July 31, 2024 • 36 mins
The role of any food system is to serve the end consumer. In the past, farmers, food processors, and retailers responded to the demand of consumers. Supply follows demand. For the most part Canada has kept a very scientific based approach to policy making when it comes to food and how food is grown. However, there is concern with a bit of a deviation of these policies when one considers what has and is happening in the European Union. They have experienced a trend in policy-making that seeks to interfere in both the demand, and even more directly, in the supply side of the equation. The question that comes up then, is will food policy sway away from science? With us today is Bill Wirtz from the Consumer Choice Centre to discuss how policy changes affect food choices.
Host
Clinton Monchuk grew up on a mixed dairy, beef and grain family farm outside of Lanigan, Saskatchewan. He received his Bachelor’s of Science in Agriculture majoring in Agricultural Economics from the University of Saskatchewan and Masters of Business Administration in Agriculture from the University of Guelph. Clinton has enjoyed numerous roles across Canada, the United States and Mexico as a researcher, educator, manager, economist and director of trade policy.
In 2016, Clinton accepted the role of Executive Director with Farm & Food Care Saskatchewan to promote farming and ranching to consumers. Clinton understands the value of increasing public trust in agriculture and actively promotes engagement between the agriculture industry and consumers.
Clinton, Laura and their children Jackson and Katelyn, are active partners on their family grain and layer farm in Saskatchewan and cattle ranch in Oklahoma.
Guest
Bill Wirtz is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Consumer Choice Center. He covers agriculture and trade policy in Europe and North America.
Resources
Consumer Choice Center
Canadian Food Focus
Episode Credits: Research and writing by Dorothy Long and Penny Eaton, Produced and edited by Angela Larson and Michael Jordon, Music by Andy Ellison-Track title: Gravel Road
Connect with us: Website, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube , email
Sign up for our newsletter
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Speaker 2 (00:07):
From Canadian Food Focus. This is Ask a Farmer.
I'm your host Clinton Manuk . ASaskatchewan farmer. In this
podcast, we talk to foodexperts to answer your
questions about your food .
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Welcome to the podcast, everyone. Today what
we're gonna be talking about ishow food policy kind of affects
our food choices. So for themost part, Canada has kept a
very science-based approachwhen it comes to deciding on
regulations and legislations onhow food is grown in this
country. But there's a littlebit of a concern now. We're
(00:50):
seeing a trend that's happeningin the European Union right now
that looks to kind of havepolicy that's going, maybe
interfere a little bit withboth the demand and the supply
side of the equation. And it'sa little bit concerning. So the
question comes up is, will foodpolicy actually sway away from
science? So today we have withus Bill Wirtz , who's with the
(01:14):
Consumer Choice Center , andhe's gonna stu discuss a little
bit more on how these policychanges affect what your food
choices are, particular in the,in the European Union. So Bill,
how are you doing today?
Speaker 4 (01:27):
Very well. Thank you for having me.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Just give a little bit of a background and to ,
uh, how you got into theposition you're in.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Yes , uh, gladly.
It's , uh, it's, it's, it'sbeen a bit of a journey. My, my
background is actually in , inbroadcast journalism where, you
know, you have to work yourselfreally into a topic fairly
quickly. And , um, and, andI've been with Consumer Choice
Center now for a while, and itwas basically, we had all these
issues that were slowly comingup , uh, four or five years
(01:55):
ago, nutritional labeling,common agricultural policy
reform, all of these. But therewas nobody really on staff that
was really familiar with thosetopics. So I said, well, okay,
let me take on the challengeand see what I can, what I can
find out. Um, and so, so Iworked myself into this issue.
I don't have a scientificbackground in it whatsoever.
(02:17):
I'm from a farming family inthe sense that my grandfather
was a farmer , that I'm fromthe countryside in , uh, in
Luxembourg. And so I , I, ofcourse know a lot of farmers
and, you know, have heard manystories about how they feel
about the regulations and thedirect payments , subsidy
schemes, and all of thosethings. Mm-Hmm. .
But outside of that, I'm notfrom that field. But what I,
what I , what I notice is thata lot of things get sort of
(02:39):
drowned in the complicatedlingo of EU policymaking. And
people tune it out veryquickly, even though it's such
an important topic. And I thinkwe're gonna get to that. As in
the last few, in the last fewyears, there's been a lot more
attention on agriculture and ,and justifiably so
Speaker 3 (02:57):
Give background what the Consumer Choice Center
does, because I , I think thisis key to this discussion
because you're experts in thisfield, in the European Union,
and I think it's great to havethis, this expertise , uh, in ,
in terms of what you do. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
At Consumer Choice Center, we take a different
approach to , uh, consumerissues in the sense that your
usual consumer group in Europeis very old and federated and
very entrenched in, in, in , inthe way they operate. Uh , I
don't wanna say old as a, as a, as a stigma, but the , you
know, but Dusty, let's say , inthe way they operate ,
(03:34):
and what we said Dusty , uh, acouple of years ago, was that
we want to , we want to bringan aspect to con to , to
consumer issues that is moreforward-looking, looking
towards innovation, lookingtowards the coolest new digital
, uh, consumer products , um,new ways of transportation and
mobility that, that, that helpconsumers improve their lives.
(03:55):
Because what we saw is that thetraditional consumer groups
were the ones attendinghearings in parliament, always
looking for the next thing toban with the expectation that
everything that is new mustthus be bad. So this , so this
technophobic , uh, type , uh,approach, and this is not what
we felt represented by. Um, so,you know, we, we essentially
(04:20):
organized our different issues,whether it's , uh, energy
policy, mobility, tetelecommunications , uh, fast
moving consumer goods, retailprices, all of these different
issues that consumers areaffected by every day . So
that's the approach we take. Wetalk to policy makers , we
media appearances, we speak atconferences, we meet
politicians, one-on-one, to tryand find a more innovation and
(04:45):
consumer choice based approachto , uh, to, to, to
regulations, smart regulations.
Um, so, so we take a more , uh,lenient approach, let's say, on
, um, whether everything shouldbe heavily regulated.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
So do you feel that consumer choices now have been
limited as a result of some ofthese policies and regulations
that are put in place?
Speaker 4 (05:09):
Yes, certainly. And I mean, all I have to do to see
that myself is go to a grocerystore in , uh, in Canada or in
the United States where theselection is much larger. I
mean, the most significantexample , uh, something on food
products is , uh, everythingderived from genetic
engineering. You can maybe getinto detail on sort of that,
that , that there might bechanges on that, on that issue
(05:31):
in the European Union comparedto other places in the world.
And that's not just NorthAmerica, it's also, if I travel
to Southeast Asia or East Asia,it's Europe prides itself on
high food quality. And I thinkin many cases we do achieve
that. But if you're looking forvariety, that's not really what
you get. And I think we findthat out now in Europe when,
(05:53):
you know , people are lookingfor products specific to , uh,
try and , like , if they havespecific allergies, if you're
looking for gluten-free mm-hmm, it's gotten a lot better, but
it's still not really where itshould be. Or whether, you
know, you have a migrationbackground and you , and you're
trying to find your localproducts. Europe can be a bit
complicated on that. Like, wedon't really have that. Culture
usually is like , you move tothis country, this is how
(06:13):
you're going to eat. Uh , wehave very clear views on how
you should eat. And it's likeif you move to Italy, you just
follow the Mediterranean diet.
So that diversity that you haveelsewhere, it's not really
existing. And, and often aregulatory, the regulatory
system has helped , has, has,has , has made that possible.
Sometimes, you know, on an EUlevel, we have regulation, but
then also sometimes individualmember states try to protect
(06:36):
their own products. So that'swhy beer will be expensive in
France. Uh, and in Germany,wine will be expensive because
the local governments try andmake rules and regulations that
protect their own industry. Sothat's, yeah . Very often
regulation, whether it's fiscalincentives or, or , or taxes ,
um, or, or , or food standards, uh, have , have really
(06:56):
reduced the amount of choicethat consumers have.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
The Canadian government still takes a very
science-based approach to a lotof the regulatory issues when
it comes to food. But it seemsin the European Union that's,
that's starting to sway. Ithink you've already indicated
it , it's been swaying maybefor a little while, but, but
why do you see thosedifferences in policy making
exists ? Like, what's the drivebehind those policy makers to
(07:22):
do that?
Speaker 4 (07:23):
How many hours do you have? I mean, ,
Speaker 3 (07:25):
,
Speaker 4 (07:26):
There's , there's several avenues. There's
several reasons why, why it isthe way it unfortunately is . I
mean, you have , um, when itcomes to food, you have a
certain anti-Americanism thatexists. Like the idea that,
especially in the UnitedStates, people, people just
don't know enough about food.
