A recent issue of Ontario Dairy Farmer, had a really timely article about consumers and farm family buying habits. Written for the "Vets Corner" by Dr. Rod Weireinga, I was pleased to see this take on things and a veterinarian who cares enough about the dairy industry to do a little 'research' to prove a point. I hope it is taken to heart by all.-cg
Talking to Consumers
When reading Vet’s Corner you are probably expecting to read an article dealing with some emerging or active health concern involving dairy cattle. This one is a little different in that it deals with the health of our industry. The topic of this article stemmed from this past Christmas when I was reminded how disconnected our consumers are from our industry.
We had friends and family over for Christmas dinner this year. Most of our guests were from Toronto and have limited or no exposure to agriculture.
Discussion started to revolve around the “little blue cow” on a package of butter we had in our fridge and how it represented Canadian dairy product. They had seen it in advertising but they had no idea what that little blue cow meant. I was very happy to try my best to explain to them what that cow represents and to further encourage the purchase of Canadian dairy products.
That discussion lead us to circulate a survey at our clinic’s annual dairy information day this past year asking some questions about our client’s knowledge of what was in their fridge. The survey would not be considered to be “properly designed” by a true statistician and the wording of the questions may have encouraged people to give the “right” answer showing support for their industry. Even in spite of this poor survey design, I was surprised how often the “right” answer was not given.
Approximately half of those in attendance (84 surveys returned) took time to answer the questions on the survey in at least some shape or form. There was a very large range of knowledge in regards to dairy product pricing, ingredients and even what brands of dairy products that were in their fridges. It seemed quite clear from the survey that those that listed the brand were also those that most consistently knew the correct price.
The large majority answered that it was important to them to buy Canadian, and that they would choose Ontario Foodland produce over imports and that product choice was not always based on price even if they felt it was of similar quality, however when it came to dairy products the responses to the survey would indicate what they said and how they acted were two very different things. The majority of brands of dairy products purchased by those in attendance were those of companies known not to use Canadian dairy products and others that are not labeling their product with the little cow.
I spent some time in the grocery store that weekend rechecking prices on dairy products. The difference between a local cheese (the only one with the little cow on it in our local grocery store) and the least expensive cheese was only about 10 cents per 100 grams. The local cheese was only 3 cents per 100 grams more expensive than the most commonly purchased cheese. To buy 1 pound of butter with the cow on it was an extra 98 cents. Alright so that seems like a lot, however the average family in our survey was only eating a pound a week.
As for ice cream, the survey would indicate that the most often purchased brands had the least amount of “real” dairy ingredients. One of my clients commented that he is not even sure if he knows what real ice cream tastes like anymore. I was unable to find a little cow on the packaging of any ice cream products in our local grocery store, but it was quite obvious when looking at the list of ingredients which ice creams used real cream or milk. It would cost you an extra $3.00 a week to eat the good stuff if your family ate the average amount reported on our survey.
So what would it cost the average family as reported by our survey to switch totally from the lowest cost dairy products to those branded Canadian, used real dairy ingredient or that was local product in their shopping habits? According to the reported consumption rates in our survey would mean it would cost our average producer’s family an extra $24 in cheese, $156 in ice cream, and $50 in butter a year or about $225/year. Seems like a lot of money?
How much did we lose this year in quota cuts? $225 sure seems cheap. Besides, when friends and family come over you will have a hard time convincing them to support the Canadian dairy industry if you yourself are not.
We all have opportunity to talk to our consumers, friends and even our own families about the importance of supporting our industry. The Canadian Dairy industry is currently looking at new ways to identify our domestic product and ways to promote it. I would encourage all of you who are a part of this great industry to speak up and start promoting it as well.
Comments came back from producers suggesting that it is DFO’s job to promote our industry but we are all the DFO. I think that we as an industry need to take every opportunity to support Canadian agriculture.
Don’t focus on asking for government regulation of imports, focus on buying Canadian products ourselves, educating our consumers on the importance and value of buying Canadian products and demonstrate to processors the need to identify Canadian product.
If we can influence some of our consumers to choose Canadian it will make an appreciable difference to the Canadian dairy economy. It will also send a message to processors that their consumers value Canadian products and encourage them to increase their support of the Canadian dairy industry.
