Its dispute resolution management process took effect on Jan. 1 — the final component of the framework to roll out.

The code has been in the works since 2021, sparked by friction between grocery companies and their suppliers, which was exacerbated by challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Provisions in industry-developed code include guidelines around fair and ethical dealing; commercial agreements and would should be contained in them; rules around payments and charges between retailers and suppliers; and dispute resolution.

The Office of the Grocery Sector Code of Conduct oversees the application of the code. On Nov. 28, the office announced it had finalized its governance framework and would formally begin recruiting companies to sign on to the voluntary code.

More than 100 grocers and suppliers had signed on as of Nov. 28. These include Canada’s major grocers like Loblaw, Metro, Sobeys, Walmart and Costco, which joined after significant negotiation.

The post Grocery code of conduct takes full effect appeared first on Country Guide.

In response, more people are growing their own food. A 2022 national survey found that just over half of respondents were growing fruits or vegetables at home, and nearly one in five started during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Municipal governments have taken note, developing food and urban agriculture strategies that promise more green space, better access to fresh food, stronger communities and sometimes climate benefits. But do they actually change conditions on the ground?

That question sits at the centre of our new study published in the Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development.

London, Ont., adopted Canada’s first stand-alone Urban Agriculture Strategy in 2017. It was a hopeful signal that food and urban agriculture finally had a place on the municipal agenda. Yet, almost eight years later, many of the strategy’s goals remain unrealized.

Based on interviews and a workshop with 56 urban growers, community organizations and city staff in London, we found how a promising strategy can stall without clear leadership, resources and follow-through.

Why urban agriculture matters

Urban agriculture encompasses everything from backyard and balcony gardens to community gardens, small commercial operations, rooftop farms and community projects that process and distribute food.

Research links these activities to better mental health, stronger social connections and improved access to fresh food, especially for low-income communities, immigrants and seniors.

In London, demand for local food and garden space surged during the pandemic. The London Food Bank reported a 92 per cent increase in demand for food donations from 2021 to 2023. Community gardens across the city have long waiting lists. There is no shortage of interest or need for local food; the question is whether city policies support it.

What the strategy changed — and what it didn’t

We found that the city’s urban agriculture strategy helped advance urban agriculture in meaningful ways. Research participants told us it helped “put food on the agenda” at city hall, supporting updates to zoning and bylaws that make it easier to grow food in the city.

But when we asked urban growers and community organizations how much the strategy shaped their day-to-day work, the picture became more complicated. Roughly one-third of the people we spoke with had never heard of the strategy at all, despite actively participating in urban agriculture.

Others knew it existed but were unsure which actions had actually been implemented. Several described it as a “good starting point” that had not been backed by the staffing or funding needed for full implementation.

The strategy came with no dedicated position or budget. Responsibility was scattered across city departments, with no one tracking progress. Supportive staff helped where they could, but limited capacity meant they relied on the community to drive change.

Common challenges mentioned by urban growers and community organizations were unclear zoning and permitting processes, a lack of available land for long-term gardening and minimal financial support, leading to over-reliance on volunteers. The strategy helped normalize urban agriculture in London and opened some doors, but didn’t transform the system.

One of the strongest themes in our research was the strain on community capacity. Like many cities, London’s urban agriculture is powered by volunteers, small non-profit organizations and social enterprises. These groups are deeply committed but face rising demand, complex social needs and unstable funding. Asking them to carry a municipal strategy without matching support is unrealistic.

This echoes findings from other cities. Reviews of urban agriculture policies in Canada and the United States show that local enthusiasm often runs ahead of institutional support.

Strategies tend to celebrate urban agriculture’s potential but pay less attention to equitable land access, labour conditions and the economic realities of growing food in cities.

How cities can help urban agriculture

If other cities want to avoid London’s growing pains, our research points to several concrete steps they can take:

• Assign clear responsibility. Task a specific department, name a lead staff person and allocate ongoing funding. Without this, actions are likely to be delayed, forgotten or handled piecemeal.
• Simplify the rules and centralize information. Create accessible one-stop web pages and guidance documents that spell out what’s allowed, what permits are needed, how to access land and who to contact.
• Secure space for growing. Map under-utilized land, integrate food production into parks and use long-term leases or land trusts to provide more security for community-led projects.
• Treat community partners as co-planners. Develop strategies alongside practitioners, including those from under-represented and marginalized communities. Bring them into the process early and support their full participation, rather than seeking their feedback after decisions are set.

