Getting squeezed

For this issue of Rural Delivery, we briefly discussed using a seasonal cover image that would represent not just simplicity-by-choice, but simplicity-by-necessity, to acknowledge the fact that many people at home and abroad are going through tough times. It probably would have come across as disrespectful, or too dark, or just maudlin. At this time of year especially, it’s hard to strike the right tone.

Someone recently pointed out to me that Christmas, as widely celebrated in these parts, is essentially a Victorian holiday. The customs and the overall aesthetics are largely drawn from 19th-century England (with significant contributions from German and Scandinavian culture). Along with the giving of gifts to people who don’t need more stuff, Christian charity is still part of the tradition – which means economic disparity is baked in, like the nutmeg that flavours your fruitcake. It just wouldn’t be a proper, old-fashioned Christmas without the poor. Blame Charles Dickens, I guess.

****

Many Canadian households have faced a financial squeeze over the past year, as inflation has risen to the highest levels we have seen in a generation. This is a global phenomenon, but there are various things our government can do to provide relief for those hit the hardest. Furthermore, all citizens have a right to ask who is benefiting from the crisis, and why our economic structures allow this. Canadian oil companies have pumped out record profits (which they have mostly spent on share buybacks and shareholder dividends). And our banks have been doing well too, with the top six on track to dole out a total of about $19 billion in bonuses this year, as they did in 2021. Rest assured, there is no shortage of wealth in this country.

It has been particularly irksome to see grocery companies fattening up this year, while consumers have been forced to skimp. The three biggest players – Loblaw, Empire (parent of Sobeys), and Metro (which operates only in Ontario and Quebec) – have all enjoyed profits surpassing their five-year average. This has occurred while increases in retail food prices have consistently exceeded the overall inflation rate. In September, grocery items were 11.4 percent more expensive than one year previously – the highest increase since 1981.

I generally take the view that unaffordable food is a problem of low incomes, not high prices. But the current situation has triggered accusations of profiteering or gouging in the highly consolidated grocery sector. In mid-October, amid this bad publicity, Loblaw honcho Galen Weston released a super-empathetic statement pledging to give consumers a break by freezing prices on all No Name brand products until Jan. 31, 2023. Metro responded by issuing its own statement, indicating that the seasonal price freeze is “an industry practice.” Sylvain Charlebois, a food economist at Dalhousie University, described this as a “hold my beer” put-down that went horribly wrong, since it was essentially an admission that the big players have been engaging in collusion.

Charlebois is certainly no anti-corporate crusader; he has pointed out that there are legitimate reasons for high prices, and that there are other links along the supply chain where greed may play a role. However, he says Canadians have good reason to feel suspicious of the big retailers, after the bread price-fixing scam that went on for 14 years (“with nobody fined or jailed.”) He has called for more transparency in how these companies report their financial results, and he has argued that Canada’s Competition Bureau, which is currently studying the grocery sector (accepting submissions until Dec. 16), needs greater powers to do its job.

****

It would be better if we could bypass the supermarket chains, but for many people, shopping at farmers’ markets is not a practical option – nor can all staples readily be purchased directly from primary producers. There is still much that can be done to build up supply channels for local food, and to empower consumers who want to go this route.

Each province has its own approach. A new buy-local program called “Nova Scotia Loyal” was introduced by the Tim Houston government in June, but opposition MLAs in the legislature have raised questions about what it is actually accomplishing. The program’s initial “prototyping phase” has been led by Halifax-based consulting firm Davis Pier. Apparently, they are doing consumer research and engagement, and maybe developing some kind of rewards system. It’s all pretty nebulous, at this point.

I first learned about the program when I stumbled upon a social media post that stated: “Nova Scotia is known for its blueberries, but corn is our leading field crop by area. 36,000 acres of land is used to grow corn in our province. Tell us your go-to way to prepare and eat local corn that makes you #NovaScotiaLoyal!”

As an effort at consumer engagement, this was a bit of a misfire, because most of those acres of nitrogen-hungry corn are not really food. About half is harvested as silage to feed cattle, and the remainder is grain that will primarily be used in livestock rations (though some may also end up as ethanol, or tortillas, or bourbon, or Mazola, or Pepsi). Sweet corn – the tasty kernels we eat as a vegetable – is an entirely different crop, and one that accounts for a far smaller acreage.

We need more food literacy among our citizenry, not the sentimentalized vision of agriculture that appears in children’s books. Too many consumers believe that “wild blueberries” are gathered from nature, and that Christmas trees grow in the forest. (I recently became aware of an apiary that labels its product as “wild honey.” That’s just sowing confusion.)

Sometimes the muddled messaging is entirely accidental. However, there are large players that want consumers to have less information, not more, about the food they eat. That’s why there was a kerfuffle this fall when it came to light that an important document circulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) contained metadata traced back to a computer belonging to Jennifer Hubert, executive director of plant biotechnology with CropLife Canada (a trade group representing the major agrochemical and biotech companies).

The document outlined the CFIA’s proposed approach to interpreting regulations governing gene-edited seeds. The National Farmers Union (NFU) – along with the Council of Canadians and several other groups – claimed the electronic evidence indicated improper collaboration between the CFIA and CropLife, potentially resulting in less scrutiny of new seed technologies.

“The proposed system would harm Canadian farmers who need to know what they are planting in order to manage their farms and maintain access to sensitive markets,” said Katie Ward, president of the NFU. “The proposed regulatory guidance would also weaken public trust in our food regulatory system by preventing independent scientific evaluation by government regulators before these products are sold, and allowing them to be released with no reporting to government or the public.”

The CFIA denies the document was drafted by CropLife, and claims the lobby group’s fingerprint was simply the result of working versions being exchanged and merged during consultations with various companies and organizations. Who’s to say? It is, at the very least, a case of sloppiness that casts doubt on the regulator’s competence.

If you’re interested in seeds, check out Zack Metcalfe’s article about Emmerdale Eden Farm on page 8, and Emily Leeson’s profile of Revival Seeds on page 24 (as well as our Seed and Plant Directory on page 40). There are lots of farmers doing great work – taking matters into their own hands, and helping their customers to understand why this matters. It’s a privilege to bring these kinds of stories to a curious and concerned readership.

As the year winds down, we hope you have found some inspiration and insight in the pages of Rural Delivery – and even some glimmers of optimism. Thanks for your support. We wish you peace, and goodwill to all. DL