Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Thomas Olson. I am the chairman of the Bison Producers of Alberta. Perhaps I can give a little background to the BPA and its interest in food safety.
Bison producers in Alberta represent approximately 25% of the bison production in the world. We supply bison throughout Canada, the United States, and Europe.
Food safety is an important issue to us. A previous failure in Canadian food safety almost destroyed the bison industry in Canada and Alberta, through no fault of the bison producers. In 2003, BSE was discovered in a beef cow in Alberta. The borders immediately closed. Bison meat, which was mostly exported, was now unable to move across international borders and, unfortunately, because of rules in Canada, was not able to move across provincial borders either. A disease that bison does not get, from feeding practices that bison producers do not use, caused a financial meltdown in the bison industry from which it has not yet recovered.
This was a problem that we understand was due to irresponsible behaviour by CFIA in failing to prohibit feeding practices that could reasonably cause BSE. We understand that it was not a failure of science, but a failure of political and bureaucratic will--a failure to do what was right. Unfortunately, those who caused the problem did not bear the consequences of that problem.
What is the role of a primary producer in food safety? Bison ranchers expect to do their part. Clearly, food safety begins on the ranch, and ranching practices can affect not only the quality of the food but the safety of the food also.
Because bison were the keystone species on the prairies, they have a natural ability to deal with our climate and our rangeland. Bison are naturally healthy animals, with highly evolved immune systems that help them to deal with disease more effectively than domesticated and imported livestock species. Accordingly, bison producers avoid using chemicals that could have the effect or perceived effect of compromising food safety. Antibiotics are not common with bison producers. Many ranchers do not use them at all, and those who use them use them sparingly and with the advice of a veterinarian. Certainly, they are not part of the regular diet of bison.
Because bison are well adapted to native rangeland, there is less need for producers to rely on various pesticides, which have become perhaps all too standard in agriculture. We do not use growth stimulants, including hormones, in bison. We adhere to the philosophy that bison are healthiest and produce healthy food when they are not unnaturally crowded or subject to unnatural stressors.
The BPA would like to emphasize two objectives for food safety.
First, BPA believes that the protocols and enforcement of food safety must be effective; that is, they must achieve the desired results. It should be done with a scalpel, not with a meat clever. It must precisely deal with the potential food safety problems. Without effective food safety protocols, we cannot assure the consumers in Canada of the safety of their food, nor assure our trading partners of the safety of our food.
Secondly, food safety protocols must be reasonable and practical. In our rush to ensure food safety, we cannot substitute effective protocols with endless paperwork and other busy work; otherwise we will have either more expensive food or a food industry that is not competitive, or both.
The cost of food safety is a societal cost and should not be borne by the producer alone. There is a tempting trend amongst governments to offload the cost of food safety onto primary producers or perhaps others in the food chain. Food safety is a public issue and needs public funding. If all of the costs of food safety are borne by producers, the following consequence will arise: the cost of food will increase. To the extent that food safety causes increased food costs, it becomes a regressive tax. Certainly the costs of food safety should not be borne by those most vulnerable in our society, including children. This is a society cost and must be borne by society.
Primary producers and others in the food chain may become uncompetitive in Canada and abroad. This will mean a reduced food industry in Canada, less tax revenues and less employment. Certainly there is no need to hamstring the cashflows of the food industry with the costs that should truly be public costs. Food safety should be part of the Canadian infrastructure.
Already, over half the bison in Canada are exported live to the United States to be processed there. There are many reasons for this, but the main reason is that it is simply cheaper to process animals in the United States than it is in Canada. Adding more costs to the Canadian system will only cause it to sink under the weight of endless bureaucracy.
Processors and, indirectly, producers already pay for food safety features, including the cost of inspectors, rendering costs, and the costs of increasingly expensive testing. These costs are significant and make our industry less economic and our food more expensive.
Food safety protocols must be practical and reasonable. The BPA has had great frustration with CFIA and its political overlords, who have accepted some of CFIA's practices that might be summarized in some cases as straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
A costly example of CFIA's failure is its failure to provide for interprovincial meat sales from provincial processing plants that meet food safety requirements. We understand that CFIA does not dispute that most provincial plants in Alberta meet all reasonable food safety requirements, yet CFIA has not allowed interprovincial meat sales from Alberta plants. This exacerbated the problem that arose from BSE when Alberta producers, who produce a quarter of the bison in the world, had to consume most of that bison in Alberta because we could not get it across provincial borders.
The issue of the lack of bureaucratic will masquerading as food safety has been on our agenda for a long time. I met with the former Prime Minister and the former Minister of Agriculture and explained the problem to them. The former Prime Minister said, “So you're telling me that a bison slaughtered in Alberta and processed in Alberta is safe for an Albertan but not safe for an Ontarian.” When I replied “yes”, he turned to the Minister of Agriculture and said, “That's stupid. Fix it.” It's now several years later and it's not fixed. In fact, it's on the waiting list for surgery and may never get fixed.
I would like to say just as an afterthought that while this committee is looking at food safety, I cannot help but comment that it seems odd that we focus so narrowly on disease that comes from unsafe food but, at the same time, do not discuss disease that comes from unhealthy food. If we were to solve all of our food safety issues, we would still have a food supply that is often unhealthy. Never has so much “safe” food caused so much disease in the people of this nation.
Illnesses from unsafe food, while important, pale in comparison to illnesses that arise from unhealthy but safe food. We have a nation with a tremendous amount of obesity, heart disease, adult onset diabetes, and similar diseases. Bison is low in fat, high in protein, and high in micronutrients, yet schools are full of unhealthy food and snacks. There is little consumer education or awareness about the healthy Canadian food choices that are out there. When will the healthy food that we produce in this country get the support from government to compete with the unhealthy food that is far more lucrative and far more promoted in advertising?
In closing, I wish to reiterate that food safety protocols must be effective, practical, and reasonable. We hope this will start with the Government of Canada properly bearing its share of the costs of food safety and with CFIA providing for the interprovincial sale of meat from safe provincial processing facilities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.