Per Capita Foodbank Usage in Canada

Yesterday's Blog posting looked at the Canadian Foodbank usage and our growing dependency (see Foodbank Usage In Canada).  Today, we confirm it is a true problem, getting worse over time.

Some wisecracker might sniff and says that data is showing growth merely due to the effect of Canada's growing population.

When I adjusted the Foodbank usage data for Canada's growing population using StatsCan population growth rates, the adjusted Foodbank usage is growing faster than the population by 1.21% per year.

Figure 1:  Canadian Foodbank usage from 1989 to 2014, showing
2.21%/yr increase.  When adjusted for population increases since
1989, the rate of Foodbank usage still increases on a population
adjusted rate of 1.2% growth per year.

Therefore, there is a true growing dependency of Canadians on this system that was originally designed for acute, short term emergencies. Today, Foodbanks are filling two roles:

• A solution for short term food emergencies;
   
• A solution of long term, chronic shortfalls created by a vacuum in Canada's social systems.

Does this explain why the UN Special Raporteur was not satisfied with Canada's implementation of Food Security implementation?  See reports on how the UN feels that Canada is failing our poor and our First Nation peoples.

Canada's aboriginal people are said to be the worse off of all aboriginal peoples in the world.  Now there is something that Canada can be truly ashamed of, and need to take immediate corrective action.

What was Canada's response to the UN's Special Rapporteur's report?  Canada resented his report, and denied that there is a problem.  Hard to understand such a huge gulf between these two groups.  How do we explain this?

Canadian public health researchers have examined both sides of this issue, and report how this chasm has formed, and why it is likely to continue as unresolved.

Small Flock Poultry Farmers are standing by to help as soon as we are allowed to do so.  See our Small Flock Petition which, if permitted, will allow us to immediately help improve and relieve this chronic tragedy.

Imported Foods: Is Free or Fair Trade a Solution to Affordable Food?

Can Canada's Supply Management ("SM") system be replaced (or co-exist) with free trade or fair trade chicken?

There are small flock farmers in third world countries who would benefit from additional opportunities to sell their chicken, eggs, and other agricultural products.  Since Canadians pay one of the highest prices for SM products, likely these third world suppliers can produce those products far cheaper than Canadian suppliers.

I believe Canadians want more affordable food, provided it is safe, dependable, and nutritious.  I also believe that Canadians prefer to buy from and support Canadian producers, but are not prepared to be gouged in pricing, or held hostage so as to support Canadian suppliers.

In yesterday's Blog posting (see Import Chicken: Help the Poor in both Canada & the World? ), I presented Mr. Cline's research that says the poor, both the first world poor customers and the third world poor suppliers, would benefit from free trade in agriculture products.  Expensive, unaffordable food is regressive, as the poor have to pay a far greater percentage of their income to buy that food than what is paid by the rich.

If income taxes are adjusted based on an individual's income and wealth, why not food?

The Guardian in its Sept. 2008 article Free trade can mean the poor stay hungry challenges the agricultural free trade proposals of Mr. Cline.  This article presents evidence that the majority of the benefit from third world free trade is gained by the intermediaries and the 1st world suppliers of the 3rd world producers.  For example, asparagus from Peru for importation to the USA is presented:

"A hearing of the US Congress's Ways and Means committee in 2006 unintentionally provided one of the most succinct accounts of the problem I have come across. The Peruvian asparagus industry was up before the house to reassure representatives that any growth in imports to the US from Peru would be in US interests.

For every dollar spent by a US consumer on imported asparagus from Peru, 70 cents stayed in the US, the industry explained. The money goes not to Peruvian farmers but to US supermarkets and wholesalers, and to US shippers, distributors, importers, and storage owners. Just 30 cents stays in Peru. (The UK too imports most of its out-of-season asparagus from Peru.)

But Peru doesn't even get the full benefit of that 30 cents, because a large portion of the 30 cents Peru makes comes back to the US anyway: it is spent by Peruvians on US seed, US materials for processing, US fertiliser and US pesticides. US-based vegetable corporations, Del Monte and General Mills Green Giant, have been able to enjoy lower land values, cheap labour and low environmental costs by moving some of their production to Peru. The handful of corporations that dominate the global markets in seed, fertiliser, pesticides, trading, distribution and retailing take care of the rest.
Increased agricultural exports have indeed contributed to a growth in Peru's GDP, but the benefit to the poor of its population is hard to see."

One Ag. expert thinks that as soon as a WTO trade agreement is announced that allows for free trade agriculture imports, all of the multi-national billionaire Big Ag. companies will use huge amounts of cheap foreign money to buy the best farm land.  Next, they would build food production and processing systems in third world countries to export to their sister branch plants in Canada and elsewhere.

It is unclear if the third world poor would see any benefit.  Perhaps they would get slave labor wages working in those new farms and food processing plants.

If the supply chain can get free trade food from third world sources at a small fraction of domestic sources, their profits magnify greatly if they can sell at the same domestic price.  Since Big Ag. tightly controls the domestic food distribution system in an oligopoly, there is little competition, so there is no significant downward force on domestic retail prices.

Therefore, as long as Big Ag. has tight control of the food distribution systems, there is likely marginal benefits from agricultural free trade, neither for the domestic poor nor the third world poor.

So what is the solution?

Can "Fair Trade" be better than "Free Trade" ?

Perhaps Small Flockers in each domestic market are the best answers.

Affordable Chicken for Nunavut

Small flock poultry farming can't solve the entire food security catastrophe in Canada, but we can help.  Chicken, by definition, is the lowest cost meat to produce; supplying high quality protein and fat for the diet at an affordable price.  I believe affordable small flock chicken can help Rankin Inlet, all small communities in Nunavut, and the rest of Canada.

