by DAVE PINK
The provincial government’s efforts to radically reduce the amount of neonicotinoid seed treatments used by corn and soybean growers – a move the government believes will reduce the high mortality rates of pollinating insects – is meeting stiff resistance from the Grain Farmers of Ontario.
GFO members walked out of a consultation meeting with Agriculture Minister Jeff Leal in Guelph on Thursday, complaining that a proposed neonicotinoid control regulation is unrealistic, unfair and does not take into account the farmers’ need for an effective pest control tool.
In a statement released immediately following the meeting, the GFO said it “would not have any part of discussing the implementation of unscientific, ill-informed regulations that will put the Ontario grain industry in a dire situation. The proposed regulations do not focus on pollinator health and beekeeping practices, are not conducive to environmental stewardship, and are positioned to end family farming across the province.”
Speaking in an interview with Better Farming on Friday, GFO Chair Henry Van Ankum said that his organization remains open to discussions involving government, industry stakeholders and beekeepers that would lead to a fair and reasonable agreement, but that this proposed regulation – which aims to reduce neonicotinoid use by 80 per cent, and would require farmers to hire a third-party assessor to determine if they even need to use treated seed – is not acceptable.
“What it boils down to is that this regulation is so heavy-handed and harmful to the grain industry that we see little point in debating the finer points of it,” Van Ankum said. “We feel strongly that this is not the answer.
“Our plan in the weeks and months ahead is to work together with the stakeholders in the industry to develop a workable plan for the grain sector.”
In a statement released on Thursday, Leal contended that the development of neonicotinoid control regulation requires consultation and an open-minded attitude from everyone involved in the industry.
“The commitment made by our government is balanced, taking into consideration the need to protect pollinators and ensure the viability of crop production,” the statement reads.
“First, it does not suggest that the scientific examination of this issue is complete. Many of the findings to date require further research and verification. What it does do, however, is take a precautionary response to the possible risks associated with neonicotinoid pesticides. I believe this to be appropriate.”
Leal contends the government understands that these seed treatments are an effective tool for grain growers, and that any implementation strategy of the regulation will be “sensitive to the needs of farmers.”
Neonicotinoid control now is being widely discussed across the province. An informal meeting of invited guests that included seed company representatives, farmers and grain handlers was held Thursday at Devolder Farms in Dover Centre, near Chatham. “It was an attempt to get the message across that the proposed regulations are not feasible for the grain industry in Ontario,” said meeting organizer Wayne Black, a seed sales and production specialist with the seed and equipment dealer and grain handler.
He’s hoping to arrange a meeting with Leal and ministry officials in the near future to discuss their concerns.
Also at the Dover Centre meeting was Toby Barrett, the Progressive Conservative agriculture critic. He said that the proposed government regulation is a “precautionary approach” not suited to this situation. Any regulation should take a “neutral, objective, science-based, evidence based approach,” and he suggested the provincial government should look to the scientists and researchers working for the federal government for answers. BF
Comments
Why would GFO abandon being part of the review. If nothing morethey should put there input and ideas forward. Pretty much a slap in the face to a government that has given them ethanol and bio fuel mandates and a very generous RMP program .Reality is that crops were grown before noeonics and will continue too with or with out them . Your next door neighbour.
See Kangaroo court decision above.
Alberta commercial bee keeper discussion on overall bee health issue including neonics being a very small component of problem.
http://www.realagriculture.com/2014/07/hive-health-takes-management-surv...
“That’s not to say there aren’t risks to bee health with neonicotinoid use, but as Townsend outlines in this discussion, banning the product is nothing more than a Band-Aid solution to a much more complex problem.”
Actual audio file. https://soundcloud.com/realagriculture/lee-townsend-beekeeper-hive
Main discussion about Ontario's lack of a bee health program starts at approx. 6 min.
More misinformation by those who don't seem to read and comprehend the latest info. Why would anyone want to appear in front of a Kangaroo courtroom where the verdict, already predetermined was not based on science only emotion according to the PMRA plus Stats Can. The only "input and ideas" left to discuss for those convicted by said Kangaroo court would be to select the diameter as well as the length of the hanging rope. As stated, where is the bee health requirements in the regulation because as Alberta has found out bee health caused by mites, bacteria, and viruses are a huge pollinator issue not being addressed in Ontario, yet have been in Alberta. Also, where does the continued action and research activities of the Ontario Bee Health working group fit in the Kangaroo court decision. As for the so called "generous RMP program" all enrolled commodities including livestock pay a hefty premium for full 40% C.O.P target price which with the current gov't cap becomes something akin to a 20% or less COP program. The RMP program originally started out as 100% of the provincial 40%. share and with the feds to fund 60%.
