Responsible behaviour
Re: Leadership of canola council questioned, July 23.
The responsible commercialization of crop inputs is a long standing position of the Canola Council of Canada. It has been in place for a long time and has served the entire industry well in preventing costly rejections of our product by importers.
No one understands this more than canola farmers because, at the end of the day, it is the farmers who pay the costs borne by the value chain.
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?
In regards to use of quinclorac in control of cleavers, it is critical to note that the cost of losing the Japanese market or having a shipment rejected would be significant. This is why the four canola grower organizations representing farmers on the Canola Council of Canada board of directors support its recommendations on the responsible commercialization of crop inputs and the efforts of the Keep it Clean campaign.
The lack of harmonized international approvals creates a period of uncertainty when commercializing crop inputs. Products for use in Canada must be approved in Canada prior to getting approved in the export markets. This is why the position on responsible commercialization of crop inputs exists.
The canola value chain asks that companies voluntarily wait to introduce new products to farmers until approvals in all major export markets have been completed.
The canola industry faced a similar situation more than 15 years ago when the United States would not approve Lindane for use on canola seed and residue of Lindane on imports of canola seed, oil, and meal would not be tolerated. Even though it was approved for use on canola in Canada, all segments of the canola value chain, including the three canola grower commissions from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, came together via the Canola Council of Canada and voluntarily agreed to support the removal of Lindane from the Canadian marketplace.
While this represented a cost to farmers, the cost of losing the U.S. market was too great. The transition has not been without many trials and tribulations; replacement products were more costly, less available, and didn’t work in the same way. But would the canola industry be where it is today if the U.S. market was lost 15 years ago?
The willingness of the canola value chain members to voluntarily self-regulate is very proactive. Sometimes this means growers give up a trusted input for a new, unknown one. Sometimes it means a company agrees to delay the introduction of a new product. When that doesn’t happen, individual value chain members have to evaluate their risk and as we all know, covering risk has costs that are ultimately paid by farmers.
In an effort to ensure that this does not happen, all the undersigned canola grower organizations will be working hard to ensure market opportunities will be available for all growers.
Lee Markert,
Chair Alberta Canola Producers Commission
Ed Rempel,
President Manitoba
Canola Growers
Doyle Wiebe,
Vice Chair SaskCanola
Brett Halstead,
President Canadian Canola
Growers Association
Beware loss of land
I’m not surprised that farmers would take offence at the opinion from the realtor Frank Su (WP July 9) enough to immediately respond online.
Frank Su sounds just like one of the people from a city think-tank. He just doesn’t get it; he just doesn’t get it.
It is several years since I said that once the land became a commodity for speculation then the land and the people were in trouble.
I realize no one quotes poetry anymore, unfortunately, but lines from Oliver Goldsmith written in The Deserted Valley come to mind: “But a bold peasantry, their country’s pride, When once destroyed can never be supplied.”
We no longer think of ourselves as peasants, but if the circle continues we shall find ourselves just that.
We don’t seem as bold as our ancestors. Too comfortable so far.
Christine Pike,
Waseca, Sask
