Ontario Dairy Council withdraws Chobani appeals

© AgMedia Inc.


I asked a family member on a trip to the US to bring back some Chobani yogurt. Low and behold, the breakfast served at the Hilton they stayed at came with Chobani yogurt.

Blood orange, black cherry, lime, strawberry and blueberry were delivered to my home, best yogurt I've ever tasted. 5.3oz, $1 each or $1.15 Can

As a Canadian I am truly disappointed in being denied the freedom to make my own choices and economic decisions.

I'm sure that there are a few dairy farmers who are also disappointed about this.
Please stand up.

Raube Beuerman

Given that only anonymous supply management supporters seem to be afforded any credibility on this site, and since you are neither, your claims will be immediately judged to be not believable.

If you, however, had anonymously claimed that you had found Chobani products to be tasteless and that it was, therefore, a good thing supply management caused them to flee Canada, you would be seen to be completely-credible.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Look what I found!

This site won't let me copy the article but even the link to it above says it all. Feel free to read the facts in the article if you want to see the magnitude of your error.

I don't remember reading about any Canadian consumer backlash about not being able to purchase Chobani yogurt after their temporary import quota ran out,maybe it was in the Globe and Mail.
You can't be disappointed in losing something you never really had,however l hear Dairy farmers of this Province are extremely happy with their 3% quota increase just handed out,not the mention the usual fall incentives.

Freedom is just a valid Canadian passport away,if buying a particular brand of yogurt is your choice of freedom.

The only thing that has kept supply management from total collapse is the increasing Canadian population, in large part due to an immigration policy of 250,000 per year.

Supply management, through obscenely high tariffs, is all about denying Canadians the freedom to make their own economic decisions, no matter what SM product they buy right here at home, even when it is, obviously made in Canada.

Freedom is not forcing me to travel to the US for good yogurt.

Raube Beuerman

If chobani is sooo good you could move to the USA and eat it all you want .
Just like an anti to not know what freedom really is that our war heros gave their lives for .

You might think it is good , others might think blood sausage is good . Yummy !

This anonymous poster is very adept at distorting my argument to fit theirs.(but are not they all).

All that matters is that the dairy lobby, processors with their plant supply quotas, and some dairy farmers(but not all), succeeded in driving the very successful Chobani yogurt maker out of Canada.

That is a violation of my freedom to make my own economic and food choice decisions.

Raube Beuerman

Again,at no time was Chobani ever in this Country to drive out.They certainly tried to get in and had limited imports but in the end they withdrew from the Canadian market, no one forced them out.

I always thought their preferred location was rather suspect if indeed the goal was to use 100% Canadian milk.

So just how were they going to make yogurt without a supply of milk? They had offered to purchase Canadian milk, even at the much higher prices.

Raube Beuerman

Most don't or can't know enough about this market to give informed analysis. Here is some of the real story. Chobani grew strongly in the more-recently developing US yogurt market but found a very different mature Canadian yogurt market where existing strong players had strong Greek yogurt sales, established retail contracts, expanded their brand offerings and spent multi, multi-millions on advertising which helped Chobani decide to change its plans. They doubled their number of SKUs of Greek yogurts on the market in a standard brand-proliferation tactic to stack the deck against any new entrant's chance of building market share.

But probably the least understood and virtually unreported factor is the extremely concentrated ownership of the Canadian grocery retail business. The US grocery retail business is very fragmented and regional. New entrants have lots of options to develop markets. Canada has two major national chains controlling about 80% of the market. Contracts can tie up exclusive distribution rights (and have significant shelf-space costs) that can make it nearly impossible for new players to get broad distribution.

Chobani experienced the reality of the Canadian market and made the only logical decision because they were out-manned, out-spent and out-maneuvered in the tough Canadian grocery retail market.

Ignore the facts if your agenda demands it, but that is the real story.

If I recall correctly, the ingredient mix of Chobani's product meant that it wouldn't be allowed to be sold in Quebec, and, in addition, I seem to recall a very-contentious hearing in Quebec, complete with bused-in dairy farmers, which served no purpose but to make it clear to Chobani that supply management was in existence to thwart them, not help them.

Furthermore, the above poster seems to have conveniently-ignored that existing yougurt makers used the time Chobani was forced to wait during the approval process to introduce their own products which were designed to compete with Chobani.

The above poster also conveniently ignores the fact that the opposition to Chobani came from existing yougurt makers who feared a loss of market share to Chobani, and they, in turn, whipped Quebec dairy farmers into a lather of opposition.

The above poster is also in a time-warp about grocery retailing - all Chobani would have needed to do was cut a deal with Wal-Mart giving them exclusive rights to sell Chobani products, and thereby all the above poster's nonsense about broad distribution and shelf-space would, quite-correctly, become irrelevant because Wal-Mart would have the product which would be almost-literally flying off the shelves at the expense of traditional retailers and processors, and (gasp) anything that would benefit consumers (and/or Wal-Mart) that much, just can't be allowed to happen.

Therefore, if Chobani was out-manned, out-spent and out-maneuvered, it was because the Canadian dairy industry, right from producers to processors, (and possibly even the non-Walmart grocery industry) did so, and did it entirely because of their own greed, and not because of any concern for consumers.

Furthermore, and more-importantly, how dare you post this sort of patronizing drivel, especially about the irrelevant differences between Canadian and US grocery stores, do so anonymously, and then expect anyone to believe anything you have posted?

Personally, and because I do have an MBA, I really detest it when some anonymous (Editor: deletion)

If I'm wrong about any of this, I invite anyone to prove me wrong and sign their name(s) to what they have printed - otherwise, please feel free to drop dead.

