During the last month or two, Conservative politicians have been inserting new statistics and troubling words into their parliamentary responses that should be raising your level of concern. It has sure set off alarm bells for me.
Recent examples include: "farmers, exporters, processors", '90% of our farmers, who rely on exports', "only one out of 148 countries", "offensive and defensive positions".
You don't have to look very far to understand where a Western politician may have come up with some of this stuff!
Here is one example :
" This the first time since the last election that the Conservative Party of Canada has clearly articulated a position supporting trade liberalization. This clear statement should not stand alone, but be followed by a platform that articulates the needs of the 90% of farmers who depend upon world markets for their livelihoods, as well as the other export-oriented industries in Canada. "
For the full article see... ( Frontier Center for Public Policy )
This is patent nonsense. Real statistics demonstrate that :
The bulk - 70% - of Canada’s agri-food revenue (that is farms AND processors) comes from the Canadian market. Exports represent less than 30% of agri-food income.
Breakdown of income from all Canadian food - 70% domestic
- 20% U.S. and Mexico (covered by NAFTA)
- 10% to other countries
Therefore, the WTO accounts for only 10% of agri-food income in Canada – similar to what international trade brings to other countries as well.
If the current government pursues export markets at the cost of the supply managed farmers in Canada, Canada's own domestic food supply could be in peril. This is the downloading and greater cost that could accrue to taxpayers. The public would eventually have to support those farmers, just to ensure a domestic food supply.
Why destroy a group of farmers, who earn a decent living from the domestic marketplace, without cost to the consumer?
By chasing this right wing fantasy, politicians are NOT serving the public or the country well.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Thursday, June 29, 2006
International Federation of Agricultural Producers
Picture- Jack Wilkinson, President IFAP
This article deserves wider circulation so I am re-printing it here.
What if farmers said 'enough?'
OWEN ROBERTS
(Jun 26, 2006)
I don't think farmers scored points with consumers when they tried shutting down food terminals earlier this year, out of frustration against low prices. I'm pretty sure the corridors of power in Ottawa were spitting mad at them, too, and that anger spilled over onto the editorial pages of the capitol's main daily newspaper, whose editorial writers bitterly denounced the protesters as "anarchists on tractors."
But that seemingly radical activity may be a harbinger of things to come. And it all relates to the re-election last month of Canadian Jack Wilkinson to the presidency of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers.
Wilkinson, who spoke recently at the University of Guelph's Make Poverty History symposium, is the former president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
His 'three-peat' re-election at the federation's annual meeting in Seoul, Korea, was unprecedented. He's the first president to serve more than two terms. And he's been the driving force behind the federation adopting a World Farmers' Charter, a 10-point manifesto the federation says farmers want recognized universally, not by other farmers, but by those who make decisions influencing farmers.
For example, its first fundamental principle is the recognition of the importance of agriculture and the central role of farmers. That's followed by the need to recognize farmers' organizations as essential partners. Then comes the importance of farmers to earn a fair income, along with equal treatment for rural and urban communities, and support for women farmers.
The charter's brilliant, actually, in its simplicity and universality. As such, it has the makings of a rallying manifesto for farmers everywhere. It gives them a philosophical foundation, something to point to and say here's what we believe in.
The charter can also be instrumental in global negotiations, such as at the World Trade Organization, where decisions are made that profoundly affect farmers. Individual countries have represented their farmers at these negotiations, but that's not what Wilkinson and company think is best for farmers. The federation claims it's been dismissed from being a voice for farmers at such negotiations, because it doesn't officially represent a nation.
But consider the numbers. The federation lays claim to representing 600 million farm families belonging to 115 farm organizations in 80 countries, including Canada -- through the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which includes the Guelph-based Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
That's as broad a reach as it gets.
And brace yourself if these farmers collectively decide to follow the 10-point charter. They have a lot of buying and selling power, and they list fair and equitable rules for agricultural trade as one of their fundamental principles. They're intrinsically connected to most of our bare necessities, particularly food and water, and increasingly, energy, through the production of biofuels.
