 |
|
|
| ||
         |
|
The following transcript is protected under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License. Link to Audio and Episode Info Here
Show Transcript Deconstructing
Dinner Kootenay Co-op
Radio CJLY Nelson, B.C.
Canada March 8, 2007 Title: Deceivable Dairy II Producer/Host:
Jon Steinman Transcript: Dave
Nelson Jon Steinman: And you're tuned in to Deconstructing
Dinner, a syndicated weekly program produced at Kootenay Co-op Radio in Nelson,
British Columbia. I'm Jon Steinman It was back on
January 25th, 2007 when we aired part I of a 2-part series here on
the program titled Deceivable Dairy. When the dairy industry is one of the most
aggressive marketers within the agriculture and food industry, our collective
perception of products such as milk, cheese, yogurt, butter and ice cream, is
one that sees such products as clean and wholesome, but in part I of the series
we discovered why dairy can be rather deceiving. Discussed on that broadcast
were issues that questioned the impact our reliance on pasteurization has had
on human health, animal welfare and Canadian communities, we explored the
alternative to such a model, that of raw milk production, the sale of which is
illegal in all parts of the country. We heard of the impact your stick of
butter and bowl of ice cream has on climate change, given the modern dairy
industry relies heavily on the cultivation and importation of grain. We heard
from experts on how this dominant grain-based confinement system has affected
animal and human health given it is in a cows' nature to eat grass. That broadcast has
been archived on our website if you did miss it. And today's part II
of the Deceivable Dairy series will continue from where we left off with part
I. My last guest on the show was Ric Llewellyn of Jerseyland Organics located
in Grand Forks, British Columbia, and Ric shared a rather grim picture of the
manner in which many dairy cattle are raised and treated here in Canada. He
introduced how the veal industry is a by-product of the dairy industry. And
it's for these reasons we will take a closer look into the rules and
regulations that govern the welfare of dairy cattle in this country, and you
will be surprised to discover how such laws and regulations are actually
non-existent. Ric Llewellyn also introduced how the supply management system
that governs the price and supply of milk in Canada has taken away his ability to produce milk and has
restricted him to produce non-fluid products such as cheeses and yogurts. But
as supply management is seen as one of the last remaining models that protects
the financial well-being of Canadian farmers, we will learn more about how this
system is managed, what are the benefits, and what are the downsides. Joining me on the
program will be Shelagh MacDonald, the Program Director for the Canadian
Federation of Humane Societies and Jan Slomp, a dairy farmer from Rimbey
Alberta and the Alberta coordinator of the National Farmers' Union. Also on today's
broadcast will take a look at the three largest dairy processors in Canada,
who, between the 3 of them, control 70% of all dairy processing in the country. increase music
and fade out JS: For those who turn on the television from time to time, you may have
noticed a recent marketing campaign that has been launched here in Canada by
Kraft a significant processor of dairy products here in the country. And the
product being marketed is Kraft Singles – those slices of processed cheese. The
main characters within the 30 second advertisement are computer generated cows
who run around the screen with smiles on their face having a wonderful time as
they carry packages of processed cheese to eager consumers. But is such an
advertisement misleading, are cows producing milk for Kraft in fact happy and
content when doing so. A similar campaign for California cheese has been
ongoing now for a few years where the same thing, computer generated cows graze
in lush fields of grass, where they play football and live happy lives. This
was highlighted on the May 11th 2006 broadcast of Deconstructing
Dinner, as an aggressive campaign and lawsuit was launched in response to this
marketing, alleging that the image of happy cows is false advertising. Cows on
the other hand are said to lead very painful and abusive lives within
industrial dairy production. But coming back to the Kraft Singles
advertisement, what is also of interest to note, is the controversy surrounding
the dairy within the product itself, as Kraft Singles do not contain any milk,
but an ingredient known as Milk Protein Concentrate, and we'll learn more about
this prevalent ingredient later on today's broadcast. But back to this
topic of animal welfare, there was much learned from part 1 of this Deceivable
Dairy series when Ric Llewellyn of Jerseyland Organics pointed to the
conditions cows live in within the dominant industrial dairy industry. Many
operations are confining their animals for their entire lives where the
concentration of ammonia from the manure is enough to make most humans not last
more than a few minutes. The cows live their lives on concrete floors, which
coupled with a diet of grain and silage leads to the prevalence of lameness, a
condition affecting the hooves of cattle and leading to discomfort and an
inability to stand. Another common ailment is Mastitis, which is inflammation
of the udder and generally caused by bacteria getting into the milk glands. Ric
pointed to the high levels of stress these animals are exposed to as being a
leading cause of this condition. Adding to the stress and welfare of the
animals is the quick removal of newborn calves taken from their mothers almost
immediately after birth. And while such conditions would be seen as normal
within the industrial dairy industry, these conditions are non-existent on Ric
Llewellyn's farm where animal welfare is at the top of his priorities. And so the big
question is, how is the welfare of dairy cows regulated and monitored here in
Canada. The topic of animal welfare has been a discussed on number of
broadcasts of Deconstructing Dinner, and it was the January 12th,
2006 broadcast when we first learned of the Recommended Codes of Practice that
set out voluntary guidelines
for family farmers and intensive livestock operations. Within that broadcast we
learned of the impact our purchase of eggs has on baby male chicks, who, being
of no use to the egg-laying industry, are recommended within the Code of Practice
to be thrown into high-speed grinding machines for quick and easy disposal. Not
the information you normally find on a carton of eggs. soundbite JS: And a quick reminder that all broadcasts of Deconstructing Dinner are
archived onto our website where the Eggs broadcast can be heard along with part
I of today's 2nd part of the Deceivable Dairy series, and that website
is cjly.net/deconstructingdinner. So what are the
Recommended Codes of Practice for the handling and care of Dairy cattle and how
were they formed. Well surprisingly, the organization overseeing the codes of
