Chicken Farmers of Canada ("CFC") has an important role to play in the Supply Management System for chicken. Under the Federal-Provincial Agreement for Chicken, 2001 CFC agreed, and was made responsible for a number of issues, including working co-operatively with all the other parties. With all of the problems in the supply management system, I wanted to know how well CFC was doing in its role. I asked CFC for objective evidence to show they were doing an excellent job, and achieving success. My letter to CFC (with corrected typos from original version) is available here.
Unfortunately, it seems somebody at CFC decided that they would not respond to my written requests. Whether that decision was made by the CFC Board, or Mr. Michael Dungate (Executive Director of CFC), or the janitor, or somebody else, or nobody; I don't know.
The full set of email correspondence from me to CFC, & receipts proving delivery to CFC is available here.
I have tried to ask the necessary questions of CFC; acting for myself, other Small Flockers, and the Canadian public in general. I believe I was polite and respectful. In spite of these positives, CFC consistently chose to leave it as a 1-way monologue, from me to CFC, with no response in return.
That is most unfortunate. It is actions and decisions like this which gives governments a bad reputation.
I can only assume that CFC feels quite superior and arrogant, and they will not stoop so low as to recognize me as a concerned citizen with legitimate questions, nor as a stakeholder. It appears that CFC feels they can safely disrespect and ignore me.
I don't take kindly to people or organizations who disrespect and/or ignore me. I don't know anybody who does.
Fortunately, there is the Farm Products Council of Canada ("FPCC"). FPCC is responsible for administering the Farm Products Agencies Act ("FPAA"), as well as supervising and directing the national boards, including CFC.
Under the FPAA, FPCC is responsible for receiving, investigating, and resolving complaints against the FPAA, and the national boards. And do I have a complaint against CFC!
If CFC happens to be skulking around this Blog, then CFC needs to understand that Time's Up!, you've had your chance. I have now filed a letter of complaint against CFC, and asked FPCC to intervene on my behalf. The letter of complaint to FPCC is available here.
Let's hope that FPCC is willing to listen, investigate, and help.
A blog to communicate, discuss, and advocate for the civil rights and important role Small Flock Poultry Farmers can play (and should play) in Canadian Society. Small Flockers are on the side of justice & truth, and against privilege & power. Unfortunately, the more we compromise with privilege and power, the more we reduce the capacity for truth and justice.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Friday, May 17, 2013
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?
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?
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Arsenic Poisoning for Profit
I wrote a posting back on April 2nd about the crazy habit of factory chicken being fed feed purposefully laced with arsenic. It was always one of the more popular postings, but nothing like the traffic I've been experiencing since last Friday. The chicken world is on fire about the adulteration of chicken by purposefully feeding a poison and carcinogen so that profits for Big Food are improved.
As can be seen by this e Blog's Info page, pageviews are up by a factor of 4 from our previous daily traffic average.
Here is the data from Google Trends.
This insignificant Blog is receiving only a miniscule fraction of the total Internet traffic on this important arsenic issue.
Let this be a lesson to Big Food and the Chicken Quota Boys:
People get pissed when you poison them with arsenic so that you can make 4% extra profit.
As can be seen by this e Blog's Info page, pageviews are up by a factor of 4 from our previous daily traffic average.
Here is the data from Google Trends.
This insignificant Blog is receiving only a miniscule fraction of the total Internet traffic on this important arsenic issue.
Let this be a lesson to Big Food and the Chicken Quota Boys:
People get pissed when you poison them with arsenic so that you can make 4% extra profit.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
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.
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.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Chicken Feed Price Conspiracy
Since chicken feed represents about 60% of the total cost of producing chicken, I thought we might verify CFO's calculation of the chicken feed prices.
The graph above shows CFO's data (blue curve), and compares it with the data from Statistics Canada (red curve). Notice the similar shapes to the curves, just shifted in time.
That time shift is to be expected, as the historical data takes time to collect before it can be used to adjust the live chicken selling price. For example, CFO's Quota Period A-106 (August 14, 2011 – October 8, 2011) uses average feed prices from May 23, 2011 to July 11, 2011, the previous 3 month period. Unfortunately since QP A-106, CFO no longer discloses this feed price averaging date range information. CFO has chosen to be even more secretive about where and when it calculates this number from, so everybody is kept guessing. Nothing like being open & accountable!
OK, so it is obvious that CFO gets the info from StatsCanada. I found the data in Table 329-0059 of StatsCanada data here You can add the column of data called "Complete feeds, poultry". But where does StatsCan get its data from?
StatsCan sends out a questionnaire, found here They are supposed to report the sale prices in effect as of the 15th of the month. The survey form kindly reminds the person that their data will be kept confidential by StatsCan, but they are not cautioned to answer truthfully. I wonder why? Under Section 31 of the Statistics Act they can be convicted and fined $500 and/or 3 months in jail if they provide false or mis-leading information.
