Occupy Food Explosion!

I thought I was being rather clever, tailoring Tom Philpott's "Occupy Food" article for the Canadian situation. Turns out I was just on the leading edge of a meme. Lots of takes on Occupying Food here, with a lot of great points:

Marion Nestle promotes an Occupy Food rally in New York.

Eric Holt Gimenez argues for repoliticizing food, taking a page from the Occupy movement to create a broad-based movement.

Siena Chrisman talks about the ballooning influence of speculators on food prices since deregulation in 2000, consolidation of food corporations, and the need to unite to take back power.

It's catching on! Will you join in?

Occupy for the Love of Food!

Tom Philpott has written a great article on why food movement actors should support Occupy Wall Street. He makes the argument that the occupations (which have spread across the world, starting today!) challenge the concentration of power in the hands of the elite, and the agrifood industry is a prime example of this concentration, elite control, and marginalization of the consumer and small producer.

I thought I'd take three of Tom's key points, which use American examples, and make the case for his argument applying to Canada. (Of course, many of his examples of multinational corporations apply to us here as well.)

1. The food industry is a big fat monopoly

• The top five food retailers in Canada account for 60% of sales (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada)
• Nilsson Bros. Inc. is Canada’s largest beef packing corporation, owning nearly half of Canadian capacity. In addition to its packing plants, holdings of the Nilsson Bros. conglomerate also include (wholly-owned or in partnership) feedlots, most of western Canada’s large auction facilities. ('Losing Our Grip', 2010)
• Three companies -- Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge and Cargill -- control an estimated 90% of the world's grain trade (USA Today) and the prairies export 80% of the grain they grow.
• The largest 5% of food manufacturing establishments accounted for over 50% of sales in 2003 whereas the smallest 80% of establishments accounted for only 15% of sales. (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada)
• And, since transnational corporations sell the majority of Canadian farmers' inputs, some global stats are relevant: the top 10 seed companies account for 67% of the global proprietary seed market (Monsanto is 23% of that number); the top 10 pesticide firms (the six largest of which are also in the top 10 seed companies) control 89% of the global agrochemical market. (ETC)

2. Wall Street's greed leaves millions to starve—literally. 

• "In recent years, the financial markets have discovered the huge opportunities presented by agricultural commodities. The consequences are devastating, as speculators drive up food prices and plunge millions of people into poverty... Since last June alone, higher food prices have driven another 44 million people below the poverty line, reports the World Bank. These are people who must survive on less than $1.25 (€0.87) a day." (Der Spiegel, trans.)
• "Holdings in commodity index funds ballooned from US$ 13 billion in 2003 to US$ 317 billion by 2008...The promotion of biofuels and other supply shocks were relatively minor catalysts, but they set off a giant speculative bubble in a strained and desperate global financial environment. These factors were then blown out of all proportion by large institutional investors who, faced with the drying up of other financial markets, entered commodity futures markets on a massive scale." (De Schutter briefing note, 2010)
•  Some advice from a Canadian investment advisor: "the biggest and most worrisome near-term crisis of all, is a food crisis; and you will have the opportunity to make a ton of money from it. Speculators love crises as well, and only add fuel to the fire, which multiplies your gains. The writing is already all over the wall for a pending food crisis; the west just hasn’t seen it on a domestic level yet, but believe me, we will. It’s time to get ahead of this trade." 
•  The extension of food speculation, as you know from reading this blog, is speculation in land. "Bay Street investors like Sprott Resources and Lawrence Asset Management have been buying into farmland in Uruguay and the Democratic Republic of the Congo." (Canadian Dimension)

