by SUSAN MANN
Six Ontario farm groups supported by five agricultural industry associations have spent nearly $350,000 on full-page newspaper letters in major newspapers across the province giving Ontarians and politicians their take on bee health matters.
The groups placed the letters in major newspapers across Ontario last week, including twice in The Globe and Mail, “to let the public and the politicians know that the bee industry isn’t in the dire straits that some claim it to be,” says Grain Farmers of Ontario CEO Barry Senft. “In fact, there’s some positive things going on as far as honey production, bee numbers etc. and that seemed to be lost in the discussion over the last number of months.”
The “Open Letter to Ontarians” went in major newspapers across Ontario, such as the Windsor Star, Toronto Star, National Post, Guelph Mercury, London Free Press and the Kingston-Whig Standard. The same letter went in all the papers including both the Sat. Jan. 31 and Wed., Feb. 4 editions of The Globe and Mail.
The Ontario Beekeepers’ Association issued a press release Feb. 2 calling the farm groups’ letter misleading.
President Tibor Szabo says the beekeepers’ group issued the release because “we don’t have a million dollar budget to do advertising and the information they put out is not accurate. It’s really important people know the facts. We don’t really have money on our side, we just have the truth on our side.”
Grain Farmers and other farm groups are opposed to the provincial government’s proposal announced in November 2014 to implement an 80 per cent cut to the number of corn and soybean acres grown with neonicotinoid-treated seed by 2017. Regulations are to be in place by July.
Grain Farmers is working on developing an alternative proposal and Senft says they will be releasing the details of that later this month.
Debra Conlon, government relations consultant with Grain Farmers, says the farm groups’ letter was put in 14 newspapers located primarily in southwestern Ontario.
Senft says the agricultural industry participants to the letter campaign contributed money and in-kind support. “Not everybody contributed equally,” he says. The supporters listed at the bottom of the letter are: CropLife Canada, the Ontario Agri-Business Association, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, the Canadian Seed Trade Association and the Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers. In addition to Grain Farmers, the farm group participants are: Ontario Canola Growers Association, Farm & Food Care Ontario, Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, Ontario Bean Growers and Seed Corn Growers of Ontario.
Asked how much money Grain Farmers contributed, Senft says “it was next to nothing. It was more the “in-kind support that we worked on the ad.”
Conlon noted that producer check-off dollars weren’t used for the letter as Grain Farmers’ contribution was mostly the in-kind support.
A Toronto Star article last week said that CropLife Canada had financed the advertisements. Erin O’Hara, senior communications officer of the organization that represents agricultural crop control products, said in an email today that the media placements were funded by the agricultural industry.
Senft says the letters were placed in the papers to try and get the public and Ontario government politicians “to look at the other side of the equation in that the bee industry isn’t in the dire straits that some have described it to be.”
As for letter’s impact, he says “we’re hopeful that at the end of the day when the government goes to put in regulations they look at all things and all comments that have been made through the Environmental Bill of Rights discussion and the consultations. We’re hopeful the government is going to come to the conclusion the proposals they are putting in place don’t target what they’re trying to do.”
Ontario Agriculture Minister Jeff Leal says in an email provided by his senior press adviser “in order to support a healthy pollinator population, Ontario is taking a balanced, precautionary approach.”
To implement “a practical, realistic plan our government consulted widely on this issue. We received over 52,000 written submissions and more than 400 people attended consultation sessions. We are currently reviewing this feedback,” he says.
Leal says he’ll continue advocating for an open, inclusive “collaboration as we work to strengthen pollinator health and support Ontario’s growing agriculture and agri-food sector.”
John Kelly, executive vice president of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, says “we signed on to the Farm Action Now organization” and the association’s participation in the newspaper letter campaign is consistent with that.
“What we’re really trying to do is get as much balanced and credible information out there so it’s understood what the issues are that we’re facing. And we’re supporting our agricultural commodity partners as well,” he says.
Erin Morgan, general manager of the Ontario Bean Growers, says they too are part of the Farm Action Now group. “We support science-based regulations and we also support any educational efforts that would lead to that end.”
Morgan says “we’re very much in support of working with government and beekeepers in finding a solution that works for everyone in Ontario.”
The purpose of the newspaper letter “is to educate Ontarians that there is another side to the story and I think the hope is also to show the farm groups are very willing to work on a solution that benefits everybody,” she says. “Nobody wants to see bee mortality increase.”
