Heritage Breeds, or Russian Roulette with Genetics

We have heard about conserving our genetic diversity in the wild, trying to undo the threatened extinction of thousands of species.  The same concept applies equally well to farms, livestock, and loss of heritage breeds, chickens included.

In Canada, only 7 people have self-identified as committed to sustaining 1 or more heritage breeds for fowl or poultry.

The Livestock Conservancy has created a map of their registry.  There are just 10 in Canada for all breeds of animal.  Some are with horses, pigs, sheep, goats, turkey, ducks, and chickens.

Of course, these are a few small farms with very limited resources (ie. knowledge, money, and hours in the day).  There are thousands of breeds in each of these species, far more than what a few individuals can focus on and sustain.

While there are similar individuals around the world, I suggest and fear that that dedicated effort will not be sufficient to stop or slow the commercialization of a few hybrids that are most profitable, and the extinction of all the rest.

Starting with the Chicken of Tomorrow contest in the late 1940's, we have accelerated the pace of chicken hybridization.  Before that, there was a huge amount of diversity in the genetic pool.  Commercialization has led to monopolization of the genetic stock.  Make a small tweak to any bread, and you now "own" that genetic material.

David Bollier blogged:

"This trend got its start in 1980 when the U.S. Supreme Court first allowed the patenting of lifeforms in the Chakrabarty case, which allowed the patenting of microorganisms.  That in turn opened the floodgates to the patenting of genes, plants, bioengineered crops, and much else.  Harvard University famously owns the patent of a specially bred mouse for cancer experiments, the “onco-mouse.”  There is much to be said for the fruits of biotech research, but there is also much to be lamented and condemned as far as the needless privatization of knowledge and stifling of competition and innovation."

In Dec. 2002, Canada's Supreme Court ruled against the patenting of higher life forms. The test case was Harvard University’s 17-year quest for ownership of its genetically engineered "oncomouse".  Biotech plants, microorganisms, and seeds can be patented, but not higher life forms like mice or people.

How does this apply to chickens?  A 2008 study estimated that commercial broiler chickens are already missing about 50% of the genetic diversity contained in all historic breeds of chicken.  It is estimated that 90% of the improvement in chicken productivity came from selective breeding efforts (eg. kg of chicken meat per kg of feed consumed, or kg of chicken meat per week of growth, etc.).  The proprietary commercial breeds of today have rapid growth and extra meat (especially breast meat), but this has also included infertility, obesity, cardiovasular disease, lameness, ascites (abdominal fluid retention), sedentary lifestyles preferences, skeletal abnormalities, male-female aggression, irregular ovulation, .  Pushing genetic selection far past the optimum so as to maximize Big Ag profits, we have many drawbacks.

Disappearance of the heritage breeds, either now or in the near future, means that those genetics of maximum profit becomes a 1-way street, with no possible exit.

We have inadvertently (or negligently) stumbled down these 1-way genetic breeding and hybridization streets before.  For example:

• Bovine leukocyte adhesion deficiency (BLAD, an autosomal recessive hereditary disease) in Holstein cattle was caused by one popular breeding bull, Osborndale Ivanhoe, that had his artificial insemination ("AI") semen sold far and wide, siring over 100,000 animals.  His semen is $4,250 a shot, and enough semen was collected for about 200,000 shots, so we have one bull's AI potential worth $850 million.  Do you see the source of this 1-way genetic road to hell?  Much later, it was discovered that this one bull had a genetic defect; BLAD.  This fatal disease started in the 1950's, but the disease wasn't identified until 1992; 29 years after the death of that bull.  Too late then, as we were already at the end of that 1-way genetic road to nowhere.  Today, there is a genetic test for BLAD.  Based on current trends of identification and prevelence reduction for BLAD carriers in Canada, it will be eradicated by Year 2167 (152 years from now).  Genetic mistakes are BIG mistakes, and take a long time to eliminate.  This Year 2167 prediction is based upon a 4.9% BLAD Canadian herd prevalence in 1992, 1% BLAD prevalence in 2006, a 272,774 Canadian registered herd size in 2004, a 550,000 herd size in 2015, steady exponential growth in herd size and BLAD prevalence.
  
  
• The 1970 corn leaf blight outbreak was due to the widespread use of the Texas male-sterile cytoplasm in corn hybridization.
• One type (ie. cultivar) of banana has 47% of the world's total banana production, and has 99% of the world's banana export market; the Cavandish banana cultivar.  The millions of Cavandish banana trees of today come from cuttings taken from just one mutant banana tree, discovered sometime between 1500's and 1850's.  The world's Cavandish banana monoculture is now being decimated by a new fungus that threatens to wipe out every one of those cloned banana trees.  Note that Cavendish took off as the Big Banana in the 1950's when the previous dominate banana (Big Mike) suddenly died off from Panama Disease.  We never learn.
• Commercial chickens are controlled by just four major breeding companies (three broiler breeders and one layer breeder), which together account for ≈90% of meat-type and ≈40% of egg-type chickens supplied commercially worldwide.  Fortunately the genome mapping of the chicken (broiler, layer, silkie, and red jungle chicken, the common ancestor) was completed in 2004.  A chicken genetics study have found that there is significant in-breeding, and a loss of 50% of the prior genetic diversity in chicken.  If these lines are crossed with each other, it would somewhat improve the diversity, but not by much.  This sad state of affairs places the entire chicken industry at great risk if future shocks, emerging diseases or outbreaks, different selection criteria emerge in the future, or market trends must be responded to with chicken genetics.  Only the small flocks on the world's non-commercial farms have the required diversity and genetic pool from which to draw.

Thoroughbred racehorses have refused to use AI techniques for these very reasons.  Humans have already done much horse inbreeding before AI arrived on the scene in the 1950's.  The further down those 1-way genetic roads you go, the canyon walls become higher, steeper, and with fewer and fewer handholds, making it virtually impossible to climb out.

There were always those who warned of these potential 1-way genetic street risks that cause loss of genetic diversity.  However, the profitability for those who lead the way, and the moral hazard relief for them (ie. private profits, but the risk and its financial consequences will fall on the general public, not those who gained the profits).

These significant benefits with no risk have enticed many to turn a deaf ear to those prophetic warnings, and they have blundered ahead, driven by greed and self interest, in spite of the risk.

COOL Blowback

COOL (Country Of Origination Labeling) has been a hot issue for Canadian pork being exported to the US.  What about chicken?

Consumers, both in US and Canada (and I assume the rest of the world), would like to know where their food comes from.  With the 100 mile diet, eat local, buy local, and xenophobia, there is considerable pressure to buy from local producers.  That is why Canadian pork producers object to having "Raised in Canada" being put on Canadian pork that is sold in US grocery stores.  Everybody realizes that would be the kiss of death for sales.  The meat will rot on grocery store shelves, rejected by US consumers.  Alternatively, US grocery stores would have to sell Canadian pork at deep discount pricing, so low it would drive Canadian pork exporters into bankruptcy.

Is this issue isolated to just Canadian pork?

No.  It also applies to both Canadian and US chicken.

China has been frozen out of many industries, but they want greater access to US markets for all of their products, including food.

US Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") has their hands full with lousy chicken quality produced by US growers, US abattoirs, and US processors.  They don't need the added risk and headaches from sketchy Chinese poultry producers.  If Chinese dairy producers were willing to adulterate milk and baby formula with toxic melamine, or thousands of dead pigs purposefully dumped into Chinese rivers, what would you expect to occur if they could export Chinese chicken to the US?

But the Chinese kept pushing their agenda.

Finally a compromise was reached. IN Sept. 2013, Economy In Crisis Blog reported with outrage that Chinese abattoirs would be allowed to buy US grown chickens, eviscerate them, cook the meat, package it, and export it back to the US for sale in US grocery stores.  The package would say "Made In USA", likely due to COOL regulations.  That would allow retailers to hock this US chicken processed in China as 100% bona fide Star Spangled Banner home grown chicken to an unsuspecting public.

US farmers were likely in favor as it gave them additional production, and the Chinese buyers would likely pay a premium to get the necessary chicken supply.

