Talk to Any Consumers Lately? I have.
As a volunteer at a local fall fair, I was manning a dairy display. Many diverse people stopped in at the display., asking the usual questions. But extraordinarily, I had many questions by women and their partners about “local” food or milk. I think this is a very, very , important development.
It tracks with my ‘gut’ instincts about this issue. I have been posting about this, for a while now.
A sampling:
"What is the difference between dha milk and omega 3 milk and ordinary milk?
Is the milk in my store from Ontario?
What ice cream brands should I look for? How can I be sure my food is grown and produced in Ontario or Canada?
Why doesn’t the store tell us about this?
What do I have to do to ensure I am getting ‘local/Canadian’ food?
Why doesn’t someone ‘do’ something about this?!"
I tried my best to be as informative as I could but every time I answered one of these questions I got more and more angry at a farm community who is crying out for Canadians to buy Canadian and a system where NO ONE is telling the public what they need to know to do this and how to make it change. Our governments are not much help on this one either. To be fair, any government trying to balance the diverse interests of a processing or retail industry and the needs of agriculture, would have a difficult time doing this.
Of course in Ontario we have the ‘Foodland Ontario’ program which is helpful . But the public doesn’t seem to understand that without the Foodland symbol…they cannot be sure their products are grown here. There must some added element to it. Our vegetable and fruit farmers need to get together and promote ‘Foodland’, what it means and what the retailers are not doing.
In the dairy business, the only comparable symbol or program is the ‘blue cow’ symbol form Dairy Farmers of Canada. Except for recent forays into the ice cream market with this symbol, the blue cow’s presence or lack thereof, is not making a mark with the public. A much higher profile is needed!
We have a profound disconnect occurring between the farmers' products, what is happening in the retail and processing sectors and our buying public.
I think it is very simple. There is no school, no program, no book, no article, no advertising, no one explaining to the consumer how the system works or what to look for. How the heck are they supposed to 'get it'!?
Someone needs to get real aggressive here and make the message very plain and very simple. No symbol…don’t buy!!!! Agriculture must educate the public. It is in their interests to do this.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Saturday, August 19, 2006
The Big Lie
I figured I may as well reproduce Ms. Holm's watershed article as it touched off so much activity. Just in case people don't follow up. -cg
The big lie?
Submitted to Western Producer for August 10, 2006
(UNPUBLISHED)
Wendy R. Holm, P.Ag.
The Americans have been gunning for the Canadian Wheat Board since the mid 1980's. Some twenty years later, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is poised to give it to them on a platter.
Coming out of a July 27th meeting to which only those who held the same opinion were invited, Harper's agriculture minister Chuck Strahl said his government is ready to implement its election promise to revoke the single-desk selling authority of the Canadian Wheat Board.
What an American-based WTO challenge and trade countervail action could not accomplish, Harper is about to deliver. Washington must be so pleased.In April 2002, following a meeting with top US trade officials, North Dakota Wheat Commission Chair Maynard Satrom assured growers "the common objective of both the U.S. government and U.S. wheat producers is the ultimate reform of the monopolistic Canadian Wheat Board."
Two weeks later, in Senate testimony, the US Department of Agriculture argued that the special privileges of single-desk sellers gave "unfair advantages" to CWB farmers, adding that American grain should be able to freely compete with Canadian grain for Canadian rail shipments.
Complaining that the practices of the CWB restrict US access to our market and make US producers less competitive on world markets, the USDA called for "fundamental reform" of organizations such as the CWB "to permanently assure that U.S. producers are treated fairly in the world market".In March 2003 a WTO challenge was launched. Canada won that action in April 2004, as well as it's subsequent appeal several months later.
In May the following year, the North Dakota Wheat Commission was at it again. In a letter to the House Ways and Means Committee, it argued the CWB "has a longstanding history of creating and developing a competitive advantage in wheat markets around the world."