For example, early explorers found Canada's Eskimo populations to be very healthy in the 1850 to 1900's, in spite of the Eskimo's minimal use of dietary fruits and vegetables.  Country meats (ie. meats from hunting wild game) are excellent foods, but today they're somewhat more difficult and more expensive to hunt that 100 years ago.

A high carb diet creates too many AGE's (advanced glycation end products) and other nasties that have significant negative health consequences for humans.  AGE's and other bad metabolytes require heavy doses of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidents to neutralize the negative effects of a high carb diet.  If you don't sufficiently neutralize these metabolytes from a high carb diet, you significantly increate your risk of disease.  In some ways, it's almost impossible to eat enough fruits & vegetables to overcome the negative impact of high carb diets.

Diets based mainly on country meats and/or chicken, combined with a low carbohydrate lifestyle (less than 60 grams /day of carbs), reduces the need for other dietary vitamins and minerals by 100 to 1,000 times.  .

High protein and high fat diets with some green leafy vegetables can make for a balanced, healthy diet which is affordable, even in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, and other Far North communities.

Vegetables are very expensive, and getting more so all the time; especially in the Far North.  Many of the commercially grown vegetables are more and more depleted of the vitamins and minerals they used to contain 50 years ago (see the sad tale of potatoes, carrots, brocolli, and other veggies in Blog posting Food Fight ).  We pay more $/kg., but get less nutrients per kg of vegetables, so we get killed by the multiplicative effect of these two factors combined.

Chicken, grown locally by small flock farmers may offer a key solution to affordable food and healthy diets for Canadians.

Figure 1:   All weather chicken coop for small flock
poultry farming, designed and prototype under
construction by Glenn Black, a small flock poultry
farmer (author of this Blog, and President of Small
Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada).  This coop will
keep poultry safe and comfortable in any weather from
+ 40 deg C to -40 deg C in far North climates by using
just the sun. Supplemental fossil fuels can be used for
weather colder than -40 degC. 

For example, the 10 ft. x 10 ft. all-weather chicken coop prototype design shown in Figure 1 can be placed virtually anywhere in any Canadian backyard or community.  This coop can raise up to 650 chickens per year, which yields a steady supply of fresh chickens.  This coop can yield about 750 kg. per year of fresh, safe, nutritious, affordable chicken meat.  That is enough to feed 22 people for a year at the average Canadian consumption of chicken meat per Statistics Canada. How many coops do you need for your family, neighbourhood, or community?

Unfortunately, Canada's Supply Management rules currently make implementation of this all-weather chicken coop system very difficult or impossible.  Small flock poultry farmers are discriminated against and prevented from helping their community with the significant production of affordable, nutritious food.

Unfortunately, the Supply Management system in Canada, as designed and enforced by the Federal and Provincial governments, has created 2,700 multi-millionaire chicken farmers, oppresses and abuses small flock poultry farmers, and heaps windfall profits into the corporate coffers of billion dollar Big Ag. multi-national corporations; all of which is paid for by Canadian consumers.  Canadians pay retail chicken prices that are 50% to 300% higher than the rest of the world.  No wonder we have severe food insecurity in rural, remote areas, the Far North, and the urban poor.

Some Far North communities receive subsidized foods through the Federal government program Nutrition North.

Note that many Far North communities are not eligible for Nutrition North subsidies because they didn't participate in the previous Food Mail program, or other reasons.  In addition, the Nutrition North funding is limited, so once the Federal budget of Nutrition North has been spent, the subsidy comes to an end until the next fiscal year.

What are Nunavut grocery shoppers supposed to do then, when the subsidy runs out before the end of the year?

For an example of why food price subsidies are needed, Grist mentions that chickens sell in Nunavut grocery stores for $65 per pound ($143.00 per kg), so I calculate that a 2 kg whole chicken would be $286.00 in the retail grocery store.  This sounds far worse than other reports I have seen (others say $85 for a 2 kg chicken, or $42.5/kg), so perhaps Grist has a typo error, or they meant $65/kg, or it refers to the non-subsidized prices.

Even with the subsidy, significant amounts of imported (and subsidized) food ends up rotting on Nunavut grocery store shelves because it's still too expensive, subsidized or not.  Nunuvut stores may over-buy, as they don't bear the full consequences, so subsidized food is discounted just before its Best Before date, then the surplus is dumped in the local landfill.  What a waste of food and taxpayers dollars while people in that same community are malnourished, or on a starvation diet.

It seems Nutrition North subsidizes the importation of food, as contrasted to subsidizing what is actually sold to consumers.  If true, perhaps that sad fact could (and should) spark a change that would improve the Nutrition North system.  Retailers must ensure that they buy what they need, no more, and be sure to get it sold before its Best Before date expires.

Unfortunately today, some of this subsidized food ends up at the dump, where the most vulnerable can finally afford this expensive, subsidized food that is discounted to "free for the taking" at the hamlet's garbage dump.

I also understand the retailer's side of the issue, that they risk customers waiting until the food is discounted 50% off as the Best Before date approaches, or pick it up for free once expired; thereby collapsing the grocery store to a free Food Bank.  Obviously, the solution has to be carefully designed.  It doesn't seem that Nutrition North meets that criteria.

Another example of unaffordable food in Nunavut is provided by Price Is Right Nunavut.  This Blogger provides a picture of a 1.5 kg meat tray of 4 chicken legs & thighs for $9.74 (which I assume is the Nutrition North subsidized price), which calculates out to be $6.49/kg.; described as 77% more expensive than Toronto ON chicken prices.

