Category archive

2023 - page 2

Op-ed: Towards a National Agricultural Labour Strategy That Works for Farmers and Farm Workers

in 2023/Organic Community/Organic Standards/Winter 2023

By the National Farmers Union

For decades, Canada’s farm numbers have been going down, farm size has been increasing, and more farms have come to rely on hired workers as a consequence. The ongoing loss of farms and the current shortage of farm labour have the same root cause: a cost-price squeeze that results in inadequate returns to the work of farming, whether done by the farm operators or farm workers. Paying high prices for inputs and receiving low prices for commodities results in farmers subsidizing their farms with off-farm jobs, pressure to keep wages to farm workers low, the exit of skilled people from the sector to pursue more remunerative and less precarious sources of income, and a lack of new entrants to replace retiring farmers.
Yet, there are many young people who would like to make farming their life’s work. They are interested in having good jobs on farms and/or operating their own farms. Canada is a wealthy country and has the ability to ensure they have rewarding careers—if we have an Agricultural Labour Strategy that is designed to ensure farm labour is properly compensated, safe, and dignified.

We reject a view that seeks to reduce labour costs by maximizing the use of technology (robots, automation, self-driving tractors, etc.) and adopting a “just-in-time” approach to the employment of Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWs). Canada’s National Agricultural Labour Strategy must recognize the full humanity of farmers and farm workers, the role and meaning of work in their lives, and the multiple contributions to a healthy society that result from the dignity of work. In other words, the people who work on their own farms or as employees on farms are not merely “productive units” that enable input companies, commodity traders, and food processors to maximize their profits.

The crisis in farm labour goes beyond a labour shortage that threatens Canada’s food production capacity. It is also an alarm bell for Canada to heed before we lose the essential skills and knowledge carried by the people who do the work of agriculture.

We in the NFU believe we need an Agriculture Labour Strategy that respects and values the work of farming—whether it is done by farmers or farm workers.

Are labour shortages having a negative impact?

The failure of the agri-food sector to provide returns to labour has resulted in a loss of farms, and an inability of the agriculture and agri-food sector to reliably attract and retain needed workers. This worsens the farm income crisis, accelerates rural depopulation, and contributes to a decline in the quality of life for rural residents. These factors drive a vicious circle of decline. When farmers on small and mid-sized sustainable farms are unable to secure a liveable income, they are unable to hire farm workers at competitive wages. The long-term loss of farmers depletes the pool of local people with the required skills. Retired farmers have become an important but time-limited source of labour on the prairies where farm size has increased dramatically. If and when there is nobody available to hire, work goes undone, resulting in higher risks, more farm stress, lower production, higher costs, and lower incomes. A lack of labour also inhibits farms from adopting or continuing practices that are better for the land but take more time.

Labour shortages also mean existing workers (including farm owners) work for longer hours and must cover a wider range of tasks. The strain that results often induces undercompensated, skilled farm workers to leave the sector, further worsening the loss of farm productivity.

Carrying flats of strawberries. Credit: Tim Mossholder.

Has the supply and demand related to agricultural workers changed in recent years?

With the exception of the supply managed sectors, Canada’s agriculture markets are structured to keep prices paid to farmers as low as possible. This is due primarily to the monopoly power of the main agri-business corporations purchasing commodities, and is reinforced by trade agreements and export policies that require Canadian products to compete at home and abroad with those produced in countries with much lower wage rates and weaker labour standards. The “demand” for labour is tightly linked to the ability to pay, thus the leakage of Canada’s food dollars to multinational corporations elsewhere reduces the amount of revenue available in our own food system that could support a larger number of farmers and farm workers.

The supply of agricultural labour in Canada is constrained by low wages and working conditions, discouraging young people from pursuing agricultural careers. While trade agreements allow Canada to easily import low-priced agricultural products, workers’ mobility to come here, and to move within Canada, is tightly controlled at the border and by the rules governing TFWs. In addition, the restrictions on TFW mobility and their lack of rights contribute to the undervaluing of farm labour across the board.

How can we help keep workers in the agriculture and agri-food sector, and better support the recruitment and retention of under-represented groups?

Many farm workers are racialized and/or are from disadvantaged communities that are under-represented in better-paying sectors of the economy. The Farm Labour Strategy needs to increase equity within the sector, and between agriculture and other sectors of the economy, with policies that ensure both farmers and farm workers are able to earn livable incomes.
All farm workers in Canada should have the coverage they need under provincial and territorial labour laws, including the right to associate and form a union.