practice was The Canadian Agri-Food Research Council (otherwise known as CARC),
and on September 29th, 2006, CARC ceased operations and no longer
exists. To learn more about the codes of practice and what will take their
place, I spoke with Shelagh MacDonald, the program director for the Canadian
Federation of Humane Societies, an organization that was one of a number of
stakeholders in the creation of the codes back in the 1980s. I spoke with
Shelagh over the phone from her office in Ottawa, and she first describes how
the codes of practice for the handling and care of farm animals here in Canada
were first developed. Shelagh MacDonald: The Canadian Federation
of Humane Societies was very instrumental in the beginning of the launching of
the concept of having codes of practice. Actually at that time, back in the
early 1980's, we were actually at that time suggesting regulation suggesting
that the government introduce regulations for the care of animals on farms. So
the government did some computations and decided that this would be the better
way to go. Even at that time and certainly I would say increasingly so, our
government is tending I think away from regulating and having to you know have
more of a hands on involvement in things. I think that seems to be a bit of a
trend, but instead handing over the authority more to the stakeholders involved
and so that is sort of what they did in this case and actually the CFHS
actually co-ordinated the development of the first of several codes. This mean
that we took on the administration of doing that we were still only one voice
at the table but we co-ordinated the meetings and did all the paper work for
that, subsequently that was handed over to CARC the Canadian Agri-Food Research
Council funded by the, well we were funded by the government of course too, but
CARC took that over and CARC has since been dissolved. But that's a whole other
story (laughs). So, the point was to bring together stakeholders involved in a
particular commodity to develop a set of standards, I guess is not the right
word because they are not mandated I think we think of standards as something
that's required. They are voluntary but they are intended to establish some
kind of a standard level of care for each commodity. So they are specific to
each commodity and they cover various husbandry aspects, housing, feed. JS: While the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies was one of a number
of parties helping to develop the codes, Shelagh describes the level of support
the CFHS currently has for the Codes of Practice set for dairy cattle in
Canada. SM: Well I am not going to comment specifically on the details of the Dairy
Code. It is one of the older codes, it was written in 1990, and certainly the
dairy industry wants to revise it and that it definitely recognises that it
needs to be revised. One of the problems, particularly in the older codes, I
think some of the newer codes have been a little bit better but they tended to
very vague in general wording so but it doesn't, you know there is so much
wiggle room in there again that you know that they are not mandated anyway but
you know words like "adequate care," "suitable feed,"
"suitable air temperature," what ever it is so that's definitely been
one of our concerns, is the vague wording so it would actually make it
difficult to verify whether or not they were being adhered to. So that is sort
of a general comment. But certainly we agree that the dairy code is more
outdated and does need to be updated to reflect what it is happening in the
dairy industry today. JS: As it came as a shock to me to hear that the primary mechanism in place
here in Canada for ensuring the welfare of farm animals is voluntary, I thought maybe, just maybe, there is a system set
up to monitor whether such voluntary recommendations are being met. But that
does not seem to be the case. SM: That is one of the fundamental aspects of the oversight of farm animals
that the CFHS is calling for. Although we have been involved in the process of
the code development over the last 20 or more years we have been involved in
all of the codes that have been developed and we certainly are committed to
that, we want to be there at the table we think it is important for us to
reflect the animal welfare voice at the table but we have been a little bit
frustrated that they haven't been more meaningful, that they haven't been more
stringent and that a process hasn't been put in place to verify them. JS: As mentioned just earlier, the codes of practice for the handling and
care of farm animals in Canada were developed by a number of groups who have a
stake in the industry itself. As the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
was the only animal welfare group who was part of the creation of the codes, Shelagh
describes the other stakeholders involved in their development. SM: Yeah, well you know, as you can imagine it is difficult to be the one
and only voice around at a table of industry people, but I also at the same
time, I don't want to paint the picture that, you know, we are the only ones
there who give a hoot about animals. I don't want to present that, you know,
the realities are that is our mandate, that is our main focus, and you know,
the producers and processors around the table have a different focus. But I
wouldn't want to suggest that they don't care about animal welfare. I think
there is, you know, certainly a growing interest in animal welfare from the
producer's side and I think that they genuinely do care and want to do their
best for their animals, but obviously, you know, they are doing that looking
through the eyes of, you know, what are the economics and the practicalities
and the efficiencies of dealing with animals. So, we recognise that everyone is
coming from a different perspective. So, I would say that it has been difficult
for us to have a loud voice there, but at the same time I think it is important
for us to be there and that we have been heard and that, you know, I think we
have had, definitely had an impact. JS: And you're tuned in to Deconstructing Dinner and part 2 of the
Deceivable Dairy series. We're currently listening to clips from my
conversation with Shelagh MacDonald of the Canadian Federation of Humane
Societies. As the Canadian
Agriculture and Research Council disappeared in September 2006, the Codes of
Practice for the Handling and Care of Farm Animals in Canada have now been
placed into the hands of an organization established in 2005 known as The
National Farm Animal Care Council, on which sits the Canadian Federation of
Humane Societies. And as we look at
how such a council is dominated by those representing the agriculture and food
industry itself, to better understand their motives, it's important to look at
how much farming has changed over the past few decades, and the figures are
rather startling. Between 1980 and 2004 the number of farms in Canada decreased
by 70%, while on the other hand, the production of milk increased by almost 6%.