I think most people understand that average wages in Nunavut are a small fraction of the wages available in Toronto.  If food is expensive in Toronto (bad enough), it becomes impossible in Nunavut (ie. can't get much worse).

In the end, Canada (the planet's 6th richest nation) has third or fourth world conditions of food insecurity for a significant portion of its population. 

APTN's video documentary "Wasting Away" has an in-depth investigation on affordable food in Nunavut, summarized in a 24 minute video well worth your time.  This video includes:

• Interview with Deputy Mayor Sam Tutanuak of the hamlet of Rankin Inlet's, located on the West coast of Hudson Bay in Nunavut.  Sam re-confirms that Elders and children are regularly scavenging food from the town's dump as they are unable to afford to purchase adequate food from the grocery store.
• Interview with Ms Lucy Wiebe, an Elder in Rankin Inlet, who confirms many of the allegations by the Deputy Mayor, including that she has found children scavenging food at the dump.  Lucy relates how it regularly costs her about $400/wk for groceries for feeding just her husband and herself.  Lucy cannot get ahead of the financial burden for food, and is always worried about affording food for their next meal.  In other words, Lucy has first hand experience, both as a child and now as an Elder, with food insecurity.
• 70% of Inuit pre-schoolers have food insecurity
• Headlines on news media and academic reports, that Deputy Mayor Sam Tutanuak confirms, such as:
   
• "Inuit go hungry more than any other Indigenous group",
   
• "Inuit food shortage worst in developed world", and
   
•  "Poverty is making people sick because they can't afford food"
• Oliver De Shutter, UN Special Envoy speaking about his report to the UN General Assembly on food affordability in Canada's North at a press conference said:
  
  "I believe that in this respect Canada is in violation of its international obligations."
   
• Video of one elder in the process of scavenging food from the town's dump
• Nutrition North has a budget of about $60 million per year for subsidizing food costs in the Far North  (eg. 56.2% price subsidy for 2% fluid milk sold at $7.79 for 4 litres vs. non-subsidized price of $17.77; $3.45/kg for cooking onions, English cucumbers  with a subsidized price of $2.75 each)
• $19,000 /yr for the typical family grocery bill in Nunavut, but the half of Inuit adults earn less than $20,000 per year
  
  .
  
• Facebook group  for Feeding My Family has numerous stories and pictures of the struggle faced by Canadian families to feed themselves.
• People race to the Nunavut dumps to get the best selection of dumped food before their neighbours get it all.  Even here, there is competition from the seagulls and other hungry people.
• Half of Nunavut families are estimated to have food insecurity problems.
• Prof. Frank Tester, University of British Columbia says Federal Government colonization got started in the 1940's when famines in the Far North killed many people.  The government's response was to move people to hamlets, and build external dependency on imported foods, rather than hunter-gatherer lifestyle and country food (ie. wild game from hunting).  Prof. Tester confirms that people scavenge food at the garbage dump.

Matthew Coutts of Yahoo News reported on this issue, where he quotes from the“Hunger in Nunavut,” report released by Action Canada, included this first-hand account:

“My heart broke into pieces when I saw them eating at the dump[, I] took them home and fed them good, told them next time when you’re hungry come to my place…kid had tears and said thank-you softly.”

Ms Leona Aglukkaq, MP for Nunavut was caught reading the newspaper while MP's were trying to question her in Parliament about Nunavut residents having to eat out of the local dump.  She has previously denied on a repeating basis most reports of severe food insecurity in her riding of Nunavut.  Most unfortunate, going way beyond just the bad optics.

Once we determine the real truth of the food security matter for Canadians, perhaps then the powers that be will consider solutions, even the ones proposed here on this Blog.

For other solutions to food insecurity, see one or more of our 321 postings on this important issue for Canadians.

 

The SM Price Penalty

An anonymous poster on Better Farming proposes that Canadian food prices for Supply Management ("SM") foods must increase even more and faster so as to ensure production quantities increase so as to feed the growing population.

As you might expect, I have a different opinion.  That's the basis of today's Blog posting

The Law of Supply & Demand would tend to match demand to supply by price adjustments.  Also, we tend to use the best resource first (ie.  increasing demand will bring less productive farms, farmers, and land into production once all the best resources are fully occupied; see Best First Principle).  Less productive resources will tend to require higher prices to keep them engaged.  On the basis of just these two isolated factors, this wayward anonymous poster with their many simplifying assumptions is partially right.

However, there is the possibility of productivity improvements.

For example, I bought an Apple II+ computer in 1979 for about $2,500.00 which was an 8 bit 6502 processor running at 1 MHz with 48 kB of RAM memory and no hard drive, and one 5 1/4" floppy drive, and only rudimentary software.  It cost me more than 2 months salary at that time.  I was determined to join the digital age, and paid a huge price to do so.

Apple II+ computer with dual floppy drives and monitor
purchased for $2,500 in 1978

A few months ago, I bought a new notebook computer with a 64 bit Intel i5 processor with 2 cores and 4 threads running at 1.8 GHz, 4 MB of ram, 0.5 Terrabyte hard drive, loaded with MS Office professional software etc., for $750.00  This computer is about 4,000 times more powerful than the Apple II+ of the 1970's.

The Consumer Price Index ("CPI") was ~35 in 1978 and is ~125 today.  That means the $2,500.00 Apple II+ in 1977 is equivalent to $8,928 today (ie. 125/35*$2,500= $8,928).  If we assume today's notebook is 4,000 faster & better than the Apple II+ based on the microprocessor speed, cores and threads, then the equivalent price for today's notebook is $35.72 Million if we use hedonics (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_index ) to compare computers of equivalent power (apples vs. apples, not apples vs. oranges).

