Public Trust and Celebrating Modern Agriculture - House of Commons

Public Trust and Celebrating Modern Agriculture

Brief for House of Commons
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
April 12, 2019

Modern Agriculture, Sustainability and Public Trust

Many farmers are reluctant to talk about modern agriculture. Our own industry advertises images of
farms with a faded red barn and a few chickens running about in a pastoral setting. That is not modern
agriculture and we need to stop letting agriculture be portrayed this way.

Modern agricultural practices are regularly attacked by activists who want to return agriculture to the
past, which is romanticized by many as being more idyllic and in tune with nature. Recent negative
media coverage of glyphosate, one of the most studied and reviewed pesticides in history, is just one
example of agriculture practices being questioned despite a strong scientific consensus around its
benefits and safety.

The truth is that the past is characterized by rural poverty, houses with no running water and no central
heat. Rural schooling was in one room that gave those in them little chance of advanced education. The
modernization of agriculture has improved the prospects for rural communities by unlocking greater
productivity needed to sustain economic and social development. This is a message that needs to be
told.

Today, most agricultural production in Canada takes place on commercial farms that are thriving
businesses. Mostly owned and operated by families, they are managed by individuals with advanced
degrees and a deep understanding of international markets. Combines, sprayers, and tractors are
guided by satellites. Seeds, fertilizers and pesticides used are the result of years of intensive research.
These tools are designed to have a minimal environmental footprint and to be safe for farmers and
consumers alike.

Will someone in a downtown urban center, shopping for their children’s lunch, care about the wide-
ranging implications of their purchasing decisions or do they just want to know that they will be giving
their family a safe and nutritious meal? Whether intentional or not, consumers choices have a
cascading impact across the value chain, all the way to the farm gate. These choices ultimately shape
Canada’s prospects for rural development, sustainability and food security. Given the positive role
modern agriculture has played in advancing each of these areas, we need to help consumers understand
this complex story.

For example, by February 9th the average Canadian household earned enough income to pay for their
grocery bill for the entire year, spending about 10 percent of their income on food. An important
driver in this story is access to modern farming tools and practices which have given Canadians access to
some of the most affordable and highest quality food in the world.

Modern Canadian agriculture is also delivering some of the safest food in the world. A study by the
Conference Board of Canada (Canada Tops Overall World Ranking of Food Safety Performance) ranked
food safety performance of Canada and sixteen other developed OECD (Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development) nations. Canada’s food safety ranked the highest of all the countries
examined.

Modern Canadian agriculture has a very good environmental story to tell. Modern practices such as
conservation tillage are increasing the health of soils, reducing the amount of fuel used and reducing soil
erosion. Precision agriculture, which uses satellites to precisely steer equipment is maximizing the
efficiency of pesticides and fertilizers, further reducing fuel use and protecting water from nutrient run-
off.

In the last 40 years, energy use per tonne of wheat produced has reduced by 39 percent. Forty years
ago soil organic matter was being depleted with every crop. Modern agriculture has changed this
picture dramatically and today organic matter in prairie soils is increasing every year. This means the soil
is healthier, it is more productive, less susceptible soil erosion and farms across Canada are sequestering
carbon dioxide.

Ill-conceived regulations can take away the tools of modern agriculture and the benefits to rural and
urban Canada alike. Governments that respond to pressure from the internet instead of sound science
run the risk of reducing our environmental sustainability, scaling back gains made on food safety and
making our food supply more expensive.

Government Action

What can Government do to help build the public’s trust in modern agriculture and resist activist
pressure to abandon the tools that research and innovation have given us? There are four main areas:

1)      Support and Defend Risk and Science-Based Regulations Internationally and Domestically;

2)      Ensure the Availability of Data to Demonstrate Sustainability;

3)      Support Industry Efforts to Build Public Trust; and

4)      Communicate the Benefits of Modern Agricultural Practices.

Support and Defend Risk and Science-Based Regulations Internationally and Domestically

There are two recent examples from Health Canada that demonstrate how science and risk-based
regulations should be defended and the dangers of giving into activist pressure and moving away from
sound science.

First to the positive example. On January 20th,2019, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)
released a statement regarding the Agency’s review of glyphosate. The statement was a strong,
unequivocal defense of Canada’s science-based regulatory system. For example:

        “After a thorough scientific review, we have concluded that the concerns raised by the objectors
        could not be scientifically supported when considering the entire body of relevant data. The

objections raised did not create doubt or concern regarding the scientific basis for the 2017 re-
        evaluation decision for glyphosate. Therefore, the Department’s final decision will stand.
…
        Our scientists left no stone unturned in conducting this review. They had access to all relevant
        data and information from federal and provincial governments, international regulatory
        agencies, published scientific reports and multiple pesticide manufacturers.”

Agriculture in Canada needs more of this from our regulatory agencies. But often they do not have the
resources necessary to communicate with the Canadian public on the processes they undertake and/or
the agencies do not believe that communicating in this manner is not within their mandate.
Government has the ability to change both of these things.