All TFWs in agriculture should be entitled to permanent residency status. Many TFWs have been coming to Canada seasonally for over 30 years. If we want to keep these workers in the agriculture and agri-food sector and attract even more high-calibre, skilled foreign workers, we need to ensure they have access to and can benefit from all the rights and protections afforded to Canadian workers.

Globalization has entrenched an imbalance between farm product prices and the living wage level required for farm workers in Canada. A Basic Income Guarantee and/or changes to the Employment Insurance (EI) system are needed to address this problem. The EI system should recognize the seasonality of agriculture work and the need for a year-round livable income for farm workers. With a liveable year-round income, people employed as farm workers could continue the essential task of growing food for Canadians without worry of seasonal income loss, climate change disruptions (drought, fires, etc.) and without increasing food costs for consumers.

Improving Business Risk Program design to ensure labour intensive operations have adequate support and a Guaranteed Basic Income program that takes into account the specifics of agricultural work should be explored so that all agricultural producers can continue the essential task of growing food for Canadians.

In addition to low wages, our farm worker members consistently voice how a lack of quality, affordable, and conveniently-located housing is a major deterrent for remaining in the sector. Canada must invest in rural public housing; rural schools; rural public transit; and child-care facilities. More investment in rural health care and more affordable access for both farm operators and farm workers to supplementary health and dental benefits and workers’ compensation insurance is also needed.

Small and medium enterprises in local food processing should have priority for grants to allow them to upgrade their facilities to improve working conditions in order to attract and retain skilled workers. The benefits of such support go beyond the success of the enterprises themselves, as smaller operations which are distributed across Canada generally have a greater net impact on their local economies and regional food security by providing both jobs in the community and value-added revenue for local producers.

Do most workers have the skills they need to be successful?

Some agricultural production and processing jobs go unfilled because there are not enough people with the necessary training. Improved training programs, funding to support on-farm training, and recognition of skills acquired in previous work situations would help close this gap. This is particularly true for small and medium enterprises in the food processing sector, such as provincially licensed abattoirs. For example, in BC, the only training program for meat cutters graduates 12-14 new butchers a year. This post-secondary institution (Thompson Rivers University) reports that after five years, only two of those graduates will still be working in the industry. A recent study by the BC Abattoirs Association estimates that the need for trained meat cutters is 200 immediately; and another 400 will be needed within two years.

The NFU Ontario report, Reframing the Farm Labour Crisis in Ontario, notes that farmers identified the need for Human Resource management training, with upwards to 60% saying that they didn’t have the time or knowledge to provide a variety of HR policies to their staff. In the same report, farm workers identified a number of top agricultural skills they wished to acquire, including training on soil health and amendments, weed and disease identification, horticultural and crop care, irrigation, livestock care, training for construction and infrastructure, tractor & heavy equipment use, and marketing and customer service.

How can agriculture help ensure workers have the skills needed for transition to a more resilient and adaptable economy?

Canada needs publicly-funded financial support for transitioning to more climate-friendly agricultural methods, including research into agronomic methods that are not input-dependent and hiring agronomists to provide free and reliable extension services to promote best management practices. The NFU recommends establishing a new Canadian Agriculture Resilience Agency to deliver coordinated research and extension to support a just transition to profitable, low-emission, climate adaptation.

The Agricultural Labour Strategy also should provide financial support for on-farm training. Most farmers learn how to grow food while on the farm. Government financial support for both farm employers as “trainers” and for farm workers as “trainees” for on-farm training/education will enable farmers to share best environmental farming practices.

With increasing automation and use of digital technology in farm machinery, the government needs to promote on-farm innovation by assisting farmers and farm workers to access open source information, share their own knowledge, skills, and creativity to create and use appropriate technologies while strengthening social relationships within their enterprises and communities.

Are automation and labour-saving technologies being adequately utilized?

Farmers take many factors into consideration when deciding whether to adopt new technologies. A better question might be ‘do automation options fulfill the expressed needs of farmers?’ More automation with bigger machinery risks increased soil compaction, reducing water infiltration and holding capacity in soil, and making farms less resilient to weather extremes we’re now experiencing on a regular basis due to the climate crisis. Farmers highly value their autonomy as decision-makers, which automated technologies can impinge upon. For example, proprietary computer systems mean the farmer is dependent on dealers’ technicians to make repairs, adding costs and delays that can have major consequences.