Urban agriculture won’t fix food insecurity — the biggest determinants remain income, housing, social supports and broader food-system policy. But our findings from London indicate that it can still deliver public value.

By committing to implementation and treating food growing as a key piece of urban infrastructure, municipalities can build healthier, better connected and more sustainable cities.

—Richard Bloomfield is an assistant professor in management and organizational studies at Huron University College at Western University. Kassie Miedema is a researcher in management and organizational studies at Huron University College at Western University. Rebecca Ellis is a sessional instructor in geography, geology and land stewardship at Algoma University.

The post Growing pains: An Ontario city’s urban agriculture efforts show good policy requires real capacity appeared first on Country Guide.

“Wasting a kilogram of beef is not just wasting a kilogram of beef,” said Heather McLeod-Kilmurray, “but also the … 20 kilograms of feed, the water, the human labour, the transportation.”

Beyond the discarded item

McLeod-Kilmurray, a University of Ottawa professor whose work focuses on sustainable agriculture spoke alongside Allison Penner, executive director of Reimagine Agriculture, at the Humane Canada One Health One Welfare Conference in Ottawa. They discussed how food waste goes beyond just individual products being discarded.

If meat is wasted, by definition some of the crops grown to feed the animals were also wasted, Penner said.

“We hear it measured in kilograms and pounds,” McLeod-Kilmurray said. “We hear it measured in dollars.”

“Why don’t we link all of the elements in the food chain, do a full cost accounting of what food waste … costs, including climate emissions, etc?”

This is not an insignificant issue. Canada wastes enough food each year to feed every Canadian for five months, Penner said. The total financial and environmental cost is estimated at $31 billion and 56.6 million tons of C02 annually.

“It’s an incredible economic loss to the system,” she said. “It does not make sense to be wasting these really valuable resources.”

What producers can recoup

A food waste disclosure system could help address the issue, McLeod-Kilmurray said.

“If producers were required to report this, the full cost of the food waste, they would see … how much it is costing them,” she said.

She pointed to Ikea as an example of a business reducing costs and impacts after addressing the issue. After extensive reviews and commitments, the Swedish retailer/restaurant reduced its food waste by 54 per cent, resulting in a saving of $37 million annually.

McLeod-Kilmurray said the acceptance of deadstock in animal agriculture is also costly and should be addressed in the same conversation.

“What is the appropriate standard of treatment?” She said. “It says the regulators under the federal law do not demand perfection. It recognizes that some deaths are inevitable. The regulations try to strike a balance.”

“That is legal, that is accepted, that’s part of the regulatory process, and so that’s an inbuilt waste of animal products.”

She added the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will generally not investigate a case of animal death unless the mortalities reach four per cent. She called this a “baked in waste of animal products in the industrial system.”

The good news is that eliminating food waste is a politically viable issue, Penner said. The federal Liberal, Conservative and NDP parties have all shown support for ending food waste in Canada.

“I often joke that if I was the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, I would be thrilled that food waste exists, because this is a problem that we don’t need to create these wide scale changes,” she said. “It’s something that we can change a lot from looking at the industry.”

McLeod-Kilmurray suggested addressing the issue through:

• Greater respect for animals
• Mandatory reporting standards
• Educating and mobilizing food system actors
• Persuading policymakers and corporations food waste reduction represents a win-win situation
• Promoting a circular economy that makes better use of animal byproducts

The post Food waste costs Canadian farmers, agri-food companies in hidden ways appeared first on Country Guide.

Dickinson, founder and general partner of District Ventures Capital and mainstay on CBC ‘s Dragon’s Den, said the time is now for Canada to make agriculture and agri-food a critical sector.

She recently took a public-facing approach to Canadian agri-food and trade, including a self-funded trade mission to Asia, an op-ed on food security in the Globe and Mail and an appearance at the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute’s (CAPI) conference this week in Ottawa.

