by SUSAN MANN
Grain Farmers of Ontario representatives will only be attending the consultation meeting for agricultural groups later this month on the proposed provincial regulations limiting neonicotinoid-treated seed use and not the public meetings. The farm group is also urging its members to stay away from the public meetings.
Grain Farmers CEO Barry Senft says the organization is putting its efforts into the industry-specific meeting being held Dec. 18 in Guelph. “We feel the other three meetings are going to have a significant presence from the (environmental) activists and I don’t think it’s the right forum to try and get our message across.”
Senft says “I think we’re going to have a lot of noise at those three meetings and the message of our farmers will not get through to those conducting the meeting.”
But Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Minister Jeff Leal says in an email provided by his senior press and communications adviser “it’s very important that farmers and farming organizations participate in the consultations to ensure we implement a practical, balanced plan sensitive to their needs.” Leal adds he’s looking forward to hearing from a wide range of stakeholders and individuals, including farmers, beekeepers and others.
Meetings are planned for: London from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. (Dec. 9), Toronto from 9 a.m. to noon (Dec. 11) and Kingston from 9 a.m. to noon (Jan. 14, 2015). There are also some online meetings including two sessions in English being held Dec. 8 from 7 to 9 p.m. and Dec. 10 from 1 to 3 p.m. The French online session is scheduled for Dec. 15 from 1 to 3 p.m. Advanced registration is required for all meetings. But the government says in its notice about the meetings on the Ontario agriculture ministry website it doesn’t want to limit participation “and will add more meetings if needed.” There’s no registration deadline.
A Dec. 4 Grain Farmers notice to members states that the organization “does not feel that a public forum provides an opportunity for professional and reasonable discussion on this complex issue.” As farmers and primary stakeholders in the proposed regulations that would cut the acreage planted with neonicotinoid-treated seeds by 80 per cent by 2017, Grain Farmers says it’s not appropriate for the government to receive its input at public forums. “Our input is far too important to be diluted at urban venues” attended by non- stakeholders.
Senft says Grain Farmers isn’t forbidding its members from attending the public meetings, but just advising they don’t. He didn’t know how many grain farmers would actually heed the warning and stay away from the public meetings. Instead of going to public meetings, he recommends farmers become involved in the consultation process by writing letters to Premier Kathleen Wynne, Environment and Climate Change Minister Glen Murray and Leal.
Farmers can also help develop an alternative plan to the government’s proposal released Nov. 25 and posted on the Ontario Environmental Registry. Discussions about an alternative plan for continued responsible use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds will be held at Grain Farmers annual district meetings next month.
“There is opportunity for members to have influence in and on the process,” Senft says.
Other farm groups plan to attend the public meetings along with the agriculture-specific meeting. Pierre Petelle, vice-president of chemistry for CropLife Canada, says by email “we will be working through all available channels during the consultation period to ensure that growers continue to have access to this important technology.” He adds that it’s “important that farmers are not handcuffed by non-science based decision making.”
The Ontario Beekeepers’ Association is urging its members and others concerned about the matter to attend the meetings. “It’s an opportunity for everybody to discuss it and find out the information that is there,” says president Tibor Szabo.
To register for a meeting people can visit http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/pollinator/meeting-reg.htm or contact the Agricultural Information Contact Centre at 1-877-424-1300, ag.info.omafra@ontario.ca. BF
Comments
Lets see here as farmers we have already reduced bee deaths by 70% but yet Gov wants an 80% reduction in the use of neonics . Does not seem to matter what you do they are not going to be satisfied . The science does not matter it seems . What if bee deaths are linked to cities doing sewage by-passes , what will happen then . Will every one shit in a pail and drop it off to a disposal site every morning ?
Even the bee keepers can't agree on what and where the problem is but we are supposed to think Gov has the answer ?
The consultation process is nothing more than smoke and mirrors . Gov has already long ago made a decision before their announcement .
your post is absolutely rubbish lol, bee deaths reduced by 80% ha,
I spoke to several cash crop farmers in my area this year not one of them did anything different then in the past, and were sure what they could do different.
It is absurd to to hear people say farmers are doing things differently, and that we have an industry wide approach to the bee death loss issues, ridicules.
Sean McGivern
So what your saying is that the neonics are and were not the problem in the first place . Science is saying the same thing . Not that you know any thing about that !
