While there is no evidence of dumping, the facts are largely irrelevant in this case. China will proceed with sanctions regardless of the explanations provided by the Canola Council of Canada or Canadian diplomatic channels. Much like in 2019, when Canada faced a similar impasse, we could see borders close again for Canadian agricultural exports.

In March 2019, after the arrest of Meng Wanzhou in the Huawei incident, China abruptly halted Canadian canola shipments, citing pest contamination as the official reason. The Canadian canola industry suffered estimated losses between $1.54-$2.35 billion in sales, with price declines persisting until August 2020 due to the suspended export licences.

Pork exports were also affected, but canola has always been a primary target for China in these diplomatic standoffs.

Canola holds a special place in Canada’s agricultural identity, and targeting it first is a calculated move by China. The crop was developed in Canada and, as the world’s largest exporter, Canada plays a pivotal role in both global food markets and biofuel production. Conversely, China is the largest oilseed importer, with half of Canada’s canola exports destined for its market.

By hitting canola, China sends a clear message: it can disrupt a key Canadian sector anytime political tensions escalate.

Prairie farmers are already feeling the impact. Canola prices immediately dropped nearly five per cent, and further declines could mirror the prolonged downturn of 2019.

Western Canadian farmers now face significant uncertainty, largely a result of Ottawa’s aggressive push to bolster the battery and electric vehicle sectors. The federal government has committed nearly $50 billion toward building battery factories, a bold gamble that led to the imposition of tariffs on Chinese EVs.

The official rationale, it seems, is to protect domestic manufacturers from an influx of cheaper green vehicles from China, even if that means limiting affordable options for Canadian consumers and straining relations with China. This approach prioritizes the development of Canadian-made EVs over the potential benefits of allowing lower-cost imports to help reduce carbon emissions.

This industrial strategy follows a familiar pattern: When a government decides that a product must be produced domestically, at all costs, it often results in less competition, higher prices and questionable product quality.

The dairy industry offers a prime example. Ottawa has funneled billions into the sector, supported by highly restrictive trade barriers. While this policy has propped up dairy farmers, it has done so at the expense of other agricultural sectors — wheat, canola, beef and pork — all of which could arguably benefit from the same level of government support.

In the end, the federal government will likely compensate canola farmers for their losses, as it has done before. Farmers are resilient, but Canada’s diplomatic standing, particularly with China, continues to erode.

The post Ottawa charging ahead: forget canola appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Recent data from Statistics Canada on the food retail and service industries, as well as fresh GDP figures, paint a concerning picture, especially for those looking to attract more food companies or grocers to our country.

Our population grew by more than three per cent last year, yet our GDP increased by less than one per cent. While other industrialized economies, such as France and Germany, are experiencing worse economic headwinds, Canada’s economy is highly integrated with the world’s most robust economy at present. Despite our proximity to this economic superpower, the benefits of our geography seem to have stalled.

The most alarming aspect of the January GDP numbers is that Canada’s hottest economic sector is currently the public service, while private investments have stalled, largely due to higher interest rates.

The gap in GDP per capita between Canada and the United States has widened by 106 per cent since 2015, and this trend shows no signs of reversing. In other words, despite our growing population, Canada is becoming poorer, not richer.

For those in the food business, this is certainly not good news. Statistics Canada’s reports on food and service sales confirm that consumers are dealing with less wealth while facing higher food and menu prices. As of January 2024, the average Canadian is spending $248 a month on food retail sales per capita, down from $258 in January 2023 and $282 in February 2017. These figures are all in real dollars, which makes the situation even worse. Based on Canada’s Food Price Report 2024, an individual’s monthly expenditure for a healthy diet should be $339. Again, the current average monthly spending is $248.

Until July 2021, Canadians were spending more on average than the desired budget to support a healthy diet. Since then, it has clearly been a challenge.

