4 ms·

Agriculture is always the hardest due to a variety of factors, including standards, but also farming is among the most subsidized and/or protected businesses in

Agriculture is always the hardest due to a variety of factors, including standards, but also farming is among the most subsidized and/or protected businesses in the developed world. Creating a fair and level trading system around it is difficult. A good example is the dairy protectionism in Canada that Trump so bitterly complains about. The issue is Canada manages its system with production quotas, but the US directly and indirectly subsidizes production. Who's being more (un)fair? How do you create a trading relationship around that?

dmix 11d ago
One difference is in the US they subsidize corn, which makes it cheaper domestically and the support farmers get makes them more competitive on global markets. Canada does supply control on dairy, which drives up prices domestically and prevents competition. There's a reason one is called a cartel.
win311fwg 11d ago
> Creating a fair and level trading system around it is difficult. There are no real limitations outside of dairy, poultry, and eggs; same as on the US front. If it is so difficult why is there nothing in place, aside from those three categories? Are these the only food categories that matter to people? What about the food that the animals in those categories eat? > but the US directly and indirectly subsidizes production. Since the Obama era, the US and Canada have had essentially the same subsidy system, save dairy, poultry, and eggs, which, as you pointed out, get their own special rules. But as you pointed out they are still subsidized indirectly via things like corn subsidies, which is where Canada and the US are now effectively on the same page (that wasn't always the case, of course, but the reforms happened a long time ago now and what went on 30 years ago doesn't mean much anymore). When cooler heads prevailed the US played fair in aligning their system to Canada's, so why isn't the same being willing to be offered in kind? Changing the diary, poultry, and egg system doesn't mean giving up subsidies, if the people want to continue to offer subsidies. The US model already offers a way to provide that. Canada already accepts that for other food products, so there is nothing unprecedented there. Of course, it's not really about the farmers/production, is it? It is about protecting Saputo, Lactalis, and Agropur's triopoly.
- hylaride 11d ago
  > Changing the diary, poultry, and egg system doesn't mean giving up subsidies, if the people want to continue to offer subsidies. The US subsidies tend to be more indirect, meaning that the large agri-corporations capture most of it. Farmers in the US have been struggling for years and the Canadian farmers know this (and for better or for worse have political capital at their disposal). The reason dairy, poultry, and eggs are under Canada's system is because they are not bulk commodities that ship around the world like grains do. Canada also doesn't allow a lot of the farming methods (including hormones) that the USA does. The original aim of supply management was to smooth out the market, but of course has morphed into a cartel. For the record, I'd love to see the dismantling of supply management the same way New Zealand did (and became an export powerhouse of processed dairy products after). I do love me some cheese and I wish the EU cheese was more economically available.
  - win311fwg 11d ago
    > The US subsidies tend to be more indirect, meaning that the large agri-corporations capture most of it. It's essentially the same system, with the primary subsidy being paying 60% of crop insurance premium in Canada and 62% in the US. Of course since crop insurance is acre-based, those with the largest landholdings capture most of the subsidy, but that is equally true in Canada. It's probably true that the US has some larger farms, given the much larger arable landbase (and one of Canada's largest farms just having recently gone bankrupt!), which is what I expect you are trying to say, but I'm not sure how pertinent that is as it is still an equal payout on a relative scale. > they are not bulk commodities that ship around the world like grains do. Neither is milk from other animals (e.g. goats), other types of meats (e.g. pork, beef), etc. but none of these have the same system. Moreover, until 2009 tobacco was also supply managed under the same system and it is a bulk commodity that is shipped around the world. So I'm not sure your theory, as fun as it is, holds. > Canada also doesn't allow a lot of the farming methods (including hormones) that the USA does. It's a mixed bag. Canada puts higher value on animal welfare, but is much more lax when it comes to things like pesticides. The US doesn't allow hormone use in poultry, so that doesn't really explain what purpose supply management serves either.
tharmas 11d ago
That, and Quebec farmers and food security. Federal Politicians need rural votes to win elections and keep Quebec from separating. Also food security is important to any nation. And in light of what tRump has done it looks like and even more important goal.

dmix 11d ago

One difference is in the US they subsidize corn, which makes it cheaper domestically and the support farmers get makes them more competitive on global markets. Canada does supply control on dairy, which drives up prices domestically and prevents competition. There's a reason one is called a cartel.

win311fwg 11d ago

> Creating a fair and level trading system around it is difficult. There are no real limitations outside of dairy, poultry, and eggs; same as on the US front. If it is so difficult why is there nothing in place, aside from those three categories? Are these the only food categories that matter to people? What about the food that the animals in those categories eat? > but the US directly and indirectly subsidizes production. Since the Obama era, the US and Canada have had essentially the same subsidy system, save dairy, poultry, and eggs, which, as you pointed out, get their own special rules. But as you pointed out they are still subsidized indirectly via things like corn subsidies, which is where Canada and the US are now effectively on the same page (that wasn't always the case, of course, but the reforms happened a long time ago now and what went on 30 years ago doesn't mean much anymore). When cooler heads prevailed the US played fair in aligning their system to Canada's, so why isn't the same being willing to be offered in kind? Changing the diary, poultry, and egg system doesn't mean giving up subsidies, if the people want to continue to offer subsidies. The US model already offers a way to provide that. Canada already accepts that for other food products, so there is nothing unprecedented there. Of course, it's not really about the farmers/production, is it? It is about protecting Saputo, Lactalis, and Agropur's triopoly.

hylaride 11d ago
> Changing the diary, poultry, and egg system doesn't mean giving up subsidies, if the people want to continue to offer subsidies. The US subsidies tend to be more indirect, meaning that the large agri-corporations capture most of it. Farmers in the US have been struggling for years and the Canadian farmers know this (and for better or for worse have political capital at their disposal). The reason dairy, poultry, and eggs are under Canada's system is because they are not bulk commodities that ship around the world like grains do. Canada also doesn't allow a lot of the farming methods (including hormones) that the USA does. The original aim of supply management was to smooth out the market, but of course has morphed into a cartel. For the record, I'd love to see the dismantling of supply management the same way New Zealand did (and became an export powerhouse of processed dairy products after). I do love me some cheese and I wish the EU cheese was more economically available.
- win311fwg 11d ago
  > The US subsidies tend to be more indirect, meaning that the large agri-corporations capture most of it. It's essentially the same system, with the primary subsidy being paying 60% of crop insurance premium in Canada and 62% in the US. Of course since crop insurance is acre-based, those with the largest landholdings capture most of the subsidy, but that is equally true in Canada. It's probably true that the US has some larger farms, given the much larger arable landbase (and one of Canada's largest farms just having recently gone bankrupt!), which is what I expect you are trying to say, but I'm not sure how pertinent that is as it is still an equal payout on a relative scale. > they are not bulk commodities that ship around the world like grains do. Neither is milk from other animals (e.g. goats), other types of meats (e.g. pork, beef), etc. but none of these have the same system. Moreover, until 2009 tobacco was also supply managed under the same system and it is a bulk commodity that is shipped around the world. So I'm not sure your theory, as fun as it is, holds. > Canada also doesn't allow a lot of the farming methods (including hormones) that the USA does. It's a mixed bag. Canada puts higher value on animal welfare, but is much more lax when it comes to things like pesticides. The US doesn't allow hormone use in poultry, so that doesn't really explain what purpose supply management serves either.

tharmas 11d ago

That, and Quebec farmers and food security. Federal Politicians need rural votes to win elections and keep Quebec from separating. Also food security is important to any nation. And in light of what tRump has done it looks like and even more important goal.