Are there barriers to the development and adoption of automation and labour-saving technologies?

High capital costs of automation may exceed potential savings for small and medium sized producers and processors. Automation may reduce farmers’ ability to adjust operations in response to unexpected situations or conditions. Reliance on Artificial Intelligence and algorithms programmed into machinery has the potential to generate landscape level errors, hazards, damage and losses when the automated system fails to comprehend the complexity of the situation and applies the wrong solutions.

Energy costs and emissions from automation can increase GHG emissions when it involves replacing human energy with fossil fuel energy; sustainable farming methods often require more, not less, labour inputs.

Automation can be used for worker and farmer surveillance with unacceptable implications for privacy, fairness, and autonomy. For example, the world’s largest farm machinery company, John Deere, is also investing heavily in big data applications and has entered into partnerships with seed and commodity trading corporations that exacerbate the power imbalance between farmers and the companies they deal with.

The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) reported in 2020 on the technological tools greenhouse employers use to monitor migrant farm workers on the assembly line. UFCW observed that the assembly-line workers who do not achieve quota are docked pay or have their shifts reduced. The use of surveillance to increase productivity of farm workers is an unacceptable level of control. It is not only incompatible with worker dignity, but can create occupational health and safety problems from repetitive strain and overwork, as documented in Amazon warehouses.

Are there barriers to expansion of automation and labour-saving technologies in the processing sector?

Solving the abattoir labour shortage is extremely important for livestock farmers, but increased automation cannot replace skilled, trained workers. Rather than investments in automation technologies we need the government to invest in the expansion of butchery training programs and support for small-scale, local, and regional abattoirs.

We need an employment and immigration program that allows livestock producers, butchers, and meat-cutters access to temporary foreign workers who are given pathways to permanent residency so abattoirs and livestock producers can benefit from their skills year-round.

The severe shortage of trained butchers threatens the viability of small and medium sized cut-and-wrap facilities, and a special immigration program to fast-track skilled butchers to be employed in provincially inspected abattoirs and community butcher shops is urgently needed.

Increased capacity in these enterprises is needed to address unacceptable delays and bottlenecks that are constraining the ability of farmers to serve growing demand from customers who wish to buy locally raised livestock.

What gaps in labour market information need to be filled?

We need to know more about the differences in income, profits, wages, etc. between large corporate operations and smaller, family-run farms. We need to know whether—and by how much—larger operations are actually able to increase what they pay their workers.

We need data on wage averages or range of wages paid across the agri-food sector, especially in provinces like Ontario, where primary agricultural workers are not regulated by minimum wage laws.

What priority solutions should federal and provincial/territorial governments pursue to address labour shortages?

Canada needs to provide Permanent Residency for All Temporary Foreign Agricultural Workers.

All farm workers need to be guaranteed labour rights, including the right to unionize.

A Basic Income Guarantee, along with Employment Insurance reform (increasing rates and eligibility for all those who labour in the agricultural sector), wage subsidies, and/or increases to minimum wage rates are urgently required to ensure farmers and farm workers can have economically and socially sustainable careers producing food for Canadians.
Rural, agricultural work will be more attractive if the government invests in rural services and amenities, including affordable and conveniently-located public housing; affordable childcare; schools; health care services and access to affordable supplementary health and dental benefits; inter-community public transit; and other cultural and recreational amenities.

What government service, programming and/or engagement related to labour, needs to be immediately changed?

Open work permits for all Temporary Foreign Workers: until the government creates a dedicated immigration stream for agricultural workers, all TFWs should be issued open work permits which will allow them to change employers if necessary. They should also be granted all the rights and privileges of Canadian workers under provincial and territorial labour laws. Farm workers frequently experience low wages, poor working conditions, precarious employment, lack of needed services for quality of life, discrimination, and at times mistreatment and threats of violence. Enduring such conditions should not be the price of working in Canada for anyone, including TFWs.

Canada needs an agricultural labour strategy that puts the people who labour – farmers and farm workers – at the centre. It must start with policies that ensure the price farmers receive for the product will return to the producer the cost of production, including a reasonable return on investment, management and labour. This principle holds whether the buyer is a commodity trader operating internationally, a food processor serving the Canadian market or supermarket owners buying local produce: all need to pay prices that allow their suppliers to maintain safe and equitable working conditions for all farmers and workers.

nfu.ca


The National Farmers Union is a voluntary direct-membership, non-partisan, national farm organization made up of thousands of farm families from across Canada. Founded in 1969, the NFU advocates for policies that promote the dignity, prosperity and sustainable future of farmers, farm workers, their families and their communities.