Once again, all of you anonymous (Editor: deletion) - anonymous facts are gossip, period.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Editor: Comment modified to conform with our guidelines.

So you have a MBA ? My daughter has her Masters and PHD but that doesn't mean she knows the ins and outs of the Canadian dairy industry or some foreign yogurt makers attempts to build in this country.Exactly what is your dairy background ??
What you know amounts to what anyone else can read in the Globe & Mail or some other online publication.

Even the majority of Dairy producers will never know exactly why they didn't move up here,all that is known is they were guaranteed a years supply of milk and that didn't suit their long-term plans and they withdrew.

It is known that Chobani has layoffs in their New York and Idaho plants this year,it appears that the competition has caught up to them.

Wow, Stephen, what a tirade!

My first advice would be to wait 24 hours when you are angry so that your responses might be less bullying, better reasoned and more professional. I have scanned a number of your posts and this appears to be a common  problem for you. It seems to have destroyed your credibility. I hope you take that constructively but somehow doubt you will.

Your post proves my previous contention that most don't or can't know enough about this market to give informed analysis.  Your comment about "the irrelevant differences between Canadian and US grocery stores" is really quite laughable to anyone that operates in both markets or even thinks seriously about the different structures of the two markets.

Often, not knowing what you don't know is people's biggest weakness.

A couple of quick points. Your argument about Walmart actually completely proves my point that most don't or can't know enough about this market to give informed comment.

Walmart currently has only a 13 % share of the Canadian grocery market,  up from 12 % the year before. If Chobani approached them about carrying their yogurt, they would find Walmart has existing contracts with an large full-line dairy processor nationally. If they can't also supply Walmart's fluid milk - no chance. Since they can't compete across all product lines, they would not stand any chance of supplying Walmart. Even if they could, they would have to undercut prices and that is not Chobani's successful yogurt market strategy. 

Also laughable that you talk about approaching a retailer and "giving them exclusive rights" since in the oligopoly of Canada's grocery trade you have to buy the right to have your products listed and pay for shelf space. You don't know what you don't know - but Chobani certainly does.

Your point about other processors using the time before Chobani could build a Canadian plant to work to protect their market share and launch even more, and better, Greek yogurts is also laughable. 


Canadian-based dairy processors, almost all of which also operate in the US, knew for many months before the public announcement that Chobani was considering entering our market. They were way ahead of Chobani.

I am not surprised that most on this forum don't know much detail about grocery retail realities because they are likely farmers. I don't know much about modern farming methods but I don't rail against them from the darkness of ignorance.

Your "how dare you" and "please feel free to drop dead" comments speak volumes about your character.

I am also not surprised that a circa-1970 MBA degree  does not mean much in terms of sector-specific knowledge. 

You need to know what you don't know.

Chobani had milk supply and milk price guarantees in place and these factors were not driving factors.

This was a Chobani business decision largely based on retailing realities. They have said so.

Love your clear unemotional response! I'm learning a lot! I was sure I had read Chobani's denial of supply problems somewhere.

The recent addition of thoughtful, logical and informed discussion about retail grocery factors and the actions of competitors has been great.
Such a nice change from the mindless ideological rantings that a few spew constantly on this forum. People harp on wrongly about supply issues that Chobani themselves long ago corrected in the media. Ignore the known trolls like Captain Obvious and keep up the thoughtful comments.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt ,and actually believe that you are posting the truth as you see it.
It would be so easy to pick apart your whole ill informed ,sarcastic tirade. I won't-so that you can keep a shred of dignity.
Except for this capitalized comment ---

What business was Chobani competing against---or--was it Chobani competing against a Goverment sanctioned cartel based in Quebec?

I think you should use the 24-hour rule that he suggested for Stephen, for all the same reasons!

I agree. It is one thing to compete against someone, of course that is how business works, but to cut off the supply of the main ingredient (milk) is definately "MAKING LIFE HELL FOR NEW ENTRANTS".

Some of these comments regarding Chobani are nothing short of astonishing.

Raube Beuerman

Anonymous comment deleted by editor.

Chobani had milk supply and milk price guarantees in place and these factors were not driving factors in deciding not to build in Canada in 2013.

This was a Chobani business decision largely based on retailing realities. They have said so.
These facts have been widely reported including by BF.

Why do some people continue to try and rewrite history on this issue.

Succinct, calm and clear explanation of Chobani and retail market realities.

Thank you, it all makes sense and fits with what I have also heard from a food buyer for Loblaw.

But SM haters can't let any information interfere with their world views.

When anonymous sods come on this site and claim to tell the "facts", and/or offer "informed comment", everyone on this site should go into a tirade - furthermore, I suggest that finding fault with my character when I'm prepared to identify myself, unlike the snakes, snails and lizards on this site who remain anonymous, is the utmost in double-standards.

And I mean, really, why would Chobani publicly skewer supply management while fleeing to the US when a half-truth about retailing will suffice? Nobody believes the nonsense about retailing realities being a limiting factor anyway - it's exactly like a politician deciding to retire after being caught in a bordello claiming he's retiring because of "health" reasons to spend more time with his family.

The most-basic truth about retailing is that consumer demand is consumer demand, and if the market is there, and expanding, there will be ways to meet it, and one doesn't need any more than to look at Chobani's success in the US, to see that.

Furthermore, if "retailing realities" had any impact at all on any part of Chobani's sad and sorry Canadian experience, why would existing yougurt manufacturers, not retailers, whip Quebec farmers into such a frenzy that they would go by bus to a hearing on the pretense that Chobani would cause the end of supply management?

In addition, if "retailing realities" had anything to do with Chobani, why hasn't somebody sued Ian Cumming for libel (and won) for his comments about supply management's role in seeing Chobani flee the country?