I like to ask my producers what they would think if I told them that I brought my dog to a neighbouring vet clinic to be neutered because it was less expensive or that I felt it was more convenient……….they would laugh me out of their barn.
Should we not feel the same way about supporting non Canadian dairy products as a Canadian dairy industry?
If you are not the one doing the grocery shopping, then consider passing this article on to the one who is.
A healthy industry is as important as healthy cows.
Rod
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
Do Farmers Get it?
Now that you all have taken time to explore the extensive data Wendy Holm has collected, it is time for you all to have the benefit of the chatter from a discussion list that is widely ‘monitored’, by both farmers AND governments!!!
In response to Ms. Holm’s request for action, the emails below appeared on the list:
*********************************************
Sender: Wendy Holm, P.Ag. holm@farmertofarmer.ca
and the next present on George Bush's breakfast tray is the Canadian Wheat Board. (emphasis mine-cg)
(If you don't know why, read The Big Fib http://www.theholmteam.ca/ the_big_fib.pdf)
But farmers can stop that, no?
This IS a minority government, yes?
(for more, click on http://www.theholmteam.ca/CWB.html)
Wendy
***************************************************************
Sender: Wendy Holm, P.Ag. holm@farmertofarmer.ca
at present, the CWB is alive and well.... :-) and putting over $800 million a year
(through pricing and producer car benefits) into the pockets of prairie farmers.
money that the transnational grain companies of course want to put in THEIR pockets instead.
this isn't a CWB argument. (farmers in western canada know the cwb is working. that's why they consistently elect pro-cwb directors.)
its a farmers rights argument.
the CWB Act requires that ANY CHANGES to the Act must have been supported by producer vote.
section 47.1 clearly states:
The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period,... unless:
(a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and
(b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister
for some reason, harper thinks his new government is not bound by this.
this is a perfect issue for farmers to stand together on.
Bill C-30 must be stopped. this is not a partisan issue.
it is an issue of farmers' rights.
wendy
*************************************************
Wendy,
Don't take this the wrong way but I prefer those affected by the action to do the talking. I know your are an agrologist and I am only a farmer, but dual marketing is the only way to actually make the CWB effective. As most boards, they have become complacant and are not as effective as they could be. Competition seems to wake up even the worst of them.
Don't get me wrong, you have every right to make whatever statement you wish. However your opinion although welcome holds no more weight in my book than any farmer who sells wheat.
Free votes in any marketing board setting are seldom actually free votes and change in all marketing boards is so slow that watching paint dry is more exciting.
Love to have all the droves of farmers wanting to keep the CWB actually write in. If they are so passionate, where are they?
By the way Wendy, grain companies already control price but they do it through Chicago. CWB is more a grain allocator than marketer.
Note: spelling not mine!-cg
*********************************************************
Thanks Wendy - I sent a letter to our MP and copied to Strahl and Harper asking that a producer vote be held before changing the way collective marketing works for the Western farmer. I think we would still have a collective marketing style board in Ont for wheat but it was too small and got neglected by producers - failed its job and was voted out.
**********************************************************
Sender: Wendy Holm, P.Ag. holm@farmertofarmer.ca
sigh...
do you really believe that legislative framework has no standing?
w canada grain producers are LEGALLY entitled to a vote on the matter. it is simply not up to harper nor anyone else to sweep those rights aside.
if such transgressions of legal rights are allowed, where are the boundaries?
agri-food trans-nationals are into margin capture.
ideally, they want to leave $1 more in the pocket of the farmer than would cause him/her to turn away from the land.
this is not a moral issue, it is the physics of capital.
capital, like water, moves predictably in accordance with immutable principals. like water flowing downhill to the sea, capital moves to its own aggregation.
the role of the state is to know where capital will go in any given opportunity topography
then construct the small, run of the river dams to make it slow down and stick a little (irrigate a strong middle class) as it moves through our communities.
we haven't done that... and right now,it is only the CWB that stands between canada's wheat and barley growers and a highly concentrated grain sector. without the wheat board, where do you think the bargaining power will rest?
and kid yourself not: if this "new" government can act in direct contravention of the CWB Act, farm enabling regulation cannot be relied upon, and no commodity group is safe. if the single desk selling authority of the CWB falls, SM is next.
opposing bill c-300 is not about supporting the wheat board.
it is about supporting and protecting farmer's rights.
let the farmers decide the fate of the wheat board.
farmers in the sector know the sector.
let them speak, for god's sake.
it is their legal right.
surely this should be supportable across commodity sectors?