“Nothing but opportunity”

Dickinson’s interest in Canadian agri-food isn’t sudden; in fact, she’s been actively trying to advance the sector for years.

“I’ve been investing in the agri-food space for a decade,” Dickinson said, pointing to her business District Ventures Capital, which has invested close to $170 million in this space.

“I also started Canada’s first not for profit accelerator, run by an entrepreneur, to help businesses in early stages of starting up a food, beverage, health and wellness, (consumer packaged goods) business.”

What she’s observed over the course of time, she said, is the impact of external challenges, including those experienced through COVID, and “the lack of attention and prioritization that we have on farms and agri-food in Canada.”

With recent tariffs from the United States having an impact on producers, Dickinson said it’s become apparent to her Canada must look to other markets to allow production to scale.

“I’ve realized that there’s a big gap between funding innovation, market, knowledge of who we are, and opportunity being realized and capitalized on in the country.”

She pointed to a Farm Credit Canada (FCC) study which concluded Canada has the opportunity to diversify $12 billion worth of food and beverage exports to new markets.

“This is a gigantic economic opportunity for our nation, and we are looking at it for the first time because we have been complacent about sending our exports to the United States and taking that as a ready market. And now we do have to think about exporting it around the globe.”

She said her trip to Asia, which she undertook to understand export opportunities, opened her eyes to the reality of consumers in other markets looking for safe food from a trustworthy source.

“I look at it as an entrepreneur and see nothing but opportunity. And when there’s opportunity, you want to figure out how to pursue it.”

Dickinson suggested the need for a national agri-food brand to fill that demand.

In a panel discussion at the CAPI conference, she said she experienced lacking Canadian food presence ahead of a meeting on her trade trip.

“One of the things you want to do when you’re Asia is you want to take a gift,” she said. “Now, I didn’t think about that before I left. So, I went, I’m in Thailand, I’m in Bangkok. I’m going to go buy a Canadian gift of some sort, right? You want to represent the country. Do you think I could find anything? I could not find a thing in Thailand.”

Collective voice

To further this goal, she said groups and producers must present a unified voice for the sector.

“There’s a lot of lobbying and effort that goes on for individual groups,” she said. “There needs to be a collective voice in this space, and they need to come together more effectively in order to be heard.”

As for her own pitch for the sector, Dickinson didn’t propose any radical changes. Rather, she said Canada must act on the recommendations that already exist.

“There has been a lot of work done, whether it’s through groups coming together at roundtables, whether it’s through consultation with the industry, whether it’s through hiring consultants who come in and help us understand it,” she said.

“Over decades, the same, exact list of things that have to be done for the sector to be able to grow are brought forward, and nothing’s been acted on.”

“My pitch is, if we don’t do that, the risk to Canadians is huge, the risk to us, to our health, to our prosperity, to our ability to innovate and grow our economy significantly, are off the table if we lose our food.”

This includes increased investments and making agriculture and agri-food a critical sector.

“My pitch would be this is absolutely a marketplace and an industry and a sector that needs full attention and can provide gigantic return profiles to our country, not just financially, but from a social perspective as well.

“So, it really hits all the buttons. Why wouldn’t you invest in it?”

The post Arlene Dickinson says recent trip to Asia opened her eyes to new trade opportunities appeared first on Country Guide.

All Safe Food for Canadians (SFC) licence holders who are slaughtering poultry are expected to implement the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program by Dec. 1, 2025. Currently, the scope of this program is limited to poultry carcasses.

WHY IT MATTERS: The CFIA’s new policy comes into force Dec. 1, 2025, for Canada’s poultry sector.

Live birds bring a load of pathogens in the intestine to the slaughter process. Every stage from the hanging of the carcass in live receiving to its entrance into the chiller has the potential to influence the microbial load on the final product.

Monitoring the microbial load at a defined point before carcasses are in their pre-chill mode allows for a more precise evaluation of contamination control measures applied during the dressing and evisceration stages.

Data generated through the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program is intended to drive science-based decisions within an operator’s food safety system to optimize interventions and enhance food safety. This information will empower license holders to verify the effectiveness of their control measures, validate the impact of process changes and optimize interventions, including microbial interventions, equipment sanitation protocols and adjustments to evisceration techniques. License holders will also be able to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the Preventive Control Plan requirements under the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations. When operators establish their internal performance baseline using pre-chill microbiological monitoring data, they will be able to allow businesses to track their own performance over time, identify shifts in process control and pursue improvement initiatives.

Pre-chill or early-stage microbiological monitoring can be integral components of comprehensive poultry safety management systems. Authorities like the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA FSIS) incorporate requirements for microbiological monitoring at various stages, including consideration of pre-chill data, to verify process control in poultry slaughter establishments.

The CFIA developed the following microbiological sampling measures to help food businesses comply with section 47 and 89 (1)(c) of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations. The implementation of the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program supports direct compliance with hazard identification and analysis, which requires operators to identify and analyze biological hazards such as indicator organisms that reflect potential fecal or environmental contamination, which can pose a risk to the contamination of food.

Operators are also required to follow hazard control measures to prevent, eliminate and reduce identified hazards to an acceptable level using control measures shown by evidence to be effective. The pre-chill microbiological monitoring program is a tool to generate such evidence for controls applied during evisceration and dressing.

The Preventative Control Plan must be written and include a description of identified biological hazards, the control measures used to address them and evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of those control measures. The pre-chill microbiological monitoring program results contribute directly to fulfilling this evidence.

The microbiological monitoring of poultry carcasses at pre-chill locations and comparison with post-chill locations will specifically help demonstrate that contamination is effectively minimized through evisceration and dressing process.

Operators can use sampling and testing procedures developed by provincial counterparts, industry associations, international partners or academic bodies if they can achieve the same outcome. The guidance must be tailored to a particular business, product or products and market requirements. The process must also meet foreign country requirements.

The pre-chill microbiological monitoring program should be integrated to the Preventative Control Plan supporting the Process Verification Monitoring Program for general E.coli- Biotype I for raw poultry as a complement, not a duplicate. The implementation of the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program should leverage the Process Verification Monitoring Program including processes such as random sampling principles, record-keeping systems or corrective action framework. This will ensure consistency and efficiency and avoid unnecessary duplication.

There’s a distinction in the sampling point and primary focus; the Primary Verification Monitoring Program assesses the overall process outcome by testing carcasses after chilling, which shows the effects of slaughter, dressing and chilling interventions. In contrast, the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program provides specific verification data on the controls applied during evisceration and dressing by sampling before chilling. This paired sampling approach (pre-chill and post-chill) allows for a direct assessment of the microbial change occurring between these two important points.

Food businesses must comply with the law. They demonstrate compliance by ensuring commodities and processes they are responsible for demonstrate compliance. If a written Preventative Control Plan is required, the food business develops a Preventative Control Plan with supporting documents, monitors and maintains evidence of its implementation and verifies that all control measures are effective.

CFIA verifies the compliance of food businesses by inspection and sampling.

For producers who want to learn how to use the pre-chill microbiological monitoring program, they can learn more on the CFIA’s website.

The post CFIA raw poultry policy to tighten food safety appeared first on Country Guide.

The Canadian food system’s reputation has taken a significant hit in the last couple years, said Ashely Bruner of the Canadian Centre for Food Integrity (CCFI) during a recent webinar.

“For the first time in seven years, Canadians are quite polarized on whether the country’s food system is headed in the right or wrong direction,” said Bruner, CCFI’s director of research and stakeholder engagement.

The CCFI has conducted research every year since 2017 on the topic of public trust in the Canadian food system, and according to the 2024 data, the most recent available, only three in 10 Canadians believe the food system is on the right track.

“This is a tracking low for us,” Bruner said.

Fewer than half have positive view

The 2024 survey also showed that fewer than half of Canadians (45 per cent) have a positive view of the food system, reflecting a sharp decrease from previous years, and that 18 per cent of Canadian consumers had a “negative” impression of the food system, an increase from 11 per cent the previous year.

“Earlier waves of research found that Canadians were largely indifferent to the food system, and a fair amount do remain as such, but we are losing ground on that mushy middle to pessimism and polarization,” Bruner said.

According to CCFI data, perceptions of the food system peaked in 2020, when nearly half of Canadians felt the food system was headed in the right direction, a number that reflects what Bruner calls a “COVID boost.”

