Panic buying by people in confinement has already demonstrated the fragility of supply chains, as supermarket shelves were emptying in many countries, including Canada. Seeing shelves fill up across the network, most consumers felt reassured. Time and time again, experts have reassured the public that food security will never be compromised, if borders remain open. The worst of the pandemic, though, is yet to come, which means that anything can still happen.

Our global supply chains are working, due to the goodwill of countries wanting to share wealth and knowledge with others. Essentially, trade is based on the principle that no one country can be good and efficient at everything. Being a Nordic country, Canada has certain disadvantages, and its relationships with other partners abroad allow our agri-food economy to fill in some gaps. We buy and sell with the world. It’s the same for other countries. Countries depend on each other. It’s a simple theory, and it’s been working for years.

But in times of crisis, such principles can easily be forgotten. Some governments react unpredictably when fear takes over and begins dictating their decisions. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, every effort has been made to ensure that trade flows as freely as possible, especially to avoid food shortages. This was the crux of the message from the United Nations and several governments around the world, including Canada and the United States.

The UN has gone so far as to say that when acting to protect the health and well-being of their citizens, countries should ensure that any trade-related measures do not disrupt the food supply chain. But the global agency also had a more provocative message in its press release this week. It mentioned that the world could face a food shortage if the authorities fail to properly manage the COVID-19 epidemic.

For now, keeping markets open without interruption has been the focus. But now that governments around the world are trying to curb the spread of COVID-19 by restricting population movements, international trade and food supply chains are beginning to show signs of slowing down. Agriculture is being affected with the thorny issue of foreign workers, and processing is being disrupted by impromptu factory closings in different places. Trucking, which ensures the connections between links of the chain, is sometimes slowed down by more road surveillance. In short, the entire supply chain is under extreme pressure.

The world is decidedly on the brink of a major slowdown in agrifood trades. Borders are becoming more fragile as we get closer to the peak of this pandemic. The United Nations appropriately called the world to order, which is especially important now. Uncertainty about the availability of food can literally trigger a wave of export restrictions, creating a shortage on world markets. Such a scenario is highly improbable, but not impossible.

For us, the United States is the wild card. The number of positive COVID-19 cases in the U.S. is alarming, as are the number of deaths. What’s adding more pressure is the 10 million Americans who have lost their jobs in the past two weeks. 10 million, in two weeks. Considering the size of our own economy, the situation in Canada is slightly worse. These are unprecedented numbers. These numbers are very, very alarming.

And unfortunately, we all know how fear can influence governments, especially in the U.S. You only need look at the wall erected on the U.S.-Mexican border. According to a recent survey by Angus Reid, a total of 71 per cent of Canadians are either concerned or extremely concerned about the Canadian economy. When a crisis hits, populations tend to stay close to what’s familiar, which is why the buying local movement is getting a little bit of a lift these days. In fact, according to the same survey, 43 per cent of Canadians intend to buy locally once the crisis is over. It always nice to buy local and support our own economy, but we all need to think about the big picture. More than 60 per cent of the Canadian economy stems from exports.

Things are already getting complicated across the planet. Russia has issued a government decree establishing an export quota for certain grains until the end of June as its virus cases escalate. The correlation between the number of COVID-19 cases identified and the nervousness of governments is strong. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail in North America.

The post Charlebois: No food shortage in sight, however… appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The not-so-graceful display of our collective journey to cope with this global threat has been the panic buying we have seen everywhere. People have been impulsively emptying shelves, everywhere, irrationally. We are all complicated human beings, and it’s hard to judge anyone since we are in unchartered waters. People manage anxiety and risks differently, in their own way. As a society, we will go through cycles of emotions, compulsions and foolishness. We are in the worst of it, but it will end eventually.

With quarantines, cancellations, closures, and social distancing, home is, more than ever, the safest place for anyone to be. One positive thing coming out of this unfortunate episode could be to have everyone spending more time in the kitchen, a place in which fewer Canadians have spent time in recent years.

The evidence which suggests Canadians are spending less time in the kitchen is mounting, despite record cookbook sales. Canadians buy almost $100m worth of cookbooks and food-related literature every year, but sales of tools and appliances used for cooking — such as spatulas, mixers, and cooking bowls — have dropped steadily every year over the last five years. In 2019, sales for appliances and other items normally used in private kitchens dropped by two per cent. The average Canadian can now watch over 250 hours of cooking or food related shows a week on television. A few networks are solely devoted to food. Still, cooking is just a fantasy for a growing number of Canadians.

