issue.
– John Husband,
Wawota, Sask.