Featured image: Workers in the field on a rainy day harvesting strawberries. Credit: Tim Mossholder.

Further reading:

Reframing the Farm Labour Crisis: nfu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Reframing-the-Farm-Labour-Crisis-NFU-O-Farm-Labour-Study_compressed.pdf

Canadian Farm Resiliency Administration: nfu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/CFRA.25.02.pdf

Improve Plant Immunity

in 2023/Crop Production/Grow Organic/Preparation/Soil/Tools & Techniques/Winter 2023

Microbially Friendly Farming

By Dr. Judith Fitzpatrick

[Originally published in Heart & Soil Magazine]

Imagine that you were intelligent enough to diagnose a disease, prescribe the correct antimicrobial, and manufacture it.

Plants with a healthy microbiome do this!

The plant and microbes work together to perform this miracle.

Organic farmers need 97% less of any kind of pesticide than those using mineral fertilizers. Mineral fertilizers are genocidal for the soil microbes that protect the plant from pathogens and adverse conditions, produce nutritionally-deficient food, and pollute the environment.

Plants Send Signals for Microbes

In regenerative organic farming, which we will refer to as Microbially Friendly Farming (MFF), the plant secretes approximately 30% of its photosynthate to generate the specific microbial population that it requires for nutritional needs and health.

The major stimulation for the plant to build this population is the plant’s hunger for the N, P, K (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium), and other soil minerals that the microbes can deliver. When the plant is provided mineral N, it does not nourish this microbial population, and the plant loses the ability to protect itself from pathogens and stresses such as drought.

Microbially Friendly Farming

From here forward we will use the word plant to refer to a plant that has not been poisoned by a high mineral fertilizer regimen and has developed a healthy microbial population. We will use the term Microbially Friendly Farming (MFF) to refer to agricultural practices that maintain microbial populations above 250 µg (one-millionth of a gram), microbial biomass carbongram of soil and a F:B (fungi:bacteria) ratio above 0.5.

Microbes Support Each Other

The microbial population in the rhizosphere is controlled by the organic molecules that the plant exudes and the nutrients available in the soil. Microbes are the pickiest of eaters. They can only dine on very special diets and require the support of a population of other microbes that supply some of their dietary needs. This is why we can only grow about 1% of soil microbes in the lab – we know about the other 99% because we can detect their DNA, see them microscopically, and measure some of their metabolism.

Healthy Plant, Healthy Seed

Like us, plants receive their initial microbiome from the seed of the mother plant which are as important in establishing a healthy microbiome for the plant as they are for us – e.g. children born by caesarian birth have different microbiomes than those born vaginally and have immune deficits that are attributed to not being inoculated with their mother’s vaginal and fecal microbes.

Microbes Stimulate the Immune System

The microbial population in the rhizosphere descends from the seedling population and expands with plant/root growth and recruitment from the surrounding soil. The seedling feeds the microbes with root exudates and the microbes send chemical growth molecules to stimulate plant growth. Hence these microbes are called plant growth promoting bacteria. As with humans, the overall health of the plant is a critical component of disease resistance.

The interaction between the microbes and the plant is very similar to how the microbes in our guts stimulate our immune system, which also doesn’t develop in the absence of microbes.

Cells that Respond to Infection and Pathogens

Microbes enter the plant through root tips via a process called rhizophagy. The plant extracts 40% of the N it requires, as well as other nutrients, before it releases these microbes back into the soil via root hairs. Some of these microbes enter the plant’s circulation system and interact with receptors that appear on all plant cells, called Microbe Associated Molecular Patterns (MAMPS), which recognize and bind to common structures on the surfaces of microbes. This binding leads to an intracellular molecular chain reaction that stimulates the cell to produce more MAMPS and many protective antioxidants. Thus it produces a cell that is more alert to microbes and is more prepared to respond to infection.

In addition to MAMP receptors, the plant has Pathogen Associated Molecular Patterns (PAMPS), that recognize and bind to structures that are unique to pathogens. Binding to a pathogen receptor stimulates the cell to make more PAMPS, making the plant both more sensitive to the pathogen and causing the plant to produce large amounts of antioxidants that are harmful to pathogens. This sometimes causes the cell to commit suicide (apotosis) to save the spread of the disease.