Time has been unkind to kitchens. In a recent survey by Dalhousie University, for people born before 1946, 95 per cent ate meals prepared by parents or a caregiver at home when growing up. That percentage dropped significantly over the years. Millennials were not exposed to home-cooked meals as much, and neither was Generation Z. About 64 per cent of Millennials regularly ate home-cooked meals when growing up, compared to 55 per cent for Gen Z. Compared to the older generation, that’s a whopping drop of 31 per cent and 40 per cent. In other words, younger generations have a different appreciation for the kitchen and how food is prepared and consumed at home. The COVID-19 pandemic could potentially make younger generations more familiar with a space which seems like a fable to them.

More time at home can be a benefit for all of us. In that same survey conducted by Dalhousie University, 68.4 per cent of Canadians would like to spend more time preparing food at home. With the current public safety measures, many will be getting their wish.

Buying and reading a cookbook is like watching a good movie. We can project ourselves into the story, imagine we can do things we never thought possible, making us dream. Some cookbooks these days are masterpieces, works of art. But most cookbooks have been used as coffee table books or regifted. Such a shame. But COVID-19 could change everything.

As we are forced to spend more time at home, and with provisions safely nestled in cupboards and freezers, the opportunity to revisit our kitchens daily has never been so good. Equipped with unread cookbooks and underused kitchen tools, Canadians can now see some action in the kitchen.

We will get through this by sticking together and listening to our competent public health officials. In the meantime, let’s dust off our cookbooks and get reacquainted with the one room that can truly be considered the heart of anyone’s home: the kitchen.

The post Charlebois: With COVID-19, home cooking is getting its mojo back appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Viruses know no borders. The entire globe is affected by what’s happening, and the impact has been gradual. China appears to have contained the virus, although some say the data may not be reliable. The outbreak has reached North America and could affect supply chains within days. Food-wise, North America is self-sufficient. We do import from other parts of the world, but the abundance of food on our continent is impressive. The epidemic in Asia hasn’t really affected North America yet, but as we witness more local cases, things may change. We do not have many cases yet, but testing has not been as predominant as in Asia, either. So, more cases are a certainty.

Logistics have come a long way over the last few years on a number of fronts. The use of artificial intelligence, robotics and enhanced automation has made everything more efficient. Equally critical for food, the growing pressure to lower supply chain costs has motivated retailers over the years to pursue strategies such as lean manufacturing, offshoring, and outsourcing. Such expense-cutting measures mean that when there is a supply-chain disruption, distribution will cease, due to lack of access to food products.

Some retailers are much better equipped than others to address these disruptions. Most regions in Canada are serviced by retailers which have emphasized investment in logistics and supply chains over the years. The prospect of some areas of the country running out of food is highly unlikely. But more remote regions are, and always will be more vulnerable, with or without an outbreak.

But often, our rational nature will give way to anxiety. Our inner panic-buying button is always there, in all of us. The sight of empty shelves and line-ups at stores will suggest resource scarcity. Humans will always go after the necessities of life when they firmly believe that these goods are running out. We have already seen some empty shelves across the country. Interestingly, some reports suggest non-gluten and organic products in Canada are running out faster than conventional food products. This is hardly surprising. Inventories for these items are typically lower, of course, but it also gets people who want and need these products to feel the urge to stockpile early. It’s simply human nature.

We estimate that about 25 per cent of all Canadian households have enough food supplies to survive independently for three to four days, whether there’s an outbreak or not. But the other 75 per cent will take time to think about it. In fact, since the virus started to spread, more than 20 per cent of American households have started to stockpile food. The percentage in Canada is likely not that high, but it is probably higher than 10 per cent.

However, from panic-buying and turmoil comes opportunity. Alibaba, the multi-billion-dollar online giant in China literally grew out of the SARS outbreak back in 2003. The company saw an opportunity to sell products online, given that people were avoiding physical interaction with others. This could very well happen in Canada, where grocers are just starting to embrace the virtual nature of their business. Outside disruptors like Amazon, Walmart and Costco are already doing well since the virus started to spread.

Conventional grocers will need to think about ways to get more traffic on their websites during times when a growing number of people want to stay home for the sake of feeling safe. It’s not just about convenience but more so about allowing customers to cope with emerging public health risks. Same solution, but the psyche and motivations are completely different.

