STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
Mr. James DeWolfe
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will call the Standing Committee on Resources to order. I am Jim DeWolfe, Chairman of the committee. We have with us Allison Grant, the former President of the Nova Scotia Organic Growers Association and Allison will be our main presenter today. Hopefully, she will be joined by Julia Cooper who is an Organic Inspector, a little later, and former President, as well, of the association. Also with us is John Wilson and John Is helping Allison with the slide presentation.
Before we get under way, I think what we will do, Allison, is we will go around the table and introduce ourselves. For the purpose of Hansard, who are recording the presentation, I will remind everyone to talk well into the mikes because we have had some problems in the past. The mikes are sort of directional, so you try to talk toward the mike. Perhaps we will start with you, Mr. Chipman.
[The committee members introduced themselves.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are also joined by members of the press and Hansard and Darlene Henry is the committee worker assigned to this Resources Committee. Without further ado, I think I will turn the floor over to you, Allison, and I will remind you that normal procedure is that we go through with the presentation and then we will ask questions. If any of the members feel anxious to ask a question in mid-stream and it is not interfering with Allison's presentation, we will certainly allow that. So it is very informal and we are looking very much forward to your presentation, it should be most interesting.
MS. ALLISON GRANT: Thank you all for inviting us. As Mr. DeWolfe said, I have been the Past President of NSOGA. I have been a member for five years. I also have a unique position of being a retailer. I have been the Produce Manager at Great Ocean Health Food Store for over six years now and I have watched the growth from that perspective go from a very small store of over 4,000 square feet with 1,000 square feet devoted to strictly certified organic produce.
The Nova Scotia Organic Growers Association is a non-profit organization which was founded in 1993 to promote and support sustainable agriculture in Nova Scotia. We have over 150 members, including farmers, gardners, scientists, educators and consumers. Our main objectives - and we should have a visual for this - are to create a network and resource pool for those interested in organic and sustainable agriculture, to develop education programs to improve public awareness and provide information regarding crop and livestock production to our members. We maintain and administer a certification program which includes grower education and inspector training and most importantly, we certify, as organic, farm or industrial products that meet our certification standards.
Unlike other organic organizations, NSOGA is not just for farmers. Our association has established a community approach and believes NSOGA benefits from the consumer and the grower working together to support and promote organic and sustainable agriculture. The Nova Scotia Organic Growers Association is a volunteer organization with a board of directors, several working committees and is fortunate to have a part-time paid coordinator position. We are now joined by Julia Cooper, and she will help us field questions when this is over.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have only just begun.
MS. GRANT: I will continue. As I said, we are a volunteer organization, we have a board of directors, several working committees and are fortunate that we do have a part-time paid coordinator position at this time. A very active committee is the Certification Committee. They administrate and maintain NSOGA certification standards, train farm inspectors and provide certification for small and medium-sized producers in Nova Scotia.
The Education Committee produces our news letters, a biannual magazine, organizes workshops, farm tours and other events. The Research Committee conducts on-farm research into sustainable agriculture farming techniques and produces more educational material directly for our growers. Like many other volunteer organizations, the participation and results of these committees is proportional to the enthusiasm, dedication and energy of the committee members.
In order for NSOGA and our growers to remain economically viable, we have addressed the need for consumer education. We have found that the term organic and organic agriculture is not understood by most consumers or retailers. This fact has been indicated in
almost all marketing surveys and studies done to date. Therefore, it is important at this time for us to describe NSOGA's principles of organic agriculture as based on NSOGA's organic certification standards. These were originally adopted from the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements.
Our principles are to produce food of high nutritional quality in sufficient quantity for Nova Scotians; to encourage and enhance natural, biological cycles within the farm system; to maintain and increase long-term fertility of the soil; and to work as much as possible in a close system with regard to nutrients and organic matter and utilize renewable resources in a locally organized agricultural system; to avoid all forms of pollution that may result from agricultural activities; to give livestock conditions of life that allow them to perform all aspects of their innate behaviour; to maintain the genetic diversity of an agricultural system and its surrounds, including the protection of plant and wildlife habitats; to allow producers an adequate return and satisfaction from their work, including a safe working environment; and finally, to consider the wider social and ecological impact of the farming system.
To attain these objectives, organic growers have developed sustainable agricultural methods, certain techniques that respect natural, ecological balance and efficient farm systems. These techniques make it possible to produce food without the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and without using industrial farming methods that force plant and animal growth. These objectives are reached through the implementation of standards, enforcing the standards by independent inspectors and the certification process, and providing an audit trail to ensure a product can be traced to the producer who grew it and the field records of how it was grown. The outcome of this rigorous process is a certified organic product.
What does certified organic mean? Only farmers and/or producers who produce food according to the set standards, undergo evaluation by other certified growers and pass a yearly inspection can label their products as certified organic. Consumers may be confused by the terms pesticide-free, free-ranged, naturally produced, organic or wild-crafted. These terms alone do not mean it is a certified organic product, however a certified organic product can mean all those things.
It should be noted that many growers may meet the standards but do not submit to the certification process, many growers label their product organic but do not follow the standards, therefore the consumer must be educated to understand the terms and realize that a certified product will guarantee it will be the best possible quality.
I will give you the rundown of the certification process, which we have already mentioned can be quite rigorous. The NSOGA certification process is coordinated by the Certification Committee, which is a group of volunteer members including farmers, scientists and consumers. Applicants submit detailed farm questionnaires which are reviewed by the committee. If the committee approves the application, an independent organic inspector is
consulted. The inspector conducts an inspection of the farm or processing facility, and it submits the report back to the committee.
The committee then decides whether or not to grant NSOGA organic certification to the products. The certification committee has also established procedures for administering appeals, removal of certification and adopting new standards. The NSOGA certification process requires a minimum one-year waiting period before applications are considered for certification, and a three-year minimum waiting period for conventional farms. Organic procedures must be followed throughout the transition period, and annual inspections are required.
The Nova Scotia organic growers community has changed a lot in our own region. Interest in organic certification is increasing. In 1993, NSOGA certified 7 farms, and in 1999, we have certified 23 farms, 14 NSOGA-certified and 9 transitional. Our certified growers and producers cover a number of different commodities, including vegetables, fruit, field crops, herbs, meat, dairy products, honey and more. We are currently amending the standards to include processed products, eggs, sea vegetables and soil amendments, and have been asked to investigate certification of aquaculture products.
The numbers do not reflect the total landscape of organic growers because a number of Nova Scotia farms are certified by other certifying bodies. Our records show a total of 33 certified organic growers, with farmgate incomes ranging from under $10,000 a year to $250,000 a year. The majority of our growers are within an income of $5,000 to $25,000 range. Large numbers of our growers do have a second income from off-farm sources.
It should be noted that there are a number of growers who follow some organic practices but are not certified. The population of these growers is not known, but one only has to go to the Saturday markets to see that there is a large number and growing. This does cause a number of problems for the consumer and retailer, because there is presently no control over labelling or will to ensure that products are properly identified. Many food groups and some stores buy these products and mix non-certified food with certified food, quite often labelling both organic. Very few retailers will ensure that they buy only the certified product.
We will move on now to the national standards. Over the past five years, organic associations and various stakeholders have been meeting under the Canadian Organic Advisory Board or COAB to draft Canadian national standards which can be approved by the Canadian standards board. Establishing minimum national standards would provide an organic policy and standardization at a national level; this would facilitate export of organic products and ensure imports meet these standards. Adoption of national standards have not been completed and therefore how they will affect associations like NSOGA is not exactly understood. It must be noted that some legislation may be required to implement these standards.