Making Specific Antibiotic

This exposure to pathogens also stimulates the plant root to increase the production and secretion of the foods that attract the microbes that make the antibiotic that combats the particular pathogen.

The microbes making this antibiotic then multiply in the root area making the antibiotic available to the plant. Thus with MFF, a plant in partnership with microbes develops a strong immune system by upping the number of MAMPS and PAMPS and is more resistant to disease and requires much less pesticide.

Thousands of Essential Nutrient Antioxidants

Perhaps the biggest wins for MFF are that the thousands of essential nutrient antioxidants produced by these plants provide protection against cancer, inflammation, and disease in our bodies, and they are what give fruits and vegetables good texture and flavor leading to better eating habits. These thousands of essential nutrient antioxidants are not plentiful in conventional farm produce and are not currently listed as nutrients by the USDA.

Microbes also stimulate the production of Damage Associated Molecular Patterns (DAMPS), which recognize and bind components of damaged cells, especially those of leaves, and promote healing. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that the chemical odors produced by these damaged cells are specific to the insect causing the damage, and these plant-produced odors attract insects that antagonize the attacker.

Microbes make antimicrobials in large part to protect their territory from other microbes. So the microbes surrounding your plant are big defenders against pathogenic soil bacteria, e.g. good nematodes are the best protectors against pathogenic nematodes.

Defensive Fungal to Bacterial Ratio

Interestingly, it has also been observed that a proper fungal to bacterial ratio results in a bacterial population that is more prepared to defend itself from predators. The proper ratio varies depending on soil and crop. For agricultural crops, it is usually between 0.4 and 1. The proper ratio also tells you that you are not decreasing your soil fertility (organic carbon).

Mycorrhizal fungi that colonize approximately 90% of all plants are fungi that are totally dependent on the plant for nutrition. A plant root exudate awakens the fungal spore – which has only a day to grow to the plant where it enters a cell and is fed. When established, the fungi sends out hypha to collect P, N, K, S (sulfur), and water, which it brings back to the plant cell and trades for carbon and amino acids. The fungal hypha of a colonized plant can increase the root area as much as 1000%, making significantly more water and nutrients available.

Immunity Network

The hypha are also able to form a network connecting trees and are known to send immune signals from diseased trees to other trees in the network that increase their resistance to the disease. These fungi also very efficiently protect plants from drought by modifying the root structure, allowing it to absorb more water. Protecting a plant from the stress of drought makes a plant more disease-resistant, as well as increasing yield.

The soil microbial community and economy has thrived for 3 billion years. It has checks and balances and has adapted to soil and water conditions all over the globe.

Like our own society, it contains opportunists that take advantage when a defense system is poor, or society is weakened.

Healthy Microbial Biomass

The current best indicator of a healthy soil microbial community is a healthy microbial biomass and F:B ratio: it tells the nutrient level and nutrient balance of the soil and can indicate if it is improved. It provides information that chemical tests cannot, e.g. most soils have plenty of P, but it is in a form that only fungi are able to make available to the plant. It tells you N is low, but it doesn’t tell you that MFF can increase the number of microbes that can deliver N and fix N from the air.

Financial, Environmental, and Health Benefits of Healthy Soil

As you can imagine, creating and maintaining a healthy immune system requires plant energy which is probably why the yields of MFF practices are on average about 10% less than those of mineral fertilized farming. However, studies show that when microbially friendly farming is optimized, the financial loss is compensated for by tastier, more nutrient dense produce, lower fertilizer, water, and pesticide costs, and better resistance to drought.

Increase financial return by building soil structure which increases the water-holding capacity which decreases erosion and water costs, increases drought resistance, and increases soil carbon which has been shown to increase yields, and, over time, decrease fertilizer needs. With the maturation of the soil carbon markets, growers can contribute to farm income by selling carbon credits.

Understanding the plant health microbial synergy is even more critical now that the cost of mineral N is up as much as 400% and pesticides costs are also rapidly rising per the USDA- Economic Research Service.

Microbially Friendly Farming controls plant pathogens and increases plants’ ability to withstand stress. Plants are fully equipped to diagnose a disease, prescribe the correct antimicrobial, and manufacture it. They simply need a healthy microbiome to interact with microbes in healthy soil.