3. Our politicians are in bed with agribusiness.

• A homegrown prairies example: Assiniboia Capital Corp, "the largest farmland investment management company in Canada, with almost 100,000 acres under management" (from its website). Organization includes: Co-founder Brad Farquhar, who is the former Executive Director of the Saskatchewan Party and former Executive Assistant to Sask. Party leader Elwin Hermanson; Gord Nystuen—General Manager of Assiniboia’s farm input financing division, Input Capital—is former Saskatchewan Deputy Minister of Agriculture, former Chief of Staff to the Premier, and former Chair of Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation; Advisory Board member Lorne Hepworth is President of Croplife Canada and former
  Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Energy and Mines, Minister of Education,
  and Minister of Finance. (Assiniboia Capital website)
• Assiniboia Capital has tripled its land base over the past two years.  In light of this, it is interesting that Assiniboia’s primary capital source is taxpayer-owned and federal-government-controlled Farm Credit Canada (FCC).  ('Losing Our Grip', 2010)
• Five of the 100 lobbyists named in the Top 100 Lobbyists list compiled annually by the Parliament Hill insider newspaper The Hill Times have agriculture or food sector clients. (Western Producer)

To borrow a phrase from Dave Oswald Mitchell's excellent essay,

Occupy the market. Occupy the commons. Occupy the future.

Conservatives snub democracy, farmers with move to dismantle Wheat Board

I couldn't be silent on the issue of the Canadian Wheat Board. It's in my blood. This is an article I wrote that will be appearing in a provincial NDP newsletter in June (so bear in mind the audience, when reading). For another angle that brings in the labour movement, see Simon Enoch's article.

On May 17, Conservative Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz terminated a longstanding debate in Western Canada by announcing his government's intention to end the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on marketing wheat and barley.

On one level, the debate is economic – do farmers do better with a monopoly seller representing them in the global marketplace by pooling their grain and sharing the average proceeds? This question has been conclusively answered 'yes' by many academic studies and trade inquiries.

However, the real issue at stake is an ideological one. The anti-CWB side argues private entrepreneurs should have the economic right to market their own grain and barley and compete with each other for the best price. The pro-CWB side argues in favour of economic cooperation and food sovereignty - values that have historically typified the Canadian farm movement and were crucial in the CWB’s formation.

The Canadian Wheat Board evolved in response to western farmers' lack of market power in the early part of the twentieth century when federal government policy set up the West as cheap providers of raw materials for Eastern industry. These farmers felt powerless against duopolistic railways, elevator companies, and the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. In the face of this, farmers' natural inclination was to take matters into their own hands, acting collectively for the good of the farm community: the Grain Growers Grain Company, the Wheat Pools, and finally the Wheat Board – made mandatory in 1943 – resulted.

Through its three guiding principles - single desk selling, price pooling, and government guarantees - the Wheat Board provides stability and market power to farmers. Unlike a private grain company, whose shareholders demand ever-increasing profits, the Board returns more than 95 per cent of its sales proceeds to farmers.

Of course, this is only part of what the CWB does. The Wheat Board also uses its considerable influence to advocate for farmers with Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, taking these railways to court when they have provided substandard service to farmers. The CWB also invests heavily in wheat and barley research, funding 60 per cent of the Canadian International Grains Institute. The Wheat Board has spent decades building markets that promote the superior reputation of Canadian wheat. These are services that the private sector either will not currently perform or will only do for a profit.

The Wheat Board is one of the last major institutions created by our ancestors to support prairie farmers. Farmers have lost other farmer-controlled institutions such as the Pools and supportive government programs such as the Crow Rate. In a situation that hearkens back to the 1900s, western farmers today are at the whims of a duopolistic rail transport system and the four companies who control more than 80 per cent of the global grain trade. More than an economic loss, though, the destruction of the Wheat Board seems to indicate the destruction of the cooperative values of our Saskatchewan farming ancestors.

Perhaps the most relevant lesson from the Wheat Board's impending demise for both rural and urban folk involves the federal government's conception of democracy. CWB opponents claim the recent election of a federal Conservative majority government, regardless of the tiny percentage of those voters who are farmers, means that the government has a clear mandate to kill the CWB.

CWB supporters point out that there already is a democratic mechanism to change the Board’s mandate. Since 1998, farmers who sell wheat and barley have the democratic right to elect directors to the CWB to carry out their wishes. And, since these elections began, 70 per cent of farmers have consistently voted in pro-CWB directors.

