Google+
Showing posts with label farm gate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label farm gate. Show all posts

Friday, October 4, 2013

Small Flockers are Exempt ? ! ?

On behalf of farm gate egg sellers all across Canada, I questioned and complained to Health Canada about their upcoming Guidelines which are poised to strike Canadians in Dec. 2013. See our prior Blog posting:   Help, we're under attack!

Health Canada quickly responded.  I was shocked by HC's response.  Their initial response is that small flockers and farm gate egg sales are exempt from the new Guideline.

What ??

Yes, that's what Health Canada said.  Small flockers are exempt.  Small flockers can continue selling their eggs at the farm gate.

You may not be, but I'm totally confused.  Here is what Health Canada said on this alleged exemption:

"Section 2.11 of the guidance document defines table eggs as follows:

    A shell egg offered for sale to consumers (including retail environments, restaurants, bakeries, and other foodservice and institutional settings) for the purposes of consumption.

Eggs that are offered for sale at farm gates are excluded from the scope of the document. Please be advised that the guidance document does not recommend a ban on farm gate egg sales.  Therefore, the issues that you raised related to farm gate sales of eggs are not expected to occur."
Later on in their email, HC also states:

"The guidance document [focusses sic.] the recommendations on table eggs originating from regulated flocks, since these eggs represent the majority of eggs offered for sale on the table market." 
That makes sense to me, because this table egg source is more than 90% of the total eggs consumed.  Since I doubt there is a 100 fold higher probability of contaminated eggs with small flocker farm gateeggs, HC seems to be focusing their action on the overall risk to consumers.

Health Canada continues in the same paragraph:

However, there are numerous practices in place in the regulated sector that reduce the risk of S. Enteritidis in grade A table eggs, which do not necessarily extend to eggs originating from sources outside of the regulated sector. For this reason, sources of table eggs outside of the regulated sector may represent an increased risk to consumers.
Note that HC says "may represent an increased risk".  Is there proof, or is it enough to convict small flockers with just mere suspicions?

HC continues:

After the consultation, Health Canada sought additional evidence to support the increased risk of S. Enteritidis associated with eggs originating from sources other than the regulated flocks and has presented this information in section 8.3 of the revised guidance document. Two SE outbreak investigations in Canada, in 2010 and 2012, provide evidence supporting the hypothesis that table eggs originating from sources outside the regulated sector may represent an increased public health risk. The weight of scientific evidence supports that any laying flock, regardless of size, may put consumers at risk by supplying eggs for the table market from a flock infected with S. Enteritidis, and that eggs that are not stored or handled in a way that minimizes the S. Enteritidis hazard, may put consumers at risk.
The consultation referenced above seems to be the one held from Nov. 9 through Dec. 21, 2011.  This was before SFPFC (Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada) existed, so it seems somebody else was helping defend our interests back then.  Whomever it was, thank-you for caring and taking the effort.

CFIA now has evidence that the regulated egg producers are confirmed at having up to 11% defects (ie. dirty, cracked, expired, under sized, etc.) in their egg cartons delivered to retail stores.  The defects were alleged by other egg producers to have been purposefully done so as to punish competitive egg producers, or to obtain extra profits.  I wonder if HC included this risk in their calculations?  Can they still say that small flockers are more risky?

Even then, I'm not sure HC is talking about small flockers in the above paragraph.  Who else could they be speaking about, these "sources outside the regulated sector".  If that isn't small flockers that HC is speaking about, then exactly who do they refer to indirectly?

In Section 8.3 HC's draft Guideline refers to the use of ungraded eggs in food service establishments in British Columbia that may have caused illnesses in 2007 - 2010.  They also refer to an non-regulated egg producer who sold dirty eggs to a food service establishment.  That food service establishment had poor food handling techniques, and didn't refrigerate the dirty eggs between when they were delivered, and when they were prepared and served; resulting in 91 illnesses.

It would seem that both regulated and non-regulated egg producers could supply Salmonella contaminated eggs.  This risk can be compounded by dirty, cracked, and unrefrigerated eggs.  Either way, it puts consumers at risk. Then why does HC say small flockers and farm gate eggs are exempt from the new Guidelines? I believe it is a matter of degree of risk from these two different egg sources.  I also believe there are different expectations by consumers for these two different sources. 
 
My email response to Health Canada's current position on the alleged small flock table egg exemption was as follows:

"Thanks for the detailed response.

 I understand that HC excludes the sale and consumption of ungraded farm gate egg sales from your "table egg" definition.  That is hard to understand, as I see no justification for that, neither in the definition nor the report.  Please explain this exemption in the greatest detail possible.

For example, how does HC compare and contrast the sale of ungraded eggs at the farm gate to consumers ( eg. non-resident family members, neighbours, community members, etc.), or sale at Farmers Markets, or the sale to local convenience store who sells them to the public, or a roadside stand on the highway near but not on the farmer's farm?

Am I and other small flockers able to sufficiently rely upon the statements you make on behalf of HC, sufficient to avoid subsequent regulatory action for following your advice and statements?  In other words, what is your authority and expertise on these issues?

The other issues and comments may be moot based on the final definitive answer to the above statement."
I wouldn't rush out to make a major investment in small flock egg sales at the farm gate based on this preliminary and non-verified response.  Perhaps it was a typo by HC.  Perhaps it's a cruel joke to jerk our chain.

