Loading...
The Rural Voice, 1985-07, Page 72BRUCE COUNTY FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE 446 10th St. Hanover, Ontario N4N 1P9 519-364-3050 Imports: who wins? There has been much in the media recently regarding imports and, along with that, "free trade" with the United States. On the surface, the consumer probably feels that he or she is the winner because the imports are obviously coming into our coun- try at a price advantage to domestic production or they wouldn't occur. Likewise, when the consumer hears talk of "free trade" he or she pro- bably relates that to the removal of some unknown tariffs which have been making U.S. goods more expen- sive here than they need to be. In the short run, both of these assumptions may be correct. But is it better to save a little now so that you will have to pay a lot later? It is our contention (the BCFA's) that this charade is unfair not only to the Canadian consumer, but also to the Canadian producer whose livelihood depends largely on Canadian con- sumption. The biggest controversy in the agricultural industry, of course, is the Mail to: RURAL VOICE Box 37 10A The Square, Goderich, Ont. N7A 3Y5 ❑ New Subscription. Please send the Rural Voice for 1 year at $9.00. ❑ Renew my subscription for 1 year at $9.00. ❑ Please change by address. (At- tach old label.) 2 years at $17.00. Please enclose payment. Name Address Code L 70 THE RURAL VOICE imports of beef allowed from the EEC. Initially the cattlemen thought they had won their battle in govern- ment circles by getting a commitment for an import quota of just under six - million pounds, a significant drop from the near 50 -million pounds allowed in 1984. However, the ex- uberance of victory was soon quashed when trade meetings began with the EEC. Now we have to live with about 23 -million pounds of EEC beef. At a time when red meat consumption is declining on a per capita basis, the domestic producers certainly don't need a lot of outside competition to hurt their market further. And what if, for example, this foreign beef hap- pens to be of poorer quality than our own? What happens if a consumer buys a roast or hamburger with less taste than worn-out shoe leather and which is harder to chew? What does that do for red meat consumption? The consumer will naturally tend to switch to fish or poultry or spaghetti. Furthermore, why should our pro- ducer associations spend our hard- earned dollars to promote foreign products which may eventually be to our detriment? It is obvious that our federal government has no concern for agriculture. Much was made of the number of agriculturally oriented cronies in and around Prime Minister Mulroney's cabinet. Apparently, their cabinet salaries alleviated their farm difficulties and they have quick- ly forgotten about the rest of us who elected them to represent our con- cerns. So much for friends in high places! I recently learned of an interesting situation which may happen more often as the struggle to survive gets more fierce. A major supermarket chain advertised a special on New Zealand cheddar cheese. Apparently three of the stores in a particular area were pressured sufficiently by area farmers that they did not actively pro- mote the special but continued to pro- mote Ontario cheddar instead. Those farmers need to be commended for standing up to the opposition. It's never too late to fight for your share. No one in agriculture minds fair com- petition, but when these imports come in through subsidization by the exporting countries we cannot com- pete. If the local producer goes out of business, then the consumer becomes vulnerable to the foreign market and its instability and maybe lesser quali- ty. As for "free trade" with the U.S., it is becoming more apparent to those in agriculture that this terminology is meant to apply only in those instances when the U.S. will benefit. They don't want our pork, which is leaner and more desirable than theirs. And it seems any excuse at all to keep it out of the U.S. is fashionable. The latest one concerning chloramphenicol residues is quite interesting. Ap- parently chloramphenicol, under numerous trade names, is only licens- ed for use in non-food producing animals in the U.S. That means there are 30 pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. producing this drug for treatment of sick dogs and cats and other pets. The catch is that it is available in bottles up to 500 mL, a fairly significant size for a vet to open to treat one dog or cat. The statement has been made that maybe it is used for other purposes too. Here in Canada there is now a lobby to have it removed from use except by veterinarians so that some states can- not use this excuse as a reason for prohibiting the entry of our exports. It is bad enough that Mr. Wilson has proposed adding sales tax to our drug purchases, which have been exempt. Now some people want to remove our most economical drug treatment on the market. Until modern science developed a test 4,000 times more sensitive than was previously acceptable, no one knew the difference. And apart from the one in 50,000 who may be sen- sitive to chloramphenicol, maybe the rest of us have all been more healthy for it. Health and Welfare Canada has not been able to find any greater incidence of chloramphenicol sen- sitivity in the Canadian population than in the U.S. where it supposedly isn't available for use in food produc- ing animals. When all is said and done, who is the winner? From this viewpoint it isn't the consumer or the producer, just the importer who makes his com- mission on the transaction and looks for another deal when the current one expires. Grant Collins