(and this is my FINAL COMMENT! ;-) )
wendy holm, p.ag.
*****************************************************************
Yes - I do really believe legislative framework has no standing. That's why it's called "framework" - it's a guide, not an absolute.
That's why governments can, and do, change legislation when it's deemed to be in the "national interest" to do so, and they take their chances at the next election.
I don't know why anyone in Western Canada, or anywhere else in Canada, is the least surprised at Harper's stance on the CWB. I seem to recall his position was abundantly clear both during the last election, and well before.
As to a "vote" - why should it be restricted to grain growers? Do grain buyers, processors, and exporters, not deserve at least an equal say in the matter? - after all, they do pay a lot of corporate taxes, and provide a lot of jobs.
The welfare of grains farmers is only but one consideration in any decision to end the CWB monopoly. Politics, love it or hate it, is the process of weighing the concerns of all the competing factions in the process, and making a (hopefully) sound decision.
I suggest, with respect, Wendy, you are becoming so welded to the concept of what you believe your legal rights might be, that you "can't see the forest for the trees"
Furthermore, there's a well-known axiom in both law, and business, which is that "legal rights are what people hide behind when their position makes no sense otherwise". There's another more colourful, and equally apt saying - "the law is the last refuge of a scoundrel" - I'm not implying that either you, or your supporters are scoundrels, but when you hide behind the law, rather than justify your position solely on its merits, you do run considerable risk of being marginalized.
****************************************************
Welcome to the new democracy of Canada Wendy While you were worried about third world countries and their plight many of us here have had other atrocities perpetrated on us You are worried about rights for a vote?
When farm area elected mpp’s here voted to zone our land as greenbelt for the good of a country? With out compensation? These were/are our homes, our rural communities, our lively hood and our pensions. I did not see you rise up and cry foul when this was downloaded on us. I did not see you or any others from afar cry “foul our rights could be next.”
So what makes you think the same strong arm undemocratic procedures are foul if they are decreed and are the termination of a dysfunctional board? Dysfunctional because it is all about the money and no board with monopoly control could ever be said to have their producer members best interest at heart with a price that they set at less than COP What is the COP the board has determined for western wheat ...any wheat and why is that not the floor?
****************************************************
Fair enough, Howard, but lets be honest. Individuals who disagree and have opposing views of most boards are tar and feathered by current board members and staff alike. Theirs is an uphill battle just to be heard let alone become elected and have influence. I do not think that running for the board is an option for one who wants to do away with the board, nor would you a board supporter want to see an anti board board member elected.
So I think that your suggestion is rather simplistic and really not a wise one. There has to be a better way and government intervention is another way. Howard, would you really want anti anti SM board member on your milk board?
Kind of odd that dairy was forced into SM by government and yet you are campaigning against government involvement. If not for government you would just be one of us. Maybe just maybe, Harper might be right on this one. It worked out for you in dairy didn't it?
*************************************************
Further to my previous posting, not only was supply management imposed on the Ontario egg industry, there was no compensation whatsoever, for anyone adversely affected by this dictum.
Therefore, if supply management can come in, without a poducer vote, and with no compensation for anyone adversely affected, what would be so wrong to end it the same way?
More to the point, why should the "legal rights" of those adversely affected by the legislated end of something, receive any more consideration than the "legal rights" of those adversely affected when legislation established the system in the first place?
***********************************************
Good luck in your cause Wendy...although I KNOW that allowing dual marketing in Ontario made the OWPMB stronger and put thousands of extra dollars in MY pockets, period! In Ontario we have the Board, multinational players (that control the majority of export terminals) and independent players...I would suggest that your much lambasted multinationals have actually been the big losers since the market opened up!
Additionally dual marketing also allowed us to much more easily diversify our wheat production classes...without this I strongly doubt that I would have the chance to grow durum for the third year running next spring.
