Bureaucracy blossoms at pesticide agency

By TOM BUTTON

Hostility and mistrust are the only words to describe relations between agriculture groups and the federal agriculture department's fledgling Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

How else to explain why farm representatives take a court reporter when they meet agency officials?

"There's no trust," says Ron Cameron, Thamesville cash cropper and lead representative for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Horticultural Council in the PMRA talks. "I've never been so frustrated."

At meetings this summer, farmers and spray manufacturers were so worried that PMRA officials were twisting their words, they hired a court reporter to write down what was said.

Then, at a planned two-day session in Ottawa to discuss the agency's future with senior staff, Cameron, who is noted for his patience and diplomacy, walked out after a couple hours. The last straw, he says, is that the agency has hired a public relations firm. Because of the federal government's new cost recovery plan, farmers will have to pay half the cost. "I don't care if it's $50 or $50,000, I don't want them to spend our money to hire a spin doctor to work against us," Cameron says. "I won't tell you the four-letter words it makes me want to use."

"We're highly suspicious," says Charlie Milne, negotiator for the Crop Protection Insitute, an umbrella group for pesticide manufacturers. Milne describes agriculture's dependence on the agency as "going into a relay race with someone who can't run."

The Chrétien Liberals set up the new agency last year to put an end to a decade-long search for a pesticide policy that would both soothe the fears of eco-lobbyists and also guarantee that farmers get speedy access to safe new sprays. No one seems to doubt that the agency can do that job. What's got farmers shell-shocked is the price tag. The agency says it needs $34 million a year, with half the money coming from spray manufacturers and, in the end, straight out of farm pockets by pushing chemical costs up at least two per cent. Farm groups and the chemical industry insist the agency could do the same job for $9 million a year.

Farmers want an agency that will search the U.S. and Europe and borrow the reports that other governments have already made on new pesticides. The government, on the other hand, wants to duplicate most of the work in Canada so the health department, which now controls pesticides, can assure Canadians their food is safe.

In the last year, 185 employees in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency registered 40 new pesticide products. In Canada, it took 213 employees to register 19. Under the Liberal plan, the PMRA will swell to 408 employees within the next two years.

The agency promises to rule on new pesticides within 18 months of receiving a full application package from the company. That compares to the current four-year wait.

Still, a government report shows that, by charging $16 million in cost-recovery fees, the new agency will force a quarter of Canada's pesticides off the market, with losses most severe in low-acreage crops.

The same study shows the fees will stop at least 10 per cent of new pesticides from even seeking registration.

In recent moves, PMRA has agreed to postpone $1 million of its spending. The money was aimed at hiring extra inspectors to enforce pesticide rules. Now, they won't be hired until next summer at the earliest.

As well, the agency may chop an extra $3 million by cutting the amount of effort it will put into clearing up the backlog of 900 registration applications. And the agency has also agreed to set up an oversight committee that would let farmers and the chemical industry help control spending.

Milne says the agency is nibbling at the edges instead of tackling the fundamental issue, which he says is the duplication of pesticide studies.

"They keep saying, 'It will be better in the future, trust us'," Milne says. "I wish I could."

back

Higher costs negate tax break

High-priced building materials are taking the teeth out of a provincial program designed to give farmers a provincial sales tax (PST) rebate, says Fred Groenestege, a design and build contractor in Sebringville.

The government's retail rebate is set up to allow Ontario farmers to claim a refund on PST that is added on to materials bought to build or modernize farm buildings. But some skeptics think the program isn't helpful.

"This was a dumb time for the government to start this program," Groenestege says.

"This agricultural building industry didn't need any stimulation, because it was already doing quite well." Farmers are going to build despite the rebate, he says.

The program, which has only been in effect for a little over a month, has raised a question: How much is the farmer really saving? "The program doesn't really seem to be saving farmers very much money and is creating a hassle for contractors," Groenestege said.

The government's original intention was to give something back to the farmers, but with the high cost of building materials like lumber, farmers don't seem to be any further ahead. "The price of lumber is definitely enough to gobble up the tax rebate," Groenestege said. "This year, we have seen a 30 to 40 per cent increase in the price of lumber."