As an interesting sidebar, FDA only has sufficient resources to inspect 2% of the imported chicken.  In the US, 60% of imported food comes from developing nations.  It isn't just snooty and fancy mustards from France that are being imported into the US.  Just like in Canada, when half century old canning factories in Canada are shut down so that we can buy pickles imported from India.

USDA inspectors regularly come to Canada to make sure Canadian foot exporters and CFIA are both doing their job of ensuring safe food is being exported to the US.

However, there are no plans for USDA inspectors to ensure the quality or safety of this chicken processed in China.

Should Canadians jump on this opportunity, saying "Americans are spooked by Chinese chicken.  We believe American would be much more comfortable with US chickens processed in Canada then re-exported back to the US.  Canadians will build the extra slaughter capacity that's necessary to meet this marketing and exporting opportunity.

Would Canadians be ready to unknowingly accept Canadian chicken that was processed in China, but the retail meat counter label on the packages hides that fact?

For all we know, CFIA may have already cut that deal with China and its exporting allies.

Where does this place Small Flockers within this boiling kettle of politics and chicken broth?

How is it cheaper and better to ship chicken all the way around the globe before humans eat it?

Obviously this well traveled chicken will only occur if someone is making more money doing things the crazy way.

Can we not find a solution that will allow the underutilized Small Flockers to spread their wings and fly?

Danger! Bird Flu H5N8 at Dutch Chicken Egg Factory Farm

The highly contagious H5N8 Bird Influenza has been found at a chicken egg factory farm near Henkendorp, Holland.

Dutch authorities have quarantined a 10 km radius; nothing chicken related allowed to come in, or go out.  They know this could be serious.

How do we know it's a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation)?  Dutch authorities will soon be slaughtering 150,000 chickens who reside at that farm for egg production.

Realize that these 150,000 bird likely have all the same genetics, so they are similar to being genetic clones of each other.  Usually, factory chicken have the same parents, same grandparents, and same great grandparents.  They are all hatched the same, fed the same, and treated the same.  In other words, there is no difference between any of these birds.  That's how CAFO operations work.  The birds all grow at the same rate, and produce the same size eggs, at the same rate, with no variability.

As long as everything goes perfectly, you maximize profits.

If something goes wrong, it quickly becomes a total disaster.

DW reports:

"The various strains of bird flu regularly cause panic - which is perhaps justified because the [human] mortality rate is 70 percent."

These viruses are constantly mutating.  Some, like H5N1 and H5N8 are not easily spread to humans.  Other H5 virus strains, including all future strains, have the potential to be transmitted much more easily to humans.  When that happens, avian flu will quickly become far worse than Ebola.

The longer we delay solving the CAFO issues, the more virus mutations that occur, and the higher the risk that the transmission to humans goes exponential.  Sooner or later, we will wish we had reacted sooner.

Likely, the CAFO factory farmer will be financially compensated by the Dutch government.  In that way, that CAFO farmer (and all other factory farmers just like him)  is encouraged to do the same risky behaviour all over again.

The factory farmer gets the huge profits when everything goes right.  The public picks up the tab when things go bad.  The public is exposed to the significant risk of disease outbreak or financial insurance and moral hazard that supports and encourages this risky behaviour.

Canada's chicken factory farms are up to the same tricks too.  It is only a matter of time before this same or similar risk hits Canada once again. In 2004, avian flu resulted in the destruction of 17 million chickens, turkeys, ducks, and geese in Canada.  The House of Commons  Agriculture Committee eventually got involved with the botched handling of that outbreak by the powerful Supply Management lobby and their friends at CFIA.

Again in 2009, H5 strain of bird flu struck at Abbotsford BC at a chicken CAFO with 50,000 birds initially.  The cull eventually spread like wildfire as CFIA tried to contain the outbreak.

The CAFO system is flawed.  The sooner Supply Management admits it, the sooner we can move forward to something that is safer and better for all. 

There 'aughta be a law.

Factory Farm Fiasco

When all goes well, factory farms might be the low cost producer.  However, what happens when things go badly, as they often do?  What then?

Canada's Agriculture Hourglass.  This is a dynamic, unstable system,
that will naturally and continuously get worse and worse unless
somebody steps in and changes the system.

Who will make the necessary changes, and when will they start?

There is no substitute for boot on the ground.  Small farms owned & taken care of by dedicated people who will stop at nothing when bad goes to worse, have an advantage in troubled times.

For example, one farmer has 10,000 acres under his ownership and/or rental.  When the weather is good, and the super efficient (and super expensive) farm machinery works well, that one farmer and his regular helpers can easily achieve what needs to be done.

However, we see the risks better this year.  The window is quickly closing in this very wet Fall.  Thousands of acres of corn, oats, soybeans might soon be rotting in the field if the weather refuses to co-operate.

Crop insurance will only partially compensate.  The government cannot (or more correctly, should not) be offering insurance so that people purposefully step into harms way.  That's called moral hazard.  Nobody can afford the cumulative consequences that would result.  In many ways, that is what it seems we are doing as small farms disappear, and large farms grow bigger and bigger, and the associated risk climbs exponentially

Climate Change makes for less predictable weather.  If bad weather hits, the neighbour is likely similarly at risk, and therefore has his hands full too at exactly the same time, and is unlikely available to help.

Changing climate also raises the possibility of viruses and bacteria attacking and quickly spreading through the flock.  What farmer is adequately staffed to handle a sudden outbreak with huge mortality levels?  Who is willing to wade into a known outbreak as a neighbour helping neighbour, and possibly transport that disease back to his home farm?

It is government's role to set proper policy.  Does government not recognize the risk associated with putting all the eggs into just a few baskets.  No matter how carefully you watch those few baskets, there are things beyond anybody's control, accidents happen, mistakes are made, and we end up with a huge unmitigated disaster for which we all pay.

Some farmers are willing to take these risks, for in good times they make a fortune, and in bad times there is government sponsored insurance.  The question is whether it's good government policy to encourage those who speculate and gamble with other people's money (ie. taxpayer's money).

The farm size and risk pendulum has swung way too far under Supply Management and agriculture in general.

Skeptics Live Forever

There are skeptics and deniers of strong scientific evidence located everywhere.  Supply Management ("SM") is no exception.

How long will supporters of Canada's
Supply Management stick their heads
in the sand to avoid hearing and seeing
the truth?

You don't have to be the first person to believe every rumor that comes your way.  That is the definition of being gullible and naive.

However, there comes a time when the evidence mounts and mounts to a point that continuing to deny borders on insanity.  That is what scientists call Cognitive Dissonance:

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.
Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals tend to become psychologically uncomfortable and are motivated to attempt to reduce this dissonance, as well as actively avoiding situations and information which are likely to increase it.

 How does this apply to Canada's Supply Management System?  It appears that we have not yet reached a state of Cognitive Dissonance for Supply Management in Canada.

Go back to sleep, it's not yet time to wake up!

To prepare for the awakening (or to hasten its arrival), I have presented evidence suggesting there are 2.7 deaths per year of Canadians that are caused by SM chicken contaminated by salmonella that is regularly sold at retail stores in Canada (see SFPFC's Blog Posting 2.7 Canadians Die Each Year from SM's Contaminated Chicken   and discussions about this evidence on Better Farming.

Those 2.7 deaths/yr from Canadian SM chicken was based upon both US and Canadian data.  I have openly declared from the very beginning my use of US data due to the lack of Canadian data.  Not everything is identical in both US and Canada, but they are often similar.  Until we have the necessary data for Canada, the US data can help us estimate the likely effects and risks on a qualitative or approximate basis.

In spite of this, the skeptics have totally rejected all evidence against SM's questionable methods as useless. It appears that the skeptics feel that SM Canadian chicken is perfect, the best in the world, and are unwilling to consider any suggestion to the contrary.

I agree that there is some room for doubt in these food safety risk assessments; there always will be.  However, there is a concept called "Precautionary Principle", first developed in Germany in the 1980's.

As to application of the Precautionary Principle for ensuring the health of Canadians, Health Canada says:

 "The Health Canada Decision Making Framework treats the concept of precaution as pervasive. As such it does not require extremes in the actions taken. Instead, risk management strategies reflect the context and nature of the issue, including the urgency, scope and level of action required."

Shouldn't the Precautionary Principle also be applied to SM's practices?