“In nearly all of our tracking metrics, Canada’s food system was seen as doing very well in continuing to provide reliable and safe food for Canadians,” she said of the 2020 data.

“Grocery store workers were literally heroes. We were banging pots and pans outside every night. Everyone learned to make bread. We were told we were all in this together. People were engaged … and that engagement translated into improved perceptions.”

Bruner says the reason for the decline now is likely due to growing levels of pessimism in general, which is not unique to Canada or the food sector.

Trust in institutions declining

Public trust in Canadian sectors and institutions, such as the agriculture industry, federal and provincial institutions and mainstream media, is also on the decline, according to the CCFI data.

Furthermore, Bruner believes that farmers, along with other professional groups such as scientists and researchers, are losing their audiences to flashier and more accessible social media influencers, and that this needs to be addressed through collective action from the sector.

Some experts, however, question just how much value the sector should place in public trust.

John Gormley, a former broadcaster and MP with decades of experience shaping and analyzing public opinion in Saskatchewan, believes the agriculture industry should be critical of the issue of public trust as it relates to social license.

“I have real concerns about social license,” said Gormley, who currently practices law in Saskatoon.

“I think social license often confuses public education and public acceptance with a sense of permission. And I start from the point that nobody needs anybody else’s license, approval, consent, permission to carry on an already legal and regulated activity.”

He says that farming practices are already heavily regulated in Canada and shouldn’t be constrained by opinions of people who do not understand the industry and/or who are involved with special interest groups.

Farmers still largely trusted

However, Gormley does believe that there is potential for the sector to capitalize on the inherent trust that the public has in farmers.

“Overwhelmingly, people regard farmers as being on the same page as they are. They’re trustworthy human beings, they adhere to science, they adhere to best practices. They’re ethical people who don’t want to cause harm … and those are some of the strongest hallmarks of trust, the sense of empathy and identity.”

“Could you take those individual trust metrics and to amplify them to a larger audience? That doesn’t hurt. There are lots of people in the larger audience who haven’t applied their mind to it. Maybe they don’t have that kind of affinity or exposure to a farmer. So, I don’t think that’s a bad thing.”

Bruner also believes there are opportunities to capitalize on public trust in farmers. Although those trust levels have declined recently, they still remain higher than, or on par with, that of other professions, she says.

“Farmers are historically and always the most trusted, but the alarming decrease in trust toward this group means they’re now tied with scientists, and university researchers are close behind.”

She also believes there are various other data-supported ways to engage the general public, including by sharing information through trusted sources and influencers, disseminating information to make it more emotionally resonant and cultivating media and science literacy.

Data also shows there are many aspects of the food system that could form emotional touch points with the general public, Bruner said, including in terms of the diversity of jobs available in the sector and collective efforts to grow sustainability efforts.

“As we move into this year, it’s clear that things need to be done differently,” she said.

“Canadians are paying attention more than ever, which is a great opportunity to tell our story.”

The post Public trust in Canadian food system at a low appeared first on Country Guide.

This means considering how impacts of policy differently affects rural and urban areas, said Dr. Wayne Caldwell, a professor of rural planning at the University of Guelph.

“It not only impacts people in their lives, it impacts the economy of rural communities,” he said.

Caldwell said he has seen success with this approach at a local level. Ontario’s Huron County has used a rural lens for some time.

“It’s almost like a checklist of making sure that … we thought about, how do these decisions make economic and financial sense at a rural community level?”

Food lens top priority for some producers

The idea of a food lens for policy has gained traction among commodity groups. Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada (FVGC) placed it as its top priority in a 2025 election platform.

Yves Millette, CEO of financial service Farm Business Consultants (FBC) said he thinks many Canadians are finally realizing how important it is for Canada to protect its food sector — particularly as it becomes clearer Canadian and U.S. policy will no longer be aligned.

He pointed to recent trade disputes with China as an example of how seemingly unrelated policy decisions can saddle producers with the fallout.

“The attacks that we’ve put on Chinese (electric) vehicles in turn has affected agriculture, canola exports,” Millette said.

Lack of regional representation

The number of MPs representing agriculture and rural communities isn’t necessarily the problem when it comes to representation said Grace Skogstad, a political science professor at the University of Toronto.