According to Allltech's Annual Report Canada's 72 feed mills produced 0.96 million tonnes of broiler chicken feed in 2012. There are about 38 feed mills in Ontario. However, StatsCan data is for all of Canada. What does the price of feed in BC or the Yukon have to do with growing chicken in Ontario?
Since StatsCan only asks for the price on the 15th of the month, what would happen to the data reported to StatsCan if just before the close of business on the 14th of the month, they implemented a price increase, effective immediately. That higher price would be in effect for all day on the 15th, but on the 16th management changes its mind, and restores the original price. The feed mill could "honestly" report the higher price on the 15th, StatsCan would dutifully report those higher prices, and CFO would copy down those higher prices, and 60% of that 1-day price increase would find its way into the higher price for live chicken.
If the feed mills add just $0.01 to the $/tonne price they report to StatsCan on the survey, multiplied by the 0.96 million tonnes per year they produce, and that is a total of $9,600.00 gained, less the cost of the $500 fine under Section 31 of the Statistics Act (catch them if you can), and you have a net profit of $9,100 per year for just putting down an extra penny on a survey form; not bad profit margin for a paper survey cheating. Jack the bogus price even more on the survey, and your profits increase proportionally.
Does StatsCan know about this? Are they regularly checking to ensure this, or something similar isn't going on? Who will contact StatsCan to find out for sure? Send them a link to this post and we'll see what they say.
But why would a feed mill do such a sneaky thing? Because of vertical integration. Many of the feed mills own broiler growing operations, or have guaranteed customers who must buy their feed from their mill. Some mills have established magical linkages between themselves and those permitted to buy and sell of chicken quota to their "friends". This is one sure way to boost the overall profits in the chicken monopoly.
But if the feed mills were playing these kind of games with feed prices, wouldn't the chicken farmers complain? No, not at all. In a previous post I showed how a chicken farmer gets all of his money back from any feed price increase, plus the farmer gets a 5.9% bonus of any feed price increase due to bogus FCR calculations. So if the feed mills try to cheat the system, they share the spoils with the farmers. Of course, all of this cheating, if this hypothetical situation actually occurs, is taken from the consumer's pocketbook.
Perhaps this is another reason why Canadians pay a 50% to 300% premium price for chicken, higher than most everybody else in the world.
The graph here on the right is StatsCan data from the same table, shows the price increases charged at the feed mill producing the various feeds. Dairy, poultry, dog, and cat foods were all indexed to be 100 by StatsCan definition in 2002.
Look who has the highest feed price increases: poultry and dairy. Dog & cat foot is up 20%, but dairy and poultry is up 60%.
Wait a minute, aren't poultry and dairy also the ones on Supply Management, where playing tricks in the shadows actually gets you higher profits, enabling the legal gouging of consumers.
In 2013, broiler chickens represent 4.89% and egg laying chickens are 4.07% of the total animal feed market in Canada, for a total of 8.96% for chickens. Dairy is 50.91%, turkeys are 0.92%, so SM feeds are a total of 60.79% of Canadian animal feed consumption. Do you see why the feed mills are interested in maximizing SM feed prices?
Of course, when you average in a normal, competitive market price increases for cat & dog food that consumers have a very watchful eye on, with the out-of-control sky high feed prices for the Supply Management Boys, you get the red curve, which is the overall average feed prices, in the middle between the two extremes.
So can we then calculate that poultry feed prices are 33.3% too high due to cheating in the system (ie. 1.6/1.2= 1.33)? Taking 60% of that 1.33 premium (viz. feed is 60% of the total cost for raising chicken), we get a 19.98% premium in the live chicken prices at farm gate. Add the bogus FCR multiplier of 5.9% and we get a total screwing of the consumer at the farm gate of 27% (1.059*1.1998= 1.27). Since everybody downstream does a percentage markup on the chicken, the 27% premium at the farm gate gets marked up too, to become a 77% premium after the slaughter plant (40% markup for changing a live bird into an eviscerated chicken carcass). Once it gets to retail, it has seen a second 40% markup (viz. cost of wholesale packaging, distribution, warehousing, shipping, refrigeration, and profit), the chicken feed price conspiracy has become an extra 249% premium unfairly gouged out of the consumer.
It appears I have explained 249% of the 300% or more of the price gouging that Canadians pay for their chicken; more than anybody else in the world.
