Canadian innovation beats EU precaution in agriculture sustainability

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Stuart Smyth

Canada should learn from, not follow, the EU’s agriculture policy errors

The world needs a lot of food to feed eight billion hungry mouths. Even though global production for the most important crops – rice, wheat and maize – reached all-time highs last year, inflation, geopolitical interruptions and misguided policy have disrupted our ability to make food abundant and affordable for everyone.

Crop breeding, more efficient fertilizer and chemical use, and investments in farming equipment and technology offer tried and true strategies for increasing production while enhancing sustainability and reducing GHG emissions.

The European Union is rejecting these proven strategies through policies that dramatically reduce fertilizer and chemical use and ban modern crop breeding technologies. Regrettably, Canada’s federal government is looking at the European approach as a model for its emissions reduction plans. Canadians must reject the ideologically driven, counterproductive policies pursued in the European Union and must insist on science and outcome-driven policies to promote a strong, sustainable agricultural sector that can help satisfy the world’s growing needs.

Innovation is fundamental to modern societies and economies. Governments constantly encourage innovation and enact policies to incentivize investment into the research and development required to bring new products and processes to market. In recent years, environmental sustainability has been a primary concern and Canadian agriculture has been at the forefront of sustainable innovation. Fundamentally, sustainability in agriculture means maximizing efficiency: producing more pounds of crop per acre of land for each pound of input (seed, fertilizer, pesticides, labour) applied.

Prior to the widespread adoption of modern crop technologies, all crop and food production was done through what are now known as organic production practices. With organic production the only way to produce more food is to use more land. However, beginning in 1960, food production became decoupled from increased land use, increasing by 390% while using only 10% more land. Innovations in crop breeding technologies such as GM crops (genetically modified), fertilizer and chemical use, and farm industrialization have all contributed to this increasingly sustainable food production.

This increase in productivity has allowed the world’s population to flourish from just 3 billion people in 1960 to 8 billion today. Although the global agricultural sector is a significant source of greenhouse gases, total emissions have remained flat since 2000 even as production increased, and the sector’s share of global emissions has declined.

Despite this incredible success story, modern agriculture is often viewed with suspicion, particularly in the European Union. They have incorporated precaution-based regulations which dramatically reduce fertilizer and chemical use and ban modern crop breeding technologies. Presently they are proposing to triple organic production, from 8% of current land to 25%, by 2030, as part of what’s known as their “Farm to Fork” strategy to reduce agricultural GHG emissions.

Inevitably, the strategy will not necessarily reduce emissions but will certainly reduce production. Declines are expected: -26% in cereals, -27% in oilseeds, -10% for fruits and vegetables, -14% of beef and -9% of dairy. All of these production decreases will contribute to even higher food prices in the EU, which has been experiencing double digit inflation increases for most of the past year.

By contrast, Canada allows all plant breeding technologies to be used in the development of new varieties, and fertilizer and chemical use is based upon risk appropriate, science-based regulations. The benefits of this approach are unambiguous.

In Saskatchewan, only 3% of crop land requires tillage – mechanical turning of the soil to control for weeds and pests and prepare for seeding. In the European Union, 74% of crop land requires it. Removing tillage from land management practices not only reduces soil erosion and increases moisture conservation; it also reduces the amount of carbon released and increases the sequestration of carbon through continuous crop production. 90% of Saskatchewan farmers indicate that efficient weed control provided by the use of glyphosate increased sustainability in their practices, and 73% said production of herbicide tolerant canola, which is predominantly GM, did.

An assessment of EU agricultural GHG emissions concluded that had genetically modified crops been adopted there in a timely fashion, total EU agricultural GHG emissions would have been reduced by 7.5%. This amounts to 33 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. At any rate, their reduced yields have left them heavily dependent on imports of GM livestock feed from Brazil and Argentina.

Comparing sustainable agricultural production between the EU and Canada reveals two very different situations. The EU has rejected GM crops due to politics and precaution and as a result still heavily relies on tillage. Canadian farmers have enthusiastically adopted GM crops, virtually eliminating tillage. The EU is proposing additional precaution-based regulations that will further reduce crop and food production. Canadian farmers have demonstrated the ability to produce more food with fewer inputs, while the EU is poised to produce less, with more land requirements.

