Ideology muddies waters in agriculture reporting

One of the first things that gets drummed into any budding reporter's psyche is our obligation to "get it right."

But as time goes on, those of us who have read a lot of reports and listened in on a lot of policy discussions over the years increasingly find ourselves confronted with a dilemma.

Is it our duty to accurately report what people say -- or to report what is accurate?

When it comes to agriculture policy, there is a direct correlation between the growing interest in food issues and a rising number of "think-tanks" wading in with expert opinions.

Often those opinions are rooted in a certain ideology, which is fine. When the analysis supporting those opinions is fair and factual, those views can form the basis of a rousing -- and productive -- evolution in thinking toward sound policy.

But when it isn't, the likelihood of sound policy is torpedoed before the discussion even starts.

Such is the case with a recent report by economists Larry Martin and Kate Stiefelmeyer, released by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Canadian Agriculture and Food: A Growing Hunger for Change is based on the premise Canada has an opportunity -- a moral obligation in fact -- to feed the world. It says due to excessive regulation and outdated policy, our agricultural industry is failing miserably.

"Policy-makers in particular must face up to the fact that this country's laws and regulations are sadly out of date, reflecting a mistaken belief that agriculture and food processing are industries of the past, not the future. Canada's potential as a food superpower can yet be unleashed by removing the barriers erected by poor policy," the paper says.

It's a view that's popular in some circles. There's no denying Canada's agricultural fortunes depend on export trade or that ongoing policy reviews are important.

But what's striking about this report is it is peppered throughout by questionable analysis, misinterpretations of data and statements that are just plain wrong.

The authors rant about Canada's poor show of productivity in cereal production by comparing wheat and barley yields and yield increases against corn in Iowa. Aside from the fact Iowa has a significantly longer growing season and more heat units, corn can be hybridized. No one in the world has figured out how to do that with the more genetically complex wheat and barley crops just yet.

They refer to policies, such as "kernel visual distinction," as hampering the development of new, higher-yielding varieties. In fact, the policy of "kernel visual distinguishability" was nixed for barley about a decade ago and for wheat in 2008.

There are at least two instances where the report's commentary conflicts directly with the independent data provided to back it up.

For example, a 1997 map on world soil degradation provided by the United Nations' International Soil Reference and Information Centre clearly shows most of Prairie Canada as having soils that are degraded or severely degraded. That map is consistent with other Canadian data.

But this report's commentary says the map "shows that Canada has suffered less from this than most other countries."

We are also told that "Canada is one of the few countries that has no water shortage," noting this country has nine per cent of the world's fresh water.

"These facts set the context for the challenge of feeding a world whose population is increasingly able to buy food."

Canada might have the fresh water, as in Manitoba's claim to having 100,000 lakes, but that doesn't mean it's available for farming. The agricultural lands in Western Canada are considered semi-arid, receiving only about 53 centimetres of precipitation annually.

Interestingly, the last time there was a big push to pull out all the stops and get make Canada rich feeding the world was in the late 1990s when the Canadian Agri-Food Marketing Council set a goal of achieving four per cent of the global agri-food market share by 2005. At the time, some of the federal government's own soil experts questioned whether such a target could be achieved sustainably.

In this report, these authors accuse the sector of lagging productivity because Canada's share of the growing world food market is between five and six per cent.

A Macdonald-Laurier op-ed based on the report has been widely reprinted across Canada, and a Globe and Mail columnist gave it high praise, concluding that "government policy has turned Canadian agriculture into a 'backwater' enterprise that drags down the larger Canadian economy."

Perhaps it needs some fixing, but things aren't quite that bad. Reporters are often accused of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story. The same could be said for ideological economics.

Laura Rance is editor of the Manitoba Co-operator. She can be reached at 792-4382 or by email: laura@fbcpublishing.com

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition November 26, 2011 B10