Our present standards are equal or more stringent than the national standards. At this time, NSOGA is participating by representation at COAB and monitoring the development at the national level before solidifying any changes to our standards or process. Before the drafting of national standards, both British Columbia and Quebec have adopted provincial standards. Should Nova Scotia draft legislation to address provincial standards? Collectively we cannot advise on this; however, we would recommend a committee or advisory group be struck to address the matter.
The present state of the organic industry. A number of studies have been conducted recently which have shown tremendous growth in the industry. It also provides alarming indicators of an infrastructure and policy incapable of handling this explosive growth. A summary of current statistics of the industry shows that organic products have shown growth in the global market by 20 per cent to 25 per cent. This growth in the organic industry has surpassed the information technology industry; we are now number one for growth.
A number of market research firms confirm the United States Department of Agriculture reports of expected growth of U.S. organic food sales to increase by 150 per cent to $6.6 billion by the year 2000. Studies from Europe show similar growth, with many of the European Union countries unable to meet the demand of their consumers. Closer to home, the Canadian organic industry shows as well a growth of approximately 20 per cent. This growth is reflected in most of Canada, but not in the Maritimes.
Pulsifer Associates have just completed a report for the Canadian Farm Business Management Council on the potential for export of Atlantic Canadian organic produce to New England. This report identified that the organic industry is in its infancy and therefore information is very limited. Pulsifers' attempt to estimate the organic produce industry in the Maritimes identified that the consumers surveyed indicated purchases of organic produce of $3.1 million of a total share of $40.3 million; however produce managers of the retailers across the Maritimes did not stock sufficient organic produce to supply the 7.7 per cent of the organic market share. So this showed that either the Maritime consumer purchased their organic produce from farm markets at the farm gate or at places other than retail outlets. Pulsifer also identified that 3 out of 10 Maritime principal grocery shoppers perceived themselves as organic purchasers.
In all, the amount of organic products produced does not match the perceived amount of products used by consumers; this confirms the earlier statement about the level of knowledge of organic products by Maritimers and, in particular, the Nova Scotian consumer. Although potential for organic production in the Maritimes indicates that growers should find markets for their products, this has not always been the case. Many growers have found it difficult to break into the large retail chains and have not been able to obtain quotas for control products. As well, many farm markets and smaller outlets are hesitant to stock organic products and, if they do, will price and stock organic products with non-organic products.
Organic producers are faced with considerable consumer demand; however the demand is not supported by the willingness of retailers to purchase products from NSOGA growers. The lack of an adequate distribution system, lack of commitment from retailers who quite often stock California organic produce, and lack of marketing has led to a situation in which the consumers want but cannot easily buy Nova Scotian organic produce, and yet organic producers cannot necessarily sell their product. It is a frustrating situation for our growers to see this demand, grow the product, and then be unable to get it to the market place.
[9:30 a.m.]
The future of our industry? The Nova Scotia Organic Growers Association wants to stimulate demand for NSOGA-certified organic food and to facilitate connection between growers and consumers. NSOGA also realizes that as the industry grows, NSOGA must be proactive in developing education programs as well as a certification program to handle the growth. As an organization we are not ready for this and require assistance from government, the Department of Agriculture, and concerned stakeholders in the industry. NSOGA is currently the principal certifying body in Nova Scotia and we are prepared to provide a two-tiered certification system offering both NSOGA-organic certification to smaller producers and Canada-organic certification to producers who choose to export their product.
The Department of Agriculture, both at the federal and provincial level, must understand that the organic industry is no longer a niche market. The demand for organic products is growing faster than the present grower base can supply. We recommend that as a community of growers, researchers, extension officers, processors, and consumers, we develop a partnership and an action plan to educate and encourage growth in this industry based on sound research and sustainable practices.
NSOGA is a non-profit, volunteer-operated organization. Attempts to maintain a full-time coordinator's position, as well as other resources, to sustain the membership requirement has been very difficult. Presently a large proportion of both paid staff and volunteer efforts is dedicated to educating the consumer and the retailer; as well, many requests for information dealing with every aspect of organic agriculture is requested of our staff and in some cases the information is requested by or referred to us from a number of federal and provincial government departments.
As the industry grows, NSOGA presently does not have the membership base and revenue generation to sustain full-time staff to handle the resource load. We recommend that assistance in securing long-term funding be provided in order to maintain and further the efforts of our association. That is who we are and that is our purpose.
The growth of the organic industry is apparent and an incredible opportunity is upon us for Nova Scotia agriculture. Every year we face less producers, as senior growers retire and young producers are not filling their shoes. Changes in our growing seasons have increased the difficulties further. Organic agriculture cannot only produce yields as high as conventional practices, it can be managed more successfully during periods of drought, which we have endured for the last three years, increasing drought relief considerably.
NSOGA promotes sustainable agriculture and food production. Perhaps with the participation of the government and interested stakeholders we can revitalize agriculture in Nova Scotia by promoting such an added-value food supply as NSOGA-certified organic can offer. At this point we are able to field your questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Allison. That was a most interesting presentation. I can tell you this, that most of the members at this table represent rural communities. Many of the members also share my background, being raised on a farm. So I am looking forward to some of the questions, but just before we field questions, there was one statement I noted, under certification, where you talk about maintaining genetic diversity. How do you maintain something that is diverse? What are your thoughts on that?
MS. GRANT: Well, I will let Julia finish up, because she is the scientist, but one of the main practices of an organic grower is to have your own little ecologically sound growing area, to make it compatible can be quite diverse. Through crop rotation and . . .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, through the basic crop rotation and that sort of thing. But now we are faced with - I noted on the news last night, there is quite a bit of controversy over potatoes, where the Colorado-beetle-resistant potatoes, that they didn't even know they were growing but obviously they were, they are engineered foods, they are genetically-modified foods that . . .
MS. GRANT: Let's not confuse our term of genetic diversity with genetically-modified organisms.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Genetically modified. This is what I wanted to clear up.
MS. GRANT: Within organic certification standards, and this is on an international level, the use of genetically modified organisms is not allowed, that is not part of the natural process. Julia, however, is a scientist and she could probably answer a little more clearly than I can.
MS. JULIA COOPER: When we talk about maintaining genetic diversity on organic farms, we look at seed sources. Obviously genetically-modified seed sources are prohibited. We also encourage sources of seed which are not hybrid varieties but are more likely to be what they called open pollinated varieties, which have more diversity of genes within them.
Then even on a farm when we talk about maintaining genetic diversity, it is not likely that the farmer would grow a single variety of potatoes, whereas some conventional growers might be growing only a single variety. It is a way of really ensuring a bit against crop failure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Utilizing crop rotation and natural bacteria to fight off infections.
MS. COOPER: Yes. Right. So if you have a diversity of varieties of crop on your farm and varieties of say, potatoes or apples, then if there happens to be disease which one of them is susceptible to, the other ones would hopefully be resistant to it because we can't fall back on using chemical sprays and stuff.
Even within livestock production, rather than keeping to a very narrow gene pool, as far as different livestock resources, we are more interested in looking at a variety of breeds, and just sort of more general diversity. It is one of the principles as far as maintaining the resilience of your system to any kind of pest or disease or something like that.
MS. GRANT: It also provides a protection for the grower. Quite often our organic growers are too small to seek out relief if they have had crop failure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will turn the floor over to members now. Mr. Chipman.
MR. FRANK CHIPMAN: When you refer to genetically-altered-or genetically-modified organisms could be the term you would use correctly.
MS. GRANT: Yes, that seems to be the term.
MR. CHIPMAN: I live in a potato area, there are a lot of potatoes grown. I believe Monsanto, do they not have the patent for the potato that Cavendish markets here? You can only buy through Cavendish. I don't know the name of it, what is it called? Is it green . . .