Their food is just in worsequality than, than we have. We
Europeans, we make the bestcoffee fair . That is true. We
(07:47):
make better coffee, but so, so, so , so there's some of that
happening , uh, where, youknow, it's like the , the idea
that we just know better. And Imean, you would still hear this
, uh, coming from, from theEuropean Commission in
Brussels, like, we have thehighest food standards, we
don't apologize for it, andwe're gonna keep having the
highest food standards in theworld. The idea that it's a
(08:07):
very Eurocentric view, we'vegotta Right . And all the
others just need to follow us,and they'll see , um, why
we're, right. So that's,that's, that's, it's a little
bit of arrogance that is, youknow, a dash of arrogance that
that goes in there, andanti-Americanism. But there's
also a big distrust on anythingthat is consolidated or of a
(08:28):
large size. I mean , is theaverage size in , uh, of , of a
farm in Europe is , Imean, considerably smaller than
it would be in Canada. Yeah .
Uh , or , or the United States.
And , um, you know, even retailchains, some of them can be
large, but even there,Europeans pre prefer to, to
shop locally in , in theirsmall shops. So there's a lot
of distress on anything thatwould be considered as like ,
(08:49):
this is term factory farm. Um,any, any farm that on the , the
average size in Canada, aEuropean would look at that and
say, that's a , that's afactory farm. Even though you
can easily say that a lot ofthe economic hardship
experienced by farmers inEurope is actually because of
this lack of, of consolidation,that , uh, maybe, maybe it
would make sense for some localfarmers to get together and,
(09:10):
and, you know, combine theirbusinesses or at least run
their as one entity to, tosimplify , uh, any , anything
from their resource input thatthey need to purchase together
or materials and so on. Uh , sothere's that going on. Um, you
know , uh, I , I mean, I'm not,I'm not sure how much we wanna
include this , but I think the, the worst North American
export , uh, green piece , um,is, is one of those
(09:31):
organizations that has had avery strong foothold in , uh,
in European policymaking. Andit says, I think it's over 60
full-time lobbyists in Brusselsfrom Greenpeace that do nothing
but meet parliamentarians allday and give them , uh,
brochures and informationtelling them that the
agriculture has , uh, thesignificant impact, negative
impact on the climateobjectives by the European
(09:52):
Union. Therefore, somethingneeds to be done. And all of
that culminated mm-hmm .
in policy makingthat essentially blames
European farming for all theproblems , um, uh, in , uh, in
, in the climate policy thatthe EU tries to pursue. There
are a lot of reasons , um, uh,there that go into it. Um, but
yeah, just wanted to, wanted toname some, but we can get into
(10:13):
it some more.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
You've already indicated there's a lot of
factors in there that are ,that are influencing
policymakers. And , and I don'tthink that's any different from
influence that you would see inthe lobby efforts in , in
Ottawa or Washington. But atthe end of the day, the
government still follows ascience-based approach like
that, that is kind of the coreof the existence of, say, the
food inspection agency here,the, the US Department of
(10:37):
Agriculture, that that's kindof at the core. If farmers
aren't limited on what they cangrow or , or the , the
productivity in terms of whatthey can grow, does that
actually pose a even a foodsecurity issue for the European
Union down the road as well?
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Uh, I mean, yeah. I mean, one part, one part is
technology, but one, one partis also the amount of land you
even , uh, allowed to use. Imean, it's like one, we can
talk about synthetic cropprotection and, and how that's
been fairly limited Mm-hmm .
in Europe. Butalso you have set the , the set
aside policies like how muchyou need to set aside from your
farm , uh, from of yourfarmland for biodiversity
(11:13):
users, which, you know, some ofthe policies wanted to , uh,
uh, uh, cut another 10% ofEuropean farmland. Um, and, and
now suddenly we talk more aboutfood security. And I think the
, the , I mean, the mostsignificant trigger in that was
the, was the war in Ukraine andthe shortage on fertilizers ,
uh, which had a significantimpact on how we talk about
food security. And also the ,where it comes from is we were
(11:35):
buying a lot , uh, of, ofproduce from, from Russia. And,
and now that's certainlydeclined. Um, we also still
buying a lot of, for instance,organic produce from, from
Turkey, but there's alsogeopolitical problems there. So
we are looking to to , to otherways to do it. And then there's
a lot of African tradepartners, but many of those ,
(11:56):
uh, many of those tradepartners are not able to comply
with , uh, EU food standards.
So that's another problem. Soin terms of our own production,
we've been sort of, we've beenletting, letting our
expectations down there. Anexample I like to give all the
time, which also relates tocrop protection. And so the
regulation there , um,neonicotinoids are , are banned
(12:18):
in , in the European Union in2020, the French , uh, uh, uh,
beetroot farmers werecomplaining and saying, we need
an exemption. Uh , 'cause weare about to go , uh, all
bankrupt. I mean, we have , uh,uh, we have a significant
amount of , uh, insects , uh,swarming us, and we don't
really have a good alternative.
There was sulfox , theor was analternative, and then that got
(12:38):
banned. Uh, so the , the , theregulators are very quick on ,
on banning, on banningchemicals. Um, and then, then
that , uh, that ban on neonicswas actually dropped for a , a
period of three years. And then, um, ssa , the European Food
Safety Authority was asked todo a reevaluation. And when,
when, when SSA doesn't concludethat something is , uh,
(12:59):
absolutely poisonous, then whathappens is that the European
Parliament investigates ssabecause then there must be
industry interference if SSAdoesn't find other things that
parliamentarians wanted. Soit's a , it's a mishmash of so
many things where essentiallythere's a lot of people who
don't want to admit that theymay have gotten it wrong. And
yeah . And that's, I mean,glyphosate is, I think, a good
(13:21):
example of where , um,everyone, all the European
scientific advice tells policymakers , this is a safe
product. The way it is usedright now. It's probably one of
the best products even in termsof herbicides being used right
now in Europe. But , um, thepolitical process doesn't want
(13:41):
to admit that. And then we havethese last minute changes where
one person has to raise theirhand in the European Council,
which represents the memberstates and say, no, let's,
let's, let's authorize it foranother five years. I think we
, we talk about sort of theAmerican political system as
being this breaking news , uh,drama and so on. We do the same
thing with these last minutesort of policy changes in a
(14:04):
very similar way , uh, with thesame dramatic fashion. Um, so
agriculture has increasinglybecome a victim of that. And,
and, and by result of that,consumers as well.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
Can you give an example, and, and again, just
to set some contexts for,because you have traveled all
over some examples of food thatyou would say , um, here in the
grocery stores, you have somany choices , um, for a
similar product, but in the EUyou have one or two, right?
Speaker 4 (14:34):
, um, well,
number one is I guess cereal
, but that is , I thinkthat's more really cereal.
Cereal. I mean, that's, maybethat's a , i I don't think
that's necessarily regulatory.
Well , there might be aregulatory reason for that. I'd
have to look up sort of on thesugar content if there, if
there's maybe a reason there.
Um, but I mean, that , that ,that's the first one that
springs to mind because I thinkthat's in , in , in movies
(14:55):
also, you see it so much. Likeif you , and , and if Americans
are visiting here for the firsttime and they go into a
supermarket , uh, they also say, oh , always not , uh, very
limited on choices. So when itcomes to, I mean, a lot of the
super foods are the ones thatreally , uh, I, I noticed in,
in , in different countries inNorth America where I, where
I'm like, okay, this is , thisis really cool.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
I know I, I , I ate the other day, and I don't know
how often they come in, butthey're, they're called cotton
candy grapes, and Oh, what'sthat? They literally take
cotton . They're, they'regrapes. They're literally
grapes, but they taste likecotton candy's
Speaker 4 (15:30):
Incredible. They're delicious
Speaker 3 (15:31):
Nutritionally, they , they're no different than any
other grape, but the taste is,is unbelievable. Like, I love
it, and every time I see it, Igotta buy it and kind of feel a
little bad eating them becausethey taste so sweet, but
they're , it's a grape. Right.
So ,
Speaker 4 (15:45):
And you would also also think that for a lot of
those innovations, it would, itwould seem so obvious if, if,
if it's essentially still, youknow, whether it's a food or a
vegetable, especially forchildren that are not getting
their, their intake. And I mean, uh, I mean, many of us, let's
say, are guilty of that, whichsuch a innovative approach to
it. And what is also very sadto see, for instance , on , on
(16:07):
the whole genetic engineeringfile is that in Europe we
develop a lot of the different, uh, types. I mean, whether
it's the , um, mm-hmm .