Ps it wasn't just GFO that left the meeting.
If you represent any other grain farmers, then your in the same boat as our public service unions...in that enough is never enough. You are from the generation that wants more given to them and the more they get the more they want. Try saying Thank you for the windfall gifts this gov't has given you and suck it up. Like any other change...those able to adapt will, and if you can't then go work for the gov't.
So what you are trying to say is that we need a Quebec style of farm representation where ALL farm groups stand united and not some on a fence .
Had this meeting been held in Quebec you can be sure that there would have been manure tankers with their hoses piped into the meeting and when their reps exited , the valves on the hoses would have been opened all the way !
The BF article was clearly about the heavy handed kangaroo court decision about neonics regulations, not safety nets. That is a separate issue.
Perhaps your listening skills are better. Try this audio link: https://soundcloud.com/realagriculture/lee-townsend-beekeeper-hive
In a nutshell, Alberta solved their problems not by banning neonics but by paying strict attention to solving management factors plus evolving bacteria, mites, in addition to evolving virus situations.
It is ironic, as well as sad and even tragic, that in their rush to wrap themselves in the flag of "science", the Grain Farmers of Ontario(GFO) doesn't seem to understand, and certainly doesn't adhere to, the basis of "science", especially the "logic" part of the scientific process.
Science, as does many other disciplines, including economics, relies on what is sometimes called the "inverse corollary" to validate the merits of the original hypothesis. For example, when the GFO claims the proposed neonicotinoid restrictions are "heavy-handed and harmful", the GFO never examines the inverse corollary which is that, for the bee-keeping industry, the absence of these proposed restrictions would be even-more "heavy-handed and harmful", thereby negating the "scientific" merit of the "heavy-handed and harmful" claim by the GFO to that of being what is known, in economics, as a "half-truth".
In addition, the GFO still can't get past being patronizing and dismissive, not just to beekeepers, but also to everyone else in the process who doesn't support their position, and that haughtiness isn't going to serve them well because they'll eventually also antagonize their current "partners-of-convenience" who will, one-by-one decide that it's "better to be on the bus than under it".
Finally, the GFO position also marginalizes everyone in the professional community who eventually will be responsible, in the absence of anyone from the farm community except possibly for the OFA, the CFFO and the NFU, for designing, implementing, and probably monitoring, the proposed, but as yet unspecified regulations. For example, over two decades ago in the months leading up to the introduction of the GST program, there were almost identical outbursts from the business community about the heavy-handed, harmful, and unworkable nature of it, yet the professional community, of which I am a proud member, was able to get everybody up-to-speed, and on time. In particular, the claims that the GST program would be nothing but a cash-grab by accountants has proven to be particulary false. In other words the business community was:
(A) wrong about the abilities of the professional community then, in exactly the same way the farm community is wrong now.
(B) wrong about the "third party" operating costs of the GST program then, in exactly the same way the farm community is wrong to fear-monger about the eventual operating costs of neonicotinoid programs now.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
It appears that our Provincial Gov fails to appreciate science. Their approach seems to be jumping off the pier without knowing how deep the water is or even if it is water. I know of bee losses in Ontario that were the soul result of starvation. The long extremely cold winter caused the bees to exhaust the honey reserve left for them by the bee keeper. Alberta uses neonics extensively and have worked together to solve bee population issues there. Seems there is n opportunity to learn that is not being explored. It seems that the proposed half baked limits of neonics is not really about bees based on the Alberta experience. So I wonder when we will find out what they are really up to?
Our Provincial Governments "PLAN" to limit the use of neonics without a focus on science and a clear understanding of the consequences will likely end up with an end result not unlike that of the "Smart Meter" which has Ontario's Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk, declaring the program to have delivered very few benefits for the hefty cost. Google newsforontariosninetyninepercentand be prepared to be disgusted by the millions of wasted dollars. I am not saying controls are bad but for goodness sake do the research and make educated decisions. The current approach could result in the loss of seed corn production in Ontario to the U.S.A. and the millions of dollars of revenue with it. Try to close that door after the proverbial cows are out. It won't be easy if possible at all. As if the Gas Plant and Smart Meters are not enough!
Gov. does not know how to do projections or how to plan things out . Proof is recent history of Gov screw ups .
Post new comment