This in turn led to an increase in volume of milk produced per farm by 251%.
Now such changes are of course the result of shifts in production methods,
farming practices and technology. So has such a shift worked to the benefit of
the animals themselves? Shelagh MacDonald responds. SM: I think with dairy there definitely have been some improvements due to
research into housing and husbandry systems that have benefited cows from the
point of view of comfort and some of the state-of-the-art milking machines. At
the same time, the move towards larger, intensive housing, production systems
and much higher production, I wish I could quote the numbers, but the milk
production per cow now is just so much greater than it was a few decades ago.
So, and that then, obviously has an impact on each individual animal, the
stress that it puts on them, leading to lameness and some foot and leg issues,
that are obviously detrimental to the cattle themselves, so I think that is
certainly one of the things that has come about through intensive systems and
working towards greater productivity per animal. JS: What was one of the more startling facts learned on part I of the
Deceivable Dairy series was that the veal industry is actually a by-product of
the dairy industry. In order to maximize the output of dairy cows, they of
course need to always be pregnant and or lactating, and this leads, to a
constant supply of baby calves, but the male calves are of no use to the dairy
industry, and herein lies the beginning of the veal industry. The production of
veal is of course one of the more controversial practices within agriculture,
and for those who oppose it, it probably doesn't sit so well to known that the
price of a container of yogurt, a stick of cheese or a carton of chocolate
milk, is reflective of the inclusion of veal production in the dairy chain. And
I asked Shelagh Macdonald if the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
supports the methods used to turn baby male calves into veal. SM: Obviously there are huge concerns about the veal industry from the
animal protection side. Veal calves are kept in very small crates. When they
are smaller, when the calves are younger they can turn around but not for very
long, I believe. They are kept in those, I believe they go to market at about
16 to 17 weeks if I am not mistaken. At a certain point, once they are larger
they make certain they can't turn around and they can't, they have no movement
at all. They can stand up, or lie down. And they're also they're not fed proper
nutrition so that's how they're getting the white, the very white meat. We do
not support that husbandry system no. JS: So having now heard the perspective of the Animal Welfare community,
how does the industry itself recognize some of these deplorable conditions that
were best illustrated in part I of the Deceivable Dairy series. This industry
perspective was made apparent following the recent publication of a booklet
created by the Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario Farm Animal Care
Associations, associations that are comprised of members of all of the
provincial livestock industries. The publication was designed for consumers to
better understand this issue of animal welfare, and the booklet was titled Farm
Animals: Who Cares? (now there is a question mark after who cares? and
admittedly it is a pretty unfortunate choice for a title as it could of course
have two meanings. But there is a question mark after the words who cares?).
That aside, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies took a look at this
publication and to say the least, was not impressed for a number of reasons,
and Shelagh Macdonald first describes why. SM: Our criticism of it was, well partly because our name was used in it
immediately following a sentence that we think is actually very inaccurate, but
we also found that the document really is presenting a very utopian view of
farming in Canada. We don't think that it's presenting a realistic view of some
of the confinement systems so we think that Canadians are getting a distorted
view from this type of document about what is taking place on the farm. JS: I will note that we have set up a link to this publication from our website
at cjly.net/deconstructingdinner so you can check it
out following this broadcast. And when taking a look through the publication
there are a few references and sentences that did not sit well with the
Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, and are said to be untrue and
misleading. One of these sentences reads the following, “Animal neglect and
abuse are against the law.” There is additionally a suggestion that farmers and
animal factories must adhere to provincial animal care laws. As has already
been indicated, there are no laws in Canada governing the welfare of farm
animals, and so Shelagh Macdonald of the CFHS responds to these concerns. SM: Yeah, the
sentence states that there are, actually quoting, "laws set minimum
standards and are meant for prosecuting problems after they occur. Farmer's
groups have gone much further in helping to develop recommended codes of
practice for care and handling of farm animals." To me that reads that
there are laws that set minimum standards and farmers have gone even better
than that to develop codes of practice. Well, that is very far from the truth.