Wilkinson is making it very clear farmers want a bigger voice. When the world charter was released in Seoul, he said farmers from all over the world are calling on national governments, donor agencies, international institutions and other stakeholders to join them in recognizing its fundamental principles. He asked that everyone work together to implement these principles, "in a spirit of solidarity."
Does that sound like farmers talking?
To me, it sounds like organized labour. So does the sound of tractor engines, as farmers slow down traffic around Queen's Park and along the busy 401. So does the growing appearance of 'Farmers Feed Cities' signs everywhere. And so do very public actions such as shutting down food terminals.
All this stemmed from farmers being fed up, believing their voices weren't being heard. At Seoul, Wilkinson said that must change. One of the main reasons the federation was formed in the first place was to help farmers learn from each other, to address chronic pressing issues such as world hunger. As Wilkinson notes, things are tough for farmers, but globally, 1.2 billion people in the world still live on less than a dollar a day, and 800 million people -- some of whom are farmers -- still go to bed malnourished.
If being organized helps farmers fix this matter, more power to them. They cannot feed the world if they're going broke. And Wilkinson's ready to drive that message home, absolutely everywhere, with the charter behind him.
Owen Roberts teaches agricultural communications at the University of Guelph.
This article deserves wider circulation so I am re-printing it here.
What if farmers said 'enough?'
OWEN ROBERTS
(Jun 26, 2006)
I don't think farmers scored points with consumers when they tried shutting down food terminals earlier this year, out of frustration against low prices. I'm pretty sure the corridors of power in Ottawa were spitting mad at them, too, and that anger spilled over onto the editorial pages of the capitol's main daily newspaper, whose editorial writers bitterly denounced the protesters as "anarchists on tractors."
But that seemingly radical activity may be a harbinger of things to come. And it all relates to the re-election last month of Canadian Jack Wilkinson to the presidency of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers.
Wilkinson, who spoke recently at the University of Guelph's Make Poverty History symposium, is the former president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
His 'three-peat' re-election at the federation's annual meeting in Seoul, Korea, was unprecedented. He's the first president to serve more than two terms. And he's been the driving force behind the federation adopting a World Farmers' Charter, a 10-point manifesto the federation says farmers want recognized universally, not by other farmers, but by those who make decisions influencing farmers.
For example, its first fundamental principle is the recognition of the importance of agriculture and the central role of farmers. That's followed by the need to recognize farmers' organizations as essential partners. Then comes the importance of farmers to earn a fair income, along with equal treatment for rural and urban communities, and support for women farmers.
The charter's brilliant, actually, in its simplicity and universality. As such, it has the makings of a rallying manifesto for farmers everywhere. It gives them a philosophical foundation, something to point to and say here's what we believe in.
The charter can also be instrumental in global negotiations, such as at the World Trade Organization, where decisions are made that profoundly affect farmers. Individual countries have represented their farmers at these negotiations, but that's not what Wilkinson and company think is best for farmers. The federation claims it's been dismissed from being a voice for farmers at such negotiations, because it doesn't officially represent a nation.
But consider the numbers. The federation lays claim to representing 600 million farm families belonging to 115 farm organizations in 80 countries, including Canada -- through the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which includes the Guelph-based Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
That's as broad a reach as it gets.
And brace yourself if these farmers collectively decide to follow the 10-point charter. They have a lot of buying and selling power, and they list fair and equitable rules for agricultural trade as one of their fundamental principles. They're intrinsically connected to most of our bare necessities, particularly food and water, and increasingly, energy, through the production of biofuels.
Wilkinson is making it very clear farmers want a bigger voice. When the world charter was released in Seoul, he said farmers from all over the world are calling on national governments, donor agencies, international institutions and other stakeholders to join them in recognizing its fundamental principles. He asked that everyone work together to implement these principles, "in a spirit of solidarity."
Does that sound like farmers talking?
To me, it sounds like organized labour. So does the sound of tractor engines, as farmers slow down traffic around Queen's Park and along the busy 401. So does the growing appearance of 'Farmers Feed Cities' signs everywhere. And so do very public actions such as shutting down food terminals.