MS. GRANT: New leaf potato. It has BT engineering in it.
MR. CHIPMAN: Anyway that is distributed by Cavendish, and of course McCain are saying that they are not going to accept any more potatoes that are genetically modified.
MS. COOPER: Yes. That is right.
MR. CHIPMAN: It is almost like one is in competition with the other. There is a grower in P.E.I. I read an article the other day in a magazine called The Furrow, I believe, it is put out by John Deere, or it may have been another farm magazine that I get. This gentleman plants 10,000 seeds a year, and he has developed one that is late blight resistant.
So it wouldn't be a variety that has been genetically altered but it is late blight resistant, so it is resistant to the pesticide.
One question I wanted to ask you. Now, I noticed on your chart you said certified organic is not pesticide or spray-free.
MS. COOPER: The wording was a little confusing.
MS. GRANT: I wanted to clarify that. Those terms, pesticide-free, wild-crafted, even just organic alone, do not mean certified organic. This is where the confusion is created for the consumer. If you are certified organic, you are all of those things. That was just to show this is why there is a lot of confusion created for the consumer because they are seeing a lot of this right now.
MR. JOHN WILSON: In the United States on a store shelf, you will see that, pesticide-free label.
MS. GRANT: But it doesn't mean it is certified organic, it doesn't mean it follows all the practices that are required to gain that certification, so that was a little unclear. It is a lot clearer in the actual report that we supplied for you.
MR. CHIPMAN: Campbell's in the United States a few years ago, developed - I believe they called it Calgeen - a flavour-saver tomato that has a tremendous shelf life, two or three months, isn't it?
MS. COOPER: I don't know, but I know it is a long time. That is genetically engineered. It has a fish gene in it.
MR. CHIPMAN: As I said, in my area there are a lot of potato growers, and there is one pesticide or insecticide that they use for the Colorado potato beetle after it developed a resistance to the others. It costs something like $1,500 for 3.78 litres. It would cover 40 acres but when you look at this, we have heard these complaints over the years we are using too many chemicals, and now we have a product that growers can use without using chemicals. Who is lobbying against this? The chemical companies or whoever?
MS. COOPER: There are so many questions about genetically-modified organisms still, that we are not really sure of the wider impacts on the environment. One of the concerns with the potato, which has BT in it, BT is like a natural insecticide which is allowed under organic standards, but this potato has BT engineered into it, so if a beetle eats it, it is eating BT. Of course the concern with that is that organic growers use BT very sparingly as a last resort because, just as with any other pesticide, if you use BT on a broad scale like that you are going to get resistance from the pest, just like any other pesticide. So putting BT potatoes out on hundreds of acres of land, how long are they really going to be effective? It is probably
just going to be another case of those few beetles that do survive in that field go on to multiply and before you know it you will have resistance. So we just don't see that as a solution.
The problem with potato beetles in intensive potato systems is a problem of scale, of production of hundreds of acres of potatoes that we are growing and not rotating them enough and that kind of thing. So we want to promote different systems of potato production that are going to control the Colorado potato beetle through good management.
MR. CHIPMAN: We have developed hybrids of plants, for example, carrots that have better colour, better length, and we have done the same with turnips and apples. I guess I see the winners and losers. The losers could be the chemical lobby and the organic lobby if these genetically-modified organisms or foods hit the market and they are permitted, because like you said, you have the sector out there who are saying there are too many chemicals, too many sprays. Now here is a product that you can actually consume, you don't need any spray, and it is going to affect you people, but it is also going to affect the large chemical corporations.
MS. COOPER: Well, the chemical corporations are the ones who are developing them though and most of the genetically-modified plants out there on the market are developed as part of a package where you buy the seed and you buy the chemical from the chemical company. Most of the genetically engineered product out there is what they call roundup ready seeds. Have you heard of those, soy beans and canola, in which you buy the seed and you buy the roundup because the plant is resistant to the roundup. I don't see the chemical companies as suffering from that, if the genetic engineering . . .
MR. CHIPMAN: The active ingredient, I believe, in the life of roundup is a protein, the same as the protein used to modify the potato.
MS. GRANT: Or the canola and soybean.
MR. JOHN WILSON: BT is a protein and it ties up the stomach activities of an insect. What they have shown is that BT corn for example, cattle on that will not gain as well, and over large volumes it will slow down their growth and they will actually refuse to eat BT-indoctrinated corn over conventional corn.
They will eat the conventional corn first. You are having right now soybeans where they have taken the protein from the Brazil nut, put into the soybeans and found out that that is the same protein that causes adverse reaction in a lot of people so now people could actually die from eating soybeans with that protein in it, if they suffer from that allergic reaction. That is one of the big concerns in the organic institute.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I would like to spread this around a little bit. Mr. MacAskill.
MR. KENNETH MACASKILL: Although I am from a rural area, I know very little about farming, but I am not quite clear on what is non-organic and what is organic. The farm I was brought up on was very small, but it seemed you used your normal top dress every year for your crop. Then there would come a time when they would say, well, the farm needs some lime. Every four or five years they would have to get lime put on and of course they would have to have the fertilizer with that. Has that changed? What is organic and what is not organic? Can farmland survive forever on organic fertilizer?
MS. GRANT: Absolutely. It is the most sustainable way to approach agriculture, but it is through a natural process of adding organic material back into the soil, keeping your soil managed properly through crop rotation. Crop rotation is completely designed so that your soil is not over-depleted from a particular crop being grown year after year. Crops grown year after year on the same spot have a tendency to promote pest problems because they are in their same environment year after year. The original techniques of producing food, and it wasn't until agri-chemicals became such a big business and we had to produce food for everyone in larger centres because we weren't doing it ourselves, that this high food production promoted the use of all these chemicals. It made life supposedly easier.
But in the end, and we have seen over the years, it is not a sustainable way to approach agriculture, that a lot of these chemicals, the fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides end up destroying the soil. There is no organic material left and in large, large situations, the land is completely abandoned because it gets to a point where they can't do anything with it.
MR. MACASKILL: So you can keep recycling forever and ever and that is all that the soil needs?
MS. COOPER: Well that is the whole philosophy, as you said. You look at the farm as a cycle and you recycle as much as you can. Now you are right, whenever you sell anything off the farm, whatever the product is, beef or vegetables, you are actually selling some of your nutrients that you took from the soil. So we do sometimes have to import nutrients in the form of manure from another farm, and that is allowed. Or, there are certain sources of fertility that you can still use in organic systems. You mentioned the lime. You can still use lime. Organic farmers would be testing their soil every few years to see if it needs lime or if it is deficient in a certain nutrient, they will look at which nutrient sources they are allowed to use, but the synthetic fertilizer sources are not allowed.
MR. JOHN WILSON: But they can still use mined fertilizer, rock phosphorous.
MS. COOPER: Yes, rock phosphorous which hasn't been treated in any way, but it is still a source of phosphorous.
MS. GRANT: Of course, with the use of green crop manures, which Julia was involved in a research program that put on, NSOGA is another way to return the fertility back to your soil and that is your cover crops and your green manures. So there have been lots of studies on how that affects the soil and the nutrition and value of it.
MR. MACASKILL: There are huge markets for organic products, particularly, we have a blueberry farm close to where I live, and there is a terrific market for organic blueberries; it is unreal.
MS. GRANT: In the last 10 or 15 years, people became more interested in nutrition and eating healthier. Great Ocean is part of the Canadian Health Food Association and the growth within that industry has been huge and it goes hand in hand with organic. People are becoming more interested in nutrition and in what they are putting into their bodies and that coincides with the whole ecological interest that has been growing for the environment. It is going hand in hand, and the growth this past year, we have now passed the information technology industry, that is huge.