Bob Moxley, director of retail sales tax branch for the Ministry of Finance, says the supply and demand of lumber doesn't have anything to do with the amount written on the PST rebate cheque. If farmers pay more for the lumber they use to build their barns, chances are they will get more back on their PST cheques.

According to Moxley, few people have filed for PST returns so far, but the number of applicants is expected to grow now that the program is underway.

"Currently, 156 applications have been sent in. And the total amount of claims sums up to $205,550, averaging $1,300 per claim," he said. The government has allocated $20 million for the tax relief fund. - SW

back

New paper keeps pace with change

Yes, you've had a late night combining. No, you're not seeing things. Your new issue of Farm & Country does have a new "feel" to it.

Like agriculture, publishing continues to evolve rapidly. In January, 1994, Agricultural Publishing Company launched a new look and strategy for Farm & Country publication. We abandoned newsprint and adopted higher-quality "book" stock, which was stapled and trimmed. The design was simplified for a "cleaner", more organized, easier-to-read format. The lead story and photo shared Page One, leading readers inside to a revamped table of contents which aimed them at specific farm-grown commodities, saving them time. Better use of colour and graphics brought readers into the publication. With less of a "newspaper" approach, articles would explore and analyze, rather than simply chronicle.

Then as farmers began to take their first hard look at electronic communication, Farm & Country introduced an electronic bulletin board in March, 1995; and in February, 1996, we launched a Web Site, which continues to evolve. Today, we introduce our new paper stock. With a glossy, magazine-like appearance, the new paper gives the publication consistency throughout. With excellent readability, and vibrant "heat-set" colour, the upgrade will help to enhance the "business" look of the publication, continuing the evolution away from a newspaper to a trade publication that reflects the innovative, dynamic multi-billion agriculture industry in this province. The new paper also allows for a less bulky product, making it easier to handle as it travels from our computers, through the mail system, to your kitchen table.

We are also consolidating three issues, bringing you 15 issues a year. September, October and May will now be "single-issue" months, dated the third Tuesday in the month. We will continue to produce two issues in February, March and April.

As always, any changes are made with you, the reader, foremost in mind. I welcome your ideas and questions.
John M. Muggeridge,
Managing Editor,
Farm & Country

back

Corn variety registration still hanging on

By TOM BUTTON

Two months before On-tario corn growers started planting their crops last spring, the federal agriculture department promised it would scrap the national registration system which bans farmers from buying new hybrids until they're approved by federal bureaucrats.

Now, an entire growing season has come and gone. Ontario corn growers are harvesting their 1996 crop. And the registration system still hasn't been scrapped.

In fact, the system will likely survive into 1997, and possibly through to spring.

Yet the Ontario Corn Committee didn't plant any registration trials in 1996 because it was told the system would be scrapped. As a result, seed companies can't apply for registration of new hybrids because they don't have data from the registration trials to back them up.

The scene is now set for federal officials to block farmers from buying any new hybrids for next spring. In fact, according to its current law, that's exactly what should happen.

"This is the worst kind of bureaucratic bungling and foot dragging," complains Dennis Jack, Kent county farmer and chairman of the research committee for the Ontario Corn Producers Association.

"We knew the bureaucracy was trying to slow this down," Jack says. "We didn't know they were fighting it this hard." By law, the registration system will survive until a new regulation is adopted under the Canada Seeds Act to officially kill it. By October, the regulation hadn't even started the formal process.

"It's awaiting ministerial approval," said Louise Duke, senior seed official for the federal agriculture ministry. After getting that approval, the regulation must be published in the Canada Gazette Part I, followed by a 30-day public comment period.

Next, the government must review any comments, and if necessary, amend the regulation. Then the regulation must be published in Canada Gazette Part II. Finally, it must be approved by the Governor in Council.

Even for high-priority regulations, the process normally takes several months.

Will charges be laid when companies try to sell new hybrids this winter?

"I can't believe they'd try to enforce it, but there's no question it puts the industry in a bit of a vulnerable position," says Ken Hough, policy adviser for the Ontario corn association.

"Agriculture Canada has signalled its intention to remove registration, so there should be no compliance activity," Hough says. "They shouldn't be spending money to enforce a regulation they're trying to eliminate."