Well done! And the results are impressive. A privately held member cooperative, the CWB ranked number 95 in this year's list of the Financial Post's FP 500 companies. Just behind SNC-Lavalin, Saputo Inc and Canfor Corporation. According to the Canadian Business Resource , "their status as the only seller of western Canadian wheat and barley positions the CWB to earn premium prices for farmers on annual sales of over 2 million tones of grain to more than 70 countries. All revenue, less marketing costs, is returned to about 85,000 Prairie farmers. The CWB has a proud reputation for high-quality products, reliable supply and delivery and unparalleled customer support."
Yet, on July 27th the Conservative government told farmers they are ready to implement legislative and regulatory changes to remove the single-desk authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. For the CWB, dual desk selling is a whistle stop away from gone. Multinational competitors with deep pockets will bid away grain in the short term, and the CWB will starve to death. Once gone, grower premiums of $30-$45 per tonne that farm economists attribute to the CWB will disappear forever.
But the damage will not stop there - collapse of the CWB will have a domino effect on the rest of the prairie grain economy. The CWB's role in producer car allocation is a case in point. Presently, there are approximately 12,000 producer cars that arrive on demand at short line sidings across the Prairies to transport grain to Thunder Bay, Vancouver and Port Rupert, where it is bought by the CWB. Producer cars save farmers $5-15 per tonne over delivering grain to a local elevator. Without the CWB, the producer car system will disappear.
Unless farmers can find a 3rd party buyer to take the grain off their hands at port, the only option will be to haul it to the long line terminals of the multinationals, where farmers will be price takers of daily rates based on lowest-cost global grain supplies. A race to the bottom, and Stephen Harper would lead us all there.
As short line railways that rely on producer car shipments disappear, the small communities they support will grow smaller and less sustainable.
Independent grain handling facilities that today are supported by the CWB's overseas marketing connections will quickly disappear in a market dominated by transnationals.Highways will further deteriorate, as farmers have no option but to haul grain longer and longer distances to larger and larger elevators.Canadian grain will become generic and be mixed with the grain of other countries, lowering prices to western Canadian grain farmers.
With the top four firms controlling 73% of world grain markets and the top five controlling an 80% share, with six major North American rail companies controlling freight rates and car access, now is not the environment in which to weaken the power of farmers in the market place.
Section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act is very clear - no Minister will introduce any changes to the marketing of wheat and barley without consulting with the CWB and putting it to a producer vote. (emphasis is mine- cg) Stephen Harper and his government apparently feel they are above this process. Strahl says they will enact legislative and regulatory changes to remove the single desk sales authority of the CWB, and are prepared to do so with or without CWB support.Bill C-300 is part of that strategy. A private members bill that will amend the Wheat Board Act to allow non-CWB sales, it is sponsored by Agriculture Committee chair Jerry Ritz. Bill C-300 comes before the House for third reading and vote this September.
The Harper agenda for Prairie agriculture sees grain as just another sector ripe for take over by multinational interests. Farmers will turn from decision makers to price takers. Strong and viable family grain farms will be replaced by mega-farms with farm managers in double-wides.
Western Canada voters did not give Harper a mandate to deliver Washington's wish list for the Canadian Wheat Board. If farmers stand for this, we will fall for anything. Democracy is on the line.
_________________
Next month's column will focus in on Bill C-300, and why it must be defeated in September.
___________________________
NOTE: I attended the July 27th rally in Saskatoon in support of the Canadian Wheat Board as an Agrologist and at my own expense. I am a freelance columnist and not a member of The Western Producer staff. My participation of the events of July 27, including walking with farmers in an early morning information picket, was as a Canadian Agrologist.
My participation did not in any way represent the views of The Western Producer. I apologise if there was any confusion in the minds of some in attendance.
The big lie?
Submitted to Western Producer for August 10, 2006
(UNPUBLISHED)
Wendy R. Holm, P.Ag.
The Americans have been gunning for the Canadian Wheat Board since the mid 1980's. Some twenty years later, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is poised to give it to them on a platter.
Coming out of a July 27th meeting to which only those who held the same opinion were invited, Harper's agriculture minister Chuck Strahl said his government is ready to implement its election promise to revoke the single-desk selling authority of the Canadian Wheat Board.