Canadians are either wasting less or finding alternative ways to source food outside conventional channels like grocery stores, such as dollar stores and non-traditional grocery discounters. Per capita food expenditures in our country have never been as low as they are now.

One might think that grocers are struggling with this situation, but they are readjusting their strategies and putting more pressure on suppliers with higher fees and lower prices. These are perfect conditions for a potential price war later this year, so don’t be surprised if it happens.

The data on food service provides a different perspective. On average, Canadians spent $169 at restaurants in January, which is about the same as last year and an increase from $149 in January 2018. However, these sums are in real dollars. The current retail/service split in Canada is that about 41 per cent of all money spent on food is at restaurants, compared to a split closer to 54 per cent in the United States, favouring food service. Considering the frugality of the market, it’s astonishing to see so much money being spent at restaurants, where you typically get less food for your money.

The days of uncertainty regarding the balance between working from home and working away from home are long gone. The food economy has, for all intents and purposes, normalized. Food inflation is causing Canadians to spend less at grocery stores, which may seem counterintuitive, but is what the data is telling us.

Currently, about 18 per cent of all retail dollars are devoted to food, compared to 21 per cent in 2017. Simply put, the cost of living is a problem for many Canadian households, and trading down is much easier with food. People may be “ordering in” more often to avoid tips and overpriced beverages, for example.

All of this is based on our trust in Statistics Canada, which may not be all that strong. However, Statistics Canada is merely an indicator, and Canadians have no other way to know what is really going on out there other than reading reports from the federal agency.

Regardless of how we interpret the data, the numbers are simply not encouraging. This is what happens when our population grows, but not our collective economic wealth.

– Sylvain Charlebois is professor of food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University and senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab.

The post Opinion: Food sales mirror Canada’s impoverishment appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

In a letter from the committee, Ottawa urges both retailers to voluntarily comply with the proposed grocer’s code of conduct or risk facing legislative action.

In other words, Canada is on the verge of adopting a government-coordinated, industry-led mandatory code — a development that heralds good news for Canadians, though many may not yet realize its significance.

Unprecedented unity among all political factions underscores the grocer’s code of conduct as a pivotal tool for stabilizing food prices over time. This code aims to furnish food companies with a safe harbour for dispute resolution through a designated secretariat, offering an alternative to the current norm in which companies have no recourse but to endure unfavourable conditions.

Its focus is not on dictating prices but on ensuring fair contractual practices for all entities involved, including startups, farmers and small family-owned food processors, thereby offering much-needed financial predictability to suppliers.

The industry, plagued by unilateral decisions and broken agreements by grocers, stands to gain from the equitable playing field this code promises.

The code’s introduction might seem paradoxical to staunch free-market advocates and conservatives who typically view government intervention with skepticism. Companies like Walmart and Loblaw, having achieved their market dominance through strategic decisions, are often celebrated for their success. However, the issue at hand transcends their accomplishments.

The food industry is distinct for two primary reasons. It operates on razor-thin margins across the entire supply chain, necessitating meticulous planning and coordination. Secondly, the power dynamics are skewed, with suppliers paying substantial fees to grocers for the privilege of doing business with them.

It doesn’t work that way in other sectors. This dynamic has given grocers significant gatekeeping power, influencing the market to their advantage.

This dominance has not only stifled competition but has also marginalized independent grocers, particularly affecting Canadians in smaller towns by limiting their access to nearby stores.

The upward trend in grocery fees, primarily driven by Loblaw and Walmart, exacerbates the challenges for suppliers and independent grocers alike.

It’s crucial to understand that the code’s goal is not to reduce prices — such expectations would be fanciful — but to mitigate price volatility, a pervasive issue that overshadows the more fundamental problem of food inflation.

While higher prices are concerning, it’s important to recognize food inflation as a normal economic phenomenon, essential for businesses to thrive and ensure the safety of food products.

Achieving a food inflation rate of 1.5 to 2.5 per cent is ideal. This is a range last seen in the summer of 2021 and is anticipated to return by year’s end, according to Canada’s Food Price Report forecast.

