“Product of Canada!” …Well, Just About.

Consumer demand was the driving force behind the regulation that was implemented on January 1^st of this year. A “Product of Canada” label now means that 98% of the product’s contents were grown in Canada. Last year, 50% of the cost of production was enough – and packaging is where most of the cost is incurred. How many Canadians does it take to realize that the pineapple inside of that can was not grown in Canada, despite the label? Not that many. But how many Canadians does it take to complain about it, before that label is corrected? Quite a few, and it has certainly taken a while. Now that enough consumers have complained however, changes have been made, and guess who is said to be complaining now? The farmers.

Laurent Pellerin, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, reported CBC News yesterday that if 85% of the product was grown in Canada, that would be sufficient. It is unclear on whose behalf she was speaking, however farmers are now being blamed for nonchalance towards specification as to the exact percentage of Canadian-made ingredients in a product. Consumers, expressing their opinions on the CBC website, appear to be disgusted at the prospect of farmers shrugging their shoulders and saying that 85% would be sufficient. Consumers are demanding that exact percentages are given, as well as details as to where the non-Canadian ingredients come from. Wrote one consumer in the section for posting comments: “When you buy something without peanuts, are you satisfied with ‘No Peanuts’ meaning 85% peanut-free? No, of course not.”

"Product of Canada" now means that 98% of the ingredients were grown in Canada.

It is all quite complicated. Some producers are objecting to the label because they are now excluded due to a mere 3% of non-Canadian ingredients. Some consumers are blaming Paul Mulroney for the issues that have resulted from his free trade policies. Others are saying, “what’s the big deal? 85% is better than what we’ve had in the past.” There are farmers who are responding to that opinion with a resounding “damned right” and still other farmers who are saying, “heck no! 100% Canadian or GO HOME.”

I find it ironic though, that the main reason consumers demanded the label in the first place was for the benefit of farmers, and in order to support Canadian growers and more locally produced food. And now farmers are being pin-pointed by reporters as the ones who are reacting against the strictness of this label. Riddle me that. I would venture to say that reporters and responding consumers are betting on the wrong horses. It is likely that the ones who will be missing out as a result of this label are the large corporations that import a lot and process a lot. Sodium! Refined sugar! How often are nutritionists warning against the consumption of too much sugar and salt? Eliminating these will present big problems for those processors who like to add a little wee bit of fruit to that “fruit cup” and a little wee bit of tomato to that “tomato soup.” It makes for a tasty product, hooks a lot of kids and adults alike, and can sit on the shelf for months; no, years!

The new guidelines for the “Product of Canada” label means that we are going to have to get a little more creative in order to keep certain products eligible. And this will to the benefit of the Canadian farmer. We can choose to see it as an opportunity for Canadian farmers to shine, and as an occasion to explore the potential of Canadian land to produce perfectly sufficient diets. As many consumers have testified – while proclaiming that even 98% Canadian is not enough – it  is possible to consume a purely Canadian diet, and the “Product of Canada” label can make it a little easier to do so.

Maple Syrup - 100% Canadian

 

Making Amendments

There is an error in my last post, and don’t like letting such things sit. I could correct the post itself, and leave no sign of the mistake, but I think it should be talked over, so here we go.

Not all people are able to grow their own food, and not all people are able to support the local and organic grower. It isn’t always an “either-or” – sometimes it’s a “neither-nor.”

Buying local and organic food is cheap. Dirt cheap. Buying imported and conventional food is even cheaper. It’s ridiculously cheap. And when that even-cheaper imported food sits next to the cheap-but-not-quite-as-cheap local food… it can be hard to turn down, especially when the budget is tight. Because of the way things are (let’s keep it ambiguous for now), not everyone has the means to buy food, let alone the more expensive option. People who are struggling to put food on the table in the first place can hardly be expected to be the ones responsible for making amendments. So I just wanted to acknowledge this, in hopes of solving the erroneousness of my last post.

