Family seed company sues Bayer

Latham Quality seed company in Iowa has filed a lawsuit against Bayer accusing it of illegal and anti-competitive practices to monopolize the U.S. market for on genetically-engineered corn seeds.

The lawsuit alleges Bayer is reaping “hundreds of millions, if not billions, of ill-gotten dollars.” 

Latham has invited others to join to make it a class-action lawsuit which would qualify for triple the amount of damages.

The Department of Justice said last week that Bayer removed potentially anti-competitive provisions from a loyalty program for independent seed companies that license its technology to produce seeds.

“Bayer has the power to control market prices and exclude competition,” the lawsuit said. “In fact, it does so.”

U.S. is investigating fertilizer companies.

The United States Federal Trade Commission has launched an investigation into fertilizer companies, commission chairman Andrew Ferguson told a meeting of farmers from 16 states at a meeting in North Texas.

“These continued price increases are not something our nation, much less our farmers, can continue to ignore,” Ferguson said, prompting a standing ovation.

An investigation would definitely involve Nutrien of Saskatoon, the world’s largest potash miner and fertilizer retailer

Despite years of complaints from farmers, this is the first formal FTC investigation of the fertilizer industry.

It has subpoena powers to demand production of documents and witnesses.

 

Nutrien is in a hot seat because the Saskatchewan and Canadian governments have allowed potash miners to operate a cartel for potash exports.

What has not been revealed is whether BHP will join the cartel when it soon opens the largest potash mine in Saskathewan.

                      

Union serves strike notice to CPR

 

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers has served a 72-hour strike notice to Canadian Pacific Kansas City railway.

I

If they fail to reach a deal the company's signal workers could go on strike.

The company said it has prepared plans that will allow it to continue if the union members do strike.

Farm groups support Cargill’s Sarnia terminal

Farm groups have lined up to support Cargill’s opposition to residential developments near its grain terminal in Sarnia.

Cargill fears locating residents near the terminal will result in complaints about noise, dust and traffic.

But Sarnia council has gone ahead and amended its official plan and zoning bylaw to allow Tricar to build a 14-storey apartment.

Other developers who want to build housing nearby are waiting to see how the province will respond to Cargill’s request for a ministerial zoning order to block the residential developments.

Among the farm groups supporting Cargill’s application are the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, several of its nearby county federation of agriculture and the Christian Farners Federation of Ontario.

So far Grain Farmers and the National Farmers Union have not issued public statements.

Drew Spoelstra, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, wrote to Rob Flack, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing calling Cargill/’s grain termibal "a critical component of Ontario’s agri-food network and export infrastructure."

Before Flack was elected to the legislature, he headed Masterfeeds.

"As one of only a limited number of export grain terminals in southern Ontario, the facility plays a critical role in supporting Ontario farmers, food production, global trade and agricultural supply chain resilience," said Spoelstra. 

"The terminal handles approximately 35 per cent of Ontario’s export grain capacity and supports the movement of millions of tonnes of wheat, soybeans, and corn annually, while also receiving fertilizer inputs essential to agricultural production across nearly 400,000 acres of farmland in southwestern Ontario."

"As identified in similar land use compatibility concerns involving the Ontario Food Terminal in Toronto, incompatible residential encroachment near critical agri-food infrastructure creates significant operational risks and long-term uncertainty," Spoelstra said. 

"Supporters of the Ontario Food Terminal MZO correctly recognized that introducing sensitive land uses adjacent to essential food distribution infrastructure can lead to complaints related to noise, traffic, odour, dust, and around-the-clock logistics activity, ultimately threatening the continued successful operation of those facilities."

Spoelstra said the same concerns are "directly applicable in Sarnia.   

NFU wants budget cuts reversed

 The federal agriculture department’s cuts to research stations and budgets threatens irreparable harm, says Phil Mount, vice-president of policy for the National Farmers Union.

In January, the federal government announced it plans to close seven agriculture research stations in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia, end the Organic and Regenerative Research program, and to terminate 12 per cent of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada personnel - 665 researchers, technicians and support staff.

Earlier this month, the Parliamentary Agriculture Committee unanimously recommended the government "pause and reverse the decision to close agricultural research centres and experimental farm sites."

The cost of these closures will set back public agricultural research for decades, Mount said.