As well, the products sold will be different. The most popular items since the start of the outbreak have been dry goods, frozen foods, comfort snacks, power beverages and of course, water. Grocers could sell survival kits for a family of four online, to be delivered safely.

The bottom line: we should brace for a major effect on food supply chains worldwide. It will begin to hit full force in two to three weeks and could last for months. More than 50 central banks around the world have reduced their overnight base rate, including the American Federal Reserve and the Bank of Canada. But this does not mean we need to panic, either. Even if viruses know no borders, we have some time to get ready, unlike with natural disasters when we have mere days, hours or perhaps no time at all to prepare.

So, get the food you need, one shopping trip at a time, and do leave some for others, as a responsible citizen.

The post Charlebois: The Fine Art of Panic-Buying appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

When SARS hit back in 2003, China was nowhere near the economic powerhouse it is today. Now, if something happens to China, the entire world is affected, and the food sector is not immune to any shifts. Even though the outbreak is starting to slow, the economic damage will easily surpass those of SARS, and the effects are being felt right here in Canada.

China is a consumer-driven economy now, much more so than in 2003. As a result, China accounts for a much larger share of commodities demand now, relative to 2003. Most futures such as cattle, hogs, and soybeans have dropped anywhere between 10 per cent to 30 per cent in the last few weeks. In recent years, commodities such as coffee have been under pressure to supply China in recent years. China’s imports have more than tripled in the past decade. With the emergence of this virus, however, imports have dropped significantly. Shipments for lobsters and other products have all but halted now as a result of the outbreak. This shift may signify cheaper prices in many parts of the world, but certainly not in China.

China is essentially buying less of everything, making its population more vulnerable. Reports suggest the food inflation rate has exceeded 100 per cent in some areas. Chinese authorities are trying to get food to places where it’s needed, but it’s been challenging.

On our end, some retail-level food prices could drop. In months to come, it’s possible that we may see lowered prices for some products like beef, pork, and coffee, depending on how grocers manage margins. Some bargains could be on the way, but it won’t last.

Observers still caution that the full economic fallout depends on how well China can ultimately contain the outbreak. And when they do, China will be back, buying everything it can. Considering the new trade truce with the United States, China could be buying American goods at an historical pace. Once this happens, we could see commodity prices soar across the board. Such a swing could impact prices here in Canada too. Once the outbreak is contained and China gets back to work, we could see yet another magmatic economic shift in the global economy, but in reverse. Futures are telling us that markets are expecting such a recovery to happen as soon as April or May. If that occurs, food inflation in Canada could become an issue by the end of spring or perhaps early summer. The big question most analysts are asking is how long until the outbreak will be contained.

We are seeing encouraging signs; even if the number of deaths in China surpasses the toll from SARS, the number of cases reported every day seems to indicate that the situation may be under control. It’s still too early to succumb to irrational optimism, though, as there is much we still don’t know about the coronavirus. As with SARS, scientists now believe that contact with live animals or slaughtered animals’ flesh may be the cause of the disease. In fact, some reports suggest the spread of the coronavirus may occur through eating meat. This could become yet another blow to the livestock industry, which is the last thing they need right now. Activists may potentially use this outbreak as a new argument to encourage consumers to move away from meat products. But the reality is this: biosecurity measures in the country, especially in central China, are questionable at best. China is not known to be forthcoming with reliable, verified data related to food safety and public health. Perceptions are impacted by what we know, but not knowing enough can also be problematic.

But the death of Dr. Li Wenliang, whose warnings about the coronavirus were quietened, just made things worse. He has become the new potent symbol of Beijing’s failures to disclosure and offer transparency. A similar pattern was seen with SARS in 2003. In 2008, thousands of infants were exposed for months to contaminated milk formula, but Beijing opted to turn a blind eye simply because it was hosting the Olympic Games and did not want the distraction. The scandal involved infant formula tainted with melamine. Melamine! As a result, 54,000 babies were hospitalized, and six died. Many of these cases could have been prevented if Beijing had acted more quickly. Regrettably, based on what happened to Li Wenliang, nothing has changed.

