Farmers in tough position over chemical use

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 02/03/2024 (609 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Most people would have a hard time seeing the difference between something measured in parts per million versus parts per billion. Obviously, one is a thousand times bigger, but they’re both smaller than the eye can see.

However, it’s an important distinction to keep in mind when confronted with headlines that suggest something you’re about to eat, such as your favourite oat cereal, might contain toxic chemical residues.

Press releases with headlines like “Dangerous agricultural chemical chlormequat found in popular oat-based products,” are bound to give consumers pause.

But to what end?

EWG, a non-government organization supported by donors, commissioned lab tests looking for chlormequat in 14 popular oat-based cereals sold in the U.S. And it found some.

“Eleven products contained chlormequat levels higher than the amount we think is safe for children’s health, and one sample contained exactly that amount,” the EWG says in its report.

EWG’s benchmark for safe levels is 30 parts per billion, which it equates with a blade of grass on a football field. It published a rather frightening list of health problems linked to exposure (based on animal tests) and says the only way to avoid what it terms “dangerous” levels is to support its fight to get it banned and buy organic products in the meantime.

This is a big deal for Canadian growers and buyers.

Canada, which grows about four million tonnes of oats annually, is the world’s second-largest producer, with 21 per cent of global production. It is also the world’s largest exporter. More than 80 per cent of the oats grown here is exported to the U.S. We buy it back packaged in boxes bearing popular name brands.

Chlormequat is a growth regulator that can be sprayed on a growing crop to help prevent losses due to lodging (when the nearly ripe crop tips over, causing spoilage and difficulties with harvesting).

It’s an option farmers can use when conditions favour rapid growth and a heavy crop, but which wouldn’t bring much value in a drought cycle when the plant stems are shorter and the seed heads are light. Using it adds about $14 per acre to their cost of production, so it’s not a decision they make lightly.

There is a wide discrepancy between the EWG’s determination of safe levels and those set by regulatory authorities in the U.S. and Canada. Both countries have set residue limits at 40 parts per million.

The highest level detected in the EWG study was 104 parts per billion. One of my colleagues at The Western Producer did the math. That’s 384 times less than the 40 parts per million that Health Canada and the Environmental Protection Agency consider safe.

In other words, you’d have to eat about half a bathtub full of oatmeal a day to come anywhere close to either of those exposure levels.

EWG is free to set whatever benchmarks it likes for what it considers safe. And there’s nothing wrong with eating organic foods.

However, what causes oat growers’ blood pressure to spike over all this is that you can’t calm fear with logic. Even if these findings border on the irrational, farmers can’t win in an era where consumers are predisposed to be wary of chemical inputs, and skeptical whether government regulators can be trusted to look after their interests.

The publicity has already prompted buyers to start backing away, with one major buyer issuing a statement this week recommending farmers avoid using chlormequat.

“Growers are encouraged to identify and select varieties with lodging resistance as a first choice… based on the data, the risk of future trade barriers and developing consumer concerns related to this product,” it said.

Can oat farmers live without chlormequat? Probably. But it’s one fewer option in their toolbox. And the chilling effect on new investments in crop protection means fewer options in the future.

We live in an era where we can measure to the infinitesimally smallest detail — there is no such thing as zero. The only surefire way to avoid contaminants in your food is avoid eating.

Laura Rance is executive editor, production content lead for Glacier FarmMedia. She can be reached at rance@farmmedia.com