How is it that I bought the new notebook for $750 rather than the equivalent Apple II+ price in 2014 of $35.72 Million?

From 1978 to 2014 is 36 years.  Assuming a steady rate of CPI inflation over these 36 years, the equivalent Apple II+ computer price would have inflated by 30.44% per year.  However, it actually deflated by 3.4% per year.  This price differential  is because of competition and continuous improvement in the computer industry.

Throughout those 36 years from 1978 to 2014, the computer industry faced inflating expectations from raw material suppliers, staff wages, energy, taxes, changing technology and re-investment, and everything else.  The various computer companies either improved their operation, or were subject to dying an early death.  Apple Computers almost went bankrupt due to numerous mistakes and loss of focus.  Many other computer suppliers were unwilling or unable to compete, so they went out of business.

Unfortunately, Canada's Supply Management system for chicken, eggs, turkey, & dairy doesn't have to improve, nor compete.  They get to charge whatever they like, regularly putting through price increases; price increases for themselves, or by enabling their SM coattail riding "friends" to do so.  Canadian consumers are forced to pay these price increases for SM foods.  As the rest of the world improves, and suppliers and raw materials increase their prices, SM margins get squeezed, so SM puts through another price increase to Canadian consumers so that SM players are insulated and protected.

SM always protects itself, but who insulates and protects Canadian consumers?  Nobody! Canadians pay and pay again for SM's growing inefficiencies.

For example, Ontario's FCR (Feed Conversion Ratio) is 1.72 but Tegel Poultry in New Zealand has an FCR of just 1.38 or lower (see http://www.wattagnet.com/154106.html ); 24.6% better than Ontario.

If SM were to change their focus today, it might take them 2 decades to regain the competitive ground they have lost to the rest of the world during SM's ineffective reign.

Until SM changes their ineffective system, Canadians are forced to slowly sink in the SM swamp, unable to be rescued from their terrible fate.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Pastured Poultry and Mental Health

Beyond filling our tummies with yummies, poultry can be an important source of many nutrients that are important for our mental health.  Free range, pastured poultry have significantly better nutrients levels than chickens from mega factory farms.

By Jennifer Halton

Poultry Is Rich in Nutrients that Enhance Mental Well-Being

Mental health problems are more common than many of us realize and according to the Canadian Mental Health Association around 8% of us will experience major depression, with many more suffering from milder forms of this illness. While medication and talking therapies are available to manage depressive symptoms, the role that a nutritious diet can play in its treatment should not be underestimated. In fact, Dietitians of Canada (2012) highlight the importance of nutrient dense foods for promoting good mental health and treating mental illness, including depression. High quality poultry from organic and free range sources fits well within a diet aimed at enhancing mental well-being, as chicken and turkey offer several key nutrients linked to mental wellness.

Omega-3 fatty acids enhance mood

As we recently explored, organic chicken is a useful source of omega-3 fats. This is good news for anyone suffering from depressed mood, as health food store Rachelle Berry points out there is a proven link between enhanced intake of omega-3 fatty acids and easing depressive symptoms. Their report discusses several clinical studies that show clear benefits of upping our intake of omega-3 when it comes to our mood. For instance, a study by Montreal researchers demonstrated that depressed people receiving a daily dose of 1050mg of the omega-3 oil EPA for 8 weeks benefited from improved mood.

EPA is Eicosapentaenoic acid, one of the Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA).  It is also known as icosapentaenoic acid, timnodonic acid, or 20:5(n-3).

They also cite evidence that people with low mood, but who don’t have clinical depression, can also benefit mentally from extra omega-3. When it comes down to the role that omega-3 fatty acids play in combatting mood disorders, EPA acts as a chemical messenger in nerve cells and helps to block production of inflammatory signalling molecules that are linked to depression.

Tryptophan boosts serotonin

Poultry is rich in the essential amino acid tryptophan, which is responsible for that contented and sleepy feeling you get after eating a chicken or turkey dinner. There is a good reason why tryptophan has this effect on us, as Restorative Formulations explains that this amino acid enhances production of the mood boosting chemical messenger serotonin, which also regulates our appetite and sleep. Health Link British Columbia (2013) discusses the link between low levels of serotonin and depressed mood, and how this is used in a class of antidepressants that increase serotonin production. Low serotonin levels aren’t just limited to depression though, as Bulimia highlights that mood disorders are common among patients with anorexia and bulimia, which helps to explain the association between eating disorders and substance abuse. Making chicken and turkey a regular part of your diet is a natural way to increase serotonin levels and keep related disorders at bay.

B vitamins reduce depression risk

There is also interest in the role that B vitamins play in promoting a balanced mood, particularly with reference to vitamin B6 and B12. Poultry is especially a good source of vitamin B6, with 100g of chicken providing almost one-third of our daily requirement for the vitamin. Advanced Orthomolecular Research reports how a higher intake of both B vitamins is associated with a significantly lower risk of depression among seniors. This connection between B vitamins and mood can be explained by the impact they have on a substance known as homocysteine. As JAMA Psychiatry (2008) explains higher levels of homocysteine are linked with a greater chance of depressive symptoms and vitamin B6 and B12 can bring down raised levels of homocysteine, enhancing mental wellness.