Furthermore, there is a very clear line between those that wish to continue to grow commodity wheat and those that wish to niche market and value add wheat. You may quote your flawed $800 million number but what has been the cost to the prairies by not allowing entrepreneurism to flourish?? What would be the multiplier of shipping frozen dough, pasta, etc overseas rather than raw wheat to be blended?
In principle and theory your argument holds merit however in the real world the CWB has become too bureaucratic, slow to respond, and created a culture of dependency. Must be my circle of peers because the overwhelming majority of my Western friends can't wait for the opportunity to control their own destiny...and they are considered the leaders in their sectors/communities.
What is the elevator price for HRS in the northern tier US vs what prairie farmers have in their pocket today? Enough said.
PS: "Alive and well"??? How much communist era debt is the CWB still carrying on its books as an asset? And treating compounded (but not collected) interest as income? If it is so 'well' why is it pulling out all the stops to prevent dual marketing, and why is it so afraid of some competition??
Spelling not mine again!-cg
***********************************************
What about the rights of everyone, not just the rights of those within a supply managed commodity.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that we at the right of association. Does that not also mean that we have the right of disassociation? Meaning that we cannot be forced into being part of a marketing board?
I am hoping for the day, when the option is given for all commodities, as is being given now with the CWB.
IF SM, or CWB is so wonderful, the producers will choose to sell through them, instead of being forced.
*****************************************
In response to Ms. Holm’s request for action, the emails below appeared on the list:
*********************************************
Sender: Wendy Holm, P.Ag. holm@farmertofarmer.ca
and the next present on George Bush's breakfast tray is the Canadian Wheat Board. (emphasis mine-cg)
(If you don't know why, read The Big Fib http://www.theholmteam.ca/ the_big_fib.pdf)
But farmers can stop that, no?
This IS a minority government, yes?
(for more, click on http://www.theholmteam.ca/CWB.html)
Wendy
***************************************************************
Sender: Wendy Holm, P.Ag. holm@farmertofarmer.ca
at present, the CWB is alive and well.... :-) and putting over $800 million a year
(through pricing and producer car benefits) into the pockets of prairie farmers.
money that the transnational grain companies of course want to put in THEIR pockets instead.
this isn't a CWB argument. (farmers in western canada know the cwb is working. that's why they consistently elect pro-cwb directors.)
its a farmers rights argument.
the CWB Act requires that ANY CHANGES to the Act must have been supported by producer vote.
section 47.1 clearly states:
The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period,... unless:
(a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and
(b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister
for some reason, harper thinks his new government is not bound by this.
this is a perfect issue for farmers to stand together on.
Bill C-30 must be stopped. this is not a partisan issue.
it is an issue of farmers' rights.
wendy
*************************************************
Wendy,
Don't take this the wrong way but I prefer those affected by the action to do the talking. I know your are an agrologist and I am only a farmer, but dual marketing is the only way to actually make the CWB effective. As most boards, they have become complacant and are not as effective as they could be. Competition seems to wake up even the worst of them.
Don't get me wrong, you have every right to make whatever statement you wish. However your opinion although welcome holds no more weight in my book than any farmer who sells wheat.
Free votes in any marketing board setting are seldom actually free votes and change in all marketing boards is so slow that watching paint dry is more exciting.
Love to have all the droves of farmers wanting to keep the CWB actually write in. If they are so passionate, where are they?
By the way Wendy, grain companies already control price but they do it through Chicago. CWB is more a grain allocator than marketer.
Note: spelling not mine!-cg
*********************************************************
Thanks Wendy - I sent a letter to our MP and copied to Strahl and Harper asking that a producer vote be held before changing the way collective marketing works for the Western farmer. I think we would still have a collective marketing style board in Ont for wheat but it was too small and got neglected by producers - failed its job and was voted out.