A partial financial analysis has revealed the government stands to save only $23.2 million per year over 10 years, he said.

These savings do not account for the costs of relocation, divestiture, and decommissioning. Nor do they account for the losses from not doing the research, he said.

For example, studies of publlc plant breeding regularly find returns of $30 for every dollar invested, he said.

“The math is simple. And the damage is clear.

“If we want resilient farms that can adapt to the ongoing climate crisis, we need to continue funding public agricultural research centres. What we refuse to invest in today, we’ll pay for tomorrow,” the National Farmers Union said.

U.S. ethanol imports double dipping

 

Ethanol imports from the United States are double dipping in subsidy pools, putting Canadian ethanol at a disadvantage.

Andrea Kent, vice-president of Greenfields Global, said that means Canada’s ethanol policy needs an immediate fix.

That could come quickly because the federal government said last September that it would be making a targeted amendment.

Kent said there are $1 billion worth of projects in Ontario and Quebec ready to go as soon as the amendment is enacted.

The ethanol industry wants a policy similar to the diesel production incentives of $372 million announced in September.

The U.S, ethanol-industry double dipping is done by capturing a subsidy of 30 cents or more per litre from the Clean Fuel Production Credit program, then takes advantage of a Canadian credit program.

The targeted amendment would increase the credit on Canadian-produced ethanol to match the U.S. credits.

But Shaun Haney, who owns RealAgriculture, said the Canadian government will need to be careful to avoid upsetting United States President Donald Trump during the current review of the North American free trade deal.

The U.S. shipped 792 million gallons of ethanol to Canada last year.

Restaurant chains rethink animal welfare

Restaurant chains that animal rights activists pressured into signing on to animal welfare standards for pork, chicken and egg suppliers are cancelling out.

They are finding they cost too much more and increase carbon emissions making It more difficult for them to meet their environment goals.

The animal activists’ called th eir campaign the “Better Chicken Commitment{ which called for more expensive housing similar to demands the Whole Foods retailer imposed on its suppliers.

It also bans genetics that result in the fastest chicken growth rates.

But as companies began to figure out, this chicken isn’t “better” from an environmental perspective. One restaurant brand reported that their carbon footprint for poultry would double if it transitioned to “better chicken.”

Meanwhile, a big-picture analysis found that transitioning to slower-growing chickens would result in the need for billions more chickens to be produced to meet demand, which in turn would require millions of acres to grow additional feed, billions of gallons of water, and a way to manage billions of pounds of waste.

In the United Kingdom some companies, such as Kentucky Fried Chicken have reverted to conventionally-raised chickens.

But for those who invested in new housing, such as pork producers abandoning gestation crates and egg producers changing from cages to aviaries, the investment, management and operating costs remain.

Meatingplace Magazine said the activists are clucking mad, but the facts are the facts: Less efficient practices have a worse environmental footprint.

More broadly, this basic truth could provide more opportunities to push back against activist campaigns against modern agriculture — whether they come from the animal rights crowd, or others, it wrote.

The New York Times ran an opinion piece in 2024 arguing that modern, large-scale farming practices are the most environmentally practical. “

It said “the inconvenient truth is that factory farms are the best hope for producing the food we will need without obliterating what’s left of our natural treasures and vaporizing their carbon into the atmosphere,

“So we’ll have to make more food per acre instead of using more acres to make food. And that’s what industrial agriculture does well.

Meatingplace Magazine said many companies made pledges to transition to cage-free eggs by 2025, but by our count, about 90 per cent of them ended up not meeting this deadline.”

Price is one reason retailers and restaurants have reconsidered pledges they’ve made to appease animal activists. Lack of consumer sentiment is another. The average consumer doesn’t make purchasing decisions based on the sow housing or chicken genetics of a restaurant’s supplier.

And now concern for the environment is making companies re-evaluate the demands made by radical animal activists.

The biggest barrier has always been that companies, especially public companies, don’t want to deal with the inevitable harassment that comes from saying “no” to animal rights activists. But the news out of the UK shows that, armed with a proper framework and safety in numbers, companies are now willing to do just that, Meatingplace wrote.

So why did the giant restaurant and supermarket chains not do some research into agriculture and farming before caving to sanctimonious bullies?

Certainly farm suppliers should be miffed.