Price volatility, exacerbated by increased grocery fees and the manipulation of prices around blackout periods, remains a significant concern if the aim is to reduce price volatility. Although the code may not eliminate these practices, it is poised to reduce their impact on retail food prices significantly.

Moreover, the code promises greater transparency within the food chain. An annual report by the secretariat, detailing compliant companies and highlighting those failing to adhere, introduces an unprecedented level of accountability in Canada’s food industry.

While the grocer’s code of conduct may initially seem counterintuitive, its benefits for consumers, suppliers, and the overall market cannot be overstated. It represents a step toward a more equitable and stable food industry in Canada.

Sylvain Charlebois is professor of food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University and senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab.

– Sylvain Charlebois is professor of food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University and senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab.

The post Opinion: The emerging consensus on food prices appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Essentially, this bill seeks to bestow immunity upon supply management from any potential future trade negotiations, without offering increased market access to potential trade partners.

In simpler terms, it risks holding all other economic sectors hostage solely to safeguard the interests of a small, privileged group of farmers. This is far from an optimal scenario, and the implications of this bill are bad news for Canadians.

Supply management, which governs poultry, egg and dairy production in Canada, has traditionally enabled us to fulfil our domestic needs. Under this system, farmers are allocated government-sanctioned quotas to produce food for the nation, while high tariffs are imposed on imports of items such as chicken, butter, yogurt, cheese, milk and eggs.

This model has been in place for more than five decades, ostensibly to shield family farms from economic volatility.

Despite the implementation of supply management, Canada has witnessed a comparable decline in the number of farms as the United States, where a national supply management scheme does not exist. Supply management has failed to preserve much of anything beyond enriching select agricultural sectors.

For instance, dairy farmers now possess quotas valued at over $25 billion, while concurrently burdening dairy processors with the highest-priced industrial milk in the western world. Recent data indicates a significant surge in prices at the grocery store, with yogurt prices alone soaring by over 30 per cent since December 2023. This escalation is increasingly straining the budgets of many consumers.

It’s evident to those knowledgeable about the situation that the emergence of Bill C-282 is no surprise. Proponents of supply management exert considerable influence over politicians across party lines, compelling them to support this bill to safeguard the interests of less than one per cent of our economy, much to the ignorance of most Canadians.

In the last federal budget, the dairy industry alone received over $300 million in research funds, which arguably exceed its actual needs.

While Canada’s agricultural sector accounts for approximately seven per cent of our GDP, supply-managed industries represent a small fraction of that figure. Supply-managed farms represent about five per cent of all farms in Canada.

Forging trade agreements with key partners such as India, China and the United Kingdom is imperative not only for sectors like automotive, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, but for the vast majority of farms in livestock and grains to thrive and contribute to global welfare and prosperity.

It is essential to recognize that Canada has much more to offer than merely self-sufficiency in food production.

Over time, the marketing boards overseeing quotas for farmers have amassed significant power and have proven themselves politically aggressive. They vehemently oppose any challenges to the existing system, targeting politicians, academics and groups advocating for reform or abolition.

Despite occasional resistance from MPs and Senators, no major political party has dared to question the disproportionate protection afforded to one sector over others. Strengthening our supply-managed sectors necessitates embracing competition, which can only serve to enhance their resilience and competitiveness.

A recent example of the consequences of protectionism is the United Kingdom’s decision to walk away from trade negotiations with Canada due to disagreements over access to our dairy market. Not only do many Canadians appreciate the quality of British cheese, but increased competition in the dairy section would also drive prices down, a welcome relief given current economic challenges.

In the past decade, Canada has ratified trade agreements such as CUSMA, CETA and CPTPP, all of which entailed breaches in our supply management regime. Despite initial concerns from farmers, particularly regarding the impact on poultry, eggs and dairy, these sectors fared well. A dairy farm in Ontario recently sold for a staggering $21.5 million in Oxford County.