**********************************************************
Sender: Wendy Holm, P.Ag. holm@farmertofarmer.ca
sigh...
do you really believe that legislative framework has no standing?
w canada grain producers are LEGALLY entitled to a vote on the matter. it is simply not up to harper nor anyone else to sweep those rights aside.
if such transgressions of legal rights are allowed, where are the boundaries?
agri-food trans-nationals are into margin capture.
ideally, they want to leave $1 more in the pocket of the farmer than would cause him/her to turn away from the land.
this is not a moral issue, it is the physics of capital.
capital, like water, moves predictably in accordance with immutable principals. like water flowing downhill to the sea, capital moves to its own aggregation.
the role of the state is to know where capital will go in any given opportunity topography
then construct the small, run of the river dams to make it slow down and stick a little (irrigate a strong middle class) as it moves through our communities.
we haven't done that... and right now,it is only the CWB that stands between canada's wheat and barley growers and a highly concentrated grain sector. without the wheat board, where do you think the bargaining power will rest?
and kid yourself not: if this "new" government can act in direct contravention of the CWB Act, farm enabling regulation cannot be relied upon, and no commodity group is safe. if the single desk selling authority of the CWB falls, SM is next.
opposing bill c-300 is not about supporting the wheat board.
it is about supporting and protecting farmer's rights.
let the farmers decide the fate of the wheat board.
farmers in the sector know the sector.
let them speak, for god's sake.
it is their legal right.
surely this should be supportable across commodity sectors?
(and this is my FINAL COMMENT! ;-) )
wendy holm, p.ag.
*****************************************************************
Yes - I do really believe legislative framework has no standing. That's why it's called "framework" - it's a guide, not an absolute.
That's why governments can, and do, change legislation when it's deemed to be in the "national interest" to do so, and they take their chances at the next election.
I don't know why anyone in Western Canada, or anywhere else in Canada, is the least surprised at Harper's stance on the CWB. I seem to recall his position was abundantly clear both during the last election, and well before.
As to a "vote" - why should it be restricted to grain growers? Do grain buyers, processors, and exporters, not deserve at least an equal say in the matter? - after all, they do pay a lot of corporate taxes, and provide a lot of jobs.
The welfare of grains farmers is only but one consideration in any decision to end the CWB monopoly. Politics, love it or hate it, is the process of weighing the concerns of all the competing factions in the process, and making a (hopefully) sound decision.
I suggest, with respect, Wendy, you are becoming so welded to the concept of what you believe your legal rights might be, that you "can't see the forest for the trees"
Furthermore, there's a well-known axiom in both law, and business, which is that "legal rights are what people hide behind when their position makes no sense otherwise". There's another more colourful, and equally apt saying - "the law is the last refuge of a scoundrel" - I'm not implying that either you, or your supporters are scoundrels, but when you hide behind the law, rather than justify your position solely on its merits, you do run considerable risk of being marginalized.
****************************************************
Welcome to the new democracy of Canada Wendy While you were worried about third world countries and their plight many of us here have had other atrocities perpetrated on us You are worried about rights for a vote?
When farm area elected mpp’s here voted to zone our land as greenbelt for the good of a country? With out compensation? These were/are our homes, our rural communities, our lively hood and our pensions. I did not see you rise up and cry foul when this was downloaded on us. I did not see you or any others from afar cry “foul our rights could be next.”
So what makes you think the same strong arm undemocratic procedures are foul if they are decreed and are the termination of a dysfunctional board? Dysfunctional because it is all about the money and no board with monopoly control could ever be said to have their producer members best interest at heart with a price that they set at less than COP What is the COP the board has determined for western wheat ...any wheat and why is that not the floor?
****************************************************
Fair enough, Howard, but lets be honest. Individuals who disagree and have opposing views of most boards are tar and feathered by current board members and staff alike. Theirs is an uphill battle just to be heard let alone become elected and have influence. I do not think that running for the board is an option for one who wants to do away with the board, nor would you a board supporter want to see an anti board board member elected.
So I think that your suggestion is rather simplistic and really not a wise one. There has to be a better way and government intervention is another way. Howard, would you really want anti anti SM board member on your milk board?
Kind of odd that dairy was forced into SM by government and yet you are campaigning against government involvement. If not for government you would just be one of us. Maybe just maybe, Harper might be right on this one. It worked out for you in dairy didn't it?
*************************************************
Further to my previous posting, not only was supply management imposed on the Ontario egg industry, there was no compensation whatsoever, for anyone adversely affected by this dictum.
