Column # 708 23/02/09
It is widely known that the Canadian public has a low opinion of
politicians. The best evidence of this comes not from surveys or
coffee shops but from the low turnout in Canadian elections. Of
course, politicians always try to spin this to suit their purposes.
The winning party claims it is because people are satisfied with them
and see no need to change. The losing party sees it as proof that
people are so fed up with the government they won't stoop to
participating in the process that elects it.
Rhetoric aside, people don't vote because they increasingly don't
think what governments do is relevant to their lives. They are wrong,
but it may be that what governments do today is not as important as
what they don't do. In the last couple decades, governments have
steadily and continuously eroded their own ability to intervene in the
economic and social fabric.
Let me give you a couple of examples. In the United States, a drug
manufacturer is asking to be allowed to use the drug cefquinome
against respiratory infections in beef cattle. Cefquinome is from the
family of cephalosporins, a relatively new family of antibiotics that
is used in humans as a last line of defense against certain
infections. Many medical groups in the U.S., including the American
Medical Association, have urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture not
to license the drug for animal use. The fear is that resistance to
this class of antibiotics could be hastened by using them in
livestock. The response of the USDA has been that the rules do not
allow it to turn down the drug company's request, no matter how
well-founded these fears might be.
The second example is also American. Last year, the Peanut Corporation
of America continued to sell peanuts after salmonella contamination
was found in its processing plant. It did not report this
contamination to health authorities. It seems the Food and Drug
Administration in the U.S. does not have the authority to compel such
plants to turn over their inspection data. One bureaucrat though it
would not be wise to enact such a law because then companies might
simply stop testing!
In Canada, governments have also been quick to limit their own powers.
The issue of competition is a glaring example. Competition is
essential to the working of a capitalist economy. Competition ensures
that no one is gouged and that companies continue to seek out ways to
be more efficient. You would thing that competition would be
absolutely sacred to a free enterprise government. Yet governments
claiming to be devoted to that ideology seem to care little if
effective competition in the marketplace exists.
For example, what farmer would deny that competition in the beef
packing industry is insufficient? With the consolidation of the
packing industry into only three hands in Canada, the farmers' share
of the beef dollar has shrunken dramatically. The National Farmers
Union pointed out the degree of this in a carefully researched study.
Presently, the Competition Bureau is examining a proposed sale that
would reduce the number of major beef processors in Canada to two. The
proposal would allow the sale of Tyson's beef slaughter plant in
Brooks, Alberta to XL Foods. XL already has a significant presence in
Canada in cattle feeding and slaughter, and owns all the major
livestock auction facilities in Saskatchewan. If the sale proceeds,
Cargill and XL would control the slaughter of 95 % of the fed cattle
in Canada. Few reputable economists believe you can have vigorous
competition when there are only two competing firms in the market.
It is likely, however, that the Competition Bureau will allow the sale
to go ahead, if its past track record is any indication of future
actions. It had no qualms about allowing Cargill to buy Better Beef in
Ontario. As a result, Ontario is now the lowest priced market for
cattle in Canada.
The National Farmers Union has insisted that the Bureau make public
its full analysis of the situation so that Canadians can see if the
Bureau's analysis stands up to scrutiny. This too is unlikely if past
behavior at the Bureau is any indication.
Lest you think the Competition Bureau is useless, however, rest easy.
If you are hiring a school bus in Newfoundland, the Bureau is right
there at your side. In a recent ruling, the Bureau found evidence of
price fixing among school bus drivers and companies in Newfoundland.
Other than that, since 2005 the Bureau has never failed to give its
blessing to all and any mergers and acquisitions that came before it.
It allowed appliance manufacturers, drug companies, steel makers,
newspapers, cell phone companies, all and sundry who came before it,
to buy out their competitors. In all cases, the Bureau's response was
the same: "Based on the information available, the Bureau determined
that the proposed transaction would not likely result in a substantial
lessening or prevention of competition in any of the relevant
markets."
There was one exception. In 2005, the Competition Bureau decided that
Johnson and Johnson could not buy out the consumer healthcare business
of Pfizer Inc. without some remedial measures. The reason? Diaper rash
ointment. Johnson and Johnson would have had too big a share of the
diaper rash ointment market. So, farmers need not despair. They will
never be subject to market dominance should there be an outbreak of
diaper rash among their cattle.
© Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Government's Role in Fixing the Mess
Column # 707 16/02/09
You don't need to be really sophisticated to see that we've messed up
bad as a species. 2008 provided the ultimate proof, if it was needed.
The financial crisis engulfing the world didn't happen by accident. It
was caused by human stupidity, primarily the stupidity of elected
officials who fell for the line that the financial industry was quite
capable of regulating itself into good behavior. Self-regulation. Now
there's an oxymoron if ever there was one. It wasn't so much a case of
the fox guarding the henhouse, as one of expecting the fox to slap his
own paw when he came near the henhouse.
Of course, the financial sector isn't the only one that is
inadequately policed by the people who are supposed to be guarding the
public interest. Consider the case of food safety regulators. Corrupt
and stupid bankers can leave you penniless if left to their own
devices, but corrupt and stupid food processors can leave you dead.
And so it was for the folks who imbibed peanuts in the United States
last fall. Eight of them died, and 19,000 across 43 states became ill
after eating peanut butter and processed foods containing peanuts
contaminated with salmonella. Just as the financial collapse stemmed
from a variety of causes, the peanut debacle points to a host of
structural problems within the industrial food sector.
The most obvious is the lack of adequate regulations. In a twist that
could only have been conceived by a peanut-brained politician, food
safety rules in the U.S. require plants to test for contaminants like
salmonella, but do not require them to inform the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) or the public if they find them.
In 2004, for example, food processing giant ConAgra found salmonella
in peanut butter from a plant in Georgia. ConAgra was exposed by a
whistleblower from within the plant, but when the FDA asked for the
inspection records, ConAgra refused. The FDA did nothing more, until
three years later when hundreds of people became sick from tainted
peanut butter made at the facility. It then demanded the records,
which ConAgra insisted not be made public.
The peanut scandal in late 2008 came from a plant in Blakely, Georgia
owned by the Peanut Corporation of America. Its abysmal safety record
and failure to disclose again highlights the lack of proper regulation
in the food industry, and the lack of resources to enforce the rules
that do exist.
But it isn't just health regulations that we've messed up royally. The
Peanut Corporation of America only processes one percent of the
peanuts used in the U.S., yet its criminal carelessness affected
people across the continent and around the world. The highly
integrated industrial system that supplies us with food is in itself
part of the problem. Many American companies obtained peanut paste
from Peanut Corp for use in foods of all sorts. The scale of such
plants means that food borne contaminants from a single facility can
reach thousands of miles and affect millions of people. It is the same
with meat processing plants, as people across the world have
discovered. When contaminated hamburger was found to originate from a
ConAgra slaughter facility in Greeley, Colorado in 2002, hundreds were
sickened and 19 million pounds of ground beef were recalled from
across the continent.
At least in the era when packing plants were local, a problem would be
confined to a limited area. Today's massive food processing facilities
can spread a problem around the world in a few weeks.
The financial mess and ongoing food safety issues are two areas that
indicate a sophisticated, highly technological society cannot afford
to push government to a peripheral role. Even the Grain Growers of
Canada finally appear to understand that. In a recent press release,
they called for the federal government to increase its investment in
plant research.
The GGC has never been one to promote government involvement in
anything. Its members are the first to complain about government
"interference" in the marketplace. To its credit in this case, the GGC
recognizes that private companies do varietal and crop research for
their own benefit, not specifically for the benefit of farmers. Thus,
private research is not much interested in diseases or insect pests
that are restricted to certain areas. Not do agronomic questions like
how to reduce input costs concern the agribusiness giants.
Now, if the GGC could see that we've also messed up the system that
transfers publicly generated knowledge into the public sphere. When
crop varieties are developed with public money, we then license them
to companies that restrict their use by prohibiting seed saving and
restrict farmers' marketing options by tying the variety to exclusive
contracts. Fixing this mess-up would ensure that public money really
does benefit farmers.
Fixing the mess we are in means we need to elect politicians who
understand the role governments have to play. We haven't done such a
good job on that either.
© Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
You don't need to be really sophisticated to see that we've messed up
bad as a species. 2008 provided the ultimate proof, if it was needed.