What is happening with the coronavirus could indicate how the African swine fever (ASF) is being dealt with, in China. Even though ASF is solely an animal disease affecting China,Asia and parts of Europe right now, skepticism about what is happening in China with ASF may grow. Many believe it could come to Canada soon. There are no associated risks for humans who come into contact with ASF, but Canadian officials could find it difficult to communicate risks when data coming out of China is anything but reliable.*

Humanity goes through a global outbreak like this every 15 years or so, and given China’s topography and demographic reality, there is a chance the country will be the epicentre of many other outbreaks in the future. The coronavirus is a new installment of global human diseases that remind us of how vulnerable we all are. China has its ways, whether we agree with them or not, but its responsibilities go far beyond its borders, from an economic and public health perspective. This recent setback in transparency is yet another indication that China has not fully accepted its place as a major socio-economic player around the globe; with more economic clout comes more responsibility.

Before ASF gets to Canada, let’s hope China opts not to suppress any information that can help us contain risks.

*UPDATE: This paragraph was corrected to state that ASF is not only affecting China and Asia, but also parts of Europe, and to clarify that people cannot contract ASF. 

The post Charlebois: In Food Safety, Wenliang’s Death Could Become Our Problem    appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Farmers are arguably the best environmental stewards we have in our economy, and they know it. With livestock, it makes little sense to accuse farmers for not treating animals appropriately when their sheer livelihood relies on the health of their farm animals. Accusations are often senseless and completely uninformed. Still, assaults on farmers continue. It’s not like farmers have taken consumer trust for granted. For years, farmers have been self-advocating as well as educating the public at markets, trade shows, and in the media. Many pro-farming groups have been amazingly active. But evidence suggesting these groups are listened to by the broader public is scarce.

Organized, well-funded groups condemning farming practices on social media are now winning the consumer trust battle. While Canadians overwhelmingly trust farmers, they remain split on whether practices on farms are ethical or environmentally sound. Environmentalists and animal activists are taking advantage of this uncertainty on the part of many Canadians. Some groups are even trespassing and will visit farms to claim justice for animals. The groups that believe meat is murder are ready to do anything to influence public opinion. Over 20 incidents across the country have been reported in the last 12 months, including some in British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and New Brunswick. These impromptu visits pose a risk to the animals themselves, which is why some provinces are now adopting stricter rules and harsher penalties for trespassers.

It’s a mess. Our rural and urban divide is causing the trust issue to become widespread. Trust, at its core, is a social phenomenon and is far more complex than the rational assessment of consumer perceptions, measured in surveys, for example. Our perceptions are influenced by many elements of our daily lives. And for most of us, farming is an abstract concept. As our rural and urban divide increases, so is our collective failure to fully respect and appreciate differing points of view. The increasing lack of respect for farmers is fueled by consumers’ unfamiliarity with our rural economy. At the heart of the trend, however, lies the concept of trust. The trustworthiness of farmers will always be limited by the physical and rational separation of consumers and agriculture. For all intents and purposes, agriculture is one element of complex globalized food chains that few consumers understand.

Food paradoxes between trust and information have channelled a lot of discussion over the years. Some examples. While most Canadians are unable to explain what a GMO is, the majority don’t trust biotechnologies. The same goes for supply management. Many Canadians believe supply management and our quota system serves our economy well yet cannot explain how the system works. Of course, similar analogies can be made about other aspects of our lives, like cars, or aircraft. But this is food, products Canadians buy and consume everyday. Over the years, we have seen an accumulation of issues which have made consumers second-guess almost everything. Food safety incidents, price-fixing scandals, food fraud and mislabelling, trans fats, the list goes on. With food, uneducated cynicism leveraged by organized anti-farming advocacy is winning over logic and is victimizing our food systems along the way, starting with farmers. It’s been ugly.

Consumers who trust farmers are willing to accept vulnerability, which is a central part of the concept of trust. Activists, on the other hand, will capitalize on vulnerability and on the fact that food systems lack transparency. Furthermore, conflicts between retailers, processors and farmers in a highly divided food industry are giving activists a greater chance of success in making consumers feel uneasy about our food system’s prospects.

By spreading information about agriculture, about farmers and farming practices, this can go a long way. The key moving forward is to foster transparency and education. Valuing the economics of our food systems and building a case for why food is safe and affordable in our country will be vital. We could produce our food on a much smaller scale and eliminate livestock from our diets. But for most Canadians, this would not only be financially unviable, it would be an affront to their own culinary culture.

And lastly, trust is a two-way street. To be listened to, Canadian farmers will also need to listen to consumers. They are after all, by way of social media, the new CEOs of our entire food chain are consumers, as they should be.