Everybody’s Doing It… Even Mr. President

 The trend in local and organic food that has been spreading like wild fire has reached the White House. The New York Times has reported that the Obamas, with the help of elementary school kids and an assistant White House chef (and probably a good number of professional landscapers and gardeners – let’s be real) will be putting in a 1, 100 square-foot vegetable garden. It will be stocked with 55 varieties of vegetables and a berry patch will be planted close by.

The Obamas certainly have a lot of space for a garden!

 

Mrs. Obama is optimistic about the garden, and the potential to provide her family with fresher, tastier food. She expressed awareness concerning the impact of imported foods, pre-packaged and processed meals, and diets that lack sufficient amounts of fruits and vegetables. Further, her children’s health is very important to her, and she wants to encourage healthy eating in her family. She hopes that the garden will set an example for the nation, which is plagued by obesity, diabetes, and a lacking awareness surrounding food production.

 

 

 

 

There is perhaps no better way to get an important message out there, such as local food and organic growing, than to walk the talk. Mrs. Obama demonstrated a very thorough understanding of food issues however, when she acknowledged that not all people are able to grow their own. While there are simple ways to grow food with little space and minimal time commitment, such as container gardening or a small garden plot, there is also something that can be done by those who have neither the time nor the space for growing. They can support the local and organic grower.

“Animals and Ethics” and an Unanswered Question

 “Intrinsic value,” “self-awareness,” and “consciousness” are a few of the words that were tossed around at the “Guelph Lecture in Philosophy: Animals and Ethics” yesterday afternoon. The Philosophy Department at the University of Guelph, along with the dedicated students who are running College Royal this weekend, arranged to have Peter Singer as the guest lecturer from Princeton University. The lecture hall, able to seat 400, was so packed that eager listeners found places to sit on the floor and lean against walls.  

 

 

Peter Singer has been called “the Initiator of the Modern Animal Rights Movement.” He started his lecture by recalling the traditional views of animals and their uses – Aristotle for instance, who based value on rationality, and “man is most rational”, Thomas Aquinas’ view that God has subjected all things to man’s power, and Immanuel Kant: “We have no duties… Animals are not self-conscious and are a means to an end. Man is that end.”

 

Peter Singer presented a wide range of points of view and reasons for the fair treatment of animals. Among these, he argued that pain, hunger, and thirst are clearly morally significant, especially since humans share these common interests with animals. “Equal Consideration of Interests,” which is a view that Singer defends, proposes that equal consideration should be given to species, regardless of how they vary, and because they cannot speak up for themselves.

Peter Singer showed a few photographs of the "unethical" conditions for animals on factory farms.

 

 

It was no surprise to me that Singer’s presentation dedicated a few power point slides to photographs of hogs sleeping on concrete floors and surrounded by bars that were so tight they could not turn around, calves poking heads out of tiny white houses, and layers of chickens in battery cages. His story about the factory farms refusing to allow him and a photographer inside their barns to see the animals was no surprise either. What surprised me was the response from the audience to a lecture given on College Royal weekend. Was no one going to stick up for the farmers? The line ups at the microphones on either side of the lecture hall were so long during the question time that Singer was hard-pressed to offer adequate responses while keeping the lecture to two hours. But would no one question this big-ideas lecturer about who he supposed would pay for the changes to farming that his big ideas would entail?

 

Many statistics were provided that reported progress in regard to doing away with battery cages and other methods considered unethical, but Singer did not address the question mark that I thought would surely be hanging over the heads of at least a few attendees. Lectures such as this one are certainly valuable in raising awareness surrounding ethics and the philosophy behind animal rights and activism. But a question I felt should be at least acknowledged – especially if farmers are being placed in a poor light as they were – was who will pay, in terms of both money and time? Regardless of who is to blame for the present state of farming, surely the already over-worked and underpaid farmers cannot be expected to “ethicize” their farms alone. Governments and consumers beware: I am placing much of the onus on you.

Peter Singer, from Princeton University, lectured on "Animals and Ethics" this weekend, as part of College Royal's lecture series.