I suggest the above anonymous poster is a 100% genuine "snake-in-the-grass" in the employ of some aspect of the dairy industry which, because of greed alone, wanted Chobani gone, and is now conveniently trying to whitewash things after-the-fact.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I know it won't help, but one more time......so other readers see the facts.


Milk supply and pricing were guaranteed.

They got beat at retail strategy and execution. Maybe Western can demand you MBA back, they must be embarrassed.

You are trying to "blackwash" things after the fact and Cumming's agenda is well known.

Ian Cumming and I sign our names to everything we publish - if we were wrong in any way, we would be sued for libel, yet we haven't been, and we won't be.

The only "whitewash" or "backwash", as always, comes from anonymous gossip-mongers on this site who simply don't know what they are talking about and who, again as always, have nothing to say, and whose accuracy and validity cannot ever be verified.

The scary thing about this mess is that the anonymous gossip-mongers place 100% credibility in a single, face-saving press-release by Chobani which appears to absolve supply management and yet they place no credibility in the bizarre series of events leading up to that press-release - events which would clearly indicate supply management is guilty as Hell and that retailing strategies had nothing to do with anything.

By grasping at the single straw proffered by Chobani, gossip-mongers completely ignore the reality that Chobani's public relations people could easily-be equally as adept at twisting the truth in order to save face as supply management has been for four decades, and have tossed a "red herring" into the equation which the gossip-mongers have swallowed "hook, line and sinker" out of a sense of evangelistic zeal to absolve supply management of everything back to, and including, the murder of Abraham Lincoln.

I mean, really, a company proposes to come to Canada to produce and sell a product which has been flying off the shelves in the US, has the local milk mafia (DFO) agree to supply the product, has a plant location in Kingston so-close to happening that the City of Kingston thought it was a "done-deal" and went ballistic when the political nonsense thwarted the deal, and then the "wheels fell off" for Chobani, not because of retailing issues at all, but because of supply issues, the Quebec dairy farm lobby, and the issues, thanks to the power of the Quebec dairy farm lobby, about whether Chobani's product would be legal for sale in Quebec.

The anonymous poster who claims I am ignoring the facts is, in turn, ignoring reality - the issue never did get as far as retailing, it was all about the political delays which could only happen in a supply managed system. There is, I suggest, absolutely no other product, and no other sector of the economy, which could have produced the sort of stone-walling delays Chobani experienced, except in a supply managed system.

Finally, I suggest all the proof needed to show that the above poster is a supply-management "stooge" is that he/she can't discredit Ian Cumming's facts demonstrating supply management's culpability, so he/she follows the time-honored supply management tradition of smearing Cumming by accusing him of having, and following, an "agenda".

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Wow, you are deluding yourself with the faulty argument that you must be correct because you have not been sued for libel!

Obviously they didn't teach MBA students anything about libel 40 years ago.

Cumming and his publishers most certainly do know that there is no one that has legal standing to pursue libel charges regardless of what garbage is written about supply management or marketing boards. So it is easy to be the big man. 

BF assuredly knows this too and know that they would be jointly libel as publishers if they "printed" a libel that you authored on this site! In fact, they would be sued first because they have a lot more assets from which to pay damages. Most publishers are cautious enough never to publish a libel even if an author is foolish or uneducated about libel.

That is why slander is more commonly proven, because there is no publisher between a fool's mouth and the damage they cause.

If you were making claims against an individual, a company or any body that could be a legal party to a libel charge - you would already have been convicted and personally bankrupted.

It's bad enough to read anonymous opinions about basic economics, it's even worse to read anonymous denials of things which aren't open to debate or even discussion - the ultimate in stupid has to be expressing anonymous, and therefore unqualified legal opinions as demonstrated by the above poster.

It's like this - if anyone wants to take legal action against me for anything published over my name, they have every opportunity to do so - I dare any anonymous and cowardly wimp posting on this site to demonstrate the same courage.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

"Supply management" or a marketing board can't sue you for libel.
You have not libeled an individual or corporation (which is an individual in law) so can't be sued.
That is the point. Maybe it was too complex for your MBA mind the first time.
If you write a libelous post - BF won't publish it - that's likely why some of your posts are edited.
Wow, are you toxic, or what?

It's always amusing, and frustrating, to be on the receiving end of legal opinions given by people unqualified to express them, especially when they do it anonymously. I mean, really, what is it about being anonymous that seems to make posters on this site believe they are experts in economics, law, and everything else?

There is no guarantee of success for any company .
It could well have been that Chobani would have set up shop and fallen flat on it's face and headed back south of the border after scooping up all the free gov money . Who for sure knows that Chobani did not leave because they felt they were not going to get enough free start up money !

Things are different here in Canada/Ontario compared to the USA but some on here will argue not even when proven wrong .

As a real life example . Tim Hortons is a huge success here . It can hardly keep it's head above water in the USA , and that info from freinds who went there to operate stores and have moved back to Ontario .

Its all a matter of importance that one attains to oneself.

Obviously other people don't see the same importance of anything you or the ex-Ontario dairy farmer have said over the years to be worth suing.

The above lesson learned by every kindergarten student is equally-applicable to the anonymous gossip published on this site.

For example, the above poster conveniently ignores:

(A) the January 8, 2013 edition of the Financial Post which notes "One of the hurdles that Chobani has faced in coming to Canada has ... in Canada the total amount of yogurt allowable is strictly controlled"
(B) the January 29, 2013 edition of the Kingston Whig-Standard which notes "Chobani ws importing yogurt into Ontario, first under a three-month temporary import permit and then under a 12-month extension"
(C) the April 24, 2013 edition of the Canadian Grocer which notes "Greek yogurt maker couldn't secure long-term milk supply".

