EDITORIAL
Fixing the fix
When agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland and three other companies were found guilty of price fixing lysine, a hog feed ingredient, the companies paid fines of $140 million in the U.S. and $16 million in Canada.With that fly successfully plucked from the ointment, it was time for ADM to get back to building its "supermarket to the world."
Some of the money paid in fines by the companies has trickled down to businesses stung by the scam, including Ontario feed companies that rely on lysine as a key ingredient in livestock feeds. But none of the Canadian money has been passed on to farmers who unwittingly paid for the fix with higher feed prices during the two-to three-year period when the fix was on in the early 1990s.
ADM and its accomplices owe a debt to primary producers who don't have the ability to increase product prices when input costs are manipulated by suppliers.
Rein Minnema wants to collect that debt. The Middlesex pork producer, who has launched a $35-million class action suit on behalf of Ontario pork producers, says he's concerned about the increasing control that large agri-suppliers have on farmers. An attitude many farmers share, no doubt.
Other than the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, farm organizations and commodity groups have been slow to offer their support for Minnema's action. Some groups feared that they could eventually find themselves on the financial hook for legal costs should the action fail. But that shouldn't be a concern in this case. (See How a class action works, page 21.)
Ontario Pork appears to be warming to the class action idea, but its initial cold shoulder left Minnema wondering why the board had cold feet.
It's also surprising that the Chicken Farmers of Ontario - whose members are large lysine users - hasn't been more vocal in support of Minnema. Canadian chicken producers usually see red when American agribusiness, particularly feed companies, is accused of manipulating farmers.
Some critics have argued that should Minnema be successful, lawyer fees will gobble up the money; others have said it would be almost impossible to ensure that each producer receives a justified amount of the settlement; others predict a court bloodbath between Ontario producers and feed suppliers. But these are hardly solid reasons for abandoning the case. A victory is a victory, and if there's any money remaining in the envelope, it could be spent in areas such as research or processing capacity where it would benefit the entire pork industry.
If there ever were a time for farmers to send a message to would-be price manipulators, it's now. Farmers have railed against the imposing power of multinationals, but too often lacked the resources to put words into action.
It's rare to find the three little pigs standing beside a wind
machine
while the big bad wolf sits in a straw house. It's time farm
groups started
huffing and puffing.
back
Food safety claims done in by data
"Research shows that improper food handling in the home causes a major proportion of foodborne illnesses."That line has been repeated so many times, even more so since the launch of the FightBac food safety consumer education program last November, that I had to ask, "What was the research?"
My associate, Sarah Grant, first e-mailed the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) via its web site, because the federal agriculture minister had used the line a few weeks ago.
No luck there. We were referred to Health Canada. After a few messages, a couple of tables with an explanatory note arrived.
At last, the data. Except it showed that known causes happen pretty much everywhere except the home.
That's a bit overstated, but still, the data sucked. First, it represented known foodborne illness in Canada from 1990 to 1993. In March 1999, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control published active foodborne surveillance data from the end of 1998. Weekly updates are on their web site. The best we can do in Canada is 1993, and I have to buy the publication. Health Canada says it has plans to publish its data on the web ...soon.
Of the 23,322 known cases of foodborne illness in Canada between 1990 and 1993, 18,450 or 79 per cent were of unknown origin. Of the cases of known microbiological origin, 70 per cent were traced to food service; 11 per cent were traced to the home; four per cent were retail in origin.
The second table contained data on foodborne illness cases due to mishandling. Of the cases of known microbiological origin, 61 per cent were due to mishandling at the food service level; 11 per cent in the home; six per cent at retail; and six per cent on farms or dairies. I remain unconvinced.
Our surveillance capabilities are weak. Certainly, they are not strong enough to support statements such as, "Research shows that improper food handling in the home causes a major proportion of foodborne illnesses." We simply do not know.
Money was allocated to bolster Health Canada's surveillance capacity in the last federal budget, so maybe we will see improvements...soon.
For producers the point may seem academic - except that on-farm food safety programs are being contemplated and in some sectors implemented across Canada. If consumers ask producers to bolster their food safety capabilities, wouldn't it be nice, at the end of the day, to be able to say not only are producers enhancing consumer confidence, but that the incidence of foodborne illness actually went down?
Even looking at the original press statements when the FightBac campaign was launched is instructive. Edouard Asnong, president of the Canadian Pork Council, was quoted as saying, "Techniques to minimize harmful bacteria on food must be employed at all stages, from the farm to the home."
John Stolp of the Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency was quoted as saying, "Steps to prevent harmful bacteria from infecting food must be taken at all stages, from the farm to the fork."
Such statements endorse the notion that all players have a responsibility for food safety, including consumers.
CFIA President Ron Doering was quoted as saying, "The kitchen is the front line in the battle against foodborne illness, and that's where we want to reach consumers."
Good data or not, food safety comes to this: The kitchen is the
last line
in the battle against foodborne illness. The front line is the
farm.
Doug Powell is an assistant professor in plant agriculture,
University of
Guelph. His new book, "Reclaiming Dinner," will be published this
summer
It's "do-do" before "I do" at our place
Why is it that a farmer can't just go out once in a while without getting into a major job at the same time as he's supposed to be leaving the driveway?Furthermore, why does what he's getting into over his neck always involve manure?
At Saturday breakfast a while back, we went over the day's schedule. My husband Neil agreed to all of it. Departure time was set for precisely 9:45 a.m, with him acting as chauffeur to me (holding the top tier of a wedding cake), Laura (in the back seat of the van, making sure the bottom three tiers didn't slide or fall), and four-year-old Amanda (fearing for her life should she touch anything).
When Neil hinted at staying home from the ceremony and "getting some manure out" with our son, David, the idea was quickly quashed. Reasonably, I pointed out that manure is being made every day; a wedding is (supposedly) a once-in-a-lifetime thing.
Even making the cake the previous day had been a challenge. It was a fresh cake with strawberries-and-cream filling. The plan was that Neil take the day to keep Amanda away from it. Instead, he arranged to have some repairs done to the manure spreader. My plans for the cake continued to go awry as Amanda came down with a cold, and wanted only Mommy.
Somehow, I got past all that and was able to set down my decorating bag by 8:30 Friday night. The girls and I were ready and waiting for Neil Saturday morning. We waited and waited. Finally I grabbed the keys, bent on holding the cake while praying and driving. Good thing Neil ducked when he and I collided on the steps outside our door.
"I didn't think you'd be ready yet." Now that wouldn't be a typical man kind of thing to say, would it? "I'm having trouble with the manure spreader," he added.
"Oh? And why did you have it out in the first place?" I ventured. Typical Man blamed it on someone who wasn't there to defend himself. "David wanted to clean the shed," he sputtered, trying to divert any wrath headed his way.
Still, I had to admire the speed with which he managed to change and get behind the wheel, overriding my declaration to do it myself. With a wedding cake cargo, there's simply no fast way to get to a reception hall. I finally exhaled after positioning the doves on top of the cake, though I knew the true test would come when it was served later that night.
Neil's monument was there for all to see when we got home. The "honey wagon," as he's often called it, was parked in the open field directly across the road from our house, and that fragrant mound in the middle of it showed no signs of moving. David and a mechanically minded friend were left holding the bag, limping the offending piece of equipment into our driveway as we toured back out for the reception.
It wasn't the first time we've done all that clock and manure watching. The one and only time we had our family portrait done, I'd had a brainstorm to include a small group of our Holstein cows. Neil was to keep the cows in, while I tried to have something done with my hair and brought the kids home from school in time for the photographer.
My husband picked that day to spread manure, but forgot to leave the cows in. We ended up with one cow in our photo instead of a group, a so-so hairdo for me, and something I'd always wanted - a portrait of all of us together.
Maybe in some obscure way Neil associates manure with matters of importance. I guess I should feel special then, because my mother continues to chuckle that he traded a load of manure for me after she'd asked him if she could get a load sometime.
"No problem," agreed the romanticist. "And say, is it all right with you if I marry your daughter?"
Avid rose garden enthusiast that she is, she jumped at the deal.
Margaret Comfort partners a family dairy farm near St. Catharines
back
LETTER FROM EUROPE
By Norman Dunn
Reform sends clear signal to EU farmers
Is European Union farm price support policy simply changing under World Trade Organization pressure to a farmers' pension fund? Here's a question that's being asked from Iceland to Italy following the latest Agenda 2000 agreements that sink intervention - or commodity support - prices over the following six years, but at the same time compensate through direct payments to every farmer.Thus, cereal intervention will be whittled away from the present C$180 per tonne to about $150 by 2001, while the direct per acre compensation payment will rise by around 15 per cent to $180 per acre.
But there are areas of England, France and Germany where at least double this compensation will be paid.
At the same time, the so-called set-aside agreement (land taken out of production) stipulates that each farmer stop producing from 10 per cent of his arable land until 2006 - and receive the same compensation payment per acre for this area as for the crop areas.
We could look to the dairy industry support as another example of current Agenda 2000 politics - although manoeuvring by the French has effectively delayed most changes here until 2005. But the plan, anyway, is to sink butter and skim milk powder support prices to an extent that will produce an annual income loss of about $150 per milking cow. In return, compensation payments will rise to the equivalent of approximately 1.1 cents per pound of milk quota by 2007.
Each cow herd in the EU has its official milk quota that may be reduced or added to through free trade. A typical British herd, for example, of 120 milkers with an average yield of 18,000 pounds will have an annual quota of just over two million pounds. By 2007, the annual quota-based compensation coming to this herd from Brussels could top $23,000.
But is this direct support the right way to go?
"It looks as if we're becoming state pensioners within the EU," grumbled one of my neighbours. "Europe promised the WTO that it would reduce direct payment based on farm production because this distorts world trading. But in efforts to keep rural income up, it's changing to a sort of payment per farm that leaves us more dependent than ever on the whims of politicians."
In countries like Germany, where just short of 50 per cent of each farm on average is rented land, this development brings other dangers. A wheat grower in eastern Germany with more than 90 per cent of his land rented pointed out to me that his landlords already watch EU compensatory payments like hawks. "The landlords see each rise as an increase in income for them the moment they can get in with new rent demands. Result? There's little or nothing left for the farmer, the person in the fields doing the work and taking the risks."
These are some of the reasons a growing number of farmers count every tooth in the mouth of this latest gift horse from Brussels. They're pressing for "degression" - a policy of gradual reduction of such direct payments from the state.
Just before the latest Agenda 2000 agreements, French negotiators were urging an annual three per cent degression.
Many agreed that such a cut would have been a help toward balancing the EU agricultural budget. But there are a lot of EU countries that see direct help from Brussels as a useful way of propping up their own tottering farm and environment budgets. End result: no degression.
Still, the realists among Europe's agriculturalists know the day
of
degression will have to come. Most of the established farm
business people
want it sooner rather than later. They want a clear signal that
European
farmers are at last in charge of their own destinies. A signal,
also, to
farm landlords that such payments will not continue indefinitely
as sources
of risk-free cash to be taken away in rent every year!
Norman Dunn is Farm & Country's European correspondent, based in
Germany
back