The Rural Voice, 2005-10, Page 7Defending supply -
managed farmers
I read Mr. Stephen Thompson's
comments on supply -managed
farmers and his public policy issue.
The following points need to be
seriously considered.
• U.S. dairy products cost 20 per cent
to 30 per cent more than in Canada.
• The extra dollars U.S. consumers
pay for their dairy products stays in
the pockets of the processors,
wholesalers, retailers, etc.
• U.S. dairy farmers need government
subsidy payments to keep farming.
• U.S. subsidy payments paid to
farmers come out of the poor
peoples' pockets.
• Canadian supply -managed farmers
are only realizing a reasonable return,
it is the rest of production agriculture
that is not realizing net income but
experiencing a lack of net income
crisis.
• In the U.S. the poorest group of
consumers pay more for food than in
Canada and U.S. farmers are joining
the ranks of the poor needing
subsidies to survive.
To sum it up:
The public policy issue was
seriously explored and supply
management is the best option for the
poor. It is also the only system that is
capable of ensuring that the producer
retains his rightful share of the
consumer food dollar.
The rest of production agriculture
also needs its share of the food dollar
and it is not by destroying supply
management that this will be
accomplished.0
— Robert Perras
Hammond, ON
Reader can't remain
silent
I read the letter by Stephen
2 THE RURAL VOICE
Feedback
Thompson in the Feedback section of
the September issue of your
magazine. I am not a confrontational
person but in this case I could not
remain silent.
From his letter, 1 get the distinct
feeling of negativism towards the
supply management sector of
farming. He wrote that there are few,
if any, substitutes for milk, eggs, and
chicken. This is a totally misleading
statement. To the contrary, there are
many people with food allergies and
food intolerances who use many
substitutes for milk and eggs. And
there are a multitude of food protein
and vitamin sources other than
chicken.
As stated in the article about the
McIntosh family (40 Years of
Stability) in the August issue of The
Rural Voice, eggs in Canada. under
supply management, cost the
consumer less than in the USA which
has a free market system. When BSE
hit Canada, farmers received below -
cost of production prices for their
beef cattle, yet the price of beef cuts
in the grocery stores and markets did
not come down proportionately to
benefit the consumers. If supply
management was not in existence,
there is no guarantee that
the consumer would benefit from
lower prices of the products that are
now under supply management
policies.
Mr. Thompson wrote, "Why
should the poorest group of
consumers be disproportionately
supporting the richest group of
farmers?" This argument holds true
because it is an undeniable principle
of basic economics — should, at any
level of retail price, the poorest group
of consumers pay disproportionately
more of their disposable income than
rich consumers. Why then did Mr.
Thompson have to write a letter only
pointing this fact out using supply
management as an example? Was Mr.
Thompson looking for any excuse to
write a negative letter about supply
management? What was his motive?
Why not illustrate this economic
issue using dental costs, legal feels,
home heating fuel prices, gas prices,
or any other service or commodity to
make his point.
As a fellow farmer, I know many
other farmers in many sectors of
farming. The large majority of them
are honest, hardworking, dedicated,
and salt -of -the -earth kind of people.
They put in many, many hours
producing food for the rest of the
population. For the number of hours
they spend producing food, they are
not financially rewarded well enough.
There are not many professionals,
like farmers, who will invest so much
of their time and their livelihood for
the remuneration that farmers
receive. According to Stats Canada
2001, Ontario farmers make up only
1.6 per cent of the province's total
population. With so few farmers,
there are fewer people aware of the
demands on farmers and their
positive effect on the rest of the
population. There are nearly 60,000
farmers in Ontario and each farmer
produces enough food to feed 120
people a year. The Ontario agri-food
industry contributes more than $30
billion to the provincial economy
annually and employs more than
650,000 people. Farming is an
honourable profession.
Mr. Thompson, as a farmer you
must know how difficult farming can
be. Farmers always have to deal with
weather conditions, crop diseases,
personal safety concerns when
working with equipment and
livestock, livestock health, financial
record keeping, public and consumer
misconceptions, and the list goes on.
There are enough consumer groups
and other organizations painting
supply management and other sectors
of farming in a negative light. Why
do farmers also have to deal with
other farmers pointing out an
unfortunate basic economic principle
using a sector of the farming industry
as an example? Shame on you Mr.
Thompson.
1 guess what disturbs me the most
is that Mr. Thompson is a director of
the Huron County Federation of
Agriculture (HCFA). As a director,
he should 'be supporting and
promoting all sectors of farming and
working on their behalf. Once I read
his letter, I questioned whether he is
positive towards all farming sectors.
What was his motive for writing his