Canadian consumers have had a good run, with food now representing only about 10 per cent of annual income — about half of what it was 50 years ago, according to Statistics Canada. That decline is largely the result of changes in farming practices and improved agricultural technology. Improvements in pest control, crop and livestock genetics, communication and farm mechanization have meant big increases in productivity and efficiency, and decreases in inflation-adjusted costs of production and farm gate prices.

On balance, farmers have benefited. But consumers are the big winners.

We have by no means exhausted all opportunities to improve farm productivity and reduce costs and prices further. But a counter trend is becoming dominant — towards higher on-farm costs and lower crop yields, driven by a combination of government actions and consumer and retailer demands.

There’s a growing tendency for governments — especially in Europe, but spreading to Canada — to restrict the technologies farmers can use. The examples include genetically enhanced crops and pesticides. The reasons are largely political and are imposed as precautionary measures. Essentially, the message is: There is no significant evidence of any harm but we’ll ban it anyway.

An even bigger driver may be consumers — along with food manufacturers and retailers always eager to exploit profitable new market opportunities.

More consumers want to buy — and are paying higher prices for — ‘organic’ or ‘natural’ foods. They want products free of anything claimed by someone to be bad. Many food suppliers are eager to comply.

Ignoring the issue of whether the result is really better for health or environment (it’s doubtful), the effect on agricultural productivity is clear. Government surveys show organic crop yields average 30 to 40 per cent lower than for non-organic (it varies by crop); costs of production are much higher, and organic price premiums are consequentially large as well.

As a farmer, I could receive prices 250 per cent of normal for growing organic soybeans and 120 per cent of normal for growing non-genetically enhanced varieties. I would also have correspondingly higher costs of production and lower yields on my farm. Those costs and price premiums are transferred to consumers.

While I know of no formal public survey, anecdotal evidence shows that the shift by some food producers to more ‘does not contain’ (particularly ‘non-GMO’) manufacturing ingredients has meant higher prices. (It has meant lower nutritional value in some cases, too, because vitamins produced by genetically engineered micro-organisms are commonly eliminated.) Higher costs of production for farmers cannot mean anything other than higher food prices.

This is no economic threat to affluent Canadians. Even a 50 per cent increase in food prices still would absorb only 15 per cent of average Canadian family income.

But many Canadians aren’t affluent. If government and food-industry actions reduce availability of lower-cost foods, many low-income families will suffer. I have difficulty with the ethics of that.

In addition, a trend to lower productivity and higher costs will mean farmers need more land to produce the same amount of food. That’s a problem even in sparsely populated Canada, and impossible globally.

The trend may mean greater imports from countries where low-tech, laxer safety standards and cheap labour prevail. Half of the organic soybeans now used in North America come from India and China.

The pattern of declining food expenditures for Canadians is likely over. Look for more food price increases in years ahead.

The post Think food prices are high? Get ready for higher appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

But science and statistics do not support their position.

Consider the following:

Statistics Canada data show that the number of honey bee colonies was up, not down, in both Ontario and Canada in 2012. While some beekeepers have experienced excessive losses in recent years, most have not, including many with hives immediately adjacent to fields where neonicotinoid-treated corn has been planted. On the Prairies, home to 80 per cent of honey production and usage of neonicotinoids (also used to treat canola) is much higher than in Ontario, there has been no linkage between neonics and bee deaths.

Despite claims to the contrary, there has been no shortage of pollinator bees for horticultural crop producers across Ontario, and the province continues to send many thousands of hives to Atlantic Canada each year for blueberry pollination.

Bees are always dying in large numbers and while the percentages vary widely from year to year, recent Ontario numbers are not that different from historical patterns.

The real cause of increased bee mortality for some beekeepers in recent years is the arrival of varroa mites, which like malaria-carrying mosquitoes, suck blood (or its insect counterpart) and also inject deadly viruses into the host. Their arrival also means chemical controls must be applied just right. Casual bee management practices, which worked well before varroa arrived, mean excessive bee mortality now.

Varroa management keeps changing as the mite develops resistance to formerly effective miticides. Part of the problem in Ontario could be a new miticide called Mite Away Quick Strips, derived from toxic formic acid. Widely used in Ontario but not in Western Canada, it is not recommended at higher temperatures. Ontario had many days with higher temperatures in May 2012 when some Ontario beekeepers reported high losses.

Ontario bees have also been affected by a recently arrived strain/species of a serious fungal disease, nosema. Other stresses also weaken bees, such as when the nectar and pollen supply is inadequate or is far away from hives.

Dust from corn seed treatments may be a factor, but efforts are underway in the corn industry to alter the seed treatments and planter design (or the choice of equipment purchased).

The Canadian Honey Council, representing beekeepers all across Canada, actively opposes the ban requested by the board of the Ontario Beekeepers Association, arguing the harm to other farmers would be substantial, with no notable change in bee mortality.

A neonic ban could lead to a situation where the bee-death problem is just as bad as before, but with corn farmers experiencing serious losses due to damage caused by insects now controlled by neonic seed treatments. If that happens, there’s a high probability many corn farmers would switch to other insecticides much more harmful to themselves and the environment.

Finally, the demand for a neonic ban could extend to horticultural farmers who are highly dependent on foliar spray applications of neonics for insect control.

Successful, careful beekeepers in Ontario say that skilled bee and varroa management coupled with quality hygiene (the same principles which apply for livestock and poultry producers) is what is needed to ensure hive survival and productivity.

The post Ban neonicotinoids? Not if you’re concerned about the facts appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.