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