Selenium cuts depressive symptoms

The mineral selenium is another nutrient linked to better mood.  Selenium in our diet has been depleted over the years due to intensive farming that has contributed to soil depletion.  Most commercial chicken feeds now contain added selenium to boost the health of the animal as it grows and develops.  It is easy for consumers of good quality poultry to get enough of this mineral, as a 100g portion of chicken provides almost 40% of our daily selenium needs.  This also means that when you eat chicken that has been fed in this way, you're also automatically upping your own levels of this mineral too. An article in Nutrition Research Reviews (2012) presents evidence for the benefits of selenium on mood. The researchers report on studies that show the value of a selenium rich diet, as well as supplementing low selenium intakes, with improved depression scores seen among women with postnatal depression. Selenium’s role in promoting mental well-being may relate to its antioxidant activity, which may help to preserve healthy levels of thyroid hormones and dopamine, both of which control our mood. 

Cities Feed Cities

"Farmers Feed Cities" is now a passé slogan, recently abandoned by Grain Farmers of Ontario in favor of "Good in every Grain"

Intense agriculture requires huge capitalized investments, specialization, and deep expertise, hence requiring farmers.  Intense farms can't be done without farmers.

Can we cut out the Middleman?  Can we make it possible for Cities to Feed Cities?

Let's do a simple calculation based on the following facts:

• Bird finished weight is 2 kg. live weight.
• Birds grow cycle is 8 weeks, 6.5 grow cycles per year is 52 week year.
• Bird's eviscerated weight is 68.6% of its live weight.
• Chickens raised for meat or eggs need coop space so they aren't crowded or overly stressed.  The minimum space is dependent on age of the chicken, breed, weight, and temperature-humidity.  CFO's Reg 183-2012, Section 3.17 on page 8 sets a maximum bird density of 2.88 kg/sq.ft.  Assuming bird's maximum weight is 2.0 kg, that max. limit is equivalent to 1.44 birds/sq.ft.  CFO's limit is for birds who never see grass, nor the sun, nor feel the wind on their wings.  If you are free range, with the bird inside their coop only during the night or foul weather, you may be able to stock at higher densities.  I suggest that 1.0 sq. ft. per bird is reasonable, which is 44% better than the #ChickenMafia's mega chicken factory stocking density.
• Canadians eat 37.5 kg of chicken per person per year.
• A 10' x 10' shed can be build anywhere in Ontario without a building permit.  If a small green area can surround the shed, all the better.
• Many cities are now permitting backyard chicken coops.

If a 10' x 10' chicken coop is installed somewhere in a city, how many people can be fed by the chicken produced within that 100 sq. ft. coop?  We calculate as follows:

Max # Birds in Coop= 10'x10'/1 sq.ft./bird= 100 birds
Max. Birds per Year= 6.5 grow cycles/yr * 100= 650 birds/yr.
Max. Live weight of chickens per yr= 650 * 2= 1,300 kg/yr
Max. eviscerated weight of chicken produced per year= 1,300 * 0.68628= 892.16 kg/yr
# People Fed per year= 892.16/37.5=   23.79 persons/yr.

Therefore a 10'x10' chicken coop can feed 23.79 people per year for their annual chicken needs.

To me, this example seems to indicate that small spaces within cities can be used to feed a neighbourhood.

Are chickens the best choice for Cities Feed Cities?

The table at right shows the FCR (Feed Conversion Ratio) for various animals.  An FCR of 1.66 means that it takes 1.66 kg of feed to add 1.0 kg of weight to the animal.  As you can see, chickens have the lowest, most efficient FCR; even better than crickets ( the latest proposal for feeding 9 Billion people).

A simple example to show that we the people don't need farmers, nor intense agriculture.

Look out Big Ag.  Your end may be near if you continue to push your own agenda ahead of the needs of your customers.

Food Quality & Nutrition: Factory Chicken Vs. Alternatives

By Jennifer Halton

Organic Chicken Offers a More Beneficial Omega-3 to Omega-6 Ratio

Although we were once advised to focus on foods low in saturated fat, and more recently those low in trans fats, the benefits of choosing foods with a favourable ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids is increasingly clear. Therefore not only is it important to increase our intake of omega-3 fatty acids, but at the same time we need to control our intake of omega-6. Traditionally our diet had close to an equal ratio of these polyunsaturated fats, but according to an article published in Canadian Family Physician (2006) a typical North American diet now has a ratio close to 16:1 in favour of omega-6 fatty acids. This increased ratio may explain why cardiovascular disease and other chronic health problems are now much more prevalent. One way to lower this ratio is to carefully select the meats we eat, as the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats can vary widely.

Health benefits of adjusting the ratio

As mentioned in the article in Canadian Family Physician, omega-3 fatty acids are cardio-protective in several ways, helping to reduce inflammation, arterial narrowing and blood clot formation, while controlling the rhythm of our heartbeat. Meanwhile, Healthy Canada explains that omega-6 fatty acids are associated with inflammation, a risk factor for heart disease and stroke, as well as various other chronic health problems. Omega-3 fatty acids exert their benefits beyond the health of our blood vessels though. For instance, KwikMed advises that omega-3 fatty acids are needed for healthy brain development both in the uterus and during a child’s early years of life. These essential fatty acids also seem to protect our mental health, as Ascenta Health informs us that low intakes of omega-3 are associated with an increased risk of depression. Besides protecting our cardiovascular and brain health, Auum Omega 3 describes how the anti-inflammatory effects of omega-3s may also reduce our risk of diabetes, cancer and multiple sclerosis, which are less common among populations with a more favourable intake of omega-3.

