The focus on food and the environment has moved beyond the food sector. Earlier this fall, Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, weighed in on the need for climate risk management and sustainable investing to go mainstream. And a recent trade agreement between the EU and Mercosur countries included a clause on climate conference commitments. The future of food is being shaped by many hands.

The reality is that many of the words we use to describe food tells us little about the quality of our food. Terms like local, seasonal, organic, non-GMO and natural don’t tell us a lot. Nutritional quality is based on different nutrients, which are measured according to standard methods. Defining how ‘sustainable’ a food is will not be as simple as telling someone that it was grown or raised in a ‘good’ way or that the manufacturer cares about the environment. There is a need to measure the environmental impacts.

For the markets that value sustainability, and the brands being developed to capitalize on consumer interest in environmental quality, objective measures of outcomes are needed in key areas such as carbon balance, biodiversity and water use impacts. The challenge is that the current measures of environmental impact, and the data being used to drive these measures, need to be modernized and expanded.

To understand the impact that the food system has on the environment, an approach to choosing good food will require the development of data that reflects the specific ecosystem and management practices by all crop and livestock sectors as well as the processing required to have food ready for the plate. This work has already begun as numerous organizations are building inventories of data for food and agricultural products. It isn’t about good or bad food — it is about choosing products and a dietary approach that reduces the environmental ‘food print’ while meeting nutritional requirements and tasting good.

A global approach that uses farm-level and ecosystem-specific information will provide incentives for all to make sustainability improvements. Most importantly, it will provide consumers with the information they need to make educated food choices.

Ultimately, the person pushing the grocery cart has the most power to drive change. Given enough information, food companies and consumers will make the ingredient and food choices that are right for them. Good information will also be key to good government policy for food and the environment.

The food sector has made significant strides to provide information on the nutritional quality of foods to consumers. Now it’s time we consider how we do the same for sustainability and food. Let’s ensure that Canada’s agri-food system is ready to compete in the future of good food.

Gordon Bacon is the CEO of Pulse Canada, the national association representing growers, traders and processors of pulses.

The post Opinion: The future of good food appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Consumers and governments around the world now look to pulses as an important part of action plans to improve the global food system and address nutritional and environmental challenges.

Increasing pulse consumption is critical to meeting growing global protein needs. Pulses are an important part of cropping systems that diversify revenue sources for farmers, and pulses make a significant contribution to affordable and sustainable food production systems.

Through collaboration on events like 2016 International Year of Pulses, the global pulse industry has been successful in raising the profile of pulses. Pulse Canada is proud to have played a leadership role in shaping the path forward for pulses.

This increasing emphasis on pulses is changing the industry at every level. While traditional demand remains, new uses for pulses are emerging.

Consumers are exploring ways to make pulses a bigger part of the foods they prepare at home as well as those that they buy in supermarkets and at restaurants.

Food companies, including traditional cereal foods and animal meat and milk companies, are increasing their use of pulse ingredients to meet consumer demand for affordable food that is healthy for them and good for the planet.

Farmers and governments are focused on how they will capitalize on demand for pulses.

The global pulse market is influenced not only by the commercial forces of supply and demand (trade) but also by government directions (policy) that can complement but also override commercial market direction. Perhaps no government is having a bigger impact on the pulse industry than the Government of India.

India has chosen to focus on supporting its farmers through a market support price for pulses and border controls in the form of import duties and quota restrictions. These actions have had the unintended effect of driving down international pulse prices and are also impacting the pulse-planting decisions of farmers around the world.

What started as a method of price support for India’s farmers has become the focus of a discussion on forecasts for food security. Global pulse plantings are presently forecast to undergo a significant reduction in 2018. Analysts are predicting that Canada alone may reduce seeded area by one million acres of peas and one million acres of lentils.

Food production the world over is subject to the variability of climate during the growing season and at harvest. Science and technology cannot yet fully remove the negative impact of pests and plant diseases.