GOVERNMENT ACTION:              Equip our regulatory agencies, both in terms of mandate and
                                resources (human and capital) to actively engage with the Canadian
                                public on the rigour, structure, and value of Canada’s risk and science-
                                based regulatory system.

The second example also focuses on the PMRA. The Agency is required by law to review existing
pesticide regulations. The target number of re-evaluation and special review decisions (proposed and
final) planned has already increased from 35 in 2015-16 to 60 in the current year, with a growing
projected backlog. The PMRA projects that the number re-evaluations initiated each year will double
by 2021 relative to 2015.

The PMRA is inadequately resourced to deliver Health Canada’s obligations under the Pest Control
Products Act. In particular, more A-base funding is needed to support post-market re-evaluation. We
are already seeing the impact of the lack of resources for the Agency with overly conservative decisions
when all data cannot be considered. Recent decisions regarding neonicotinoids are an example of this.

GOVERNMENT ACTION:              Pest Management Regulatory Agency must have adequate resources
                                to continue to deliver a credible and effective regulatory regime that
                                maintains public confidence without limiting the innovations available
                                to farmers.

Our regulatory agencies also have a role to play in developing the capacity of science and risk-based
regulators in the countries that import Canadian products. Cereals Canada notes that there are a
number of ongoing phytosanitary issues in key markets for Canada (e.g., Peru). These issues not only
create short-term market disruptions, but they also chip away at Canada’s longstanding reputation as a
reliable supplier of high-quality safe food. Often these issues can be avoided, or quickly dispelled,
through regulatory exchanges between the importing country and the Canadian regulatory system and
our value chain. These regulatory exchanges help improve our customers’ understanding of the rigour
of the Canadian system. They can also be used proactively to help build the scientific capacity of the
regulatory system in importing countries

But often our regulators, such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) do not have the fiscal or
human resources to carry out this kind of information exchange or capacity building. Agencies such as
the CFIA are also not specifically mandated to support Canadian exports in this way.

GOVERNMENT ACTION:               Regulatory Agencies, such as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency,
                                 must have the resources and mandate to support Canadian exports
                                 through informational exchanges and capacity building with regulators
                                 in importing countries.

Canada has signed and ratified a number of critical trade agreements, with the Comprehensive and
Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Europe and the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-
Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) with our trading partners in the Pacific region.

Cereals Canada strongly supports these agreements. Trade is the lifeblood of Canadian agriculture and
as a relatively small nation, we must have trade that is based on strong science and risk-based rules.

But signing a trade agreement is not the end of the journey. We have entered a new age of
protectionism. Countries and activist groups are now turning to non-tariff phytosanitary barriers to
trade.

What has happened to Canadian durum exports to Italy is a prime example of protectionist use of
phytosanitary barriers to trade. Since the ratification of CETA Canada’s number one agriculture export
to Europe has fallen by roughly three-quarters. Italy has been the number one destination for Canadian
durum, traditionally importing over one million tonnes of our high-quality product. In the 2017/18 crop
year, Canada exported less than 400,000 tonnes of durum to Italy.

Why has this occurred? It has come as a result of a combination of protectionist measures by the
Government of Italy and an activist campaign unjustly denigrating the production practices and safety of
Canadian durum.

Italian country of origin labelling (COOL) provisions for pasta have facilitated the campaign by the Italian
farm group Coldiretti, which has smeared the reputation of Canadian durum. These attacks have not
been science-based but they have been successful.

Cereals Canada holds that the Italian regulations violate both CETA and the World Trade Organization
(WTO) obligations. When situations like this occur, Canada must be ready and willing to use the dispute
resolution tools provided by trade agreements to challenge the protectionist actions. It is not good
enough to sign trade agreements, we must ensure they are enforced.

Canada must also actively defend our reputation for quality and safety. This means working together
with industry to actively counter non-science based attacks on modern agriculture. Attacks which are
thinly veiled protectionism.

Cereals Canada notes that, while we continue to push for a WTO case in this matter, the industry has
had strong support from the government, including Global Affairs, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
and our post in Rome.

GOVERNMENT ACTION:               Quickly engage trade dispute mechanisms when countries implement
                                 non-science based trade barriers.

GOVERNMENT ACTION:               Quickly move to publicly counter non-science actions by government
                                 and work with industry to mitigate protectionist attacks, both within

Canada and abroad, on modern Canadian agricultural practises. This
                                 will require dedication of human and financial resources.

Ensure Data Available to Demonstrate Sustainability

It has been demonstrated above that modern Canadian agriculture has a good story to tell on
sustainability. We, as an industry, and you as government, need to do a better job of ensuring that
Canadians hear that story. But to effectively communicate with the public, in Canada, and importing
countries, we need access to data.

Many of the sustainability statistics used by the industry, including the statistics cited at the beginning of
this brief, are derived from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Agri-Environmental Indicator Report
Series. This series is based on comprehensive survey work carried out every five years.