Modifying our dietary intake

Oily fish are one of the best dietary sources of omega-3 available, with wild salmon providing more than 10 times as much omega-3 as omega-6 fats. However, choosing meats with a healthier ratio of these two fatty acids is another helpful way to regulate our intake of these fats. As shown in the table below, the ratio of commonly consumed meats varies between close to 2:1 and 27:1. Caribou offers the most favourable ratio of omega-3 and 6 thanks to the fact that the meat is naturally organic, grazing on grasses and other plants, which themselves are rich in omega-3 fatty acids. This is also why grass-fed beef also offers a more beneficial ratio of fats when compared to other domestic meats and particularly to grain fed beef. Of the other domesticated meats, chicken offers the best ratio of polyunsaturated fats, coming ahead of turkey and even beating wild duck. Offering the least favourable ratio by far is pork, so even if you choose lean pork, which is low in saturated fat, it has far more omega-6 by ratio than any of the other meats considered.

Meat	Omega 6 (mg)	Omega 3 (mg)	Omega 6: omega 3
Caribou	230	100	2.3
Grass-fed beef	80	21	3.8
Chicken	170	40	4.3
Lamb	310	60	5.2
Turkey	270	40	6.8
Duck (wild)	372	51	7.3
Duck (domestic)	670	80	8.4
Beef	187	20	9.4
Pork	222	8	27.8

Figures based on 100g of raw meat, using values provided by Nutrition Data

Omega-3 and omega-6 in organic chicken

While a nutrient analysis report by the Chicken Farmers of Canada (2014) showed there was no significant difference between the amounts of omega-3 and omega-6 contained in organic and non-organic chicken, this is contrary to previous findings. For example, a research paper shared on Academia.edu (2012) highlighted that a systematic review by scientists at Stanford University found that organic chicken contains significantly more omega-3 than its grain fed counterparts. As with grass-fed beef, this is due to the higher omega-3 content of plants growing in the pasture, especially leguminous varieties such as vetch and clover. Indeed an article published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (2005) showed that the fatty acid content of poultry is strongly influenced by the omega-3 and omega-6 content of their diet.

Based on this, nutritional data for commercially reared birds should show a less favourable omega-3 to 6 ratio. However, companies such as Tyson and MapleLodge do not provide complete nutritional information for their chicken, merely showing that it is low in saturated and trans fats, without giving a breakdown of their polyunsaturated fat content. For consumers still focused on saturated and trans fats, this is reassurance enough, but with increasing awareness of the benefits of meat with an optimal ratio of omega-3 and omega-6, this is not sufficient to convince those of us who know that organic poultry is a healthier choice.

Backyard Chicken: Win in Whitehorse

Keeping up to 6 female chickens in an urban backyards of Whitehorse, Yukon is now legal.

CBC News and others report that Kristina Calhoun has spent the last 3 years on a long, painful saga:

• Raising her own chickens;
• Her flock is accused of being noisy neighbours
• By-law Enforcement Officer bans her chicken
• Losing her flock 
• Fighting for a more tolerant By-law, and
• Getting official approval for her new flock.

CKRW Radio did an interview of Kristina as well.

Kristina also happens to be the leader of the Green Party in Yukon.  In the Green Party's policies, they clearly support sustainable, affordable, nutritious food for Canadians.

It is interesting that when City Council was debating the current and proposed By-law, some felt that the permission of neighbours should be obtained before someone is allowed to have chickens within city suburbs.  Kristina rightfully responded:

"That's unrealistic and unfair.  I just think, you know, nobody had to come to me and ask if they could have a dog, nobody had to come to me and ask if they could have a cat, tune up their ATV in their yard and have exhaust and noise - nobody comes and knocks on my door and asks 'Oh, is it okay if I start up my leaf blower now?' It just seems a little bit much."

In the Yukon-News coverage of this victory, Kristina reminds people what happens when food trucks can't make it up the Yukon Highway due to weather or other issues.  Food security for Kristina and her family is important.  She said,

 "I think its really important that municipal, federal, and territorial governments remove as many boundaries as they can to allow people to be as self-sufficient as they can, especially in an isolated community like this.”

Kristina eventually wants to be able to raise meat birds during the summer, and layers year-round.  That will require another By-law change.

Kristina waxes on about the mini local food economy that has flowered and flourished in the neighbourhood.  One neighbour bakes bread, which are exchanged for eggs.  Backyard vegetables could also come into the mix soon enough from another neighbour's backyard greenhouse.

The Yukon has a portable abattoir for processing chickens in all the remote communities.  Kristina helped process 220 chickens in a Saturday afternoon; now food in citizen's freezers, ready for winter.

Ontario, as a "Have-Not" province, doesn't have portable abattoirs to service its Small Flockers in remote and Northern communities.  Hopefully we can soon be successful enough as a Province so we can afford portable abattoirs too.

In a previous post (see Health Consequences of Food Monopolies ), I Blogged about the 28% food insecurity in Nunavut, a neighbouring territory to Yukon.  In Nunavut, 75% of pre-school children don't get to eat on any particular day due to food insecurity.

Backyard chicken could help make those sad statistics a thing of the past.

A tip of the hat to Kristina and all others like her who struggle on for years, fighting for their rights, and the greater good of the people.  It isn't an easy battle, but it's worthwhile.

Biohazardous Ground Zero: Factory Chicken Farms

Scientists have discovered that crops of spinach growing in fields within 10 miles of a factory chicken growing operation are 172 times more likely to be contaminated with deadly E. coli bacteria.  This contamination likely comes from the chicken factory exhaust air that is spewed into the atmosphere on a near-constant basis.

The study was done by Texas A&M University, published in July 2013 in the peer-reviewed journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology., and was summarized in Science Daily in June 2013.

As we should know, correlation doesn't prove causation.  There is a slim chance that this 720 times higher risk is a spurious correlation that means nothing.  However, that is highly unlikely, especially with such a huge risk ratio of 720 times.