There are no laws that set minimum standards for farming, and certainly what
laws there are really would not go any farther than the Codes of Practice. For
example, the province of Manitoba actually has mandated the Codes of Practice
because they have referred to the Manitoba Animal Protection Act, specifically
refers to Codes of Practice. So people who are raising animals in accordance
with the Codes of Practice would be considered to be providing good care for
those animals. So, A) it's not accurate to say that the codes are better than
any minimum standards, and certainly there are not minimum standards for
farmers, other than the current federal Criminal Code which is extremely basic
and currently very out of date, and that's a whole 'nother subject, we've been
trying to get changes to the Animal Cruelty sections of the Criminal Code, but
it basically requires very basic care, food, water and care, sorry, and shelter
and it basically says you can't inflict intentional abuse or criminally neglect
your animals, that's sort of the two fundamental aspects of the Criminal Code,
and then most provinces have an Animal Protection Act that I guess, that's what
they mean that sets minimum standards, but they exempt farm practices, most all
of them really, all of the Provincial Animal Care Acts, have a long list of
exemptions for pretty much any lawful activities. So Manitoba actually has a
very good Animal Protection Act but you're exempt if you are carrying out an
activity in accordance with a code of practice. JS: Also located within the publication titled Farm Animals, Who Cares? is
a section titled The Five Freedoms, and refers to what they consider the basis
for responsible animal care. But for those listeners who recall the conditions
discussed in part I of this series, the five freedoms that the industry funded
Animal Care Associations list off, do not seem to be followed at all. The
freedoms listed are as follows, number 1, freedom from thirst, hunger and
malnutrition, number 2, freedom from discomfort, number 3, freedom from pain,
injury and disease, number 4, freedom to express normal behaviour, and number
5, freedom from fear and distress. And Shelagh MacDonald of the Canadian
Federation of Humane Societies comments on whether such freedoms are granted to
Canada's dairy cattle. SM: We agree that
animals should have those five freedoms, but I would have to say that, no, a
great number of farm animals do not have the ability to express normal
behaviour and many of them are not necessarily free from discomfort. There
aren't as many issues in the dairy industry as there are in others, generally
there is some ability to socialize for example, for the dairy industry,
although when the calves are removed from their mother, they are normally kept
singly. We would prefer that they be group housed, sometimes they are but in
most cases they are kept in single outside hutches. We don't like that as much,
but going through the list, I mean the dairy freedom from thirst, hunger, and
malnutrition, I would suggest that certainly they would normally have those
needs met, and freedom from discomfort I would hope that for the most part they
would, but you know there are certainly cases of lameness that may be caused by
really hard flooring that causes them discomfort and that sort of thing. Again,
I would think that the dairy industry would do better than some other
industries. Certainly we would have very serious concerns about some of the
housing systems, particularly for sows and for laying hens. Pretty difficult to
argue that they would get to express normal behaviours, and freedom from discomfort,
so. JS: And that was Shelagh MacDonald, the program director for the Canadian
federation of Humane Societies. Shelagh spoke to me over the phone from her
office in Ottawa. We will have more information on Provincial Animal Care
Association's publication titled Farm Animals, Who Cares located on the
Deconstructing Dinner website, at cjly.net/deconstructingdinner. I will also note
that following its publication the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
wrote a letter to all of the provincial animal care associations responsible
for the publication, and expressed their concern over the misrepresentation of
the CFHS within the publication. The provincial associations have since
responded to the letter, and have agreed to remove any reference to the
Canadian Federation of Humane Societies within the electronic version of the
publication. soundbite JS: And you're tuned in to Deconstructing Dinner, a syndicated weekly
one-hour program heard on radio stations around the world. The show is produced
at Kootenay Co-op Radio in Nelson British Columbia, and I'm Jon Steinman. If you're just
tuning in, today's broadcast marks the second and final part of a 2-part series
here on the program titled Deceivable Dairy. We have now taken a closer look at
the politics of animal welfare in Canada and the surprising lack of laws and
regulations that protect the animals that provide us with food. And while the
picture painted may look rather bleak and that the purchasing of any products
with dairy may now seem as a daunting task, let's not forget that much of the
animal welfare information provided on part I of the series was from a farmer
who has not adopted the
industrial methods of farming that dominate the industry. As a result of his
practices, his veterinary bills are almost non-existent, and his animals lead
lives in the open-air where they can socialize and eat grass, as cows are so
well-adapted to do. These farms do exist right across the country, and one
resource to help get you started to find such farms, is by visiting a website
called the Eat Well Guide and that address is www.eatwellguide.com. And of
course another great place to start is by checking out your local farmers'
markets where the opportunity exists to meet the farmers themselves. soundbite JS: One of the reoccurring topics on Deconstructing Dinner is the financial
stability of farmers not only here in Canada but around the world. Canadian
farmers are currently in what is considered to be the worst farm income crisis
since the time of the depression, but in the case of dairy, dairy farmers in
Canada are perhaps the most financially stable of any sector. And there's a
pretty good for this, and it's called Supply Management, a system that many
Canadians may not be all too familiar with, but nevertheless is a system that
governs the price and quantity of milk produced in the country. Supply
Management is also used in the egg industry and poultry industry. But there are mixed
feelings over the presence of supply management here in Canada, for one, Ric
Llewellyn of Jerseyland Organics who was a guest on part I of this series, is
unable to produce fluid milk products as he is unable to enter into the tightly
controlled supply management system. Instead, Ric is restricted to the
production of non-fluid products such as cheese, yogurt, butter and sour cream.
So while Supply Management is seen as one of the last remaining protections for
Canadian farmers, there are critics who believe the system is not being managed
as effectively as it should be, and to learn more about how Supply Management
influences the dairy products on the shelves of Canadian grocery stores, I
spoke with Alberta dairy farmer Jan Slomp, who raises a herd of 70-80 cattle in
Rimbey, Alberta, not far from Red Deer. Jan emigrated to Canada from the Netherlands
in 1989, and he is now the Alberta coordinator for the National Farmers' Union
(NFU). Jan and the
National Farmers' Union take a strong position in support of Supply Management,
but are opposed to the way in which the system creates barriers to the entry of
new farmers. There is also a growing concern on the part of the organization
that just as the Canadian Wheat Board has been slated for demolition by Stephen
Harper's Conservative Government, Supply Management is also at a great risk.
