Defusing BSE powder keg
Early in the movie Waterworld, actor Kevin Costner, who plays
a lonely trader on a planet flooded by melted ice caps,
commits himself to the ultimate act of recycling by drinking
his own, albeit filtered, urine. That simple, poignant act
evoked a visceral reaction from most middle class North
Americans snug in their comfortable chairs only a few feet
away from a tap connected to the planet's largest supply of
fresh water.The public's realization that livestock and poultry, which they have been told is raised on green grass and sun-ripened grain, is sometimes fed the rendered, and otherwise unusable remains of other animals sometimes provokes a similar reaction of revulsion. No doubt they feel confused and left out as the American livestock and feed industries fight over a hastily-made decision to ban the feeding of ruminant-derived protein to avoid any chance of an outbreak of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE or Mad Cow Disease) devastating the industry in North America as it has in Europe.
Veterinarians and beef, dairy and sheep producers are lined up alongside the federal government's plant and animal health inspection service in supporting a by-product use ban, saying that the public safety comes first. On the other side are the meat packers, rendering industry and feed manufacturers who say there is no scientific reason to bring about a ban. That animal rights and anti-technology groups are pushing for a ban and are perceived to be setting the agenda just makes them dig their heels in further.
Cattle by-products such as bone, meat and blood meal are worth about C$10 an animal as livestock and pet foods. With 35 million head of cattle slaughtered annually in North America, that's $350 million, a tidy sum that the packing industry and feed makers don't want to give up. It's also thousands of tons of material that they will have to dispose of. But give it up they may have to.
On the Canadian side of the border, regulation efforts are moving more slowly. David Andrews, president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, says he's not totally convinced that a ban is called for. He says the beef industry is voluntarily not using meat meal in rations. And he points out that there are few sheep rendered in this country and even fewer that have scrapie, the nervous disorder that British health officials believe has been transmitted to cattle and is responsible for mad cow disease.
There is no evidence that by-products are any kind of a health hazard, but he stresses that no one should wait to impose a ban until there is such evidence.
Everyone is learning from everyone else's mistakes on this issue. The Americans learned from the British that it is critical to maintain public confidence in food safety. The Canadians are learning from the Americans that imposing a ban without consulting with all the aspects of an industry can also be disastrous.
Now what will someone else learn form the Canadians? Maybe the lesson will be that a public can't be convinced to continue eating a product that they no longer feel is grown in a wholesome manner.
Let's hope that's not the next lesson.
LETTERS
Citizen coyote
With regard to your support for culling the coyote and wolf
populations, please clarify that coyotes also perform a useful
service in terms of controlling pests such as groundhogs.
We were virtually unable to grow a garden and suffered
significant damage to our property by groundhogs prior to the
coyotes becoming more abundant in recent years. We now have no
groundhog problem. Our main wildlife-related problem is now a
well-founded fear of being accidentally shot by coyote
hunters.
With regard to your support for provincial compensation for
wildlife damage to livestock, you should be aware of the
logical extensions of that stance. We grow a fruit crop and
have to protect that crop from bird damage. If the government
pays for wildlife damage to insufficiently protected
livestock, they should also pay for damage to fruit and
vegetable crops due to birds and groundhogs. This seems
ridiculous, even though I would love to get paid for the crop
the birds harvested.
Regarding a recent article about vegetarianism, it appears
that you link vegetarianism with support for such
organizations as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund, and
seem to imply that support for these organizations is somehow
anti-farm. Being a vegetarian says nothing about one's stance
on related issues, just as being a farmer says nothing about
one's stance on the issues of livestock damage compensation or
coyote control.
Greg Lutick
Midland
User pay canard
Re: April 23 issue, "Get Ready for Whopping User Fees",
Ottawa's bureaucrats have quickly adopted the position that
terms such as 'cost recovery', 'user pay' and 'user fees'
somehow are acceptable. These words imply that if you use it,
you should pay for it.
However, the concept ignores two very critical points. We
shouldn't have to pay twice; we already pay once with our
taxes. This is arbitrary taxation; it is levied without
discussion or debate in Parliament and is therefore
undemocratic.
There are countless other examples of double taxation. Ottawa
doesn't seem to worry about the impact on our global
competitiveness. They're more concerned with layoffs and
unemployment, both of which will increase dramatically if we
lose our competitiveness.
Martin C. Pick
Lindsay
Waste of time
I recently attended the pesticide course at the Walkerton
OMAFRA boardroom. Of the 19 participants, only one was a first
timer, and another only wanted certification for using rat
killer. I can't afford to sit around and listen to six hours
of redundant information. Using the manual, I completed the
two-part open-book test in 40 minutes.