We are number one as a growth industry. This is a huge opportunity for agriculture in Nova Scotia. We are unable, as a small volunteer organization, to keep up with that demand on our own.
MR. MACASKILL: Can I turn now to your insecticide, you have some approved insecticides? Do you have a good working relationship with Health Canada or the Department of Health in Nova Scotia as to what is organic and what is allowable?
MS. COOPER: Well, the decisions as far as what is organic, what is allowed in the organic standards, our standards are taken from other international standards like the Organic Crop Improvement Association, which is an American-based international organization. How they determine whether an insecticide, for instance, is allowed is based on things like how persistent it is in the environment after you use it, how it is produced and its toxicity to vertebrates. Can you think of anything else John?
MR. JOHN WILSON: Getting back to the Department of Health, the Department of Health rules override the organic standards. We have to meet the Department of Health's regulations before we even consider the standards.
MS. COOPER: Right, I mean an insecticide that is on our allowable list is one that is going to be something that is on the market already, so it has already gone through the government system as far as regulation, health and that kind of thing.
MS. GRANT: Some of the insecticides that are used are never of a synthetic source. We use BT, which is a natural bacteria, but on a restricted level, it is your last resort. Sulfur is used on a restricted level, as a fungicide.
MS. COOPER: Rotenone is natural. Have you heard of rotenone, that is from a plant. It is very toxic, but it is not persistent in the environment. Also it is used on a restricted basis.
MS. GRANT: Pyrethrum is another one from a plant base, but once again not persistent in the environment. Diatomaceous earth is another one. It is a natural source, it is actually ground-up one cell algae which creates like a glass for the little guys. It is used quite often for slug problems and other insect problems. But all of natural sources, nothing that has been chemically or synthetically developed and doesn't have a long-term impact on the environment, definitely. Never have a long-term impact on the environment.
MR. JOHN WILSON: And encouragement of natural predators too, that is part of it.
MS. GRANT: Definitely. Integrated pest management is a huge part of organic agriculture. You grow companion plants that will lure the good insect that is going to help you. You can buy the insects in large amounts and introduce them. Wasps are used quite often. Ladybugs are another great one that is used. These are also available to the organic gardener now. At Halifax Seed, you can get them. The nematodes that you put directly into the soil to take care of larvae. All natural sources, nothing synthetic about them. No impact on the environment.
MR. JOHN WILSON: Also traps.
MS. GRANT: Yes, traps and lures.
MR. MACASKILL: But you still allow some spraying of some form of organic insecticide.
MS. COOPER: Of those sources that we have mentioned.
MS. GRANT: Yes, and they are usually on sort of a restricted level.
MR. MACASKILL: How much time do I have? Another minute or two?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Another couple of minutes.
MR. MACASKILL: Okay. I recall my days in Natural Resources. Whenever you talked about spraying, regardless of what the insecticide was, pesticide, whether it was organic or whatever, you would always have opposition to the word spray, because there were always people who felt that whenever you sprayed that there wasn't enough research, regardless of what recommendations Health Canada would give. There was always that fear of spraying, that it was harming some sort of life, whether it was humans, birds, insects.
What is your take on that? You don't run into that much, do you?
MR. JOHN WILSON: That is why they have everything on these, even the natural insecticides, they are restricted on a need-to basis only.
MS. GRANT: When you have an organic farm system, it does take a few years if you are starting from scratch to get it up to an acceptable level where your ecosystem is working very well together. What usually happens when that is the case, when you have reached that point is that the need for any kind of spraying isn't necessary. You have a healthy soil producing healthy plants which will combat the pests themselves. Like we have mentioned before, when we use our natural insecticides that have passed our certification standards, it is only as a last resort and quite often they are on a restricted level.
We don't believe in the use of chemical spraying, it isn't necessary. It is a very complicated form of agriculture, just as complicated as the conventional growers but our purpose is to have our own little ecosystem and when it is working well, after you have done all the work and managed that system, those kinds of products usually aren't necessary.
MR. MACASKILL: You used a buzzword there when you used the word chemical. Now there should be no chemical in any organic certified . . .
MS. GRANT: Well, we have to define chemical. Sulfur is a chemical but it is of a natural source. It hasn't been manipulated or produced in a laboratory. People who are becoming concerned with the term, as you said, spraying or insecticides, it is definitely health issues. We saw this year, after the rains in P.E.I., the devastation of some of the rivers there. People are becoming very concerned. It isn't because it is in their imagination that this is a problem. There have been many catastrophes over the years that were because of the use of these agri-chemicals.
We have a system that we didn't develop, this has been around for a long time, we just promote it, that doing it naturally, paying attention to your environment and your ecological system eliminates the need for this kind of agriculture application. Doing it naturally is proven to produce the same yields as conventional growers but more easily managed, as in the case of the drought situation we have had in the last three years, not affecting our environment adversely and producing high-quality, healthy food.
There has been some research that indicates that food grown organically is nutritionally more sound than conventional growers because it is from a healthy soil that has a balance of all the nutrients and trace minerals. That gets transferred to your healthy plant, and in turn we eat it, and hopefully become more healthy people.
MR. MACASKILL: But you could do that if you genetically altered the seed.
MS. GRANT: No, we do not know what the ramifications of genetically-altered food are. The European Union has refused to use it now. The genetically-engineered corn isn't 100 per cent effective on reducing corn borers. The pollen from the tassels, once it pollinates, is discovered to kill Monarch butterfly larvae. The yields, the northwestern prairie farmers are now just completely up in arms because the yields from these crops are not economically sound. They don't really care if they are considered healthy or not, but economically it is not helpful to them.
Monsanto has been attacking our prairie farmers for the use of roundup ready canola. The bottom line for a lot of these growers is that the yield is dragging. It is not producing the yields they need, it is costing them more money, they have to buy the chemicals, they have to sign, because it is a patented technology, and are getting chased and harassed by Monsanto now, being accused of supposedly stealing the technology.
It was mentioned earlier that this is hard on the chemical companies, the genetically-engineered food. Well, no it is not because it is them that is producing the genetically-engineered food. You have to buy it from them, you have to pay extra money per acre for your seed because it is their patented product, you have to buy the chemicals from them that are effective with the genetically-engineered food. They are not the losers. In the end it is going to be the growers and the consumers that are going to be the losers in this.
When we find out in 10 years that it isn't a sustainable way to reduce the use of agri-chemicals, that it is just a band-aid for the moment, a way to generate money for them, and in the end we are going to pay for this, and we are going to have to somehow fix the problem in perhaps five years, less than that.
[10:00 a.m.]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Epstein.
MR. HOWARD EPSTEIN: Thank you for the overview; it was very useful. I am particularly interested in your relations with the Department of Agriculture in Nova Scotia. The latest step forward was the Pulsifer and Associates study that was partially sponsored by the provincial government in Nova Scotia along with the Atlantic Province Governments. I attended your most recent annual general meeting and at that time it seems to me that people inside NSOGA didn't know the details of the Pulsifer study, although there was some indication that it had been done. Now I am not sure if this was just timing, but maybe you could tell me first whether the Pulsifer study has now been circulated or widely circulated within NSOGA, and could you also tell me next to what extent the Department of Agriculture has begun to move on the Pulsifer recommendations?
