Three-litre milk will soon be available in Ontario stores

© AgMedia Inc.

Comments

This Kafkaesque story could unfold in only a supply managed system or in a Soviet-style system. In any other system, somebody would have test-marketed, at their own expense, three litre containers ten years ago when it was first contemplated.

And, gasp, in a supply managed system, it would be almost a capital offense for anyone to get a "head start" as noted by Christina Lewis, President of the Ontario Dairy Council. This means that, once again, in the minds of supply management, it is better to screw everyone rather than allow anyone to take the initiative to better meet the needs of consumers.

Or to look at things another way, if supply management ran the consumer electronics business, the big thing this Christmas would still be eight-track tape players.

And yet there are still people, apparently all quota-owners, who can't understand why supply management is not well-liked, and will not be missed.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

One has to wonder if these new containers will be re-usable containers . It should really be mandatory that new made in Canada containers not go to the landfill sites .
As for any thing else it does not matter to me as I don't drink milk . Not sure why but it doesn't mix well with Crown Royal .

You have been playing that "not well liked" and "not be missed" tune since way before 8-Track tapes, l'm guessing maybe almost 50 years.

It was not a popular tune with consumers and Politicians then, or now.

I can't tell whether you're claiming:

(A) supply management isn't a popular tune with consumers and politicians, or
(B) it's my claim that's not a popular tune with consumers and politicians

In any event, I suggest the evidence is abundantly clear from the Kafkaesque, time consuming, and expensive nature of the process that people have to go through just to get a certain type of package approved, that supply management stifles innovation at the considerable expense of consumers, and what's worse is that the people in charge of this monster seem to be proud that it does.

What's even more-bizarre is that every time I think supply management has exhausted all the ways to make itself look stupid, greedy, and driven by Soviet-style "command and control" procedures put in place for the sole benefit of farmers with quota, supply management plunges to yet a new-low, and this is a prime example of yet another new-low.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

It is simple. Milk package size regs are entirely the purview of government through OMAFRA - not controlled by supply management at all.  

Editor: Anonymous ccomment edited to comply with our guidelines.

Yes, OMAFRA controls packaging.

The point is the pushback in the process was quoted from the head of the dairy processors group, the Ontario Dairy Council, that is controlled by three big processors that are naturally trying to slow down competition. It is business use of regs to interfere with competitors. Business is not nice - it is business.

They are using their ODC membership and market clout for business purposes. 

And, in response to other comments, of course this about downsizing packaging size and confusing consumers about price points. Most people understand this easily.

I am really waiting for SM to be identified as the obvious culprits of early snow storms and the real and only cause of honeybee Colony Collapse Disorder.

If supply wasn't so closely-controlled by supply management in order to take price out of the marketing mix, the oligopolistic nature of the dairy processing industry wouldn't be this pronounced and competition would, once again, return to the dairy marketplace, all for the benefit of consumers.

Supply management apologists continually ignore the basic business truth that oligopolies are created in response to, and/or intensified by, monopolies - if the the supply management monopoly was to disappear, and price once again returned to the marketing mix for dairy products, the present oligopolistic nature of the processing sector will disappear too because there would once again be, as it is in the US, an increasing primary demand.

Therefore, the oligopolistic nature of the processing industry is entirely the fault of the wretched excesses of the monopoly of supply management.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Demonstrating such a faultless understanding of economics.

As Thompson says, no natural monopolies or oligopolies are created by markets.

They are caused by SM.
Thanks for the wisdom.

Wait.

Actually, There are lots of oligopolies without SM....

Microsoft -  90 % of PC OS world wide.
Two flat screen TV producers, control 90% of world market
Fonterra has 90% of NZ milk processing (ie the NZ milk marketing board with quotas in kg of total solids issued as shares)
There are hundreds of examples. Beer, silicon chips, PV panels......

The world has a lot more concentrated in ownership since 1970.
For a good overview and introduction, check out Forbes magazine at forbes.com -  "The 147 Companies That Control Everything"
The highlights .....
147 control 40 % of global economic production
737 control 80 % of global economic production

The basic business truth is that the goal of competition is to eliminate competition.

