Ontario Agriculture

The network for agriculture in Ontario, Canada

The producer cannot foot the bill alone. Consumers and Retailers must come on board. Please discuss.

Views: 176

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You forgot the Processor. They have to play a major part in traceability and food safety.
Good Morning!

So Sorry! Totally overlooked. Producer is Processor for many foods. Meat on the other hand when dealing with all the many regulations preferr to produce then process elsewhere.

This could be another discussion. I am also adament that food auditting should be about the product, the process, the number of people (because of the checking system) and the facility. Why do we have so many different certification standards? There should be only one but dealing as already mentioned with product, process being used - open, contained, etc. number of people and facility.

National Brands, Wal-Mart etc. demand SQFI an international standard but it too should be broken down as mentioned.
I don't think the domestic producer should be footing the bill for traceability.

I believe consumers have the noble intent to buy safe nutritious foods for their selves/families but the lowest price appears to overtake good intentions. The origins of foods is inconsequential against the cost in the broader scheme.

Which brings into play the integrity of the foods on store selves.

Health costs are and will continue to be a huge societal issue. Our present system is unsustainable.

It would appear that the integrity of food products are being compromised in a collective effort to ensure corporate profits whether it be in the processing, retail and any part of the chain. The tooth paste scandal, the milk scandal from China, cadmium and lead in toys, beef trimmings injected with ammonia to form hamburger patties, nanotechnology in our food supply, radioactive contamination in mushrooms, contamination of food by packaging materials, etc. The Wall Street Journal reported Chinese farmland near factory smokestacks or mining operations have been contaminated by heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury and lead that can cause a “sweeping range of health problems from brain damage to cancer.”

If our consumer wants traceability then they must demand government to show formidable and compelling leadership in food safety. The long term effects on health has yet to be played concerning the accountability of food legitimacy.

If corporations are importing/distributing foods with abstruse content with resulting negative health effects on our population they should be held accountable and contribute to the social health costs.

Complete traceability of foods, and the costs of, should be the responsibility the end distributor. Then it will be up to the consumer to put their money where their mouth is. I somehow doubt people would buy mushrooms if they knew it was radioactive but in the same respect, would choose foods with ensured quality security.

The Chernobyl nuclear accident has left a lasting legacy and who is to say imported foods are completely safe if distributors do not disclose the complete composition and origins of their products?
Thank you so much for your message!
Our government is spending large resources to promote healthier food choices to enjoy a healthier lifestyle. Encouraging informed decisions about what goes into peoples' bodies.

Yet our government totally fails in the area of ensuring the foods we import are safe in all regards.

How many times have foreign foods been "dumped" into our country because it has been rejected elsewhere? When a product is "dumped" for unsafe reasons, it creates negative factors for our own producers as the price of related commodities fails.

With improved communications and transportation, the global movement of food is now part of the economic equation of sustainability of every country on this planet. The old rules to trading perishables to not apply in today's economy. Pay attention to the economic summit in Toronto this June. Mr. Harper has some interesting ideas.

Without aggressive monitoring of imported foods the extra financial burden potential placed on domestic producers is totally pointless.

If our government chooses to ignore food hazards originating from other countries, will we resort to the level of some eastern block countries? People making recommendations that all citizens carry items like a keychain radiation detector called "Micro Bomb Detector" (MBD), available for around $100 ... when buying and preparing foods?

The current discussion of quality and traceability of domestic foods is moot if imported foods are not subject to the same scrutiny.


Karen Mahon said:
Thank you so much for your message!
I will thank Joann for her comment but I did not make such a reply to the last shared message only the first one. The second message just appeared on my email and was opened only a moment ago. How are these comments of mine being printed before I print them? That's a little scarry isn't it?

Karen

Joann said:
Our government is spending large resources to promote healthier food choices to enjoy a healthier lifestyle. Encouraging informed decisions about what goes into peoples' bodies.

Yet our government totally fails in the area of ensuring the foods we import are safe in all regards.

How many times have foreign foods been "dumped" into our country because it has been rejected elsewhere? When a product is "dumped" for unsafe reasons, it creates negative factors for our own producers as the price of related commodities fails.

With improved communications and transportation, the global movement of food is now part of the economic equation of sustainability of every country on this planet. The old rules to trading perishables to not apply in today's economy. Pay attention to the economic summit in Toronto this June. Mr. Harper has some interesting ideas.

Without aggressive monitoring of imported foods the extra financial burden potential placed on domestic producers is totally pointless.

If our government chooses to ignore food hazards originating from other countries, will we resort to the level of some eastern block countries? People making recommendations that all citizens carry items like a keychain radiation detector called "Micro Bomb Detector" (MBD), available for around $100 ... when buying and preparing foods?

The current discussion of quality and traceability of domestic foods is moot if imported foods are not subject to the same scrutiny.