Opposing paths have been selected in the EU and Canada. The evidence to date confirms that it is Canadian agricultural production that is increasingly sustainable. The government must learn the right lessons from Europe’s mistakes when adopting strategies for reducing emissions from our agricultural sector. Canada should continue to improve sustainability through innovation. Canada should not follow Europe’s failed attempts to reduce emissions by producing less food.

Stuart J. Smyth is Professor & Agri-Food Innovation & Sustainability Enhancement Chair at the University of Saskatchewan.

Related Topics:#AgricultureSustainability #CanadianInnovationBeatsEUPrecaution #MacdonaldLaurierInstitute #StuartSmith

Up Next

Carbon Tax poll reveals what we already knew

Don't Miss

Enbridge to purchase three U.S. utilities for $14 billion in cash and debt

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta court upholds conviction of Pastor Artur Pawlowski for preaching at Freedom Convoy protest

Opinion / 16 hours ago

Trudeau and Singh Scheme to Delay Election, Secure Payouts on the Taxpayer’s Dime

Health / 17 hours ago

Canadian Health Organizations Unite to Demand Truth on Vaccine Safety

Agriculture

Sweeping ‘pandemic prevention’ bill would give Trudeau government ability to regulate meat production

Published on November 1, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Bill C-293, ‘An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness,’ gives sweeping powers to the federal government in the event of a crisis, including the ability to regulate meat production.

The Trudeau Liberals’ “pandemic prevention and preparedness” bill is set to become law despite concerns raised by Conservative senators that the sweeping powers it gives government, particularly over agriculture, have many concerned.

Bill C-293, or “An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness,” is soon to pass its second reading in the Senate, which all but guarantees it will become law. Last Tuesday in the Senate, Conservative senators’ calls for caution on the bill seemed to fall on deaf ears.

“Being from Saskatchewan I have heard from many farmers who are very concerned about this bill. Now we hear quite a short second reading speech that doesn’t really address some of those major concerns they have about the promotion of alternative proteins and about the phase-out, as Senator Plett was saying, of some of their very livelihoods,” said Conservative Senator Denise Batters during debate of the bill.

Batters asked one of the bill’s proponents, Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie, how they will “alleviate those concerns for them other than telling them that they can come to committee, perhaps — if the committee invites them — and have their say there so that they don’t have to worry about their livelihoods being threatened?”

In response, Mégie replied, “We have to invite the right witnesses and those who will speak about their industry, what they are doing and their concerns. Then we can find solutions with them, and we will do a thorough analysis of the issue. This was done intentionally, and I can provide all these details later. If I shared these details now, I would have to propose solutions myself and I do not have those solutions. I purposely did not present them.”

Bill C-293 was introduced to the House of Commons in the summer of 2022 by Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. The House later passed the bill in June of 2024 with support from the Liberals and NDP (New Democratic Party), with the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois opposing it.  

Bill C-293 would amend the Department of Health Act to allow the minister of health to appoint a “National pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator from among the officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada to coordinate the activities under the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act.” 

It would also, as reported by LifeSiteNews, allow the government to mandate industry help it in procuring products relevant to “pandemic preparedness, including vaccines, testing equipment and personal protective equipment, and the measures that the Minister of Industry intends to take to address any supply chain gaps identified.”

A close look at this bill shows that, if it becomes law, it would allow the government via officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada, after consulting the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and of Industry and provincial governments, to “regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture.” 

The bill has been blasted by the Alberta government, who warned that it could “mandate the consumption of vegetable proteins by Canadians” as well as allow the “the federal government to tell Canadians what they can eat.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Trudeau government has funded companies that produce food made from bugs. The World Economic Forum, a globalist group with links to the Trudeau government, has as part of its Great Reset agenda the promotion of “alternative” proteins such as insects to replace or minimize the consumption of beef, pork, and other meats that they say have high “carbon” footprints. 

Trudeau’s current environmental goals are in lockstep with the United Nations’ “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” and include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades, as well as curbing red meat and dairy consumption.

Agriculture

Time to End Supply Management

Published on October 30, 2024

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Génie

According to a 2021 report from the Montreal Economic Institute, Canadian families pay up to $600 more per year on dairy products alone due to supply management.

The New Democrats and the Liberals have pledged to tackle inflation, curb price gouging, and address child poverty. Leaders like Jagmeet Singh have railed against corporate greed while Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has introduced programs claiming to feed your children.