All this stemmed from farmers being fed up, believing their voices weren't being heard. At Seoul, Wilkinson said that must change. One of the main reasons the federation was formed in the first place was to help farmers learn from each other, to address chronic pressing issues such as world hunger. As Wilkinson notes, things are tough for farmers, but globally, 1.2 billion people in the world still live on less than a dollar a day, and 800 million people -- some of whom are farmers -- still go to bed malnourished.
If being organized helps farmers fix this matter, more power to them. They cannot feed the world if they're going broke. And Wilkinson's ready to drive that message home, absolutely everywhere, with the charter behind him.
Owen Roberts teaches agricultural communications at the University of Guelph.
International Federation of Agricultural Producers
Picture- Jack Wilkinson, President IFAP
This article deserves wider circulation so I am re-printing it here.
What if farmers said 'enough?'
OWEN ROBERTS
(Jun 26, 2006)
I don't think farmers scored points with consumers when they tried shutting down food terminals earlier this year, out of frustration against low prices. I'm pretty sure the corridors of power in Ottawa were spitting mad at them, too, and that anger spilled over onto the editorial pages of the capitol's main daily newspaper, whose editorial writers bitterly denounced the protesters as "anarchists on tractors."
But that seemingly radical activity may be a harbinger of things to come. And it all relates to the re-election last month of Canadian Jack Wilkinson to the presidency of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers.
Wilkinson, who spoke recently at the University of Guelph's Make Poverty History symposium, is the former president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
His 'three-peat' re-election at the federation's annual meeting in Seoul, Korea, was unprecedented. He's the first president to serve more than two terms. And he's been the driving force behind the federation adopting a World Farmers' Charter, a 10-point manifesto the federation says farmers want recognized universally, not by other farmers, but by those who make decisions influencing farmers.
For example, its first fundamental principle is the recognition of the importance of agriculture and the central role of farmers. That's followed by the need to recognize farmers' organizations as essential partners. Then comes the importance of farmers to earn a fair income, along with equal treatment for rural and urban communities, and support for women farmers.
The charter's brilliant, actually, in its simplicity and universality. As such, it has the makings of a rallying manifesto for farmers everywhere. It gives them a philosophical foundation, something to point to and say here's what we believe in.
The charter can also be instrumental in global negotiations, such as at the World Trade Organization, where decisions are made that profoundly affect farmers. Individual countries have represented their farmers at these negotiations, but that's not what Wilkinson and company think is best for farmers. The federation claims it's been dismissed from being a voice for farmers at such negotiations, because it doesn't officially represent a nation.
But consider the numbers. The federation lays claim to representing 600 million farm families belonging to 115 farm organizations in 80 countries, including Canada -- through the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which includes the Guelph-based Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
That's as broad a reach as it gets.
And brace yourself if these farmers collectively decide to follow the 10-point charter. They have a lot of buying and selling power, and they list fair and equitable rules for agricultural trade as one of their fundamental principles. They're intrinsically connected to most of our bare necessities, particularly food and water, and increasingly, energy, through the production of biofuels.
Wilkinson is making it very clear farmers want a bigger voice. When the world charter was released in Seoul, he said farmers from all over the world are calling on national governments, donor agencies, international institutions and other stakeholders to join them in recognizing its fundamental principles. He asked that everyone work together to implement these principles, "in a spirit of solidarity."
Does that sound like farmers talking?
To me, it sounds like organized labour. So does the sound of tractor engines, as farmers slow down traffic around Queen's Park and along the busy 401. So does the growing appearance of 'Farmers Feed Cities' signs everywhere. And so do very public actions such as shutting down food terminals.
All this stemmed from farmers being fed up, believing their voices weren't being heard. At Seoul, Wilkinson said that must change. One of the main reasons the federation was formed in the first place was to help farmers learn from each other, to address chronic pressing issues such as world hunger. As Wilkinson notes, things are tough for farmers, but globally, 1.2 billion people in the world still live on less than a dollar a day, and 800 million people -- some of whom are farmers -- still go to bed malnourished.
If being organized helps farmers fix this matter, more power to them. They cannot feed the world if they're going broke. And Wilkinson's ready to drive that message home, absolutely everywhere, with the charter behind him.