, uh, whetherit's, I mean , different
variations of gluten-freewheat, or nuts that don't cause
allergies to people who havenut allergies. I mean, this is,
I mean, this , these areuniversities in the Netherlands
that, that work on thesethings, but they, none of it
can be commercialized in theEuropean Union. Yeah . Uh ,
(16:28):
because we have legislationdating back to 2001, which
predates Crispr Cas nine to, tosay that, well, I mean, this is
, uh, Franken food and it'sevil, and it's , and it's awful
and we shouldn't have it, andit will undermine our food
system. Uh , all things that Imean , uh, are not just
unlikely. They're also , uh,proven wrong because they exist
(16:48):
in different jurisdictions inthe world. And also GMOs do
exist. For instance, where I amin right now in Portugal, BT
MAs is still grown . I mean,it's a variety. So old, they
still have to beg differentactors in, in , in the US to
still deliver it because it'ssuch an old variety. Um , yeah
. But they still grow it. And ,uh, mm-Hmm . So everyone in
(17:09):
Portugal who thinks thatthey've never eaten GMO most
likely have has , and ,and, and, you know, I mean,
Europeans visiting the US orCanada also are completely fine
eating at a diner or going to arestaurant. Yeah . They don't
even, they don't think about ittwice. So, so that's exactly,
and tho those varieties , um,and also I , I think even more
than the varieties is theprices. Mm-Hmm .
(17:32):
, Europeans pay a lot for food.
I mean, Mm-Hmm ., the pre covid numbers was
25%. Um, uh, for instance,Romania, I mean , it's worse .
25% of household consumerhousehold spending goes to,
goes to food. And, and that'ssignificant, that's even gotten
worse. Now. It's like thisidea, I mean, it's, you know,
Europe, it's, it's like amuseum where everything's very
(17:52):
expensive , um, in many, in many places. And the
people who live in that museumcan't really afford it. And
that's, that's, that'sunfortunate. I don't, that's
unfortunate . I don't want usto be remembered for, like, to
be known for that. We havebeautiful old bridges and, and,
and towers and beautiful thingsto see. But Europe also needs
to remember that the way we gotall those things was because we
(18:13):
used to be innovative andforward looking . And I think
we've kind of gotten stuck on ,
Speaker 3 (18:25):
So this brings us in the , the time in the podcast
for the fun farm fact. Did youknow, by allowing new plant
science innovations in thecountry of Canada, farmers have
been able to adopt conventionaland zero till practices. So
this innovation that, that wehave and we can use in Canada,
results in a reduced need forfuel. And it's estimated
(18:48):
between, or , or right around1.2 billion liters of fuel has
been reduced between the yearsof 1996 and 2018. So this was a
report released from a firmcalled the Regulatory Impacts
Alternative Strategies. Now,it's interesting because this
is one of those examples, and ,and I see it , um, I farm , uh,
(19:10):
we adopt new technologies everyyear, right? Like there's
something new that comes outevery year. But this is one of
those technologies thatactually has a huge impact on
benefiting the environment. Andit has to do with us having the
ability to use a non-selectiveherbicide like glyphosate
roundup, right? So if, if wedon't have access to that
(19:32):
product, all of a sudden wegotta till our land and, and it
costs more money to, to buyfuel. 'cause I'm burning more
fuel. But not only that, it'snot sinking that carbon back
into the soil to benefit theenvironment. So it's, it's a
weird mix with this policy,right? Bill where, where you're
, you're like, well, we aredoing what's good for the
environment, and you're tryingto actually ban that. And, and
(19:53):
it's, it's a tough one. Butanyways, your thoughts around
that.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Oh, I, I I
absolutely agree. And if I have
to, I mean , it's like theamount of times I've been in
offices of politicians where wewent through this, this just
blows my mind at this point.
Like how often, like I've ,I've gotten over this and also
the amount of places where Ispeak on a panel. And the
question will always be, well,if we have to decide between ,
(20:19):
um, making it moreenvironmentally sustainable and
making it cheaper forconsumers, which one do we have
to pick as if it was,it has to be one or the other.
And the most, the mostemblematic of that was when the
farm to fork strategy wasunveiled by the commission in
charge in European parliament.
He said, we have gotten used asEuropeans food being too cheap.
Speaker 3 (20:44):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (20:44):
And in order for it to be more sustainable, it will
have to increase in cost. And Ithink that is so telling
because this, because theydon't realize that there is,
that you can have it both ways,because we've already done
that. We've reached peakagricultural land use in the
early two thousands. I mean ,according to the, the available
(21:06):
data, and I think there werethree or four meta studies that
did look through this, we makemore food with less land. So
we've already achieved , uh,uh, higher productivity , um,
through best practices, throughmodern technology. And
essentially what we , what weshould be looking at is doing
more of the same in that senseof getting better at using
those resources. Becauseultimately, I , like no farmer
(21:29):
wants to use more diesel for,for tractors. It's like, it,
it, this is the , the , the ,the , the evil farmer with the
top head like , uh, and , and acigar laughing about how he
subjugated the world today.
It's like these kind of stereotypes and, and , and , and
misinformed ways in whichagriculture has been talked
about in the last few years hasreally come to haunt us through
(21:50):
regulation. Mm-Hmm.
, uh, often madeby people. I mean, they don't
really understand how it works.
I mean, you have a certain setof farmers that sit, for
instance, on the, on theEuropean Parliaments
Agriculture Committee. But thatnumber is actually , uh, being
reduced each year. Like peoplewho never had any experience in
the , in , in that whatsoeverwho make those rules. And I'm
not saying you can't talk aboutit if you don't have experience
(22:11):
in it . I've , I've never beena farmer , but I'm very careful
with, with new rules because Iwant to , I want to hear
firsthand from a farmer how itimpacts them. Yeah . And yes,
there's farmers who make verydifferent choices. Mm-Hmm .
, they , I mean,some farmers have production
methods that are, that arecompletely , uh, completely
different from others. Buthaving that variety of
availability available should ,should be there. And, and
(22:31):
no-till , um, and no-till is,is unfortunately one of those
things that is considered to bemore , more prevalent in Mm-Hmm
. in NorthAmerica than it is, and it is
in Europe. And, and , andthat's a drain on the
environment. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
Let's talk a little bit more about this. So if, if
you see, and , and we'realready starting to see some of
these proposed changes that ,that are coming, and some of
the changes have already beenmade in , in regulation
legislation in the EuropeanUnion, but this last probably
six to maybe 12 months, we'veseen farmers get up and say,
okay, enough is enough. Sofarmers are, are clearly upset
(23:08):
with this and , and some of theproposed policies coming to us
. So why, why should consumerscare about this?
Speaker 4 (23:15):
So it's, it's a lot of different sets of regulation
that come together. It allstarts with the environmental
ambitions that, that start withthe, with the Paris Climate
Accord in 2015. And then theEuropean Union made a
commitment of having a missionset at a certain level, and it
made it compulsory for allmember states of the EU to not
(23:36):
overstep that level. Now, forsome countries, that meant that
they were gonna have to payfines if they didn't bring
those emissions down. So all ,uh, uh, um, uh, global warming
driving emissions that would becounted in that, not just CO2
mm-Hmm , , butalso , uh, uh, nitrous oxide,
methane , uh, all of those gointo it. And so, for instance,
the Netherlands looked at theirbalance sheet and said, okay,
(23:57):
this is really difficult for usto achieve. Um, we could hold
all construction or close allthe airports, but those are not
really good viable options.
Right . But what we can do iswe could get rid of about a
third of our livestock farmers,but of course, how could you
possibly do that? So theNetherlands suggested this farm
buyback program where thegovernment was gonna reimburse
(24:20):
you for your, for your farm,and then you could, you end
your profession and you wouldhave enough , uh, resources to
either choose a differentprofession or be maybe , maybe
even retire early. But very fewfarmers , uh, took that deal.
Very few were interested. Andwhen one minister suggested
that because so few farmerswere interested in this deal,
(24:40):
it might be made compulsory.
That's when the , um, that'swhen the, the , the protest
started because essentiallywe're gonna take you farm away.
Mm-Hmm. literallytake you farm away. Um, and
that was, that felt verypersonal to a lot of people
whose , you know whom that is.
Family tradition. Yeah . It'slike, especially in Europe, I
mean, it's like , it can be anincredibly long ranging
(25:00):
tradition Mm-Hmm .
with the sameland for, for centuries that,
that, that your family's beenworking on. And, and imagining
that for a policy that thegovernment only found out about
four or five years ago that ,that it wants to implement it,
or now it feels serious aboutit because it feels that this
is a good way of gettingreelected, having that being
taken away from you, that isvery personal to a lot of
(25:22):
farmers. Uh, I mean , you haveGerman farmers that were upset
over the fact that, you know ,diesel prices were being
increased for, for tractors andtractor prices altogether.
