Farmers, and the yin and yang of advocating

Two posts in one day... I hope I'm not wearing everyone out. One piece of the puzzle that has troubled me from the beginning and that I have not spoken about at all in my blog is the effect that stopping support for grain based ethanol will have on farmers. I would like to share with you a string of emails that speaks to that issue, and equally important, to the way I like to relate to people: with reciprocal respect and integrity. To me, that means acting with respect and integrity myself, expecting others to do the same, not being afraid to call them on it when they don't, understanding all the while that we are all human and even the best of us misses the mark sometimes. It's a tall order. I know that I have missed the mark with some of you during my activities over the last year. I hope you can accept my apologies.

There is a yin and a yang to advocating. I have had to use certain mechanics of the English language to get myself heard, and frankly, to make what has been at times a lonely road of struggling and dogged determination a bit of fun. That's the yin. I think it's equally important to treat people with respect and to know when to be serious. That's the yang.

Thank you in advance to Mr. Gord Surgeoner, the other party to this series of notes who, despite our obvious differences, strikes me as a very honest person that my activites must be putting in a difficult position right now. Mr. Surgeoner, in the interest of time I am reprinting our correspondence without consulting you. I thought it important to get this note out in time for the Christmas lull, when busy people will have time to reflect. I hope you understand.

OK... here is the series of notes. I think they speak for themselves.
____________________________________________

To: ignatieff.m@parl.gc.ca, pm@pm.gc.ca, gord@oaft.org

Hello [Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Harper],

I would like to share with you the following correspondence between myself and Gord Surgeoner, President of Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, as some important points are made with respect to the impact of changes in ethanol policy to the agricultural sector.

Mr. Surgeoner, thank you once again for the opportunity to discuss this issue. I understand that what I am suggesting is an enormous change. However, the enormity of the chaos we can expect if we don't stop encouraging diversion of food for fuel is much greater.

I urge everyone that reads this note to carefully reflect on what I am saying as you spend time with your families this holiday season. In making the difficult decision to move beyond self-interest, you have the opportunity to influence history and to be secure in the knowledge that you did the right thing when the right thing was difficult to do indeed.

Regards,
George Tesseris

___________________________________________

Dear Mr. Surgeoner,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me about my piece in the Globe. You clearly have background that I do not. That said, I think it must be hard for anyone not to see the risks in the immediate supply/demand situation with respect to grains.

One of the most difficult parts of my advocacing has been the issue of farmers. I certainly understand that people have built their lives and businesses around various government programs and subsidies, and that any transition away from these things would have to be fair and orderly.

That is why I think it is so critical to get going now, and not to wait until after a crisis strikes.

As we saw last spring, the market will prove very sensitive and very quick to respond to any shortfall in supply - or even any threat thereof.

To your point about third world development, I wholeheartedly agree that the developed world's focus should be to bring about a level of prosperity in developing courntries that eliminates the need for aid and handouts. It certainly makes sense to me that Canadian agricultural expertise can have a significant role to play in that regard.

Mr. Surgeoner, no one - least of all me - wants farmers to starve. But no farmer could want millions upon millions of people to starve either. There must be better agricultural policy than ethanol, and we have whole ministries that should be looking for it.

I respectfully suggest that the most tenable position your organization could take would be to accept the problems with grain-based ethanol and to advocate for an orderly transition to agricultural policy that makes more sense and is fair to everyone. Despite our differences and the hardhitting nature of my piece, you have been fair with me in your note. I thank you for that, and I hope that I can count on your support as I continue to advocate for rational policy.

I hope you don't mind that I have taken the liberty of copying Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff as I think the aspect of the agricultural sector is a critically important part of this discussion.

Sincerely,
George
__________________________________________

From: "Gord Surgeoner" <gord@oaft.org>>To: <george.tesseris@sympatico.ca
Subject: Ethanol: An Imminent Threat to Humanity
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:19:38 -0500

Dear George,

I noted your article in the December 20th Globe and Mail and would like to respectfully disagree with you on a number of issues you brought up. I respect your concern regarding hunger and your passion for something you believe in. First, let me explain that I have been in agriculture for over 30 years and have worked with farm organizations for most of that time. I am an entomologist by training, but for the last ten years have worked diligently to find new markets for the business of agriculture.

Ethanol production involves the creation and sale of three products, ethanol being one. About one-third of corn becomes ethanol, one-third dried distillers grain and one-third carbon dioxide. The dried distillers grain is used to feed livestock, for which much of the corn is grown. In fact, the protein content is about 30% instead of the normal 8% in whole corn kernels. In many places (e.g. Ontario) the co2 is used to enhance greenhouse production of tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers (e.g. Leamington). The co2 is converted by plants into plant material (tomatoes) and the co product stream is oxygen. Yes, there is hunger in the world. Even in Canada, our food banks play an>important role. it is a distribution of wealth issue and not a production>issue. In much of the world, hunger is caused by man's inhumanity to man (i.e. North Korea, Zimbabwe, Somalia, etc.). The best way to cure hunger is to reduce losses in third world countries by;

- providing quality seed for third world farmers
- providing infrastructure - storage, transportation
- controlling diseases, insects and rodents. More than one-third of most third world crops are lost to pests.

I believe that when we say we will run out of something, the next question should be "at what price?" Simply giving food to third world countries destroys the incentive of their farmers. Why pay when its free and that destroys market for local farmers. Three years ago, farmers in Ontario were driving tractors down the 401. A tonne of dried corn cost less than disposing of a tonne of Toronto garbage. Your demand for low cost food says to our farmers that you must feed us at a low cost and you shouldn't have different marketing options like ethanol. The greatest risk for reduced food supply is farmers not getting fair return for labour and investment.

Today's corn prices are, in real dollars, far below the price paid in the mid 1970's and well below the highs of over $7.00 per bushel in the mid>summer, to about $3.75 last week (U.S. $). This points out how much impact speculators had on the market, which I consider to have been a far greater price impact than ethanol. We can agree to disagree, but I want to emphasize I respect your personal commitment to something you passionately believe in.

Sincerely,
Gord Surgeoner, Ph.D.
President, Ontario Agri-Food Technologies
New Address: 200-120 Research Lane
Guelph, ON N1G 0B4
Tel: (519) 826-4195
www.oaft.org