Did you happen to ask those same farmers what planters they operate ?
Fact is if you were using a planter equiped with a finger pick-up metering unit or a White positive air planter that you did not have to do any thing different . Only planters that use talc for lubrication needed to use the new fluency lubricant .
Are we to presume that you did not ask the right questions and only got half of the story or was it that you only asked certain questions and heard only what you wanted to ?
So, it would appear that the dust at planting time from new high tech air-vacuum planters was and still is a major problem. Instead of a neonic almost ban why not be proactive and either ban air planters or make it mandatory the new air-vacuum be e- certified 90% dust emission free. New tractors have to use DEF to meet strict emission standards so why not air vacuum planters. Had this been done when the newer air vacuum planters first appeared I suspect the consultation meetings would not be happening.
Oh,the consultation meetings would still be going on but they are a joke!
The Government has made their minds up on this,or had their minds made up for them.
Why Toronto ? How many farmers or Beekeepers live in Toronto ? London and Kingston are fine but if this really is a forum for stakeholders,farmers and beekeepers, then have it were the problem exists and where we all do business,that is not Toronto!
I suspect the "others" are ruling the roost here and these meetings are a done deal.
For over 20 years we farmed primarily for sheep and lamb production, with small numbers of pigs, veal calves and chickens, at times, and rented other's land for the forage crop, selling the surplus of bales each winter. Grain was always a nurse crop when reseeding for alfalfa, clover, timothy and brome. It is interesting to hear that the grain growers are being encouraged not to attend public meetings because the topic is too complex, apparently, and their message would not be heard. It seems to me that the process of using neonicotinoids in a prophylactic manner is what creates the complexity in the matter. What about the half life of this nervous system toxin in the soil? How rapidly is it building up in the soil? It is soluble in water, so will go into creeks, streams and lakes with possible effects on non targeted life forms in those ecosystems. My understanding is that the proposed legislation will only be asking that farmers show some valid proof that they have a pest, (worms, insects) in the field before they may get a permit to purchase the neonicotinoid treated seed. Integrated pest management, is it really so bad, or is it the way to maintain the sacred balance in our soils and waters? Charlie Nixon
For the Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO) to advise farmer members against participating in the upcoming public consultations is effectively telling farmers that none of them is capable of providing an informed opinion.
In addition to trying to subvert my democratic rights, the GFO has it entirely backwards - the issue is too important for us not to go. Furthermore, for the GFO to claim its message is "far too important to be diluted at urban venues" is the ultimate in arrogance because it presumes that anything provided to government by non-grain farmers isn't important at all.
Ironically, while the GFO falls all over itself to campaign for good science, it pays extremely short-shrift to the science brought to the equation by Ontario's Environment Commissioner, Gord Miller, a scientist in his own right who has publicly stated that this insecticide had the potential to be more-damaging than DDT which was banned some 40 years ago.
I am registered to participate at one of these sessions, and when there I plan to make it abundantly clear that one of the reasons I am there is because the GFO advised against it.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
This is the same Gord Miller that claims there is no scientific evidence to date that vibration from low frequency wind turbine noise causes adverse health effects.”
Appearently his degree in Biology and Plant Ecology also qualifies him to be a expert on infra-sound and its effects on our health.
Commissioner Miller is not about to bite the hand that feeds him his “sunshine list” salary. He will follow along with whatever this Ontario Government mandates and if they say the urban popualtion wants a end to neonics,then so be it.
He even goes so far as to congratulate the government for the removal of the Bald Eagle nest near Middlesex to accomodate a Wind power project.
some environment watchdog !!
As might be expected from an anonymous poster on this site, facts just don't seem to matter - for example, all one needs to do is Google "Gordon Miller, Ontario Environmental Commissioner" to find out that he very-much does "bite the hand that feeds him", and does so quite-often.
It's exactly this sort of anonymous, and factually-baseless "trash-talk" from farmers seemingly-obsessed with shooting every "messenger" they can find, which stiffens my resolve to go to the meeting I'm scheduled to attend and ask "Why isn't anyone in Ontario's grain farming sector paying any attention to Ontario's Environment Commissioner?"