Mm-Hmm . , uh,because the government, I mean,
the government said this was anemissions problem, but
ultimately they were lookingfor billions more euros to, to
plug a deficit hole in theirbudget. And they were , they
thought they could get awaywith this one. Uh, in , in , in
(25:45):
France, it was , uh, badlyorganized negotiations with
retail chains where thegovernment in the , um,
preparation for an electioncampaign said, okay,
inflation's too high, we gottabring it down. Went to the
retailers and said, okay,retailers bring the prices
down. And the retailers said,of course, government, we can
do that. We'll bring the pricesdown. And of course, nobody,
(26:05):
nobody, nobody thought aboutthe fact that, you know,
farmers were just gonna getless for their produce. Right .
Um, so, so it's, it's a lot ofdifferent policies that
essentially all narrowed downto EU policy being so
misinformed. It's an , anenvironmental agenda that while
very well intentioned , I, Ivery rarely want to prescribe
(26:26):
bad intentions to people verywell intentioned , but really
not informed. And we knew thisbecause the main policy farm to
fork, it didn't have an impactassessment by the European
Commission. European Commissiondidn't wanna tell us what ,
what was gonna happen if weimplement all of these
policies. But then USDA did,and USDA ran it through a model
(26:48):
and said, okay, this is what'sgonna happen. And it was gonna
bring production levels downseven to 12%, reduce most EU
countries, GDP reduce its tradecapacity , uh, make food more
expensive. I mean, all of thesethings were, were in the cards.
And that was very recklessbecause it didn't take
consumers into account. Itdidn't take the businesses
(27:10):
associated into account. Itdidn't take the farmers into
account.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
Do you have any numbers or have you done any
assessment to say that if, ifsome of these policies that are
kind of going through the , thesystem, if they get approved,
and the case in point, if , ifyou are mandated to have X
amount of acres as say, organicin a country, what would that
mean to the price of food forthe average consumer in the
(27:34):
European Union?
Speaker 4 (27:36):
That is a question I always dread getting asked
, because it's sodifficult to answer that.
Right. Because it is incrediblydifficult if you , essentially
the question narrows down towhat is the real price of food?
Mm-Hmm . , andthat's the whole conversation
we're having now over sort ofdirect payments and
(27:56):
subsidization, but also thecost of regulation. It makes it
impossible because it's,there's no scenario in which, I
mean, currently it's about 8%of the European , uh, uh,
agricultural production that isorganic, which is about double
that of the United States. Idon't know what the Canadian
level is. I would have to lookthat up. There , there were
plans to bring that to 25% by2035. That's a significant
(28:18):
goal. And they were only gonnabe able to do that by creating
a incentive structure,financial incentive structure
that was gonna make thatpossible. Right. Um, including,
and that's something theyalways talk about in all of
these webinars and panels theyhave, is public procurement
essentially, that everyone who,like every government
institution would have toengage only with those that
(28:39):
produce organic, that everyschool canteen would only buy
food that is organic in orderto boost those numbers and get
to those 25%, leaving anyonestranded who tries to sell
their produce and shift it toorganic in an anticipation of
that 25% level , uh, beingachieved, but not realizing
that 25% production doesn'tmean consumers end up buying
(29:00):
25% in the shop. And I mean,what are retailers gonna do if
, if , if they don't see thatdemand, then, then , then
what's the production for then? Uh , especially because most
of the time they come at heftypremiums, and that's very
expensive for consumers. Thatshift in production methods
means real cost for consumers.
Um, and , and if , you know ,farmers can't swallow all of
(29:22):
those costs, they'll eventuallyhave to be passed on to
consumers. Mm-Hmm .
. And with manyconsumers now finding themself
in a situation where there'sstill , um, in many sectors ,
uh, a lack of employment and,and , and high inflation in ,
in , in many different areas oflife, we just don't have the
money. Yeah . And, and I thinkthat's a big part of it, on top
of it being bad policy. Yeah .
It's also not even affordable.
(29:44):
And, and I know that many ofthose policies will now be
dropped on the baseline of it'snot a good time. You know,
there's a war we we're now in ,in , in economic difficulties,
and I mean, it's good that ,that some of these policies
will be dropped, but we arestill not at the recognition
(30:04):
that they were a bad ideascientifically and in the first
place, also environmentallythat they were a bad idea. They
we're dropping them now for thewrong reasons. Mm-Hmm.
. So there'sstill so much work left to do.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
So just one last question and on this is , so if
you could kind of give anyadvice or, or different
foresight to, to the consumerswho are listening from Canada,
what would you say, what wouldyou consider that they think
about to avoid having aEuropean kind of policy, food
(30:37):
policy take place?
Speaker 4 (30:39):
The reason this was able to happen is because as in
many other election campaignsor, or public debates with
policy makers , agriculturevery rarely comes up. I , I, I
listen to my fair share of, ofCBC podcasts and, and I , I
read the news from Canada, butI don't follow it as much as,
(30:59):
as, as I , you know, there'sonly, there's only 24 hours in
a day. I don't see it come upas much as it should. Questions
being asked of leaders, what isyour vision for the
agricultural , uh, sector? Howmany individual choices should
be made by farmers? How bigshould the toolbox of farmers
be? Do you stand behindevidence-based policymaking? I
(31:21):
understand that some of thesethings can be complicated, but
they ultimately go , uh, youknow , narrow it down to the
least complicated thing that weall need to do every day ,
which is eat. And and that'swhy we should care about this
quite significantly. And , um,and, and so if you, if if it's
an election campaign , uh, andyou have the ability of writing
in a question, make it aboutagriculture, ask about those
(31:43):
things like what, not, not justsort of what are the choices?
Like I , I , I get, but , andhow much can I afford in , in ,
of , of those food products?
But also like, what is your,what is your vision? What is
your, what's your, what's yourpolicy? And, and that, yes,
that is often talking topoliticians because politics is
a lot about trying to, to hearthe music. Where's what ,
(32:04):
what's direction, where arepeople going, what are people
interested in? That's what, youknow, successful politicians
will always do that. So it'ssteering them in that direction
of trying to think about theirviews in agriculture that helps
voters, consumers to get moretransparency and understand
better in what direction we'regoing. Because I think a lot of
Europeans have not sort ofwoken up and be like, wait,
(32:25):
what does that mean? Like, ouragriculture system is very
complicated. How is that? Is it, most people don't know how it
, you know, that there's ,there's so many rules. The
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Ability to farm here in Canada is, is pretty, you
know, there , it's governed byall these rules, rules and
legislations, but it's not sucha fine tooth comb on what you
can do. I can still choose whatI grow on my land. I can choose
the seeds, I can choose to haveanimal agriculture. I can
choose to be plant agriculture,right? Like all these things
that, you know, requireapproval from different, you
(32:54):
know , uh, municipal or, or ,uh, different governing bodies
that I just, I think wow. Uh,we are very fortunate , uh, to
grow food the way we do here inNorth America.
Speaker 4 (33:06):
You certainly are.
And it's one of those thingswhen it's a bit like we all
have that one drawer at homethat has one too many charging
cables, , and they'vegotten into a tangled mess that
it will take you an afternoonwith music and a lot of nerves,
nerves to untangle, andhopefully you won't need any of
them individually very soon.
(33:27):
And it's one of those thingswhere we've gotten, we , we've
gone this far on sort of the ,um, the , the , the regulatory
burden that it's really hardfor us to understand who is
responsible anymore and what weneed to untangle. So the most
important thing is if you rightnow have a system that you say
it's not perfect, but itdoesn't oppress us quite as
(33:48):
much as what we see over inEurope, then be wary of every
new rule and analyze it of isit necessary? Does it fit into
it? Is it contradictory withother rules we have? And what
does it mean? What would thismean for the farming system?
Ask for if a politician , uh,suggests a certain policy, what
will the impact be? Mm-Hmm .
(34:09):
Have, have there , has therebeen an impact assessment,
right? Uh , uh, can we see thatdata? It's like, we need to
have more due diligence on thisbecause we, in your past
legislation a bit willy-nillyjust by feelings, like 50%
pesticide reduction by 20 by2030. What does that number
come from? I don't know, justlook good in the press release.
(34:30):
A lot of these things are just,it's got gotten us into a lot
of trouble. And , um, yeah,just pay attention. I think
that's the message.