The post Charlebois: Why consumer trust is no longer enough appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

The idea is to tell the story of our food sector and highlight the advantages of Canadian-made food products. The initiative also intends to provide transparency so Canadians can understand how our products are made. The focus is to build public trust in our food sector and promote Canada’s brand, if it can be defined. The Canadian government is now looking for a marketing firm to promote Canadian food products and honour the mandate put forward by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

To deliver on such an important task, the firm will need to rely on how we see Canada’s brand in food. Other than a few bureaucrats in Ottawa and elsewhere, it’s unclear if a consensus has been reached on the matter. Many will have varying opinions and will require some clarification. Secondly, it is unclear if the “Buy Canadian” initiative will support “Products of Canada” or products “Made in Canada” – there are subtle but important differences. A “Product of Canada” means that all the noteworthy ingredients of a food product are Canadian, and that non-Canadian material is insignificant. However, a “Made in Canada” product suggests that the last step of processing occurred in Canada, regardless of whether its ingredients came from abroad or not. These two labels have left Canadians confused as to what food products are truly Canadian.

The “Buy Canadian” campaign could support one, the other, or both of these labels. Regardless, Canadians could end up wondering what the campaign is actually supporting. Naturally, this could be about “Products of Canada,” but given our Nordic climate and that we cannot grow everything all year round, some “Made in Canada” products are worthy of support and the processing required does generate some important manufacturing jobs here at home. But consumers need to know the difference.

What can complicate things is the “buy local” movement legacy built by provinces. Many provinces have been at it for years – in some cases, decades. FoodLand Ontario, Canada’s Food Island in Prince Edward Island, and Aliments Québec in the province of Quebec have all been quite successful in promoting local products to their own constituents. Because of these programs, buying local, for many Canadians, is about buying within a province, or close to the city where they live.

At this point, adding a federal layer of marketing would only add more noise. And promoting “Buy Canadian” in some parts of the country, like Quebec for example, may not be the greatest of ideas. Just ask Walmart. Their “Buy Canadian” campaign was a disaster in la Belle Province.

Perceived protectionism can also become an issue with this campaign. As a trading nation, Canada cannot be seen as a country which gives an unfair advantage to domestically grown and produced food products. The Americans lost their case at the World Trade Organization when COOL (country-of-origin -labeling) was implemented and promoted a few years ago. Canadian cattle and hog producers will The Feds are looking at spending $25 million to get you to buy Canadian when visiting a grocery store or restaurant. This is a great idea, in theory, but could easily turn into a marketing disaster.certainly remember.

And then we have Canadian cuisine. It is highly unlikely that poutine, shepherd’s pie, Nanaimo bars, the mighty donair, Hawaiian pizza, and butter tarts that are intrinsically Canadian, would be part of this initiative. These are Canadian recipes that have endured the test of time. Thinking outside the box, perhaps it is high time we promote Canadian cuisine and inspire our food industry to do more in years to come. Innovation, for all intent and purposes, takes different forms; it’s not just about carrots, tomatoes, Canadian beef, or wheat. Promoting Canadian food should be about consumers, and not solely about farmgate issues. Farmers feed cities, but so do processors, distributors, grocers, and the foodservice industry.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada does not have the greatest reputation when it comes to serving the food industry. Farmers are critical of our food systems, but other elements of the supply chain should not be forgotten. If this initiative is about promoting the industry and providing transparency, then processing, distribution, and service need to be in scope.

In the end, if this program isn’t implemented properly, it has the potential to become a complete disaster.

The post Buying Canadian, eh! appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

For months now, many have taken to social media to spread their concerns about choices made when travelling. Some means to travel, especially the plane, have been targeted by environmentalists, using guilt and public shaming to get people to think differently about their lifestyle. Even if air travel is responsible for less than two per cent of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, discrediting those who travel by plane is a continuing practice. Air travel does emit GHGs, but this industry is far from being the worse culprit, and many travellers have no other option but to fly to reach their destination. Studies have suggested that reducing the number of flights could reduce our carbon footprint. Perhaps, but weaponizing science to support a social movement or support a political campaign is now the new norm and often leads to contentious debates. Similarly, food, even though it can be personal and culturally charged, is not immune to this phenomenon.