Dr. Judith Fitzpatrick, Ph.D., Prolific Earth Sciences Founder and Principal Scientist, is a microbiologist and a recognized leader in the development of on-site diagnostic tests. She was the founder and CEO of Serex from 1985 until its sale to a Canadian Pharmaceutical Company in 2002. At Serex, she developed more than 15 medical diagnostic tests with unique reagents and methods of testing.

Judy combined her expertise in diagnostic testing and manufacturing with her profound belief in the mission to help improve farming practices.

The “Sweet Spot” for Farms to Enhance On-farm Biodiversity

in 2023/Climate Change/Crop Production/Grow Organic/Land Stewardship/Tools & Techniques/Winter 2023

By Kenzo Esquivel and Patrick Baur


[This article originally was originally published with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) and is shared here with gratitude.]

Looking out across his 20 acres in California’s Central Coast, a farmer reflected on his journey: “One of the things I’m probably the proudest of in our tenure here on this home farm is providing habitat and diversity,” he said. “It was a very barren place when we first got here.”

This farmer and others who prioritize on-farm biodiversity generally reap significant benefits and satisfaction from their investments. Eventually. Yet not every farmer is in a position to put the up-front time, energy, and money into diversifying their farms ecologically and economically. Despite valuing these ecological practices, many have little option but to continue down the path of specialized, input-intensive farming.

Diversified farming practices include common strategies like cover cropping, composting, and hedgerows. These and other ecological farming techniques can help a farm’s bottom line and its ability to weather disease, droughts, and floods. Cost-sharing programs, like California’s Healthy Soils Program and EQIP, exist at both state and federal levels to help farmers adopt diversified practices. Yet nationwide, adoption remains very low.

In our recently published study, we show how some diversified farms have found a “sweet spot” to expand their crop portfolio and adopt ecologically based practices like hedgerows or cover crops. Farms that sell to national or international wholesale markets tend to face steep market pressures that not only fail to reward diversity, but actively hinder it. Meanwhile smaller farms may have the interest and the incentive to diversify but lack the means to seize the opportunity. Thus, most of the highly diversified farms we identified in our study fell somewhere in between, with medium-sized acreage and farm businesses.

Map of research sites. Credit: Patrick Baur and Kenzo Esquivel

Why do mid-scale farms adopt diversification practices at higher rates?

Many growers we interviewed lacked the resources to float the up-front costs. “We’d like to have it all covered,” sighed one farmer with a 5-acre vegetable farm, “but we don’t have the money to cover [crop] everything.” These limited resource farmers face significant financial restraints due to short or uncertain land tenure and limited access to capital. These were also the smallest farms, ranging between one and 20 acres. While farmers in this group often expressed desire to adopt more diversification practices, they often lacked the time, money, and financial stability to cover the cost of biodiversity-enhancing practices that might take years to pay off. “If you’re leasing, you’re not going to plant perennials,” explained one technical assistance provider. While some limited resource farmers were aware of cost-sharing programs, they told us that the applications were overwhelming and took too much time.

Other growers, meanwhile, had the financial means but found themselves locked into market channels that could not accommodate a more diverse rotation of crops, or which actively discouraged certain forms of on-farm biodiversity due to food safety fears. “What used to be a windbreak is now a hazard,” said one large-scale grower when asked about hedgerows. “We’re pretty much forced to abide by the rules that are given to us [by our buyers],” explained another. Such wholesale growers, operating at the other end of the spectrum with farms of 500 acres or more, were limited by requirements imposed by their buyers, slim margins in the wholesale market, and high land values. From strict planting schedules to restrictions on compost and non-crop vegetation motivated by food safety concerns, these wholesale growers faced inflexible market constraints to increasing on-farm diversity. Consolidated supply chains in the region leave few other market options for growers who operate at this scale, and their management philosophy tends to emphasize control and “cleanliness” over diversity.

Thus, limited resource farmers and wholesale growers, while vastly different in size, both face significant hurdles to adopting diversified farming practices. While conditions at either end of the spectrum are discouraging, we discovered that mid-scale farmers, ranging between 20 and 350 acres, were often able to circumvent these constraints. However, higher levels of diversification practices did not automatically emerge through “right-sized” farm scales alone.  Mid-scale farmers also had the highest levels of secure land tenure and access to capital and resources. Critically, they had also built relationships with buyers (e.g., high-traffic farmers markets, high-end local retailers) who shared their values and were willing to pay a premium for the produce they grow. The combination of financial security and sympathetic buyers gave these mid-scale growers a degree of autonomy and control not available to either the limited-resource or wholesale farmers. The mid-scale farmers we interviewed told us they chose how to grow their crops and where to sell their crops because they had the economic security to weather the short-term risks and wait for long-term returns on their investment in cultivating highly biodiverse farms.

A view of varied lettuce crops. Credit Patrick Baur and Kenzo Esquivel

Policies should mitigate scale-specific barriers

Policies aiming to help farmers invest in on-farm biodiversity must consider that different types of farms face unique barriers and incentives to diversify. Small-scale farmers will benefit from targeted policies that alleviate limitations in time, money, and social capital. In particular, policies that secure long-term land tenure for new-entry and socially disadvantaged farmers and increase access to water, technical assistance, and diverse markets beyond direct-to-consumer should be prioritized. Existing incentive programs should streamline application processes, increase publicity, provide enrollment assistance, and create opportunities for farmer-to-farmer sharing of personal success stories with programs like EQIP.

Meanwhile, large-scale wholesale growers need help negotiating the restrictive demands of their supply chains. Our findings suggest new avenues for policies to create more robust alternative markets that value and encourage diversification. We also see an opportunity for regulations that push wholesale buyers to reward growers for their diversification practices. Food safety policies are another important area for intervention. Making headway on adoption of diversified farming practices among wholesale farmers may require supplementing the “pull” of incentives at the farm level with the “push” of new biodiversity-based procurement requirements at the buyer level and further down the supply chain.

While our study is limited to organic lettuce farms on California’s Central coast, we believe that researchers and policymakers in other regions may find the construction of a similar “farming model” typology a useful framework to identify the enabling factors and structural barriers that different types of farmers face. In particular, we see strong resonance between this “sweet spot” for biodiversity-based farms and the broader attention to an “agriculture of the middle” as a pathway to restore local and regional food economies damaged by consolidation and concentration in many farm sectors.

Helping farmers invest in and reap the benefits of diversification means identifying and dismantling scale-specific barriers and promoting the financial and market conditions that allow farmers to settle on business models and scales that are neither too big nor too small to diversify, but just right.

Full study: bit.ly/3HQGZMO

Companion Study: bit.ly/3HrXFsp


Kenzo Esquivel is a PhD candidate in Environmental Science, Policy, and Management at UC Berkeley. Patrick Baur is an Assistant Professor in Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems in the Department of Fisheries, Animal, and Veterinary Sciences at the University of Rhode Island

Featured image: Lettuce farm in California. Credit: Patrick Baur and Kenzo Esquivel.

GM Seed Secrecy Threatens Organics

in 2023/GMO Updates/Seeds/Winter 2023

By Lucy Sharratt

WARNING: This seed packet could soon be full of undisclosed genetically modified (GM) seeds.

The biotechnology industry is pushing to take over the regulation of genetically engineered (genetically modified or GM) seeds and foods, and establish corporate self-regulation in place of government oversight. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is considering letting corporations conduct their own environmental safety assessments of many new gene-edited seeds with no government oversight, and decide if they want to disclose that their new product is genetically engineered. The Minister of Health has already decided that many gene edited foods don’t need any government safety checks. The proliferation of unknown genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food system is a serious threat to the future of organic farming.

Seed Packet Warning Sent to the Minister

At the end of last year, hundreds of farmers in the Prairies sent seed packets in the mail to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. These envelopes were empty of seeds but carried an important message to the Minister about the threat to organic farming if she allows the sale of unassessed, undisclosed genetically engineered seeds.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is proposing to allow companies to sell many new gene-edited GM seeds—those that have no foreign DNA—without notifying farmers, consumers, or even the federal government. This exemption will mean that companies will do their own environmental assessments and leave farmers dependent on companies to find out if seeds are gene-edited.

The biotechnology industry has launched a public relations campaign to characterize gene editing techniques as “plant breeding innovation” or “precision breeding,” and argue that gene-edited seeds should not even be defined as GMOs. However, gene editing is genetic engineering. This is the science, and it is also the definition in the Canada Organic Standards.