Quite simply, it is the unbridled arrogance of grains farmers to the effect that they're not just the only farmers who matter, but the only people who matter, which is going to be, and deserves to be, their downfall.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
At today's "pollinator" meeting in London, there were two commercial bee-keepers at my table of nine participants and one facilitator - and admittedly, even though this was only one table out of many, I saw no presence of environmental activism at all, let alone the "significant" environmental activism predicted by the Grain Farmers of Ontario (GFO)
In addition, there was a strong OFA presence, including at least two OFA Board Members, and at least two MPPs in attendance - and there may have been more of both.
Both bee-keepers at my table knew what they were talking about, had something to say, and said it well.
The bottom line is that the GFO is fighting a war that is already over - we are going to have neonics limitations in two years, limitations which are "do-able" at least on my farm, and that's all there is to it. The sooner the GFO abandons its fearmongering and slippery-slope arguments and comes up with recommendations for making the inevitable restrictions happen, the better off we will all be.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
You have it backwards as usual,when we hear the Environmental commissioner comment that neonicotinoids are a bigger threat than DDT,who is doing the fear-mongering ??
Where is his Scientific data coming from..the Sierra Club ?
It's exactly this type of "Who are you to challenge us?" and/or "shoot the messenger" mentality on the part of the grain industry which is going to be their nemesis. For example, one person, a farmer, at our table yesterday tried to claim the evidence against neonics wasn't conclusive, but was squelched by the bee-keepers who claimed, based on considerable post-mortem testing done on their own bees, that the evidence was conclusive enough.
Even worse, after what I heard from the bee-keepers yesterday, is the continuing attempt by the grains industry to marginalize the bee-keeping industry by claiming the current problems are the result of poor management practices on the part of bee-keepers.
In hindsight, given their "it's all about me" attitude and their petulance, it was probably a blessing GFO did avoid yesterday's meeting.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
So you a guy who does not even farm any more since you rented your land out went and spoke on behalf of ??
Further I don't think at any timew that GFO ever said who are you to question us . GFO has asked for the science .
Gee even OFA has some what asked for that !
I farm the land I own on a 50/50 crop share basis, and except for having far-less fuel and machinery repair expenses, there's been little, if any, change in the way I make, and implement, decisions on my farm.
I went to the meeting yesterday out of a concern for society and the environment, both now and in the future, rather than what might be expedient for my farm
It's exactly this sort of "shoot the messenger" without checking any facts first which proves, once again, that the opinions from the anonymous illiterati on this site are garbage.
Finally, it looks good on GFO to now be forced to feel the same sense of outrage felt by hog and livestock farmers when ethanol mandates were "shoved down their throats". Even better is that GFO is now on the receiving end of what it claims are biased and/or inconclusive reports about bee deaths, and that's because GFO added insult to injury to livestock farmers by producing any number of one-sided reports claiming that ethanol didn't harm livestock and hog feeders.
Therefore, since GFO gleefully dished it out when it came to ethanol, and felt no remorse or sympathy for anyone when doing so, they can, and should, "suck it in" now that it's their turn to be on the receiving end.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Hmmm, l thought this was to be a process of cooperation between grain farmers and beekeepers to find answers to why there has been elevated bee deaths.It has nothing to do with Government ethanol mandates.
Its unfortunate that some individuals look at it as us vs them.
By the way,Blackburn news on cknx were reporting Statistics Canada says there were more beekeepers and more colonies in the country last year than at any time since 2010.Here in Ontario, honey production was up about 2 million pounds to 8.1 million.
The value of Ontario honey production in 2014 was 30.3 million dollars, up about 10 million from 2013.
Something doesn't gel here ? I thought it was a bad year ??
You mean someone else farms your land?
GFO is all for RFS mandates and against any controls on neonics that can/do pose health issues for bees and maybe us. Bottom line is GFO is just like the Union worker ,Civil Servant,ect. that if its good financially for me I don't really care about the rest of society. In many cases a good crop rotation would solve the need for many pesticides and improve soil health and farmers pocketbooks . Neonics have a place, but its not on every seed planted.
Dear Sean
We all followed the new rules and used the new agent to reduce the dust.We modified our planters.We care about bees, leave it alone
Some crops will be at risk
Canola -sevin or Matadoor no other controls for Flea beetles
Soybeans- sevin for aphids there may be other products
Corn- not good ,no choices for insects other than tillage
What have I missed? I think canola acreage will drop like a stone.I worry about the bees if this is the route we have to go ,those foliar products are bad on polinators
Post new comment