The data from this reporting series is used extensively. For example, farmers participating in the annual
New Crop Missions present this data during our seminars with customers (approximately 20 of our
leading wheat markets). The data is critical to the metrics platform developed by the Canadian Round
Table for Sustainable Crops. The data is utilized by academics from coast to coast.

Compiling the significant volumes of data collected in the survey is time and resource consuming.
However, if Canadian agriculture is to be able to tell our sustainability story both governments and
industry must have this data as quickly as possible.

The latest survey was carried out in 2016. The data from that survey is not yet compiled and is not yet
available. This means the latest data series available ends at 2011. The significant lag undermines
Canada’s credibility as a global leader in sustainable agriculture and affects our industry’s ability to
effectively communicate ongoing advancements. It is simply not viable for Canadian industry to
continue to report 2011 result in 2019.

GOVERNMENT ACTION:               Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada must be given the mandate and
                                 resources to update the data series prior to the end of 2019.
                                 Benchmarks should be put in place to ensure timely completion of the
                                 data series update upon the completion of the next survey in 2021.

Support for Industry Efforts to Build Public Trust

Canadian industry is actively engaged in efforts that will assist in gaining and maintaining public trust in
Canadian agriculture, both domestically and internationally. One of these key efforts is the
development of a Code of Practise for the Production of Grains, Oilseeds and Special Crops in Canada.

With the development of a Code of Practise, Canadian farmers, exporters, and processors will have a
concrete tool to demonstrate sustainability to our customers. Canadian agriculture will be able to show,
with the backing of science, what we are already doing to preserve our land, air, and water. This is a
tool to help increase the competitiveness of Canadian agriculture and not a threat to modern farming
practices.

How will the Code be developed? Farmers must be directly involved in the development of the Code of
Practice. If the Code is going to build the trust of consumers who are interested in the question “where

does my food come from” farmers cannot be alone in the room when the Code is developed. The
development of the Code must also include scientific expertise, non-governmental organizations with
interest in sustainability, customers, and processors. And the Code must be open to public review upon
its development and publicly available when completed.

In addition to alleviating issues that will cause market access and public trust concerns going forward,
the development of a concrete Code of Practise could help alleviate existing market access issues.
Further, the development of a Code of Practise will be a valuable tool in communicating beneficial
management practices to farmers.

Government can assist with these efforts in two ways. First by ensuring that industry efforts aimed at
building public trust are adequately funded and second, by ensuring that the resulting demonstrations
of sustainability are adequately communicated to Canadians and our customers abroad.

GOVERNMENT ACTION:               Ensure that adequate funding is available for the development of
                                 concrete tools, such as the proposed Code of Practise for the
                                 Production of Grains, Oilseeds, and Special Crops, that will help
                                 demonstrate the sustainability story of modern Canadian agriculture.

Communicate the Benefits of Modern Agricultural Practices

Many of those involved in Canadian agriculture, including farmers, have become mistrustful or even
antagonistic when words like “public trust” or “sustainability” are raised. The basis for their concern
stems from activists using these ideas as tools to attack modern agricultural practises. The March 17,
2019, edition of The Weekly with Wendy Mesley carried on CBC television is just one example of the kind
of biased dialog that causes concern. Canada’s national broadcaster should be celebrating the positive
role of Canadian agriculture, not denigrating modern farming practices and undermining Canada’s
science-based regulatory system.

Government has a critical role to play in helping to ensure that the dialog with Canadians is based on
sound risk-based science and not simply a repetition of the latest internet meme.

This communication starts directly with Members of Parliament, especially those who have direct
contact with modern Canadian agriculture. Cereals Canada challenges you to:

    a. Engage fellow MPs who misrepresent the sustainability of modern Canadian agriculture,
       because of a lack of understanding, and demonstrate the good news story that Canadian
       agriculture has to tell;

    b. Resist calls for legislation and regulations that are based on the latest internet trends or have
       been generated by misplaced activist pressure on modern Canadian agriculture;

    c. Respond to public reporting that misrepresents, either deliberately or because of a lack of
       understanding, the sustainability of modern Canadian agriculture; and

    d. Engage with your constituents and tell the good news sustainability story of modern Canadian
       agriculture.

Government agencies and departments, such as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, can be more actively
engaged in communicating the environmental benefits of modern Canadian agriculture. The same
applies to our embassies and high commissions abroad. But in order to become more active
communicators, officials need to be given both the mandate and financial resources to carry out this
task.

GOVERNMENT ACTION:            Members of Parliament, especially those with a direct connection to
                              Canadian agriculture, can be positively engaged with colleagues,
                              media, and constituents in delivering the good news sustainability
                              story of modern Canadian agriculture.

GOVERNMENT ACTION:            Ensure that adequate funding is available to allow government
                              agencies and our embassies and high commissions to become more
                              actively engaged in communicating about the sustainability of modern
                              Canadian agriculture.