MS. GRANT: Well, you referred to the AGM this past year and I think we were just finding out at that point that Pulsifer Associates were doing the report. They did contact us. There were a couple of different meetings with us to get our perspectives from NSOGA's point of view. They also approached MON - the Maritime Organic Network - which includes NSOGA and the other certifying bodies in the Maritimes. Recently, the report was published; there was the presentation in Truro, many of the NSOGA growers and members were there to attend the presentation. In the end, I thought it was a very positive presentation. They did identify the lack of infrastructure; they did identify that we are in our infancy stage as far as organic in Nova Scotia; and they identified need of cooperation from the government. We are unable, as a small volunteer organization, to maintain this explosive growth.
Actually, there was a five year plan put into place on how to manage their recommendations of involvement by the Department of Agriculture and setting up distribution systems. Our growers are very busy people, they don't have time to do the marketing and essentially, in the end, if and when there is a surplus, Boston and New England are willing to buy the Maritime products. Since the report has been published, I am presuming that perhaps this invitation by this committee was somewhat in response to that publication.
One of the recommendations was developing an organic institute. That has already started at the Agricultural College in Truro, headed by Dr. Ralph Martin. That came about, although it was just a recommendation in the report, Mr. Donald Cameron actually approached the principal and said, let's look at this. So Dr. Ralph Martin is now starting the organic institute, just on the business level at this point, trying to knock on doors and get funding for only two full-time positions, actually. With the cooperation of the college and our own association, and other Maritime associations, we hope it to be the spot to get your information, to learn about organic growing, to learn about the transition and to offer extension programs for the training of farmers right on their land.
So that is all we know of at this point. There has been very little cooperation at this point between NSOGA and the Department of Agriculture, although most of the departments are fully aware of us and, as I mentioned in the report, a lot of the questions that come our way are from the departments themselves or are referred to us from the departments. At the Kentville Research Station, where John Wilson is posted, part of his position from years of study in sustainable agriculture is he is now considered an organic specialist at the research station, however, he is only allotted 10 per cent of his time to be that. What happens is that John answers what he can and then refers it to us. We are still the specialists of the certification standards and practices. We are the specialists.
MR. EPSTEIN: I guess that is what strikes me about this, you have an organization that services its own members. You have your own certification system set up, and fees are paid by the producers when they go through the certification and the review, which is appropriate - I am not saying it isn't - but what has been identified is that there is strong consumer demand for your products and it is growing. You regard it as an economic entity
even leaving aside the health benefits; you have strong potential. I am wondering first, whether you are satisfied with the Pulsifer recommendations and, second, what it is that NSOGA might need from the Department of Agriculture here?
MS. GRANT: The Pulsifer Associates' report, I found exciting. That report actually offered us credibility, and we were noticed a little more as a group to be reckoned with. We have been the group that has been managing this for seven years now. What we could use, because you were at our AGM, Howard, you realize the struggle we have had just to have a paid coordinator's position. In the past it was on a volunteer level; it was a smaller association; and it was easier managed. Then there was an allowance offered to our coordinators as the workload increased, which was just a small offering on a monthly basis.
We saw the crisis point in the association and the need for a full-time coordinator, but we are unable to fund that from our membership revenue. We have been fortunate in the last couple of years to actually get funding through, I think it was Agri-Focus, no, the first one was through the Human Resources Department. We have basically been running on some very welcomed donations at this point to try to keep Janet, our current coordinator, even on a part-time level. The workload however is more than a full-time position. She has been trying to administer and maintain the membership and be involved as coordinator for the certification committee. The paperwork in administrating that is just hugely time-consuming.
At this point, funding for some full-time staff is completely necessary. We have felt that the association has been in a crisis situation in the last few years. We have been fortunate just to keep it going at this rate with a lot of volunteer work and a lot of devotion from some of our members. In the last few years we established a post office box number, which was just so we could have somewhere for communications. We currently don't have a phone number; we use Janet's home phone number because she works out of her home. If we could have a permanent space and funding for some full-time and part-time staff, we would be on our way.
MR. EPSTEIN: Have you asked the Department of Agriculture for assistance?
MS. GRANT: Not before now.
MR. EPSTEIN: Well, it seems like a good time to do it.
MS. COOPER: Paul, my husband, has been in. They have had informal meetings with people; Dave Sangster, I guess, was the main person. I can't remember what his position is now.
MR. JOHN WILSON: He is a director.
MS. COOPER: He is a director.
MS. GRANT: One of the directors.
MS. COOPER: Always very supportive, but they just don't have any money. That is always what the bottom line is. We are in support of what you are doing but, sorry, we don't have any money right now. Except they gave us John.
MS. GRANT: Yes, 10 per cent of John's time. I don't think it is a huge amount of money that we would require however. Some salaries for a handful of people, as compared to some of the money that gets dropped in agriculture even on a relief basis, or the spraying programs for the Valley, it would be a small amount and, hopefully, it is going to encourage and help the growth of this industry in the Maritimes. The reports that were done by Pulsifer Associates on New England marketing our products, and even Nova Organics recently did a study to see what the market place would be in the E.U., people perceive the Maritimes as a very clean, pristine part of the world and are presuming that organic food grown here is superior to other parts of the world.
This is an opportunity for agriculture to do something very positive, and I don't think we would require that much money compared to what the original budget is for the department. It is only going to grow exponentially if we get a little bit of help in the beginning. Maybe at some point, with the growth of membership in the industry, we can be sustainable without contribution from the Department of Agriculture on a financial level. Our whole philosophy has to do with sustainability, and we were able to achieve that for a good many years but the growth is just beyond our means right now.
MR. EPSTEIN: No off-farm inputs. Okay. Thank you.
MS. GRANT: Thank you, Howard.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Carey.
MR. JOHN CAREY: Just a couple of questions. The cost of the product compared to your mass produced or regular, I don't want to use the wrong terminology, but traditional . . .
MS. COOPER: Conventional.
MR. CAREY: . . . conventional, from a cost standpoint in the market place?
MS. GRANT: On a retail level?
MR. CAREY: Yes.
MS. GRANT: I have been fortunate, having been the produce manager at Great Ocean for over six years now, and when I started that was basically when we brought organic into the store. I can remember having sales of $200 a week, and I can't even tell you what it is now. In those days, it was pretty safe for me to say it cost twice as much as a conventional product. But I have experienced, especially in the last couple of years with the numbers of growers increasing in the province and even globally, the interest in organic, I have had product that was cheaper than what the local grocer up the street was selling their conventional product for.
Some of your imported stuff, it is safe to say that it is probably 25 per cent more costly, but it depends on what the product is. The cost of organic product usually reflects the growing conditions of that year a little more closely than the conventional products. Any problems suffered in the conventional market place usually take a couple of years before our conventional consumers start to see the increase. I would say 25 per cent is probably a safe call, but like I said, I have sold product that was cheaper than the conventional grocers.
MR. CAREY: The cost of production, do you have a comparison?
MS. GRANT: You will have to help me with this.
MS. COOPER: I always find these kinds of questions so difficult.
MR. JOHN WILSON: It is an on-farm basis.
MS. COOPER: Yes.
MR. JOHN WILSON: An individual farm basis.
MS. GRANT: Farm to farm.
MR. JOHN WILSON: Some are really good organic growers, and there are some who just like to mix.
MS. GRANT: As far as the cost of processing something, the cost isn't going to be any different. When we look at a processing facility and they have requested certification, usually what happens is that the handling of the food is done just a little differently. Instead of using synthetic chemicals for cleaning solutions and whatever, we go to the organic solution, hydrogen peroxide is used quite a bit. So the processing of it shouldn't be any different. Now the cost of getting the product to the processing plant, there probably will be somewhat of a difference.
MR. CAREY: Is there not a logical connection, would a conventional farmer consider having part of his land or any combination being organic? Is that any kind of possibility?
MR. JOHN WILSON: There are people doing that now.
