Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the P.E.I. Health Coalition, we understand the relationship between food and health. We believe that the first strategic outcome of the Growing Forward agricultural policy framework should be to make the provision of healthy food for the country’s population the top priority.
A competitive and innovative sector, “from idea to invention to consumer, growing new opportunities that support innovation and competitiveness”, is exactly why a large percentage of Canada’s food is genetically engineered against the will of the people of Canada, the majority of whom reject genetically engineered foods and want compulsory labelling.
GE food was imposed on society without our knowledge and we are caught with it. Canada’s population is large enough to support a food system determined much more by healthy considerations than by GE profit and competition. How will this program also support organic farming?
We believe that priority number two should be the starting point, “A sector that contributes to society’s priorities: Enabling the sector to contribute to the priorities of increasingly health conscious and environmentally aware Canadians”. This can be achieved through a strong supply management system rather than an open-market system. There is no place for competition in a domestic food system that puts health and farmer well-being first.
While we support a dynamic, modern agricultural industry that reflects both Canada’s national achievements and the local character of the provinces and territories, we question who determines what such a sector will look like. Will it reflect the current industrial model of agriculture that is under corporate control, to the detriment of the community, or will it reflect a locally owned green agriculture that greatly reduces our carbon footprint? Will it concentrate on growing healthy food, or will it focus on non-food items such as biofuels, which are taking over large portions of agricultural land in Africa and here in Canada?
In other words, we need to be clear and transparent about what kind of agricultural future we are building locally and how we intervene globally. Is innovation based on profit or health? Why is there the strong emphasis on competition?
The first and overarching principle of the Saint Andrews Statement emphasizes a “profitable agriculture, agri-food and agri-products sector”. We believe there is too much emphasis on the market and trade agreements. We hear many farmers complain that they are efficient and it is the system that is inefficient.
We also note that farmer income, especially on small and medium size farms, the most important producers for our future, is not keeping pace with the increasing cost of food.
We notice that health is given the least emphasis of the aims outlined in Growing Forward 2. On the contrary, the plan needs to emphasize human health, soil health, protection of agricultural land, the health of the atmosphere, and assistance to increase organic farming. As for competitiveness of domestic markets, we believe that if we are to have competitively priced inputs farmers must be assisted in developing more of these on the farm, and they need to be green products.
We also submit that there are ethical questions surrounding the production and adoption of new products, processes, technologies, and business models developed domestically and abroad. There needs to be careful public scrutiny of these.
Trade agreements such as the Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement, and NAFTA, and now the proposed CETA, are not good models of trade. When Canada negotiates bilateral agreements, it needs to keep in mind that the ideal is fair trade, not trade for the advantage of the strongest and the corporations.
We strongly support a sustainable agricultural system based on holistic sustainability.
There is little mention in the paper of global warming nor an admission that agriculture is the biggest contributor to the problem, nor is there much mention of human health, of developing green agriculture, cutting down on waste, a greater role for consumers and farmers, and food as a human right.
In such a model, trade would not be at the top of the agenda, and we would not force our agenda and profit-making desires on the poorer countries of the world, making them vulnerable to dumping while placing barriers on their desire to trade.
However, Canada must be self sufficient in food and depend less on imports. A new food system could be a key driver of solutions to climate change. Since 1990, the area planted with soy, sugar cane, oil palm, maize, and rapeseed grew by 38%, while staple foods like rice and wheat declined.
There is a compelling case that the current global food system, propelled by an increasingly powerful transnational food industry, is responsible for around half of all human-produced greenhouse gas emissions. These range anywhere from a low of 44% to a high of 57%, according to GRAIN, an organization that was awarded the Alternative Nobel Prize this year.
Thank you.