The course has an excellent manual which is very easy to
follow, with a concise glossary and index, requiring minimal
explanation. Why not mail the book out to 're-certifiers',
along with notated changes to the Pesticide Act?
Let us read the manual on our own time. Provide an office
where, when we're ready, we can write the test under casual
supervision.
To take this course, I had to pay the same $40 as the
first-timer and the farmer with rats. Just because my five
years are up doesn't mean I've forgotten how to transport,
store, mix or apply pesticides.
John Edgington
Walkerton
Consultants ' us
As a follow-up to Tom Button's article, "Crop Consultants Told
to Join the Club" (Feb. 27 issue), I would like to provide
some additional information on the Act to Regulate Agrologists
in the Public Interest in Ontario.
In the past few years, a number of initiatives have been
developed by agricultural organizations in co-operation with
governments to ensure that agricultural production practices
are environmentally and consumer friendly. The Environmental
Farm Plan and the Pesticide Safety Course are two examples.
The passing of the Act to Regulate Agrologists will enhance
the image of Ontario's agricultural sector as a producer of
high quality food products.
If the proposed Act is passed, the College of Professional
Agrologists of Ontario (CPAO) will be established, governed by
a member-elected council.
Membership will be open to anyone who meets the standards
established by the council. Members will have the P.Ag.
designation, will abide by a code of ethics and participate in
regular upgrading sessions.
The CPAO will discipline those who do not abide by the
established standards and prevent those not licensed from
practising.
The CPAO will be independent from the Ontario Institute of
Agrologists and the University of Guelph.
Dan Rose
President, Ontario
Institute of Agrologists.
Fine print
In regards to Tom Button's article in the April 23 edition,
"Pesticide Ads Take on New Twist", this ad and a similar ad
from DuPont in Western Canada is under discussion by the Crop
Protection Institute (CPI). These two ads will be tested
against the CPI marketing code by an independent party. To me,
the issue is not about the compliance with the code; it is a
matter of ethics. DuPont states that this ad is not
encouraging use, only making growers aware of a potential
registration. This is semantics. As a marketing executive, I
know that creating awareness is usually intended to convince
farmers to use your product. By DuPont's own omission they are
saying that this ad will help farmers plan their weed control.
Does this mean farmers should wait until the corn emerges to
apply a grass herbicide? By waiting, farmers will have fewer
choices and may be forced into using an unregistered tank-mix.
Where does this leave the farmer if weed control is inadequate
or the tank-mix damages the crop?
The timing of this ad, just before farmers are about to apply
pre-plant or pre-emerge herbicides, is convenient. By the time
CPI is able to deal with it, the ad will have already served
its purpose.
This type of advertising puts farm supply dealers in an
awkward position again. Similar to the illegal importation of
Accent, legitimate farm supply dealers are put at a
disadvantage. The Fertilizer Institute of Ontario,
representing Ontario fertilizer dealers has a stated policy
not to recommend unregistered uses. They, as well as all of
the industry, should be concerned about the rules around
unregistered recommendations.
In Western Canada, DuPont is advertising Assure, an
unregistered product, in exactly the same way. Both these
cases are worse than advertising an unregistered product
because the PCP act does not allow the sale of an unregistered
product. An unregistered product will not be available for
farmers to use. For non-registered uses of registered products
farmers will be tempted to use the products outside of label
directions as encouraged by this type of advertising.
Greg Dunlop
Business Unit Director
CIBA Crop Protection
Help hotline
The Grey County Federation of Agriculture is assisting one of
its members to recover costs for premature engine and
hydraulics failure on Case IH tractors models 1594 and 1690.
Farmers who have experienced similar engine or hydraulic
problems or both are requested to contact the Grey County
Federation of Agriculture at 1-800-275-9551, fax: (519)
364-4119 or the Properties Committee at (519) 334-3548.
Karl Braeker
Hanover
Get the drift
I would like to offer a word of caution to any growers who are
thinking of using the new dicamba herbicide by Sandoz,
Clarity. Its low volatility does not prevent it from drifting
onto neighbouring fields and damaging susceptible crops.
When Cargill sprayed our neighbour's corn crop with Clarity in
June, 1995, Clarity drifted over 100 metres into our soybeans
causing documented yield loss at harvest. Neither Cargill nor
Sandoz take any responsibility for our loss and hide behind
the directions and warnings found on the herbicide label.
Gregory Iler
Harrow