Owen Roberts teaches agricultural communications at the University of Guelph.
This article deserves wider circulation so I am re-printing it here.
What if farmers said 'enough?'
OWEN ROBERTS
(Jun 26, 2006)
I don't think farmers scored points with consumers when they tried shutting down food terminals earlier this year, out of frustration against low prices. I'm pretty sure the corridors of power in Ottawa were spitting mad at them, too, and that anger spilled over onto the editorial pages of the capitol's main daily newspaper, whose editorial writers bitterly denounced the protesters as "anarchists on tractors."
But that seemingly radical activity may be a harbinger of things to come. And it all relates to the re-election last month of Canadian Jack Wilkinson to the presidency of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers.
Wilkinson, who spoke recently at the University of Guelph's Make Poverty History symposium, is the former president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
His 'three-peat' re-election at the federation's annual meeting in Seoul, Korea, was unprecedented. He's the first president to serve more than two terms. And he's been the driving force behind the federation adopting a World Farmers' Charter, a 10-point manifesto the federation says farmers want recognized universally, not by other farmers, but by those who make decisions influencing farmers.
For example, its first fundamental principle is the recognition of the importance of agriculture and the central role of farmers. That's followed by the need to recognize farmers' organizations as essential partners. Then comes the importance of farmers to earn a fair income, along with equal treatment for rural and urban communities, and support for women farmers.
The charter's brilliant, actually, in its simplicity and universality. As such, it has the makings of a rallying manifesto for farmers everywhere. It gives them a philosophical foundation, something to point to and say here's what we believe in.
The charter can also be instrumental in global negotiations, such as at the World Trade Organization, where decisions are made that profoundly affect farmers. Individual countries have represented their farmers at these negotiations, but that's not what Wilkinson and company think is best for farmers. The federation claims it's been dismissed from being a voice for farmers at such negotiations, because it doesn't officially represent a nation.
But consider the numbers. The federation lays claim to representing 600 million farm families belonging to 115 farm organizations in 80 countries, including Canada -- through the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which includes the Guelph-based Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
That's as broad a reach as it gets.
And brace yourself if these farmers collectively decide to follow the 10-point charter. They have a lot of buying and selling power, and they list fair and equitable rules for agricultural trade as one of their fundamental principles. They're intrinsically connected to most of our bare necessities, particularly food and water, and increasingly, energy, through the production of biofuels.
Wilkinson is making it very clear farmers want a bigger voice. When the world charter was released in Seoul, he said farmers from all over the world are calling on national governments, donor agencies, international institutions and other stakeholders to join them in recognizing its fundamental principles. He asked that everyone work together to implement these principles, "in a spirit of solidarity."
Does that sound like farmers talking?
To me, it sounds like organized labour. So does the sound of tractor engines, as farmers slow down traffic around Queen's Park and along the busy 401. So does the growing appearance of 'Farmers Feed Cities' signs everywhere. And so do very public actions such as shutting down food terminals.
All this stemmed from farmers being fed up, believing their voices weren't being heard. At Seoul, Wilkinson said that must change. One of the main reasons the federation was formed in the first place was to help farmers learn from each other, to address chronic pressing issues such as world hunger. As Wilkinson notes, things are tough for farmers, but globally, 1.2 billion people in the world still live on less than a dollar a day, and 800 million people -- some of whom are farmers -- still go to bed malnourished.
If being organized helps farmers fix this matter, more power to them. They cannot feed the world if they're going broke. And Wilkinson's ready to drive that message home, absolutely everywhere, with the charter behind him.
Owen Roberts teaches agricultural communications at the University of Guelph.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Here we go again!?!??!
The next meetings for this round of the WTO are fast approaching and unfortunately for Canadians and farmers of all stripes, this government appears to be bent on making the same old mistakes. The western dominated government is focused on 'old' economic theories, that time has proven wrong. The Canadian public will not be well served by a government that destroys farmer market strength. Contrary to economic opinion, this massive downloading to farmers ends up 'costing' tax payers and consumers alike.