There is also the principle of Occam's Razor, which says the best answer is usually the simplest answer with the fewest assumptions.

In spite of these two principles, there are those who still assume and believe in geocentrism (ie. the Earth is at the centre of our solar system, not the Sun).  This argument started around 2,000 BC and continues to today, over 4,000 years and counting.

Somehow, I don't think the SM debate will end any time soon.

There are also those skeptics who believe the Earth is flat (ie. not a globe, see Flat Earth Society)

DDT was seen as a wonderful pesticide for the first 14 years (1948 - 1962), but slowly the mounting scientific evidence suggested otherwise.

Other skeptics still insisted in sworn testimony before the US Congress in 1994 that the scientific proof was far from conclusive as to whether cigarette smoking caused lung cancer or addiction.  That was 38 years after Doll & Hill's study of British physicians in 1956 first offered scientific evidence of what was suspected for 400 years before that.

To be a skeptic is every individuals choice, to believe as they will.  Soon, SM Believers may be added to the deniers of other scientific evidence listed above.  We'll have to wait to see for sure.

Do you believe it is OK for the masses being doomed to suffer as long as there is at least one person left who chooses to deny the overwhelming body of evidence against SM?

I believe there is now sufficient scientific evidence to take action to improve SM chicken so as to reduce the risk and cost of this terrible system.

Further denial of the available scientific evidence delays the solution, and increases the risk and suffering for all.

Finally! CFC Bans Ceftiofur Injections in Eggs & Chicks

The use of the powerful antibiotic Ceftiofur in chicks and eggs has finally been banned by Chicken Farmers of Canada ("CFC").  CFC's new rule takes effect on May 15th 2014.

CFC's private glacier must have melted a little recently.   CFC, long ago frozen in administrative suspended animation, has finally decided to act for the good of Canadians.  Previously, it seemed as if CFC would rather focus their efforts on themselves and their millionaire, greedy chicken farmer stakeholders.

My heartfelt congratulations to CFC for joining the rest of us who live in the real world, rather than CFC's delusional and self-serving assumptions.

Chicken farmers have a long history, over 60 years, of using drugs, chemical, and yes, even poisonous and cancer-causing arsenic in the chicken feed and water supply for their factory farmed foul chickens,  This crazy scheme of the Chicken Mafia helps them to maximize their profits and reduce their business risk; regardless of the possible impact on people who would eventually eat their chicken as food.  Sounds crazy, but it's true.

For ceftiofur, factory chicken farmers ordered the hatcheries to have robots inject ceftiofur into millions of hatching eggs so that the chickens would be tainted before they were born.  In other cases, the newly hatched chicks were sexed, then injected with their vile antibiotic fluid so as to maximize their profits and minimize their business risks.

Once Public Health Canada identified the rising tide of superbugs in retail chicken, all broiler chicken hatcheries in Québec voluntarily stopped all use of ceftiofur in February 2005.  The superbug incidence rate started dropping shortly after this voluntary ban.  The hatcheries ended their voluntary ban, and the superbugs on retail chicken were back soon thereafter.

I previously reported on, complained, and warned about these issues as early as March 2, 2013 which is just 3 days after starting this Blog (see Eating Farm Gate Chicken? ).  This Blog's all time winning Blog post for reader activity is Choose: Frankenstein Chicken, or Naturally Raised Chicken? from April 2, 2013.  Also see here, here, here, here, here, and here.  Do you think any of that commentary helped throw CFC over the cliff to abandon their foolish scheme?

Naw, I doubt it.

Is Quebec an isolated case?  No, it's Canada-wide.  Dr. Nancy de With, DVM MSc, Epidemiologist with BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands gave a talk on this very subject on April 18, 2006 called "Antibiotic resistance of enteric bacteria in commercial broiler chickens in the Fraser Valley, BC" (original MS Powerpoint slides), or a DocStoc on-line version. Here is Slide 16 which shows up to 96% of the samples of the chicken's intestinal bacteria having SuperBug resistance to Class I (very high importance for humans), II (high importance for humans), or III (medium importance for humans) human antibiotics.

Broiler Chicken Bacteria have gained significant resistance to human antibiotics, likely due to the chronic
use of antibiotics to inject eggs, in the feed, and the water of chicken factories so as to maximize the profits
and reduce the business risk of millionaire chicken producers, regardless of the cost and risk to the public.

Unfortunately, all of these antibiotics, drugs, and chemicals in the feed &/or water fed to factory farmed foul chickens have created superbugs on retail chicken sold in grocery stores.

In 2010, Public Health Canada reported an extremely strong linkage (ie. the correlation describes 90% of all variation between ceftiofur-resistant Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg isolated from retail raw chicken and incidence of ceftiofur-resistant Salmonella serovar Heidelberg infections in humans across Canada.

Most people think of hospitals when they think of exposure to superbugs (ie. nosocomial infections ); some that cause life-long infections, or death.  However, today it is likely that the raw chicken in the grocery store is the greater threat, not hospitals.

The majority of households do not have repeated visits to the hospitals; most people are generally healthy.  However, virtually every family makes a weekly trip to the grocery store.  The higher frequency of exposure via the grocery store may make this the #1 risk to your family from Superbugs.

You may be a vegetarian, and never go near meat.  I hope you don't think that being a vegetarian will protect you from a Superbug infection originating from raw chicken?

Most people eat meat, and after they touch packages of raw chicken, they touch just about everything else in the grocery store that vegetarians and everybody else touches too; like the grocery carts, food display cases, and the handles on the freezer cases in the grocery stores.  Now that you also touched those same surfaces, that Superbug slime from the chicken wrapper is all over your hands too.  You'd better be careful what you touch next.

Oops!  You touched your lettuce in your cart when you re-adjusted its position so it wouldn't get squished by your other groceries.  The lettuce is now contaminated with chicken Superbug ooze, and those Superbugs won't fully wash off even if rinsed under running water at home.  Your salad now has an extra, secret ingredient that you did not intend to add.  Say thank-you to the Canadian factory farmed foul (chicken).

This story was initially broke by Margaret Munro's story in The StarPhoenix and/or O.Canada.com  (more comprehensive version).  Click the link and read the excellent history that puts the "smoking gun" in the hands of the CFC, while they stand over the dead bodies of their alleged victims, the Canadian public).  These stories seems to have been based on a related story in the Ottawa Citizen.

Ceftiofur antibiotic use causes the corresponding growth of superbugs
on chicken, and in human infections.  Quebec banned the use of
ceftiofur in chickens, and the superbug problem disappeared; first on the
chicken, then in humans, so Quebec allowed ceftiofur to start being used again.
The superbugs soon came back again, so Quebec banned ceftiofur  again.
Meanwhile in Ontario (also a superbug hotspot), neither the Ontario
government nor CFO did anything, as usual.  Above graph is from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871348/

The Canadian Veterinary Journal and Public Health Canada sheds some additional light on the subject here, here, here, here, here and  here.  Here is the graph showing the Superbug hotspot data from Quebec and Ontario.

Searching CFC's website for "ceftiofur" so as to confirm this news flash yields nothing.  Searching for "antibiotic" gives CFC's standard propaganda justifying their fossilization and suspended animation of their self-serving and wrong headed policy on the permitted and recommended use of antibiotics to maximize chicken farmer profits; in spite of the growing evidence of their wrong-headed policies.
After May 15th, it is hoped that CFC and all other SM Mafia personnel will actually audit their henchmen to ensure their compliance with the new rules.  The greatest risk of all is some renegade chicken farmers who are greedy enough to continue buying their drug of choice on the black market, or ordering their corporate veterinarian to prescribe the drug of choice, or personally importing it, and feeding it to their flocks; callously continuing the risk for Canadian consumers.

US Centre for Disease Control released the following video in Sept. 2013 about antibiotic resistant diseases spreading throughout North America.


In the interim, here are SFPFC's recommendations to protect yourself from chicken superbugs in the grocery store and when you bring them home to your unsuspecting, innocent family members.

So CFC finally took action on this huge Superbug risk. Why did CFC take this action now?

Was it the end consumer's demands for change?  Was it CFC's deep empathy and caring for the needs and priorities of these potential victims of CFC's crazy plans?

Don't make me laugh!

CFC is a narcissistic organization, like the rest of the Chicken Mafia (see Individual and Organizational Narcissism ).

Narcissistic organizations tend not to identify and correct their previous errors.

I can only assume that behind the scenes, the Chief Vets of the Provinces and Federal Government, and/or Health Canada and Public Health Canada twisted CFC's arm, by saying "Take appropriate action to this threat to public health, or else!".

Maybe someday, we will know for sure.

Will CFC give Canadians their assurance that they will adequately police their members and ensure Mafia-style compliance with the Chicken Mafia Don's orders against the use of banned antibiotics?

If CFC is unwilling or unable to give us that assurance of comprehensive auditing to ensure compliance, then their banning of ceftiofur is a mere smokescreen to distract and mislead Canadians; true to their narcissistic character.

Don't hold your breath.

Oops! They did it Again

Consumer Reports has again found that almost all raw US chicken is contaminated with 1 or more deadly bacteria (ie. enterococcus, E. coli, campylobacter, klebsiella pneumonia, salmonella, and staphylococcus aureus).  These 316 samples of chicken breasts were taken from retail stores all across USA in July 2013.

Consumer Reports tested for enterococcus (79.8 % of samples were contaminated), E. coli (65.2% contaminated), campylobacter (43% contaminated), klebsiella pneumonia (13.6% contaminated), salmonella (10.8% contaminated) and staphylococcus aureus (9.2% contaminated).

They have also found that 49.7% of samples had bacteria that were resistant to 3 or more antibiotics; in other words, the chicken was contaminated with superbugs.  If you accidentally contaminated yourself or a member of your family with the superbugs on the chicken, the medical system would have great difficulty curing you of the infection, as most available antibiotcs would be helpless against the superbugs.

Please note that Agriculture & Agri-Foods Canada reports that for 2012, 88.6% of the chicken meat imports into Canada, and 99.79% of the mature chicken (spent fowl) imports into Canada, came from USA.  CFC's Chicken Data Booklet 2013 shows that those USA chicken imports (ie. a total of 218,677,453 kg., or 0.22 Million metric tonnes of chicken), represent 21.43% by weight of the chicken consumed in Canada.

No matter how much the #ChickenMafia puff themselves up, or hold their noses high in the air, don't think that Canadian chicken is pure and safe.  CFIA, University of Guelph, and OMAF have consistently found that 30% to 80% of Canadian chicken is contaminated with lethal bacteria, including superbugs ( for example, see Blog Posting Contaminated Chicken and here.

The FDA has posted draft regulations to force their chicken industry to slowly taper off on the antibiotics being fed chicken, supposedly to get rid of the superbugs.  In vitro mouse tests showed that salmonella had a doubling time that ranged from 20 minutes to more than 1 hour, depending on the mouse's immune system (presence or absence of macrophages).  The geometric median between 20 min and 1 hr is 34.64 minutes.  A three year tapering period proposed by the FDA is 1.5768 million minutes, or 45,519 doublings.  Assuming we started with just 1 superbug, in that 3 year period with 45,519 doublings, we would produce a number far bigger than what any spreadsheet or calculator can compute.  This number is bigger than all the nucleons in the entire visible universe (estimated to be 10⁸⁰ nucleons, see Harrison, Edward Robert, Cosmology: The Science of the Universe Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 481, 482).

"The mathematics of uncontrolled growth are frightening. A single cell of the bacterium E. coli would, under ideal circumstances, divide every twenty minutes. That is not particularly disturbing until you think about it, but the fact is that bacteria multiply geometrically: one becomes two, two become four, four become eight, and so on. In this way it can be shown that in a single day, one cell of E. coli could produce a super-colony equal in size and weight to the entire planet Earth."

Michael Crichton (1969) The Andromeda Strain, Dell, N.Y. p247

Note that an E.coli bacteria weighs approximately 10^-15 kg., while Earth weighs 5.9763 x 10²⁴ kg., so I calculate it to take 132.13 doublings of 20 minutes each for one E.coli bacteria to grow into an Earth-sized super-colony, which is 1.83 days; slightly different from Crichton's calculation.

So how do you feel about the FDA letting this issue go on for another 3 years?

Of course, Health Canada has no plans whatsoever as of now.  Why panic?

So what do the experts suggest to protect yourself from biohazardous chicken?  Use a cutting board that is only used for poultry, prepare the chicken without washing the chicken (ie. washing spreads the contamination all over the kitchen), and as soon as you're done, put the cutting board into the dishwasher.

I go into a hospital to visit, or for emergency medical care about 1 or 2 times per year.  Every week, my wife or I enter a grocery store where bio-hazardous chicken is handled, stored, and sold.  Both the grocery store and the hospital are known reservoirs for superbugs.  Which represents the greatest superbug infection potential for my family, the grocery store, or the hospital?

Obviously, the grocery store is a far greater risk, both in probability and lack of detectability (ie. the grocery store risk is poo-poohed, covered up, and hushed up by everybody, including the government).

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canada's prostitution laws are non-constitutional because they put sex trade workers at significant risk.  The #ChickenMafia puts most Canadians at significant risk too from their biohazardous chicken.  Why is biohazardous chicken permitted and enforced by government regulations?

Why isn't biohazardous chicken from the #ChickenMafia also declared non-constitutional?

#ChickenMafia Lies and Moral Hazard

Truth or lie? The SM5 (Supply Management 5) say they are totally self-funding, and not a burden on the public purse.

SM5 is:

• Chicken Farmers of Canada,
• Turkey Farmers of Canada,
• Dairy Farmers of Canada,
• Egg Farmers of Canada, and the 
• Canadian Hatching Egg Producers 

We now have a wonderful thing called Open Government.  This is where the government makes its data readily available to everybody in the world, without needing a Freedom of Information Request and the patience of Job.

I decided to give it a try for determining the correct answer to the above question about the SM5.  I found the database of transfer payments for the Public Accounts.  Transfer Payments are when the government pays out money or other benefit and doesn't get full value in return (eg. grant, subsidy, forgivable loan, etc.).  The database is for $10,000 or more; amounts smaller than this are hidden from view.

I couldn't get the search function to work, so I had to manually scan each data file. I searched for "chicken", "poultry", "dairy", "milk", "hatchery", "broiler", and "turkey" for the first 2 available data files.  I soon hit pay dirt, as follows:

2003/2004    AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD    Canadian Food Inspection Agency    Compensation payments in accordance with requirements established by regulations under the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act, and authorized pursuant to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act    Dewest Poultry Abbotsford BC    $227,057.00

2003/2004    AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD    Canadian Food Inspection Agency    Compensation payments in accordance with requirements established by regulations under the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act, and authorized pursuant to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act    Misty Acres Poultry Ltd Abbotsford BC    $191,753.00

2004/2005    AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD    Canadian Food Inspection Agency    Compensation payments in accordance with requirements established by regulations under the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act, and authorized pursuant to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act    Praire Chicken Farms Ltd Abbotsford BC    $152,787.00

2004/2005    AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD    AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD    Contributions for Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector Assistance - Food safety and Food Quality    Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council Ottawa Ont   $23,016.00

2004/2005    AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD    Canadian Food Inspection Agency    Compensation payments in accordance with requirements established by regulations under the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act, and authorized pursuant to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act    A & M Poultry Farms Ltd Abbotsford BC    $823,036.00

2004/2005    AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD    Canadian Food Inspection Agency    Compensation payments in accordance with requirements established by regulations under the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act, and authorized pursuant to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act    Ancor Poultry Farms Ltd Abbotsford BC    $402,607.00

2004/2005    AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD    Canadian Food Inspection Agency    Compensation payments in accordance with requirements established by regulations under the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act, and authorized pursuant to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act    Apperloo Poultry Farms Abbotsford BC    $722,405.00

I hope this is a sufficient number of hits to make the point.  There are 11 data files there (2003 - 2013).  I searched the first two files and got more than enough examples of large payments of taxpayer's money going to poultry farms.

I cannot confirm that these farms are #ChickenMafia members for that is a top secret list, but it seems impossible that small flock operations would be getting that type of payout from the Federal Government.