OK, my supply management loving friends, we have three different sources each of which, by definition, checks their facts rigorously before publishing anything - therefore, and since the information in all of these publications makes the above anonymous poster look like something that fell out of the south end of a north-bound cow:

(1) since Chobani had fifteen months to figure out the Canadian retailing scene, if the retailing scene was going to be any sort of impediment, Chobani wouldn't have spent any extra money on an approval process and/or trying to secure a site - yet when some anonymous blowhard has the gall to come on this site to claim that retail strategy was the "kiss of death", some people on this site actually believe this unverifiable and highly-improbable nonsense.
(2) When the Canadian Grocer claims that Chobani couldn't secure a long-term milk supply, and an anonymous blowhard claims on this site that they could, who is credible and who is not credible at all?

Let's put it this way - when some anonymous blowhard comes on this site and does nothing but dispute what nobody, to my understanding, has ever disputed when published by the above three publications, I have every right to trash this, or any other anonymous blowhard, and I will.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

(A) is simply false, the volume responds to market demand and has grown strongly in Canada for 15 years. Yogurt now uses 4 % of Canada's milk - twice as big as the relative US market.

(B) is irrelevant since they could get permits as long as they continued their plant construction. 

(C) is false, they had a milk supply guarantee in place with DFO.

(1) Yes, 15 months to figure out - that no amount of time could fix the structural barriers of the high concentration of ownership, exclusive dairy supply contracts of the three players that control 80% of the grocery market and the unavailability of the Walmart contract meant their retail reach was limited to about 8% of the market. And finally - also unlike the US - a mature yogurt market with a dozen well-established, highly promoted Greek yogurt brands. I thought you have an MBA?

(2) please see (C), above.  Yes, who is credible and who is not credible at all?

Who are you, where are your verifiable facts, and where can anyone find a link to them?

If you are claiming these three reputable publications are wrong, why can't you, and/or why won't you, come out of your rat-holes, identify yourselves, and prove what you are claiming?

I've stated my case, cited my references, and signed my name - I refuse to bow to cowards who can't do any of that.

I simply cannot understand why anonymous posters expect anyone to believe any of the garbage they post, especially when it flies in the face of information published by completely-reputable sources.

I still claim that the anonymous people on this site trying to defend supply management's role in this sordid affair are industry stooges, and nobody, especially members of the anonymous industry stooge squad, is prepared or able to prove otherwise.

The one thing about having an MBA, especially from the University of Western Ontario, is the ability to tell when somebody is trying to BS their way through something - and that's exactly what the above poster is trying to do.

Finally, nobody needs an MBA to figure out that no retailer is ever going to do anything to hinder sales of a product which will almost literally sell itself - yet that's exactly what the above anonymous poster is trying to persuade the gullible dupes on this site is what happened - once again, if it doesn't sound right,

(A) it probably isn't right
(B) it is supply management propaganda
(C) it is both
(D) it is an attempt by an anonymous poster to dupe gullible readers
(E) it is all of the above

Once again, this duplicity, and this secrecy on the part of anonymous supply management stooges to exonerate supply management, is exactly why supply management is not well-liked, and will not be missed.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

It must be an age thing or an attitude change while getting old . Your first line sounds all to much like what I heard an MP say when backed into a corner by a question put to him at a public event . He was then very quickly told he was wrong and the person asking the question was right . Seems the poster has the same syndrome of blaming some one else and coming up with lame excuses .

As for secrecy , is there not a witness protection program ?

While a witness protection program is an interesting thought, being anonymous seems to protect the "witless" posters on this site - there certainly seems to be a strong positive correlation between being witless and being anonymous, and there also seems to be an unending supply of both!

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Let me see if I've got this straight - an anonymous poster comes on this site, claims this, that, and the other, offers absolutely no identity, and offers not one shred of evidence to support his/her claims, especially to support his/her claim that Chobani had an adequate supply of milk, and people on this site fall all over themselves to congratulate this poster on his/her honesty and his/her acuity.

Yet when I cite three reputable, widely-published sources to prove the anonymous blowhard wrong, I become "ToxicT", and the anonymous blowhard still claims -"I'm anonymous and I'm right - Thompson, the Kingston Whig-Standard, the Canadian Grocer and the Financial Post are all wrong", and yet the anonymous blowhard still doesn't offer one shred of verifiable evidence to support and/or corroborate his/her claims, and what's worst of all, still claims to be credible.

I mean, really, like me or not, I've just shot a whole barrel full of anonymous fish, which is exactly what this site invites me, or anyone else to do, and the owner of the barrel still refuses to believe it, thereby demonstrating exactly why anonymous postings are garbage - Have a nice anonymous day!

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I will have a nice anonymous day. Thank you. Others will have a nice supply management day. Some seem happier than others here. Maybe it's because we focus on debating ideas rather than getting angry and attacking (bullying) the source of the ideas.

For some inexplicable reason, anonymous posters seem to be unable to grasp the concept that anonymous postings are, by definition, the ultimate in bullying, especially when the so-called ideas expressed by the anonymous bullies aren't ideas at all, but unverifiable and unsupportable gossip.

Even worse is that when they are quite-rightly pounded into the ground, anonymous posters seem to always grasp at straws by claiming that they promoted "ideas" rather than unsupportable gossip as if they were in the service of some noble cause which allowed them to get away with acting as if "the ends justified the means".

Even in utter defeat, anonymous posters never seem to be able to admit they were either wrong or bullies, but, instead, follow the time-honored, and cowardly tradition of blaming others, as is clearly the case here.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton, ON

Considered, logical opinion - even when anonymous - is preferable to toxic rantings like these posts - even though they are signed!