In other years, the Ontario Corn Committee met late November to review the results of registration trials and to recommend which hybrids should be registered.

The committee will still meet this November, says secretary Gordon Scheifele, corn researcher at Ridgetown college. "We're going to go through the process, but strictly as a rubber stamp," Scheifele says. Without registration trials, the committee can't judge which new hybrids deserve registration under federal rules, which say new hybrids must be at least as good as current hybrids before they can be allowed on the market.

"We'll offer some basic data on yield, maturity, and stalk breakage, but we won't be asking the companies where the information came from or how it was collected."

back

Deregulation draws American seed north

Bags of American seed corn are crossing the border even before the corn registration system is officially killed.

This winter, Ontario corn growers will be able to choose from more hybrids than ever before - both from new companies as well as old stalwarts - due to the impending death of the federal registration system.

The province's newest seed corn company, AgVantage, makes no secret that it's starting sales precisely because of de-regulation.

"The old system was too expensive and too time-consuming," says Larry Miehls, cash cropper at Woodslee in Essex county, who plans to sell six AgVantage hybrids this winter.

AgVantage will target the 3100 to 3500-heat-unit farms of Ontario's extreme southwest. The market is too small for the company to do both its own performance testing as well as pay for the multi-site, multi-year plots required to get a hybrid registered under the old system, Miehls says.

In fact, he's been importing AgVantage seed for his own farm for the past four years, convinced that the registration system was also putting the brakes on introductions of long-day hybrids from other companies, and for the same reasons.

Miehls says too that Indiana-based AgVantage was put off by the slow pace of Canada's hybrid regulations, under which most hybrids had to be tested in official trials for at least two years.

"Hybrids are coming out of the breeding programs so fast," Miehls says. "If you hold them up two or three years, it's almost past the time you should be planting them." Yet there's little sign that other American seed companies will come crashing into Ontario.

"The companies that thought they could conquer Canada have already tried," says Dale Petrie, president of Direct Seed. "We've already seen the Great Lakes, Garsts, Gutweins and Crows try to take over the Canadian market with what are essentially U.S. hybrids. The results are lacklustre at best. "If you're going to be a success in Ontario, you've got to have material that's adapted for growing here. You can't expect to build up business with Minnesota hybrids."

Surrounded by water on three sides, Ontario's corn belt is unique in North America. Total heat units may be the same as Minnesota and Wisconsin, but the summer is longer, the skies are much cloudier, and humidity and disease pressure is much greater.

John Cowan, marketing manager of Hyland Seeds, says that farmers are mainly conservative, especially when it comes to critical purchases. "Farmers won't do a lot of business with a company they've never heard of before," he says.

"If somebody pulls into the laneway with seed that they'll sell for $70 a unit, today's farmers might buy enough for a strip trial. They aren't going to plant the whole farm."

Bill Parks, president of Pioneer Hi-Bred, predicts the corn market will "heat up" because of de-regulation. "There's going to be some more aggressive marketing," Parks says. "It's going to be more of a buyer-beware market."

Parks is telling farmers to do more on-farm testing, and especially to compare their results with other farmers. "And not just in your own township." - TB

back

Hybrids to hit market a year sooner

Corn growers will be able to plant some hybrids a year sooner because hybrids won't be held up by registration.

In return, more corn growers are going to be asked to plant more on-farm trials of experimental hybrids.

Pickseed, for example, has set up three hybrid categories to connect with the new de-regulated environment, explains Jim Cooper, the company's head of research.

When experimental hybrids reach the stage when they would have been put into the now-defunct registration trials, Pickseed will unveil them as StripTest Hybrids, with 100 to 500 bags of seed.

Before they reach the Strip Test category, hybrids will have been planted in at least 50 tests. Still, the hybrids will keep their experimental numbers instead of names, and Cooper expects that only about half will actually survive the extra screening and become commercial hybrids.

"The push is to look at these hybrids in more environments," Cooper says. "We may be losing the registration trials, but we're replacing them with even more on-farm tests.

"We're going to be spending more on research, and the information for farmers is going to be better than it was with registration."

Hybrids that pass the strip-test screening will be unveiled as New Hybrids the following year, and Proven Hybrids the year after.