What an American-based WTO challenge and trade countervail action could not accomplish, Harper is about to deliver. Washington must be so pleased.In April 2002, following a meeting with top US trade officials, North Dakota Wheat Commission Chair Maynard Satrom assured growers "the common objective of both the U.S. government and U.S. wheat producers is the ultimate reform of the monopolistic Canadian Wheat Board."
Two weeks later, in Senate testimony, the US Department of Agriculture argued that the special privileges of single-desk sellers gave "unfair advantages" to CWB farmers, adding that American grain should be able to freely compete with Canadian grain for Canadian rail shipments.
Complaining that the practices of the CWB restrict US access to our market and make US producers less competitive on world markets, the USDA called for "fundamental reform" of organizations such as the CWB "to permanently assure that U.S. producers are treated fairly in the world market".In March 2003 a WTO challenge was launched. Canada won that action in April 2004, as well as it's subsequent appeal several months later.
In May the following year, the North Dakota Wheat Commission was at it again. In a letter to the House Ways and Means Committee, it argued the CWB "has a longstanding history of creating and developing a competitive advantage in wheat markets around the world."
Well done! And the results are impressive. A privately held member cooperative, the CWB ranked number 95 in this year's list of the Financial Post's FP 500 companies. Just behind SNC-Lavalin, Saputo Inc and Canfor Corporation. According to the Canadian Business Resource , "their status as the only seller of western Canadian wheat and barley positions the CWB to earn premium prices for farmers on annual sales of over 2 million tones of grain to more than 70 countries. All revenue, less marketing costs, is returned to about 85,000 Prairie farmers. The CWB has a proud reputation for high-quality products, reliable supply and delivery and unparalleled customer support."
Yet, on July 27th the Conservative government told farmers they are ready to implement legislative and regulatory changes to remove the single-desk authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. For the CWB, dual desk selling is a whistle stop away from gone. Multinational competitors with deep pockets will bid away grain in the short term, and the CWB will starve to death. Once gone, grower premiums of $30-$45 per tonne that farm economists attribute to the CWB will disappear forever.
But the damage will not stop there - collapse of the CWB will have a domino effect on the rest of the prairie grain economy. The CWB's role in producer car allocation is a case in point. Presently, there are approximately 12,000 producer cars that arrive on demand at short line sidings across the Prairies to transport grain to Thunder Bay, Vancouver and Port Rupert, where it is bought by the CWB. Producer cars save farmers $5-15 per tonne over delivering grain to a local elevator. Without the CWB, the producer car system will disappear.
Unless farmers can find a 3rd party buyer to take the grain off their hands at port, the only option will be to haul it to the long line terminals of the multinationals, where farmers will be price takers of daily rates based on lowest-cost global grain supplies. A race to the bottom, and Stephen Harper would lead us all there.
As short line railways that rely on producer car shipments disappear, the small communities they support will grow smaller and less sustainable.
Independent grain handling facilities that today are supported by the CWB's overseas marketing connections will quickly disappear in a market dominated by transnationals.Highways will further deteriorate, as farmers have no option but to haul grain longer and longer distances to larger and larger elevators.Canadian grain will become generic and be mixed with the grain of other countries, lowering prices to western Canadian grain farmers.
With the top four firms controlling 73% of world grain markets and the top five controlling an 80% share, with six major North American rail companies controlling freight rates and car access, now is not the environment in which to weaken the power of farmers in the market place.
Section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act is very clear - no Minister will introduce any changes to the marketing of wheat and barley without consulting with the CWB and putting it to a producer vote. (emphasis is mine- cg) Stephen Harper and his government apparently feel they are above this process. Strahl says they will enact legislative and regulatory changes to remove the single desk sales authority of the CWB, and are prepared to do so with or without CWB support.Bill C-300 is part of that strategy. A private members bill that will amend the Wheat Board Act to allow non-CWB sales, it is sponsored by Agriculture Committee chair Jerry Ritz. Bill C-300 comes before the House for third reading and vote this September.
The Harper agenda for Prairie agriculture sees grain as just another sector ripe for take over by multinational interests. Farmers will turn from decision makers to price takers. Strong and viable family grain farms will be replaced by mega-farms with farm managers in double-wides.