So Thompson's premise that removing SM would end Canada's processing oligopoly is completely and utterly false - and frankly infantile, ideological thinking. 

Editor: Anonymous comment modified in accordance with our guidelines.

The basic economic truth, always avoided by the anonymous rabble, is that monopolies tend to create and/or accentuate oligolopies. Therefore, by first principles, because the monopoly of supply management serves to turn an expanding primary market for milk (as it is in the US) into a contracting primary market for milk (as it is in Canada), oligopolies in the marketing channel are created and/or strengthened as a logical, and completely-understandable response.

Therefore, if the supply management monopoly was to disappear, and we were finally allowed to include price in the marketing mix once again, we would mirror the US in that we would, once again, have an increasing primary demand for milk and dairy products. When the oliogopolies in the marketing channel are once again dealing with an increasing primary demand, they will, once again, be able to move to economies of scale, and because the monster of plant quota will be killed, be able to compete for market share.

It's really too-bad that this site's anonymous supply management supporting rabble always seems to find that regurgitating out-of-context data, and advancing sophomoric and one-sided economic arguments to be more useful than using common sense and relying on basic economic principles. For example, the above anonymous poster would seem to be swallowing the farmer-generated twaddle that we need the monopoly of supply management in order to deal with the oligopolies of the dairy marketing channel, completely oblivious to the basic economic principle that the "cure" of a monopoly is always far-worse than the "disease" of oligopolies - or in other words, supply management supporters always ignore the common-sense truth that while oligopolies are sometimes "bad", especially in a declining market, monopolies are always "awful".

Once again, the "infantile, ideological thinking" is, as always, entirely on the part of supply management supporters - what's worse, as is clearly demonstrated in the above anonymous posting, is that "thinking" and "supply managment supporters" is an oxymoron of the highest order.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Mr. Thompson remains true to his chosen beliefs about economic ideology. He knows how things should work in that theoretical view of markets. The real world is not that model - it is much messier and vastly more complicated. He focuses on theory and ignores reality.

One thing he studiously ignores is the fact that virtually every developed country has some system in place to manage milk production. Some have government-funded market clearance, others have guaranteed floor prices, food stamp purchases, water quotas that control herd size, co-op "shares" tied directly to milk production, set-aside programs and countless others, combinations and variations.

What none of them have is a free market in milk. This is not news - trade people know it very well. Unmanaged milk markets are dynamically unstable. Governments know this and remove the supply and price chaos by managing markets. The Canadian approach is regulated dairy monopolies. Rants will never change these real world realities.

 But some will always rant, basically saying - don't tell me what works in practice - I know how it should work in theory!

He won't ever learn or stop, but as the old saying goes - The dog barks, but the caravan moves on.

Canada, to my knowledge, continues to be the only country in the world where consumers pay, by means of a regressive consumption tax, almost the entire cost of supporting a domestic dairy industry - a system which is, by definition, the most net-negative dairy farm support system there could possibly be when it comes to jobs and economic activity, as well as the system most-likely to pit farmers against each other.

According to dairy farmer "theory", supply management shouldn't screw consumers and shouldn't pit farmers against each other, but it does both to the point where supply management, and its constantly-shrinking number of defenders, are becoming widely detested - I need only point to the plethora of markedly anti-supply management comments received by the Globe and Mail subsequent to every article about supply management.

Therefore, the only people adhering to theory and ignoring reality are, as always, supply management supporters.

Finally, for supply management supporters to claim that supply management is somehow supportable in the "real-world" instead of some other system which doesn't penalize consumers and other farmers:

(A) is nonsense and nothing more than a frantic and self-serving "white-wash"
(B) isn't likely to be believed by Globe and Mail readers, widely considered to be Canada's "decision-makers"
(C) is exactly the sort of drivel one might expect from anonymous illiterati.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Once again....studiously ignoring the fact that every developed country has a system in place to manage milk production. None of them have a free market in milk. Unmanaged milk markets are dynamically unstable and Governments know this and remove the supply and price chaos by managing markets. This will not change, that would be foolish.