Therefore, if supply management can come in, without a poducer vote, and with no compensation for anyone adversely affected, what would be so wrong to end it the same way?
More to the point, why should the "legal rights" of those adversely affected by the legislated end of something, receive any more consideration than the "legal rights" of those adversely affected when legislation established the system in the first place?
***********************************************
Good luck in your cause Wendy...although I KNOW that allowing dual marketing in Ontario made the OWPMB stronger and put thousands of extra dollars in MY pockets, period! In Ontario we have the Board, multinational players (that control the majority of export terminals) and independent players...I would suggest that your much lambasted multinationals have actually been the big losers since the market opened up!
Additionally dual marketing also allowed us to much more easily diversify our wheat production classes...without this I strongly doubt that I would have the chance to grow durum for the third year running next spring.
Furthermore, there is a very clear line between those that wish to continue to grow commodity wheat and those that wish to niche market and value add wheat. You may quote your flawed $800 million number but what has been the cost to the prairies by not allowing entrepreneurism to flourish?? What would be the multiplier of shipping frozen dough, pasta, etc overseas rather than raw wheat to be blended?
In principle and theory your argument holds merit however in the real world the CWB has become too bureaucratic, slow to respond, and created a culture of dependency. Must be my circle of peers because the overwhelming majority of my Western friends can't wait for the opportunity to control their own destiny...and they are considered the leaders in their sectors/communities.
What is the elevator price for HRS in the northern tier US vs what prairie farmers have in their pocket today? Enough said.
PS: "Alive and well"??? How much communist era debt is the CWB still carrying on its books as an asset? And treating compounded (but not collected) interest as income? If it is so 'well' why is it pulling out all the stops to prevent dual marketing, and why is it so afraid of some competition??
Spelling not mine again!-cg
***********************************************
What about the rights of everyone, not just the rights of those within a supply managed commodity.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that we at the right of association. Does that not also mean that we have the right of disassociation? Meaning that we cannot be forced into being part of a marketing board?
I am hoping for the day, when the option is given for all commodities, as is being given now with the CWB.
IF SM, or CWB is so wonderful, the producers will choose to sell through them, instead of being forced.
*****************************************
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Message to My Readers
The purpose of this blog was to 'rant' , expose political issues affecting supply management, provoke ideas, post relevant articles and editorials for all to see AND think about , to bring a slightly different perspective about consumers to light and provoke comment.
Either you agree or disagree with the content of the posts. I urge those of you with "opinions", for or against or different, to send comments to this page. Comments can be made by name or nick name or initials. E-mails are NOT made available to me or anyone else!
Any blog is only as good as it's content and readers comments are needed to make improvements, provoke discussion and task the author with re-thinking direction. Other readers have access to these comments and these can vastly expand any debate. This blog is my communication tool with you and anyone who is directed to this blog. Your comments can be a means of communicating between me and all other readers as well.
Except for the surprising lack of comments after 46 postings, readership IS doing well. I have access to a stats page that tells me how many visitors I get by the day, the week the month and a final total to date. Since the inception of 'Dairiblawg', it has had 834 visitors who have implemented 1029 page views! I thank you all.
I am sure that there are many additional ideas, issues and elements out there, that have not been addressed simply because you have not shared those with us all. I hope I will hear from you!! -cg
Either you agree or disagree with the content of the posts. I urge those of you with "opinions", for or against or different, to send comments to this page. Comments can be made by name or nick name or initials. E-mails are NOT made available to me or anyone else!
Any blog is only as good as it's content and readers comments are needed to make improvements, provoke discussion and task the author with re-thinking direction. Other readers have access to these comments and these can vastly expand any debate. This blog is my communication tool with you and anyone who is directed to this blog. Your comments can be a means of communicating between me and all other readers as well.
Except for the surprising lack of comments after 46 postings, readership IS doing well. I have access to a stats page that tells me how many visitors I get by the day, the week the month and a final total to date. Since the inception of 'Dairiblawg', it has had 834 visitors who have implemented 1029 page views! I thank you all.
I am sure that there are many additional ideas, issues and elements out there, that have not been addressed simply because you have not shared those with us all. I hope I will hear from you!! -cg
Monday, August 28, 2006
Where OH Where?
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.
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.
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)