CHEAP FOOD COSTS
On Feb.5 and 6 in Regina, an Agriculture Awareness Summit was held.
The idea is to advance the awareness and profile of the agri-food industry. Industry is on the offensive to convince producers and consumers the technologies of conventional production are acceptable and necessary to feed an increasing population.
Consumers and producers are dealing with symptoms created by poor soil and crop health, and are questioning production methods, the quality, and type of food produced.
Consumers and many producers are convinced science is spin doctored to meet the needs of industry, and believe there are alternatives, which are available and necessary.
Read Also
Farm groups are too amiable with the federal government
Farm groups and commodity groups in Canada often strike a conciliatory tone, rather than aggressively criticizing the government.
Soil re-mineralization, with effective biological carbon management, is the only way to sustainably in-crease food’s yield and quality.
Chemical and genetically modified organism use sets limits on production potential and nutritional value.
When one to five percent of wet production removed from a field is soil minerals, plus the stress of pesticides on soil biology, it becomes understandable why food crops are susceptible to low yields, low quality, contamination and insect/disease infestation.
It becomes apparent how this food cannot meet the full nutritional requirements of animals and humans.
Through malnutrition and acute persistent toxin exposure, future human generations’ genetics (accurate cell replication and function) have been compromised. Consumers are aware of the symptoms delivered by the modern agri-food industry.
Industry should deliver nutritious, sustainably produced food rather than propaganda, and industry catered garbage agronomy. Cheap food has and will continue to cost society.
Garrett Osborn,
Big Beaver, Sask.
GRAIN PRICING
Kevin Hursh in his column (WP Jan. 31) concluded that under the open market, prices of hard wheat and durum in the U.S. have been largely on par with Canadian prices and it therefore follows that single-desk premiums under the CWB were mostly fiction and wishful thinking.
First a little background. Canada produces a surplus of durum and hard spring wheat; all of it produced in Western Canada. Canadians consume about 20 percent of our production and we export the rest.
Between 10 and 20 percent of this goes to the U.S. market. The remaining is exported off-shore. The U.S. has it the other way around. It produces about 80 percent of its requirements and the balance was met by purchases from the CWB.
Responding to a favourable ruling by the International Trade Commission, John Gillcrist, chair of the National American Millers Association had this to say, “As we have testified over and over, we are forced to pay higher, not lower, prices for Canadian wheat. It’s so obvious, at least it is to us. The fact that U.S. millers consistently buy more than 80 percent of their supplies from U.S. growers proves we get no price discounts from Canada.”
Because the U.S. had no surplus of these grains to ship to the Canadian market, the CWB had our domestic market all to itself.
Did the CWB get a premium from wheat sales to Canadian domestic users as well?
In a letter to me, Gordon Harrison, President of the Canadian National Millers Association, had this to say, “…the CWB’s price determination and selling prices to Canadian mills were extensively examined by more than one U.S. International Trade Commission investigation, and found to be compliant with international trade principles. What that means, to the best of my knowledge, is that the CWB’s selling prices to Canadian processors were equal to or greater than selling prices to U.S. importers and end users.”
One more thing. Kevin Hursh places great importance to his discovery that grain prices in Canada and the U.S. are now at par.
I would have been surprised if they were not. Under the CWB monopoly there were two American markets: one in Canada and one in the U.S. Now there is only one. Grain now moves freely across the border where all North American production is available to be bought and sold. This is important. Grain merchants bidding for grain will know that on average 60 percent of Canadian production will have to find a home somewhere off-shore.
Under the CWB, the Canadian wheat surplus did not affect the domestic market on either side of the border. It is my belief that North American millers (who were once paying a premium) are now buying grain at a price diluted by lower off-shore returns.
Perhaps Kevin Hursh can explain how dumping all this grain on one market can result in a higher return to producers on either side of the border.
Bev Currie,
Swift Current, Sask.
INCORRECT STATEMENT
Re: Letter to Editor Feb. 7 by Eric Sagan, wrongly suggesting the Grain Growers are receiving over $208,000 of federal money.
It is regrettable that Mr. Sagan has his facts so completely wrong, and I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.
In the absence of active wheat commissions or a wheat council, last year the Grain Growers was approved under the Agri-Marketing Program for a maximum of $50,000 to help ensure continuity of a producer presence in our key markets.
We committed $15,000 of the funds to the Canadian International Grains Institute for a long-term industry strategy for wheat, and we have offered to assist both the Grains Institute and the CWB for upcoming trade missions.
To date we have had several meetings with U.S. wheat associations to help ensure the border remains open to trade, as well as worked with our trade negotiators in current talks to ensure wheat and other grains are a priority.
The program requires matching dollars, we have to put up matching dollars for any of the remainder of the money, which can only be used for promoting Canadian wheat and helping ensure we keep markets open for our farmers.
The AMP program is a valuable tool for export-orientated sectors and is also used by canola, pulse, cattle, pork and many other commodity associations to ensure we have access to key markets ,which return a profit back to Canadian farmers.
Irmi Critcher, Director
Grain Growers of Canada
Fort St. John, B.C.
CONSERVATIVE LAP DOG
The Harper government has been using the phrase “standing up for farmers” when they make agricultural announcements. But I think “sticking it to farmers” is more realistic.
A case in point is the firing of Adrian Measner, (chief executive officer) of the farmer-controlled Canadian Wheat Board in 2006.
Although farmers paid for Mr. Measner’s salary, the Conservatives fired him because he did not toe the Harper line on destroying the single-desk of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Not only did farmers have to pay for the severance of Mr. Measner, but they also had to pay to search for a replacement and hire a new CEO at several times the annual salary of Mr. Measner.
All this because Mr. Measner understood the wishes of the majority of farmers, rather than be a lap dog for the Conservatives.
So, although the Conservatives directly cost farmers millions of dollars, they have not had the decency to return the farmers’ money they wasted because of their ideology. At one point they claimed they would return the money to the pool accounts.
However, that initiative vanished and the farmer-elected directors initiated a court action to recover that money on farmers’ behalf.
Farmers need to ask the present CEO if he is still pursuing that court case or have the government appointed directors, his present masters, told him to abandon that case, be a good lap dog and wait for his next order from (agriculture) minister (Gerry) Ritz?
Kyle Korneychuk,
Pelly, Sask.