When most of the world’s pulses are grown in areas that rely on rainfall, the phrase ‘rain makes grain’ will remain the dominant explanation for pulse surpluses and pulse shortages the world over.

Given what is happening now in the global pulse market, governments should be discussing whether there is a policy-induced drain on areas seeded to pulses, and if there are ways to mitigate the impact of policy on pulse-planting decisions and the risk associated with trade with India.

And as a country of rising economic influence, India must recognize the vital role that its domestic pulse policy is playing at the global level.

This is not the time to enter yet another policy debate on the relationship between trade and food security or what constitutes an overreliance on imported food. What is needed in the short term (now) by both the global pulse industry and governments with a vital interest in food security is to focus on implementation of an operational plan that works for the pulse sector.

Pulse production and trade is about more than food security. Pulses are also improving the environmental sustainability of food production systems, addressing global protein needs and contributing to the economic viability of farmers in many countries.

So what is needed? Pulse policies implemented by the Government of India have a global reach as a ‘pulse market maker,’ and a ‘pulse market breaker.’ While only the Indian government can decide how best to support its own farmers, domestic price support for farmers must be undertaken in a manner that is both transparent and predictable.

Without this balance, the uncertain future of domestic policy in India will continue to negatively impact the global pulse market, leading to reduced plantings by farmers in regions such as South Asia, Africa, North America, Eastern Europe and Russia. The inherent risk in global pulse production is being compounded by uncertainty in India’s domestic pulse policy.

From the Canadian perspective, a first and urgent step for India’s government is the development of a transparent system that will help farmers and trade predict changes, up or down, to India’s import duties. The timeline for this is very tight; farmers around the world are already making their 2018 planting decisions.

India must also return to science-based approaches to plant protection policy. Plant protection policies cannot be abused as a tool to limit trade for economic or political reasons as this further erodes the confidence of growers and trade in the global pulse market. Plant protection policies must only be used to address the actual level of risk that imports present to the importing country.

And finally, future changes to India’s policy must respect the WTO Agreement on Agriculture that in Article 5:3 states that additional duties on products ‘tariffed’ shall not be applied to goods “en route on the basis of a contract settled before the additional duty is imposed.”

Pulse trade with India has changed at the very time when the entire world is looking to the food system to deliver on both consumer expectations and social needs like human health and environmental sustainability.

Pulses will inevitably be part of the global strategy to create an affordable and healthy food system that protects the planet’s resources. A more predictable production and trade environment for pulses is in everyone’s interest. Governments and the pulse trade the world over had best move quickly to fix this problem.

2018 should be the year to grow more pulses – not less.

Gordon Bacon is CEO of Pulse Canada, the national association representing growers, traders and processors of Canadian pulse crops.

The post Opinion: Pulses and the future of food appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

India is the world’s largest producer and the largest consumer of pulses. Canada is the world’s largest exporter of pulses.

India’s growing population, strong economic growth, and inevitable variability in production and harvest quality (weather dependent) all point towards the need for a more comprehensive policy approach that recognizes that food security relies on trade.

The current challenges with pulse trade in India signal that the time has come for the pulse superpowers to come to one view on how to address both the short-term and long-term commercial and political realities of pulse trade.

Both countries have a lot at stake. No government will benefit if actions end up creating unintended consequences like reduced pulse plantings in 2018.

• Read more: Canada pans India’s ‘discriminatory treatment’ over pulses

The wrong signals from pulse superpower India could drive farmers in countries like Canada to sharply reduce pulse plantings, setting the stage for a potential shortage of pulses for the 2018-19 crop year.

Affordable pulse protein plays a huge role in food security for India and increasingly for the rest of the world. This is why it is so important that India’s handling of the immediate issue of depressed prices and large stocks of government-owned pulses is also mindful of how India’s policy will have a global reach affecting global pulse production and stocks available for trade well into 2019 and beyond.

Recent meetings between Canadian ministers and ministers in the Indian government have opened the door for collaboration on a longer-term approach. That is welcome news. Now governments need to act quickly and in a way that works in concert with the global open market in pulse trade.

