THE AGGRESSIVE trade push by the Canadian government, supported by export-oriented agricultural sectors, emphasizes what might be called the hard end of the sales pitch.
Rules are rules, the trend is away from protectionism and if Canadian product meets accepted scientific standards for safety, markets should be open.
To at least a limited extent, it has been successful in opening new markets or expanding existing ones.
But what could undermine exports in future is what could be called the soft side of the trade file – evolving consumer attitudes about how their food is produced. On that soft side, government and industry are less resolute, more likely to argue that market access cannot be determined or even influenced by consumer preferences and public opinion polls.
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?
Someday they may regret not paying a bit more attention to the soft side.
Consumers say they want mandatory labelling of products containing genetically modified ingredients. That is not scientifically required.
Consumers in some countries want 100 percent BSE testing on imported meats and no hormone use. It is scientifically not necessary. End of debate.
In this case, the customer is not always right. Science-based rules must rule.
The growing importance of the soft side of marketing and exporting was raised, albeit briefly, in a study published recently by the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. The main point was to complain that Canada, unlike many industrialized countries, pays no attention to animal welfare issues in its broader agriculture policy.
A weak cruelty-to-animals law falls under the Criminal Code and the justice department but the new Growing Forward agricultural framework includes not a word about animal welfare requirements.
By contrast, says the CFHS, Australia, New Zealand, the European Union and parts of the United States include animal welfare rules in the agricultural debate.
“Other countries are responding to well-reasoned public interest and moving forward with animal welfare strategies, leaving Canada farther behind and less competitive in international markets,” said the report.
The clear implication, and it is difficult to refute, is that increasing numbers of foreign consumers want to know that the meat products they are buying from Canada were produced in ways that took animal welfare concerns into account.
Right now, foreign consumer pressure on their governments to ban Canadian products without those assurances could be met only by Canada pointing to the existence of 1892 cruelty-to-animals rules. It’s difficult to imagine that carrying much weight.
Agriculture minister Gerry Ritz is in Europe promoting more open trade. International trade minister Stockwell Day is in China. Canada is taking South Korea to the World Trade Organization over its continued refusal to allow Canadian beef into the Korean market.
For traders, it is important to keep hammering on those traditional points.
But along the way, government and industry representatives might want to note the increasing non-traditional concerns and demands in target markets, whether on pesticide or hormone use, traceability concerns or animal welfare.
Simply insisting they are not appropriate is probably not the best strategy.