But despite these announcements, food affordability remains a serious problem in Canada. If our political leaders are truly committed to making nutritious food accessible for all Canadians, they must confront the largely ignored factor: Canada’s supply management system.

Supply Management Hurts Families

Supply management, which governs the production and pricing of dairy, eggs, and poultry in Canada, was designed to stabilize farmers’ incomes. However, it now acts as an unnecessary burden on consumers, artificially inflating the cost of essential food items. Farmers are given strict quotas on how much they can produce, and sky-high tariffs—often more than 200%—are imposed on imports.

This creates a closed market that keeps prices far higher than in a free-market system. According to a 2021 report from the Montreal Economic Institute, Canadian families pay up to $600 more per year on dairy products alone due to supply management. This is no small sum to households already feeling the pinch.

To put it in perspective, a litre of milk in Canada costs between $1.50-$2.50, compared to USD 1.00 (around $1.35 CAD) in the United States, where such market controls don’t exist. The cost of other staples, such as eggs and chicken, follows the same pattern, with Canadians paying significantly more than their American counterparts.

These artificially high prices disproportionately affect families struggling. As inflation continues to drive up the cost of housing, fuel, and other essentials, paying extra for basic food becomes the tipping point between having three meals a day or skipping meals to cover rent or bills.

The Conservative Opportunity: Free Markets and Family Values

The Conservative Party has historically championed free markets and policies promoting family well-being, but they also support the food cartels.

In a genuinely free market, prices are determined by supply and demand, leading to lower consumer costs and more production efficiency. Ending supply management would achieve both goals.

While Conservatives have long supported free markets, they have been reluctant to challenge supply management, largely due to political concerns in Quebec, where the system is popular among producers. Being pro-trade and supporting supply management are incongruous political positions.

However, with the Conservatives drawing closer to forming government, potentially without significant electoral support from Quebec, now is the time for a strategic shift. Shedding the protectionist policies would be a bold and forward-thinking move to distinguish the party as serious about free markets and family welfare.

It would also send a powerful message to voters across the country, particularly in regions where food insecurity is rising. Conservatives could frame the policy change as a direct effort to reduce food prices, ease the burden on low-income families, and protect Canadian consumers from the high costs supply management imposes.

The Ethical Case: Dumping Food While Canadians Go Hungry

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of supply management is the appalling waste it produces. To keep prices high, in 2023 alone, tens of millions of litres of milk were discarded—wasted food that could have gone to Canadians in need. This is an unconscionable practice in a country where nearly 2 million people rely on food banks to survive. How can wasting food while so many families struggle to afford basic groceries be justified?

This waste flies in the face of compassion and fairness, and contradicts the principles of a free market.

The Bloc Quebecois’ Game

Given that the significant dairy industry in Quebec benefits immensely from supply management, the Bloc Quebecois is seeking to leverage the weakness of the Trudeau minority in exchange for a Bloc bill, Bill C-282, that would shield supply management from future changes. The Bloc Québécois Bill C-282 wants to amend the Trade and Development Act. Reportedly, it has support from all parties in Parliament.

One of the key setbacks is the restriction supply management places on open market access. It hinders the ability to fully embrace free trade agreements. A primary objectives of Bill C-282 is to prevent the Canadian government from making concessions in international trade agreements that could undermine the supply management system. This is particularly relevant in trade negotiations where foreign countries often seek increased access to Canada’s agricultural markets.

Consequently, this limits the potential for growth in agricultural exports. Central Canada benefits the most from supply management, and although its trade reverberations hurt everyone, they seem to hurt Western producers the most.

A Call to Action for All Parties

For New Democrats and Liberals, the solution to supporting families and children through food affordability lies in targeting alleged corporate greed and expanding social programs. But if they are serious about addressing child poverty and food insecurity, they would confront supply management. Likewise, for Conservatives, ending supply management is a natural extension of their free-market impetus and commitment to family values.

The time for change is now. Regardless of party, all political leaders should recognize that dismantling supply management would be a direct, meaningful step toward making food more affordable for all Canadians, as well as maximizing agricultural chances to expand Canada’s exports. With the rising cost of living pushing more families into food insecurity, we cannot afford to let outdated policies continue to inflate prices, immorally perpetuate waste, and curtail chances for greater growth in Agrifoods.

Dismantling supply management would offer tangible relief to millions of Canadian consumers, particularly low-income families. All other parties should start by killing Bill C-282.

Marco Navarro-Génie is the Vice President of Research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy