Jose Fernandez, the US State Department’s assistant secretary for economic, energy and business affairs, said that GMO labeling would scare consumers away from those foods. ”If you label something there’s an implication there’s something wrong with it,” said Fernandez. I would expect a statement like this from a Monsanto spokesperson, but to have it come from a government official, who is supposed to represent the people and not corporate interests, really tells the story.

It isn’t the act of labelling which scares consumers away, it is what the label states.

I would think that if GMO’s are all that the bio-tech firms claim them to be, they would be proud to label it on their products. Why not promote their roundup ready crops that are reducing pesticide use and increasing yields, why not promote that their BT cotton is providing an increased income to farmers in India, why not promote that bio-tech food is feeding the world’s hungry.  They can’t. There are no studies to substantiate their marketing claims, just studies to refute them. The latest polls state that 85% of Americans would not eat GMO’s if they were labelled as such, so the only way to use the GMO ingredients is to hide them; in our ‘Natural’ cereal, our crackers, table sugar; our everyday foods. Nope, you are not going to see a huge sign at Safeway stating “NEW FRANKENFISH SALMON, FRESH FROM THE LAB!” anytime soon.

The European Union passed legislation in 1998 that requires GMO labelling, and many other countries such as Brazil, Australia, & New Zealand has also adopted this. Even President Obama vowed to “label GMO foods because Americans have the right to know” when he was running for election. A quick look to see where most of the bio-tech companies are located, and their massive lobbying efforts, you can easily see where the power truly lies in government, and why nothing has since changed.

California and 15 other states are trying desperately have GMO labelling put on the ballot, thanks in large part to consumers groups such as the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). But the ugly truth is that it takes money, and lots of it to make changes in today’s society. The OCA lost it’s battle to allow GMO’s in foods, but realizes that if the labelling law is passed, it is a good bet that GMO use will decline. It will be interesting to see if the common consumer will rally to force companies, and governments to give us the right to know what is in our food. This will allow the truly capitalist Supply & Demand doctrine to dictate the existence of GMO’s.

I am all for progress and the betterment of our daily lives, but it isn’t a blank cheque.

In our efforts to create jobs, and get that extra 1% growth in the economy, we make bad decisions which pollute our environment, our health, and exploit our limited resources. This may seem fine when the resources are in an abundance, but when they begin to be depleted even the most ardent “progress” supporter will be forced to acknowledge that we will need change the way we do things, our economy, and our way of lives. My question is if major change is inevitable why don’t we change now? Our current economic system is short-sighted to say the least; it’s procrastination on a global scale.

I have always thought that Saskatchewan was in a very enviable position in that we have a very diverse array of energy resources. Forget for a moment the huge environmental impacts these energies have(there are many), we have oil, natural gas, coal, uranium; we are a true energy province. What about sustainable forms of energy, are we blessed in those areas as well? Saskatchewan has the most sun in all of Canada, and have some of the best wind corridors available, but have we capitalized on this limitless resource? Hardly. Alberta is not noted for their environmental leanings, but have many wind turbines already in place, and if you take a trip through from Minot to Bismark, ND you will be amazed at the literally hundreds of wind turbines scattered about the landscape. I wonder where these turbines were manufactured, who installed them, and who were the experts hired to oversee the projects? It is the answer to these questions that is key to future and sustainable growth; why can’t we build industries which are based on renewable energy production, that will create jobs (manufacturing, installation, sales, consulting), and allow us to become world leaders in this sector? If energy companies want to exploit a resource, go ahead and exploit the renewable ones, as I don’t think anyone would harbour a grudge against a renewable energy company making record profits, while protecting the environment.

As part of Saskatchewan’s energy portfolio, we need to diversify into these sustainable technologies. Then and only then will we be Moving Forward with Positive Change.

A local non-organic grower will need certain inputs to produce their food.

After purchasing the plant seeds, the first thing they will need are some artificial fertilizers because the soils have been depleted of nutrients from the previous year’s growing. The problem with fertilizers such as Miracle Gro is that oil must be used to not only create them, but the fertilizer must then be shipped to the grower, which in turn uses fuel.

After planting the seeds, herbicides such as Round Up must be sprayed to destroy the weeds, insecticides such as Malathion must be sprayed to destroy the insects, and fungicides such as Captan must be sprayed to keep disease off the plants.  All of these pesticides must be created using oil, and once again shipped to the grower.

So now you have your local produce grown with artificial fertilizers, sprayed with pesticides.  All which were shipped from factories who knows where, spewing out who knows what type of pollution into the environment. Don’t forget about the impact of these poisons on the local land, the waterways, and the eco-systems as well; how is that a good thing?

An organic grower whether local or international cannot use pesticides, nor artificial fertilizers. Their inputs are locally sourced, many times right on the existing farm. Buying local is only beneficial to the environment if the product is grown using Certified organic principles, it’s that simple.

In 2005, when hurricane Katrina hit the oil drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, gas prices shot up to an unprecedented $1.30/litre.  Consumers were shocked; sales of SUV’s sank while hybrid vehicles enjoyed new popularity. Slowly over the following months, prices stabilized and returned to pre-hurricane levels. Vehicle sales trends quickly reversed with gas guzzling SUV sales rising and hybrids became a niche market directed toward ‘left winged environmentalists’ once again.

Unfortunately consumers did not learn that the Katrina experience was a preview of what was to come.

Six years later, gas prices have now returned to the $1.30/litre level, but this time around there is no natural disaster to point the finger at, just oil company greed.  With oil prices falling below the $90/barrel mark, consumers are outraged and filling up their vehicle has not only become financially painful, but an emotionally frustrating experience.

This, is a good thing.

High gas prices becoming a way of life will hopefully force our society to make changes now; not because it is the morally correct thing to do, but because it hurts in the pocketbook.  In marketing, there is nothing like hammering home a message to make it stick, and filling up every week will be that hammer. It is sad that we as a society have to wait until we are on the brink to make changes, procrastinate until we have no choice left in the matter, or just put our heads in the ground in hopes that things will go away.

We all know that our current way of life is unsustainable; our food system, transportation, etc. depend solely on oil. We will make the changes necessary to survive, we have no choice, but what is unknown is when those changes will occur. Let’s hope it is sooner rather than later.

One of the latest trends in the marketing of food products is the use of the word “Natural”; Natural hot dogs, Natural trail mix, Natural dog food. It is an extremely intelligent marketing campaign because the image portrayed by these products is of purity, simplicity, and mirrors the image of Certified Organic foods. The problem with the Natural label is that it has no teeth, no standards to follow, no independent third party auditing that is required by being Certified Organic.

So who determines what products can and what can’t be labeled natural?  The product company.

We as consumers assume that a product labeled natural would be healthy, but what is and what isn’t healthy is a matter of debate; not so much in the area of nutrients (Vitamins/Minerals), but areas such as pesticides and genetically modified foods.

Would you consider your natural trail mix that doesn’t have any added preservatives, but yet is grown in a conventional system where pesticides are used, natural?  How about a corn snack made with genetically modified corn?  I certainly wouldn’t, but companies can and do get away with what I view as deception.

Imagine McDonalds getting the image and reputation of a fine French restaurant. This is what Natural is getting.

Companies enjoy the freedom of following no regulations, no additional inspection and certification fees, yet gain all of the image benefits of being Certified Organic.  From a business standpoint, this is a beautiful place to be, but how about from an ethics and moral standpoint?  Does ethics and morals have anyplace in business anymore?

As the growth of natural food continue to rise faster than organic food, it makes me wonder if being Certified Organic will lose it’s niche.  It will be an interesting next few years to watch; I predicted a future monumental clash between GMO’s and organic, but I never thought that a single word, and all it implies, could potentially bring down an industry.

A customer came into our store the other day and I was going over some of our products and explaining why I think they are superior to what is currently on the market; excellent taste, low in sugar, locally grown, and certified organic. The customer said, “It should be illegal to say anything is organic because nothing really is; it’s just a marketing ploy”. When I asked for clarification, the customers said “There is no way you can guarantee that your fruit does not have pesticide residue on it since the wind can carry it from a neighbor’s field 5 miles away”.  Seriously?  You can’t honestly compare the minuscule chance of pesticide residue carried on the wind from 5 miles away to fruit growers who spray directly on their crops and soil once every few weeks!

As far as Organic being a marketing ploy, I completely disagree. I am not claiming that by eating organic food will cure you of cancer, grow back your hair or give you more ‘Vrooom’ in the bedroom. What I am saying is that the food that I produce has met the standards to be called certified organic, in a similar way to other standards like being certified Kosher. Now, you can argue the value of these standards, but you can’t argue the fact that the standards have been met. What I consider a marketing ploy is products stating ‘No sugar added’, yet add fruit sugar. Stating you are organic, yet using Round Up and Miracle Grow in your soils. Stating your packaged almonds is a Saskatchewan Made product when there are no commercial almond trees on the prairies.

In the end, I told my customer that, while being organic is not a perfect system, the products I sell are the best quality, and grown in the safest, and most sustainable way I can. Further, maybe I will have an impact on other conventional growers, like others have impacted me. Who knows, my neighbor may choose to grow organically, and possibly the neighbor beyond. The customer then stated, “Yes, and then you will only have to worry about pesticides on the wind from 15 miles away!”. Sigh…

In the next 20 years, over half the farmers in Saskatchewan will be retired. Most people don’t concern themselves with this fact very much, but I think this future reality is very frightening. What will happen to the farms of the retired farmers, and who will buy them? There are very few young farmers out there and even fewer that have the insane financial resources to begin farming. What then? Corporations have already started buying up large tracks of land and having massive fleets of equipment to produce food at the utmost of efficiently, creating factory farms.

While producing food cheaply doesn’t sound so bad, the focus of most businesses is the bottom line; profits.

Food quality, food safety, and environmental protection ends up on the low end of the priority list. The idea of corporations in the future owning half of Saskatchewan’s agricultural production may sound far fetched, but one only has to look at existing large scale corporations and their subsidiaries to see the possibilities. Ninety percent of the beverages in retail coolers are owned by Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Wendy’s owns Tim Horton’s while KFC owns Taco bell. Lowblaws owns 25 grocery chains including Superstore, The Real Canadian Wholesale Club, and Extra Foods. Could this happen with our farms? You bet.

Investors expect a high return on investment, without regards for the morality of the choices required to get them.

Rare is the investor who can be attracted to a company where the return is lower, but the morals are higher. I see a lot of good people with their good ideas becoming corrupted by the reality of the business world of money and greed. I look at all the canning factories that were once in Ontario, now gone. Fruit and vegetable growers now need to ship it across the border to the U.S. and China just to get it processed. All this because the processors wanted to save a couple cents on a jar of jam.

All this makes me wonder about myself and the future of my own company. Will I have to cut corners here, reduce quality there, just to survive? Furthermore, will my company be swept aside by a large corporation that is willing to do anything and everything to squash competition? Will consumers understand and appreciate the efforts and sacrifices I make to create these high quality products or will they be enticed by cheaper products made half way around the world? These are tough questions that only the future will answer.

As I told my wife Sylvia when we first started this company, “It won’t be boring…” and it never is.

There is a myth that organic growers wish to return to the horse and buggy era, using primitive tools and methods, are anti-technology, and as such anti-progress.  That just isn’t the case.

I endorse any technology that has a definitive positive impact on society, but doesn’t come at too high of cost in terms of the environment and sustainability.

Growing up in the city and working 13 years as a computer consultant, it is in my DNA to get a kick out of the new gadgets and toys and using it to create a better life.  But instead of new graphics cards, CPU’s and programming languages, I now delve into building solar water heaters, greenhouses built into the ground, and LED lighting.

As an example, researchers have mapped out the genome of the almond plant, and we can identify the gene that tells us if the plant is self fertile, meaning you don’t need another almond tree to pollinate it.  For fruit breeders such as myself, this is huge.  Normally we would have to grow the plant out for 5-7 years just to see if it was self-fertile, now we can find out after 2 months.  This technology has no threat to the environment, no safety issue with our food.  However, if we were to use the information from the genome to be able to insert genes from a frog into the almond to create some desirable characteristic, that is where I have the problem.

While organic growers don’t wish to return to the horse and buggy era, we understand that unless society makes drastic changes to our unsustainable methods of producing food, we will end up there.  Not because we say it will happen, but because we will have run out of fossil fuels; that simple.  The quicker we face this reality, the easier it will be to make the transition.