On April 9, U.S. President Donald Trump waffled on when the axe will fall, allowing that countries not imposing countervailing tariffs on U.S. exports (that is, imports to the threatened countries) would suffer no new U.S. tariffs at all. Confusion reigns, but the principle remains. Yet, as we’ll see here, even heavy tariffs can make existing inventories of tariffed products more profitable — and products such as tariffed cars and combines worth more if resold. One person’s tariff cost can be another’s capital gain.

Let’s consider the goods likely to be affected by tariffs. Car prices, if boosted by tariffs, are likely to rise, for they do have a blend of content from Canada, China et cetera. In turn, higher retail automotive and other prices will translate to higher values and prices for the cars and tractors, trucks, combines, backhoes et cetera we own. Used goods’ prices follow new goods’ prices.

In other words, if the replacement cost of a made-in-America combine goes up by, say an average 15 per cent when content is fully priced, then existing combines, tractors, harrows and so on will also have some boost in value, depending on age and condition.

Some hefty components of Canada-U.S. trade are immune from the tariff axe. Services such as life insurance, banking, consulting, engineering, weather forecasting — the list is vast and all of those “goods” are immune from Trump’s tariff war.

The supposedly catastrophic effects on Canada’s sales of actual goods to the U.S. will be less than feared. The TD Economics unit of TD Bank noted in a Jan. 21 report, titled “Setting the Record Straight on Canada-U.S. Trade,” that the U.S. has a trade surplus with Canada in automobiles, though parts and some assemblies come from Canada and other countries.

READ MORE: This spring, all quiet on the machinery markets front

“The U.S. could conceivably shift this production stateside,” TD notes, but to fill the gap, the U.S. would have to boost vehicle production by more than 10 per cent relative to current levels. Six new plants would have to be built. “Full onshoring of all non-U.S. production would require a 75 per cent boost in U.S. production and more than US$50 billion in new investment.” Implication: it might not happen at all.

Next, consider the diluted and downstream effects of tariffs. Airfares are payment for transportation services. They are already heavily taxed and discretionary air travel is already suffering. The Canada-U.S. dollar exchange rate has become more adverse for Canadian residents headed south by air. That cost is an effective trade reducer and has little to do with any tariffs which, in any event, could be controlled by deft travel planning, such as travelling in and out of U.S. airports near the border. Considering that 90 per cent of Canada’s population lives with 100 miles of that border, cross-border travel taxes would be insignificant.

There are also questions of substitution. Canadian shipments of nickel, vanadium, tellurium and zinc to the U.S. are a small part of the finished costs of plated pots, drinking troughs for cattle and, in the case of tellurium, colours for certain ceramics products. The tariff on plating and pot colours are going to be trivial if actually imposed.

Then there is the question of shelter. A house is a product while it is being nailed together and its components may go up in price. The finished house is a capital good. Existing house prices are also likely to rise in proportion to the costs of new houses. The proportion will depend on age and condition, of course, but the principle applies to any capital goods similar to their new replacements. So, if the new house goes up 10 per cent, the existing house should rise in sympathy. After all, new capital goods turn into used goods with the flip of some calendar pages.

On a trading basis, if the new car or truck with an $80,000 price tag goes up a threatened 10 per cent ($8,000 in total), the $40,000 trade-in should rise apace, say by $4,000, cutting the pain of a new purchase by half. Existing owners can readily stretch services lives by postponing the swap. Clearly, new vehicle purchase is a manageable dilemma.

Not all spending will be so manageable. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York predicts U.S. consumers’ year-ahead expectations about their households’ financial situations have already started to deteriorate. That implies higher precautionary saving for households or reduced spending on current goods such as groceries and postponable purchases for furniture, houses et cetera.

READ MORE: The economic trouble with Canada

For its part, the Bank of Canada is dour. Bank governor Tiff Macklem predicted in a Feb. 21 speech to the Mississauga Board of Trade-Oakville Chamber of Commerce that Canadian output would shift 2.5 per cent downward. That is the aggregate view, but folks with appreciated capital goods, such as farm machinery or houses, will be able to keep their balance sheets intact and much of their spending steady.

From the U.S. point of view, there is vulnerability. Canada supplies a great deal of hydroelectric power and other energy to the U.S. — but on a diluted basis, U.S. inflationary expectations are not much changed. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York survey of U.S. consumer expectations shows a decline in inflation as consumers rein in spending, especially on capital goods like homes as debt-delinquency expectations rise.

If you see Trump’s tariff war as a man-bites-dog story, you’re right. The history of U.S. tariffs is a tale of tragedy and “we shouldn’t have done that” economics. The classic bad outcome was the 1930 Smoot-Hawley boost of all tariffs by an average 20 per cent, adding to the terror of the October 1929 Wall Street crash. Trade wars ensued. By 1933 U.S. exports had fallen by 61 per cent. At the beginning of his presidency, Franklin Roosevelt began to cut those tariffs.

There were chicken wars in the 1960s, with higher tariffs on U.S. chicken countered with tariffs on European items as varied as potato starch and cognac. Higher prices on French VSOP cognac made it more desirable — economists call this a “Veblen effect,” named after Thorstein Veblen, the University of Chicago economist who showed that luxury goods’ sales rise when their prices rise. For these goods, rising price seems to imply greater desirability.

