Americans at it again

It shouldn't have come as a major surprise to Manitoba hay exporters to find a little more red tape at the U.S. border these days.

It seems a "Blanket Release Revision" has come down from the bureaucrats at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and that a "hold and test" policy had been extended to animal feed products, including hay. To translate the bureaucratese: Canada's $200-million-plus hay export industry can expect more than a few speed bumps as it tries to truck fresh, top-quality product to valued clients south of the border.

According to a recent bulletin from the Canadian Hay Exporters Association, American officials call the practice "routine", and part of overall pesticide residue monitoring. Samples are "Fed-exed" from the border to the FDA lab in Kansas City. Expected turnaround time is 10 working days, and FDA headquarters has confirmed that FDA districts "have and will continue to conduct surveillance sampling of animal feeds" right across the entire Canada-U.S. border.

Hay exporting is big business in Canada and it's growing. The association says exports total $212 million: $30 million in baled hay products, $64.4 in seed, and $117.6 in cubes and pellets. Major markets include the Pacific Rim and the U.S. Increasing harassment on the 49th parallel is not good news for Canada's agri-food exporters, which exports $18 billion worth of food products a year and is closing in on $20 billion. But they can expect more to come, especially in light of the forthcoming NAFTA ruling, strongly rumoured to uphold Canadian dairy and poultry import controls.

Unlike Canadians, Americans don't take defeat lying down. Similar to the nuisance border delays courtesy of Montana meat inspector William J. Lehman back in 1993, the recent hay holdup is just one more instance of border justice, regardless of so-called "free" trade deals signed in far-off Washington and Ottawa.

The Americans want our milk, chicken, egg and turkey markets, and if impartial trade panels can't get them, then they'll try the back door, sandbagging the southerly flow of goods such as wheat, sugar, and now hay, and all the while fulminating about the protectionist Canadian Wheat Board and supply-managed marketing boards. The latest missive from the United States General Accounting Office in Washington includes an entire chapter entitled "Monopoly Authority and Government Support May Allow CWB to Potentially Distort Trade".

Free Trade has been a myth ever since Brian Mulroney and George Bush inked it back in 1989. Canadian farmers may have won the latest round, but now is no time to take a sabbatical. With a U.S. presidential election in November, America's food giants hungrily eyeing Kentucky Fried North will be betting heavily on their favourite horses. It doesn't take long for the aroma from all those barbecues to drift south.

back

LETTERS

Contradiction
Farm & Country's editorial page complained that money is spent building subways. The editorial cartoon worries about the right to farm - an ex-urbanite objects to dust on his BMW. Careful analysis shows a contradiction in the two editorials. Subways support intensification, redevelopment and higher densities within existing urban boundaries. Funding subways is the alternative to building more highways for commuters who build on separated lots and then object to their neighbour's right to farm.
Queen's Park should stop subsidizing sprawl. Economist Pamela Blais, reporting to the Golden Commission, calculated that reducing sprawl could save $2.5 to $4 billion of Toronto-area operating costs and $10 to $16 billion capital costs.
Stopping sprawl would also save thousands of acres of productive foodland, an essential resource to sustain a strong agricultural industry. This could also reduce the ex-urbanite/farmer conflicts.
The City of Toronto opposes sprawl and supports intensification, user-pay transportation and foodland conservation. Farmers should support city initiatives that discourage sprawl. Five million dollars for subway construction may be a bargain that ultimately helps farmers. Farmers are natural allies of inner-city dwellers. When the new Actual Value Assessment is implemented, the City of Toronto and Ontario farmers may find they have more in common because this assessment may try to shift the tax burden for urban sprawl to farmers and inner-city home owners and businesses.
It is timely for OFA and CFFO management to start a dialogue for mutual support. Farmers need friends, as do City of Toronto taxpayers.
Lorne Almack
Claremont

Using resources
With regard to Don Stoneman's article, "Rumensin-free, and proud of it" in the July 16 issue, I thought it was, for the most part, accurate and informative. But there are a few points that should be cleared up.
In the last paragraph, the costs per day are incorrect. The premix cost was erroneously listed as 13 to 15 cents per day, rather than three to five cents.
Ketosis is a synonym for acetonemia, meaning excess acetone in blood, urine and milk, not acid anemia as listed.
The headline is somewhat inflammatory. For the farm used as an example, "Cookie-Waste Free, and Proud of It" would not apply. Do we have good information on the impact of waste muffin and cookie mix on cow health or the quality and safety of the milk produced?
In my opinion, excellent performance in any business, particularly the food-animal industries, is the result of using the best available resources to achieve profitable results. If and when monensin sodium is approved for lactating dairy cattle use, it should be considered, just like waste muffin and cookie mix, as an available tool that might be useful for achieving performance and profit goals. Ken E. Leslie
Professor, Ontario
Veterinary College
University of Guelph

It's not simple
In response to Peggy Hutchison's letter to the editor in the July 16 issue, what she writes is fine, but it is not as simple as "a single strand of electric".
Stream banks tend to have broken terrain and vegetation and are not easy to fence, sometimes impossible. The fence must be designed to accommodate changes in water level - flash floods, deer, etc. To ensure a secure fence, it must be kept back from the stream.
In our case, the property is 1,500 feet wide. The stream is fenced on both sides with a practical setback. This results in the loss of about 14 acres of grazing. So go figure who is quick to say "well worth the benefits derived from living in a healthy economic region".
Certainly we need the studies. Let us hope they are done by open-minded professionals.
Gordon Sample
Richmond