There have been several skirmishes in the House lately and they all surround supply management and the many questions about the governments' commitment to this group of farmers. (http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/038_2006-06-12/han038_1720-e.htm )
The most recent was the introduction of a motion in the House (June 13 ,2006, ) to adopt the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture . Three hours of debate and a day later the motion passed, with all MP's, except the Conservatives, voting for the Motion.
The Hon. Chuck Strahl, Federal Minister of Agriculture claims, "The motion before the House today would, if implemented, jeopardize this process and would, in the long-term, be ineffective in addressing dairy producers' concerns over imports of dairy ingredients outside of Canada's tariff rate quotas.”
If you are a dairy farmer and your local MP is a Conservative in this government, you had better be asking them some very tough questions. The Conservatives in the house the day of the vote could have done many things, other than 'vote' against their farmers.
Even more telling, some of the doggerel appearing in Western political think tank writings is showing up in the comments of Ministers and MP's. (see House of Commons Debates )
And recently: Mr. Jacques Gourde (CPC): .....However, it is true that Canada is under a great deal of pressure at the WTO with regard to key issues that directly affect supply- managed sectors. Specifically, the 148 other members of the WTO are ready to accept a reduction in customs tariffs and an increase in tariff quotas for sensitive products.
Since a majority of the milk in Canada is produced in Ontario and Quebec, this smells a lot like east against west. Ontario and Quebec Conservative MP's had better pull up their socks and work for their supply managed farmers if they want to be supported for re-election.
You cannot say you support Supply Management and then turn around and try to buffalo with baffle gab. These farmers have come through too many political skirmishes, to believe the same old junk.
There have been several skirmishes in the House lately and they all surround supply management and the many questions about the governments' commitment to this group of farmers. (http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/038_2006-06-12/han038_1720-e.htm )
The most recent was the introduction of a motion in the House (June 13 ,2006, ) to adopt the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture . Three hours of debate and a day later the motion passed, with all MP's, except the Conservatives, voting for the Motion.
The Hon. Chuck Strahl, Federal Minister of Agriculture claims, "The motion before the House today would, if implemented, jeopardize this process and would, in the long-term, be ineffective in addressing dairy producers' concerns over imports of dairy ingredients outside of Canada's tariff rate quotas.”
If you are a dairy farmer and your local MP is a Conservative in this government, you had better be asking them some very tough questions. The Conservatives in the house the day of the vote could have done many things, other than 'vote' against their farmers.
Even more telling, some of the doggerel appearing in Western political think tank writings is showing up in the comments of Ministers and MP's. (see House of Commons Debates )
And recently: Mr. Jacques Gourde (CPC): .....However, it is true that Canada is under a great deal of pressure at the WTO with regard to key issues that directly affect supply- managed sectors. Specifically, the 148 other members of the WTO are ready to accept a reduction in customs tariffs and an increase in tariff quotas for sensitive products.
Since a majority of the milk in Canada is produced in Ontario and Quebec, this smells a lot like east against west. Ontario and Quebec Conservative MP's had better pull up their socks and work for their supply managed farmers if they want to be supported for re-election.
You cannot say you support Supply Management and then turn around and try to buffalo with baffle gab. These farmers have come through too many political skirmishes, to believe the same old junk.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
"All Natural" ice cream? Not so.
Just recently, as I was doing my usual grocery run. I went to the frozen dairy section to pick up a favoured ice cream.........
I have been an inveterate label reader for decades and have been in turn amused, insulted and horrified by some of the terminology utilized on our food product labels. Consequently, I am fairly well informed about what some of the terminology used on labels could mean.
I have followed the ice cream wars for many years, from the time our farmers tried to stop the importation of butter oil....to the introduction of new components in dairy labels known as milk components , milk solids or milk ingredients and modified milk ingredients.
As an ice cream purist ... what is put in my ice cream is of vast interest to me!!! Especially when you can put a relatively few simple products in a home ice cream maker and come up with SUCH a tasty product.