A quick search of news items show that Fraser Valley of BC (ie. Abbotsford BC and surrounding areas) had a major outbreak of bird flu around that time.  See Oct. 20, 2005, CBC News: Canada's poultry industry faces avian flu

The methods used by #ChickenMafia factories are a hotbed, ready for disease breakout at any time.  In this case, the predictable disaster occurred on numerous farms due to cross-contamination between nearby chicken factories.

The news article outlines how one chicken farm became infected, the flock was condemned, the birds were killed and disposed of, I assume a half-baked clean-up was performed (ie. inadequate precautions to protect against re-infection), and the replacement flock subsequently became infected, and it also had to be destroyed.  I can only assume that Canadian taxpayers compensated this #ChickenMafia farmer not once, but twice for his sloppy methods and cavalier attitude.

If this #ChickenMafia farmer had paid the full cost of his mistakes and his risky operation, somehow I think he might have done a better job at ensuring the second flock didn't get infected.  If the Canadian taxpayers are picking up 100% of the tab for his risky behaviours, would he be less willing to adequately learn from prior mistakes?  Why would the #ChickenMafia farmer be worried if he is spared the consequences from his actions?  There is no cost nor inconvenience to him whatsoever.

Does the #ChickenMafia pay any insurance premiums for these insurance compensations from the Federal Government?  Not as far as I know.  If you have info to the contrary, let me know.

This is out-and-out Moral Hazard.

Definition of moral hazard

In insurance, the chance that the insured will be more careless and take greater risks because he or she is protected, thus increasing the potential of claims on the provider.

The concept can be extended to any contract..that by its existence could prompt a signatory to take unnecessary risks.  Moral hazard arises when a contract or financial arrangement creates incentives for the parties involved to behave against the interest of others.

What this means is the #ChickenMafia gets all the profits and benefits, but Canadian taxpayers assume all the risk if something goes horribly wrong.

This Moral Hazard tends to cause more frequent claims, bigger claims, minimal prevention efforts, minimal mitigation of risks, and slower or no learning from prior mistakes.

This same Moral Hazard is what caused or contributed to the 2008 global financial meltdown with Wallstreet and the "Too Big To Fail" banks.  We saw how that worked out.  Million dollar bonuses for the bankers and a shrug of the shoulders for taxpayers and homeowners who are stuck with the consequences when the brown stuff hits the fan.

No wonder Canadians pay so much for chicken and the other SM5 commodities.

I therefore conclude that the SM5 is misleading the public with their "self-funded" propaganda; par for the course with the #ChickenMafia

If private insurance companies are unwilling or unable to provide the necessary farm insurance contracts for the #ChickenMafia, then I have no problem with the formation of a stand-alone Crown Corporation for providing agriculture insurance; provided the farmers pay the full cost of the risk resulting insurance premiums, and a reasonable return on the capital provided by the Federal Government.

Until that happens, we Canadians pay 300% more for the chicken we buy at retail, and we pay again for the "devil may care" risky behaviours of the #ChickenMafia.

Meat Regs: More at stake than meat

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food ("OMAF") is reviewing their Meat Regulations.  When they held public information meetings on their proposed changes, I attended the Sudbury meeting.  See my previous report after their public information meeting.

I finally finished it and filed Small Flocker's recommendations and comments with OMAF. Small Flocker's comments and recommended improvements on Ontario's current Meat Regulations are available here

Some of the issues I raised are as follows:

Food Borne Illness Outbreaks
Food borne illness in the US is estimated at $77.7 Billion per year.  We might therefore estimate Canada's impact at $7.77 Billion per year, 10% of US total.  Similarly based on US results from CDC, Canadian food borne illness outbreaks (ie. many individuals over a large area affected) from meats and poultry (ie. excludes fish & seafood) probably account for 22% (n=210,000) of the outbreaks, 22% (n= 572) of the resulting hospitalizations, and 29% (n=18) of the deaths.

Sporadic Food Poisoning
Add to the outbreaks described above are the sporadic food borne illnesses (1 or a few people, closely contained). More than 9 million persons each year in the USA have a food borne illness caused by a major pathogen, so Canada probably has 900,000 sporadic illnesses per year.

Poor Diet due to high cost of Meat
There is growing understanding by food nutrition experts  that excess dietary carbohydrates are causing or contributing to significant incidence and prevalence of multiple diseases such as obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, arthritis, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, cancer, etc.  See Dr. Lustig here and here, Gary Taubes here, and Dr. Jay Wortman here and CBC Television Documentary here

Health care is more than 40% of Ontario’s Provincial budget, and these dietary influenced diseases are directly and indirectly related to most of these health care costs, possibly up to 70% of these direct and indirect health care costs (ie. 70% of 40%, or a grand total of 28% of Ontario’s budget caused by poor diet).  Ontario’s 2013-2014 budget for healthcare is $48.9 Billion per year.  This total diet-related tax burden is suggested as 70% of this total annual budget, representing $34.23 Billion per year, a significant cost to Ontario.  The cost of food borne illness can be added as well, further raising the stakes.

I suggest that this $34.23+ Billion health care cost trumps the total value-added GDP of $8 Billion per year that is created by Ontario’s meat industry.

If meat protein and the accompanying animal fat is more affordable and available, this can help reduce these food-induced risks and disease burden for Ontario.

When considering the Meat Regulation amendments and these specific recommendation, it is suggested that this indirect cost to Ontario of $34.23 Billion per year be kept in mind.

Meat Export Opportunities
I previously posted about the appalling, weak-kneed meat export business Canada has for chicken.  In 2012, CFC reported that Canada produced 1.0247 Billion kg of chicken, at a price of $1.80/kg or higher.  We calculate a total value of $1.844 Billion.  If OECD exports can allow us to increase our production 5 times 2012 levels, that's an additional $7.378 Billion in GDP for Canada.  Ontario's share would be about 1/3 of this, or $2.46 Billion.  Assuming a 3:1 spin-off effect, that is a total of $7.378 Billion of additional business for Ontario.

Grand Total

When we add up all the above, we get a grand total in excess of $41.61 Billion per year that is directly affected by this Meat Regulation revision process.  I hope OMAF gives it the attention it deserves.

There is more at stake than just meat.

Draft Plan for Ending Canada's Supply Management, Revision #2

In a previous posting, I proposed 4 Principles for ensuring that we can get out of our current SM frying pan, without falling into the fires of hell.

For those who don't fully understand how SM (Supply Management) quota system works (I include myself in that category), there are two sides to every quota.  There is a Producer Quota for the farmer to produce the commodity (ie. milk, eggs, hatchery chicks, turkeys, and chicken), and a separate Processing Quota for those interested in buying the commodities produced (ie. the processors, distributors, and retail sellers of those commodities).  The farmers, who produce under the Production Quota, need steady customers, and to get enough for their production to earn a fair living.  The buyers, who buy the produced commodities under their Processing Quota of the commodities need a steady supply of quality products at a reasonable price. 

I'm not totally satisfied with my rough outline of an idea, but I wanted to share it now, so we can get other ideas to further improve it.  Assuming that those 4 Principles previously proposed (see link above) are correct and sufficient, here is my 14 step plan for removing SM from Canada:

*** Start of Draft Plan ***

1. Legislation is passed, both federally and provincially, or on a stand-alone basis by one or more sane and brave provinces willing to go it alone.  The date that the legislation passes is called "D-Day".  The SM production and processing quotas as they existed on D-Day will be defined as "Base Quota".
   
2. From D-Day to D-Day plus 1 year, the new systems described below will be built and tested, to ensure they are ready for their launch as of D-Day plus 1 year.
   
   Some vertically integrated supply chains exist (ie. same or related companies own the hatchery, the grower, the slaughter plant, and may have a long term contract with a major grocery chain).  There may also be some producers and processors who are best of buds, know exactly what the other one wants and consistently delivers it at a fair price.  All of these should be able to opt-out of the supply management system as of D-Day + 1 year, except for the maximum quota production that they are authorized to produce.  As the SM system slowly disappears and the new system come into play, they will have to deal on the new system to retain, add, or subtract the amount of chicken they will produce, same as all other quota holders, as quota becomes extinct. 
   