Public shaming may reach a new, awkward level by looking at how much we eat. A recent study published by the Obesity Society suggests that obesity and overeating generates approximately 20 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions when compared to diets of people considered to have normal weight.

Researchers found that global obesity was estimated to contribute an extra 700 megatons of carbon dioxide emissions per year, or about 1.6 per cent of all man-made emissions, which is almost the same as air travel. The authors of the new study did emphasize that it is crucially important that this information does not lead to more weight stigmatization. But given the era we are in, recognizing how social media can interpret science differently, the potential for consumers with excess weight to be stigmatized is real. And some of us can be overly sensitive about this, especially after the holiday season.

Climate change has clearly become an important issue for a growing number of consumers. Some even call it a crisis. Such rhetoric is meant to entice governments and industry to make changes, and adopt new regulations in order to safeguard the planet. It is also attempting to cause consumers to think differently and become better environmental stewards.

Individually, we all make decisions based on professional responsibilities, personal wants and lifestyles. And, of course, we can all make different choices to help the planet. The public discourse is moving towards individualizing a plan of action to better serve the environment. That is all wonderful but using guilt and dishonour to condemn choices we all make daily is starting to reach uncomfortable levels, especially if these tactics are used against people facing weight challenges.

Obesity is a multi-faceted, highly complicated issue. Genetics, changing health conditions, mental health, our sedentary lifestyles, are all factors that can contribute to sudden or long-term weight gains. And many times, factors are beyond an individual’s control. Linking overeating with climate change is indeed a dangerous path to take and should be avoided at all cost. The potential to harm is certainly there. Food waste, on the other hand, is more controllable and not as personal. Food waste is not as complex either. Our discussion to reduce the amount of resources to generate the food we consume should be based on the food we waste and need to rescue, not obesity. And packaging, plastics, do represent a more appropriate target for environmentalist.

The Obesity Society’s study likely won’t help our quest to find a socially acceptable contract between good dieting and our environmental obligations. The year 2019 was marked by a very divisive, ridiculous debate between those who believed animal proteins are irreplaceable and those who fear that our current collective course of meat consumption is not sustainable. Fueled by highly public reports supporting one view or another, protein consumption has become a highly polarized, sensitive issue. The great Protein war, as some would suggest, is dividing industries, scientists, and even families. Some conversations between interest groups have been shockingly disruptive in recent months. Global meat consumption is slowly reaching its peak and the world is changing, without the shaming. Considering how food can be as cultural as it is personal, shaming someone for eating a hamburger, or a good steak is simply insolent.

Researchers conceded that the imprecise nature of data combinations should get readers to consider findings with some caution. This, however, may not be enough to discourage some groups to use the study against those they believe are behaving irresponsibly in the face of our climate crisis.

And that would indeed be shameful.

The post Is weight shaming going to be a thing? Let’s hope not appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

We often see action from organized labour at certain points of an economic cycle when workers feel an opportunity to lobby for better working conditions. CN posted a healthy profit last quarter as revenues are up four per cent, although the company did review its revenue outlook due to a weakening economy. Workers saw a window and are taking advantage of this profit. However, for agriculture this can’t be happening at a worse time. Thousands of grain growers are still coping with early winter conditions, as they are desperately trying to get their products out of their fields. Over one and a half million acres of canola is still under snow, according to a report. But now access to markets for many farmers is essentially nonexistent. Most locations where CN is serving, is the only option available to farmers in that area. The only one.

Overseas markets are critical to the survival of the sector. Canada was to export 21 million tonnes of wheat this year and about nine million tonnes of canola seed. The CN strike may severely compromise the agrifood sector’s ability to deliver and execute its overseas contracts. The strike could also prevent some inputs such as delivering propane to farmers, which they need to dry goods and heat facilities. Logistics go both ways.

We rarely see logistics as the backbone of our economy, but it is. It’s hidden, it’s out there, but it is there. We buy and consume products every day which relies on logistics to get to whatever point of sale we interact with. Even if 60 per cent of all jobs have been filed by managers, CN’s efficiency will be affected by the strike.

The essential question is this: Should parliament intervene or not. Within a few days of the strike, many provinces and dozens of trade groups have begun pressuring the federal government for back-to-work legislation. This pressure is coming even though the government is not in position do to anything until a cabinet is sworn in, a speaker of the house is appointed and the Throne speech is voted on. Ottawa’s legislative to-do list is quite lengthy before it is able to vote on any new laws.