And in exploring these risks, we will also take a closer look at an ingredient
found in many dairy products that many Canadians have probably never heard of,
and it's an ingredient that is not approved as safe for consumption here in
North America. But first, what is
supply management and how is it managed. Well, the system was first adopted for
industrial milk production in the early 1970's in response to what were, at the
time, very unstable markets, uncertain supplies and highly variable producer
and processor revenues that had been common in the 1950s and 1960s. This then
led to dairy being the first commodity in Canada to operate a national supply
management system that is, at its foundation, governed on a national level by
the crown corporation known as the Canadian Dairy Commission. I spoke with Jan
Slomp over the phone from his farm in Rimbey Alberta, and he further explains
the three pillars of supply management. Jan Slomp: Supply management in
Canada basically means that we have three pillars, under the dairy regulations,
and one is that the dairy farmers in Canada are obliged to produce enough for
domestic needs so we can never have a shortage, we are forced with our system
to produce enough milk, and at the same time we are forced not to over produce,
so that is the commitment we make. Dairy farmers in exchange for that
commitment we receive a price for our milk that is based on the cost of
production. That is the second pillar, and the third pillar is that we have
import controls to make sure the system works within Canada. Jon Steinman: The Supply Management System for dairy in
Canada is managed both on a national and provincial level, and as Jan Slomp
explains this structure, he refers to both industrial milk and consumption
milk. Industrial milk refers to the milk that ends up in products such as
cheese, butter, ice cream, and dry milk ingredients, whereas consumption milk
consists of fluid milk products. Jan Slomp: The industrial milk is a
national pool of milk that is allocated to every province as a percentage of
that pool, and if an increase in consumption takes place, the national pool
divides that increase towards the provinces. Then for consumption milk we have
a provincial allocated amount and so if the provincial consumption goes up or
goes down, every province has to adjust. But we have between provinces,
cooperation between the various dairy boards so in the four western provinces,
for example, we have pooling of fluid milk. So whenever the consumption goes up
it triggers an increase for all producers in the four western provinces, and
vice versa. Jon Steinman: There is a common perception that as a
result of Supply Management, Canadians are paying more for dairy products than
they would say in a country like the United States where supply management does
not exist, but studies have shown that this is in fact not the case. And so as
the system is in place to benefit farmers by ensuring a fair price is paid to
them, it is also a system that benefits the consumer, and Jan Slomp explains. Jan Slomp: There is benefits for
producers as they have always the cost of production recovered from the price
they receive at the farm gate. There is a benefit to consumers, that they never
have fluctuating prices that are caused by shortage in supply or over supply,
and the proof for benefit to consumers are in the fact that the dairy farmers
of Canada have independent agencies for years checking prices in Canada, retail
prices, and checking prices in the United States where things are not
regulated. And every time the dairy package, its cheaper in Canada, than it is
in the U.S. So it works for producers, it works for consumers and maybe not to
forget here, that it also works for taxpayers as dairy farmers as well as other
supply management commodities in the poultry sector, never qualify for a
government bailout packages as they don't suffer negative incomes. So the
taxpayer is off the hook with this system as well. Jon Steinman: So while the benefits of Supply Management
are apparent, there are certainly opponents to such a system, and
understandably so. Supply management is in direct opposition to the model of
free trade and the capitalist model of doing business. And these opponents are
of course the processors, the big companies like Kraft, Nestle, Parmalat and
Saputo who, if they had the chance, would want to pay much less for milk than
they already do. But Jan Slomp indicates that the processors do in fact benefit
from Supply Management, and he explains. Jan Slomp: Oh, definitely, the processors they think
this regulated farm gate price for milk has to go. Hardly anywhere else in the
world it is a factor so, you know, that is one major way to improve their
bottom line is have their milk purchased for a lower price. What the processors
in Canada fail to see is that they also benefit from Supply Management. If you
compare the Canadian processor with the processor in the United States, you
find that processors in the United States have a lot more processing capacity
sitting idle all the time because milk fluctuation in the States is drastic,
you know. As cows tend to produce in a natural way which means calves in the
spring have a flush of summer milk, can really go down in the fall. That is the
natural influence on cows. If the days are getting shorter cows want to produce
less milk, they want to increase their body weight to get ready for winter. You
know, dairy farmers in Canada, we have the commitment to have a steady supply
of milk, so we have to feed different, to calve out more cows in a certain part
of the season to make sure that milk flow is constant. While in the United
States there is extreme differences between the seasons, and the processor, as
they have no regulation, they have to process milk, whatever comes their way.