3. As of D-Day plus 1 year, there will be no more supplemental quota given to the current SM producers and processors.  If there is a contraction of SM market needs after D-Day, those holding Base Quota will all be reduced on a shared-pain basis, reducing their Base Quota for production and/or processing levels similar to the mechanism in the current SM system.
    
4. As of D-Day plus 1 year, any supplemental production and processing quantities needed to serve domestic markets beyond the Base Quota will be auctioned off to the highest bidder. This new supplemental quota will be limited in quantity, but has no minimum Cost of Production ("COP") associated with it, and a sub-set of current SM rules (the minimum rules necessary to achieve fairness and stability), and the resulting SM products (ie. milk, eggs, hatchery, chicken, turkey) are sold on the open market to those who choose to buy it, or sold through the Canada Commodity Auction system.
    
5. From D-Day to D-Day plus 1 year, a Canada Commodity Auction system will be designed, tested, and made ready for launching on D-Day plus 1 year.  It will be a standardized commodity auction system for all of Canada, but each commodity in each province will be done separately (ie. 10 provinces times 5 commodities= 50 separate auctions done each quota period), plus the special auctions described herein.  If there are specialty grades within a commodity (eg. free range organic chicken vs. regular factory chicken), then this can be a separate auction as well.   So as to minimize the auction sale prices, the auction will use a truncated k-double auction (see here and here), similar to that proposed for the Quebec Egg Marketing Board quota.  Initially, just the holders of SM Base Quota will be allowed to participate in these commodity auctions.  For a commodity auction for producer and processors, the participants (both producers and processors) will submit their bid for the quantity of the commodity (eg. kg of chicken) they are interested in, and the price they are bidding at (eg. $/kg).  The maximum quantity that can be entered as a bid will be the "proven capacity" of that producer or processor, based on historical proven capabilities or recent changes to their processes; all which will have to be carefully defined and managed so as to minimize strategic bidding and other gamesmanship that would disrupt the auction.
   
6. Everybody who submits a bid or ask will pay/receive the same price if cleared (ie. cleared is when a bid or ask is accepted by a counter-party, and it closes successfully).  With this same clearing price for every successful party in the auction, for somebody who was willing to pay a lot more than the strike  price, they end up getting it cheaper than they hoped for (Yea!).  If someone bid too low, their bid won't be accepted as it was below the strike price that everybody enjoys, so no deal, better luck next time.  If someone was asking for a low price, they may end up getting a lot more $ than what they had asked for (Yea!).  If they asked for too high a price, their asking may be above the strike price, and they won't be selling their commodity during this auction, so no deal, better luck next time.  This system minimizes the need for guessing what everybody else is bidding (ie. avoids strategic bidding).
   
7. I suggest there will be multiple auctions for each quota period.  This enables producers and processors to make a recovery play if their bid was way off in the previous round.  There can be a problem with multiple auctions.  If everybody plays nicely, there won't be a problem, they just re-set their bids (if they so choose), and they can get their commodity bought or sold in the next round.  However, some people may think they have the other side over a barrel. For example, a producer might figure than he can leave his chicken barn empty if he has to, but thinks that the processing plant absolutely MUST have a supply of chicken, so the producer significantly jacks up his asking price for a second round of auctions, trying to price gouge the processor.  If this was allowed to occur, it would tend to polarize the remaining bids to the extremes of the pole (ie. all bid are too low, all asks are too high, no sales will occur, everybody gets upset), rather than bringing buyers and sellers together in a reasonable manner.
   
   I therefore suggest that the first auction is only for those producers and processors within their home district.  If you are not located in that District (buyer or seller alike), you cannot put in an offer for Auction #1.  For Chicken Farmers of Ontario, there are 9 Districts, and each producer and processor would submit their bid/ask to the auction for their home district.
   
   

   

   District Map for Chicken Farmers of Ontario

   If they were not totally successful in buying/selling all that they needed, they would have a second chance in the province-wide auction, Auction #2.  With more players who can participate in Auction #2, if they wish to play games with their bids, they will most likely be left sitting on the sidelines with no transactions in the next quota period.
   
   Auction #3 can be held for those who still want to sell/buy, adding in additional buyers/sellers from other province within Canada (ie. inter-provincial bids and asks).
   
   Auction #4, the final auction for each production period can be held for those who still want to buy/sell that would include local, provincial, inter-provincial as well as foreign bidders.
   
   For transportation purposes, all winning bids/asks will be matched as to which producer will ship to which processor, so as to minimize transportation costs.  It matters not that the strike prices of the one shipping and the one receiving that shipment do not match, as there is a match somewhere in the auction system.
   
   If someone failed in all 4 rounds of auctions, they weren't trying hard enough, or they need to find a new career.
   
   Automated by software on-line, each auction could be done in 15 minutes.  Time would be allowed between auctions for people to reconsider their positions, seek advice, and to type in their chosen bids.
   
   This auction system will give preference to domestic production, if the buyers & sellers so choose.  If the local suppliers or producers become arrogant, and become bad actors, the other side will skip that auction and go to the next.  If somebody delivers sub-standard product, there will be a complaint mechanism, the shipment will be inspected, and if the defect is verified, damages and fines will be assessed.  In the end, the customer gets what they want.
   
8. Some commodities are done in batches (eg. broilers, turkeys).  Other SM-commodities have a semi-continuous flow (eg. milk, table eggs) for 1 to 3 years which is the animals natural lifecycle, which cannot be easily shut off and re-started.  This could cause a market bargaining power imbalance between producers and processors (ie. producers MUST sell, as the product keeps coming, whether or not a willing buyer and an affordable price can be negotiated).  As compared to a dairy farmer, a milk plant can more easily clean out the plant, lay everybody off, and wait for better milk prices, or better auction results.  The farmer isn't so lucky.
   
   To make each side have more equal bargaining power, it is suggested that long term "take-or-pay" contracts could be auctioned for each commodity and grade, for example a 1 to 5 year production quantity, auctioned well in advance of the start of the start of delivery.  Upon winning a reasonable auction for his milk, the farmer knows his budget and cash flow, and has time to grow his own or buy a good producer for his herd, and move one or more of his cull cows to the Hamburger Department.  When that long term contract is close to expiry, the farmer can decide to retire that cow, or continue milking her and sell her milk on the more lucrative spot market (ie. month by month).
    
9. This auction system used to sell the commodities (ie. eggs, milk, chicken, turkey, pullets), can be similar for selling the remaining quota for those commodities (ie. farmer retiring & wants to sell his quota).  Beginning on D-Day plus 1 year, Canada Quota Auctions will be held on a regular basis via Internet system with maximum openness, transparency, disclosure, and accountability.  The strike price will be determined by the bids and asks from SM quota holders and from non-SM quota holders (if any are in the auction).  Once each auction is completed, the holders of SM Base Quota who participated in the auction will be offered to purchase this supplemental quota on a right of first refusal basis at the price of the winning auction bid, starting at the person who bid the lowest amount but still above the strike price, continuing up the list of bidders until all the supplemental quota has been sold (ie. the truncated basis of quota assignment).  Once non-SM Base Quota holders are allowed to enter the auctions (see Step #13 below), then if the holders of SM Base Quota don't buy all of the supplemental quota at the auction's winning bid price, then non-SM Base Quota holders are allowed to purchase the remaining supplemental quota, starting at the person with the lowest auction bid that was still above the strike price, going up the list until all the supplemental quota has been taken up.
   
10. For the period from D-Day plus 2 years to D-Day plus 10 years, Canada Commodity Auctions will hold a special auction where 10% per year of the then-current SM Base Quota and non-SM supplemental quota can be removed from the Canada Commodity Auctions monopoly for trading on alternative systems (ie. competing auctions, private deals, vertical integrations, etc.).  All producer and processor SM Base Quota and supplemental non-SM quota must trade through Canada Commodity Auctions unless it has been removed from this mandatory system through the auction method described here.  This special auction will continue each year until the Canada Commodity Auction is defunct from lack of customers who wish to use their service, or they have proven their worth to the industry (ie. less and less monopoly, more and more voluntary participants assuming the Canada Commodity Auction remains a better system than the alternative systems that have sprouted up, if any).  This step helps ensure stability during the transition period, minimizing the damage to Canada and consumers caused by half-baked ideas by the various SM participants.
    