Claims of losses resulting from increased market access are often unfounded, as farmer boards simply adjust quotas when producers exit the industry.

In essence, Bill C-282 represents a misguided initiative driven by farmer boards capitalizing on the ignorance of urban residents and politicians regarding rural realities.

Embracing further protectionism will harm consumers who yearn for more competition at the grocery store. It will also impede the growth opportunities of various agricultural sectors striving to compete globally and stifle the expansion prospects of non-agricultural sectors that seek greater market access.

The post Bill C-282 is an awful idea appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

This significant sum is the largest verdict in the ongoing five-year litigation involving the weed killer. However, the legal battles are far from over. There are still more than 50,000 cases pending in the United States.

It’s important to note that out of more than 165,000 cases initially filed, over 110,000 were either dismissed or deemed unjustified by the courts. This situation underscores the complexity of the issue, and it’s unfair to solely blame the individuals pursuing legal action. The industry also bears responsibility for the glyphosate controversy.

Glyphosate, the primary component of Roundup, was patented by Monsanto in 1971 and introduced to the market in 1974. It is a widely used herbicide with broad-spectrum capabilities. Extensive use by farmers worldwide led to its widespread presence in the environment, including Canada. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a potential human carcinogen, placing it in Group 2A, the same category as red meat and very hot beverages above 65 C. This categorization ignited ongoing debates regarding glyphosate’s carcinogenic effects.

Recent studies, including a comprehensive one published in Environmental Research, shed new light on glyphosate’s environmental presence and its potential impact on human health. Consequently, the question of whether glyphosate is carcinogenic remains a subject of ongoing discussion. While numerous studies suggest strong associations between glyphosate and human diseases, as well as environmental harm, other meta-analyses suggest the risks are minimal.

Glyphosate has arguably been one of the most extensively studied chemicals globally, resulting in a plethora of research, primarily negative. Monsanto itself faced accusations of manipulating its research and results to influence governments and public opinion on the matter. The common thread among these studies is the call for more research to better understand the risks.

Nearly 50 years after Roundup’s introduction, more than 30 countries have banned glyphosate use. Various interest groups have effectively demonized glyphosate over the years, creating doubts about its safety.

After years of scientific evaluation, Health Canada claims glyphosate is safe, although many still advocate for its ban.

The latest review in suggests that epidemiological studies offer limited evidence to definitively establish glyphosate as a carcinogen. These findings align with IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen in Group 2A. Banning glyphosate would be akin to banning red meat or hot beverages above 65 C, which may seem overly dramatic.

The ongoing debate and fear surrounding glyphosate can be attributed to the biotech industry’s inadequate risk communication strategy over the years. Since 1974, the industry has primarily focused on selling to farmers and increasing agricultural yields.

Genetic engineering, reliant on herbicides like Roundup, has undoubtedly improved agricultural efficiency. However, it has also exacerbated the rural-urban divide, leaving many city dwellers without an understanding of genetic engineering. Interest groups opposing industrial agriculture have capitalized on this information gap.

Ultimately, Bayer AG, Monsanto, and other biotechnology companies have only themselves to blame for taking consumers for granted. Consumers have been served food without adequate transparency about what was happening in farmers’ fields.

Advocates who call for GM labelling are justified, as it would increase transparency in the agri-food sector and empower consumers to make informed choices.

With gene editing now permitted in Canada since last year, the industry mustn’t repeat the same mistakes. Ignoring consumers’ concerns could have financial consequences.

It’s essential to value consumers and address their questions and apprehensions to build trust in the industry and its products.

The post How industry neglect fueled a US$2.2 billion verdict appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

One particular individual, an economist seemingly more interested in grabbing headlines and camera attention to boost fundraising and personal interests, made bold claims about “record and excessive profits” in the grocery sector for 2023.

The term “excessive profits” has become a favourite slogan for those seeking to foster animosity toward businesses.