So they have a lot more processing capacity sitting idle all the time to deal
with the maximum flow of milk. And in Canada their plant utilization capacity
is so much higher that is a huge cost saving to the processor. But what they
want, of course, is deregulate the farm gate price and have us still forced to
regulate the flow of milk. So that is my expectation, they would like to do in
Canada. Jon Steinman: And you're tuned in to Deconstructing Dinner
and today's part II of the Deceivable Dairy series here on the program. We are
currently learning about Canada's Supply Management System for milk production,
and to do so, listening to clips from a conversation I had with Jan Slomp, a
dairy farmer from Rimbey Alberta and the Alberta coordinator of the National
Farmers' Union. The opposition to
supply management by the big national and multi-national processors is again a
result of supply management being a system that is not in line with the
capitalist way of doing business. But within the system itself, there has been
a value (or a capitalization) placed on what is known as quota, and quota is
the allotment granted to individual producers permitting them to produce a
predetermined amount of milk each year. And here is where the major concern
over supply management comes in, as quota has been allowed to receive a value,
the price of quota is now in many cases worth more than the cows, and this has
created a number of barriers. And Jan Slomp describes this issue. Jan Slomp: Of course, quota prices
have come up steady since the inception of Supply Management, and at the
National Farmers Union we have had had very early on quota policy developed to
avoid the capitalization of quota, so that you know, when farmers want to enter
the dairy sector they would have to qualify, get a permit and then would
qualify for quota allocation depending on how many farmers would retire from
the industry. And by no means, those policies are perfect, but instead of that
becoming a reality we have had the marketplace taking care of things, and as a
result of that the values of the right to produce milk have drastically
increased and are at astronomical levels right now. And I don't think it serves
anybody in the industry in the long term to have them this high. It is another
threat for sustainability. Jon Steinman: As the high price of quota has effectively
limited the ability for new farmers to enter into the dairy sector, provinces
like Ontario and Quebec have responded to this concern by stopping the exchange
of quota, and are proposing a means through which these barriers to entry can
disappear while maintaining quota values for farmers already farming. Jan Slomp: Ontario and Quebec have
actually stopped the quota exchange to address this high value, so what they
are going to do is levy the amount of quota in a transaction and make that
quota available to beginning producers or young expanding producers and then
the provincial milk marketing boards remains the owner of that quota. So
basically the producer, a young producer, gets to produce that milk but never
becomes the owner of the quota, whenever that person decides to retire or
change career, that quota goes in the provincial pool and can be allocated to
new producers again. So that would basically, de-capitalize the quota system
and it's a very good thing that we become creative and find ways to avoid this
high cost of entry. Jon Steinman: One of the important areas to look at when
discussing the pros and cons of supply management is the impact such a system
has on an environmental level. In parts of the country where the landscape is
more restrictive, the high price of quota has had a significant impact on dairy
production here in British Columbia for one. Up until 1993, Vancouver Island's
unique situation as an island, allowed it to be independent of the provincial
management system. But when the island was amalgamated into the provincial
system, the dairies on the island began disappearing, and as of today, there is
all but two dairies producing fluid milk on Vancouver Island. With such a high
price placed on quota, and such a high price to import feed onto an island, the
result was a weeding out of all of the smaller dairies that couldn't compete
using the energy intensive industrial technologies that now dominate the
industry. Here in Nelson for example, the closest dairy from which fluid milk
originates is located 320 kilometres away. So in an age where the distance food
travels is of a pressing concern to the environment and of a pressing concern
in light of projected decreases in supplies of oil, can Supply Management allow
for the increasing presence of not only more localized production of dairy, but
also more localized processing. And Jan Slomp responded to this concern. Jan Slomp: I think it holds the tools to do that. What of
course, is not regulated at all is the rationalization of processing plants and
ever since the co-op disappeared, and even when the co-op was still in
business, we saw a rapid diminishing of the number of processing facilities
across the country and of course, that was all with ah, under our present
economic system, which is loaded with externalization of costs which always
gives the benefits to larger processors further away from consumers and further
away from producers. So we have to be creative in our economic system to build
in the incentives to shorten that distance that food is travelling. I think
supply management offers the tools because thanks to Supply Management we still
have, to some degree, production of milk all over the country. So it is
important to hang onto that and design policies that we are not giving up on
that, but are pushing for more local production and processing. Jon Steinman: Further on this topic of the environmental
impact of Supply Management, there is too a concern raised within a system that
demands a uniform product year round. Now in the Canadian climate and given the
nature of cattle, it requires much more energy to satisfy this year round
demand, given cows birth in the spring and are most productive then and into
the summer. Compounding this, the energy required to grow grass is
non-existent, whereby the energy to grow and transport grain to feed cattle in
the colder seasons is very intensive. Jan Slomp comments on this environmental
impact of Supply Management but first indicates the benefit the system has had
in keeping Canadian dairy farms relatively small. Jan Slomp: Maybe it actually has put
the breaks on, you know. The average dairy in the United States is way larger
than in Canada. You know, I can argue that it's thanks to Supply Management
that we have industrialized our farms but not anywhere near to the level they
have in the United States. But I think that will all become essential in our
new economic system that we measure things for what they really are. I think
what has been driving farm size is the fact that we externalize a lot of energy
costs so replacing people with equipment and technology has been the direction
in the last four or five decades. And I think we are entering an era that needs
to be revised and reversed to some degree, you know. The best possible scenario
is having our cows grazing grass and produce as much milk as possible from
grass, because that is where solar energy comes to the dinner plate, and most
of our more industrialized farms are using a lot of fossil fuel to bring feed
from far away to the barn and bring that to the dinner plate, you know. Ten
calories of fossil fuel for a calorie of food in our western production model