The issue is that few are on the government side or in cabinet because most rural ridings vote Conservative.

“When you’ve got Liberal governments, the rural ridings are represented on the opposition bench … considerably more than they are on the government side of the house,” Skogstad said.

This is also a barrier to effective regional representation.

“The conundrum for Western farmers is that they are Conservative voters,” Skogstad said. “If (a Liberal government) doesn’t have any more than one MP out of Saskatchewan and two MPs out of Alberta and they’re both representing urban ridings, it’s difficult.”

Millette said it is important for regionality to be a consideration since different geography can mean very different living situations for rural residents and farmers.

“If we’re traveling around in southwestern Ontario, it is a very rich farm belt for Canada,” he said. “To get to a medium sized city, it’s just not a hard task, right? You could draw a circle and you’re probably within, you know, 30-45, minutes of a center.”

“When you’re in Saskatchewan, there’s essentially two centers,” he continued. “There’s a lot of isolation … how do I get my services? Do I have to go to the big city? Can I get them locally?”

Skogstad suggested the Senate could act as a solution to this issue of regional representation, giving Western Canada and its agricultural interests the voice they need, though this would largely informal.

Canadian senators affiliated with agriculture like Rob Black, Todd Lewis and Mary Robinson could act as these liaisons.

“I think that’s the best you could do, is hope that the ag minister, whoever he or she is, would really … try to make sure that they have a channel of communication with a person like that,” Skogstad said.

Powering Canadian self-sufficiency

Millette said agriculture’s ability to power Canadian self-sufficiency makes ensuring representation in government important.

“We are fortunate to have clean water and lots of land, and we’re able to create export markets for our products,” he said. “You have to protect those key industries that aren’t frankly beholden to big corporations that headquarters somewhere else.”

“Take the example of auto workers. Super important sector, but we’re not the masters of our own destiny when it comes to that. When it comes to agriculture, we are.”

“It’s really easy to get drowned out if you just do it on a population count perspective,” he said.

Caldwell argued that representation is important because agriculture is relevant to all Canadians.

“I will often ask the question when I’m doing a presentation … how many people like to eat? And with that question, virtually every hand in the room will go up,” he said, “which says to me that 100 per cent of the population has an interest in our agriculture and food system.”

“With the shenanigans south of the border, it just speaks to the importance of having an independent voice, an independent industry that supports the 100 per cent of us that like to eat.”

Taking a full view of the system

Skogstad said Canada could learn from the E.U. Farm to Fork strategy, which takes a full view of the food system and tries to put it on a more sustainable path.

“It extends to the upstream. It extends to the downstream. It pays quite a lot of attention to consumers,” she said.

“You could argue that what we’ve got when we’ve got agriculture policy, even though it’s called Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, by and large it … focuses on agriculture production.”

“You take a food system lens to this, then agriculture is just one part of that.” She said this would allow for a more fulsome view of alternate modes of production and rural communities.

The post Politicians should view decisions with a ‘food lens’ amid trade tensions say experts appeared first on Country Guide.

Canada’s current agricultural policies are not serving the well-being of the public. Canada’s agricultural program payments and subsidies are not aligned with the government’s dietary guidelines and health goals.

Very few agriculture investments go to the production of fruits and vegetables, even though Canadians under-consume them. Instead, financial support overwhelmingly goes to feed crops, agricultural export crops and foods high in saturated fat. This is particularly troubling, given the rise of food and lifestyle diseases in Canada, such as diabetes, obesity, coronary heart disease and high cholesterol.

The health-care costs of diet-related diseases from not meeting the dietary guidelines are at least two per cent of all health-care costs in Canada, with some estimates putting it as high as 19 per cent. Agricultural policy is not just about food; it influences health, the economy and the environment.

Climate change and agriculture

Trying to address greenhouse gas emissions without paying attention to agriculture is like heating your home while not ensuring doors and windows are closed. Agriculture is a big contributor to Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.

As climate change intensifies, bringing more frequent and severe wildfires, droughts, floods, and heat domes , agriculture is being impacted. Instability in weather patterns threatens regional and global social stability and may require Canada to rethink the dominant role of international trade in shaping its current agricultural policies.