Toxic Thompson is the perfect description based on the reactions. Bullying, childish rants like these consistently display all the  classic traits of a toxic personality. This was covered intensively while studying group dynamics and interpersonal dynamics in courses at University. We learned that one of the biggest signs is that toxic people need to dominate every conversation. Since they think they are the smartest person in the room, everyone else must always be wrong. 

With toxic people, what would normally be conversations usually escalate into violent arguments. You can also forget about them ever considering your point of view since their point of view is fact. When somebody sees a conversation as a challenge to their manhood, they must win and it’s nearly impossible to have a useful, healthy dialog. They almost always have trouble maintaining healthy relationships.

Toxic is as toxic does, so let's leave it alone people, please.

When this anonymous poster grows a pair and puts their money where his/her mouth is, they might earn themselves a shred of respect, whether right or wrong.

Hard to believe he/she has a university education, looks like they studied liberal arts.


Raube Beuerman

Anonymous comment deleted by editor.

Are you trying to say that the only people who are smart have a university education ? ?? I think you best think long and hard about your statement and how you have cut down your own family .

I see on here some posters who sign their name who claim to be highly educated who can't answer questions , they can't admit to being proven wrong and resort to childish antics , claim to have a big pair that suddenly shrink to raisins when called out . Feel sorry for you guys .

Further you best check your education or send back your diploma . You can't even get singular and plural right in your sentences ! Kindergarten kids know that much Sunkist Boy !

All those words which can be condensed into one quote-I am too afraid to put my name on my post, so I will attack you instead.

Raube Beuerman

When anybody anonymously tries to hide or twist the truth, and this site is rife with this sort of behaviour, every reader has the obligation to take issue, and in the strongest-possible manner, with this anonymous "bullying".

While the above conveniently-anonymous poster waxes eloquent about what they may, or may not, have learned about group and/or interpersonal dynamics in University, he/she must have been asleep during the class when it was explained to the students who were awake that, by definition, being anonymous is the biggest sign that someone has an absolute need for control, and that it is, by definition "impossible to have a useful, health dialog" with someone who insists on preserving control of that dialog by remaining anonymous.

In addition, the above anonymous poster has, as might be expected, things completely-backwards - it's the anonymous cowards like the above poster who have trouble maintaining healthy relationships because nobody knows who they really are, and/or what they represent.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I have never posted as anonymous ..but I am in full agreement with the description of Toxic Personality....we need to get this FARMING FORUM back to being informative and a discussion of farm topics

Stan Holmes

Wow , I must have to kneel down to the highly educated name signing people on this forum . Decided to see what was going on and it is the same o same o going on and nothing about what would help people out, but you sign your name so I can tear you apart.
Guess I will sign off anonymous and maybe look back in a couple of months to see if there is anything on this forum that people are writing that will give advice to help people and not Bulling them into submission.

Aside from continuing to ignore the basic political truth which is that as far as Quebec's supply managed dairy farmers were concerned, the Ontario-based Chobani plant had to be stopped because it would give Ontario's supply managed dairy farmers (see Ian Cumming's article as posted on this site by Mr. Beuerman) a substantial percentage increase in the national dairy market share (at the notable, albeit unproven, expense of Quebec's dairy farmers), the above anonymous poster continues to be slippery, and even duplicitous, with basic marketing truths.

For example, all Chobani would have needed to do to avoid all of this mess would have been to contact the above anonymous poster even before they invested (see the Kingston Whig-Standard article I referred to previously) in even as much as a three-month trial period. I mean, really, if the above anonymous poster knows so much, and is such an authority on the marketing reality of dairy products, his/her knowledge must be so wide-spread that nobody, including Chobani, would have ever invested not just three months in a test market, but also an additional twelve, and then gone on to waste even more money by trying to secure a plant and a long-term supply of product.

More to the point, the Economics department of every University in Canada has at least one professor who is well-versed in the marketing of agricultural products and who, for a very-modest fee, would, if the above anonymous poster was in any way correct about the marketing of dairy products, have told Chobani to not even do a three-month test market. That Chobani seems to have ignored what the above anonymous poster seems to believe is self-evident, and have done it for fifteen months, and then seemed to have learned nothing, is preposterous beyone the pale.

In addition, the above anonymous poster, while claiming the structure of the Canadian dairy processing and distributing sector is highly-structured to the point of being an oligopoly, never examines why this oligopoly might hypothetically exist in the first place, and the smoking gun points directly at supply management.

An oligopoly is a quite-understandable response to the monopoly of supply management. When supply is as restricted as it is with supply management, and when price ceases to be part of the marketing mix as it is with supply management, it is understandable that the market for dairy products in a supply managed system becomes stagnant and may, as it is in Canada but not in the US, actually decline in total volume of product purchased. Therefore, even if the existing dairy processing and dairy distributing sector does tightly control 80% of the grocery market, this could only happen as a response to a supply managed system which makes a mature market only worse by tightly controlling supply and never using price as a component of the marketing mix.

Therefore, it is, I suggest, absolutely clear to any reasonably-intelligent individual that Chobani would definitely be in Canada by now if not for supply management, either in the form of jealous Quebec dairy farmers, or the purported (and yet quite-logical) distortions in the processing and distributing sector for dairy products caused by supply management.

Therefore, for the above anonymous poster to claim that Chobani was forced out of Canada by marketplace reality is duplicitous and ignores not just what was published in the National Grocer about Chobani not being able to secure a long-term supply of milk, but also ignores the adverse structural effect supply management may, albeit hypothetically, have on that marketplace reality.