However, it’s crucial to note that his argument relied on Statistics Canada data, which encompasses convenience stores and specialty stores in its dataset, not solely the major grocers. The sensationalized $6 billion figure quickly circulated in the news, causing considerable harm.

The facts indicate that gross margins, a valuable metric for assessing whether a company overcharges for its goods, will remain at 3.4 per cent, consistent with the five-year average for Loblaw, Empire and Metro.

Regrettably, we shouldn’t expect an apology from this economist. He seems intent on misleading Canadians, insisting that profits should continue to rise due to inflation, all the while resorting to attention-grabbing headlines and fearmongering tactics. This was a reprehensible misuse of a platform to advance a political, anti-corporate agenda — utterly disappointing and disingenuous.

Loblaw also made some questionable claims during a visit to Ottawa concerning the potential impact of a grocer’s code of conduct. The company admitted on Dec. 23 that the Australian example cited by its CEO, Galen Weston, to justify the company’s refusal to sign the code of conduct, was inaccurate.

At that time, Weston expressed concerns to federal officials that the current code of conduct could potentially increase food prices by $1 billion, arguing that, in Australia, the third party responsible for enforcing the code favoured suppliers seeking higher prices, which would harm consumers. None of these claims held.

At least Loblaw eventually acknowledged its error, albeit on Dec. 23, when most of us were preoccupied with holiday preparations.

Leaving aside Loblaw’s failed attempt to obstruct the industry’s efforts to implement a more disciplined and fair code of conduct, Ottawa’s primary focus should be on fostering competition. Providing consumers with more choices and making the Canadian food market more attractive to external investors is essential.

The code of conduct should be a non-government, third-party-led mechanism enabling companies to resolve disputes related to contractual terms rather than pricing per se.

Currently, as grocers unilaterally raise listing and marketing fees imposed on suppliers, the manufacturers, in turn, increase prices to offset these higher fees set by grocers. This results in a cycle that ultimately impacts consumers, often without their awareness.

This is the only way food prices can become more stable over time. In countries like Ireland, Australia and the United Kingdom, where such a code exists, food price increases, adjusted for inflation between 2013 and 2023, have been negative, whereas Canada’s food price increase adjusted for inflation over a decade was 8.9 percent.

While a code of conduct may not entirely curb food inflation, it will help the industry coordinate vertically and address market turbulence, which is often triggered by factors like climate change and geopolitics, leading to price volatility and sticker shocks.

Ottawa should compel all parties, including those who oppose the code like Loblaw and Walmart, to adhere to the code of conduct. That should be the shared goal of all Canadians for 2024.

Sylvain Charlebois is professor of food policy and distribution at Dalhousie University, and senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab.

The post Loblaw’s gaffe and apology appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Politicians, and even some knowledgeable economists, have convinced many that Canadian grocers have taken advantage of the recent inflationary cycle to profit unfairly. Despite compelling data and many reports pointing to the contrary, many Canadians remain convinced of this narrative.

Jim Stanford, an economist known for commenting on food prices, is the most recent example of how Canadians seem to be embracing arguments against food companies without questioning their validity. Stanford recently claimed that net profits for grocers in 2023 would surpass $6 billion for the first time, a statement that gained significant attention and raised the ire of politicians and many Canadians.

The media largely accepted these claims as fact without delving into the source of the data.

It’s important to note that the figures provided came from Statistics Canada, rather than corporate financial statements, which arguably would be more reliable. Statistics Canada’s Table 33-10-0225-01, which was used for the $6 billion argument, can include convenience stores, specialty food stores and not just major grocers.

Net profits are not a suitable metric to consider unless the intention is to sensationalize the issue of profiteering. To assess whether a grocery chain is indeed profiteering, one can look at gross profit margins, calculated as revenues minus the cost of goods sold.

It’s worth mentioning that the gross profit margins for our major grocers have remained relatively stable over the past five years, based on data from their financial reports.