MS. GRANT: That actually does happen and it probably would help them with the transition period. What happens in other countries, if a conventional grower wants to do the transition to organic, quite often, as in Britain, you would get paid so much per hectare of your transition land, and each year that actually goes down. Because what happens when you do make that transition to organic growing, as I mentioned before, it is almost a three year period to get your system working perfectly but once you hit that point, your yields are comparable to conventional, there are no costs in agri-chemicals at that point, and you are selling a product in a growth market, so hopefully you are going to be able to sell your product a little more readily.
MR. CAREY: I guess the last one I have is from a regional geographic position in Nova Scotia. I know in Annapolis County, for example, there are a number of small farms that are no longer being farmed. I am sure this is true all over the province with small acreage. Is this an opportunity that organic farmers would be looking for, to have these smaller farms? If government is going to get involved, that all they get involved in is land clearing, assistance and that type of thing, would it not be an area to try to encourage people who want to be involved in organic farming to go into these regions?
MS. GRANT: Absolutely. That was identified by Orville when he gave his presentation, that here is an opportunity where we keep losing farmers. The young farmers aren't taking over for our elder farmers and we have all these small abandoned farms. Small is more manageable in an organic system, although, there are huge organic farms all over the world. With the cooperation of the Department of Agriculture, this would be a huge opportunity for our young growers. I, myself, would like to be a grower. I can't afford land at this point, so in my plan, which was supposed to be five years ago, which started three years ago, I am not coming close to being able to buy my property. There is a program in the United States right now that is linking would-be organic growers with land and they are given the land lease free.
MS. COOPER: I think if there was to be some type of a government program to promote this, a big problem that Orville Pulsifer identified was marketing and distribution, especially if you are developing a system with a lot of small farms, it would probably really be helpful to have some type of a structure, a collection and distribution system for these farmers, as part of the whole program and that would make it work, I think.
MR. JOHN WILSON: We had one organic farmer who plowed up $60,000 worth of broccoli because the Superstore wouldn't take it; you only have two days. They bought elsewhere.
MS. GRANT: We mentioned in our presentation that a lot of our growers have difficulty breaking into the larger chains, although they are very interested. This is just an indication of the growth in organics. One of our growers spoke to someone last year, they guaranteed that they wanted all his broccoli, carrots and potatoes, and this year, because of some change in middle management and because contracts are never signed, it is a verbal agreement, they didn't want his product.
He is also too small to go for relief. It is a lot of time and energy that goes into producing the food and it was $60,000 worth of broccoli that was put back into the soil, the finest of fertility, however that wasn't the purpose of it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand broccoli was another one of these items that was very much manipulated in the past and genetically modified and that sort of thing. Mr. MacDonell.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you for your presentation. I guess I have a number of questions. I have given a lot of thought to organic farming and don't really know an awful lot about it. First of all, regarding animal husbandry, I am wondering in order to be within the framework of organic production, how do you manage medications? I am assuming medication in feed is not allowed, but I am wondering, if you have a sick animal are you allowed to treat it with penicillin or whatever?
MS. COOPER: Every standard is not the same and the recent Canadian national standard allows treatment of animals with antibiotics. You can market that meat as organic if you double the withdrawal period on the package. The same with dairy products, milk and that kind of thing. Cows with mastitis; that is a big problem for all dairy farmers. There are homeopathic remedies, but a lot of farmers would still use the antibiotics and they can market their milk if they double the withdrawal period.
The NSOGA standard is stricter. I don't think you can market any meat product . . .
MR. JOHN WILSON: Unless we take it out of the herd for one year.
MS. COOPER: Oh, I see, you wait a year and then you can market it. But the whole approach to organic is that you want to make those cases very much the exception. If you find that every animal you are marketing in some point in its life was on an antibiotic, you have to look at your system, why is that happening? There is something wrong with your system. So we are always trying to look at the system and develop feeding and management systems where you just minimize the use. There are farmers who never, ever use an antibiotic. There is a dairy co-op in Ontario now that is an organic dairy co-op and they are all, actually, biodynamic, which is a type of organic which is - I won't go into it now.
MS. GRANT: More complicated.
MS. COOPER: Even more complicated. But those farmers never, ever use an antibiotic on their dairy farm. They are using all homeopathic remedies and natural approaches and just would never use them. They can do it. It can be done.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I would like to know more about that.
MS. GRANT: The thing you have to remember though is that in our standards, the treatment of livestock is very strict, too. We expect free-ranging, lots of room; usually sick animals come from overcrowded situations and that is not allowed. We don't have feedlots. You are pastured, you are free-ranged, you are happy and usually healthier so our system of livestock promotes healthier animals, thus, we don't need the use of those chemicals. This isn't overcrowded situations.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I keep sheep and I know foot-rot in sheep is a significant problem, so footbaths are probably one of the best ways to kind of control it. Certainly there are those times when - and this is a small flock on 20 acres, all fat and every one looks great but one will be lame - I can see that there are those situations that don't prescribe to text books that every one should be healthy and happy.
I am also concerned about the difference in organic standards from one organization to another. I know in a discussion with the Minister of Agriculture, the province didn't really have a definition, which I thought was strange, but the federal government had come down with the definition. I don't remember what the definition was, so I really felt that the department, if they didn't have a definition of their own at least for what they thought, they certainly weren't incorporating your definition or anybody else's. They were kind of going by the federal definition. I was a little concerned that the minister didn't seem to see necessarily, the potential of the organic industry, as I thought it was, and I am not as up to date on it. I have learned more here today than most other days, so the fact that there doesn't seem to be even a standard among various organizations, I would find to be a little bit of a problem. You can be certified under NSOGA, but then another organization may say, well, that guy doesn't meet our standard. So I am thinking for the consumer it might be a little bit confusing.
MR. JOHN WILSON: That shouldn't be as confusing now because there is a national standard that was just passed for all of Canada and all of the other organizations in Canada will have to meet that standard.
MS. GRANT: As far as NSOGA's standards, we are equal, if not more stringent, than the national standard. Different certifying bodies in Canada, their standards are usually equal to international standards and more stringent as well. Then you get into other countries. A lot of them are based on some of the international standards from IFOAM that have been around 25 years to 30 years. USDA recently tried to water down standards when they
looked at doing a national standardization and they were inundated. They had the most response on any question in their history and it was an international response.
The national standards took five years to draft and develop, as I said. Both B.C. and Quebec adopted their own provincial legislation at that point, previous to the national standards. That is a question I raised in the presentation today. Should Nova Scotia legislate our own? As long as we meet or beat the national standard, it is just another marketing tool. But I think you will find that even internationally, there is a minimum standard. In California, the CCOF standards, you only have to be chemical free for a year; in Nova Scotia and the rest of Canada it is three years before we allow the certification stamp.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: I will ask Ms. Cooper this question. First of all, you are the scientist in the group, so what is your background? What area, biology, agriculture?
MS. COOPER: I have an undergrad and a master's degree in agriculture. Soil fertility is actually my speciality. Manure management. If you have any questions about manure . . .
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Well, that is good. You are the right person I want to ask. I have a degree in biology, a Bachelor of Science, but I have never really understood the difference in the biological ecosystems of soil. I want you to explain to me, what is the difference in the interpretation of synthetic fertilizers, how that system reacts to it compared to say phosphorous from a natural source, a mined phosphorous source? How is that interpreted, I guess, is the best way I can word the question, but I don't understand what the difference is in synthetic fertilizers and their negative impacts on soils and the system there compared to say, using a natural? To me, I would think when you get down to the element level, they are all the same. That is what my thought is, but from what I have always heard of organics, that cannot be true. So I am just wondering if you can explain what is happening there.
