Justice, Not Likely; Fairness, Maybe

I looked around the room and saw a lot of hardship, potato and livestock farmers who'd lost a lot of money over the last decade, some pushed into bankruptcy. There were non-farmers too,  a surprising number of young people, and older war horses, all trying to understand why a food system that offers so much value and choice to consumers has made farmers a virtual afterthought. The discussion was hosted by the National Farmers Union and was centred on the idea of social justice.  Judging from the discussion there isn't much when it comes to food production.

I know from decades of covering farm issues, going to hundreds of news conferences where agriculture groups would earnestly make their case that farmers are falling further and further behind that, as truthful as all that may be, it has little impact.  Farmers now make up less than 3% of the Canadian population, and when the rest walk into essentially food palaces with products from around the world at prices relative to income that have never been lower, it's hard to make a case that there's something rotten at the core. There are many marginalized groups in our midst, all with legitimate complaints about the unfairness of the economy, and demanding support. Farmers are just one more angry voice.

I don't think  making consumers feel guilty, or embarrassing politicians, will change much. I think farmers have to take a page out of the marketing handbooks, and demonstrate what's in it for non-farmers, if there's a productive rural economy, rather than one that's failing.  There's at least food security and safety, tax dollars for schools and healthcare, more demands can be made to protect then environment.  The "how" is more difficult, making sense of the global purchasing chain that brings frozen broccoli from China to a store in Souris at a cheaper price than a farmer in Morell can produce it.

Change will come. As Asian countries become wealthier, more and more domestic production will go to feed themselves, rather than export markets.  This shift has already started. Some of the most valuable markets for PEI farmers right now are soybeans and canola going to Japan.


It was the young non-farmers at this meeting that intrigued me. They'd obviously thought hard about how the food system works, and had given up a Friday night to add their voice.  A lot of their discussion was anti-corporate (probably going to vote NDP on Monday), but they'd clearly made the connection that there are families and communities behind the grim financial statistics, and in their mind it's up to consumers to demand changes at the retail level. I think they're right. A hundred complaining farmers can easily be dismissed. Six unhappy food shoppers will get the attention of head office.

A couple of things to share. The first is a guest editorial from Bertha Campbell, the president of the Federation of Agriculture. The second is more on a national food strategy from Jessica Leeder with the Globe and Mail.

Benefits beyond the bottom line

by The Journal Pioneer Weeklies  •  April 28, 2011

•

It may be due to rising food prices, or worries about our climate changing, but more and more Canadians are thinking harder about the security of their food supply.
The terrible catastrophes we have watched in Japan, makes us realize how those long distribution food chains across continents, can be very fragile. Even the political parties in the federal election have picked up on the theme, and are making promises that talk about national and regional food policies.
Some platforms even make the critical link between wholesome food and good health. This is welcome news for farmers who’ve had a hard time being heard.
Here in this immense country of Canada, where we have vast land, clean water, world class genetics and lots of good old fashioned ‘know-how’, we are easily lulled into thinking that food will always be there.
A recent media story that criticized the Atlantic Beef Plant for increasing losses due to rising prices paid to farmers, seems to indicate the region may have to do without its only federally inspected beef processing plant.
I think the story deserves a bit of balance. I would ask Islanders to look at the big picture, and appreciate that P.E.I. is like one large mixed farm, with some parts doing well, while other parts struggle, but each is dependent on the other in order to survive.
Here on our own dairy, beef and potato farm in the past five years, our beef cattle, taken on their own, would appear to be a money-losing venture, But in the context of a mixed farm, the beef cattle make us more productive, not only through the use of the manure, reducing our purchased fertilizer, but also the rotational crops that we grow for the cattle to eat, contribute to improved soil health.
It is an integrated picture with no clear-cut lines between enterprises. Unfortunately this kind of  integrated thinking has largely escaped us.
With many of our Ottawa policy makers at least two generations removed from the farm, these interdependencies are not well understood.
The same kind of holistic thinking has to be used when thinking about the Atlantic Beef Plant in Borden.
While the plant is still losing money, the sum of the benefits of the processing plant to this province and the region, outweigh the plant’s operating losses. With higher prices to farmers, yes, the plant’s costs will go up, until it can get better returns from the big retail chains, but let’s remember why the plant was built in the first place.
Farmers in this region cooperated to build it, because the cost in dollars and loss of quality when their animals were trucked to Ontario was just not sustainable. Now this little beef plant must compete against the giant processing plants in Western Canada and the United States which kill as many cattle in one day as APB does in six months.
This does not in any way, exempt plant management from doing everything in their power to run a fiscally-sound operation that diligently seeks not only to carve out waste and inefficiencies, and also, at the same time, works hard to maximize income through finding markets for every part of the animal. This critical task of management requires determination and creativity, as well as ongoing investigation of new and emerging ethnic and other markets.
Let’s look at the plant the way some economists and business organizations do now, using something called the ‘triple bottom line.’ It considers not only the financial bottom line, but also the social and environmental benefits.
In the case of ABP, things such as decreased trucking to Upper Canada results in energy savings, less pollution and decreased greenhouse gas emissions. The stress on the cattle for a trip to Borden is far less than when they are shipped hundreds of miles to market and that is evidenced in the quality of the end product.
The social bottom line factors in all the spin-offs to equipment dealers, veterinary suppliers, feed mills and good paying jobs at the plant.
These social and environmental spinoffs are not just ‘fluff,’ they are becoming recognized as being critically important if we are to become a  society that seeks to make the least possible impact on our natural world (environment) and make socially responsible choices that have a positive effect on others.
Citizens are becoming more sensitized to these important ecological and social elements and it is not always about the financial bottom line.
We are at a very important moment in our province and in our country, we have a legacy at risk. Our primary industries are in jeopardy.  Many farm families, because of debt, have little choice but to plant once more and hope to leave something of value for their children.
It doesn’t take an economist to figure out many of the service sector jobs in urban communities are directly linked to the work and risk taken on by the province’s primary producers. Please remember that when you vote, and when you sit down to eat. There’s a lot at stake for all of us.
Bertha Campbell is the president of the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture.





 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toward-a-national-food-strategy/article2003989/

Toward a national food strategy

by Jessica Leeder — Global Food Reporter  •  April 30, 2011

•

Contrary to what it says on the stock ticker, food is not just any old commodity. As its more holistic advocates say, it's the subject of humankind's most intimate relationship: Food can give life and, through absence or extreme overindulgence, it can take life away.
Those who can afford to fill their bodies with it three-plus times a day use it to sustain families and friendships. We turn to it in times of depletion (nutritional or emotional) and celebration. Many of us spend untold hours watching shows or reading about and cooking up its endless manifestations.

The paradox of this love affair is that Canadians have lost touch with the value of food. In 1931, more than 30 per cent of the people in this country lived on farms. That number has whittled to just over 2 per cent.
Few of us understand what really goes into our food or how our choices send ripples to the fields. Most of us live in cities and gobble down cheap food from big-box stores or wherever else low-cost grub can be had, without questioning why prices are so low.
We're skeptical of the premiums on local, free-range and organic – why pay higher prices if there's a cheaper option? – and lean on takeout, restaurants and convenience meals to get us through busy work weeks.
Without realizing it, we raise kids who can't cook and won't swallow a vegetable. We have become the fattest generation in Canadian history, addicted to eating and riddled with cancer, diabetes and heart disease.
A national food policy is the only way to bring symbiosis back into the system. Cathleen Kneen, a long-time activist with the People's Food Policy Project, argues that it's even a matter of Canada's security. “If you're at all interested in sovereignty, start with food,” she says.
“Any jurisdiction that doesn't feed its people is at the mercy of whoever does.”
For Monday's federal vote, for the first time, all five parties have included food-specific policies in their electoral platforms. However, the Liberals are the only ones to promise a national strategy – and at this point their odds are looking long.
England, Scotland, Norway and even Sudan have all implemented long-term food strategies, but Canada has for decades shied away from the idea as overly complex. Any good policy will require sacrifices from virtually everyone at the table, most of whom have conflicting interests.
While agribusiness and prairie grain farmers want better access to export markets, locavores, environmentalists and fruit-and-vegetable growers want Canadians to eat fewer imports and more of what can be grown at home.
Consumers generally want the best price regardless of where the food comes from. The retail sector wants to sell it any way it can, from bulk warehouses to drive-throughs. The health-care system needs people to make better food choices.
The process of hashing out the elusive balance in all of this is so politically fraught that four separate organizations, representing farmers, foodies, agribusiness, academics and industry, have set out to draw up their own blueprints for policy-makers.
They've taken it on themselves to map out ways to foster healthier national diets and contribute to long-term global food security; to promote local, sustainable food systems while competing in international markets.
The People's Food Policy Project, the largest civil-society effort, released its version of a national food strategy this month, based on more than 3,000 interviews. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is at work on the final draft of its plan, and the Conference Board of Canada is slated to release the first findings of a three-year project in May.
While no one is foolhardy enough to assume that any of the strategies will be snapped up verbatim by the next government, the widespread recognition of the need is a sign that a global movement is cresting in Canada.
“It might be argued that we don't really need food sovereignty because there is so much food available. [But] we don't know what will happen with climate change,” said Ralph Martin, the recently appointed Loblaw Chair of Sustainable Food Production at the University of Guelph.
“It's during this time that food is readily available and relatively cheap that we're going to have to design a system for more food sovereignty and more food security for Canadians.”
That doesn't mean Canada should slam its borders to imports and prepare to grow all of its own food. But it does mean revamping our narrow view of the value of food and agriculture.
“There are some people who think that farming is about people with strong backs and weak minds. It's the opposite now. They need to be extremely educated, adaptable and entrepreneurial people,” said Peter Phillips, an agriculture economist and trade expert with the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Saskatchewan.
“I don't think that mindset has totally captured the imagination of our political leaders or even our bureaucratic leaders. We don't have ... a long-term vision of where we could be.”
Jessica Leeder is The Globe and Mail's global food reporter.