Healthy Canadians

The Government of Canada announced a new Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan last month, and it seems they want to get consumers involved in the new plan’s development.  Health Canada and the Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-food are in charge of the consultation process.  You only have until February 13 to provide comments, so don’t miss out on the opportunity.

Here is the news release.

January 15, 2008
For immediate release

Government of Canada Launches Consultation on Canada’s proposed Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan

OTTAWA – The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Health, and the Honourable Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, today launched a public consultation on the proposed Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan. The Action Plan, which was announced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper on December 17, 2007, outlines a series of initiatives designed to modernize and strengthen Canada’s safety system for food, health and consumer products.

The consultation on the proposed measures will provide interested Canadians, stakeholders, industry, provinces and territories with an opportunity to learn details of the plan and provide input on how it will be implemented.

“Last month we announced a Food and Consumer Safety Action Plan – which is a comprehensive set of new measures we would like to move forward on – to ensure that Canadians maintain their confidence in the food, health, and consumer products they buy,” said Minister Clement. “By first launching this 30-day consultation of the plan, we are ensuring Canadians can review and provide valuable input before its implementation.”

“Food safety is important to all Canadians, and with this new plan our Government is ensuring that Canada continues to have one of the safest food supplies in the world,” said Minister Ritz. “Consulting with suppliers, processors, importers, retailers, and consumers is a vital part of our plan, as we will need to keep pace with industry challenges, growth in imported products, and changes in the global marketplace.”

The proposed plan will focus on the following three key areas:

• Preventing problems in the first place – Government would provide better safety information to consumers and guidance to industries on building or improving safety throughout their supply chains. This would encourage a renewed focus on prevention.
• Targeting the highest risks – Government would be able to require companies that produce consumer and health products to conduct safety tests and provide the results. That information would allow a closer watch on products where the risks are not yet fully understood or that pose the greatest potential hazard to the public. Broader authority over food imports and the use of food safety systems would also be sought.
• Rapid Response – New legislation would allow the government to take faster action than ever before to protect the public when a problem occurs. This includes the power to pull unsafe consumer and health products from store shelves, and better information to speed food product recalls.

The Government of Canada is encouraging interested groups, individual Canadians, and provinces and territories to provide input on how best to implement the elements of its plan in a fair, balanced, effective and responsible way. Information about the consultation, as well as a booklet detailing the proposed Action Plan, can be found on the Healthy Canadians Web site.

-30-

CanACT leading the way

CanACT, the Canadian Agricultural Communicators of Tomorrow, are celebrating the 5th year of their organization. 

These students at the University of Guelph are well aware that they need more than just tools from the classroom to succeed in the workplace. 

According to their mission, “CanACT strives to enhance the connectivity between students at the University of Guelph and Canada’s agricultural communications sector by promoting agricultural communications professions to the student body, providing members with opportunities to improve communication skills, and assisting them in making professional contacts.” 

From what I’ve seen, the students involved take the mission very seriously.  It is always a pleasure to see CanACT members at sector events, meeting agricultural professionals and broadening their knowledge base.

I was pleased to attend a dinner last night, at which CanACT members learned about business etiquette.  Diane Johnson is an etiquette expert who works with business professionals across North America, and she is a very engaging speaker.  Diane led us through a business dinner, reminding everyone that consideration, honesty, and respect are the keys to success. 

Afterward, one of my dinner companions noted that a resume can be filled with great work and academic experience, but the impression you make in facing a potential employer can make or break the hiring decision.  It is that awareness, that desire to complement their classroom learning, that impresses me most about these gifted young students.

CanACT, Canadian Agricultural Communicators of Tomorrow, is the first international chapter of the US-based National Agricultural Communicators of Tomorrow.  I would encourage students to become involved.  It’s a great way to expand your horizons.

Ag Day in Canada

January 23, 2008 was the first Ag Day in Canada, presented by Farm Credit Canada (FCC). 

Members of the agricultural sector gathered in more than 100 communities across Canada yesterday to hear forecasts for the coming year from industry leaders.  I attended the session at the Italian Canadian Club in Guelph, Ontario.

Federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food, Gerry Ritz, opened the session with a recorded message, promising that he is “committed to putting farmers first in every decision made”.

Greg Stewart, president and CEO of FCC, also made a virtual presentation, emphasizing FCC’s committment to the sector and its participants. 

Supporting ongoing success and, more specifically, encouraging young people to remain interested and involved in the sector was made evident through an FCC donation of $85,000 to the Canadian 4-H Council.  The Ontario council will receive $12,000 of that donation to support activities for members, ages 10 to 21. 

Topics of interest throughout the day included alternative fuels, land values, grain & oilseed marketing, and farm safety.  Industry experts, through pre-recorded videos, talked about the current situation and where we can expect to go in the near future.