Hopefully Health Canada will soon clarify and justify this secret or mysterious position of exempting small flock egg sales at the farm gate.
 

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Top Priorities for Small Flockers

I was contacted by a reporter who needed me to summarize all that I have written, "Just give me your top three issues", they said.

I thought about it, I reviewed the titles of all my posts, then I had to re-read some of the posts themselves, as the titles didn't fully describe the content.

I thought some more, then decided on the top three priorities.  I'd appreciate some feedback from the Small Flock members on my preliminary answer for our top 3 priorities:



  1. Affordable, safe, nutritious, high quality, sustainable, and locally produced foods for Canadians.

    Small Flockers are most concerned about poultry meats and eggs for the above priority.

    We have concerns about the affordability, safety, nutrient levels, sustainability, and centralization of the mega chicken factory version by quota-bearing Supply Management; our beliefs being collaborated by voluminous research and critical incidents.

    In spite of the drawbacks of the "officially approved" system, Canadians are treated as incompetent wards of the government, stripped of our rights to produce and consume food as we know best, and as we choose.

    In the above stated priority, we have placed affordability first for a reason.  If it isn't affordable, none of the other factors matter.  Safety and risk are on a broad continuum, so if it is slightly higher risk but much more affordable, some people may want to consciously take that risk, for no food is 100% safe.

    If someone feels consciously forced to buy unsafe food due to the unaffordability of safer food, the government should focus its efforts on improving affordability so that everybody has a reasonable choice.  The less safe food will naturally disappear from the marketplace when safer, better, more affordable options appear.

    The SM system is a government created monopoly that is supposed to be operated and maintained in the best interest of the public; but this rarely or never occurs.  In reality, the SM system is operated in the best interest of the select few (ie. 0.01% of Ontario's population), and against the greater good of the public (ie. the 99.99% of Ontario).

    The current Supply Management ("SM") system is operated with mis-management, lack of due diligence, secrecy, cronyism, and so as to exceed the legislated and delegated authority of the various agencies.  The SM legislation is beyond the powers of the Federal and/or Provincial governments, and contrary to international treaties.



  2. Everyone is allowed to raise up to 2,000 meat chickens per year.

    Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO") has stated that the 300 bird limit was chosen arbitrarily, they planned on it being highly restrictive, and agree that this limit is insufficient for producing chicken at affordable, competitive prices.  However, CFO feels no need to allow alternative, competitive systems to exist which might be in competition with their chicken monopoly.  This 300 limit takes away the farmer's right to feed their family, supply food to their local community, and earn a reasonable living.



  3. Everyone is allowed to self-inspect and farm-slaughter up to 300 poultry birds per year, then sell them at their farm gate, provided they supply full disclosure to the prospective customers.  OMAF can issue a special license that exceeds these limits under special circumstances; or in remote, under-serviced areas.

    There are numerous under-serviced areas in Ontario today, with no hope of getting a commercially viable, local, provincially licensed slaughter plant.  We believe that a properly trained farmer can produce eviscerated poultry carcasses that are equal or better than the high speed, automated processing factories.  With full disclosure, there is no fraud, nor an imbalance of power between the buyer and seller.  Private individuals should not be stripped of their right to choose their own foods.

    By limiting the farm slaughter to just 300 birds, the magnitude of the total risk of farm slaughter is contained.

    If a farmer feels a need for marketing more than 300 birds per year, Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada believe that it becomes viable above that 300 limit for the farmer to transport their flock to a Provincially-licensed abattoir, and therefore should do so.  If it still isn't viable above the 300 bird slaughter limit, the burden of proof is on the farmer, and if their case has merit, OMAF can issue a special license to the farmer with the necessary conditions.

    In remote areas (ie. James Bay coast, remote mine sites and work camps, etc.), we suggest that the government can issue special permits to extends these limits (2,000 and 300) further.

    If this proposal is still seen as too risky for some unknown reason, the local Health Unit can inspect the farm slaughter process on an as-needed basis, for local Health Inspectors exist in all jurisdictions.

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Eating Farm Gate Chicken?

I have been writing lots.  I have now received my first comment about the Blog, and Raube wins the leadership award in that category.

So now, lets get you to educate me.

I'm interested in all the reasons why you prefer, or detest, the idea of eating farm gate chicken.  Feel free to speak for yourself, as well your family, friends, or neighbours.

Some possible reasons:
  • Better Taste
  • Better Nutrition
  • Cheaper
  • More convenient
  • More accessible (geographically, safety, affordability, transportation, etc.) 
  • Farm gate fights against Food Deserts (areas where access to food is low to non-existent)
  • Support local farmers
  • Safer
  • Cleaner, better quality
  • Lower environmental footprint
  • Locally produced food
  • Supports local economy
  • Keep local money in the local community
  • Economic spin-off effects ($1.00 spent locally has the same economic benefit as $3.00 spent elsewhere)
  • More trustworthy supplier
  • Readily available close to home
  • Barter opportunities
  • Support my neighbours
  • Avoid antibiotics, drug, & growth hormone residues
  • Support & encourage heritage breeds of poultry
  • Support & encourage bio-diversity
  • Effective method to re-use, recycle waste food scraps
  • Obtain rich biomass fertilizer in poultry manure
  • Other