When the last strike happened, in 2009, the Harper Government did not hesitate to intervene. The strike lasted just a few days. This time around, not only is Parliament not sitting, but it’s not clear how the new government will react to such measures. While Liberals have intervened in the past, it may be that they feel bargaining needs to do its work. And in a minority situation, the government would need the support of at least another party. The Conservatives are likely the only major party who would support the government. But seeing both the Liberals and Conservatives agreeing on anything is highly unlikely. For the Bloc and the NDP, back-to-work legislation would likely be a non-starter.

Beyond the politics of it all lies Canada’s reputation in logistics. It’s just awful. Canada is known to be a land of few options, transportation inefficiencies and bottlenecks. It’s been like this for years. Given the size of our economy and landmass, Canada’s investment levels on public infrastructure should have been at least triple of what we have seen since 1980. Just south of us, the United States offers great infrastructure, including well-maintained roads, high intermodal capacity and multiple options to move products. It is easy and less costly for any sector to use American distribution channels, including agriculture. Yet farmers who are located far from the American border are highly vulnerable to labour disputes and disruptions like this one.

Canada started to take logistics seriously about a decade ago when the Gateway and Corridor initiative was launched, forcing all provinces to work together and invest in our floundering infrastructure. Yet efforts came in with a huge backlog of challenges as most of our transportation system, from Halifax to Vancouver, has been undercapitalized for years. Labour disputes have only compounded the problem. Our trading partners are familiar with our domestic challenge which have compelled some to look elsewhere for grains and other agrifood commodities. This latest dispute will likely give them a new excuse to look away. Given the global nature of agrifood systems, this is certainly not what our farmers and food processors need.

The economic impact of this labour dispute is real. However, unlike some may suggest, this won’t bring our economy into a recession, but it won’t help. Consequently, our government may not be keen to force an end to this trade dispute, but it certainly needs to think about how it can do a better job in providing our agrifood sector better access to market.

The post Beyond the CN Rail strike, Canada has a real distribution problem  appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

Coupled with this latest move is Maple Leaf Foods’ plan to change its structure, in the way it operates and serves markets. Maple Leaf Foods recently announced that it would create a separate division internally to develop its plant-based business, fully committing to vegetable proteins. Considering its announcement earlier this year that it is building a $300m plant in Indiana to support its plant-protein strategy, a change to its structure makes sense.

It was an interesting move for a company whose sales, for the most part, have historically been in Canada. Its vegetable protein business does not even exceed $100m today, but is expected to grow significantly in years to come, and not just in Canada. In other words, this is where Maple Leaf Foods expects a good portion of its top-line growth to come from. Attaining plant-based product sales across the globe is Maple Leaf Foods’ gamble, and it is likely a wise one. The company owns the Canadian market – not much room for growth anymore – which is why it now needs to play a much broader game. And, most important, this new rejuvenated market focus will help make the company reach its target for carbon neutrality.

Now, Maple Leaf Foods, as one of the largest meat processors in the country, is not giving up on meat. Au contraire: it has reinvested in its meat operations to become more efficient. A new state-of-the-art chicken plant in is being built right now in London, Ontario. But the meat market these days is marred by abnormal erratic market conditions and unpredictable food safety risks.

In recent weeks, Chinese embargoes on Canadian pork have hit Maple Leaf Foods shares hard. Maple Leaf Foods’ latest quarterly results fell far short of expectations. Now that China is buying Canadian pork again, Maple Leaf Foods can breathe, but geopolitical risks remain. And food safety is making the meat business less attractive every day. Food recalls affecting meat in Canada are rampant. So far this year, we have seen over 800 Canadian-made meat products recalled by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. That’s almost 3 products a day, on average. Consumers are not easily affected by recalls, especially Canadians. But an accumulation of food safety snags will take a toll on consumers’ perception of risks.

Maple Leaf Foods is becoming a completely different company. Its governance, its focus, everything is changing. When you look at their performance and how the company is managed, its recent decision to become carbon neutral should not come as a surprise to anyone.

Agrifood companies, especially Canadian ones, have a long tradition of being commodity-driven, with an emphasis on production technology, high volumes, and quality consistency. The fact that the agrifood sector is inherently a low margin business doesn’t help either. In the context of global hyper-competitivity, the ability to understand customer needs and adapt to a wider variety of customer situations will become crucial. In other words, Maple Leaf Foods, which has a been a supply-side obsessed company, is adopting a demand-chain management framework for its food products. Its market emphasis is very different now. It is no longer about processing commodities and cutting costs, but more so about the continuous evaluation of perceived benefits by consumers. Market expectations are different, and therefore, Maple Leaf Foods is adapting.