So much relies on the humble honeybees…

Agricultural news seems to be buzzing with articles addressing honey bee populations. Researchers have been dedicated to figuring out why honeybee populations have been decreasing so rapidly, and after over five years of research, it seems that no conclusion has been reached over what the root cause might be. This may be because there is no root cause. Researchers are saying that the honeybee dieoff is likely due to a number of causes: loss of habitat, agricultural pesticides, and pressure for their pollination work, to name a few.

The production of most fruits and vegetables relies on the pollination service provided by honeybees.

The well-being of honeybees and the success of agriculture are directly related, each relying on the other. Honeybees pollinate fruit trees and many types of vegetable plants – onions, apples, strawberries. Most crops rely on the service provided by those busy little buzzers. In fact, a recent BBC report stated that “one in every three mouthfuls has been touched by their tiny little feet.” But now research is suggesting that the health of honeybees may also rely on the types of food provided to them. Feeding on only one type of food source during pollination could be the reason for weakened health and decreasing numbers of honeybees.

This problem may be representing a much bigger issue. If the numerous causes that have been identified – monocropping, pesticides,  loss of natural habitat – are harming honeybees, I see a hand being bitten by the one who feeds it. Although these tiny insects may go unnoticed much of the time, with so many crops relying on honeybees for their fruitfulness, it is critical that their health be seriously considered by producers and consumers alike.

Rant. Concerning Organics.

Skeptics of organic food run rampant through grocery stores and marketplaces. If you promise not to tell anyone, I’ll tell you a secret. I am one of them. The organic food craze that started in the late 1980s was a response to the agricultural pesticides that were found to threaten biodiversity and do other freaky things like cause tumours in lab rats. After ignoring organics for a while, governments acknowledged the popular interest in the 1990s, and there have been battles over regulations, standards, and certifications ever since.

Organic products can be found in grocery stores nation-wide.

In order to understand on what grounds I stand in my skepticism about organics, we will have to journey back further than the present craze for organic cookies in flashy green and blue packaging, and exotic organic fruits that I’ve never even heard of before. We will need to explore the philosophy behind organic agriculture, which can largely be attributed to Sir Albert Howard and Lady Eve Balfour of England, and J.I. Rodale of the U.S. Before WWII, these “modern organic pioneers” were among the first to emphasize the close relation between the health of the earth, the quality of food, and human health and well-being. At the core of the organic philosophy, there lies a commitment to holism, and a dedication to the holistic health and well-being of entire communities.

If the product on the grocery store shelf can be labeled “organic” – being compiled of ingredients from everywhere but here, “Made in Canada,” wrapped in material that will sit in the soil a whole lot longer than the food itself will sit in you, and brought to us by heavy machinery, lots of oil, plenty of factory, and very few hands – I would argue that the social, political, philosophical and most of the environmental content has been effectively deleted from the term “organic.”

Large-scale organic growing is especially common in California, where most of North America's fruits and vegetables come from.

What does truly organic agriculture look like? It is much more profound than an absence of pesticides, and much more purposeful than food production. To meet the original intentions of the organic philosophy, it looks a whole lot more community-engaged, socially aware, and environmentally sustainable. The industrialization of organics is what has me skeptical. It seems to be a step backwards, moving further away from the potential to know our growers and their environmental practices. It is further from the development of trust within producer-consumer relationships. Further from community engagement. Further from the holistic well-being of the community.

The industrialization of organics is so far from the organic ideology that it does not seem to resemble it much at all, likely causing many farmers to want to disown the label “organic” altogether. If I thought that the industrial organic would act as a stepping stone towards a more sustainable, holistic, and truly organic system, then I would not harp on its development or express concern over its repercussions on agriculture and the sustainability of communities. I am skeptical of industrial organics however, and would draw attention instead to a different agricultural movement – one which I argue has more potential to lead to the holistic venture that figures such as Lady Eve Balfour were exploring over 60 years ago.