Speaker 3 (34:39):
I think that's a good place for us to end the
podcast today. And, and I, Iwanna say you , you've really
offered a lot of thoughtprovoking information for
what's happening in theEuropean Union right now and
kind of gives us some food forthought, no pun intended , um,
on what's, what could takeplace here in , in Canada. And,
and I think there's a , a lotof consumers here that are
(34:59):
listening to the podcast thatthat'll take this to heart and,
and , um, hopefully ask some ofthose questions and, and make
sure that our policies remainscience-based. So , uh, thank
you very much Bill for being onthe podcast, and I think we'll
, we'll definitely have youagain in the future.
Speaker 4 (35:14):
Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
I wanna thank you for taking the time to listen
to our Ask a Farmer podcast. Weat Canadian Food Focus value
the input from our listenersand ask that you share the
podcast with your friends andfamily . Remember, this is a
two-Way street, so we seek yourinput for future segments that
are of interest to you aboutfood and farming. To do this,
(35:47):
please click on the Ask us iconat the top of our website,
canadian food focus.org. Whileyou're there, feel free to
follow our numerous socialmedia links and sign up for our
newsletter. This segment wasproduced and edited by Angela
Larson, research and Writing byDorothy Long and Penny Eaton.
(36:07):
Music by Andy Elson . I'm yourhost Clinton Moncha , and from
all of us at Canadian FoodFocus , we wish you good health
and great Eats .
Speaker 2 (00:07):
From Canadian Food Focus. This is Ask a Farmer.
I'm your host Clinton Manuk . ASaskatchewan farmer. In this
podcast, we talk to foodexperts to answer your
questions about your food .
Speaker 3 (00:27):
Welcome to the podcast, everyone. Today what
we're gonna be talking about ishow food policy kind of affects
our food choices. So for themost part, Canada has kept a
very science-based approachwhen it comes to deciding on
regulations and legislations onhow food is grown in this
country. But there's a littlebit of a concern now. We're
(00:50):
seeing a trend that's happeningin the European Union right now
that looks to kind of havepolicy that's going, maybe
interfere a little bit withboth the demand and the supply
side of the equation. And it'sa little bit concerning. So the
question comes up is, will foodpolicy actually sway away from
science? So today we have withus Bill Wirtz , who's with the
(01:14):
Consumer Choice Center , andhe's gonna stu discuss a little
bit more on how these policychanges affect what your food
choices are, particular in the,in the European Union. So Bill,
how are you doing today?
Speaker 4 (01:27):
Very well. Thank you for having me.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Just give a little bit of a background and to ,
uh, how you got into theposition you're in.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Yes , uh, gladly.
It's , uh, it's, it's, it'sbeen a bit of a journey. My, my
background is actually in , inbroadcast journalism where, you
know, you have to work yourselfreally into a topic fairly
quickly. And , um, and, andI've been with Consumer Choice
Center now for a while, and itwas basically, we had all these
issues that were slowly comingup , uh, four or five years
(01:55):
ago, nutritional labeling,common agricultural policy
reform, all of these. But therewas nobody really on staff that
was really familiar with thosetopics. So I said, well, okay,
let me take on the challengeand see what I can, what I can
find out. Um, and so, so Iworked myself into this issue.
I don't have a scientificbackground in it whatsoever.
(02:17):
I'm from a farming family inthe sense that my grandfather
was a farmer , that I'm fromthe countryside in , uh, in
Luxembourg. And so I , I, ofcourse know a lot of farmers
and, you know, have heard manystories about how they feel
about the regulations and thedirect payments , subsidy
schemes, and all of thosethings. Mm-Hmm.
But outside of that, I'm notfrom that field. But what I,
what I , what I notice is thata lot of things get sort of
(02:39):
drowned in the complicatedlingo of EU policymaking. And
people tune it out veryquickly, even though it's such
an important topic. And I thinkwe're gonna get to that. As in
the last few, in the last fewyears, there's been a lot more
attention on agriculture and ,and justifiably so
Speaker 3 (02:57):
Give background what the Consumer Choice Center
does, because I , I think thisis key to this discussion
because you're experts in thisfield, in the European Union,
and I think it's great to havethis, this expertise , uh, in ,
in terms of what you do. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
At Consumer Choice Center, we take a different
approach to , uh, consumerissues in the sense that your
usual consumer group in Europeis very old and federated and
very entrenched in, in, in , inthe way they operate. Uh , I
don't wanna say old as a, as a, as a stigma, but the , you
know, but Dusty, let's say , inthe way they operate
(03:34):
and what we said Dusty , uh, acouple of years ago, was that
we want to , we want to bringan aspect to con to , to
consumer issues that is moreforward-looking, looking
towards innovation, lookingtowards the coolest new digital
, uh, consumer products , um,new ways of transportation and
mobility that, that, that helpconsumers improve their lives.
(03:55):
Because what we saw is that thetraditional consumer groups
were the ones attendinghearings in parliament, always
looking for the next thing toban with the expectation that
everything that is new mustthus be bad. So this , so this
technophobic , uh, type , uh,approach, and this is not what
we felt represented by. Um, so,you know, we, we essentially
(04:20):
organized our different issues,whether it's , uh, energy
policy, mobility, tetelecommunications , uh, fast
moving consumer goods, retailprices, all of these different
issues that consumers areaffected by every day . So
that's the approach we take. Wetalk to policy makers , we
media appearances, we speak atconferences, we meet
politicians, one-on-one, to tryand find a more innovation and
(04:45):
consumer choice based approachto , uh, to, to, to
regulations, smart regulations.
Um, so, so we take a more , uh,lenient approach, let's say, on
, um, whether everything shouldbe heavily regulated.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
So do you feel that consumer choices now have been
limited as a result of some ofthese policies and regulations
that are put in place?
Speaker 4 (05:09):
Yes, certainly. And I mean, all I have to do to see
that myself is go to a grocerystore in , uh, in Canada or in
the United States where theselection is much larger. I
mean, the most significantexample , uh, something on food
products is , uh, everythingderived from genetic
engineering. You can maybe getinto detail on sort of that,
that , that there might bechanges on that, on that issue
(05:31):
in the European Union comparedto other places in the world.
And that's not just NorthAmerica, it's also, if I travel
to Southeast Asia or East Asia,it's Europe prides itself on
high food quality. And I thinkin many cases we do achieve
that. But if you're looking forvariety, that's not really what
you get. And I think we findthat out now in Europe when,
(05:53):
you know , people are lookingfor products specific to , uh,
try and , like , if they havespecific allergies, if you're
looking for gluten-free mm-hmm, it's gotten a lot better, but
it's still not really where itshould be. Or whether, you
know, you have a migrationbackground and you , and you're
trying to find your localproducts. Europe can be a bit
complicated on that. Like, wedon't really have that. Culture
usually is like , you move tothis country, this is how
(06:13):
you're going to eat. Uh , wehave very clear views on how
you should eat. And it's likeif you move to Italy, you just
follow the Mediterranean diet.
So that diversity that you haveelsewhere, it's not really
existing. And, and often aregulatory, the regulatory
system has helped , has, has,has , has made that possible.
Sometimes, you know, on an EUlevel, we have regulation, but
then also sometimes individualmember states try to protect
(06:36):
their own products. So that'swhy beer will be expensive in
France. Uh, and in Germany,wine will be expensive because
the local governments try andmake rules and regulations that
protect their own industry. Sothat's, yeah . Very often
regulation, whether it's fiscalincentives or, or , or taxes ,
um, or, or , or food standards, uh, have , have really
(06:56):
reduced the amount of choicethat consumers have.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
The Canadian government still takes a very
science-based approach to a lotof the regulatory issues when
it comes to food. But it seemsin the European Union that's,
that's starting to sway. Ithink you've already indicated
it , it's been swaying maybefor a little while, but, but
why do you see thosedifferences in policy making
exists ? Like, what's the drivebehind those policy makers to
(07:22):
do that?
Speaker 4 (07:23):
How many hours do you have? I mean,
Speaker 3 (07:25):
Speaker 4 (07:26):
There's , there's several avenues. There's
several reasons why, why it isthe way it unfortunately is . I
mean, you have , um, when itcomes to food, you have a
certain anti-Americanism thatexists. Like the idea that,
especially in the UnitedStates, people, people just
don't know enough about food.