Karen Mahon said:
Thank you so much for your message!
The whole system is a croc of you know what, meat produced here, the product is inspected by vets before they are slaughted and meat inspectors, that should be good enough, as it is you have to compete with overseas products, with no such regulations. Super market chains, could not give rats, who or where it came from as long as it has been certifide safe for human consuption and cheap, to max profit to the consumer. Its not wine for god sake. Small holders, have enough of their plate without paying for more buarcates, user fees, that use the safety and health risk ploy to raise revenue and force the little guy out. If there is another out break of foot and mouth or made cow, it will not make difference, because the consumer will not eat meat until safe anyway, no matter who's farm it came from.
Bristow has a good point. What they should do is make any product being imported into Canada abide by the same regulations and safety policys that the Canadian products have to go though to get to the consumer. Then maybe that product coming into Canada wouldn't be so cheap and people would be more inclined to purchase closer to home.
There have been more problems from imported product than domestic. It may only be a matter of time before the consumer realizes that by buying domestic they are protecting their very life because of the food safety and traceability required for Canadian Food Producers. I do hope that government listens to small producers and assists them in achieving necessary standards so that our food and farms are sustainable. It is time for consumers to pay more for food in North America. I agree that imports should meet our standards but realistically I don't think it will happen. I do fear it will take a huge loss of life due to contaminated imported product before the message to buy Canadian at whatever cost is clear and there are always those that will continue to play Russian Roulette.
Sometimes things just come across that makes a person shake their head.

If traceability and quality becomes an entrenched model of source food security, there will NO DOUBT be an element of liability. When problems become exposed, such as court settlement cases to address wrongful injury i.e. food related health issues..... everyone up and down the traceability chain gets swept in right to primary production. If farmers feel secure enough to stamp their brand of quality.. the farmer could be held accountable for the brand sooner or later.

It takes years to feel the effects of some products.... smoking is a prime example. there was a time when it was mandatory to smoke at least twice a day. during the plagues in the 17th century, it was believed tobacco gave protection against disease. if students in private schools refused to smoke their daily requirement... they were punished. tobacco and smoking has now changed but it was socially acceptable for centuries. But decades of research now reveals the ill effects and tobacco is being villianized.

Years of research can expose many harmful elements decades after the fact.

Now we are being gently persuaded to buy into a self-imposed self-financing self-auditing protocol system that will leave a paper trail legacy.....so are farmers opening themselves up to future liability claims?

as an example... there was a recent weather report, May 6, by Chief Meteorologist Kevin Lollis of KTVL Channel 10 news, Oregon. Mr. Lollis spent many years in the Marine Corps.

Just over 1 minute into his weather report he makes a stunning statement. He talks about "bands of very distinct cloud cover". He says that military aircraft are "dropping chaff - small bits of aluminum, sometimes its made of plastic or even metalized paper products." He goes on to say the military is "up there practicing" and although they would not confirm that-....."that's what it is". He knows.. he was in the Marine Corps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yl0Dc9EGZE&feature=player_embedded

The area he shows affects some wonderful primary agricultural areas. Major American fruit and vegetable growing area.

So, here we see the government 'practicing' by releasing 'chaff' into the atmosphere and creating a distinct cloud cover.

What else is being released over our heads and onto primary food production? How can a farmer guarantee quality security when items such as aluminum is being sprayed onto his farm? Isn't aluminum linked to Alzheimer?

If a farmer guarantees safe quality today but does not test for many contaminants... is he doing 'due diligence'?

What are the possibilities that a number of years from now we see litigation due to contaminants traced back to farmland unbeknown to the farmer today?

Are programs such as: i.e.OnTrace, opening farmers up to long term legal exposure with a paper trail the farmer himself signed off on.

What exposure and fiduciary interest do NGOs have if there is long term litigation in quality and traceability assurances?

Karen Mahon said:
There have been more problems from imported product than domestic. It may only be a matter of time before the consumer realizes that by buying domestic they are protecting their very life because of the food safety and traceability required for Canadian Food Producers. I do hope that government listens to small producers and assists them in achieving necessary standards so that our food and farms are sustainable. It is time for consumers to pay more for food in North America. I agree that imports should meet our standards but realistically I don't think it will happen. I do fear it will take a huge loss of life due to contaminated imported product before the message to buy Canadian at whatever cost is clear and there are always those that will continue to play Russian Roulette.
Secret agendas, when we look at this subject and many others that are discussed on this sight, you can't help noticing the same patton. The main one is shift of blame and responsibilty. The aim of a government policy or law was at one time, was to benefit the producer to enable him or her a guideline to follow, with minnial cost. And to the consumer by insurance that product, is safe by fines, safety checks and ect. Not create a system where the real agenda is revinue raising, shifting compansion blame back on the producer. Yes, you have to ask the question why do I pay taxes, where it would be cheaper to get a lawyer, sue a producer who has government approved product, after following government law and had his product demeed safe by the government. In the real world I like to see a farmer, recoop his legal costs,from a government if this happens.
I hear you. There are too many people taking!