Government policies that largely support input-intensive crops and animal agriculture contribute significantly to methane and nitrous oxide emissions and global warming.

Despite these concerns, Canada is not investing strategically or sufficiently in agriculture. Despite $12.5 billion dollars in annual agricultural supports, a surprising portion of Canadian farmers continue to financially struggle to survive. According to the National Farmers Union:

“Over the last three decades, the agribusiness corporations that supply fertilizers, chemicals, machinery, fuels, technologies, services, credit, and other materials and services have captured 95 per cent of all farm revenues, leaving farmers just five per cent.”

In 2016, 66 per cent of all farms in Canada were in the revenue class of $10,000 to $249,999. On average, these farms had expenses exceeding their revenue by a large margin.

While Canada spends a large share of its budget on addressing the negative outcomes of how we produce and consume food, there remain greater opportunities for investing in preventive measures that promote a healthier, more sustainable food system. Canada’s 20th century agriculture policy regime is woefully insufficient for the challenges of the 21st century.

Solutions to the crisis

Transforming our food systems will help to avert devastating climate change and ecological devastation. Many Canadian farmers are already leading the way by incorporating principles of sustainability into their practices. And the good news is that healthy diets are also environmentally sustainable.

Food outlets and school cafeterias can play a role in reducing inefficiencies in the food system, like food waste, and improving sustainability by promoting healthy eating. To make this happen, schools need more resources and autonomy to counter misinformation about food and position Canadians for success by making healthy choices attractive.

Many Canadians support local, bioregional food systems as an alternative to anonymous, transnational food systems. However, these local initiatives are not enough on their own to meet our health, community vitality and environmental goals.

To truly make an impact, local food movements must be part of a larger, co-ordinated effort supported by policies that align agricultural production with healthy diets.

A new approach to food policies that considers them from a holistic perspective, beyond GDP, and respects farmers while creating food systems based on the One Planet and One Health frameworks is needed.

It’s important to recognize that farmers are not only just business operators; they are our neighbours, and are integral to our communities. Supporting them with better policies and giving everyone equitable access to nourishing and sustainable foods will ensure a healthier, more resilient future for all Canadians.

Canada needs to provide stronger support for family farms practising agroecologically sound production methods. Government programs that support greater production and purchasing of grains, fruits and vegetables for direct human consumption are also needed. These initiatives would reduce Canada’s reliance on imports of these critical foods.

In addition, federal and municipal governments should strengthen and broaden Canada’s bioregional food systems while also fostering the growth of small- and medium-sized food businesses. It’s also important to reduce the political and market power of oligopolies in Canada’s food system.

A call for change

None of these changes can happen without moving beyond the current, outdated productionist model that views agriculture in isolation and relies on the belief that only global-industrial food systems can feed the world.

In fact, smaller-scale agroecological farmers operating in bioregional food systems are key. Achieving our broader societal goals means thinking of food through agriculture, human health and environmental sustainability lenses.

Canada needs a new vision of agriculture that connects health and environment goals with sustainable diets and prosperous family farming. This vision must prioritize nutritious diets, human and environmental health, and the overall well-being of society beyond profits, market share and food exports. Also it must be formed collectively by decision-makers, farmers, food processors, community groups and the public.

In Canada, governments, organizations and citizens must work together to create a food system vision for Canada, much like Food Secure Canada’s Resetting the Table process previously did.

Further collaboration among agriculture, environment and health professionals can arise from these efforts, as can be seen with Canada’s National School Food program, which is aligning local farmers and suppliers of local options to meet Canada’s Food Guide. This is also an opportunity for Canada’s Food Policy Advisory Council to gain greater influence in shaping policy.

Just as calls for health-care reform often focus on improving services, Canadians have the right to expect better outcomes from agricultural subsidies. By prioritizing economic, environmental and public health sustainability, Canada can ensure its agricultural policy is fit for its 21st-century food system.

— Kathleen Kevany and Talan B. Iscan are researchers at Dalhousie University. Howard Nye is a researcher at the University of Alberta, and Mark Kent Mullinix is director of the Institute for Sustainable Food Systems at Kwantlen Polytechnic University.