11. Starting from D-Day plus 5 years, the SM Base Quota for each commodity (ie. milk, eggs, chicken, turkey, hatchery) will be reduced by 1% on a Canada-wide basis, and that 1% will be added to the Canada Quota Auction system for sale to the highest bidder.  On D-Day plus 6 years, an additional 5% of SM Base Quota will be removed from total outstanding SM Base Quota, and transferred to the Canada Quota Auction system.  Similarly, between D-Day plus 7 years and D-Day plus 10 years, each year thereafter 10%, 20%, 30%, and 34% will be extinguished from SM Base Quota and transferred to the Canada Quota Auction system, until all SM Base Quota is fully extinguished by D-Day plus 10 years.
    
    As Base Quota is reduced, there may be dynamic surging or fluctuations due to multiple players simultaneously adjusting their business response to the publicly viewed stimulus seen by all.  In this case, a mechanism is required to dampen or eliminate these oscillations.  It is suggested we need a mechanism to efficiently allocate the available demand to those who value it the most.  Ausubel's Efficient Ascending Bid for Multiple Objects is recommended for consideration.
     
12. Between D-Day and D-Day plus 10 years, any holder of SM Base Quota can choose at any time to:   a) sell their SM Base Quota privately to others who already own SM Base Quota;   or   b) Sell their SM Base Quota to someone who currently doesn't own any SM Base Quota;   or   c) After D-Day plus 1 year, sell their SM Base Quota via a special auction using the Canada Quota Auction system.
    
13. As of D-Day plus 5 years, new industry entrants who do not own SM Base Quota can begin to participate in the Canada Commodity Auction system, bidding for either Production quota or Producer quota, or both.  For the one year period after D-Day plus 5 years, the number of new entrants will be restricted to just 10% of the number of holders of SM Base Quota as of D-Day plus 5 years, calculated separately for both Producers and Processors SM Base quotas.  Note that they are buying something that is disappearing over the next 5 years, so bid accordingly.  Each subsequent year from D-Day plus 6 years to D-Day plus 10 years, the maximum number of new entrants will be increased by another 20% of the then current number of authorized participants in the Canada Commodity Auction.  This limitation on new entrants and their slow addition will continue until the stability of the then-current SM system and the then-current Canada Commodity Auction system is demonstrated, or 100% of all applying entrants are immediately accepted.  There may be more applications for being a new entrant than the spots currently permitted to participate, so this will be assigned by a separate auction to the winning bidders under the Canada Commodity Auction system.
    
14. As of D-Day plus 10 years, the current Supply Management system in Canada will have been totally dismantled, replaced by a free market system.
    
15. From D-Day to D-Day plus 10, all governments and industry groups will be encouraged to provide adequate training, loans, bridge financing, counseling, research, communication systems, forums, websites, disclosures, newsletters, user focus groups, reports, audits, and other facilitation, support, and management assistance to ensure a smooth transition.
     
16. Canada's Competition Bureau will be ordered to be on high alert, watching for unfair trade practices. especially between the debate on the draft legislation (ie. prior to D-Day), up until D-Day plus 10 year transition period, and beyond.  It will probably help for the Competition Bureau to do a Canada-wide roadshow to all those within the current SM system, starting as of D-Day, focusing their communication efforts with the public, plus all suppliers to SM (ie. equipment, feed, drugs, services, etc.), plus all customers of SM producers and SM processors, so that the rules are made very clear, that there will be a zero tolerance for nasty behaviour in the marketplace, and swift punishment for those who wish to test the resolve of the Competition Bureau, and the Competition Tribunal.
    
17. After D-Day plus 5 years, imports of commodities into Canada will start to be slowly lifted, and import tariffs reduced, so that at D-Day plus 10 years, they are fully removed and Canada has joined with the rest of the world in full free markets on these commodities.  After D-Day plus 5 years, foreign entities can apply to participate into the Canada Commodity Auctions.  Hopefully this will quickly help Canada to go from last place in OECD exporting on these commodities  (1.4% market share today) to first place (about 50% market share, the maximum sustainable share we could achieve).  This alone can increase Canada's SM-5 production capacity to 5 times or more, as compared to what is currently done domestically in Canada.  That could be a huge driving force for Canada's GDP.  Today, agri-foods in Canada are just 8% of our GDP and hire 2.1 million people.  If this plan truly works, these 5 SM commodities can grow by a factor of 5 or more, so Canada's GDP would increase by 32%, or 5.7% per year for 5 years.  Not even China gets that kind of growth.  What are we waiting for?

*** End of Draft Plan ***


So that's it, 17 "simple" steps to get us out of SM purgatory.

Now it's your turn.

Show me and the world through objective facts and reasoning why this proposal won't work, then propose a solution to the problem you identified.

If you want to get emotional about this draft proposal without facts, I'll listen, and I hope it makes you feel better, but that doesn't help find a solution.  If you wish to pontificate and make bald assertions, with neither facts nor explanations as to why and how this draft plan will work or won't work, that doesn't help much either.

Identify a risk that isn't adequately handled; that's helpful.  Discover how some idiot could screw everything up by doing "X", and find where a gaping hole in the draft system exists that won't prevent or protect us, that's also helpful.

I'll keep modifying this draft until everybody is happy.  Then we can start implementation.



Revision History

Current Version:   Rev. 2   Posted 2013/06/05  21:30 hrs.

Rev. #1    Posted on   2013/05/25   1:30 PM   superseded by Rev. #2

Original Version of Plan:   Rev. #0   Posted on 2013/05/25   11:24 AM,    superseded by Rev. #1

Meat Regulations Gone Wild

A few weeks ago, I received notice that OMAF (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture) was requesting feedback on some proposed changes to the Meat Regulations.  OMAF was putting on a road show where they were going to present the issues, and seek feedback from stakeholders and the public in general.

I couldn't believe my eyes.  I read the email again.  I immediately checked the OMAF website.  Sure enough, it was true.  They were even coming to hold a public meeting near me, just 300 km one-way for me to drive.  I figured it would be worth the $400 travel cost to meet these OMAF people face-to-face and hear what they had to say.  I immediately reserved myself a seat at the Sudbury meeting on May 7th, 2013 at 3:00 PM.

The Meat Regulations is one of the thorns sticking into my side as a Small Flocker.  Small Flocker's aren't the only ones.  Sustain Ontario has well documented other small businesses who have been closed, or made less profitable, or less competitive by regulations gone wild.  For example, read about Forsyth Farms and the $10,000 worth of meat pies that were thrown out because they were being sold wholesale instead of farm gate.  It isn't just an Ontario issue.  Governments across Canada, and around the world have regulation gone wild, same or worse than Ontario.

For example, I've heard that the EU has 35 different regulations that must be followed by any farmer who dares grow a carrot and try to sell it to a consumer.  Obviously, the EU feels growing carrots are often related to terrorism, and needs to be carefully controlled and monitored by the government.

I figured that none of the local media would know anything about this meeting, and it might be useful to have them there.  I tried to inform the local radio stations and newspapers about this meeting.   I tried to explain to the press why this meeting was important.

I attended the May 7th meeting in Sudbury.  Note that I am writing this Blog posting on May 12th.  After attending the Meat Regulation meeting, I thought I'd better calm down for 5 days, and gain some perspective before writing.  It would be better to write what I think and know, rather than what I felt.

I arrived 1.5 hrs early for the meeting, hoping to get some private two-way conversations with the OMAF people.  As I sat in the parking lot, I used my cell phone to re-call all of the local media and encourage them to come.   As I left a message on another voice mail about the OMAF meeting, I noticed a white mini-van enter the parking lot, with the Ontario insignia on the door; it was them.  I returned my attention to my phone message.  It seemed that I had started too late, and they were too busy with other priorities, so none of the press came.  Therefore, I may be one of the only places where you can get a first-hand account about these public meetings.

Inside at the meeting, OMAF has representatives from the whole chain of command.  I lost count of the OMAF people after 12.  There were so many OMAF people there, I wondered if they had left somebody behind to answer the phones while everybody else was at their roadshow.