Western Canada voters did not give Harper a mandate to deliver Washington's wish list for the Canadian Wheat Board. If farmers stand for this, we will fall for anything. Democracy is on the line.
_________________
Next month's column will focus in on Bill C-300, and why it must be defeated in September.
___________________________
NOTE: I attended the July 27th rally in Saskatoon in support of the Canadian Wheat Board as an Agrologist and at my own expense. I am a freelance columnist and not a member of The Western Producer staff. My participation of the events of July 27, including walking with farmers in an early morning information picket, was as a Canadian Agrologist.
My participation did not in any way represent the views of The Western Producer. I apologise if there was any confusion in the minds of some in attendance.
Friday, August 18, 2006
And the Real Issue Is?
Ms. Holm's removal from the Western Producer has touched off a spate of activity on discussion lists in the east. Her material is posted complete with her unpublished last column and her response to the Western Producer comments. This resulted in several interesting 'takes' on what was going on.
A sampling:
''in Senate testimony, the US Department of Agriculture argued that the special privileges of single-desk sellers gave "unfair advantages" to CWB farmers, adding that American grain should be able to freely compete with Canadian grain for Canadian rail shipments.''
that's what it's all about..... the CWB controls the movement of grains on the railroad. FTAA is about open roads and open markets.
we are headed towards a new North American community and the CWB must die because with the board the Canadian farmer control transportation on the rail.
Chief Justice Osgoode was concerned about control of transportation of agricultural products. Whomever controlled transportation, controlled the price of the commodity.....this in the early 1790's. Not much has changed.
Fighting over the rights to control grains on the railroad is only half the equation and I have yet to hear the other half.
If Bill Gates (largest stakeholder of CN) and Mr. James Snow ( former Sec. of the U.S. Treasury [retired jul 3/06] and CEO of CSXT) gain control of our rails..... the canadian consumer will bow to their schedule of produce delivery and at their price... not the schedule that is now in trust with our democratically elected and appointed members of our country.
so sad that we are not being allowed to be engaged in the discussion..... Wendy's right ... our democratic rights are at stake.
*******
Wendy, I appreciate your dedication to agricultural issues however I would suggest it is a 'red herring' and irresponsible to suggest that the loss of monopoly power of the CWB is simply playing into the hands of MTN's, US or otherwise.
The CWB has been the single biggest impediment to Prairie agricultural diversification in the past 15 years, wx notwithstanding. If the CWB's own rhetoric is true it should have NO problem competing and, in fact, already has a tremendous inherent advantage internationally. Our experience in Ontario has been very positive since dual marketing arrived..for all concerned. You can continue to dwell in the past or else embrace the future.
********
Reply from Wendy Holm, P.Ag.
my one and only further comment:
Actually, it is about due process. The government of Canada, in announcing it is taking
steps - with legislation and regulation - to removing the one-desk selling authority of the Canadian Wheat Board, with or without the concurrence of the Board and a supporting vote by its members - is announcing its intent to commit an illegal act.
The cwb equalizes market power for grain growers in western canada and every respected farm economist in canada has acknowledged that it is good for farmers.
It is up to the producers to decide. Surely you respect due process? If gov't can do this to grain, they can easily do it to SM commodities.
Surely you believe commodity groups have the right to expect government to respect the legislation under which they act? (emphasis is mine-cg)
*******
I absolutely agree with Ms. Holm. This IS a watershed moment in the annals of farm organizations in this country. If the farmers of Canada, including supply managed groups, let this happen without a fight.... they deserve what they get. (Remember this is what happened to British supply management!) I hope they are preparing for a major battle on this one. If for no other reason than to save themselves.
A sampling:
''in Senate testimony, the US Department of Agriculture argued that the special privileges of single-desk sellers gave "unfair advantages" to CWB farmers, adding that American grain should be able to freely compete with Canadian grain for Canadian rail shipments.''
that's what it's all about..... the CWB controls the movement of grains on the railroad. FTAA is about open roads and open markets.
we are headed towards a new North American community and the CWB must die because with the board the Canadian farmer control transportation on the rail.