In any event, I smell a very-large, and very-anonymous rat with a blue Cow's head on it. Nobody except a supply management stooge could ever have mustered as much, albeit unsupportable, "data" in as short a period of time as the above anonymous poster. Nobody except a supply management stooge could have ignored so much direct evidence (see the article in the National Grocer) implicating supply management, and nobody except a supply management stooge could have made the preposterous argument that marketing realities were to blame for Chobani's departure and yet have also studiously ignored the glaringly-obvious point that any/all of these so-called "realities" were caused directly by supply management's interference in the market in the first place. What's more, nobody except a supply management stooge would be so-arrogant, and so-dismissive as to try to trash my credentials when my arguments are exactly the arguments any well-informed layperson, (and/or Globe and Mail reporter) would make in the same circumstances.

Finally, to all those people who claim my "toxicity" negates all I do - a pox on you all. Exposing "rats" like the above anonymous poster is toxic work because rats always seem to be able to hide their toxicity.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Completely ignores public statement by Chobani again.

Cites an opinion writer as your source.

Attacks people who disagree with you.

Name calling.

This is enough to make me support supply management unreservedly, which I don't.

Let me see if I've got this straight - a member of the anonymous "Whack-a-mole" rabble on this site assigns 100% credibility to a statement made by Chobani which may, or may not, have any validity at all. And really, why would Chobani publicly take issue with supply management given that if they do come back to Canada they'd still most-likely have to deal with supply management in any event?

The above anonymous poster seems to have never learned anything from Mad Magazine which, during the 1960s, featured a section called - "What they say versus what they really mean". That's why when when somebody claims "It's not about the money", it's always about the money, and also why when it is widely reported by respected industry publications that Chobani couldn't secure a long-term source of milk, nobody with an IQ bigger than their shoe size (unless they own quota) believes Chobani's face-saving claim that supply management had nothing to do with their decision to exit Canada.

It is, therefore, a marketing no-brainer for Chobani to have not "soiled the nest" by blaming supply management even when it is patently-obvious, for oodles of completely-obvious reasons, including unchallenged articles in respected industry publications, that supply management is entirely where the blame should be placed.

To look at things in another way - is an unchallenged, and therefore factually-correct article in a national industry publication more credible than a company press release issued when beating a retreat?

More to the point, is this statement by Chobani any more of an "opinion" than the "facts" presented by Mr. Cumming and which, to my understanding, have never been challenged? It appears that, once again, supply management supporters have this perverted sense of reality - anything which even anonymously supports and/or exonerates supply management is to be treated with gospel reverence, anything which criticizes supply management, even when factually unchallengeable, is unsupportable opinion.

Furthermore, it is definitionally impossible to engage in "name-calling" with someone who, like the offending anonymous poster, has no name and severely needs to be trashed because of it.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Wow, You devote extraordinary amounts of energy to desperately maintain your precious, fragile facade that you must always be right.

You don't recognize that your understanding of the Chobani situation is superficial and so blinkered that you can't accept any information that does not fit your point of view since your point of view is always fact.

It is almost laughable that you, and others, wrongly state that a new Ontario yogurt plant would mean "a substantial percentage increase in the national dairy market share" of Ontario over Quebec.

Wrong, since with the pooling of all milk sales, increases are shared across all dairy farmers east of Manitoba.  Growth is good for all dairy farmers and shared in the five province eastern pool. Just because the error was printed does not render it true - don't believe everything you read.

What you miss is that the major Canadian yogurt processor is in Quebec, and of course they would fight any new entrant. That was the reason for the moves in Quebec, not farmer/supply management related, but driven by processor business interests and they orchestrated the farmers bussed to the meetings. 

Next, you reach to say that the SM monopoly created conditions that birthed a processing oligopoly, and while it was obviously one factor,  it has little or nothing to do with this discussion. My reference was clearly to the Canadian retail grocery market oligopoly where the three-firm concentration ratio of 80% and four-firm ratio of 92% ratio (including Walmart's 12%) meant no opportunity for retail success for Chobani. 

Of course, Chobani knew it before they started, but they were working a solid business plan.

Everyone has completely overlooked the huge success of Chobani's 15 months of supplemental import access to Canada. It made  a LOT of money. They could put export-subsidized US milk program prices  into product they sold tariff-free into the higher retail priced Canadian market at much, much better margins. And, best of all for Chobani, the  move leveraged federal and state governments to fork over $55 million for Chobani's Idaho plant alone!

For info, check out the article "Yogurt plant opens, Idaho leaders celebrate crony culture" at Watchdog.org or just Google for Chobani government grants and subsidies.

Chobani had smart business plans and executed them. They did not fail to enter the Canadian market, they took advantage of opportunities and made large amounts of money  in Canada and the US. 

Try to take off your SM-hating blinkers and think about the business.

I don't know about tax preparation. Give yourself permission to accept that you don't understand the complexities of the processing and retail grocery business.

It would be good therapy..., come on now....repeat after me....Stephen Thompson does not know it all. Other people can say it, you can too.

I stand by everything I publish and I sign my name when I do - I will not bow to, or back away from, any coward who cannot do the same, especially when they cannot and/or will not cite any references to corroborate what they claim.

For example, the above anonymous poster claims Chobani had a "solid business plan" but never divulges what that business plan was and/or why it was "solid", and most importantly, never divulges how, where, or from who, he/she obtained this information. What's worse is that we are expected to completely-believe this nonsense even though it can't be corroborated. In addition, the above anonymous poster claims Chobani made a "lot" of money during the 15 month test market yet never reveals how much money Chobani made, and/or why it was a "lot" and even how he/she knows this "information"

Most-importantly, the above anonymous poster has, by virtue of the wording of the above posting, almost certainly revealed himself/herself to be a supply management stooge because he/she never disputed either the validity of any of the sources I cited, or my major point which is that if we didn't have supply management, Chobani would by now have a plant operating in Canada.