Their food is just in worsequality than, than we have. We
Europeans, we make the bestcoffee fair . That is true. We
(07:47):
make better coffee, but so, so, so , so there's some of that
happening , uh, where, youknow, it's like the , the idea
that we just know better. And Imean, you would still hear this
, uh, coming from, from theEuropean Commission in
Brussels, like, we have thehighest food standards, we
don't apologize for it, andwe're gonna keep having the
highest food standards in theworld. The idea that it's a
(08:07):
very Eurocentric view, we'vegotta Right . And all the
others just need to follow us,and they'll see , um, why
we're, right. So that's,that's, that's, it's a little
bit of arrogance that is, youknow, a dash of arrogance that
that goes in there, andanti-Americanism. But there's
also a big distrust on anythingthat is consolidated or of a
(08:28):
large size. I mean , is theaverage size in , uh, of , of a
farm in Europe is
it would be in Canada. Yeah .
Uh , or , or the United States.
And , um, you know, even retailchains, some of them can be
large, but even there,Europeans pre prefer to, to
shop locally in , in theirsmall shops. So there's a lot
of distress on anything thatwould be considered as like ,
(08:49):
this is term factory farm. Um,any, any farm that on the , the
average size in Canada, aEuropean would look at that and
say, that's a , that's afactory farm. Even though you
can easily say that a lot ofthe economic hardship
experienced by farmers inEurope is actually because of
this lack of, of consolidation,that , uh, maybe, maybe it
would make sense for some localfarmers to get together and,
(09:10):
and, you know, combine theirbusinesses or at least run
their as one entity to, tosimplify , uh, any , anything
from their resource input thatthey need to purchase together
or materials and so on. Uh , sothere's that going on. Um, you
know , uh, I , I mean, I'm not,I'm not sure how much we wanna
include this , but I think the, the worst North American
export , uh, green piece , um,is, is one of those
(09:31):
organizations that has had avery strong foothold in , uh,
in European policymaking. Andit says, I think it's over 60
full-time lobbyists in Brusselsfrom Greenpeace that do nothing
but meet parliamentarians allday and give them , uh,
brochures and informationtelling them that the
agriculture has , uh, thesignificant impact, negative
impact on the climateobjectives by the European
(09:52):
Union. Therefore, somethingneeds to be done. And all of
that culminated mm-hmm .
European farming for all theproblems , um, uh, in , uh, in
, in the climate policy thatthe EU tries to pursue. There
are a lot of reasons , um, uh,there that go into it. Um, but
yeah, just wanted to, wanted toname some, but we can get into
(10:13):
it some more.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
You've already indicated there's a lot of
factors in there that are ,that are influencing
policymakers. And , and I don'tthink that's any different from
influence that you would see inthe lobby efforts in , in
Ottawa or Washington. But atthe end of the day, the
government still follows ascience-based approach like
that, that is kind of the coreof the existence of, say, the
food inspection agency here,the, the US Department of
(10:37):
Agriculture, that that's kindof at the core. If farmers
aren't limited on what they cangrow or , or the , the
productivity in terms of whatthey can grow, does that
actually pose a even a foodsecurity issue for the European
Union down the road as well?
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Uh, I mean, yeah. I mean, one part, one part is
technology, but one, one partis also the amount of land you
even , uh, allowed to use. Imean, it's like one, we can
talk about synthetic cropprotection and, and how that's
been fairly limited Mm-hmm .
aside policies like how muchyou need to set aside from your
farm , uh, from of yourfarmland for biodiversity
(11:13):
users, which, you know, some ofthe policies wanted to , uh,
uh, uh, cut another 10% ofEuropean farmland. Um, and, and
now suddenly we talk more aboutfood security. And I think the
, the , I mean, the mostsignificant trigger in that was
the, was the war in Ukraine andthe shortage on fertilizers ,
uh, which had a significantimpact on how we talk about
food security. And also the ,where it comes from is we were
(11:35):
buying a lot , uh, of, ofproduce from, from Russia. And,
and now that's certainlydeclined. Um, we also still
buying a lot of, for instance,organic produce from, from
Turkey, but there's alsogeopolitical problems there. So
we are looking to to , to otherways to do it. And then there's
a lot of African tradepartners, but many of those ,
(11:56):
uh, many of those tradepartners are not able to comply
with , uh, EU food standards.
So that's another problem. Soin terms of our own production,
we've been sort of, we've beenletting, letting our
expectations down there. Anexample I like to give all the
time, which also relates tocrop protection. And so the
regulation there , um,neonicotinoids are , are banned
(12:18):
in , in the European Union in2020, the French , uh, uh, uh,
beetroot farmers werecomplaining and saying, we need
an exemption. Uh , 'cause weare about to go , uh, all
bankrupt. I mean, we have , uh,uh, we have a significant
amount of , uh, insects , uh,swarming us, and we don't
really have a good alternative.
There was sulfox , theor was analternative, and then that got
(12:38):
banned. Uh, so the , the , theregulators are very quick on ,
on banning, on banningchemicals. Um, and then, then
that , uh, that ban on neonicswas actually dropped for a , a
period of three years. And then, um, ssa , the European Food
Safety Authority was asked todo a reevaluation. And when,
when, when SSA doesn't concludethat something is , uh,
(12:59):
absolutely poisonous, then whathappens is that the European
Parliament investigates ssabecause then there must be
industry interference if SSAdoesn't find other things that
parliamentarians wanted. Soit's a , it's a mishmash of so
many things where essentiallythere's a lot of people who
don't want to admit that theymay have gotten it wrong. And
yeah . And that's, I mean,glyphosate is, I think, a good
(13:21):
example of where , um,everyone, all the European
scientific advice tells policymakers , this is a safe
product. The way it is usedright now. It's probably one of
the best products even in termsof herbicides being used right
now in Europe. But , um, thepolitical process doesn't want
(13:41):
to admit that. And then we havethese last minute changes where
one person has to raise theirhand in the European Council,
which represents the memberstates and say, no, let's,
let's, let's authorize it foranother five years. I think we
, we talk about sort of theAmerican political system as
being this breaking news , uh,drama and so on. We do the same
thing with these last minutesort of policy changes in a
(14:04):
very similar way , uh, with thesame dramatic fashion. Um, so
agriculture has increasinglybecome a victim of that. And,
and, and by result of that,consumers as well.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
Can you give an example, and, and again, just
to set some contexts for,because you have traveled all
over some examples of food thatyou would say , um, here in the
grocery stores, you have somany choices , um, for a
similar product, but in the EUyou have one or two, right?
Speaker 4 (14:34):
Cereal. I mean, that's, maybethat's a , i I don't think
that's necessarily regulatory.
Well , there might be aregulatory reason for that. I'd
have to look up sort of on thesugar content if there, if
there's maybe a reason there.
Um, but I mean, that , that ,that's the first one that
springs to mind because I thinkthat's in , in , in movies
(14:55):
also, you see it so much. Likeif you , and , and if Americans
are visiting here for the firsttime and they go into a
supermarket , uh, they also say, oh , always not , uh, very
limited on choices. So when itcomes to, I mean, a lot of the
super foods are the ones thatreally , uh, I, I noticed in,
in , in different countries inNorth America where I, where
I'm like, okay, this is , thisis really cool.
Speaker 3 (15:16):
I know I, I , I ate the other day, and I don't know
how often they come in, butthey're, they're called cotton
candy grapes, and Oh, what'sthat? They literally take
cotton . They're, they'regrapes. They're literally
grapes, but they taste likecotton candy's
Speaker 4 (15:30):
Incredible. They're delicious
Speaker 3 (15:31):
Nutritionally, they , they're no different than any
other grape, but the taste is,is unbelievable. Like, I love
it, and every time I see it, Igotta buy it and kind of feel a
little bad eating them becausethey taste so sweet, but
they're , it's a grape. Right.
So ,
Speaker 4 (15:45):
And you would also also think that for a lot of
those innovations, it would, itwould seem so obvious if, if,
if it's essentially still, youknow, whether it's a food or a
vegetable, especially forchildren that are not getting
their, their intake. And I mean, uh, I mean, many of us, let's
say, are guilty of that, whichsuch a innovative approach to
it. And what is also very sadto see, for instance , on , on
(16:07):
the whole genetic engineeringfile is that in Europe we
develop a lot of the different, uh, types. I mean, whether
it's the , um, mm-hmm .
variations of gluten-freewheat, or nuts that don't cause
allergies to people who havenut allergies. I mean, this is,
I mean, this , these areuniversities in the Netherlands
that, that work on thesethings, but they, none of it
can be commercialized in theEuropean Union. Yeah . Uh ,
(16:28):
because we have legislationdating back to 2001, which
predates Crispr Cas nine to, tosay that, well, I mean, this is
, uh, Franken food and it'sevil, and it's , and it's awful
and we shouldn't have it, andit will undermine our food
system. Uh , all things that Imean , uh, are not just
unlikely. They're also , uh,proven wrong because they exist
(16:48):
in different jurisdictions inthe world. And also GMOs do
exist. For instance, where I amin right now in Portugal, BT
MAs is still grown . I mean,it's a variety. So old, they
still have to beg differentactors in, in , in the US to
still deliver it because it'ssuch an old variety. Um , yeah
. But they still grow it. And ,uh, mm-Hmm . So everyone in
(17:09):
Portugal who thinks thatthey've never eaten GMO most
likely have
Europeans visiting the US orCanada also are completely fine
eating at a diner or going to arestaurant. Yeah . They don't
even, they don't think about ittwice. So, so that's exactly,
and tho those varieties , um,and also I , I think even more
than the varieties is theprices. Mm-Hmm .