Now, let’s also examine profits, a topic that politicians often emphasize. The combined net profit for the three major Canadian grocery chains (Loblaw, Sobeys, and Metro) in the past 12 months amounted to $3.808 billion. It is highly unlikely that this figure will exceed $6 billion in the current year, as claimed earlier this week.

To reach such profits, these chains would need combined revenues totalling $110.6 billion over the past year. When considered as a percentage of total sales in the last 12 months, the combined profits represent only about 3.4 per cent, which is an incredibly modest return. Additionally, this figure includes non-food items like cosmetics and prescription drugs, which typically have higher profit margins.

In essence, though, there is nothing inherently wrong with profits, and in a functioning economy, companies should report increased profits annually due to inflation. Canadians should understand this. People’s salaries increase, the prices of goods and services rise, and naturally, net profits increase in dollar terms. This is why it is critical to analyze percentages over time for a more comprehensive assessment.

In 2023, emotions seemed to overshadow a proper understanding of the food business world and food supply chain economics among many Canadians. Blaming the food industry has been, and continues to be, a convenient diversion for politicians, diverting attention away from the real issues impacting inflation, such as public overspending and fiscal policies, among others.

However, grocers are not without blame. Beyond profiteering, the industry has some challenges to address. Regulatory compliance has been an issue, and the bread price-fixing scandal has certainly tarnished the industry’s reputation.

While it’s true that some level of greed exists in the food industry, as in any economic system, it can also be taken to an extreme.

Our grocery chains in Canada are well-managed, but it is also important to note that profit margins in other countries like the United Kingdom and the United States are about half of what they are here. While acknowledging that the evidence of profiteering in Canada is weak at best, there is a need for more competition in the market.

François-Philippe Champagne, the federal minister of innovation who is on a mission to increase competition, has called upon other grocers abroad to invest in Canada. However, the challenge lies in making Canada an attractive destination for investment, which cannot be achieved without a mandatory code of conduct that levels the playing field between the major grocery chains, independent grocers, and suppliers alike.

Right now, players like Loblaw and Walmart have way too much influence and are dictating supply chain rules, a dimension consumers don’t necessarily see. It’s been like that for a while now.

With a well-defined mandatory code of conduct, Canadians may have to wait a considerable amount of time before witnessing the entry of new grocery players into the Canadian market.

– Sylvain Charlebois is professor of food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University and senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab.

The post Opinion: Sticker shock on grocery profits hides truth appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Sadly, that’s exactly what transpired in our country this year, and it was both absurd and embarrassing. The government and Parliament relentlessly hounded grocers, drowning out the opportunity for Canadians to truly comprehend the intricacies of food inflation amid the cacophony of political theatrics.

The recent “greedflation” campaign, while amusing, highlights a collective amnesia regarding why companies exist and the power of market forces. The sustainability of the grocery business in Canada hinges on profits and a profound understanding of market dynamics.

In 2023, grocers made three visits to Ottawa. On March 8, they appeared in Parliament, followed by a meeting with Minister Francois-Phillippe Champagne on Sept. 18, and a final appearance in Parliament in November.

Regrettably, these visits yielded little more than media photo ops that pleased industry critics. And it’s not over. More visits are coming.

The notion of compelling competitors to divulge sensitive pricing data is baffling. Such an approach contradicts the very essence of a competitive marketplace. It’s akin to gathering all NHL hockey teams in a room to share their winning strategies or, worse yet, asking teams to tie every game and assign goal quotas to players like Connor McDavid. It’s simply senseless.

Many politicians this year have demonstrated a limited grasp of the fundamental principles governing competitive markets. In a genuinely competitive market, centralized coordination among market participants is non-existent, period.

Ottawa’s inclination toward direct market intervention runs counter to the principles necessary for encouraging increased investment and enhancing market competitiveness.