“Seedies” Unite at Seedy Saturday

It’s happening! From the looks of things, Toronto is festering with excitement for urban agriculture, local food, sustainable growing, and community gardening. All of these topics and more were on the tongues of attendees who made up the energized crowd at Seedy Saturday, Toronto’s “best Eco Fair.” The event was hosted by the Toronto Community Gardening Network, The Stop Community Food Centre, FoodShare, and Seeds of Diversity, in the Artscape Wychwood Barns from 2:00pm to 6:00pm yesterday. The place buzzed as enthusiastic individuals made their way from the seed exchange area to the workshops, from the kids’ activities to the vendors. The event was all that earth-lovers and justice-seekers could hope for – it was organic; it was fair trade; it was sustainable. And it was packed!

 

The Wychwood Barns were packed on Saturday

 

This event demonstrated that an a-typical strain of agriculture is progressing – community-oriented, urban, organic, and generous in nature. Although it is not typical, the sheer numbers of participants and the positive responses to Seedy Saturday certainly made it seem like worm composters and green roofs are becoming the norm. Are they? Seedy Saturday’s workshops and vendors helped to confirm that alternatives to the conventional, industrial model are entirely conceivable. Further, the stories of community gardens and cultivation on school properties were absolutely inspiring. Let us hope that the energetic individuals and groups that are contributing to this movement continue to grow – both in number and in their gardens.

 

In Toronto, urban community gardens are on the rise

 

Many argue that necessity will drive agriculture in the direction of sustainability. An oil crisis or global conflict will make it local. A biodiversity scare will make it organic. But the enthusiasm that is alive and growing, demonstrated by the crowds at Seedy Saturday, makes me hopeful that it won’t be a crisis, conflict, or scare that acts as the driving force behind this movement. Instead, it will be a widespread desire for social equality, healthy children, a whole earth, and a food system that feels right.  The movement is driven by all those “seedies” out there, and those yet to come, who differentiate between that which is fair and unfair, healthy and unhealthy, whole and unholy, right and wrong.

 

One workshop focused on cold-framing

 

Fresh Fruits in February

The irony was obvious. As Colleen Smith-Robinson, the Executive Director of the Ontario Agri Food Education program (OAFE), stood before us to speak passionately about the importance of local food, an attractive plate of pineapple, strawberries, and melon was passed around. It is mid-February.

A group of interested students came together on Thursday evening to listen to Smith-Robinson and Betty Jean Crews, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA), discuss issues facing agriculture and agricultural communications. The presentation was organized by Canadian Agricultural Communicators of Tomorrow (CanACT). A main message presented by both speakers was clear, and summed up by Crews: “Buy local when you can; Ontario when you can’t do that; Canadian when you can’t do that.” For environmental, social, economic, nutritional, and political reasons, Crews and Smith-Robinson suggested that we all become “locavores” – devoted eaters of local food.

The fruit plate on Thursday couldn't have done a better job illustrating Smith-Robinson's point: "Our food travels an average of 2400 km before it reaches our plate."

Dedicated to the promotion of healthy eating in primary and secondary schools in particular, Smith-Robinson explained that OAFE takes on a triangular approach, focusing on health, agriculture, and education. The three are interconnected. Crews said that the OFA’s main goal is to “work towards the profitability and sustainability of our farmers.” Both speakers expressed concern over the challenge of how best to train and retain people in the agricultural industry, either farmers or educators concerned with the important issues facing the sector today.

Although Smith-Robinson suggested that speaking to an audience like the one in attendance was like “preaching to the choir,” and stressed the importance of getting the word about local food out to those who are still unaware, the plate of food that was being passed around makes me question whether the “choir” at the University of Guelph was in attendance that evening. If an informed mind and a heavy conscience is not keeping agriculture students from consuming fruits from Mexico and beyond, I suggest that an Ontario Agri Food Education program needs to start right here. After all, Smith-Robinson is hoping students like us will enter the workforce with passion and determination to make amendments to the present agri-food system. Someone in attendance asked: “what can we do?” to which the answer was given: “volunteer!” No doubt. But I suggest starting with that piece of advice offered early on in the evening: “buy local.” Let’s actively live out our own ideals, and show our dedication to the profitability and sustainability of our agri-food system – replacing pineapples and strawberries with apples and pears is a no-brainer, but a start nonetheless.

On Thursday evening, "locavore" was said to be the word of the year.