The Canada Organic Regime is overseen by the CFIA and includes the enforcement of the organic standards, which prohibit the use of genetic engineering. The Canada Organic Trade Association says, “It is the CFIA’s responsibility to ensure the environmental safety of all genetically engineered plants and the protection of the organic integrity. CFIA must continue to regulate all genetically engineered plants under the Seeds Act—including those produced through the new techniques of gene editing.”

CropLife Influence Exposed

A 2022 investigation by French-language CBC found that a CFIA document summarizing the agency’s proposals to remove regulation was actually authored by the biotechnology and pesticide industry lobby group CropLife Canada. The history of the Word file shows that CropLife’s executive director was the creator of the document.

This revelation led the National Farmers Union, CBAN, and 13 other groups to call for the CFIA President to be replaced. The groups said, “It appears that key aspects of the proposed guidance…were requested by self-interested industry groups and have been incorporated into the CFIA regulatory guidance.”

The CFIA has explained that CropLife authorship of the document was a technical mistake in the process of exchanging draft documents for comment. However, this mistake was only possible because the CFIA sent CropLife this proposal summary for their input. Farm groups such as the National Farmers Union were not asked to review it.

The CFIA consulted with farmer organizations in the summers of 2021 and 2022. However, as Garry Johnson, President of SaskOrganics said, “If the government is sincere about hearing from farmers, when their proposals would have such a major impact on organic farmers in particular, they should choose a time that is much less demanding on all of us.”

Minister Pledges GMO Transparency

In response to the media story, the Minister of Agriculture told organic farmers that they don’t need to worry; that she will make sure farmers have transparency about new GM seeds coming to the market. However, the Minister has not yet secured mandatory reporting and the CFIA continues to meet with CropLife to discuss the industry’s proposal for “voluntary transparency.”CropLife is pushing to be the arbiter of information for farmers. It wants to manage a public list that relies on biotech companies to voluntarily disclose their GM seeds. In fact, CropLife has its own private, voluntary product notification system ready to roll. This is a tactic to avoid regulation and mandatory reporting.
The biotech industry wants the Minister to accept voluntary corporate notification as sufficient transparency. However, there would be no way to know that this list was complete or to verify the information on the it.

This lack of transparency would go far beyond the existing problem of unlabelled GM foods in our grocery stores. Some GM foods and seeds would be sold, planted, and eaten without the public, farmers, and government knowing that they even exist.

Removing regulation would remove the ability of the federal government to request information from companies about their new unregulated GM foods and seeds. There would be no way to track and trace these secret, unregulated GMOs.

In an October 2022 letter to the Minister, SaskOrganics, the National Farmers Union, and the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) argued that “transparency and traceability will only be possible if the CFIA and Health Canada retain their regulatory authority over all genetically engineered products such that, prior to release into the environment or onto the market, the departments require submission of information from product developers and have the ability to provide it to Canadians in a timely, trusted, and accessible way.”

The CFIA is stuck with an irreconcilable contradiction. The CFIA, federal government, and Minister have all publicly committed to “transparency,” but the CFIA is proposing to remove the very regulation that would ensure it.

Act Now to Stop Corporate Self-Regulation

In May 2022, Health Canada announced that it will not regulate gene-edited GM foods, and will propose amendments to the Novel Food Regulations to formalize these changes. This is an acknowledgement that the Minister of Health can still reverse Health Canada’s new regulatory guidance that exempts these foods.

In a January 2023 letter responding to SaskOrganics, the Minister of Agriculture said she has asked the CFIA and Agriculture Canada “to propose options to ensure traceability and transparency of genetically engineered plant varieties to maintain the integrity of Canada’s organic food production system.” However, the solution needed can only be secured if organic farmers, organic sector groups, and the public continue to communicate with the Minister.

The Endgame is Complete Corporate Control

CropLife members include the biggest seed and pesticide companies in the world. These companies would clearly be the beneficiaries of an open door to sell unregulated GMOs. These corporations would be free to put many GM products on the market without the costs of submitting safety data to regulators, could cut their confidential safety studies down to a bare minimum, and could keep their GMOs a market secret and thus avoid the risk of consumer boycotts. The proliferation of undisclosed GMOs would also remove the competition: by contaminating the entire food system with secret GMOs, over time, organic production and other non-GMO choices would become unviable.
Actions and updates are posted at: cban.ca/NoExemptions


Lucy Sharratt is Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), a project of the MakeWay Charitable Society.

Featured image: Letters and seed packets. Credit: Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

Go to Top