It's hard not to see Ritz's termination of the Wheat Board debate as a continuation of Conservative attempts to erode democracy by bypassing democratic processes, ignoring stakeholder desires, and ruling autocratically. For our food system, it means that we have lost control of a major staple and a major counterforce to multinational agribusiness giants.

Homespun Wisdom

In December, I was very fortunate to interview an amazing 69-year-old farmer from Manitoba with an incredible knack for turning a phrase. Fred is erudite and down-to-earth, humourous and sober, gentle and passionate. You can hear an interview with him on Shaking the Tree Radio, but these quotes are from my interview with him. We talked about the demise of the family farm, the loss of rural communities, the future of agriculture, and public consciousness. Fred explained how the logic of the capitalist marketplace means that wealth and knowledge are transferred out of rural areas into the hands of monopolistic corporations as citizens' democratic control over the economy weakens.

"I remember when my dad first sprayed a field for yellow mustard. This was such a novelty I rode on the tractor with him to watch him apply 24D to a field, which now is total lunacy. But all of a sudden it changed the way we farm.It created a dependency where the benefit of the technology was all captured by the price of the technology. And then because prior to that the knowledge was passed from generation to generation when I was probably at maybe preschool I can remember my grandfather taking me by the hand and showing me things. You see, that was that intergenerational transfer of agricultural knowledge that goes back right to the Euphrates valley 10000 years ago. All that linkage and all of a sudden, when my dad hooked on that sprayer, that knowledge was not important anymore...The transfer of knowledge from community to a place where community rents and buys knowledge from a knowledge supplier is not a sustainable system."

Fred contrasted our situation on the Prairies to the situation he saw in the Philippines a decade ago, where politicians were eager to embrace - and to force people to adapt to - the industrial farming that we model, with all the losses that would entail.

"There's another thing that I didn't realize we'd lost until I'd done that trip to the Philippines. In the evening, because of their poverty to a degree, the community there functioned as a community. They got together, and adults sat around talking about the problems of agriculture. Which never ends, it's universal. And on the outside of the circle, the children were sitting listening in. I thought, “I've been there.” But it's a long time ago, and we don't have that anymore. We come in off the long day and we turn on the idiot box or we pick up the paper and the nodding heads and the golden hands direct the conversation. Because you know, it's got to a degree that a lot of people in social circles think that it's impolite to initiate a conversation about the social and economic problems of our community. They just want you to go away, don't bother me with that. I want to turn on something like Dancing With the Stars. And there I get to participate 'cause I can vote! That's democracy!"

And finally, on community:

"I always look towards the collective way to do things, because I desire my neighbour more than his land. Because without my neighbour, the land isn't much good to me, because an agricultural desert is not the place I want to live."

A Democratic Food Policy

Everyone likes democracy, right? I admit there are days when I think I'd make an excellent benevolent despot -  preventative health care would be a priority and your neighbour down the street wouldn't be allowed to rattle your windows with the bass from his car speakers if I were in charge. But I'll choose democracy over corporatocracy* any day. That's one of the reasons I'm a big fan of the People's Food Policy Project.

"Things are clearly cooking in food policy, and citizens, often left out of key processes or afforded token consultation roles, are not content with last minute seats at pre-set policy tables. It is time for strong citizen and civil society involvement in the construction of a new food policy for Canada – a policy which places the well-being of the majority and the health of our planet at the centre of all decisions. It is time to reset thetable." (Resetting the Table, p. 7)

The Project just released the outcome of two years' work with over 3500 Canadians through three hundred and fifty Kitchen Table Talks, hundreds of policy submissions, dozens of tele-conferences, ongoing online discussions, three cross-Canada conferences, and support from organizations including Dietitians of Canada, Food Secure Canada, and Food Banks Canada.

"Resetting the Table: A People's Food Policy for Canada" ties together health and nutrition, food security, sustainable livelihoods for farmers and food workers, the environment, international relations, and many other aspects of our food system, comprehensively uniting them in recommendations for a food sovereign food system. However, it is also an ongoing participatory process, providing a model for collaboration, fora for discussion, support for initiatives, and connections between groups and individuals.

They also seem to be having fun. What more could you ask for?