(17:32):
, Europeans pay a lot for food.
I mean, Mm-Hmm .
25%. Um, uh, for instance,Romania, I mean , it's worse .
25% of household consumerhousehold spending goes to,
goes to food. And, and that'ssignificant, that's even gotten
worse. Now. It's like thisidea, I mean, it's, you know,
Europe, it's, it's like amuseum where everything's very
(17:52):
expensive
people who live in that museumcan't really afford it. And
that's, that's, that'sunfortunate. I don't, that's
unfortunate . I don't want usto be remembered for, like, to
be known for that. We havebeautiful old bridges and, and,
and towers and beautiful thingsto see. But Europe also needs
to remember that the way we gotall those things was because we
(18:13):
used to be innovative andforward looking . And I think
we've kind of gotten stuck on ,
Speaker 3 (18:25):
So this brings us in the , the time in the podcast
for the fun farm fact. Did youknow, by allowing new plant
science innovations in thecountry of Canada, farmers have
been able to adopt conventionaland zero till practices. So
this innovation that, that wehave and we can use in Canada,
results in a reduced need forfuel. And it's estimated
(18:48):
between, or , or right around1.2 billion liters of fuel has
been reduced between the yearsof 1996 and 2018. So this was a
report released from a firmcalled the Regulatory Impacts
Alternative Strategies. Now,it's interesting because this
is one of those examples, and ,and I see it , um, I farm , uh,
(19:10):
we adopt new technologies everyyear, right? Like there's
something new that comes outevery year. But this is one of
those technologies thatactually has a huge impact on
benefiting the environment. Andit has to do with us having the
ability to use a non-selectiveherbicide like glyphosate
roundup, right? So if, if wedon't have access to that
(19:32):
product, all of a sudden wegotta till our land and, and it
costs more money to, to buyfuel. 'cause I'm burning more
fuel. But not only that, it'snot sinking that carbon back
into the soil to benefit theenvironment. So it's, it's a
weird mix with this policy,right? Bill where, where you're
, you're like, well, we aredoing what's good for the
environment, and you're tryingto actually ban that. And, and
(19:53):
it's, it's a tough one. Butanyways, your thoughts around
that.
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Oh, I, I
to, I mean , it's like theamount of times I've been in
offices of politicians where wewent through this, this just
blows my mind at this point.
Like how often, like I've ,I've gotten over this and also
the amount of places where Ispeak on a panel. And the
question will always be, well,if we have to decide between ,
(20:19):
um, making it moreenvironmentally sustainable and
making it cheaper forconsumers, which one do we have
to pick
And the most, the mostemblematic of that was when the
farm to fork strategy wasunveiled by the commission in
charge in European parliament.
He said, we have gotten used asEuropeans food being too cheap.
Speaker 3 (20:44):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (20:44):
And in order for it to be more sustainable, it will
have to increase in cost. And Ithink that is so telling
because this, because theydon't realize that there is,
that you can have it both ways,because we've already done
that. We've reached peakagricultural land use in the
early two thousands. I mean ,according to the, the available
(21:06):
data, and I think there werethree or four meta studies that
did look through this, we makemore food with less land. So
we've already achieved , uh,uh, higher productivity , um,
through best practices, throughmodern technology. And
essentially what we , what weshould be looking at is doing
more of the same in that senseof getting better at using
those resources. Becauseultimately, I , like no farmer
(21:29):
wants to use more diesel for,for tractors. It's like, it,
it, this is the , the , the ,the , the evil farmer with the
top head like , uh, and , and acigar laughing about how he
subjugated the world today.
It's like these kind of stereotypes and, and , and , and
misinformed ways in whichagriculture has been talked
about in the last few years hasreally come to haunt us through
(21:50):
regulation. Mm-Hmm.
really understand how it works.
I mean, you have a certain setof farmers that sit, for
instance, on the, on theEuropean Parliaments
Agriculture Committee. But thatnumber is actually , uh, being
reduced each year. Like peoplewho never had any experience in
the , in , in that whatsoeverwho make those rules. And I'm
not saying you can't talk aboutit if you don't have experience
(22:11):
in it . I've , I've never beena farmer , but I'm very careful
with, with new rules because Iwant to , I want to hear
firsthand from a farmer how itimpacts them. Yeah . And yes,
there's farmers who make verydifferent choices. Mm-Hmm .
methods that are, that arecompletely , uh, completely
different from others. Buthaving that variety of
availability available should ,should be there. And, and
(22:31):
no-till , um, and no-till is,is unfortunately one of those
things that is considered to bemore , more prevalent in Mm-Hmm
.
in Europe. And, and , andthat's a drain on the
environment. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
Let's talk a little bit more about this. So if, if
you see, and , and we'realready starting to see some of
these proposed changes that ,that are coming, and some of
the changes have already beenmade in , in regulation
legislation in the EuropeanUnion, but this last probably
six to maybe 12 months, we'veseen farmers get up and say,
okay, enough is enough. Sofarmers are, are clearly upset
(23:08):
with this and , and some of theproposed policies coming to us
. So why, why should consumerscare about this?
Speaker 4 (23:15):
So it's, it's a lot of different sets of regulation
that come together. It allstarts with the environmental
ambitions that, that start withthe, with the Paris Climate
Accord in 2015. And then theEuropean Union made a
commitment of having a missionset at a certain level, and it
made it compulsory for allmember states of the EU to not
(23:36):
overstep that level. Now, forsome countries, that meant that
they were gonna have to payfines if they didn't bring
those emissions down. So all ,uh, uh, um, uh, global warming
driving emissions that would becounted in that, not just CO2
mm-Hmm ,
methane , uh, all of those gointo it. And so, for instance,
the Netherlands looked at theirbalance sheet and said, okay,
(23:57):
this is really difficult for usto achieve. Um, we could hold
all construction or close allthe airports, but those are not
really good viable options.
Right . But what we can do iswe could get rid of about a
third of our livestock farmers,but of course, how could you
possibly do that? So theNetherlands suggested this farm
buyback program where thegovernment was gonna reimburse
(24:20):
you for your, for your farm,and then you could, you end
your profession and you wouldhave enough , uh, resources to
either choose a differentprofession or be maybe , maybe
even retire early. But very fewfarmers , uh, took that deal.
Very few were interested. Andwhen one minister suggested
that because so few farmerswere interested in this deal,
(24:40):
it might be made compulsory.
That's when the , um, that'swhen the, the , the protest
started because essentiallywe're gonna take you farm away.
Mm-Hmm.
that was, that felt verypersonal to a lot of people
whose , you know whom that is.
Family tradition. Yeah . It'slike, especially in Europe, I
mean, it's like , it can be anincredibly long ranging
(25:00):
tradition Mm-Hmm .
that, that your family's beenworking on. And, and imagining
that for a policy that thegovernment only found out about
four or five years ago that ,that it wants to implement it,
or now it feels serious aboutit because it feels that this
is a good way of gettingreelected, having that being
taken away from you, that isvery personal to a lot of
(25:22):
farmers. Uh, I mean , you haveGerman farmers that were upset
over the fact that, you know ,diesel prices were being
increased for, for tractors andtractor prices altogether.
Mm-Hmm .
the government said this was anemissions problem, but
ultimately they were lookingfor billions more euros to, to
plug a deficit hole in theirbudget. And they were , they
thought they could get awaywith this one. Uh, in , in , in
(25:45):
France, it was , uh, badlyorganized negotiations with
retail chains where thegovernment in the , um,
preparation for an electioncampaign said, okay,
inflation's too high, we gottabring it down. Went to the
retailers and said, okay,retailers bring the prices
down. And the retailers said,of course, government, we can
do that. We'll bring the pricesdown. And of course, nobody,
(26:05):
nobody, nobody thought aboutthe fact that, you know,
farmers were just gonna getless for their produce. Right .