The dog barks, but the caravan moves on.

One of the things that distinguishes supply management supporters, even the anonymous ones, is that they are so-welded to their ideology that they have no common sense ability to see the gaping flaws in their arguments.

For example, I can't believe anyone would be so-stupid and/or such a supply management ideologue as to claim I'm "studiously ingoring the fact that every developed country has a system in place to manage milk production" yet completely ignore the fact that I'd be delighted to see New Zealand's "system" put in place in Canada.

The scariest thing (and saddest thing for Canadian agriculture) is that supply management supporters seem to be such zealots and such ideologues that they actually believe the propaganda that Canada's system to manage milk production can be compared, in any meaningful way, to New Zealand's system.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

The above anonymous posting gives rise to the observation, loosely adapted from a Robin Williams quip, that "supply management supporters have enough blood to operate a brain and a keyboard, but not both at the same time"

For example, nobody but a supply management ideologue could be so dispossessed of common sense, and/or have so-little blood coursing through his/her brain, to claim I'm "studiously ingoring the fact that every developed country has a system in place to manage milk production" yet completely ignore the fact that I, and/or every other supply management critic, would be delighted to see New Zealand's "system" put in place in Canada.

The scariest thing (and saddest thing for Canadian agriculture) is that supply management supporters seem to be such zealots and such "head-of-the-pin" ideologues that they actually believe the propaganda that Canada's system to manage milk production can be compared, in any meaningful way, to New Zealand's system.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

When I have some time, this weekend, I will spend a bit of effort explaining why no other country can use the NZ dairy "system". The suggestion comes from a lack of trade knowledge. Understandable if your trade knowledge base is Canadian newspapers. Once people understand the basics of what "it" is and how it came into being, including its dependance on preferred WTO TRQ access, then the complete folly of Mr. Thompson's comment will be evident to most people - but not, of course, to him.

Why would anyone so profusely against Canada's Supply Management and endlessly fighting for the rights of the poor consumer want a system like New Zealand? They have some of the highest retail milk prices of any Industrialized country in the world.
New Zealand is the largest dairy commodity exporter in the world but this is of powder and other products not fresh milk.They have virtually only one processor and two supermarket chains,which means there is not much competition.
According to Statistics New Zealand, the price of fresh milk jumped by 3.2 percent in October and over 6% in the past year.

The cost of milk is just bewilderingly high in a country that produces so much.

It is something that Dairy leaders in this Country have said for years.We may not have the perfect system,we may not have the lowest milk prices but we certainly don't have the highest and a system that is fair for consumers and farmers alike without mindbending subsidies and without the peaks and valley's of world prices.

New Zealands Milk Industry system seems to be "Lets flood the world with cheap milk products and to hell with our own consumers"

It somes that a bit of knowledge can be dangerous especially combined with an over-inflated opinion of himself.

In developed countries world wide.
Pop, goes your argument, as usual.

In response to "Cause and Effect - SM Apologists Miss the Point, As Always"

http://betterfarming.com/comment/15010#comment-15010

The Rule of Three and Four, developed by the Boston Consulting Group in 1976 ( see

https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/Classics/strategy_the_rule_of_th... ) describes what typically

happens in highly competitive markets:

"A stable competitive market never has more than three significant competitors, the largest of which has no more

than four times the market share of the smallest."

If we assume all of the other market participates hold 10% or less market share, then the 3 big players who "own"

the rest of the market will hold 54%, 27%, and 13% market share.

This Rule of Three and Four tends to be the limiting equilibrium point, the overall market optimum.

If one of the market players makes a big mistake, or gets a significant break (eg. disruptive technological or

financial advances), that equilibrium as defined by the Rule of Three and Four can spiral into a monopoly, or

spiral the opposite direction into a splintered market where there is huge upheaval, nobody is stable or safe, and

bankruptsies and/or mergers and acquistions are occurring repeatedly.

The Rule of Three and Four describes the "sweet spot" that is good for both consumers and all market participants.