The post Canada’s agricultural policies are falling short of health and sustainability goals appeared first on Country Guide.

The announcement came from Prime Minister Justine Trudeau and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland at an event in Toronto April 1, and is part of the lead up to the federal budget, which will be brought down April 16.

“Children deserve to have the best start in life. But today, nearly one in four children in Canada do not get enough food. That impacts their health and their opportunities to learn and grow,” a federal press release noted.

The funds would flow through provinces and territories, as education is a provincial jurisdiction. In the past year, British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have allocated money toward school lunches.

During the announcement Freeland said the aim is to get started on the program “as early as the 2024-25 school year.”

Canada is currently the only G-7 country without a national school food program. The issue was a Liberal pledge in the 2021 election, and has been long-promised by the government.

The announcement is part of a recent push by the Trudeau government to position the budget as a program to restore “fairness,” especially for younger Canadian.

This past October the federal government released a “what we heard” report from consultations on a national food program. That document noted that one in five children in Canada are at risk of going to school hungry on any given day.

Lack of proper nutrition prevents proper development and learning in those students, and can have life-long effects, the report further noted.

Sylvain Charlebois, a Dalhousie University professor and food policy specialist, lauded the move on social media.

“Regardless your political affiliations, a national school food program has been long overdue in Canada,” he wrote.

—Gord Gilmour is senior editor, news and national affairs, for Glacier FarmMedia

The post National school food program announced appeared first on Country Guide.

Assuming food grown in the region is first sold and consumed there, the Okanagan is 38 per cent self-sufficient, said researcher Kent Mullinix.

Local food consumption isn’t prioritized in the area, so actual self-reliance is maybe half that, he said.

Regions don’t need to be self-reliant to feed residents. However, researchers from the Institute of Sustainable Food Systems at Kwantlen Polytechnic University have demonstrated that regional food systems would provide significant economic benefits while operating alongside the current transnational food system.

Mullinix presented some of that research during a March 20 webinar hosted by the Canadian Agricultural Policy Institute.

Mullinix and colleagues divided B.C. into seven ‘bioregions’ based on topography, plant and animal life, and culture. They then used data like the 2016 census of agriculture to model several different food system scenarios—e.g. status quo, increased population, reduced land base due to urban encroachment, dietary changes, etc.

Assuming an average Canadian diet, the Okanagan can currently produce 88 per cent of its dairy needs, Mullinix and colleagues wrote in a report on the study. It can produce 60 per cent of its poultry needs, 34 per cent of its fruit needs (due to fruits eaten that can’t be grown in the region, or are eaten out of season), and small amounts of other food groups like grains, red meat, eggs and oils.

Tree fruit and wine production is, meanwhile, very export-based and brings a lot of revenue to the region, Mullinix said.

Researchers found that if agricultural land use was optimized to produce food for the region, self-reliance could nearly double. If the wine grape and tree fruit sectors kept up exports as usual, 66 per cent reliance could be achieved.

If even more land was brought into production, researchers suggested 74 per cent self-sufficiency could be achieved while maintaining exports.

In all instances, economic benefits like income, GDP, jobs, and tax revenue “are consistently improved,” Mullinix said.

Modelling showed maximum economic benefits by building out a regional food system while maintaining the export sector. This scenario resulted in $217 million in GDP, up from $134 million produced in 2016. It added $11 million in tax revenue to the region.

“There’s room for both,” Mullinix said.

Modeling for the southwest B.C. bioregion, which includes metro Vancouver, the Fraser Valley, and sections north of Vancouver, saw similar economic outcomes from regionalization.

Mullinix said that eating more regionally produced food would make for a more resilient food system.

However, it would require a thriving post-production sector, “which doesn’t exist.”

He suggested regional food systems also could not exist without eliminating monopolies and oligopolies.

The report also acknowledged that regional food doesn’t inherently reduce environmental impacts. For example, the only scenarios that reduced food system emissions were either losing productive farmland or changing consumer diets to reduce consumption of meat and animal products.

However, regionalized food production brings those emissions “home,” the report said, increasing “our capacity to mitigate them through locally developed policies and best practices.”

The post Local food system would reap big economic benefits researcher says appeared first on Country Guide.