doesn't look very good. Jon Steinman: As supply management is widely supported by
Canadian farmers and seen as a benefit to Canadian consumers, there have been
many concerns recently raised in response to significant threat that is posed
to undermine the protection that supply management provides. And this threat
comes through the importation of milk ingredients from foreign countries,
ingredients that are able to bypass tariffs. This flood of milk ingredients
which predominantly consists of milk proteins, have begun to significantly
replace the use of real milk in the production of Canadian ice cream, cheeses
and yogurts. So for anyone who has noticed a decrease in the quality of your
ice cream over the past few years, you now know one of the possible reasons as
to why this is. This poses a significant threat to Canadian farmers given 36%
of all Canadian milk is destined for cheese production. And Jan Slomp of the
National Farmers Union describes the current tariffs that apply to imported
milk ingredients, and why these tariffs do not apply to the milk protein
imports that are undermining supply management. Jan Slomp: What the border control entails is through WTO we
have the right to apply two hundred percent tariffs on milk imports, and that
two hundred percent, is needed because the price for milk imports is determined
by at which price other countries want to let their product go. It is basically
a dump price that we are dealing with at the border, and it needs that two
hundred percent to keep it out. What processors have done in the last decade,
it started out with corn sugar plants that were imported into Canada and were
mixed with milk ingredients in Canada and were used as substitutes for ice
cream making. So dairy products from abroad were diluted with corn sugar blends
and would enter the country without being subject to tariffs. That has been
kind of has been weeded out as the quality of the ice cream really diminished
from that. So there was a limit as to how much processors could do that. More recently, the last five years, we have seen a spike in importation
of Caseinates, which are milk ingredients that are
determining the yields for cheese making. So blends of Caseinates milk products
from Europe and North America, or United States have come into Canada
circumventing the tariff rules, and those products were used to blend with
Canadian milk to get way higher cheese yields for the processors. And that has
resulted in a reduction of seven or eight percent of our domestic production. A
year ago when the Harper government was first elected, they struck a committee between
processors and producers dairy farmers of Canada to address this problem, to
sort it out. I guess they expected farmers to take a cut to stop this
importation but the processors were not really willing to address this thing,
other than looking at lowering the farm gate price. And so after a year things
have not worked out at all. And now recently the federal government committed
itself to stopping the growth of this import, mind you that might take some
time before that comes into effect, but it is continuing to undermine our
domestic milk production. But there is a commitment now to do something about
it. Jon Steinman: And you're tuned in to Deconstructing
Dinner, produced at Kootenay Co-op Radio in Nelson, British Columbia. We're
currently listening to clips from my conversation with Alberta dairy farmer Jan
Slomp, who farms in Rimbey Alberta. Today's broadcast is part II of the
Deceivable Dairy series. I want take a
couple of minutes here to digress somewhat but continue on this topic of milk ingredients
being imported without restriction into Canada. These ingredients are
increasingly replacing milk as an ingredient in the Canadian food supply, with
the one of greatest concern being Milk Protein Concentrate or MPC. Now there
are a number of groups deeply concerned over this growing and prevalent use of
an ingredient, that believe this, is not approved as a food product. Groups in
the United States such as the National Family Farm Coalition and a smaller
organization known as Family Farm Defenders have worked hard to bring this
issue to the public eye and here's some information from an article released by
Family Farm Defenders in November 2006. They indicate that MPC is legal for use
in glue and other industrial uses but it has never been approved for human consumption
by the Federal Department of Agriculture (FDA). They indicate that the
manufacturing of MPC is also problematic given the composition of MPC is a
concentrated form of the least valuable components of milk. MPC further
originates in countries that lack the health standards that exist here in North
America, countries such as India, Russia and China. Now the FDA did
take action when in 2002 they conducted inspections of a number of facilities
owned by Kraft, facilities that produce products such as Kraft Singles. During
the inspection, the FDA discovered that their products were misbranded because
they were labelled as a food. Such a definition did not comply with labelling
standards given MPC is not approved as a dairy ingredient in the United States.
The FDA demanded Kraft relable the product and the company has since changed
the wording on the label of Kraft Singles from "cheese food" to "cheese
product." But here's an
interesting story of a regular consumer wanting to find out some answers from
Kraft after he too discovered that Milk Protein Concentrate was being used
instead of milk in many of the company's products. His name is Mark Reed, and
he gave Kraft's consumer information line a call and was then directed to the
company's corporate headquarters just outside Chicago. He showed up in person
and asked to speak to a nutritionist about Milk Protein Concentrate and was
told to wait in the lobby. As he looked through the company's coffee table
brochures a woman called him on the lobby phone and took his contact
information. As he was on the phone with her, a security guard showed up and
escorted him out of the building. soundbite JS: There will be more information on this questionable ingredient found on
the Deconstructing Dinner website under the title of today's broadcast
Deceivable Dairy part II, and should you want to keep an eye out for the
ingredient, you can scan your labels of cheese, yogurt, milk-based beverages,
infant formula, desserts, soups and sauce mixes. But as the
unrestricted import of this ingredient into Canada is rapidly replacing milk in
the food supply of Canadians, the commitment by the federal government to
working on alleviating this issue is questionable. In an article published in
the Western Producer, Minister of Trade David Emerson was seemingly too candid
as he was quoted as saying that Supply Management's days are numbered. Since
then the Conservative government has been playing damage control as they ensure
Canadians that this is not the position of the Conservative government. And Jan
Slomp of the National Farmers' Union comments. Jan Slomp: The other thing that is under threat is the very fact that we have this
ability to put two hundred percent tariff on imports. David Emerson, the Trade
Minister said last fall that Supply Management is on the way out, as part of a
whole agricultural package we cannot maintain that, and it is on the way out.
So that has caused quite an uproar particularly in Ontario and Quebec and so
farmers demanded a position from the federal government and the federal
government, right away came out saying they were strong supports of Supply Management.
And recently the Harper government has expressed themselves clear about that.