Bristow said:
Secret agendas, when we look at this subject and many others that are discussed on this sight, you can't help noticing the same patton. The main one is shift of blame and responsibilty. The aim of a government policy or law was at one time, was to benefit the producer to enable him or her a guideline to follow, with minnial cost. And to the consumer by insurance that product, is safe by fines, safety checks and ect. Not create a system where the real agenda is revinue raising, shifting compansion blame back on the producer. Yes, you have to ask the question why do I pay taxes, where it would be cheaper to get a lawyer, sue a producer who has government approved product, after following government law and had his product demeed safe by the government. In the real world I like to see a farmer, recoop his legal costs,from a government if this happens.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Agriculture Headlines from Farms.com Canada East News - click on title for full story

Harvest is Racing Ahead of the 10-Year Average

Warm, dry weather kept combines rolling across Alberta this week, pushing harvest to 77 per cent complete — a jump of 18 points from last week and well ahead of the five- and ten-year averages of 68 and 54 per cent. Southern Farms Lead the Pack The South remains furthest ahead at 84 per cent complete, followed closely by the North West (80 per cent), Peace (78 per cent), North East (77 per cent) and Central (72 per cent). While progress has been strong province-wide, most producers are now hoping for a good soaking before freeze-up to rebuild depleted soil-moisture reserves. What’s in the Bin Most early crops — winter wheat, fall rye, lentils and peas — are wrapped up. Durum is 92 per cent finished, spring wheat 89 per cent, barley 87 per cent and oats 82 per cent. Chickpeas are 71 per cent off, while mustard leads the oilseed group at 85 per cent. Canola sits just over halfway done at 56 per cent, and flax remains well behind average at 35 per cent. Crop Quality Snapshot Overall gr

Hursh: Comparing crop yields month-over-month

The Saskatchewan crop has become larger as harvest has progressed. Here are some comparisons between the yield estimates in Thursday’s crop report to the estimates made back in early September.   Only a couple crops have seen their yield estimates reduced over the past month.    Oats are down one bushel to 92 bushels an acre. Soybeans are also down a bushel to 39 bushels per acre. Barley remains the same as the provincial estimate made in early September – 71 bushels per acre and field peas are the same at 42. Other crops are up. Durum is up by 3 bushels to 41. Flax is up a bushel to 26.    The canola yield estimate is up 3 bushels to 42. Spring wheat is up one to 51 bushels. Mustard has improved by 51 pounds per acre to 1192 pounds. Canary seed is up 76 pounds to 1419. Lentils are up 128 pounds to a provincial average of 1922.    Chickpeas have the biggest price improvement going to 1817 pounds an acre, an increase of 195 pounds. In most cases, crop quality is good, but price levels

Opinion: Agriculture has always been economic driver

When one looks at the modern machinery of a Canadian Prairie harvest it seems almost like something out of a Robert A. Heinlein, or Isaac Asimov novel I might have read as a youth in the late 1960s or into the 1970s. The computer technology for recording yields on the fly, the technology that allows the combine operator – if it’s not self-driving – to take control of grain carts, the global positioning tech involved, it seems more starship than grain harvest. Such thoughts ran through this writer’s head when I was out taking photos of the Health Foundation’s Farming for Health harvest at Yorkton. But maybe even more amazing is that agriculture has already been ready to adopt new technology through the years. Really in the grand passage of time farming on the Prairies really started a mere ‘blink’ ago – remember Saskatchewan only came into existence as a province in 1905 – and at that time agriculture was still very much horse-powered – horses pulling the plows and binders and sheaf

Saskatchewan Harvest Nears Completion; Yield Estimates Still Top StatsCan

The Saskatchewan harvest is winding down, with the latest provincial yield estimates still topping the Statistics Canada projections released last month. Thursday’s Saskatchewan crop report estimated the provincewide harvest at 93% complete as of Monday, up from 84% a week earlier. That is slightly behind the five-year average of 98% but ahead of the 10-year average of 87%. Last year at this time, the harvest was 97% done. “Dry conditions over the past few weeks allowed harvest to catch up to seasonal averages,” the report said. Harvest progress is most advanced in the west-central region at 96% complete, followed by the southwest and northwest at 95%. The east-central and northeast regions are each 93% harvested, while the southeast sits at 92%. Nearly all winter cereal and pulse crops have been harvested, with chickpeas the exception at 70% complete. Spring cereals are largely off the field, with 98% of spring wheat and barley combined, along with 96% of durum and oats. Amon

Canadian Cattle Association Statement on Canada and Indonesia Signing Final CEPA Text

The Canadian Cattle Association (CCA) welcomes the signing of the Indonesia-Canada Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) by Prime Minister Mark Carney and President Prabowo Subianto as a positive step towards further trade diversification in the Indo-Pacific Region. During negotiations and leading up to the announcement, CCA worked closely with the Ministers of Trade and Agriculture and Canadian officials to receive the best meaningful market access outcome for beef, including the immediate phase-out of tariffs for many beef products. CCA was present for the announcement of CEPA during the Team Canada Trade Mission to Indonesia last fall and when Canada’s Minister of International Trade signed an associated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Canada and Indonesia to establish a bilateral dialogue on sanitary and phytosanitary issues to address market access issues of interest to both Parties, including in the trade of Canadian beef. “We appreciate the efforts of

© 2025   Created by Darren Marsland.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service