The company is a well-known brand for Canadians, and it’s been like that for decades. What’s most interesting is that Maple Leaf Foods is clearly showing its will to listen to consumers, not necessarily just its customers per se. This transactional nuance for Maple Leaf Foods is not trivial. It sells its products to retailers like Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro, and not to consumers directly. Ads and merchandising ploys are all we have really seen from Maple Leaf Foods over the years. Focus groups and marketing research at the company meant that, for example, some products would be made natural only if the infrastructure permitted. This was the dominating paradigm back then.

Now, things are clearly different. In a demand-chain management environment, everything is on the table. When consumers become as critical to the company’s transactional relationship as its actual customers, a company’s structure changes and benefits, provided that the marketplace also changes. And that’s exactly what is happening at Maple Leaf Foods. The company’s goal to become carbon neutral should not be a surprise to anyone.

The post Behind Maple Leaf Foods’ bold call to become carbon neutral appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.

With no clear strategy on trades, our nation is highly vulnerable in a world in which trades and open markets are part of our global economy’s DNA. Supply management needs a fix, and fast. Conversions on compensation is currently superseding a real needed debate on what matters most: how to grant our country a true trade agenda, a debate we have not had since we signed the North American Trade Agreement in 1992. Such an approach is futile without thinking of how to reform our decades-old, fiscally-baggaged supply management scheme affecting dairy, poultry and egg sectors. Our protectionist approach to these sectors, supported by production quotas and high tariffs on imports, has clearly reached its expiry date. While supply management supporters claim that the system works as it has shown it can adapt, the facts are suggesting a different reality.

In dairy, for example, the system is really showing signs of desuetude. This past year, Canadian dairy processors such as Parmalat, Saputo and dairy farmer-owned Agropur and Gay Lea have imported well over $200M worth of dairy protein from the U.S. Since industrial milk prices are uncompetitive in Canada, our supply management regime is forcing industrial buyers to look elsewhere. Since supply management is about producing what we need, imported dairy protein has generated an unforeseen market imbalance. This situation led to the butter shortages we witnessed in recent months, which has forced Canada to import more butter. To address this issue, since April 1, dairy farmers in Ontario have dropped the price of industrial milk by creating a new class of milk for dairy processing. The aim, of course, is to entice domestic processors to buy Canadian proteins. But again, this measure is purely reactionary and speaks to how jumpy the sector is right now. The dangers of creating a new class of milk is real, as it can be perceived as a hidden subsidy and attract more criticism from TPP trade partners. This is not a good position to be in. Most recent decisions related to supply management are certainly not part of any long-term, rationale strategy in any way.

Supply managed sectors rely on common-sense trade leadership from Ottawa moving forward. As a result, the Liberal government is proceeding with extreme caution with the TPP compensation package. To define what is the appropriate compensation package without having a ratified deal or knowing how our agricultural economy will be impacted makes little sense. Defining amounts and strategic orientations are key to this process. Ottawa should figure out what our trade strategy should look like before putting a number on the table for industry to consider.

The Comprehensive European Trade Agreement (CETA) is to be ratified and implemented in 2017 but offers no clear compensation to affected sectors. Still, CETA creates a real breach in our supply management scheme in providing market access to the extent of 2 per cent of our domestic dairy market. Ottawa’s position on CETA is only adding more anxiety to an already tense situation. Pretending that supply management and an aggressive trading agenda can easily coexist is highly hypocritical and economically dangerous. With a strong mandate, Ottawa should attempt to resolve this as soon as possible.

But let’s not forget that Canada, in the grand scheme of things, plays second fiddle to both Japan and the U.S. in this deal. What both of these countries will do matters a great deal to us, and the Presidential elections are complicating TPP’s path to a successful ratification. Most current Presidential front-runners like Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have all expressed their opposition to the TPP.

The TPP may die a good death outside our borders, but in the meantime we should embrace this opportunity to become a much stronger trading economy.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a professor at the University of Guelph’s Food Institute

The post Be cautious about writing blank cheques for supply managed commodities appeared first on Canadian Cattlemen.