The other 50% is from Supply Management encouraging and allowing all quota based chicken farmers to grow more and more fat, dumb, and happy to collect their CFO-induced quota cheque each Quota Period. Note that New Zealand farmers have a FCR of 1.38 while CFO chicken producers are around 1.82 and this inefficiency raises live bird prices by 19.14% (see Blog posting Why not Export Canadian Chicken? ). When that is marked up all the way through the system, we have a total consumer gouging of another 233.5%, for a grand total potential screwing of the consumer of 482.5%.
So you see, you should thank your lucky stars than most retail stores use chicken as a loss-leader and sell it to you for just a 300% gouging, rather than the full force of the 482.5% screwing that these mobsters think they want, and you deserve to be screwed out of.
Do you remember a few months ago when all the Too Big To Fail banks were caught cheating on the LIBOR bank rate, artificially jacking up this reference interest rate that $300 trillion in loans reference for their rates, defrauding the public by merely boosting the number they entered on the LIBOR survey they regularly filled out. Just pretend that this LIBOR interest rate is 0.001% higher than it really is, fill out the survey, then everybody around the world multiplies the LIBOR by their share of the $300 trillion in debt that directly or indirectly reference LIBOR, and you gouge extra millions in interest out of the public, so the cheaters could earn extra profits and bonuses. They just had to fill in the survey form and Presto! they gained millions in gouged fees. If the "upstanding, honest, and faithful" banksters did the LIBOR scam for almost a decade, is it that crazy to suspect this same technique or similar jigging of the system by a handful of feed mill operators?
I'm sure all the above is just a co-incidence, don't you think? I'm sure this is just one of those conspiracy theories cooked up by somebody who wears a tinfoil hat to protect them from UFO radiation and mind probes.
The picture kind of looks like me, but I don't remember the cat.
 |
| Comparison of CFO's Chicken feed prices vs. StatsCan data for chicken feed prices. Data is highly correlated, but slightly shifted in time periods (assumed due to reporting delays, or dates of quota periods). |
The graph above shows CFO's data (blue curve), and compares it with the data from Statistics Canada (red curve). Notice the similar shapes to the curves, just shifted in time.
That time shift is to be expected, as the historical data takes time to collect before it can be used to adjust the live chicken selling price. For example, CFO's Quota Period A-106 (August 14, 2011 – October 8, 2011) uses average feed prices from May 23, 2011 to July 11, 2011, the previous 3 month period. Unfortunately since QP A-106, CFO no longer discloses this feed price averaging date range information. CFO has chosen to be even more secretive about where and when it calculates this number from, so everybody is kept guessing. Nothing like being open & accountable!
OK, so it is obvious that CFO gets the info from StatsCanada. I found the data in Table 329-0059 of StatsCanada data here You can add the column of data called "Complete feeds, poultry". But where does StatsCan get its data from?
StatsCan sends out a questionnaire, found here They are supposed to report the sale prices in effect as of the 15th of the month. The survey form kindly reminds the person that their data will be kept confidential by StatsCan, but they are not cautioned to answer truthfully. I wonder why? Under Section 31 of the Statistics Act they can be convicted and fined $500 and/or 3 months in jail if they provide false or mis-leading information.
According to Allltech's Annual Report Canada's 72 feed mills produced 0.96 million tonnes of broiler chicken feed in 2012. There are about 38 feed mills in Ontario. However, StatsCan data is for all of Canada. What does the price of feed in BC or the Yukon have to do with growing chicken in Ontario?
Since StatsCan only asks for the price on the 15th of the month, what would happen to the data reported to StatsCan if just before the close of business on the 14th of the month, they implemented a price increase, effective immediately. That higher price would be in effect for all day on the 15th, but on the 16th management changes its mind, and restores the original price. The feed mill could "honestly" report the higher price on the 15th, StatsCan would dutifully report those higher prices, and CFO would copy down those higher prices, and 60% of that 1-day price increase would find its way into the higher price for live chicken.
If the feed mills add just $0.01 to the $/tonne price they report to StatsCan on the survey, multiplied by the 0.96 million tonnes per year they produce, and that is a total of $9,600.00 gained, less the cost of the $500 fine under Section 31 of the Statistics Act (catch them if you can), and you have a net profit of $9,100 per year for just putting down an extra penny on a survey form; not bad profit margin for a paper survey cheating. Jack the bogus price even more on the survey, and your profits increase proportionally.
Does StatsCan know about this? Are they regularly checking to ensure this, or something similar isn't going on? Who will contact StatsCan to find out for sure? Send them a link to this post and we'll see what they say.
But why would a feed mill do such a sneaky thing? Because of vertical integration. Many of the feed mills own broiler growing operations, or have guaranteed customers who must buy their feed from their mill. Some mills have established magical linkages between themselves and those permitted to buy and sell of chicken quota to their "friends". This is one sure way to boost the overall profits in the chicken monopoly.