The goal of government is to set policy so that fractured markets are helped and encouraged to go towards the Three

and Four equilibrium point, and monopolies/oligopolies are forced to become more dynamic and competitive, allowing

any market player to unseat any of the three dominant market players who get lazy or sloppy.

Supply Management is bad government policy because it crowns the bureaucracy as "King for Life" in the market

place.

After 50 year as King, they are long in the tooth, sloppy, misguided, and working soley for themselves, rather than

serving the people.

Supply Management is bad government policy.

It is only a matter of time and even more outrageous behaviour by the Supply Management Kings before the people

awake from their trusting sleep, demand better treatment and justice for all, and the Supply Management Kings will

be deposed.

I do not advocate violence towards anybody. However, look to Ukraine, Lybia, the Arab Spring, Syria, and many other

recent examples.

The Supply Management Kings can decide to become more responsive, fair, and effective for the benefit of consumers,

and to extend their reign indefinately. However, Kings rarely do this, as it is hard work, and not seen as

necessary.

Therefore, the Supply Management Kings may soon go too far. They may continue to grow more and more powerful,

arrogent, and callously invincible.

The Supply Management Kings have already moved to protect themselves and their dysfunctional monopoly, starting up

their propaganda machine by hiring a Media Manager and communications consultant.

Soon, they may feel forced to start taking increasingly vicious steps so as to stop themselves from being deposed.

Soon, they may push the public too far. Dictators and monopolists usually take that fatal step in the end.

In that case, the Supply Management Kings will turn their de-throning into either a beheading, a lynching, or some

similar fate reserved for evil Kings, dictators, tyrants, and similar folk.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farming of Canada

CORRECTION! SM is great government policy. It provides stability. Buyers of a product pay a fair price. Sellers don't have to run to government begging for a handout at taxpayer expense like farmers without supply management have been guilty of doing.

Then why is it then that Gov has SM listed as a major portion of Gov Support dollars ?
Pop went your self serving balloon !

In response to "Correction! SM is Great" http://betterfarming.com/comment/15017#comment-15017

You say SM provides stability.

There is an important difference between fossilization and stability.

How is it fair to Canadians to force 38 million people to pay from 50% more to 300% more for essential food so that 2,700 chicken farmers can be multi-millionaires?

CFO applied for and received a $799,522 government handout to buy German-made software. Canadian taxpayers money going to German programmers and software developers. It's unfortunate that Canada has no computer programmers available to do this important work.

CFO applied for and received a $72,500 government grant to fund the auditing of CFO's on-farm food safety auditing (see http://canadiansmallflockers.blogspot.ca/2013/11/is-cfc-self-funded-or-c... )

In spite of the above, CFO has repeatedly claimed they are totally self funded.

As we can see, CFO is a liar, just as Supply Management system is a lie to the general public.

It's most unfortunate that CFO and other Supply Management organizations practice to deceive, and it's also unfortunate that many persons just like you, believe their propaganda.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada

Reading my Ontario Farmer there is a story on how Canada ranks as a food exporter . Story does mention the protectionist policies for SM .

Question needs to be asked of FCC is why keep supporting SM if it is limiting our ability to export products ? Get rid of SM and unlock our potential .

Go to town, no limits on exports on most Ag production - except those under SM.

Odd that some of these export markets have only opened up since COOL came into effect.
If and when COOL is recinded,l fully expect we will be going back to ignoring those markets.

If supply management has nothing to do with the process, then why is Commission Chair, Geri Kamenz, quoted as saying the Commission's decision - "is a very measured and disciplined approach to the ongoing evolution of supply management"?

The fact of the matter is that even Geri Kamenz realizes it's all about supply management and, therefore, any government "control" is entirely for the benefit of supply management, not consumers, and that's why it is duplicitous and self-serving nonsense for the anonymous supply management apologists on this site to claim otherwise.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

I just assumed he or she was agreeing with u

The way I see it, this is another way for processors to shrink down the package size of what they sell, as has been done now with bacon, chips (products both supply managed and not)

They now sell 750ml of chocolate milk at the store for $1 and people rush to buy it because they think they are getting a deal, when in reality, it's more money than it used to be!

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Image CAPTCHA
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.