The day was definitely geared to producers, which may have disappointed those in attendance who are involved in other businesses within the sector.  The advanced material talked about celebrating Canadian agriculture which seemed a broader scope than the day ended up being.

The session was really well organized and executed, with Kevin Stewart of AgVision TV doing a tremendous job narrating the various video segments.  Kudos to FCC for their wide-spread effort in highlighting the sector’s importance.

Food Fight: Global versus Local

Consumers in the Kingston area, calling themselves the ‘Food Down the Road community council’, have decided that simply supporting local foods isn’t enough. According to an article in the January 8th Ontario Farmer, they want a formal policy that ensures ‘governments, local institutions and businesses, through policy and practice, become champions for local farmers and eaters’

This is a grand plan, but even participants admit they’re ‘not quite sure how they’re going to get there’. I’m glad to hear it. I think local food proponents, or ‘locavores’ started with a good idea, and they have the ‘act locally’ part nailed. However, I don’t hear them talking about the ‘think globally’ part of the equation nearly enough, so we need to slow the bandwagon down.

It’s easy to point out countless areas of the world in which this local food craze just doesn’t work, but we don’t have to travel that far. In my home town in Northern Ontario, a local food plan means lots of protein…and not much else. Frankly, I’d miss things like grains, fruits, and dairy products, unless of course I bought a cow, which would be a radical idea.

And speaking of radical, Joel Stein, a contributor to Time magazine, recently illustrated the extremes he feels ‘locavores’ are pushing toward with a brilliant, opposing plan: preparing a ‘distavore’ meal. In his January 10th column, Extreme Eating, Stein explained the idea, noting that nothing he purchased to prepare for the meal was produced within 3,000 miles of his home. Not an easy task, considering that he lives in Los Angeles and, as he notes, ‘farmers in Southern California, it seems, can grow anything’. To add insult to injury, Stein bought everything at Whole Foods, the store he refers to as ‘the local-food movement’s most treasured supermarket, the one that has huge locally grown signs next to the fruits and vegetables’.

It’s a drastic approach for putting things into perspective, but I think it works. How can we fail to see that there are people who don’t have the same options we do, and who need to share the riches that we take for granted? The local-food movement is quick to talk about what the Kingston group called ‘an ecologically and economically sustainable local food system’ which they see as ‘essential to a vital, healthy, food secure community’. But are they sure about those benefits? Is there scientific evidence that locally grown fare is healthier or safer than the alternative? As for the environment, there is growing evidence that food produced safely and efficiently in one part of the world, and shipped to other regions, is far more energy efficient than the items we pick up on weekend trips to farmers’ markets in our Hummers and Lincoln Navigators.

The Food Down the Road group is committed to a ‘system that promotes human dignity and community food security, with fair access to healthy and appropriate foods for all citizens’. What they don’t seem to realize is that this is the perfect argument for a global food strategy, one in which countries with an overabundance of resources can readily provide for those who don’t have enough to feed their families. Let’s be careful about demanding policies that suit few and ignore many. While supporting local fare when we can, lets make sure our blinders don’t prevent us from seeing things globally.

The value of agricultural research

There are significant differences between private and public agricultural research, and the funding required to sustain these efforts.  In the end, however, the resulting benefits create the value.

Private research is more easily directed by vested interest, as the funding is internal to the company or companies involved, and the desired outcome may have already been determined.  If that sounds like a slam against the process, I don’t mean it to be.  I have seen enough first-hand evidence of the social and environmental responsibility held by chemical and seed manufacturers to know that their research isn’t just a matter of dollar signs.

Public research, however, is endowed with a greater responsibility to sponsors, including government, to ensure that public interest is served by the research and its results.  It also means that measuring the benefit of funding is necessary in order to prove the value of ongoing investment in innovation.

In December 2007, the University of Guelph released a report, prepared by Deloitte and Touche LLP, which measured the annual return on investment of their 10-year research funding relationship with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.  Since 2006, the ministry has provided the university with approximately $54 million a year.  The university manages those funds to provide agricultural research and development, and educational programs.  Deloitte calculated the annual return to be $1.15 billion, which is a 20:1 benefit – cost ratio.

This endeavour to quantify the economic impact of research funding is an admirable attempt to make the process transparent.  Although the results are likely on the extreme high side, due to the data from previous studies used for the assessment, this is not a simple calculation to take on, so kudos for the effort.  Some review may be required as it is vitally important that the numbers stand up to rigourous examination, especially when publishing the results, as someone will always question the measurement’s validity. 

The university’s openness in accounting for those research dollars, and in highlighting the return on investment of public funds as well as the need for continued agricultural research is commendable.

With environmental and health concerns what they are today, agricultural research can, and in the future likely will, impact everyone on the planet.  That, in itself, is justification for funding socially beneficial research such as enhancing a crop’s yield potential, preventing disease in livestock, developing alternative uses for plants, and improving food production processes.  The long term benefits seem clear.

