Download (PDF) - The Western Producer

10FEBRUARY 21, 2013 | WWW.PRODUCER.COM | THE WESTERN PRODUCERWPEDITORIALEditor: Joanne PaulsonPhone: 306-665-3537 | Fax: 306-934-2401E-Mail: joanne.paulson@producer.comOPINIONFOOD SAFETY | XL FOODS INVESTIGATIONXL review needs to explainthe why, when and whoSunshine is a good disinfectant. Itwouldn’t have been enough to stopE. coli contamination at the XLFoods meat plant last fall, but it might beenough to reveal how and why it happened.The federal government last weekannounced an independent review ofcircumstances surrounding the largestbeef recall in Canadian history.In September and October 2012, E.coli in some products from one of WesternCanada’s largest packing plantssickened 18 people and severely damagedconsumer confidence in foodsafety.Consumers and beef industry organizationsdemanded to know how thecontamination occurred, why so muchsuspect beef was distributed, why communicationwas so abysmal and whatrole the Canadian Food InspectionAgency and plant personnel played inthe matter.The government appears to have heardthose demands and has offered the furtherpromise that results from the investigationwill be made public.We must hold the government to thatpromise.A veterinarian, a medical doctor and afood industry expert have been taskedwith the review. The first of three goalsitemized on the panel’s governmentissuedlist is to examine all factors contributingto the E. coli outbreak at the XLplant in Brooks, Alta., including inspectionpolicies, protocols and informationexchange.That’s the crux of the matter.The other two goals are designed toexamine the CFIA’s ability to detect E. colicontamination and mount an effectiveresponse.The panel should consider all of this “inconjunction with the response of its foodsafety system partners, including XLFoods Inc. and foreign regulators, to theE. coli outbreak, including but not limitedto the effectiveness of their prevention,detection, recall response, incident managementand investigative activities, aswell as their collaboration and communicationwith one another, the public andstakeholders for the purpose of ensuringconsumer safety.”Whew.If successful in its quest for this information,the panel may be able to answermost of the questions surrounding therecall.There is a tendency in today’s world toaffix blame when things go wrong, as theydid indeed at XL Foods.Many in the cattle and beef industry,who still feel the effects from the BSE crisisas they watch domestic beef consumptiondecline, feel that desire mostacutely.“It is curious how E. coli in lettuce isbarely a blip on the radar and nearly all ofthe other E. coli disasters never requiredthe industry involved to be run over by abus,” says the Western Stock GrowersAssociation.“This leads (us) to wonder whobears responsibility and who shouldbe held accountable. Whether it iscalled an inquiry or investigation orsomething else, we need to arrive atthe truth.”Once arrived, that truth must be used toensure food safety protocols are as strongas we can make them.However, it’s also important for all ofus to realize that complete food safetyisn’t achievable given the adaptabilityof bacteria and the numerous points inthe food chain when safety can be compromised.Federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritzhas asked the panel to make recommendationsfor improvement, “within theexisting resources of the CFIA.”Let us hope those existing resourceshave enough depth to address the problemssurrounding the beef recall, andalso that the sun shines on all players inthe scenario whose actions contributedto the problem.Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillanand Joanne Paulson collaborate in the writing ofWestern Producer editorials.CRAIG’S VIEWSENATE | SPENDINGSHRINKING CFA | TRADE ISSUESSplintering farm voice a slow-motion, decades-long process of divisionNATIONAL VIEWBARRY WILSONThe Canadian Pork Council’sdecision to pull out of theCanadian Federation of Agricultureis just the latest dramaticmoment in a long-running saga.Observing the splintering of theCanadian farm lobby voice over thepast four decades has been likewatching a slow-motion multiplevehicle pile-up on Alberta’s Highway2 or Ontario’s six-lane 401.There are of course reasons forhighway wrecks, just as there are reasonsfor the fractionalization ofCanadian farmers.Large agribusiness farmers checkingthe web for prices and tradeopportunities in Asia have little incommon with small farmers trying tocash in on the local food movement,other than that they both produceprotein for sale.That gap is particularly true ontrade issues where trade-sensitivesectors and gung-ho exporters simplydon’t share the same goals orbusiness models.It is a reality that Canadian governmentshave had to face for decades asthey created a “balanced position” thatsupports both domestic protectionismand aggressive export expansion.As he spoke last week about thepork council decision to pull out ofthe CFA, which has its own version ofthe “balanced position,” former CPCpresident Jurgen Preugschas saidpublicly what many skeptics havesaid quietly for years.“You can’t have a balanced tradepolicy, there’s no such thing,” he said.“You’re in favour of trade or you’renot and you can’t be both.”Defenders of the “balanced position”correctly argue that most countriesin trade negotiations have“offensive” and “defensive” issues asCanada does, but that doesn’t squarethe logic circle.Once upon a time, the CFA imagineditself the unified voice of Canadianagriculture.Back in the days of long-servingpresident Herb Hannam in the1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, thedream was that in the face of powerfuland concentrated corporate players,farmers needed a concentratedcounteracting voice to governmentand industry.The wheels began to fall off thatdream in the 1970s when prairiecommodity groups began to challengethe hegemony of the big playersof the day: the wheat pools, provincialumbrella organizations andthe CFA.Governments were happy to havemultiple farm messages from whichto pick and choose.A turning point was the 1993 GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Tradedeal, which protected Canadian supplymanagement but gave exporterslittle new access.Export interests thought too muchattention was paid to protecting supplymanagement and too little to theexport needs of the majority. The resultwas more aggressive lobbying byexport sectors and the founding of theCanadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance.Prairie general farm organizationsblew up in the early 1980s over theCrowsnest Pass freight rate issue, andthe CFA lost three strong regionalmembers, later replaced by organizationsthat have sometimes struggled.Then the prairie wheat pools,strong members and significantfinancial backers, disappeared. CWBbriefly followed as a member, but ittoo is gone from the CFA.The dream of a “house of agriculture”recedes. The volume of exportvoices grows.The agricultural Tower of Babelbecomes noisier.