MS. COOPER: You are right. Plants take up ammonium or nitrate, and they don't really care where it came from. It could have come from a bag of ammonium nitrate but if you put manure on the soil, eventually some of it will turn into ammonium and nitrate and the same with phosphorous. It could come from a bag of phosphate or if you put organic phosphorous on the soil, some of it will turn into phosphorous.
I guess you are wondering why we do not allow these sources. There are a lot of different reasons. There are philosophical reasons about where did they really come from and how are they produced. You know, nitrogen fertilizers are produced from fossil fuels, so do we want to develop a system of agriculture that depends on a non-renewable source of nitrogen? We have a philosophy of trying to recycle our nutrients as much as we can on the farm, rather than a more wasteful approach. There are farmers, my father included, who would leave his manure in a pile for years and buy chemical fertilizer and spread it every year. That, to us, is just a wasteful approach and we are trying to promote a system of cycling
nutrients. Of course, with nitrogen, too, you have this great biological system of getting nitrogen from the air. If you grow a legume, you can fix nitrogen from the air. So why go out and buy it in a bag? Then the other thing is, as I said, if you are using nitrogen fertilizers properly, you can argue that there is no environmental problem at all. If you do it carefully and you split your applications and only apply them when the crop needs it, there wouldn't be any environmental problem. The problem is that often they are not used correctly. (Interruption) Then, of course, the other thing, again, where are they manufactured and you have this whole, again, fossil fuel burning to bring them to the land. So it is very complex but when you get to the soil, actually what happens in the soil, there might not really be a difference if you are very carefully applying it but it is more the whole system and we don't really need them, we can do without them.
[10:00 a.m.]
MS. GRANT: With an organic soil, there is more drought resistance just because of the organic matter that is being applied to it yearly and what happens in the other situations is that it dries up and we have topsoil blowing away. It is more easily managed.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: In an organic sense, it is better for your soil.
MS. GRANT: Oh, absolutely.
MS. COOPER: Because when you add an organic source of nutrients, you are also adding humus and all these other things so your soil is going to be healthier in a lot of other ways.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, I will ask one more and then I will give up the ghost so other people can have a chance. I am kind of interested in farming with horses and have done a little bit of it. In conversation with someone who goes around and does contract work combining grain, he told me that on the particular farm that he used to go to where the gentleman used to farm with horses, he said it didn't seem to matter what year we went there but when he combined his grain, he got more grain per acre off of his land than off the conventional farmer's land and they blamed it on compaction of soil.
I was to a local Federation of Agriculture meeting in my area a couple of weeks ago and that was one of the topics that was discussed by one of the presenters and the really serious problem of compaction. I can see that a lot of what we do, in trying to increase yield, this is another factor that helps bring down yield and we use all these other non-conventional - I guess they are conventional ways now - of trying to increase yield, based on something that is not chemical, that is just a practice. Is this something that you have addressed in the way people try to go about organic farming?
MS. GRANT: Absolutely.
MS. COOPER: Yes, in our standards we have statements about soil management. You can't till the soil excessively as a weed control measure which is maybe an easy way to control weeds without herbicide, you might go out and till and till but that is going to destroy your soil as well. Yes, we are looking at the whole soil health.
MS. GRANT: There is extensive education of our growers on those kind of practices. It is not just what you are applying and your crop rotation, the practices that are involved are very important. One of the practices of some organic growers is the deep bed method where you never till, you just keep the application or raised bed. You get heat a little sooner and heat a little later extends your growing season, but you never touch your soil at that point. You just keep adding your organic material on the top.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now is there anyone who hasn't asked any questions who would like to field a question? Very well.
I have one quick question. I was wondering about crop insurance. Do the insurance companies look favourably toward organic farmers with regard to insurance? Do they have any problems getting insurance for that purpose?
MS. GRANT: I am not entirely sure but I will tell you what I think. I think that a lot of our growers are too small to be even looked at by insurance companies. I don't understand that.
MR. JOHN WILSON: I don't know that anybody has ever applied so until someone applies, they won't . . .
MS. GRANT: It is not usually the route an organic grower would go and as far as the commodity groups, most of them are too small to even be listed so they couldn't even tell their insurance company, I am part of this commodity group. It is usually small acreage involved and it is usually more easily managed on an organic level with the diversity that we spoke about earlier. I don't know of any of our growers that have tried it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Several gentlemen asked to be on the list. Time is running out and we do have a little business to conduct before 10:00 a.m. and I realize some of the members also have meetings to go to, so perhaps if you could be quick, Mr. MacAskill.
MR. MACASKILL: Julia, there are a lot of people who believe the Creator made the earth and he put every insect, bird and every bug on it for a purpose and there is no doubt there is a purpose. There are people who believe these insects and bugs, whatever they may be, have an equal right to the resources on the planet. But it is interesting, the J.D. Irving Tree Improvement Centre in Sussex, they are growing a higher quality, faster growing and
insect resistant tree, what do you make of that? Also, a tomato improved in Canada has been developed to stay fresh by simply removing the gene that ripens it and taking that gene out and reversing it, putting it in backwards, the tomato will last longer. That is interesting stuff. Wouldn't industry, the forestry, be happy to get their trees to grow faster and be of higher quality? It would be great for industry, great for jobs.
MS. COOPER: Well, you are going into forestry now, which isn't exactly our realm.
MR. MACASKILL: No, but it is genetically altered.
MS. COOPER: Yes, we would probably look at why they need that faster growing tree. Why are they planting trees in the first place?
MR. MACASKILL: Well, we certainly need it here.
MS. COOPER: Well, why are they planting trees in the first place, why have we developed a system where we have to go out and clear-cut every tree for acres and then . . .
MR. MACASKILL: Well, what would happen if we kill all the bugs, if we don't allow food for the insect?
MS. COOPER: Kill all the bugs? Oh, you mean, if we grew a tree there, where bugs . . .
MR. MACASKILL: Anything that we genetically altered?
MS. COOPER: Yes, that is a good point, that you are not going to have a living eco-system if you start growing these things that don't provide food.
MS. GRANT: Yes, like you said, all these things were put on the earth to work together . . .
MR. MACASKILL: Yes, to balance nature.
MS. GRANT: . . . and as soon as we create a nature that isn't balanced, what are the other ramifications of that? Will another predator bug come in because the first one doesn't exist there anymore, so another one comes along and takes advantage of the situation. We have created those kinds of problems already with the Colorado potato beetle which originally came from Mexico and it advances through North America because it was able to because other pesticides were used to kill other bugs. So when you start messing with nature, we don't know what the ramifications are. So this might seem great to Irving and to Nova Scotians to make forestry perhaps a little more viable, but why do we get to that place in the first place? That is what, as an organic association, we would look at. We promote forest
management on an ecological level. We do not clear-cut. That has proven to be detrimental in most environmental situations. We promote selective cutting and managing your forestry. A lot of our growers have their own woodlots and manage them.
MR. MACASKILL: But what about the gene in the tomato? By reversing that gene, what harm would that do to the tomato?
MS. GRANT: Well, how is it going to affect it nutritionally? That's a question that the healthy people are going to want to know? How is it going to affect other vegetables around it? Is there going to be something in the pollen that is going to affect another vegetable so that it never ripens? It is just too soon to make these decisions. When you start playing with nature, we are going to pay for it in the end, and that is always going to be our stance. We have had catastrophes in the past to prove that.
MS. COOPER: Why are we growing a tomato that they are going to transport. The reason that they want that, I suppose, is because it is going to be transported thousands of miles to its market. If you are only marketing your tomatoes locally, you don't need those kinds of tomatoes.