I had a number of really good conversations with the OMAF people before the official meeting start.  I felt good about how they listened, then posed possible issues that might arise, to which I responded.

For the official meeting, OMAF started by explaining that the Meat Regulations had been in place since 2005, and a number of issues had been raised over the years.  OMAF felt there was a need to clarify and simplify the regulations.  OMAF also felt that the regulations had gone further than what is now seen as necessary, forcing too many businesses and products to become ensnared by the Meat Regulations.  They had a first draft for the proposed new regs, but still had some outstanding issues to be resolved, and wanted feedback before they went any further.

OMAF currently has 134 slaughter plants, and 350 stand-alone meat plants who are licensed in Ontario.  They would have had many, many more if OMAF had followed their crazy Meat Regs. to the letter of the law.  When they realized their mistake, the Minister set a new policy where OMAF decided that they wouldn't enforce that part of the regs, and wouldn't issue a license.  If they hadn't back tracked,  OMAF would have crushed the Ontario economy and the meat industry even worse than they do today.  I assume it wasn't easy for OMAF to partially admit its mistakes, so my thanks to OMAF for taking this difficult but necessary step for the good of Ontario.

As a representative for Small Flockers, I was ready to share my advice with them.  After 1.5 years of waiting,suffering their constant denial that any problems existed, and their stonewalling, OMAF was interested in making it better. Better late than never, I guess.  I took a sip of water and a deep breath to calm myself.

For some reason, OMAF felt a need to differentiate between meat products and food products.  To my understanding, both of these could be equally unsafe, regardless how much meat they contained.  OMAF wanted to retain responsibility for any products that contained 25% or more meat.  I asked why.

OMAF explained that they checked the US food database, and most products that they considered to be meat products had more than 25% meat, but most foods (ie. non-meat products were lass than that.  For example, most lasagna trays were 18% meat, so they would be under Health Dept. inspection, not OMAF.

So I asked OMAF, "What about somebody who wants to make a corned beef on rye sandwich, you know the really good ones with the corn beef piled high in the middle.  With two thin pieces of rye bread, I bet that would be more than 25% meat.  Are you telling me that OMAF wants you to have a Stand Alone Meat Plant License to make corned beef sandwiches that are sold in vending trucks, vending machines, and corner stores?  OMAF listened, acknowledged my comment, and wrote it down.  I may have just saved some poor schmuck from having his sandwich shop destroyed by the weight of government regulations.  This issue didn't help Small Flockers, but we all have to work together on this one.  Hopefully, our turn will soon come, and somebody else will step up to support Small Flockers too.

I also said that whether it's 25% or 18% or 95% meat, its seems somewhat arbitrary.  The main hazard is between farm and food.  If meat wants to cross the frontier between farm and food, that is where OMAF and the Meat Regulations need to focus their efforts.  Once farm meat is judged OK to be used as food, then whether it's meat or mayonnaise, it's all food.  All foods need to be handled properly, but the % meat in the food is a useless distinction.  OMAF scribbled some some in their binders.

OMAF mentioned that they wanted to reduce the number of people forced to have a meat plant license.  That's when the fireworks started.  Ken Hayden, in a neighbouring town to me, mentioned that OMAFRA told him in 2005 that his butcher shop would need a new Stand-Alone Meat Plant License.  Ken sold his house so that he could invest the $70,000 into modifications to his butcher shop so he could stay in business under the new Meat Regulations in 2005.  Here he is 7 years later, and OMAF is planning on changing the rules again, allowing anybody to directly compete against him, but their spared from having to make the same investment as what Ken was forced to make back in 2005.  That means Ken is at a cost disadvantage, and will be for some time into the future.  Was OMAF going to compensate him?  Three or fore OMAF people looked at each other, then they all turned to face Ken, and simultaneously said, "No".  Ken got upset, but he controlled himself very well.  No shots were fired.

A lady hooked into the meeting by conference call mentioned that when the new regs came out in 2005, many others closed their businesses, as they didn't have the money or the desire to invest it into their business.  She was one of the few who went forward, made the investment, and got the meat plant license.  She wanted to know if OMAF was going to compensate her.  "No", said OMAF.  There was silence on the other end of the phone line.

OMAF explained that making hamburger was seen by them as Class I (Low Risk), but making sausages was Class II (High Risk).  I couldn't let that one go by.  I asked OMAF on what basis they had decided what was high risk or low risk.  OMAF explained that smoking, and sausages, and marinating, and other similar special processes were considered as higher risk.  Ken, the butcher said he felt that anybody doing these special processes needed a meat plant license, just like him.  I said there are Red Seal Chefs who have studied for at least 4 years, who can chef anywhere in the world with their training, that these chefs would be prevented from making sausages or marinating in their restaurant or similar food establishment then selling some of their finest wares to customers to take home with them, or selling them wholesale?  It isn't just butchers and stand-alone meat plants who have the necessary skills and process areas to make safe foods, I said.  If it's safe to serve this as food in a restaurant, it's likely safe for you to buy it and take it home with you.  Look at the number of people poisoned by plain old hamburger, but you call it a low risk Class I process.  I question your risk assessments, I said.  OMAF scribbled some more into their binder.

OMAF mentioned that when they were developing their regulations, they considered the probability of occurrence, and severity of the impact on the public from the various risks.  I spoke up that those two factors are very important, but their is an equally important factor that also must be considered:   Detectability.  Some problems are easily spotted before the trap has been sprung, or can be seen as soon as they occur.  People can then respond readily to these risks.  However, there are some risks that cannot be easily seen until it's too late.  That is the reason I believe, OMAF needs to consider all three factors in their risk assessments.  I mentioned that all three of these were industry standard in FMEA (Failure Mode Effect Analysis) Risk Assessments.  OMAF took lots of notes.

At the end, I asked to come up to the front so I could make some additional comments to the whole group, as well as those on the conference call, so that OMAF wouldn't have  to repeat and paraphrase what I had said for the benefit of those on the remote link.  I told the group that 7.5% of Canadians can't afford the food they need for their families, that food bank usage is up 40% in the last 5 years, and that we are charged 3 times more for chicken in Canada than our American neighbours to the South.  Some of that can be blamed on the crazy Meat Regulations.  I said that Canada is in last place for exporting chicken by the OECD countries, our major trading partners and equivalents.  Canada has just 1.42% of that chicken export market.  We could produce 5 times as much chicken as we produce today if we had just 50% market share of these 7 OECD nations.  That could be done, but Ontario's current Meat Regulations are holding us back.  Currently, Ontario can't feed itself for chicken, for we have to import 35.6 million kg. of chicken each year, in part from Ontario's crazy regulations.

I suggested that Ontario's meat plants need to focus on feeding the people of Ontario, so that the Federal meat plants can focus on exporting Canadian food to feed the world.  To do that, Ontario's Meat Regulation needs to be significantly adjusted now so as to better prepare for this necessary future.

I told OMAF that Justice Haines had warned them about all of these problems and more.  OMAF had taken Justice Haines' advice in some areas, but ignored it in others.  Where OMAF ignored the advice, we suffer the consequences today.  For example, I said Justice Haines recommended OMAF to develop Food Safety Objectives.  I have asked to receive a copy of them.  As far as I know, they still don't exist, 8 years later.  To me, that isn't acceptable.  OMAF needs to do better.

The meeting went on and on, but I won't bore you with all the details.  In the end, I was impressed with the willingness of all the OMAF people to listen to their stakeholders.  I was impressed with the experience and skills of all the OMAF personnel who came to the meeting.  I thanked all OMAF people publicly for taking the time out of their busy days, and making the effort to drive all the way from Toronto to listen to our concerns at this Northern Ontario outpost.

I'm 59 this year.   This is probably the last, best hope of getting this Meat Regulation squared away during my lifetime.  I'm aiming to make it so.  We have until June 3, 2013 to put our comments forward.  You can see OMAF's Meat Regulation proposals here.

You can sign the Small Flocker petition here

You can call your MPP and tell them what you think.

I'm trying to make it better.  Small Flockers need your help.  We can't do it without public support.  Will you set aside your personal priorities for 5 minutes to help yourself, help your neighbours, help everybody in Canada get better, more efffective regulations for their meat supply?

Please say yes.