Chief Justice Osgoode was concerned about control of transportation of agricultural products. Whomever controlled transportation, controlled the price of the commodity.....this in the early 1790's. Not much has changed.
Fighting over the rights to control grains on the railroad is only half the equation and I have yet to hear the other half.
If Bill Gates (largest stakeholder of CN) and Mr. James Snow ( former Sec. of the U.S. Treasury [retired jul 3/06] and CEO of CSXT) gain control of our rails..... the canadian consumer will bow to their schedule of produce delivery and at their price... not the schedule that is now in trust with our democratically elected and appointed members of our country.
so sad that we are not being allowed to be engaged in the discussion..... Wendy's right ... our democratic rights are at stake.
*******
Wendy, I appreciate your dedication to agricultural issues however I would suggest it is a 'red herring' and irresponsible to suggest that the loss of monopoly power of the CWB is simply playing into the hands of MTN's, US or otherwise.
The CWB has been the single biggest impediment to Prairie agricultural diversification in the past 15 years, wx notwithstanding. If the CWB's own rhetoric is true it should have NO problem competing and, in fact, already has a tremendous inherent advantage internationally. Our experience in Ontario has been very positive since dual marketing arrived..for all concerned. You can continue to dwell in the past or else embrace the future.
********
Reply from Wendy Holm, P.Ag.
my one and only further comment:
Actually, it is about due process. The government of Canada, in announcing it is taking
steps - with legislation and regulation - to removing the one-desk selling authority of the Canadian Wheat Board, with or without the concurrence of the Board and a supporting vote by its members - is announcing its intent to commit an illegal act.
The cwb equalizes market power for grain growers in western canada and every respected farm economist in canada has acknowledged that it is good for farmers.
It is up to the producers to decide. Surely you respect due process? If gov't can do this to grain, they can easily do it to SM commodities.
Surely you believe commodity groups have the right to expect government to respect the legislation under which they act? (emphasis is mine-cg)
*******
I absolutely agree with Ms. Holm. This IS a watershed moment in the annals of farm organizations in this country. If the farmers of Canada, including supply managed groups, let this happen without a fight.... they deserve what they get. (Remember this is what happened to British supply management!) I hope they are preparing for a major battle on this one. If for no other reason than to save themselves.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Blue Print for Destruction -part 2
Shortly after I posted to this site about the activities of the government re the Canadian Wheat Board, things started to heat up in the West.
On August 1st, The Western Producer cancelled Wendy Holm's Opinion column that has appeared monthly on Page 7 (Op-Ed page) for the past 2 years. This essay is in response to published comments by the Western Producer concerning same. Along with Holm's unpublished August column The Big Lie, it is posted at http://www.theholmteam.ca/Columns.html
Here is Wendy Holm's response to comments published in the Western Producer.
Red herrings and other fishy stuff.
Wendy R. Holm, P.Ag. August 16, 2006
Just back from Cuba, I would of course like to respond to the matters raised in Barb Glen’s August 10th column in The Western Producer.
First of all, in canceling my column, I respect the fact that decisions made by the Publisher of the Western Producer may or may not reflect the position of individual staff members. Secondly, I want to go on record as defending the ongoing reputation of the WP as one of Canada's top farm papers.
But I suspect, in this instance, the Western Producer has been unduly influenced by concentrated economic and political interests opposed to the single desk selling authority of the Canadian Wheat Board, and it is in the interest of no-one to let this matter lie. It begs further discussion.
As an Agrologist and journalist, I have read and re-read the reasons given by the Western Producer for canceling my column, but confess I simply do not understand them.
As the Western Producer explained to its readers August 10th):
... a columnist, Wendy Holm, was at a rally last week where she took an active part in the proceedings. But then we learned, to our surprise and consternation, that many people thought Holm was a Producer reporter. She later identified her connection to the Producer when asking a question at a press conference. Since Holm had clearly chosen a side in the debate, people questioned this newspaper's credibility. In our view, the problem was caused by a misrepresentation about the columnist-newspaper relationship. That prompted us to cancel Holm's column. We cannot risk being seen as biased in covering such an important story. .