There are two areas of focus for Canada and India to address in order to return pulse trade to mutually beneficial solid ground.

Import duties are one way for India to provide domestic price protection. Transparency in how and when duties are applied, increased and decreased is essential to both production and trade decisions worldwide. Duties linked to both market support prices in India and the commercial price for pulses in India can provide protection to farmer incomes in times of low prices, and be reduced or eliminated to ensure pulses remain affordable when prices rise.

Plant protection policies cannot and should not be used as non-tariff trade barriers. Blanket policies requiring fumigation would only make sense if all countries presented a uniform level of threat that could effectively be addressed by fumigation. This is not the case.

Phytosanitary policy will be country specific, reflecting the degree of risk of introduction of pests of quarantine concern. Regulatory requirements to use fumigants must be based on science-based assessments specific to the origin of the shipment.

Use of regulation to require use of any fumigant, especially ones like methyl bromide which is known to be extremely harmful to the environment, has to be based on a high level of risk. All countries, including Canada, should challenge misuse of fumigants as a matter of public interest and sound science-based policy.

Canada and India will continue to be valued pulse trade partners for the foreseeable future in part because the variability of crop production and crop quality in both countries is beyond the control of today’s technology. Governments will always have an interest in policy that supports local farmers and supports food security through trade, and will need to make sure that support policies don’t exacerbate price volatility.

A predictable trade policy including transparent processes for establishment of duties and adherence to a science-based approach to sanitary/phytosanitary issues aligns with Prime Minister Modi’s significant push towards improving the climate for doing business in India and attracting investment.

Strong business ties with India align with Prime Minister Trudeau’s policies and commitment to build economic ties with India.

Governments in Canada and India must adjust sound policy to ensure that it contributes to the stability of pulse values in India in the short term, and food security for 2018, 2019 and beyond.

Success will be judged by successfully balancing the outcomes for India’s farmers in the short term, and the impact on the global pulse trade over the longer term.

The eyes of the world are on the pulse superpowers. Let us be confident that we are travelling down the right path.

Gordon Bacon is CEO of Pulse Canada, the national association representing growers, traders and processors of Canadian pulse crops.

The post Comment: A path forward for pulses appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Use pesticides that are registered for your crop and acceptable to both domestic and export customers. Make sure to only use pesticides that are registered in Canada for that crop. Keep in mind that registration of a pesticide doesn’t guarantee it’s acceptable to export customers. Registration can occur in Canada before there are maximum residue limits (MRLs) in major export markets and in some cases, this can create a market risk. Keep it Clean works to identify and manage these market risks so that growers can access crop protection products earlier and reduce marketing risks. Talk with your grain buyer before you spray to ensure the pesticides you’re using won’t limit your marketing options.

Use pesticides correctly. We’ve all been reminded to “Always follow label instructions,” because it’s something that must always be top of mind. Applying the product without following label directions may result in higher-than-accepted residue levels in the seed. Proper timing is key. For example, cereal growers should not apply glyphosate when kernels are too green (30 per cent moisture or higher). Follow the correct rates and timing listed on the label, and stick to the pre-harvest interval (PHI): the number of days that must pass between the last application of a pesticide and swathing or straight combining. See the provincial Guides to Crop Protection for more information. If you’re growing canola, visit spraytoswath.ca for tools to help you plan your spray.

In 2017, the Canola Council of Canada, Cereals Canada and Pulse Canada partnered together on the Keep it Clean initiative to inform Canadian growers of best practices in growing export-quality grain. Because growers continue to follow the Keep it Clean steps, Canadian agriculture continues to keep the confidence of our export partners.

Visit keepingitclean.ca for information on producing export-quality canola, cereals and pulses.

This article was co-written by Gordon Bacon, CEO of Pulse Canada, Cam Dahl, president of Cereals Canada and Jim Everson, president of the Canola Council of Canada.

The post Two simple spray tips can make or break Canadian crops appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.