As an example, the odds ratio for cigarette smoking and lung cancer vary between 7 (1 cigarette per day) to as high as 16.3 (25+ cigarettes per day).  See the 1947 epidemiological study of Doll, and 1951 study by Hill and here.

Compare the odds ratio of 720 for E.coli/chicken factory to 16.3 for cigarette-lung cancer. If you believe cigarette smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, should you believe that mega chicken factories cause or contribute to significantly higher risk of E.coli induced food contamination leading to food poisoning?

Wrinkles and crevices in baby spinach
hold tight any any contamination, defying
most attempts to remove

In 2006, baby spinach grown by Natural Selection Foods LLC in Salinas Valley, California USA was contaminated with E. coli, killing 1 person and making over 193 other people in 21 States seriously ill.  They packaged the same spinach under 34 different brand names, then distributed it to every major city and 74 percent of America's supermarkets in the US.

In Sept. 2013, four brands of contaminated spinach packaged and distributed by a Burlington ON company were suspected of having Salmonella.  It is unknown

Spinach is especially dangerous, as the wrinkly leaves defy the effective removal of the contamination through any feasible methods of washing, whether at the farm, packaging, or the home.  If the baby spinach is used raw in a salad, likely somebody will get sick or die from eating contaminated spinach.

Will mega chicken factories, whether in US or Canada, share this news with their neighbouring farmers, warning them about the airborne contamination spewed into the atmosphere by their bad acting chicken farm neighbours?

In Ontario, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1980, is supposed to control worker exposure to biological and chemical agents. At the present time, the OHSA does not apply to farming operations (per OMAF website). Consequently, farming operations are exempted from the general industrial establishment standards which cover ventilation requirements, and the regulations regarding air contaminants and dust.

OMAF also says,

 "In animal housing, 70 to 90% of the dust is organic. This means that it is biologically active and will react with the defense system of the respiratory system. Included in the organic barn dust are feed components, dried faecal material, hair and skin cells, feather particles, pollen, insect parts, molds, fungi, viruses and bacteria. Endotoxins are produced by bacteria. These endotoxins are generally strong allergens causing immediate or delayed reactions in the respiratory system."

and

"The main health problems with poultry workers occurred while moving or handling older birds; these symptoms could be attributed to exposure to the combined effects of dust, ammonia and endotoxins."

Since it is standard practice to put antibiotics in chicken feed so as to maximize the mega chicken factory's profits, those antibiotics also enter the air as dust, Carol Morison was allergic to the dust and many antibiotics used for humans from her occupational exposure (see our 2013-10-27 Blog posting:  Chicken Factory ).  Shortly after appearing in the documentary Food Inc., she quit as a chicken farmer, and is pleased to report a significant improvement in her personal health.

After years working in a mega chicken factory, Carol Morison's
health is severely compromised.

In a 2004 scientific report on poultry factory air quality (made available in 2011 by a leading supplier of products and services to the poultry industry), they reviewed all the available scientific literature, and concluded":

"The data that does exist is quite clear and unequivocal. Air quality within poultry housing is poorer than in confinement facilities for any other species. Subsequently, poultry workers suffer from more respiratory damage than any other workers in animal agriculture. Because much of the damage is insidious in nature and/or delayed in onset, its connection to occupational exposure is often overlooked."

There is no legal protection for the workers inside the chicken factories, even less protection for all those unsuspecting victims down wind from a mega chicken factory, yet this air pollution is clearly causing or contributing to the death and/or disease (both acute and chronic) of hundreds or thousands of people.

The proper thing to do is:

1. Define "Acceptable Farm Practices" to include adequate indoor air quality for both animals and workers; and
2. Install filters and scrubbers on any mega chicken factory that exceeds emissions of X kg/yr of organic dust, or Y mg/litre organic dust concentration levels.
    
3. Determine the acceptable level of bio-security risk for mega chicken factories.  For example, even if the exhaust scrubbers are 99.999% efficient, with the trillions of bacteria that are potentially released each year from mega chicken factories, the risk will likely be significantly greater than zero.  How bad is "good enough"?
4. Ensure zoning separation between mega chicken factories and all  homes, public buildings (eg. schools, hospitals, arenas, etc.), agriculture lands that grow food crops (animal or human), and other land users.
5. While a 10 mile radius is clearly a problem, just how big is No Man's Land around mega chicken factories?  We need scientific research to determine the No-Go Zone around the mega chicken factory Ground Zero sites.
6. With all of the growing lists of risks and unintended consequences with the mega chicken factory model (eg. biosecurity, occupational health, tainted raw chicken, poor nutritional profile for rapid-raised chicken, unaffordable food prices, etc.) is this a flawed model for food production that must be phased out or abandoned?

As soon as I finish this posting, I will send a link to it for Chicken Farmers of Canada ("CFC"), Chicken Farmers of Ontario ("CFO"), Health Canada ("HC"), Ontario's Ministry of Environment ("MOE"), Ontario's Ministry of Health & Long Term Care ("MOHLTC"), and Ontario's Ministry of Agriculture and Food ("OMAF").

Who wants to bet that they are all silent, or say its not them who is responsible to protect the public?

The obvious solution is treat mega factory chicken farming as being similar to nuclear fuel processing, lead smelting, PCB's, dioxin, or other similar noxious and dangerous environment.  The offending source of air pollution must be filtered and scrubbed before it is exhausted into the air to everyone downwind.

Just how strong is the Chicken Mafia lobbying effort?  Will it be able to deflect and avoid this issue as well?

We will have to wait and see.