Can we say red herring? The loss of my column has little to do with reader confusion of my role with the paper ("Is she staff?" "Is she freelance?") and all to do with the vested interests of concentrated agri-food players who can finally taste the end of the Canadian Wheat Board
What happened is that Chuck Strahl's office promptly complained to the Producer that my presence at the farm rally was indicative of bias on the part of the paper. This put the paper in a self-described "very serious situation." Ergo, to be seen to act decisively, my column of 2 years was unceremoniously dropped.
To respond to the matters raised by the Producer:
First of all, the issue of identification. Do I identify my connection to the Producer? Of course. I proudly include the hat of "Monthly Columnist, Western Producer” when speaking to farmers. Writing that column in defense of strong farm policy is an important aspect of my professionalism, and I have treasured the opportunity to do so from the pages of the Western Producer since 2004.,
Secondly, have I ever misrepresented this relationship? Of course not. When questioning the Minister in his media conference following the rally, I clearly identified myself as Wendy Holm, Freelance Columnist, Western Producer. This can be easily confirmed from the inevitable tapes that are made of such events. What could be more clear than that? There was no misrepresentation. I was there wearing exactly that hat.
Thirdly, do readers associate me with the Producer? Of course, and rightly so. For the past 2 years my column has appeared on the Op Ed page of the Producer in the second issue of every month like clockwork. The opinions I express in my column are strong and individual and - I would argue - important. Indeed. my column is the reason some have subscribed.
The nature of my relationship with the Producer is also a red herring. Whether I was an employee receiving a salary or as a freelance columnist paid on contract to produce one column a month for $150 is inconsequential.
And finally, as noted by the Producer, none of their columnists are staff. They are all contract. A disclaimer always appeared at the bottom of my columns that I was a freelance columnist and as such my views did not reflect the views of the paper. So where does the confusion arise?
As far as my participation in the farm rally, I traveled to Saskatoon on my "own nickel" because I felt obligated as an Agrologist to do so, and all in attendance knew it.
Years ago, many small advertisers meant papers were truly independent. Today, concentration in the agri-food sector means large multinationals can exert significant influence through investment in advertising and political campaigns. Large grain companies do not like the Canadian Wheat Board. Figure it out.
My column was cancelled in response to inappropriate pressure from the Minister's office and those who have a vested economic interest in breaking the single desk selling authority of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The cancellation of my column in the Producer is not about me. It is about the rights of Canadian farmers to a solid defense of farm issues. If they can drop my column, they can drop any one's column. What does that do to the voice of independent farm writers?
What U.S. wheat interests have been unable to accomplish with GATT and the WTO, Harper is poised to deliver with his package of regulatory and legislative changes that will remove the single desk selling authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. Apparently innocuous to the uninformed, Bill C-300 will deliver up the CWB’s head on a platter to the concentrated American wheat lobby, led by multinational grain interests.
It's like waltzing the beef sector into the waiting arms of R-Calf. It's irresponsible governance.
Defending the single desk selling authority of the Canadian Wheat Board is about defending the future of Prairie agriculture. And that's about farmer’s rights.
As an Agrologist, defense of such matters is MY mandate.
This is not right, nor should it be over. Let's talk.
____________
Wendy Holm is an Agrologist, economist and farm columnist.
She can be reached at holm@farmertofarmer.ca.
On August 1st, The Western Producer cancelled Wendy Holm's Opinion column that has appeared monthly on Page 7 (Op-Ed page) for the past 2 years. This essay is in response to published comments by the Western Producer concerning same. Along with Holm's unpublished August column The Big Lie, it is posted at http://www.theholmteam.ca/Columns.html
Here is Wendy Holm's response to comments published in the Western Producer.
Red herrings and other fishy stuff.
Wendy R. Holm, P.Ag. August 16, 2006
Just back from Cuba, I would of course like to respond to the matters raised in Barb Glen’s August 10th column in The Western Producer.
First of all, in canceling my column, I respect the fact that decisions made by the Publisher of the Western Producer may or may not reflect the position of individual staff members. Secondly, I want to go on record as defending the ongoing reputation of the WP as one of Canada's top farm papers.