While the bread price-fixing episode was undoubtedly wrong and disgraceful, there’s a genuine concern that the government’s actions may inadvertently foster re-emergence of similar schemes. Ottawa seems to be drifting closer to a government-coordinated effort that leaves many, including analysts and some backbenchers, deeply uncomfortable.

Let’s hope that 2024 ushers in more reason and tranquillity for both the industry and the government, though the polls will ultimately decide.

As much as we acknowledge that grocers deserve scrutiny like any other sector, 2023 was a nadir in our history. Consumer trust is at an all-time low, not necessarily due to the industry itself but because it has been weaponized for political gain.

Despite this, we should be grateful to our grocers for their unwavering commitment to feeding Canadians and providing one of the most affordable and safest food baskets globally, even if some politicians have conveniently forgotten or chosen to ignore this fact.

Amid this turbulent year, it’s crucial to remember that the grocery industry plays an indispensable role in every Canadian’s daily life. These businesses have continuously adapted to challenges, ensuring that store shelves remain stocked, offering a lifeline of sustenance during uncertain times.

As 2024 approaches, let’s hope for a more collaborative and understanding relationship between the industry and the government, one that empowers the market and prioritizes the well-being of Canadian consumers.

It’s time to move beyond theatrics and focus on practical solutions that benefit everyone.

– Sylvain Charlebois is professor of food policy and distribution at Dalhousie University, and senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab.

The post Opinion: Let’s give the grocery theatrics a rest in 2024 appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Unlike previous strains, H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza has spread across the country, raising fears that it could become endemic in wild birds, no less. A nightmare.

This year alone, avian flu has infected approximately 200 farms with more than 3.6 million birds across Canada. That’s a lot of inventory that never reached the consumer market.

Retail prices have been heavily impacted by the flu for months.

In the United States, for example, eggs prices are up by more than 40 per cent since last year, a record. In Canada, where supply management and the quota system typically stabilize the balance between supply and demand, the scenario is not much better. Eggs in Canada have increased by about 20 per cent in some regions, the largest annual increase in 50 years.

[RELATED] Manitoba Co-operator: Avian flu outbreak wipes out 50.54 million U.S. birds

For meat, it’s the same thing; for chicken and our holiday turkey, the price increase may startle some. Chicken is up 17 per cent on average in Canada. For turkey, the increase exceeds 20 per cent in certain regions, especially where avian flu affects many farms.

It’s a safe bet that your eggs, your chicken, and even your holiday turkey will be more expensive this holiday season. Moreover, if you plan to host a dinner with a turkey, it’s better to buy it now.

Avian flu has also reached other continents, including Europe and Asia. The current strain is highly pathogenic and can spread at an unmanageable rate. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency recently said it believes migratory birds are responsible for the spread of disease in Canada. If the flu is transmitted through wild birds, almost no poultry operation will be immune and risk management will be virtually impossible. And more city dwellers have backyard chickens now, which can only increase risks.

But unlike 20 years ago, coordination between the federal agency, provinces and the producers themselves is much better. Stakeholders learned from their past mistakes and got informed about this flu. Otherwise, the current outbreak would have been worse.

The 2004 carnage in British Columbia’s Fraser Valley is a good example.

A total of 42 commercial farms and 11 poultry houses were affected 18 years ago, prompting federal authorities to order the mass culling of around 17 million birds. It was a disaster.

This year, despite a more virulent strain, 275,700 birds have been infected with avian flu in the province so far. Not so bad, but still, that’s almost $20 million worth of chickens removed because of the flu.

[RELATED] Alberta bears brunt of avian influenza outbreak

The illness has been threatening the industry for months and the pressure for some growers has become unbearable. There is no remedy, no vaccine for birds, though researchers are now mobilizing to possibly develop a vaccine.

The risk of seeing this epizootic virus turn into a zoonosis, a human epidemic, is still real.

No human cases of avian influenza have been detected in Canada. There have been some elsewhere, but not in Canada. Let’s hope that doesn’t change. It should also be noted that avian flu poses no food safety risk to consumers.