Um, so, so it's, it's a lot ofdifferent policies that
essentially all narrowed downto EU policy being so
misinformed. It's an , anenvironmental agenda that while
very well intentioned , I, Ivery rarely want to prescribe
(26:26):
bad intentions to people verywell intentioned , but really
not informed. And we knew thisbecause the main policy farm to
fork, it didn't have an impactassessment by the European
Commission. European Commissiondidn't wanna tell us what ,
what was gonna happen if weimplement all of these
policies. But then USDA did,and USDA ran it through a model
(26:48):
and said, okay, this is what'sgonna happen. And it was gonna
bring production levels downseven to 12%, reduce most EU
countries, GDP reduce its tradecapacity , uh, make food more
expensive. I mean, all of thesethings were, were in the cards.
And that was very recklessbecause it didn't take
consumers into account. Itdidn't take the businesses
(27:10):
associated into account. Itdidn't take the farmers into
account.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
Do you have any numbers or have you done any
assessment to say that if, ifsome of these policies that are
kind of going through the , thesystem, if they get approved,
and the case in point, if , ifyou are mandated to have X
amount of acres as say, organicin a country, what would that
mean to the price of food forthe average consumer in the
(27:34):
European Union?
Speaker 4 (27:36):
That is a question I always dread getting asked
Right. Because it is incrediblydifficult if you , essentially
the question narrows down towhat is the real price of food?
Mm-Hmm .
we're having now over sort ofdirect payments and
(27:56):
subsidization, but also thecost of regulation. It makes it
impossible because it's,there's no scenario in which, I
mean, currently it's about 8%of the European , uh, uh,
agricultural production that isorganic, which is about double
that of the United States. Idon't know what the Canadian
level is. I would have to lookthat up. There , there were
plans to bring that to 25% by2035. That's a significant
(28:18):
goal. And they were only gonnabe able to do that by creating
a incentive structure,financial incentive structure
that was gonna make thatpossible. Right. Um, including,
and that's something theyalways talk about in all of
these webinars and panels theyhave, is public procurement
essentially, that everyone who,like every government
institution would have toengage only with those that
(28:39):
produce organic, that everyschool canteen would only buy
food that is organic in orderto boost those numbers and get
to those 25%, leaving anyonestranded who tries to sell
their produce and shift it toorganic in an anticipation of
that 25% level , uh, beingachieved, but not realizing
that 25% production doesn'tmean consumers end up buying
(29:00):
25% in the shop. And I mean,what are retailers gonna do if
, if , if they don't see thatdemand, then, then , then
what's the production for then? Uh , especially because most
of the time they come at heftypremiums, and that's very
expensive for consumers. Thatshift in production methods
means real cost for consumers.
Um, and , and if , you know ,farmers can't swallow all of
(29:22):
those costs, they'll eventuallyhave to be passed on to
consumers. Mm-Hmm .
in a situation where there'sstill , um, in many sectors ,
uh, a lack of employment and,and , and high inflation in ,
in , in many different areas oflife, we just don't have the
money. Yeah . And, and I thinkthat's a big part of it, on top
of it being bad policy. Yeah .
It's also not even affordable.
(29:44):
And, and I know that many ofthose policies will now be
dropped on the baseline of it'snot a good time. You know,
there's a war we we're now in ,in , in economic difficulties,
and I mean, it's good that ,that some of these policies
will be dropped, but we arestill not at the recognition
(30:04):
that they were a bad ideascientifically and in the first
place, also environmentallythat they were a bad idea. They
we're dropping them now for thewrong reasons. Mm-Hmm.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
So just one last question and on this is , so if
you could kind of give anyadvice or, or different
foresight to, to the consumerswho are listening from Canada,
what would you say, what wouldyou consider that they think
about to avoid having aEuropean kind of policy, food
(30:37):
policy take place?
Speaker 4 (30:39):
The reason this was able to happen is because as in
many other election campaignsor, or public debates with
policy makers , agriculturevery rarely comes up. I , I, I
listen to my fair share of, ofCBC podcasts and, and I , I
read the news from Canada, butI don't follow it as much as,
(30:59):
as, as I , you know, there'sonly, there's only 24 hours in
a day. I don't see it come upas much as it should. Questions
being asked of leaders, what isyour vision for the
agricultural , uh, sector? Howmany individual choices should
be made by farmers? How bigshould the toolbox of farmers
be? Do you stand behindevidence-based policymaking? I
(31:21):
understand that some of thesethings can be complicated, but
they ultimately go , uh, youknow , narrow it down to the
least complicated thing that weall need to do every day ,
which is eat. And and that'swhy we should care about this
quite significantly. And , um,and, and so if you, if if it's
an election campaign , uh, andyou have the ability of writing
in a question, make it aboutagriculture, ask about those
(31:43):
things like what, not, not justsort of what are the choices?
Like I , I , I get, but , andhow much can I afford in , in ,
of , of those food products?
But also like, what is your,what is your vision? What is
your, what's your, what's yourpolicy? And, and that, yes,
that is often talking topoliticians because politics is
a lot about trying to, to hearthe music. Where's what ,
(32:04):
what's direction, where arepeople going, what are people
interested in? That's what, youknow, successful politicians
will always do that. So it'ssteering them in that direction
of trying to think about theirviews in agriculture that helps
voters, consumers to get moretransparency and understand
better in what direction we'regoing. Because I think a lot of
Europeans have not sort ofwoken up and be like, wait,
(32:25):
what does that mean? Like, ouragriculture system is very
complicated. How is that? Is it, most people don't know how it
, you know, that there's ,there's so many rules. The
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Ability to farm here in Canada is, is pretty, you
know, there , it's governed byall these rules, rules and
legislations, but it's not sucha fine tooth comb on what you
can do. I can still choose whatI grow on my land. I can choose
the seeds, I can choose to haveanimal agriculture. I can
choose to be plant agriculture,right? Like all these things
that, you know, requireapproval from different, you
(32:54):
know , uh, municipal or, or ,uh, different governing bodies
that I just, I think wow. Uh,we are very fortunate , uh, to
grow food the way we do here inNorth America.
Speaker 4 (33:06):
You certainly are.
And it's one of those thingswhen it's a bit like we all
have that one drawer at homethat has one too many charging
cables,
it will take you an afternoonwith music and a lot of nerves,
nerves to untangle, andhopefully you won't need any of
them individually very soon.
(33:27):
And it's one of those thingswhere we've gotten, we , we've
gone this far on sort of the ,um, the , the , the regulatory
burden that it's really hardfor us to understand who is
responsible anymore and what weneed to untangle. So the most
important thing is if you rightnow have a system that you say
it's not perfect, but itdoesn't oppress us quite as
(33:48):
much as what we see over inEurope, then be wary of every
new rule and analyze it of isit necessary? Does it fit into
it? Is it contradictory withother rules we have? And what
does it mean? What would thismean for the farming system?
Ask for if a politician , uh,suggests a certain policy, what
will the impact be? Mm-Hmm .
(34:09):
Have, have there , has therebeen an impact assessment,
right? Uh , uh, can we see thatdata? It's like, we need to
have more due diligence on thisbecause we, in your past
legislation a bit willy-nillyjust by feelings, like 50%
pesticide reduction by 20 by2030. What does that number
come from? I don't know, justlook good in the press release.
(34:30):
A lot of these things are just,it's got gotten us into a lot
of trouble. And , um, yeah,just pay attention. I think
that's the message.
Speaker 3 (34:39):
I think that's a good place for us to end the
podcast today. And, and I, Iwanna say you , you've really
offered a lot of thoughtprovoking information for
what's happening in theEuropean Union right now and
kind of gives us some food forthought, no pun intended , um,
on what's, what could takeplace here in , in Canada. And,
and I think there's a , a lotof consumers here that are
(34:59):
listening to the podcast thatthat'll take this to heart and,
and , um, hopefully ask some ofthose questions and, and make
sure that our policies remainscience-based. So , uh, thank
you very much Bill for being onthe podcast, and I think we'll
, we'll definitely have youagain in the future.
Speaker 4 (35:14):
Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
I wanna thank you for taking the time to listen
to our Ask a Farmer podcast. Weat Canadian Food Focus value
the input from our listenersand ask that you share the
podcast with your friends andfamily . Remember, this is a
two-Way street, so we seek yourinput for future segments that
are of interest to you aboutfood and farming. To do this,
(35:47):
please click on the Ask us iconat the top of our website,
canadian food focus.org. Whileyou're there, feel free to
follow our numerous socialmedia links and sign up for our
newsletter. This segment wasproduced and edited by Angela
Larson, research and Writing byDorothy Long and Penny Eaton.
(36:07):
Music by Andy Elson . I'm yourhost Clinton Moncha , and from
all of us at Canadian FoodFocus , we wish you good health
and great Eats .
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!