But I suspect, in this instance, the Western Producer has been unduly influenced by concentrated economic and political interests opposed to the single desk selling authority of the Canadian Wheat Board, and it is in the interest of no-one to let this matter lie. It begs further discussion.
As an Agrologist and journalist, I have read and re-read the reasons given by the Western Producer for canceling my column, but confess I simply do not understand them.
As the Western Producer explained to its readers August 10th):
... a columnist, Wendy Holm, was at a rally last week where she took an active part in the proceedings. But then we learned, to our surprise and consternation, that many people thought Holm was a Producer reporter. She later identified her connection to the Producer when asking a question at a press conference. Since Holm had clearly chosen a side in the debate, people questioned this newspaper's credibility. In our view, the problem was caused by a misrepresentation about the columnist-newspaper relationship. That prompted us to cancel Holm's column. We cannot risk being seen as biased in covering such an important story. .
Can we say red herring? The loss of my column has little to do with reader confusion of my role with the paper ("Is she staff?" "Is she freelance?") and all to do with the vested interests of concentrated agri-food players who can finally taste the end of the Canadian Wheat Board
What happened is that Chuck Strahl's office promptly complained to the Producer that my presence at the farm rally was indicative of bias on the part of the paper. This put the paper in a self-described "very serious situation." Ergo, to be seen to act decisively, my column of 2 years was unceremoniously dropped.
To respond to the matters raised by the Producer:
First of all, the issue of identification. Do I identify my connection to the Producer? Of course. I proudly include the hat of "Monthly Columnist, Western Producer” when speaking to farmers. Writing that column in defense of strong farm policy is an important aspect of my professionalism, and I have treasured the opportunity to do so from the pages of the Western Producer since 2004.,
Secondly, have I ever misrepresented this relationship? Of course not. When questioning the Minister in his media conference following the rally, I clearly identified myself as Wendy Holm, Freelance Columnist, Western Producer. This can be easily confirmed from the inevitable tapes that are made of such events. What could be more clear than that? There was no misrepresentation. I was there wearing exactly that hat.
Thirdly, do readers associate me with the Producer? Of course, and rightly so. For the past 2 years my column has appeared on the Op Ed page of the Producer in the second issue of every month like clockwork. The opinions I express in my column are strong and individual and - I would argue - important. Indeed. my column is the reason some have subscribed.
The nature of my relationship with the Producer is also a red herring. Whether I was an employee receiving a salary or as a freelance columnist paid on contract to produce one column a month for $150 is inconsequential.
And finally, as noted by the Producer, none of their columnists are staff. They are all contract. A disclaimer always appeared at the bottom of my columns that I was a freelance columnist and as such my views did not reflect the views of the paper. So where does the confusion arise?
As far as my participation in the farm rally, I traveled to Saskatoon on my "own nickel" because I felt obligated as an Agrologist to do so, and all in attendance knew it.
Years ago, many small advertisers meant papers were truly independent. Today, concentration in the agri-food sector means large multinationals can exert significant influence through investment in advertising and political campaigns. Large grain companies do not like the Canadian Wheat Board. Figure it out.
My column was cancelled in response to inappropriate pressure from the Minister's office and those who have a vested economic interest in breaking the single desk selling authority of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The cancellation of my column in the Producer is not about me. It is about the rights of Canadian farmers to a solid defense of farm issues. If they can drop my column, they can drop any one's column. What does that do to the voice of independent farm writers?
What U.S. wheat interests have been unable to accomplish with GATT and the WTO, Harper is poised to deliver with his package of regulatory and legislative changes that will remove the single desk selling authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. Apparently innocuous to the uninformed, Bill C-300 will deliver up the CWB’s head on a platter to the concentrated American wheat lobby, led by multinational grain interests.
It's like waltzing the beef sector into the waiting arms of R-Calf. It's irresponsible governance.
Defending the single desk selling authority of the Canadian Wheat Board is about defending the future of Prairie agriculture. And that's about farmer’s rights.
As an Agrologist, defense of such matters is MY mandate.
This is not right, nor should it be over. Let's talk.
____________
Wendy Holm is an Agrologist, economist and farm columnist.
She can be reached at holm@farmertofarmer.ca.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)