To help, we can do our part.

In 2019, before there were border restrictions for poultry and eggs, about a quarter (24 per cent) of Canadians took a day trip by car to the United States, according to our data at the Lab.

Among this group, one in 10 (11 per cent) report bringing eggs or raw poultry to Canada. Huge. It is now illegal to bring poultry and eggs from the United States, do don’t be tempted to do this. These products represent a risk for our producers. Buy your turkey and eggs here, with peace of mind.

The post Opinion: Avian influenza is a threat that’s flying under the radar appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Despite substantial food price increases in recent years, these operations, which typically sell food at a higher price, have generated more than $700 million in revenues this year in Ontario alone, and plans to open more are in the works, with many markets now open year round.

Farmers’ markets in Quebec, B.C., the Prairies and the Maritimes are all seeing significant increases in sales. The future looks bright as their overall economic impact now exceeds $5 billion. Even with high price points, the so-called farmers’ market movement is making some inroads, including on university campuses, where many students have limited financial resources.

Such significant growth, however, also brings with it a set of challenges that needs to be addressed, if it is to be sustained.

The issue of food authenticity appears to be powering this growth. Ongoing recalls and the flood of food fraud-related stories seem to be compelling consumers to mitigate their risks when buying food — and who can blame them?

This doesn’t mean that there are fewer risks in buying products at farmers’ markets — but perception is king.

• From the Alberta Farmer Express: Out of step with the people who matter most

Transparency, or the lack thereof, is leveraging a wider climate of corporate distrust. As a result, many major food processors and distributors are frantically trying to appease troubled consumers by offering something new through acquisitions or product development. Price and convenience still have currency in grocery stores, but other decision drivers, such as environmental stewardship and the localization of foods, are emerging as key potential game changers for the food industry. As the network of farmers’ markets becomes increasingly organized and co-ordinated, millions of dollars across the country are spent to successfully attract dissatisfied and/or inquisitive consumers who are looking for something inimitably dissimilar to what they are accustomed to.

It has been argued for many years now that short-circuit distribution models in agriculture greatly reduce the Canadian rural-urban divide. As such, it allows for farmers’ markets to be “naturally” linked to produce, fruits, and a range of fresh farm products that consumers seek out, even if they are normally less affordable.

• Producers urged to tap into local food demand with ‘Explore Local’

Such markets tap into the lesser-known world of farming for urbanites. In essence, farmers’ markets are not just about generating economic growth for local economies; they are also, most importantly, about education. Getting consumers in close proximity to primary production increases the collective knowledge of food systems. As such, and hopefully, it may become less feasible for the political establishment and lobby groups to use distorted evidence to influence public opinion, and ultimately, agricultural policies. Beyond economics, farmers’ markets are essentially powerful engines of democracy.

• Local food movement continues to soar

But with success comes a variety of challenges. As the movement grows, the authentic nature of farmers’ markets needs to be preserved. We are already seeing the presence of kiosks selling products that are a questionable fit with the traditional fare of these markets. Both variety and limitations in terms of choices are also affecting the overall quality of offerings.

Obviously, greater regulation is undesirable — instead, improved managerial skills, discipline and leadership from those occupying administrative roles can make a significant difference. Business-minded folks at the helm can safeguard the future of farmers’ markets through innovation and allowing consumers to enjoy the full experience. As with many sectors, growth means greater competition, and the overall value of visiting a market should extend beyond the food itself. Such events as outdoor cooking lessons with reputable chefs for young and old, for example, would make the visit that much more valuable.

Ultimately, consumers are yearning for an agrarian connection they don’t necessarily find anywhere else, and are willing to pay more for it.

This is good news for farmers’ markets.

Enough consumers have arrived at the conclusion that what is offered by traditional food retail stores is no longer enough, or desired. As a result, farmers’ markets are increasingly filling that void.

The post Consumers are dissatisfied — and that’s why farmers’ markets are booming appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.