*Corporations and global capital have undue influence and control over the food system, operating beyond the reach of government or public oversight. Rather than being recognized as a biological requirement of life, this has turned food into a volatile commodity. (Resetting the Table, p. 6)

Writing to my MP

I thought this might be a timely topic given the election fervour/torpor that has gripped the nation.

I enjoy writing to MPs to test their willingness to engage in discussion, as a measure of how accountable they seem to feel to their voting public. I have gotten personalized (and personal) responses from the NDP and Liberal Agriculture critics, as well as the lone Saskatchewan Liberal MP. My success has not been so great with my own MP.

What follows is the text of emails we exchanged on the issue of Bill C-474, a private member's bill from the NDP's Alex Atamanenko that asks for a market assessment of harm before any approval of new genetically engineered crops. My first email each time is a modified version of a form email from C-BAN. My MP's responses... may be his own. You be the judge. If you make it to the end, that is.

Me on Mar 17, 2010:

Dear Anon., MP

Thank you for your responses to my earlier emails. I appreciate the time you take to consider constituents' concerns. I am writing again with another agriculture-related concern to ask you to support Private Member Bill C-474, when it is debated at second reading in mid-March.

The Bill would support Canadian farmers by requiring that “an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.”

This Bill is really important because, as we know from experience, the introduction of new genetically engineered (GE) crops can cause economic hardship to farmers. Since Saskatchewan farmers primarily produce crops for export, this is a crucial concern.

Farmers are at risk when GE crops are commercialized in Canada without also being first approved in our major export markets.

Flax farmers in Canada are now paying the price for this exact problem. Late last year, Canadian flax exports were discovered contaminated with a GE flax that is not approved in Europe or any of our other export markets.

Flax farmers actually foresaw that GE contamination or even the threat of contamination would close their export markets. This is why they took steps in 2001 to remove GE flax from the market. Despite this measure, flax farmers were not protected.

The GE flax contamination has created market uncertainty and depressed prices. Farmers are also paying for testing and cleanup and may be required to abandon their own farm-saved flax seed and buy certified seed instead. These costs are an unnecessary and preventable burden.

We cannot allow our export markets to close like this again. It is the government’s responsibility to protect Canadian farmers from predictable problems caused by the introduction of new GE crops that have not yet been regulated in our export markets.

Anon., please support Bill C-474 and protect Canada’s farmers and our markets.

Yours Sincerely, etc.

MP's reply on 26 March:

Dear Ms. Blogger,

Thank you very much for your email regarding Bill C-474, a Private Members Bill, an Act respecting the Seeds Regulations introduced by Mr Alex Atamanenko of the NDP.

The Government of Canada has always regulated for food safety and health and will continue to examine new products with that as the guiding principle. We are confident that environmental and economic interests are best protected in this fashion.

It is unfortunate that Bill C474 has so many negative consequences. If this Bill had been previously passed by Parliament, there would be no canola industry in Canada - the $12.2 billion dollars that is generated annually in Western Canada would be lost. Bill C-474 adds more regulatory burden on the entire value chain without contributing to our ability to innovate, compete and provide valuable crops to feed and fuel a growing world.

Bill C-474 would also have hampered the ongoing development of the soybean industry. Over half of the soybean production in the world is GMO and these products have revolutionized soybean production. Millions of people around the world benefit from this technology which (NDP MP) Mr. Alex Atamanenko and his party oppose. Mr. Atamanenko uses the past years flax challenges as his reason for why we need this Bill. He is playing games with Triffid flax - that specific example has nothing to do with this Bill.

The Bill will clearly restrict technology and science. New technology holds the key to future prosperity. The clauses of this bill fail to deal with the challenges and opportunities presented by new scientific developments. Instead they would impose an impossible burden, requesting an unscientific 'analysis' that must be based on future prophecies and projections rather than on issues of food safety and health.  The Bill also ignores producers - failing to ask for an analysis of the possible benefits of new varieties to our producers.

While I appreciate your concerns regarding what happened in the flax industry, I believe that this Bill is not the way to address those issues.

Thank you for taking time to express your concerns to me on this piece of legislation. Should you have any comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely, etc.

