Connect with us

Agriculture

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Bloodlust for Ostriches: Part 2

Published

7 minute read

I published an article about how the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) failed to follow the science when trying to justify their horrific extermination of hundreds of healthy ostriches on a farm in a remote location in British Columbia, Canada. I addressed their misleading claim that it was necessary to safeguard human and animal health. Both science and plain common sense demonstrated that their claim was misinformation.

COVID Chronicles is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

How legitimate is their claim that killing was necessary to preserve the export market?

Now, I cannot allow the CFIA’s second misleading rationale for slaughtering the ostriches to go unchallenged. Specifically, the CFIA claimed that the killing was also required to safeguard Canada’s almost billion-dollar poultry export market. The issue is that exports can be suspended if the policies of the World Organization for Animal Health are contravened. But what the CFIA failed to disclose to the public was that our country is not considered a single geographical zone when it comes to these policies. Rather, it is divided into numerous zones.

When looking at the World Organization for Animal Health’s Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Article 10.4.3 jumps out as being particularly important in this case. It states:

A country or zone may be considered free from high pathogenicity avian influenza when” “absence of infection with high pathogenicity avian influenza viruses, based on surveillance […] has been demonstrated in the country or zone for the past 12 months”.

During this twelve-month timeframe, exports from anywhere within the affected zone would presumably have to be suspended and biosecurity polices adhered to. Indeed, this could be problematic if it meant shutting down the export market of an entire country for an entire year. But that was not the case here. Consider these facts:

  1. The farmers at the heart of this case had no need to maintain an export market within their region for the viability of their farming operation.
  2. Biosecurity protocols imposed by the CFIA were already being adhered to.
  3. It is my understanding that the ostrich farm was isolated within a remote designated zone. Therefore, suspending exports from that zone would not risk harming export potential for other farmers. Even if the zone did incorporate far-away farms, the CFIA could have done the right thing and attempted negotiating redrawing of boundaries with the World Organization for Animal Health to prevent or minimize indirect harm to other farms.

In other words, the ostriches could have been tested after the flock recovered from the disease outbreak, with testing ending twelve months later. If these tests were consistently negative, the World Organization for Animal Health would have officially declared the zone housing the ostriches to be virus-free and it would lift its moratorium on exports from that isolated zone.

My assessment is that this would have allowed the ostriches to live, with no substantial negative impact on the ability to export poultry products from Canada.

Further, common sense also places the CFIA’s rationale into question. Their battle with the farmers took place over the better part of a year while they apparently ignored this subsection of the policy, yet Canada’s poultry export market continued unhindered.

So I am curious as to why the CFIA has been so hell-bent on killing healthy ostriches to purportedly preserve Canada’s export market. Why didn’t they advocate for the farmers from the very beginning by leaning on clauses like Article 10.4.3 to negotiate with the World Organization for Animal Health? I thought that government agencies were supposed to serve the public that pays them. I saw no evidence of the CFIA trying to help the farmers. Instead they seemed focused on doing everything but try to help them. The optics would have been much better for the CFIA if they could produce documentation showing that they rigorously negotiated on behalf of the farmers about Article 10.4.3 with the World Organization for Animal Health but the latter blatantly refused to honour the requests.

Ultimately, it seems to me that the CFIA not only failed to follow the science, but it was also selective in its interpretation and defense of the policies.

It also makes me wonder if Article 10.4.3 had anything to do with why the CFIA was so adamant about not allowing the birds to be tested almost one year after the outbreak. To have demonstrated an absence of the virus almost one year later would have shown that they were on the cusp of being able to use Article 10.4.3 to restore Canada’s coveted country-wide avian influenza-free status.

By the way, all countries claiming to have avian influenza-free status are misleading people. Avian influenza viruses are endemic. They are carried and transmitted by wild birds, especially waterfowl, that migrate around the globe.

The most hypocritical aspect of this is that the people responsible for the deaths of hundreds of valuable, healthy ostriches that were almost certainly virus-free (prove me wrong with data), likely let their own kids play on beaches and parks that are routinely populated by ducks, geese, and seagulls, and stipple-painted with the feces of these birds that serve as natural reservoirs for the virus.

All hail the hypocritical virtue signaling!

To be consistent with their reasoning, every person that supported what the CFIA did to the healthy ostriches should never step foot on any premises frequented by wild birds.


COVID Chronicles is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Agriculture

Health Canada pauses plan to sell unlabeled cloned meat

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Health Canada has indefinitely paused its plan to allow unlabeled cloned meat in grocery stores after thousands of Canadians, prominent figures, and industry leaders condemned the move.