MR. MACASKILL: If you are a consumer and you walk into a grocery store and you see this package of tomatoes guaranteed to last for so many weeks . . .
MS. COOPER: I wouldn't buy it. I am sure it doesn't taste like anything.
MS. GRANT: It is not going to have any flavour. The reality of it is that we have been eliminating some of our seed diversity over the years but there probably were several tomatoes that had slow-ripening capacity from years ago that we have lost because they didn't get on the commercial agriculture list. Consumers are becoming more aware, and it is the same reason why a consumer isn't going to buy a loaf of Ben's bread because it lasts for two weeks and that makes them wonder, when mom's bread that was baked every Friday would go mouldy by the end of the week. It is sort of playing with the natural process. People are becoming aware that we end up paying for that somehow or another, whether it is in 10 years or 2 years.
As far as the trees are concerned, as I said, it is applicable to all ecosystems. If we eliminate an insect that would occur naturally in a balanced system, we are out of balance and something is going to come along, another insect, and just create the same problem and maybe a bigger problem and harder to resolve. That is sort of the philosophy of organic, work with the balance and keep it a working system instead of these sort of band-aid fixes that in the end just require bigger band-aids.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. MacAskill. Mr. Chipman, a quick question.
MR. CHIPMAN: I have two or three here, but they won't be long. I was just going to say I was on a farm tour in the Municipality of Annapolis, I don't want to give names, but we went to one organic farm and then we went to a conventional dairy farm. I looked at the investment that the organic grower had, and I think his gross was well over $100,000. I went to a dairy farm and they probably had a $300,000 or $400,000 investment, and the dairy farmer wasn't making as much money as the organic grower was.
You mentioned nematodes, and I know there is a problem with nematicides in the States, they are talking about taking them off the market. Have you ever heard of oilseed radish?
MS. GRANT: Yes.
MR. CHIPMAN: It is just something I wanted to close on. I used to subscribe to American Fruit Grower and Vegetable Grower, I noticed they use vacuums in California to get rid of potato bugs. They would just go in daily and suck the bugs up. So there are probably chemical methods to get rid of some of these insects, not all of them.
One other question, how much cheating do you think goes on? You have to be certified organic, but how do you test and determine if someone is cheating or not?
MS. GRANT: Well, that is a tough thing that we have yet to approach. We started off as such a small group and we knew everybody. There is certainly a strong integrity involved when you take on the difficult process of organic growing.
MR. CHIPMAN: Is there a penalty?
MS. GRANT: You can lose your certification, but we have to know. Hopefully because it is a yearly process, we are going to identify a problem and you won't get certified in the first place. Our standards are pretty strict. You are not going to be certified one year and then the following year put up a greenhouse that has pressure treated wood. That is it, your certification is gone. It is not within our standards to use that product in a growing situation.
It is an issue, however, that we are unable - we only have a few inspectors in the province. They are usually very busy people. They go out and do the yearly inspections for us, which is quite a process, but we don't have police out there right now. We can, as the association, withdraw your certification, but then do you just go to another certifying body whose standards aren't as stringent, who is not in the province, who can't police you like we can.
There are all kinds of issues and policy that have to be in place. If it were legislated, however, and with cooperation from other departments, maybe it would be easier. I think at this point we are dealing with quite a group of people whose integrity is pretty much intact. But as the industry grows, there are going to be more people who get involved because of the marketing opportunity and not necessarily have the philosophy. There are sort of different degrees of organic at this point, right from the hard-core grass-roots permaculture kind of guy to here's a marketing opportunity.
MR. CHIPMAN: I always wanted to do it, but I don't think I could ever do it economically and make a living at it, because . . .
MS. GRANT: Well, it is not an easy thing to do, but I think you get to a point - we have growers who are supporting their families of five, one gentleman only uses horses and has 125 acres with 30 acres under cultivation and more; he keeps developing his land. It is a slow process. You can't walk into 125 acres and decide that next year everything is going to be certified organic and it is all going to grow well and the pests are going to leave you alone.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have to learn that.
MS. GRANT: Yes. And there has been a lot of learning going on.
MR. EPSTEIN: I spent all day yesterday at a public consultation, undertaken by the Department of Natural Resources, having to do with global climate change. The province is interested in anticipating what the changes in climate are likely to be in Nova Scotia and taking actions in order to deal with that. I am particularly interested in what you said about drought-resistant soil associated with organic crop production. Can you just review that for me and tell me just a bit more? Is that in fact a feature of organic crop production?
MS. COOPER: Yes, you could say. Organic farmers use methods that build up the organic matter or humus content of the soil, and it is a well-known fact that soils with high levels of humus will hold more moisture and just be more resistant to droughty periods. Crops grown on those soils would therefore be more drought-resistant. Also organic methods might involve quite a bit of use of mulch as well, at least on a small scale, and mulch is also a way to reduce evaporation of water from the soil. So definitely they would be methods that would be good in droughty conditions.
MS. GRANT: Especially in Nova Scotia, with the size of our farms here, just because of geographical make-up, and because we are smaller and diverse, it is usually more manageable too. There is certainly irrigation that goes on, but I think our growers in the last three years have fared a lot better than the conventional growers have. They are dealing with large scale, even the water supply, globally, is becoming scarier and scarier all the time. Our groundwater level is dropping at quite a substantial rate yearly, and our conventional growers
have to overwater to the detriment of our groundwater. NSOGA does have a position on water resources and forestry resources as well, that is just part of the association's policy.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, thank you very much Ms. Grant, Ms. Cooper and Mr. Wilson. I believe that organic farming certainly has its place, but on a global scale I do, however, still believe that we have to take a more scientific approach - this is only my personal view - to feeding our world's population. Certainly the growing practices that you and your association promote can only improve our planet in perhaps even a small way, and also foster better health for those who choose organic foods for themselves and their families. Perhaps we are on the doorstep of an organic revolution in Canada, who knows? Thank you very much for the insight into your association.
MS. GRANT: Thank you.
MS. COOPER: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a little bit of business to deal with before we adjourn, a little housekeeping. (Interruptions)
Okay, getting back to our meeting ladies and gentlemen. Just a couple of housekeeping matters. Our next meeting date is scheduled for January 11th, at which time we will have the sewage treatment facilities people in from HRM and Bear River Solar Aquatic facility. The meeting is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. if that is agreeable with the members here.
It is nice to have that extra hour's sleep in the morning, I noted this morning that it was great. I came an hour early last week.
Then, on February 1st, we have the Nova Scotia Forest Products Association, Mr. Steve Talbot, Executive Director. And again, we are into the new year.
MR. MACASKILL: Yes, that is fine, but I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, should we have some representatives from the non-organic farmers in at some point in time?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That might be a good point, just to give us sort of a balance on it. The Department of Agriculture, perhaps representatives and so on that are . . .
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Mr. Chairman, at our last meeting I had mentioned about the Nova Scotia Sheep Producers, so I am just curious as to what the process is to get somebody on the list for the future.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, this is the time to do that. If you would like to have a name considered, then we can put it out on the floor. I know sheep are important in your life.
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: Well, the Nova Scotia Sheep Producers Association is the name of the association, and Jeff Moore is the President. I can probably get a number and get back to Mrs. Henry.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Does anyone at the table have any objection to having the sheep . . .
MR. JOHN MACDONELL: They won't pull the wool over your eyes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, are there any other suggestions for witnesses? I believe we do have a few others, and we will add those to the list, and maybe we can look at that list in the new year and perhaps prioritize to see where we are going from there to the spring.
If there is nothing else, we will adjourn.
Thank you, Merry Christmas.
[The committee adjourned at 10:53 a.m.]