So back to the grocery store AND the ice cream department...... the ice cream in question
( Breyers All Natural Vanilla) lists as its first 5 ingredients :
milk ingredients, sugar, modified milk ingredients, glucose, natural vanilla flavour & 6 other ingredients, which includes mono- and diglycerides & polysorbate 80!!!
The last listed ingredient is natural vanilla bean. I guess that is why they can call it "ALL NATURAL", a misleading label, if I ever saw one.
No where on this label does it state milk or cream as an ingredient. For this, I paid $6.59 for 2 litres at Sobeys on sale, reduced from over $7.00 ! Since they are paying bargain basement prices for the 'milk ingredients' and the 'modified milk ingredients' (what does THAT mean to consumers?) I am more than annoyed by the price!
Milk Protein Concentrate (MPC) is a component of milk. It is purchased from processors who receive whole milk and may have skim milk powder left over. A further refinement leaves you with MPC. This stuff is made in Canada OR it can be imported! Shouldn't companies be required to tell us where it came from? Consumers can only assume that 'modified milk ingredients' means this component.
Nobody is telling us what it is!
The other problem I have is that all substitutes to real cream are cheaper than cream to use in ice cream mixes. This shouldn't be an issue, however, unfortunately it is. With cheaper components most consumers assume that the company will pass these savings on to their customers. Not so!! Time after time products in the grocery stores are priced to the beat of a different drummer and this one is no different!
The processor and the retailer have no interest in providing a cheaper product for me to purchase. They are only interested in THEIR bottom line!
No wonder dairy farmers are disgusted with these high jinks. Me-thinks processors protest too much. Especially when these companies have all seen continued profits and growth.
This issue continues to show up out there in the public and in the minds of various politicians AND economists.
The same old saw that taking away farmers market power will give consumers better (read lower) prices in the stores. This is the lie that gets continued support by many. What nonsense!.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Another Ice Cream Story.....
Just recently, a friend, who happens to teach a grade four class was asking about milk, milk products and import export rules or activity in Canada. We discussed import rules, export products and the fact that milk protein concentrates and butter-oil & sugar blends were all allowed into the country without impunity and were put into Canadian products like ice cream and cheese, without disclosure on labels.
We had a look at some ice cream labels and I interpreted some of the ingredients for her. She was not happy about the imports entering into her food choices, without her knowledge. She also didn't like the fact that as much as she wanted to support Canadian farmers, there was no way for her to really know, where the ingredients in her products came from.
This discussion highlights a very large problem for Canadian consumers and farmers alike.
From a recent Léger Marketing telephone poll :
* 98% feel it is important that Canadians have access to a stable supply of made-in-Canada food;
* 95% of respondents agree that family farms are an important part of the economy for rural communities; and
* 83% agree that supply management is a better approach to ensuring a decent living for farmers than taxpayer-funded subsidies.
"These very strong results clearly show the kind of agriculture Canadians want in this country," said David Fuller, Chairman of Chicken Farmers of Canada. "Consumers from coast to coast want made-in-Canada food and a decent living for our farmers, without the need for taxpayer funded subsidies.
" Supply management works for our rural communities, it works for our dairy, poultry and egg farmers, and it works for consumers."
Canada's dairy, poultry and egg industries generate about $7 billion in farm cash receipts, sustain more than $39 billion of economic activity and employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians throughout the country.
The Léger Marketing telephone poll was commissioned by the five national organizations that represent Canada's dairy, poultry and egg farmers and was conducted between May 16 and 21, 2006. The results of the poll of 1,500 Canadians are considered accurate to within +/- 2.5%, 19 times out of 20.
Just how are consumers going to know if what they are buying is supporting Canadian farmers? Farmers, processors, retailers and the government have all been doing a very poor job of getting the word out. Obviously, if my friend is any indicator (and I think she is), trying to wade through the many confusing terms of a product label is not helping!
Consumers need help to figure this stuff out. If government won't do it, farmers better start thinking about it very hard. It's almost a sure bet retailers and processors won't.
We had a look at some ice cream labels and I interpreted some of the ingredients for her. She was not happy about the imports entering into her food choices, without her knowledge. She also didn't like the fact that as much as she wanted to support Canadian farmers, there was no way for her to really know, where the ingredients in her products came from.