Right to Food

Right To Food World Map showing status by Country, as of 2012

Do Canadians have a right to food?

If yes, that right can be expressed by growing your own food, or buying the food from others. Right to food is measured by availability, accessibility, and adequacy.

In the map at the right, note that only the USA and a handful of other countries have no known right to food.

For example, South Africa's Bill of Rights has included the right to food in their constitution.. This right is framed similar to, and is based upon the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 from the UN.  This international treaty became effective as of Jan. 3, 1976. Canada signed and ratified this treaty, effective as of May 19, 1976.  Once Canada ratified it, it became part of Canadian law. Canada therefore has a legal obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the right to food for every Canadian. It says:

Article 11
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.

There is also the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 which was taken up at the first session of the General Assembly in 1946, shortly after the UN was formed.  By UN resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, the General Assembly, meeting in Paris, adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Canada voted in favor of.

Wikipedia tells us:

"While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states."

This document says:

Article 25.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Mr.Olivier de Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, reporting to the UN Human Rights Council, states:

  “It is not simply the right to minimum calories or a right to be fed. It is about being guaranteed the right to feed oneself, either by purchasing food or producing it." 

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food undertook a formal country mission to Canada on May 6-16th, 2012. Mr. de Schutter’s trip to Canada was his first to an OECD country. With over 2 million Canadians living with severe or moderate food insecurity, it would appear that Canada is failing in its obligations to Canadians and the world. His full report on Right to Food made for the UN is available here.

On Supply Management in Canada, the Special Rapporteur said:

"The system should be strengthened for its advantages, but reformed with a view to a greater equity and to facilitate entry of new farmers."

Small Flockers agree that we need greater equity in Supply Management, and reformation of the overall system.

The Special Rapporteur went on to say:

"The Special Rapporteur believes that far greater attention should be paid to the need to allow local food systems to develop."

Small Flockers stand at the ready to assume our important role in Canada's local food system.  We can start as soon as we get both the Chicken Mafia and the government off of our backs.

The Federal Government seems to agree with Small Flocker's position.  The 2007 Status Report by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada states:

“Canada’s historical focus on an export food system has impeded efforts to build a healthy domestic food system;” and that the policy framework “is a significant barrier to local food systems.”

and

"Informants consistently pointed out the quota systems of some of the marketing boards for products such as eggs, milk and chicken make it difficult for small scale producers who just want to sell to the local market, to operate. Quota is particularly troublesome for small scale organic operators."

Unfortunately, Amnesty International reports that the Special Rapporteur was blocked, disrespected, and chastised by the Canadian government for daring to come to Canada, and for exposing the 3rd world conditions for food in numerous areas of Canada.

I therefore conclude that every Canadian has the right to food under international law.  This right can be fulfilled by growing your own, or buying.

So why are Small Flockers prohibited and alienated from their rights for poultry and eggs?  Why doesn't somebody reform the system that everybody knows is terribly flawed and dysfunctional?

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.

Monopoly vs. the Guillotine

I had previously posted some interesting data on the inflation occurring in the animal feeds supplied to the Supply Management sectors.  Price of dairy and chicken feed (Supply Management monopoly) are up 60%, while dog & cat food ("Free Market, non-monopoly") are up just 20% in the same time period.

Professor Baines of York University, Toronto ON Canada has apparently had similar concerns.  In his paper published on April 22, 2013 "Food Price Inflation and Redistribution Toward a New Analysis of Corporate Power in the World Food System", I found the following graph of C4 indexes:

C4 is a measure of the market share by the four biggest companies in that market.  "ADM" is Archer Daniels Midland (USA).  ADM's Canadian subsidiaries sources, stores, transports and processes crops such as wheat, cocoa and oilseeds at a total of 42 facilities manned by more than 1,000 employees.

ADM, Bunge, and Cargill are like 3 peas in a pod.  Let's take Cargill as an example.  Cargill started as a US company in 1865, before Canada was born.  Today, it is a trans-national producer and marketer of food, agricultural, financial and industrial products and services with 142,000 employees in 65 countries. As world-wide as Cargill is, in 2011 it generated 37% of its world-wide revenues from its North American operations (Ref: Baines 2013, op. cit.).  That's why Cargill spends about $1.5 million per year lobbying the US government.  In Canada, Cargill Limited is headquartered in Winnipeg, Manitoba and employs over 8,000 people across Canada.  Leonard Penner, Cargill's Canadian President has done lobbying in Ottawa, 23 meetings with the Ottawa mandarins and bureaucrats in the 23 days between Feb. 26/13 to Mar. 20/13, sometimes meeting with 8 different people in one day.  Busy guy.  No matter how you slice it, Cargill is BIG, and they are used to throwing their weight around in Washington, Ottawa, and Queens Park.

As you can see, the flour milling, soy crushing, and wet corn milling sectors have been steadily over-taken by these 3 dominant players.  Soy crushing and wet corn milling are central to the animal feeds industry.  In 2002, these 3 players controlled 71% of the soy crushing market.  Control these critical processes, and you have a strangle hold on everything upstream and downstream.  Nobody can move without your permission.

As can be seen from Baines' Figure 9 above, the more people starve, the more profitable it is for the Agro-Traders Nexus (see below):

Now they have figured out how to maximize their profits by people starving to death.

Upon being informed that the citizens of France had no bread to eat, Marie Antoinette , Queen-consort of Louis XVI of France, exclaimed "let them eat cake".  She ended up losing her head for that shortly later.

Are we prepared for the consequences of the Agro-Trader Nexus maximizing their profits as their corporate Mission Statements compel them to do?

Alternatively, should we inquire if France has a few used guillotines for sale?