But if you read between the lines there is not really a hundred percent
commitment to stick to Supply Management, as they claim that other sectors are
compromised by maintaining Supply Management and they say we need a balance
outcome between various sectors. So when we enter trade negotiations, and they
are actually ongoing in Geneva, the WTO struggles to reach an agreement, I am
afraid that the Canadian government is very willing to put Supply Management on
the offer block, in order to get other market access for other commodities. And
so things are not as secure as what their rhetoric lets us believe. Jon Steinman: During my conversation with Jan Slomp, I
questioned whether the dairy industry in the United States is a good example of
what the Canadian industry would turn into if supply management were to
disappear. He indicated that such an outlook would be highly speculative, but
he did provide these comments in terms of what he thinks would happen to the
industry in Western Canada. Jan Slomp: I assume that in Western
Canada, you know, if you look at how groceries, the large groceries see their
supply lines, it's mainly a big line coming from the United States. And we may
have very economically viable dairy industry in Western Canada, you know,
geographically and nature wise but if those grocers have their main supply
coming from the U.S. for all of their grocery items, I think it is very hard to
maintain dairy production in Western Canada, because for processors the
economies of scale, and that is all looking in a crystal ball here, you know,
assuming that the energy picture is not too upsetting, if we are going to pay a
lot more for energy and for transportation, dairy farming without Supply Management
will continue to take place, close to where people drink milk and eat dairy
products. But under the present system we risk losing all that production in
Canada and seeing it all coming from the United States, from large dairies and
large processors. Because most of our dairy processing in Canada is not on a
large scale. Jon Steinman: And that was Jan Slomp, a dairy farmer in
Rimbey Alberta. Jan is also the Alberta Coordinator of the National Farmer's
Union, and you can find out more about the NFU on their website at nfu.ca soundbite Jon Steinman: In wrapping up today's broadcast I thought
it would be important to take a look at who the major dairy processors in this
country are given 70% of all dairy production is controlled by only three
companies. Now those three companies are Saputo, Agropur, both of which are
Canadian and Parmalat, which is an Italian company. Some of the other major
processors in the country are Arla Foods of Denmark, Danone of France, Unilever
of the UK, Kraft and Nestlé, both American companies, Farmers Dairy located in
the Atlantic provinces, and Gay Lea Foods among a few others. And sorry, Nestlé
is not an American company but a Swiss-based company. But taking a closer
look at the three companies controlling 70% of Canada's dairy processing, we
start with Saputo, the largest processor in the country and among the top 20
largest in the world. Saputo is based in Montreal, but also operates in the
United States, Argentina and Germany. Their well-known brands in Canada consist
of Saputo, Alexis de Portneuf, Armstrong, and Dairyland. The company also
produces the well known line of Vachon baked goods. Now the second of
the three biggest players is AgroPur, a cooperative representing almost 4,000
dairy farmers. The company operates 21 plants in Canada and 1 in the US. The
company's products consist of Yoplait, Natrel, Quebon, Island Farms, Sealtest,
Babybel, Britannia, and many of the cheeses found in the grocery store cheese
section. But the most
interesting of the three largest companies is Parmalat, and they control just
under a quarter of all dairy processing in the country. It wasn't long ago that
Parmalat was, in December 2003, involved in what the US Securities and Exchange
Commission refers to as one of the largest and most brazen corporate financial
frauds in history. Now it's important to look at the details of this given it
was during the time that this fraud was taking place, that Parmalat was setting
up its operations here in Canada, and when you look at in retrospect, Parmalat
came into Canada, bought up a bunch of Canadian companies, all along doing so
with money that never really existed. And Canadians are now faced with this
foreign company controlling 25% of the country's dairy. And so what products
does Parmalat produce, well they do have their own Parmalat label, but they
also own the Beatrice brand, Lactantia, Astro yogurt, Black Diamond and
Balderson cheese, Sensational Soy, Sargento, Parkay, Lactaid and they also
produce many milk ingredients that end up in Canadian restaurants and packaged
food manufacturers. So who is Parmalat,
and how did they make their way into Canada. Well the company was first founded
in 1961 but didn't move into Canada until 1997 during a period that TIME
Magazine refers to as the company's mission to build their company into the
Coca-Cola of milk. Their entrance into the country began with the purchase of
Beatrice and Ault, and as of today now employs more than 2900 people with 19
operating facilities coast to coast. One of the key figures who brought the
company into Canada was Alberto Ferraris who was the CFO of the company during
the six months leading up to the scandal. As he began his job he couldn't quite
understand why the company was paying so much interest to service its debt,
which in 2003 was 5.4 billion dollars. With a little further investigation, he
discovered that the debt was in fact over 14 billion dollars. He brought this
information to the CEO of the company who passed it off as no big deal.
Ferraris later quit his job. And then on December 19th, 2003, the
largest scam in European history was brought to light, and Parmalat confirmed
that a four billion dollar account actually never even existed. Investigators
now say that between 1990 and 2003, as the company set up its operations in
Canada, Parmalat borrowed money from global banks and justified those loans by
inflating its revenues through fictitious sales to retailers. You can learn
more about Parmalat's products on their website at www.parmalat.ca. Before closing out
today's broadcast, I will remind listeners that today's broadcast will be
archived on our website, and there will be a wealth of additional information
relating to today's broadcast under the title Deceivable Dairy part II. And for
those listeners wanting to take Deconstructing Dinner in your pocket, you can
also subscribe to our free podcast through iTunes or through the Deconstructing Dinner website. ending theme Jon Steinman: That was this
week's edition of Deconstructing Dinner, produced and recorded at Nelson,
British Columbia's Kootenay Co-op Radio. I've been your host Jon Steinman. I
thank my technical assistant Dianne Matenko. The theme music for Deconstructing Dinner is courtesy of Nelson-area
resident Adham Shaikh. This radio program is provided free of charge to campus/community radio
stations across the country. Should you wish to financially contribute to this
program, we invite you to offer your support through our website at cjly.net/deconstructingdinner or by dialing 250-352-9600. Till next week.
|