But if the feed mills were playing these kind of games with feed prices, wouldn't the chicken farmers complain? No, not at all. In a previous post I showed how a chicken farmer gets all of his money back from any feed price increase, plus the farmer gets a 5.9% bonus of any feed price increase due to bogus FCR calculations. So if the feed mills try to cheat the system, they share the spoils with the farmers. Of course, all of this cheating, if this hypothetical situation actually occurs, is taken from the consumer's pocketbook.
 |
| StatsCan data on various animal feed price indices from 2002 to 2012. All indices were defined equal to 100 in 2002. Feeds used by Supply Management animals (eg. dairy cows, chickens, turkeys) increased significantly faster than feeds for non-SM animals. Is this an attempt of feed mills to ride the SM-coat tails for a higher pricing advantage? |
The graph here on the right is StatsCan data from the same table, shows the price increases charged at the feed mill producing the various feeds. Dairy, poultry, dog, and cat foods were all indexed to be 100 by StatsCan definition in 2002.
Look who has the highest feed price increases: poultry and dairy. Dog & cat foot is up 20%, but dairy and poultry is up 60%.
Wait a minute, aren't poultry and dairy also the ones on Supply Management, where playing tricks in the shadows actually gets you higher profits, enabling the legal gouging of consumers.
In 2013, broiler chickens represent 4.89% and egg laying chickens are 4.07% of the total animal feed market in Canada, for a total of 8.96% for chickens. Dairy is 50.91%, turkeys are 0.92%, so SM feeds are a total of 60.79% of Canadian animal feed consumption. Do you see why the feed mills are interested in maximizing SM feed prices?
Of course, when you average in a normal, competitive market price increases for cat & dog food that consumers have a very watchful eye on, with the out-of-control sky high feed prices for the Supply Management Boys, you get the red curve, which is the overall average feed prices, in the middle between the two extremes.
So can we then calculate that poultry feed prices are 33.3% too high due to cheating in the system (ie. 1.6/1.2= 1.33)? Taking 60% of that 1.33 premium (viz. feed is 60% of the total cost for raising chicken), we get a 19.98% premium in the live chicken prices at farm gate. Add the bogus FCR multiplier of 5.9% and we get a total screwing of the consumer at the farm gate of 27% (1.059*1.1998= 1.27). Since everybody downstream does a percentage markup on the chicken, the 27% premium at the farm gate gets marked up too, to become a 77% premium after the slaughter plant (40% markup for changing a live bird into an eviscerated chicken carcass). Once it gets to retail, it has seen a second 40% markup (viz. cost of wholesale packaging, distribution, warehousing, shipping, refrigeration, and profit), the chicken feed price conspiracy has become an extra 249% premium unfairly gouged out of the consumer.
It appears I have explained 249% of the 300% or more of the price gouging that Canadians pay for their chicken; more than anybody else in the world.
The other 50% is from Supply Management encouraging and allowing all quota based chicken farmers to grow more and more fat, dumb, and happy to collect their CFO-induced quota cheque each Quota Period. Note that New Zealand farmers have a FCR of 1.38 while CFO chicken producers are around 1.82 and this inefficiency raises live bird prices by 19.14% (see Blog posting Why not Export Canadian Chicken? ). When that is marked up all the way through the system, we have a total consumer gouging of another 233.5%, for a grand total potential screwing of the consumer of 482.5%.
So you see, you should thank your lucky stars than most retail stores use chicken as a loss-leader and sell it to you for just a 300% gouging, rather than the full force of the 482.5% screwing that these mobsters think they want, and you deserve to be screwed out of.
Do you remember a few months ago when all the Too Big To Fail banks were caught cheating on the LIBOR bank rate, artificially jacking up this reference interest rate that $300 trillion in loans reference for their rates, defrauding the public by merely boosting the number they entered on the LIBOR survey they regularly filled out. Just pretend that this LIBOR interest rate is 0.001% higher than it really is, fill out the survey, then everybody around the world multiplies the LIBOR by their share of the $300 trillion in debt that directly or indirectly reference LIBOR, and you gouge extra millions in interest out of the public, so the cheaters could earn extra profits and bonuses. They just had to fill in the survey form and Presto! they gained millions in gouged fees. If the "upstanding, honest, and faithful" banksters did the LIBOR scam for almost a decade, is it that crazy to suspect this same technique or similar jigging of the system by a handful of feed mill operators?
I'm sure all the above is just a co-incidence, don't you think? I'm sure this is just one of those conspiracy theories cooked up by somebody who wears a tinfoil hat to protect them from UFO radiation and mind probes.
The picture kind of looks like me, but I don't remember the cat.
 |
| Tinfoil hats are ready for the Chicken Feed Price Conspiracy |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)