Companies are also stepping up seed production of their best new varieties, launching some new hybrids a year earlier and with bigger seed quantities.

Companies won't longer have to wait, explains Bill Parks, president of Pioneer Hi-Bred. As soon as the company is convinced that an experimental hybrid has what it takes to win market share, it can gear up seed production.

"We're trying to accelerate the process," Parks says. The company is harvesting new hybrids by mid-October so it still has time to order winter-time seed production in South America for good-looking hybrids.

With registration, that strategy was too risky. There was always the chance that, based on yields in official registration trials, the hybrid might be kept off the market for an extra year. "Now, we don't have to wait for their approval. It's totally our decision."

Dale Petrie of Direct Seeds says the registration system created many stumbling blocks. He points to the hail storm that wiped out plots at Ridgetown college in June, and flooding rains that ruined test plots at the Huron Research Station at Centralia.

"If you depended on those sites for registration tests, you'd be out of luck," Petrie says. - TB

back

Farmers pan plan to license consultants

By TOM BUTTON

Farmers don't want it, but the Ontario Institute of Agrologists is still pushing ahead with its plan to get the provincial government to set up a new college to control farm consultants.

If it succeeds, it would be illegal for anyone to give advice to farmers "for hire, gain, salary or hope of reward" unless they're members of the college, and unless the advice is in line with the college's views.

"They're getting too officious. We aren't supporting it," says Jim McWilliam, Pickering farmer and president of the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association.

"They want to be the only ones who can tell farmers what they can and cannot do."

McWilliam says farmers who grow seed wouldn't be able to tell their customers which varieties to plant. Farmers who do custom combining wouldn't be able to tell their customers when to take off their crops.

Ruth Friendship-Keller, secretary of the agrologists' association, says the group has spent the summer consulting with farm organizations across Ontario.

Originally, it wanted the new act to be on the order paper so it would be debated in the Ontario legislature this fall. "That's probably not going to happen, but the committee is pushing to be on the order paper as soon as possible." Already, however, most major farm groups have rejected the plan. The Ontario Corn Producers Association says it should be up to farmers, not a bureaucracy, to decide who's qualified to offer farm advice. "We don't see any need for the proposal," says Dennis Jack, chairman of the association's research committee.

The Ontario soybean board has also spurned the plan. "The directors certainly aren't very keen on it," says Fred Brandenburg, board manager. "We don't need more rules and more costs imposed on farmers."

The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFFO) will support the plan, but only if it's made voluntary and not mandatory, explains Bob Bedggood, federation director for Middlesex.

There have been limited fact-finding discussions with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, but the issue hasn't made it onto the agenda for the directors.

The institute is meeting with more farm organizations, as well as groups such as the Canadian Bankers Association and the Consumers Association of Canada, Friendship-Keller says. The county branches of the institute will also set up more meetings with local farm groups, she says. "The feeling is, once farmers hear good sense, they understand it and go along with it."

The agrologists' proposal would set up a college much like the bodies that control veterinarians and doctors. Anybody who sells advice to farmers would have to become a member or risk being taken to court.

Almost all of the 1,000 members of the agrologists' institute are University of Guelph graduates, but specific education is not required to become a member of the college. Instead, membership would be based on education, experience, and passing an entrance exam.

The institute says the plan is needed because farmers are getting bad advice from some consultants, who may recommend illegal sprays or unsafe farm practices.

Bedggood, however, says farmers already do a good job of handling consultants who give bad advice. "They don't get work," Bedggood says. "Farmers talk with their neighbours, we find out who we can trust."

The CFFO says the institute makes some good points. "Sound advice is worth money," a CFFO background documents says. "This is the food chain. The goal of encouraging those who advise farm entrepreneurs to continually maintain their professionalism is very supportable."

Yet CFFO says the institute needs to start with a voluntary approach. If the idea is good, farmers will start asking their consultants whether they're members of the college. "But first, they need to earn the respect of the community," Bedggood says.

McWilliam says farmers must be free to choose the kind of advice they get for their own farms, even if it doesn't square with Guelph standards. "This [proposal] isn't how agriculture has evolved."

back

ID:878