Finally, the worst part of this anonymous poster's arrogance is his/her haughty and dismissive attitude that "I'm anonymous and therefore I know more about the complexities of the processing and retail grocery business than anyone"

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I thought he outlined the plan pretty clearly using information observed from the public record.

Let's see.... Let me try and recap it for you.

Go very convincingly through the motions of preparing to build Canadian operations so they qualified for temporary import permits to bring yogurt into Canada. Public Fact.

That gave them access to world price for milk ingredients to make into yogurt which could then be sold at the much higher margins permitted by the Canadian retail price. Public Fact.

Meanwhile they created political leverage that helped them to get $55 million worth of grants for their Idaho plant. Public Fact.

I think it's pretty fair to call that a lot of money and it was a solid plan because it worked.

Most of us followed it easy enough.

Oh, and I don't think he was trying to say he knows more about the retail grocery business than anyone - he just showed that he knows more than you.

From what I've read, I don't think that's arrogant, I just think it's accurate.

But one area that you win first prize in always, is for the haughty and dismissive attitude that you only see in others. Look in the mirror and re-read your own posts.

You and a couple of your lap dogs will never see it, but this guy clearly has your measure.

One one hand we have an article in the April 24, 2013 edition of the Canadian Grocer as well as an article in the January 8, 2013 edition of the Financial Post, both of which quote Chobani officials as saying "One of the hurdles Chobani has faced in coming to Canada has been acquiring an adequate long-term milk supply".

On the other hand, we have an anonymous poster who effectively claims that the Financial Post and the Canadian Grocer are both wrong, yet offers not one scintilla of evidentiary material to corroborate his/her claims, and then goes on to provide so-called, and completely-unsupported data to make another leap-of-faith claim that it was the oligopoly of food retailing that scuttled Chobani rather than the monopoly of supply management.

When something is this completely-unsupported by any verifiable data, and flies in the face of not just common sense, but also a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, it is worth examining.

For example, the above anonymous poster:

(1) trashes my credentials yet never provides any of his/her own
(2) trashes my sources yet never provides any of his/her own
(3) claims that Chobani was scuttled by the oligopolistic food industry instead of supply management, in spite of the fact that the first ten pages of references arising when one Googles "why Chobani is no longer in Canada", makes no reference to food retailing at all.
(4) claims that Chobani had a "smart business plan" yet never reveals what qualifies him/her to make that assessment, never reveals how he/she came to know what that plan was, and never reveals why it was a "smart business plan"
(5) never explains how Chobani could have such a "smart business plan" yet be so incredibly stupid as to not know upfront, let alone after 15 months of test-marketing, that the Canadian grocery business was impenetable.
(6) claims that Chobani was promised milk by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, but was too slippery with the truth to mention that, according to the January 8, 2013 edition of the Financial Post, it was for one year only.
(7) conveniently forgets to mention the whole issue of global plant quota for yougurt and the facts, again reported in the January 8, 2013 edition of the Financial Post, that a November 2011 agreement between five of eastern Canada's dairy farm organizations, "suddenly established a global plant quota for yogurt for the region. In the allocation of quota, 70% ws awarded to Quebec. No new quota was added for Ontario where Chobani was applying to build its plant. Chobani had Ontario government approval for the plant but with no quota there is no milk supply. That's the way the system works in Canada."
(8) never explains how and why, if the Canadian retail market for dairy products is so-imprenetable, Chobani managed to get distribution for its 15 month test market and why, based on what were, by any measure, runaway sales based on taste, not price, any retailer wouldn't fall all over themselves to try to sell something which could, almost literally, fly off the shelves.

Therefore, by any measure of evidentiary weighting, there is an abundance of verifiable evidence to support the claim that Chobani would very-much be in Canada if not for supply management, and absolutely no evidence to support the above poster's claim that the food retailing industry had anything to do with anything - this, my friends, is an example of a supply management stooge desperately cherry-picking through factual evidence and pulling invented, undocumented, and uncorroborated evidence out-of-a hat in order to divert the attention of the gullible away from where blame for the Chobani fiasco truly belongs - supply management.

The worst thing about this travesty is that if is wasn't for the "Toxic" people on this site, this industry stooge would likely have gotten away with his/her manipulation of the truth.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

If Chobani no had all those guaruntees and backed out sm should be worried Chobani would not give up free quota a small monopoly if they thought it was going to last

I am not gossip.
Nobody is going to prove you wrong ,unless they tell lies and lies are not proof. Here is a good article that explains the underhanded dealings that Chobani had to deal with at the hands of Supply Management. My compliments to the author.

"Why all the court drama to stop Chobani yogurt if it only means a new buyer for cheap surplus milk?

By Ian Cumming

The yogurt battle had begun. On one side were the lawyers representing Canada’s attorney general and the U.S.-based Chobani yogurt company, which wants to build a huge Kingston-area plant, a welcome sign to dairy producers. On the other side, were Canada’s yogurt processors arguing that a new yogurt company would put supply management in peril.

The irony was that while the yogurt processors argued they were protecting supply management by wanting to keep Chobani out, the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) in-house counsel Graham Lloyd was sitting and discussing with the other side.

It took the yogurt processors over seven hours in the Montreal courtroom to make two points: that sacred supply management does not allow Ontario producers to ramp up production for a new plant and that a new Ontario-built plant shows bias against Quebec.

Editor: Copyright laws prevent publishing the complete column without permission. If the writer has a URL please post it.