This discussion highlights a very large problem for Canadian consumers and farmers alike.
From a recent Léger Marketing telephone poll :
* 98% feel it is important that Canadians have access to a stable supply of made-in-Canada food;
* 95% of respondents agree that family farms are an important part of the economy for rural communities; and
* 83% agree that supply management is a better approach to ensuring a decent living for farmers than taxpayer-funded subsidies.
"These very strong results clearly show the kind of agriculture Canadians want in this country," said David Fuller, Chairman of Chicken Farmers of Canada. "Consumers from coast to coast want made-in-Canada food and a decent living for our farmers, without the need for taxpayer funded subsidies.
" Supply management works for our rural communities, it works for our dairy, poultry and egg farmers, and it works for consumers."
Canada's dairy, poultry and egg industries generate about $7 billion in farm cash receipts, sustain more than $39 billion of economic activity and employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians throughout the country.
The Léger Marketing telephone poll was commissioned by the five national organizations that represent Canada's dairy, poultry and egg farmers and was conducted between May 16 and 21, 2006. The results of the poll of 1,500 Canadians are considered accurate to within +/- 2.5%, 19 times out of 20.
Just how are consumers going to know if what they are buying is supporting Canadian farmers? Farmers, processors, retailers and the government have all been doing a very poor job of getting the word out. Obviously, if my friend is any indicator (and I think she is), trying to wade through the many confusing terms of a product label is not helping!
Consumers need help to figure this stuff out. If government won't do it, farmers better start thinking about it very hard. It's almost a sure bet retailers and processors won't.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
More Ice Cream ....
I like ice cream. This may appear self evident but I thought I should say it for the record anyway. So it occurred to me that I should rate my tasting experiences and also let people know what is really in those packages. So I will be posting about different brands and what they are putting in their products.
The very hot weather we had a few weeks ago, sent ice cream aficionados racing to the nearest ice cream outlet. With no outlet serving really good stuff handy, I broke down and went into a local Macs Milk (Hey, what can I say...I was desperate!).
There were many of the ordinary sorts of ice cream available there BUT they also had ..... Haagen Dazs ice cream!!!! Obviously, I am not the only desperate ice cream hound that frequents this expensive store, because they had a good supply available and in several flavours! I finally bought two Vanilla Swiss Almond 500 ml cartons, priced at $6.29 each! Not even that price could stop me. It was worth the money for this late night snack.
The ingredients listed in this ice cream are as follows:
cream, sugar, chocolate coated almonds, ultra filtered skim milk, concentrated skim milk, liquid egg yolk, corn syrup, natural vanilla extract & salt
I also note the lack of interesting chemical compounds on the ingredients list for this brand of ice cream. If you want a natural ice cream, this one fills the bill. It is made in Canada by Nestle.
For a detailed history of this brand go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haagen_Dazs .
This ice cream gets 3 ice cream cones for taste, ingredients list and for using a lot of Canadian milk & cream.
The very hot weather we had a few weeks ago, sent ice cream aficionados racing to the nearest ice cream outlet. With no outlet serving really good stuff handy, I broke down and went into a local Macs Milk (Hey, what can I say...I was desperate!).
There were many of the ordinary sorts of ice cream available there BUT they also had ..... Haagen Dazs ice cream!!!! Obviously, I am not the only desperate ice cream hound that frequents this expensive store, because they had a good supply available and in several flavours! I finally bought two Vanilla Swiss Almond 500 ml cartons, priced at $6.29 each! Not even that price could stop me. It was worth the money for this late night snack.
The ingredients listed in this ice cream are as follows:
cream, sugar, chocolate coated almonds, ultra filtered skim milk, concentrated skim milk, liquid egg yolk, corn syrup, natural vanilla extract & salt
I also note the lack of interesting chemical compounds on the ingredients list for this brand of ice cream. If you want a natural ice cream, this one fills the bill. It is made in Canada by Nestle.
For a detailed history of this brand go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haagen_Dazs .
This ice cream gets 3 ice cream cones for taste, ingredients list and for using a lot of Canadian milk & cream.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)