Craig Reid, vice president of the Ontario Canola Growers Association, says canola growers are big users of neonicotinoids as seed treatments. “We felt it was in our best interests to support this campaign where we’re trying to share the facts.”
Reid, who is also chair of Farm Action Now, says for people who already have their mind made up the letter has no impact but “like any other media campaign what you’re aiming for is the large majority of people in the middle that don’t have a strong opinion.”
Reid adds that “at the very least it would make people stop and think and maybe do a little bit of their own digging into the subject.”
Jeff Wilson, chair of the Seed Corn Growers of Ontario, says they participated in the campaign “because we wanted to make sure the urban population was getting balanced information. We feel that some of the coverage we got from the meetings the government held in December (2014) and early January was focused on the radical opinions. The agricultural opinions, which we feel are based on good science, weren’t getting out to the right people.”
A representative from Farm & Food Care Ontario couldn’t be reached for comment. BF
Comments
There's a truism in marketing and public relations that whenever groups seeking to maintain legislated priveleges (such as the use of neonicotinoids) take out full-page ads proclaiming their innocence and/or professing to tell "the truth", they're guilty as Hell and everything they proclaim to be the truth is only half-true, if even that.
For example, by implying that neonicotinoids were safe because the number of hives in Ontario has increased by 60% since 2003, the ad ignored the basic scientific truth that the number of hives has absolutely nothing to do with what goes on inside those hives.
This attempt by neonicotinoid defenders to imply a cause/effect relationship where there is not, nor can there ever be, a cause/effect relationship is not just misleading, it is also sleazy, unprincipled, the epitome of a scientific double-standard, and a complete waste of money.
Agriculture deserves far-better than this - thanks to the OFA, the CFFO and the NFU for making the "no-brainer" decision to not being part of this disgusting, demeaning, money-wasting exercise.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Yes...agriculture does deserve better than the one stressor diatribe Mr. Thompson presents.
Since Mr. Thompson mentions OFA, perhaps as an OFA- PAC rep. he should list the stressors OFA submits on pollinator health at: http://www.ofa.on.ca/issues/submission/pollinator-health-strategy-ofa-re...
OFA lists nine separator stressors not just one.
They are:
• Bee habitat loss
• Bee nutrition
• Exposure of bees to pesticides used in crop production
• Exposure of bees to pesticides used in hive management
• Climate change impacts on bees
• Weather-related impacts on bees
• Bee diseases
• Insects, and fungi that attack bees
• Bee genetics
So, it would appear that either Mr. Thompson hasn’t read the OFA submission on pollinator health or he is in denial that it exists.
Anyone who, like the sponsors of this ad, can't immediately recognize the complete lack of causality between hive numbers and bee deaths, has serious capability and intellectual issues. That nobody at any of the ad's sponsoring organizations seems to have recognized this lack of causality is, indeed, a horrifying indictment of how "brain-dead" some segments of agriculture have become.
In addition, given that, if my numbers are correct, the OFA, the CFFO and the NFU have a combined membership of approximately 40,000 farm families and were not signatories to this ad, it was dishonourable as well as disgusting for the sponsors of this ad to state - "We, the 28,000 farm families in Ontario" thereby clearly implying that all farm families in Ontario were sponsoring this ad.
Regardless of the technical merits of the position taken by the sponsors of this ad, the sleazy, dishonorable and even disgusting tactics they chose to pursue their case speaks volumes about why the OFA, the CFFO and the NFU decided it was a "no-brainer" for them to "stay home". In addition, I'm proud of the fact that unlike the signatories to this ad, the OFA, the CFFO and the NFU have all chosen to present their case(s) with honour, dignity and professionalism.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I read that piece of garbage this so called modern farmers tried to sell the use of this toxic chemical . The facts are right infront of these farmers ,if you think this toxic chemical is safe put it on your families food !! This toxic seed treatment chemical is causing illness in people ,death in bee's and making the soil toxic for many insects and worms . The Ontario Government needs to hold on it's commitment to protect people ,bee's and mother nature ,the hell with those modern day farmers bottom line ! Plant a few extra seeds and feed the insects and bee's and STOP using this toxic chemical on seed or anywhere else in food production !! ,THEY ARE SMARTER THAN YOU THINK !! Bill Denby importer /exporter of safe food products.
Partial deletion by editor in accordance with our guidelines.
OFA claims 9 stressors involved in pollinator health. It would appear the "all knowing" OFA PAC representative Mr. Thompson claims just one stressor involved.