I would not refer to this column as "rubbish" but it is nevertheless an opinion not an objective report. It's written by someone known for strong opposition to supply management. I mean no disrespect in saying this the individual himself has said this many many times.

The had a choice to either buy Canadian milk to sell their product in Canada or they could have imported milk .
Now I don't know but who would have thunk it was that hard to figure out ? Guess some simply things really baffle some who think they are smart .

Further it is not any whre near the same doing business in Ontario with the sky high and ever increasing hydro rates that are bing supported by general farm organizations . This alone would have been enough to kill any thought of a company wanting to set up here . Then add in the taxes and other sky high costs like wages . It doomed to fail before it started .

Hardly worth making a reply to you, your post is so full of nothing I don't know where to start. Chobani could not get a supply of milk in Canada. The end.

Raube Beuerman

I'm would appreciate it if you could point me to your source for your statement. This is not what I saw in any of the credible articles I read about this company. Thank you.

I see my statement has been backed up by more than a few postings .
The TROLL was and is correct . Sorry about your bad luck . Maybe some day you too will see the light before being judged .

Nobody has agreed with you, all the anonymous posts here are from one person.

Prove otherwise.

Raube Beuerman

Chobani company public statements prove him wrong.

Three posts from the same anonymous clown.

I have no idea why this person enjoys living in blissful ignorance.

Here is a link with the facts, hopefully BF will leave it on.

Raube Beuerman

Ms.Dessureault is still smarting over not being informed about changes reguarding inmport rules on US Cheese Pizza kits...that's unfortunate, she's not quite inportant as she thought she was.

In a side view,it was thought Ontario milk producers would see a 1% increase in quota if Chobani was built.Producers just recieved a 3% quota raise!

That was 2 years ago but apparently ..

Editor: anonymous comment modified in accordance with our guidelines

Ok, let's see.... Beuerman quotes Romahn whose source is to quote Cumming.
A new definition of zero credibility!
Other people have been quoting Chobani regarding Chobani. Hmmnnnn......

When Ontario Farmer starts publishing anonymous articles instead of those from Mr. Cumming or Mr. Romahn, he/she may have a point.
Any chance of that happening?
Do pigs fly?

Raube Beuerman

Ontario Farmer did publish Chobani telling the real Chobani story, but let's continue to ignore it.
Why go to the source when you can repeat gossip?

When and where? I never saw that. Think about it. What would it say about Chobani if they told one story to Ontario Farmer and another one to all other papers?

I didn't say they "only" told their story to Ontario Farmer or that it was a different story.
Their statements were in OF, BF and many others... all the same statements. Others on this forum have already provided the BF links. Others are making interpretations of Chobani's action based on gossip, agenda or opinion but Chobani spoke for themselves..go to the source ... You will find the facts disprove Beuerman. End of story.
But, I suspect, not the end of his trying to rewrite history.

Editor: Comment will be published if resubmitted and signed.

You are so guilty of being wrong that you are paranoid !
Sadly it seems your widdle fweelwings got hurt again .

I am right and I know I am right . Just accept the fact that you are wrong and try not to cry about it and call people names . Be an example for your kids to respect and look up to .

I don't have to post replies to my postings like others do . Sort of like having a conversation with yourself . Those people might be classed as having problems . You have a problem with the fact that others have backed my posting then prove it/me wrong . Until then be on the look out for a troll with a can .

You don't need anyone to agree with you - the facts agree - that is what bothers them.

Minimum wage laws is protectionism. The high wage level compared to other countries have driven out good-paying manufacturing jobs out of this province. The high level of wages the provinces dictates is a violation of my own economic freedoms as a employer. Food would be cheaper is the wage level is lower.

Did I miss something? I seem to recall that Chobani was very clear that supply management and the milk board were factors in their departure.

In general I prefer the quality of information from anonymous contributors on this site.

Once again an anonymous poster can't seem to understand that it is definitionally-impossible to get quality information which can be neither attributed nor verified - it's called gossip.

In addition, anonymous posters do provide some entertainment value because of their foggy, and often-indecipherable writing style - for example, I can't understand if the above poster is:

(A) a supply management supporter who doesn't understand grammar
(B) a supply management opponent who can't follow the time lines of a story.

All things considered, in order to not identify the poster as either, it's probably best that he/she stayed anonymous.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Aside from the usual attack on an individual instead of an idea what a strange statement. The fact is gossip is circulated by both named and unnamed individuals.

Did you ever hear about Politics ? It is a shady,deceitful business at best. Chobani was playing good politics when they left Canada along with all their potential jobs and absolved everybody of all their crooked schemes. They will be back.

Meanwhile, back at the farm ,Skotidakis Greek Yogurt thanks all politicians for the $4,000,000 in taxpayer loot that he received while you stonewalled Chobani. The business is now a success.

Chobani recieved up to 54 million in Government grants and worker training reimbursements for their Twin Falls,Idaho plant.

They were not going to get that up here,just another reason for beating a hasty retreat back south of the border.

The anonymous poster who is so desparately arguing under this story must be either someone from the Ontario yogurt makers or is a Quebec dairy farmer/lobbyist.
This anonymous poster does not speak for Ontario dairy farmers.

If this anonymous poster is from Ontario, then he/she is by far the most stupid Ontario dairy farmer.

Raube Beuerman

1% Quota increase if Chobani stayed,3% Quota increase now that they have withdrew.

I only wish they would try and come in again...but then l hear they are having some layoffs down there, the bubble has burst.

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published. Comments are modified or deleted at the discretion of the editors. If you wish to be identified by name, which will give your opinion far more weight and provide a far greater chance of being published, leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published.