My response March 31:

Dear Mr. Anon.,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns. We seem to be at odds on certain points, so I would like to explain further a couple of key issues that were elided in your response.

First, the argument that there would be no canola industry in Canada with Bill C474 is a red herring. Canola was developed before widespread opposition to GMO's, and the current GM variety is opposed in countries such as Australia. As well, if we want to talk canola, it must be mentioned that canola was developed in a public university, not by a private corporation that siphons off the benefits. The case of GM soybeans, which you mention, clearly shows that the majority of benefits go to the owner of the patent. In this way, GM crops have very little benefit for farmers (many of your constituents) who must buy seed year after year instead of keeping it, and who must pay licensing fees, and many other nickel-and-dimed-to-death costs associated with GMOs. The NFU, on behalf of many farmers, has researched these issues and speaks on their behalf in calling for a ban. Your call for an analysis of cost-benefits to producers is reasonable, but I believe that if you look more closely, this has been done already by various organizations.

There are also doubts as to whether soy is benefiting millions of people around the world, as you have claimed. Primarily, it is used as cattle feed, and those who eat the majority of the beef are found in North America and Europe, struggling with an obesity epidemic, while many poor people have been pushed off their subsistence farms so soybean farmers can produce for export. I fail to see how those poor benefit from GM soybeans.

Finally, you claim that this Bill will "restrict technology and science" which "holds the key to future prosperity." Surely you do not dogmatically accept that all technology is good and inevitable? Perhaps a dramatic example: Nuclear weapons and thalidomide should be unregulated?

Thank you for your consideration, etc.

NO ANSWER

And me again on Oct 22 when the Bill comes up again:

Dear Anon., MP

I am writing again to ask you to vote in support of Private Members Bill C-474 in order to protect Canada’s family farms. I also ask that you vote, on October 27, for a 30-day extension to the Agriculture Committee debate on Bill C-474. This debate is essential to sustain the presence of
democracy in our government.

As you know, Bill C-474 would support Canadian farmers by requiring that “an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.”

It is imperative that our government assesses the possible export market impact of introducing new GE seeds. Bill C-474 would simply require the federal government to conduct such an economic analysis.

Farmers are at risk when GE crops are commercialized in Canada without also being approved in our major export markets. For example, flax farmers in Canada are paid the price for unwanted GE contamination that damage their export markets late in 2009. Flax farmers foresaw that GE
contamination would close their export markets.

It’s the government’s responsibility to protect Canadian farmers from predictable problems caused by the introduction of new GE crops that have not yet been regulated in our export markets. Bill C-474 would help our government meet this responsibility.

The House of Commons Agriculture Committee has already heard a strong message of support for Bill C-474 from Canada’s alfalfa growers. On October 27, please vote in favour of a 30-day extension to the Committe hearings, to allow this important debate to continue.

Anon., please vote for Bill C-474 to make sure that alfalfa growers and other farmers do not face the same market harm caused by GE contamination that continues to hurt our flax farmers.

Yours Sincerely, etc.

His response on Oct 25:

Dear Blogger,

Thank you very much for your email regarding Bill C-474, a Private Members Bill, an Act respecting the Seeds Regulations introduced by Mr Alex Atamanenko of the NDP.

The Government of Canada has always regulated for food safety and health ... [see email from him, above]... Thank you for taking time to express your concerns to me on this piece of legislation. Should you have any comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

My response on October 25:

Dear Anon.,

I addressed your points about canola, and the other arguments you raise, already in a previous email. I'm sorry to see that you did not take that into consideration when re-sending me this email. I would appreciate an explanation of the assumed correlation between protection of health interests and economic/environmental interests that you refer to in your second paragraph.

Sincerely, etc.

NO ANSWER.

I tend to call it as I see it, so these letters above are actually models of restraint and courtesy on my part, and that of my patient husband who edited all but the last for courtesy and restraint. I'm not sure why I put so much effort into them. Now I just send him letters to use up 2 minutes of his - or a staffer's - time cutting and pasting a response. At least he works for 2 minutes a day, right?