The Rural Voice, 2000-02, Page 22SHOWDOWN IN THE FIELD
Unlike the showdown at the OK Corral, the issues are not
simple for farmers as they prepare to plant their 2000 crop
By Mervyn Erb
On that infamous day in
Tombstone in 1881 the issues
were fairly simple. When the
dust settled there were a number of
casualties, as there usually is with
gun play. Today's issues in
agriculture are a little more complex,
however there are a few similarities.
A bunch of opposite and diverse
personalities are all being shoved
into a tight spot together and there's
gonna be fireworks and a few
casualties.
In 1999 the issues grew faster than
the crops. Nutrient Management,
Intensive Farming, Megamergers,
Food Safety and Biotechnology were
the five common themes. No
segment of agriculture went
untouched. Biotech is an odds-on
favourite to be a top story for 2000 as
well.
Wrongly or rightly, agri-business
went with commodity
acceptable/commodity saleable traits
like Bt, Roundup Ready, Liberty
Link and IMI Tolerant (IMI tolerance
is not a GMO issue). Hindsight being
20/20, we would have all been better
off if genetically manipulated traits
would have first fixed problems like
fusarium head blight, Karnal bunt
and ergot in wheat, vomitoxin in
corn, iron levels in rice, and other
health and nutritional traits.
Corporate business, being what it is,
went for proprietary and patentable
North American suited ventures
18 THE RURAL VOICE
which would guarantee unlimited
shareholder investment, a
competitive edge, instant profits and
stock market success, but instead
resulted in trying to herd a whole
bunch of diverse people into a tight
corral. Had agri-business cured
human health related problems like
fusarium head blight/vomitoxin/
bunt/ergot/nutrition, there would
have been nothing but applause for
bio -engineering, but there would
have been one major problem. Who
would pay? These cereal grain
problems are mostly a problem in
third world and developing countries.
They haven't the money to pay for
developing technology. Just look
around at the telecommunications/e-
commerce industry. Technology is
developed in the "have" countries.
We supply the profits to the
businesses so they can take the
technology to the "have nots' of this
world. How else do you think
Roundup sold for $5 a Titre in Latin
and South America? How else do
you think e-commerce gets to third
world countries?
Talking about have-not countries,
it's becoming apparent that Canada
may soon be out of the ball game
unless our political attitude changes
and we develop some firm policies
regarding our own sovereignty. The
second biggest ag news item of 1999
was the $22.5 billion U.S. in direct
farm payments (U.S. ag report)
which resulted in the third-highest
U.S. net farm income on record!
Pretty hard to swallow when you're
on this side of the 49th. It certainly is
an insult to Canadians and Canadian
farmers. We are a pretty docile and
pretty passive group. We let these
things go on. If you take the lower
dollar, the acquisitions that are going
on, the mergers, the continual
governmental drives to over -regulate
everything, the economic problems
that are here, and do not protect our
sovereignty, then we are building a
serious Canadian
Demographics and low margins
continue to affect the rural
landscape. The rising cost of
land, the unabated rising cost of farm
equipment coupled with our low
dollar, and the adoption of new
technology which is not size neutral,
is speeding up the transition to larger
and larger farms. Part-time, semi-
retired and farmers without family
succession are selling their farm
businesses. The most common
reason, "It's not worth it". Recent
statistics indicate that three per cent
of farm producers produce over 50
per cent of agricultural commodity
value.
A big farmer versus the small
farmer culture is developing. Farm
organization decisions are driven by
one vote per member. Large growers
feel they are not supported when
their votes are out -numbered by part-