The financial crisis engulfing the world didn't happen by accident. It
was caused by human stupidity, primarily the stupidity of elected
officials who fell for the line that the financial industry was quite
capable of regulating itself into good behavior. Self-regulation. Now
there's an oxymoron if ever there was one. It wasn't so much a case of
the fox guarding the henhouse, as one of expecting the fox to slap his
own paw when he came near the henhouse.
Of course, the financial sector isn't the only one that is
inadequately policed by the people who are supposed to be guarding the
public interest. Consider the case of food safety regulators. Corrupt
and stupid bankers can leave you penniless if left to their own
devices, but corrupt and stupid food processors can leave you dead.
And so it was for the folks who imbibed peanuts in the United States
last fall. Eight of them died, and 19,000 across 43 states became ill
after eating peanut butter and processed foods containing peanuts
contaminated with salmonella. Just as the financial collapse stemmed
from a variety of causes, the peanut debacle points to a host of
structural problems within the industrial food sector.
The most obvious is the lack of adequate regulations. In a twist that
could only have been conceived by a peanut-brained politician, food
safety rules in the U.S. require plants to test for contaminants like
salmonella, but do not require them to inform the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) or the public if they find them.
In 2004, for example, food processing giant ConAgra found salmonella
in peanut butter from a plant in Georgia. ConAgra was exposed by a
whistleblower from within the plant, but when the FDA asked for the
inspection records, ConAgra refused. The FDA did nothing more, until
three years later when hundreds of people became sick from tainted
peanut butter made at the facility. It then demanded the records,
which ConAgra insisted not be made public.
The peanut scandal in late 2008 came from a plant in Blakely, Georgia
owned by the Peanut Corporation of America. Its abysmal safety record
and failure to disclose again highlights the lack of proper regulation
in the food industry, and the lack of resources to enforce the rules
that do exist.
But it isn't just health regulations that we've messed up royally. The
Peanut Corporation of America only processes one percent of the
peanuts used in the U.S., yet its criminal carelessness affected
people across the continent and around the world. The highly
integrated industrial system that supplies us with food is in itself
part of the problem. Many American companies obtained peanut paste
from Peanut Corp for use in foods of all sorts. The scale of such
plants means that food borne contaminants from a single facility can
reach thousands of miles and affect millions of people. It is the same
with meat processing plants, as people across the world have
discovered. When contaminated hamburger was found to originate from a
ConAgra slaughter facility in Greeley, Colorado in 2002, hundreds were
sickened and 19 million pounds of ground beef were recalled from
across the continent.
At least in the era when packing plants were local, a problem would be
confined to a limited area. Today's massive food processing facilities
can spread a problem around the world in a few weeks.
The financial mess and ongoing food safety issues are two areas that
indicate a sophisticated, highly technological society cannot afford
to push government to a peripheral role. Even the Grain Growers of
Canada finally appear to understand that. In a recent press release,
they called for the federal government to increase its investment in
plant research.
The GGC has never been one to promote government involvement in
anything. Its members are the first to complain about government
"interference" in the marketplace. To its credit in this case, the GGC
recognizes that private companies do varietal and crop research for
their own benefit, not specifically for the benefit of farmers. Thus,
private research is not much interested in diseases or insect pests
that are restricted to certain areas. Not do agronomic questions like
how to reduce input costs concern the agribusiness giants.
Now, if the GGC could see that we've also messed up the system that
transfers publicly generated knowledge into the public sphere. When
crop varieties are developed with public money, we then license them
to companies that restrict their use by prohibiting seed saving and
restrict farmers' marketing options by tying the variety to exclusive
contracts. Fixing this mess-up would ensure that public money really
does benefit farmers.
Fixing the mess we are in means we need to elect politicians who
understand the role governments have to play. We haven't done such a
good job on that either.
© Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
Monday, February 09, 2009
Obama Promises Farm Subsidy Caps
Column # 706 09/02/09
American President Barrack Obama is creating a bit of a stir in
agriculture circles. For one thing, he has indicated he'll bring in a
ban on meat packers owning cattle. This has been a long time on the
wish list of American ranchers, who believe that when packers own
cattle, they are able to manipulate livestock prices to their
advantage. The mechanism is rather simple: when prices are high on the
open market, the packer will dip into his own supply of cattle for
slaughter. The lack of demand in the open market pushes prices down,
at which point the packer returns to the auction house. This
mechanism, along with secret contracts with some feedlots, leaves a
lot of uncertainty as to the true market price for livestock.
But Obama has other ideas to reform agriculture as well. He has stated
that he will impose a $250,000 payment cap on farm support payments to
any individual farm. His policy document puts it like this: "Implement
a $250,000 payment limitation so we help family farmers -- not large
corporate agribusiness. Close the loopholes that allow mega farms to
get around payment limits."
If you want to improve the survival of family farms, a payment cap
makes sense. Handing government money to large farms often simply
finances their next round of acquisitions. Large farms get larger by
buying out smaller ones. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the average
taxpayer wants his tax dollars to carry out the concentration of
agriculture in fewer and fewer hands.
Canadian governments have taken a different view on this. There were
once limits on government payments to individual farms. Back in the
days of NISA and CFIP, the limit was $425,000. I can guarantee that
none of the farmers around here saw that amount of money. Yet, the
provincial and federal minister of agriculture saw fit to raise this
to $975,000 and later to $3 million. I assume that government actions
represent an attempt to achieve some policy goals, but I am somewhat
puzzled as to what rational goal a $3 million cap on payments is
supposed to achieve.
Clearly, payments like this do not go to family farms. Nevertheless,
some farmers have achieved mighty benefits from government largesse. A
look into the Public Accounts of Canada for 2004-2005 reveals that
Pallister Farms of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba raked in $532,728 from
Agriculture Canada's Business Risk Management Programs. Pallister
Farms is owned by well-known free-market advocate and anti-CWB
activist Jim Pallister. Pallister's brother Brian is a three term
Conservative MP from Manitoba.
If Statistics Canada is to be believed, large farms in Canada generate
greater net incomes than small ones. Recent analyses have even pointed
out that there is little sign of a farm crisis on the largest Canadian
farms. In light of this, it seems irresponsible of governments to
spend taxpayers' monies on farms that should not need this.
While we are not exactly in an era of fiscal restraint right now, what
with government throwing money around like beads at Mardi Gras, we
will be at some point when governments recognize that the kitty isn't
limitless. Like all government spending, agriculture will eventually
come under scrutiny, to see if spending is achieving policy goals.
Farmers and taxpayers need to clearly understand what those goals are.
If the government simply wants to heave more money at those who have,
subsidy caps are hardly necessary. If it wants to maintain family
farms of a reasonable size, and ensure a future for family-based
agriculture, subsidy caps make a lot of sense.
In addition to being fiscally responsible, limits on subsidies will
ensure that taxpayers' monies don't simply add to the wealth of
already wealthy companies and individuals.
© Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
American President Barrack Obama is creating a bit of a stir in
agriculture circles. For one thing, he has indicated he'll bring in a
ban on meat packers owning cattle. This has been a long time on the
wish list of American ranchers, who believe that when packers own
cattle, they are able to manipulate livestock prices to their
advantage. The mechanism is rather simple: when prices are high on the
open market, the packer will dip into his own supply of cattle for
slaughter. The lack of demand in the open market pushes prices down,
at which point the packer returns to the auction house. This
mechanism, along with secret contracts with some feedlots, leaves a
lot of uncertainty as to the true market price for livestock.
But Obama has other ideas to reform agriculture as well. He has stated
that he will impose a $250,000 payment cap on farm support payments to
any individual farm. His policy document puts it like this: "Implement
a $250,000 payment limitation so we help family farmers -- not large
corporate agribusiness. Close the loopholes that allow mega farms to
get around payment limits."
If you want to improve the survival of family farms, a payment cap
makes sense. Handing government money to large farms often simply
finances their next round of acquisitions. Large farms get larger by
buying out smaller ones. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the average
taxpayer wants his tax dollars to carry out the concentration of
agriculture in fewer and fewer hands.
Canadian governments have taken a different view on this. There were
once limits on government payments to individual farms. Back in the
days of NISA and CFIP, the limit was $425,000. I can guarantee that
none of the farmers around here saw that amount of money. Yet, the
provincial and federal minister of agriculture saw fit to raise this
to $975,000 and later to $3 million. I assume that government actions
represent an attempt to achieve some policy goals, but I am somewhat
puzzled as to what rational goal a $3 million cap on payments is
supposed to achieve.
Clearly, payments like this do not go to family farms. Nevertheless,
some farmers have achieved mighty benefits from government largesse. A
look into the Public Accounts of Canada for 2004-2005 reveals that
Pallister Farms of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba raked in $532,728 from
Agriculture Canada's Business Risk Management Programs. Pallister
Farms is owned by well-known free-market advocate and anti-CWB
activist Jim Pallister. Pallister's brother Brian is a three term
Conservative MP from Manitoba.
If Statistics Canada is to be believed, large farms in Canada generate
greater net incomes than small ones. Recent analyses have even pointed
out that there is little sign of a farm crisis on the largest Canadian
farms. In light of this, it seems irresponsible of governments to
spend taxpayers' monies on farms that should not need this.
While we are not exactly in an era of fiscal restraint right now, what
with government throwing money around like beads at Mardi Gras, we
will be at some point when governments recognize that the kitty isn't
limitless. Like all government spending, agriculture will eventually
come under scrutiny, to see if spending is achieving policy goals.
Farmers and taxpayers need to clearly understand what those goals are.
If the government simply wants to heave more money at those who have,
subsidy caps are hardly necessary. If it wants to maintain family
farms of a reasonable size, and ensure a future for family-based
agriculture, subsidy caps make a lot of sense.
In addition to being fiscally responsible, limits on subsidies will
ensure that taxpayers' monies don't simply add to the wealth of
already wealthy companies and individuals.
© Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
Monday, February 02, 2009
Cattle Farmers Victims of Joke
Column # 705 02/02/09
Around the end of December, Saskatchewan Finance Minister Rod
Gantefoer told cattle producers they could expect a belated Christmas
present in the federal budget due in late January. Unfortunately, he
didn't tell them it would be a lump of coal. It was a cruel joke.
The budget has come and gone, its passage assured by the Liberals, but
farmers are still scratching their heads, trying to figure out what
exactly they got from it. Those farmers who raise cattle don't need to
scratch though. They know only too well what nothing looks like. It
looks like what they've been getting when they sell their calves. Now
it also looks like the value of Rod Gantefoer's imagination.
Along with a lot of other Saskatchewan farmers, I haven't been able to
figure out why the federal and provincial governments have been so
unwilling to deal with the crisis down on the ranch. I've written
several columns in the last couple months attempting to point out what
is obvious to everyone, except apparently the politicians, that cattle
folk are gasping their last.
Last week, I had a phone call from a farmer in central Saskatchewan
who took his concerns about his livestock operation to the office of
his MP. After he pled his case on behalf of cattle farmers, she told
him that if there was a real problem, there would be a lot more
farmers at her door. She also told him that the problem was he was not
big enough. He needed to get big or get out.
That farmer's call went some distance toward answering my question. No
doubt this MP was just repeating what she heard around the caucus
table. It explains graphically why the Conservative government in
Ottawa is ignoring the plight of cattle producers: it doesn't believe
there is a structural problem in the industry. The problem is simply
that some cattle producers are too small to be viable.
And if the Conservatives believe this federally, is it fair to assume
the Saskatchewan Party also believes it? Undeniably, they travel in
the same circles. It would explain the province's reluctance to help
its cattle producers and its inability to persuade the federal
government to do so. After all, according to Saskatchewan's
Agriculture Minister Bob Bjornerud, his government has immense clout
in Ottawa due to Saskatchewan's economic status. Bjornerud told a
cattle producer's group in Lloydminster that "I know there's a lot of
turmoil in . the livestock industry but if you could only realize how
much more power we have now when we go to the federal meetings."
The farmer who called me last week was angry. He was angry not only at
the governments he felt were allowing cattle farmers to bleed to
death. He was also angry at the associations that claim to represent
those same farmers, feeling they have done too little and been too
conciliatory to governments that simply ignore them.
He may be right on both counts. It is now too late for many cattle
people. There have been too many years of misery, and too few reasons
for optimism. Many have gotten out, and more are planning on reducing
herds to their minimum. The ones who are left don't need vague
promises from Gerry Ritz or his provincial counterparts. They need
money - money to buy feed, money to replace the losses from calves
they feel were stolen from them by the packers. In the longer term,
they need a competitive feedlot industry and a competitive packing
industry. Giving $50 million dollars to the existing packers, as the
federal budget promised, will not provide this.
The only optimistic news on the cattle front at this point comes from
an unlikely source. Newly-elected U.S. President Barrack Obama said
recently that his government was committed to eliminating packer
ownership of cattle. These so-called captive supplies have allowed
packing houses to manipulate cattle markets for decades. They have
been criticized ferociously by American ranchers, who have long
demanded what Obama is now promising.
If the Democrats take this step, and given the lobbying strength of
Cargill and Tyson that is a big if, it may open the door for the
Canadian government to at least contemplate such a move. Mind you, it
would be a big help if Canadian livestock organizations would follow
the lead of the National Farmers Union and actively call for the same
measures here. It might even restore the faith of my caller from
central Saskatchewan.
© Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
Around the end of December, Saskatchewan Finance Minister Rod
Gantefoer told cattle producers they could expect a belated Christmas
present in the federal budget due in late January. Unfortunately, he
didn't tell them it would be a lump of coal. It was a cruel joke.
The budget has come and gone, its passage assured by the Liberals, but
farmers are still scratching their heads, trying to figure out what
exactly they got from it. Those farmers who raise cattle don't need to
scratch though. They know only too well what nothing looks like. It
looks like what they've been getting when they sell their calves. Now
it also looks like the value of Rod Gantefoer's imagination.
Along with a lot of other Saskatchewan farmers, I haven't been able to
figure out why the federal and provincial governments have been so
unwilling to deal with the crisis down on the ranch. I've written
several columns in the last couple months attempting to point out what
is obvious to everyone, except apparently the politicians, that cattle
folk are gasping their last.
Last week, I had a phone call from a farmer in central Saskatchewan
who took his concerns about his livestock operation to the office of
his MP. After he pled his case on behalf of cattle farmers, she told
him that if there was a real problem, there would be a lot more
farmers at her door. She also told him that the problem was he was not
big enough. He needed to get big or get out.
That farmer's call went some distance toward answering my question. No
doubt this MP was just repeating what she heard around the caucus
table. It explains graphically why the Conservative government in
Ottawa is ignoring the plight of cattle producers: it doesn't believe
there is a structural problem in the industry. The problem is simply
that some cattle producers are too small to be viable.
And if the Conservatives believe this federally, is it fair to assume
the Saskatchewan Party also believes it? Undeniably, they travel in
the same circles. It would explain the province's reluctance to help
its cattle producers and its inability to persuade the federal
government to do so. After all, according to Saskatchewan's
Agriculture Minister Bob Bjornerud, his government has immense clout
in Ottawa due to Saskatchewan's economic status. Bjornerud told a
cattle producer's group in Lloydminster that "I know there's a lot of
turmoil in . the livestock industry but if you could only realize how
much more power we have now when we go to the federal meetings."
The farmer who called me last week was angry. He was angry not only at
the governments he felt were allowing cattle farmers to bleed to
death. He was also angry at the associations that claim to represent
those same farmers, feeling they have done too little and been too
conciliatory to governments that simply ignore them.
He may be right on both counts. It is now too late for many cattle
people. There have been too many years of misery, and too few reasons
for optimism. Many have gotten out, and more are planning on reducing
herds to their minimum. The ones who are left don't need vague
promises from Gerry Ritz or his provincial counterparts. They need
money - money to buy feed, money to replace the losses from calves
they feel were stolen from them by the packers. In the longer term,
they need a competitive feedlot industry and a competitive packing
industry. Giving $50 million dollars to the existing packers, as the
federal budget promised, will not provide this.
The only optimistic news on the cattle front at this point comes from
an unlikely source. Newly-elected U.S. President Barrack Obama said
recently that his government was committed to eliminating packer
ownership of cattle. These so-called captive supplies have allowed
packing houses to manipulate cattle markets for decades. They have
been criticized ferociously by American ranchers, who have long
demanded what Obama is now promising.
If the Democrats take this step, and given the lobbying strength of
Cargill and Tyson that is a big if, it may open the door for the
Canadian government to at least contemplate such a move. Mind you, it
would be a big help if Canadian livestock organizations would follow
the lead of the National Farmers Union and actively call for the same
measures here. It might even restore the faith of my caller from
central Saskatchewan.
© Paul Beingessner beingessner@sasktel.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