Health Canada is pausing its plan to put unlabeled cloned meat in Canadian grocery stores, following public outcry.

In a November 19 update on its website, Health Canada announced an indefinite suspension of the decision to remove labels from cloned meat products after thousands of Canadians condemned the plan online.

“The Government of Canada has received significant input from both consumers and industry about the implications of this potential policy update,” the publication read. “The Department has therefore indefinitely paused the policy update to provide time for further discussions and consideration,” it continued, adding, “Until the policy is updated, foods made from cloned cattle and swine will remain subject to the novel food assessment.”

In late October, Health Canada quietly approved removing labels from foods derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) clones and their offspring. As a result, Canadians buying meat from the grocery store would have had no way of knowing if the product was cloned meat.

Many researchers have documented high rates of cloning failure, large offspring syndrome (LOS), placental abnormalities, early death, and organ defects in cloned animals. The animals are also administered heavy doses of antibiotics due to infections and immune issues.

Typically, the offspring of cloned animals, rather than the cloned animals themselves, are processed for human consumption. As a result, researchers allege that the health defects and high drug use does not affect the final product.

However, there are no comprehensive human studies on the effects of eating cloned meat, meaning that the side-effects for humans are unknown.

News of the plan spread quickly on social media, with thousands of Canadians condemning the plan and promising to switch to local meat providers.

“By authorizing the sale of meat from cloned animals without mandatory labeling or a formal public announcement, Health Canada risks repeating a familiar and costly failure in risk communication. Deeply disappointing,” food policy expert and professor at Dalhousie University Sylvain Charlebois wrote on X.

Likewise, Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis warned, “Health Canada recently decided that meat from cloned animals and their offspring no longer needs a special review or any form of disclosure.”

“That means, soon you could buy beef or pork and have no idea how it was bred,” she continued. “Other countries debate this openly: the EU has considered strict labelling, and even the U.S. has admitted that cloned-offspring meat is circulating.”

“But here in Canada, the public wasn’t even told. This is about informed choice,” Lewis declared. “If government and industry don’t have to tell us when meat comes from cloned animals, then Canadians need to ask a simple, honest question: What else are we not being told?”

Likewise, duBreton, a leading North American supplier of organic pork based out of Quebec, denounced the move, saying, “Canadians expect clarity, transparency, and meaningful consultation on issues that directly touch their food supply. As producers, we consider it our responsibility and believe our governing food authorities should too.”

According to a survey conducted by duBreton, 74 percent of Canadians believe that “cloned meat and genetic editing practices have no place in farm and food systems.”

Continue Reading

Agriculture

Federal cabinet calls for Canadian bank used primarily by white farmers to be more diverse

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A finance department review suggested women, youth, Indigenous, LGBTQ, Black and racialized entrepreneurs are underserved by Farm Credit Canada.

The Cabinet of Prime Minister Mark Carney said in a note that a Canadian Crown bank mostly used by farmers is too “white” and not diverse enough in its lending to “traditionally underrepresented groups” such as LGBT minorities.

Farm Credit Canada Regina, in Saskatchewan, is used by thousands of farmers, yet federal cabinet overseers claim its loan portfolio needs greater diversity.

The finance department note, which aims to make amendments to the Farm Credit Canada Act, claims that agriculture is “predominantly older white men.”

Proposed changes to the Act mean the government will mandate “regular legislative reviews to ensure alignment with the needs of the agriculture and agri-food sector.”

“Farm operators are predominantly older white men and farm families tend to have higher average incomes compared to all Canadians,” the note reads.

“Traditionally underrepresented groups such as women, youth, Indigenous, LGBTQ, and Black and racialized entrepreneurs may particularly benefit from regular legislative reviews to better enable Farm Credit Canada to align its activities with their specific needs.”

The text includes no legal amendment, and the finance department did not say why it was brought forward or who asked for the changes.

Canadian census data shows that there are only 590,710 farmers and their families, a number that keeps going down. The average farmer is a 55-year-old male and predominantly Christian, either Catholic or from the United Church.

Data shows that 6.9 percent of farmers are immigrants, with about 3.7 percent being “from racialized groups.”

Historically, most farmers in Canada are multi-generational descendants of Christian/Catholic Europeans who came to Canada in the mid to late 1800s, mainly from the United Kingdom, Ireland, Ukraine, Russia, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Germany, and France.

Continue Reading

Trending

X