I will once again try to make it abundantly clear that any technical merit of the pro-neonicotinoid arguments being made by this coalition has been completely-squandered, and then some, by the sleazy and disgusting way the sponsors of this ad went about presenting their case to the public.
It doesn't matter whether the OFA claims there are 9 stressors or 900, the OFA chose, quite-rightly, to opt for the "no-brainer" decision to not associate itself with the sleazy and disgusting way this ad was designed and presented.
Unfortunately, the decision to design and run this ad clearly seems to have been a "no-brainer" on the part of its sponsors, albeit using an entirely different definition of the term "no-brainer" than what applied to the OFA when making their decision to avoid being part of it.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Mr. Thompson, do you as a PAC representative agree with the OFA 9 stressor submission on pollinator health at: http://www.ofa.on.ca/issues/submission/pollinator-health-strategy-ofa-re...
OFA lists nine separator stressors not just one.
They are:
• Bee habitat loss
• Bee nutrition
• Exposure of bees to pesticides used in crop production
• Exposure of bees to pesticides used in hive management
• Climate change impacts on bees
• Weather-related impacts on bees
• Bee diseases
• Insects, and fungi that attack bees
• Bee genetics
A simple YES or No would be good. Thanks in advance.
Today's issue isn't about stressors, it's about the OFA wisely deciding to preserve its political capital and reputation by not particpating in an irresponsible, misleading and horribly-expensive advertising campaign.
For example, the OFA is smart enough to realize that if the grains industry has enough money to sponsor these ads, they have enough money to be able to do without neonicotinoids, yet that's an argument the rocket-scientists sponsoring the ads failed to consider, and it's an argument they're eventually going to have to eat along with their shorts.
Furthermore, I really don't care how many stressors the OFA lists, or even if Santa Claus is among them because, at the end of the day, it isn't going to matter anyway - a year from now we're going to have regulations limiting the use of neonicotinoids, and the more time we waste debating things that are no longer even open for discussion, the worse off we'll be.
Finally, and most-importantly,...Comment modified by editor.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
No one was really expecting an answer, eh? LoL
If OFA PAC rep Mr. Thompson really believed that OFA had a good list stressors involved with pollinator health he would have graciously answered YES. By his silence on the question we can only conclude he doesn't agree with OFA's list of stressors on pollinator health.
The above anonymous poster's fixation with the OFA's so-called "stressor list" ignores the fact that the time to influence government about this matter is over, and that, therefore, any debate or even discussion about stressor lists is meaningless, and "so-2014"
The OFA has made its position known, both at the pollinator health meetings and by way of its individual presentation, and like everyone else, except for the pro-neonicotinoid coalition hoping for some sort of "Hail Mary" play to augment their disgustingly-presented ad campaign, is going to have to wait until government announces what it is going to do and how it proposes to do it.
Therefore, the above poster's fixation with what portions of the OFA postion on stressors with which I may or may not agree, appears to be nothing more than an attempt by a small-minded neonicotinoid supporter to "prove" that I am unworthy of being part of the OFA family in spite of the fact that I have publicly praised the OFA for the professional and responsible way it has avoided becoming part of the pro-neonicotinoid "coalition of the devious".
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I won't stoop to your level of derogatory name calling just answer the question please. Furthermore, I think it is a fair question that if an OFA PAC representative is asked a question that he or she should be transparent with the answer. So to be clear then, unless we hear different then we will probably assume that you don't support the OFA list of 9 stressors and you don't believe in science based evidence. You haven't been shy about sharing your position on a multitude of other ag and non ag issues regardless of whether you are right or wrong, so why are you so shy on this question?
ps
I have attached the question again below: Mr. Thompson, do you as a PAC representative agree with the OFA 9 stressor submission on pollinator health at: http://www.ofa.on.ca/issues/submission/pollinator-health-strategy-ofa-re...
OFA lists nine separator stressors not just one.
They are:
• Bee habitat loss
• Bee nutrition
• Exposure of bees to pesticides used in crop production
• Exposure of bees to pesticides used in hive management
• Climate change impacts on bees
• Weather-related impacts on bees
• Bee diseases
• Insects, and fungi that attack bees
• Bee genetics
A simple YES or No would be good. Thanks in advance.
The only valid reason the above anonymous poster keeps asking this question is to try to "prove" by way of a "witch-hunt" that I am somehow unqualified to be part of the OFA.
Editor modified to meeting guidelines.
....my personal opinion about anything I don't publish on this site is none of the poster's business and wouldn't be even if he/she identified himself/herself.