 

Cooperatives Make a Comeback

The economy’s present state may spark movements similar to those that developed during the economic recession of the 1930s. The Great Depression was a time of harsh conditions for farmers, during which cooperation and collaboration was often necessary. The power of working together to overcome hardships was discovered, something that had dwindled since the pioneers first settled in rural lands. The first official co-ops were formed in the agricultural industry, with farmers coming together to resist being exploited by external institutions, and to make bulk purchases of farming equipment and necessities. Canadian Cooperative Implements, which started in Saskatchewan during the 1930s and allowed cooperative groups of farmers to buy farm machinery at more reasonable prices, are an example of how cooperation could lead to mutual benefit during the Depression.

 

The economic recession of the 1930s caused many farming co-operatives to form.

Now, agricultural news is reporting the development of a cooperative movement in the prairies once again. Presently, there are over 1500 co-ops in the prairies, ranging from healthcare and childcare to community housing, and employing more than 14, 000 people. Originally a response to harsh realities of the Depression, cooperatives can still effectively allow vulnerable farming and rural communities to develop methods of withstanding economic stresses and shocks. By working together, farmers can reduce vulnerability during a time of economic unease.

 

During the 1930s when R.B. Bennet was Prime Minister, many Canadians, strapped for cash, would hook their cars up to their horses, creating what became known as the "Bennet Buggy". Horsepower was cheaper than fuel.

 

The extent to which the economic hard times that lay ahead will reflect those experienced during the Great Depression is not certain, however a return to more cooperative systems is not a bad prospect. Spotting a “Bennet-buggy” making its way down the road may be a more unpleasant flashback from the “Dirty Thirties”, though advocates for fuel efficiency certainly wouldn’t complain about that either.

 Listen to this post here!

 

2009 Federal Budget

The 2009 Federal Budget that was released yesterday addresses a wide range of issues in Canada, including the present state of the economy. At a time when finances are tight, it is especially interesting to see where the government’s priorities lie when it comes to budgeting. While agriculture is only addressed in a couple of sections in the document, the implications of the entire document are far-reaching, and will affect the farming sector even while it may not be specifically or frequently mentioned.

 

            Over the next 2 years, $55 million will be dedicated to helping young Canadians find summer jobs, and there will be a $1 billion increase in funding for training and skills development. With the number of farmers steadily decreasing, and the impression of the farming profession being that there is no money in it, one might hope that a portion of this money is dedicated to the encouragement and training of young farmers. As discussed in a former post, WWOOFing and internships on farms are ways to encourage young people to get involved with farming, however these options are not financially attractive to a student looking for rewarding summer employment, nor can most farmers afford to pay summer interns and workers for their very valuable contributions. This prospect would be very successful if the government were to provide the financial means to support young farmers and the farms that train them.

 

            On page 170, the 2009 Federal Budget acknowledges that “Canada’s farming sector is not isolated from the current economic downturn.” Many farmers are facing higher input prices, and are affected by low or volatile commodity prices. In April 2008, protection was given against income variability, natural hazards and disasters, and easier access to credit through cash advances. In July 2008, $1.3 billion in funding was provided to be used over 5 years, with an emphasis on building a profitable sector through more investment in innovation, action on key regulatory priorities, environment and food safety programs, programs to better meet local needs, and measures that enable farmers to be proactive in managing risks. Now, the 2009 Budget plans to “build on this strong foundation.”

 

Among many proposals of how to use the financial resources being supplied to the agricultural sector, such as strengthening slaughterhouse capacity, there are also proposed amendments to the Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act, in order to help make credit available to new farmers and support inter-generational farm transfers. The renewal of the sector’s workforce and enablement of cooperatives to better seize market opportunities are also goals that are proposed. These considerations show that the government is taking into account the potential of the farming sector to provide employment during a time of labour surplus, as well as the concerns surrounding whether or not a younger generation of farmers will move into the place left by so many older farmers’ aging and retirement. The vitality and continuance of Canada’s farming sector could depend on this acknowledgement, and subsequent action. Appropriate budgeting is certainly a start.