Next on the Menu…Cloned Meat and Milk

It seems the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will soon be approving meat and milk from cloned animals for human consumption.  (The products will more likely come from offspring of clones, as clones themselves are used for breeding purposes.)  In addition, they will not require that food products from clone offspring be labeled as such, so consumers won’t know which is which.

It has only been 12 years since the birth of Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal.  Is that enough time to have produced more animals, studied the effects of the cloning process, and determined whether food from the offspring of these animals is safe for human consumption? 

Time is one of the critical factors in researching and replicating test results in order to be sure of the findings.  Let’s hope that Health Canada takes considerably more time than their southern counterparts in allowing these food products to hit store shelves.

If I do reach the point where I’m ready to chase a replicated T-bone with a cold glass of fresh-from-a-clone milk, I’d like the food labels to indicate that choice.

Stevia’s Appeal

Melissa, a classmate of mine, mentioned stevia to me a few months ago and I was really in the dark, not knowing what it was.  Now, everywhere I turn people are talking or writing about it.  So what is it, and what can it do?

Stevia is a plant, a member of the sunflower family.  It’s been growing in South and Central America for centuries and it just happens to work as a substitute for sugar.  In fact, it is almost 300 times sweeter than sugar and has no calories.  How great is that?

Well, not so great that it has been approved as a food additive in North America or Europe…yet.  Caution seems to be the catchphrase.  Agriculture and Agri-food Canada is growing stevia at test sites, and sees its potential as an alternative crop, but Health Canada hasn’t jumped on the bandwagon. 

Despite being used in herbal remedies in its native region, and in several food and beverage products in Japan, we won’t be adding stevia to our coffee anytime soon.  There are too many health concerns to be overcome before we start consuming it on a broad scale.

That hasn’t stopped Cargill and Coca-Cola from teaming up to create a stevia product called Rebiana that will be used in foods and beverages.  They’ve also partnered with GLG Life Tech to build new stevia processing plants in China.  This is some serious investing for a product that isn’t even approved.

And yet, if you don’t feel like waiting for Health Canada to come through with registration, you can buy stevia now and add it to foods and beverages yourself.  Believe it or not, there is a company called Stevia Canada that offers all sorts of stevia products:  soap, herbal capsules, healing cream, sweetener for hot and cold beverages, and even the seeds so that commercial growers can grow stevia themselves.

I think I’ll hold out for a while and see what the researchers find.  In the meantime, what about other uses for the plant?  Melissa thought stevia might be a great alternative source for biofuel and she could be right.  We’ll have to wait and see.

2007 Word of the Year – Locavore?

The 2007 word of the year, chosen by the Oxford University Press, is locavore.  This is quite impressive for a word that is barely three years old. 

Locavore was coined by a group of people in San Francisco who are dedicated to eating food that comes from within a 100 mile radius of home.  They even have their own website with guidelines and recipes.

Supporting local food is not a bad thing.  It makes sense to buy fresh fruits and vegetables when they are available.  But they’re not available locally all year long, at least not where I live.  And not every region in the world can produce everything needed to sustain the local population.  There are also regions that produce far more than they can consume locally, so they export.  Should they stop producing more than they need for their own consumption, or does it make sense to share that wealth of resources with others? 

There is always more than one way to get something done.  We have responsibilities, social, environmental, and economic, that should allow us to work together, but there always seems to be a desire to group together and throw insults at others who see things differently.  Have we proved, conclusively, that local foods are more economical and environmentally friendly than imports?  Not by a long shot, looking at just one example:

New Zealand lamb is raised in pastures covered with clover.  The process of shipping lamb 11,000 miles over water to Britain produces 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton.  Large number?  Not when you find out that lamb raised in Britain produces 6,280 pounds per ton.  How can it be four times more energy efficient to purchase lamb raised half way around the world?  Simple.  British pastures are not clover-rich so farmers must purchase feed which adds processing and transportation to the equation.  Environmentally sound decisions require much thought and are not always as simple as you might think. 

In fact, nothing is ever as cut and dried as it seems.  This brings me to another word that is now much maligned and, in fact, used negatively rather than generically.  Agribusiness is simply the business of agriculture, from farm to fork.  If you own a family farm and you sell your crop or livestock, you are in business.  So are seed suppliers, chemical manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers.  Working together to get products from producers to consumers is what’s known as a supply chain. 

However, somewhere along the way it became convenient to use agribusiness as a disparaging description of “corporate” farming.  Let’s get real!  We live in a global community, not a vacuum.  There are ups and downs in every business and, for some, the downs lead to the exit.  Not everyone will succeed, but the small farm is not destined for extinction yet.  Good management means finding market opportunities that allow farms of all sizes to run efficiently and profitably. 

Let’s make the words for 2008 cooperate and collaborate (and, as Owen says, graduate).