Furthermore, everyone's opinion about stressors is now consigned to history and, therefore, completely meaningless when it comes to deciding how to cope with a future which is going to include restrictions on neonicotinoids - or, to look at it in another way, people still talking about stressors in February of 2015 are living in the past, a past which is gone forever.
More importantly, silence on any given matter neither means, nor implies, one's consent or opposition to the matter - and it's a perfectly-valid option for a voting member of any organization.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Completely agree that silence is a perfectly-valid option.
In fact, if some used that option then this forum's readers would be greatly appreciative.
Given that, by definition, anonymous posters add nothing and
by refusing to identify themselves, silence from them would add immensely not just to this site, but to agriculture in general.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Deletion by editor in accordance with our guidelines.
Silence in this case speaks volumes, it is as we all suspected.
No, no, no. You got it all wrong again Stephen! The only "witch-hunt" going on here appears to be the one focussed solely on a "one stressor-one solution" for a "multi-stressor” problem. OFA has got it right with their "multi-stressor" science based submission. More importantly, I would suspect most OFA members support the OFA "multi-stressor" science based solution submission. Unfortunately, I suspect, (we on this site and elsewhere) are still not sure which camp you fall into because you seem to be shy (for the first time) about publicly supporting OFA's submission or at least the concept of multi-stressor verses single-stressor pollinator health.
In addition to the fact that I refuse to be berated by anyone lacking the decency or professionalism to identify him/herself, I've stated before for those who can read and comprehend the written word, it doesn't matter whether the OFA's pollinator health submission noted 900 stressors including Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, it's all history and not relevant to either the present or the future.
The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter whether there is one stressor or 900, government, with the encouragement of the majority of the bee-keeping community as well as Environment Commissioner, Gord Miller, is going to limit the use of neonicotinoids - those who, like the above poster, persistently dwell on minutae like the number of so-called stressors, are living in the past and in the dark.
Everyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size including, I suggest, the OFA, knows full well-that the neonicotinoid war was over before it even started. It wouldn't matter if I agreed with the OFA position or not, the number of stressors was never an issue except to those who think the neonicotinoid war isn't over, and those people, like the above poster, are seriously and completely out-of-touch with reality.
The other matter the above poster doesn't seem to grasp is that no matter what policy the government eventually proposes, the OFA will completely forget it ever mentioned the word "stressors" and will almost certainly call the government plan a "well-balanced and responsible position" and will promise to work with government to implement it, which is exactly what any responsible, professionally-managed farm organization should do.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Since you obviously don't care about how many stressors OFA listed, it would also appear you as an OFA PAC representative either don't care about OFA's 9 stressor submission as requested by the government on pollinator health or you don't agree with OFA's list.
Quite sure Mr. Thompson has many times claimed OFA to have been brain dead on issues in the past on this forum or other publications .
The bigger laugh comes when he has a renewed love for the NFU which he has bashed many many many times over the years and the CFFO as well .
Give him a week or so and he will turn on the OFA again too !
Does this mean he is wanting to kiss Easter ?
It is true that I have criticized the OFA, the CFFO and the NFU for "dropping-the-ball" on various occasions, and I'm sure I'll do so again.
However, on this issue, and at this time, these farm groups all made the right decision even if possibly not for exactly the same reasons - therefore they should be, and need to be, publicly thanked for doing so.
And, to be fair, the decision by the major farm groups to avoid this particular quagmire wasn't so much brilliance but rather common-sense.
And, I mean, really, the Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO) orchestrated the same kind of one-sided, open-letter "grandstanding" when the George Morris Centre dumped all over ethanol and they're doing it again now - why, after seeing GFO publicly "blow its brains out" on two separate occasions, would any Minister of Agriculture ever again want to have anything to do with GFO or any of its current "partners of convenience"?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Great to hear that the overall OFA message on pollinator health is consistent with what the Ontario Canola Growers Association, Farm & Food Care Ontario, Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, Ontario Bean Growers, Seed Corn Growers of Ontario and the GFO have been saying. They all say there are multiple stressors involved. To repeat, Thompson's narrow position is one issue only and not even remotely consistent with what OFA submitted on pollinator health.
Editor: Deletion made in accordance with our guidelines.
GFO keeps claiming they represent 28,000 farmers, that is BS. There are thousands of farmers like myself that are forced to pay a check off to a organization that does not represent my views or the type of farming that I am involved in. I will be penning some letters my self in the coming week that will also show up in the same papers they are have spent thousands advertising in.
Sean McGivern
RR#1 Desboro, Ont.
Post new comment