Then there were lumber wars, which still continue today with Trump tariffs threatening 25 point boosts to existing 14 per cent tariffs on softwood. Then came Japanese car tariffs in 1987, levies on bananas in 1993, steel tariffs up to 30 per cent on European products and existing tussles on Chinese solar panels.

Tariffs help few and hurt many, but can be managed with experience and imagination.

The post Making sense of tariff terror appeared first on Grainews.

The federal finance department on Nov. 16 posted its legislative and regulatory proposals for changes to the UHT online and has teed up a consultation period for those proposals. Canadians and other stakeholders and organizations are asked to submit comment via email by Jan. 3, 2024.

The UHT — an annual, one per cent tax on ownership of vacant or “underused” housing in Canada which took effect Jan. 1 last year — has led a clutch of national farm groups to call on Ottawa for a blanket exemption for farmers from having to file a UHT return.

Canadian citizens and permanent residents are exempt from the UHT, but many corporations are not. That means a farm operating via a Canadian corporation or partnership with a residential property is required to file a UHT return each year, even if other exemptions mean no UHT will be owed.

Furthermore, the farm groups said, while some forms of farm worker housing, such as a bunkhouse or mobile home, are exempt, a detached house used for worker housing is not. That rule, they said, amounts to a penalty on higher-quality housing options for farm workers.

Freeland’s proposal would see certain types of corporations and partnerships added to the list of “excluded owners” for the purpose of UHT reporting — which means those entities “would no longer have UHT reporting obligations.”

The proposal would exclude:

• a “specified Canadian corporation” — that is, a Canadian corporation in which foreign individuals/corporations hold less than 10 per cent of votes or equity;
• any partner of a “specified Canadian partnership” — generally, a partnership whose partners are exclusively “Canadian”; and/or
• any trustee of a “specified Canadian trust” — generally, a trust whose beneficiaries are exclusively “Canadian.”

Freeland’s proposal would also set up a new UHT exemption for “residential properties held as a place of residence or lodging for employees.”

That new exemption would cover residential properties anywhere in Canada, except those in a census metropolitan area or “a census agglomeration having 30,000 or more residents.”

Those changes are expected to apply for the 2023 calendar year and subsequent years, the government said.

Not retroactive

Federal Revenue Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau tweeted Wednesday on X that the fall economic statement “addresses major irritants” of the UHT, particularly by broadening its definition of “excluded owner.”

That move will “eliminate the need to file (UHT) returns for many Canadian businesses, such as agricultural businesses,” said Bibeau, a former federal agriculture minister.

However, she noted in response to other X users’ replies on Wednesday, the changes will not be retroactive to the 2022 tax year.

UHT filers have been granted two “transitional” extensions to file for the 2022 tax year without penalty. The first, announced in late March, extended the deadline to Oct. 31; then, on Oct. 31, another extension was granted, giving UHT filers until April 30, 2024 to file their 2022 UHT returns.

However, the government said, UHT returns for the 2023 calendar year will also need to be filed by the normal deadline of April 30, 2024, to avoid penalties and interest.

That said, Freeland’s proposed changes to UHT rules also call for reduced penalties for those who fail to file UHT returns by the annual deadline — and would make those reductions retroactive to the 2022 tax year.

Those penalties — now $5,000 per failure for individuals, and $10,000 per failure for corporations — would be cut to $1,000 and $2,000 respectively. — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Feds plan to ease Underused Housing Tax reporting load appeared first on Grainews.

“We urge the government to exempt farmers from the requirement to file a [underused housing tax] return,” said a letter sent to federal ministers.

The Canadian Canola Growers, Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Canadian Cattle Association, Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers, National Cattle Feeders, and Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada signed the letter, sent to ministers Lawrence MacAulay, Marie-Claude Bibeau and Chrystia Freeland on Aug. 16.

The underused housing tax (UHT) is an annual, one per cent tax on ownership of vacant or “underused” housing in Canada, the Government of Canada’s website says. It took effect at the beginning of 2022.

“The intent is to impose an annual one per cent tax on vacant or underused housing in Canada that’s owned directly or indirectly by persons who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents,” said Kurt Oelschlagel, BDO partner and national agriculture tax leader, in an April report in Farmtario.

However, while Canadian citizens and permanent residents are exempt from the tax, many corporations are not.

“If you operate your farm through a Canadian corporation or partnership and it owns a residential property, you will be required to file a UHT return, even if no UHT is owed due to applicable exemptions,” Oelschlagel said. “Non-filing can result in substantial financial penalties.”

In the letter, the groups said that the UHT filing requirement is having a negative impact on farmers because many own multiple homes because they bought, leased or inherited farmland with a house on it, or because they house temporary foreign workers.

Bunkhouses and mobile homes, often used to house workers, are exempt however many accommodations still require filing, the letter said.

“Many farm employers have been moving towards higher quality housing for their foreign employees such as detached houses,” it added. Since UHT filing is required for these, it effectively penalizes higher-quality housing for workers, the groups said.

“While we recognize this tax provides an exemption process for which farmers can apply, the professional fees (i.e., accountants) to complete the exemption application can be significant and are simply one more burden upon farmers who are already facing increasing input costs, energy costs and regulatory requirements,” the groups said.

In the letter, the ag groups asked the federal government to exempt farmers from the requirement to file a UHT return without requiring them to apply for this exclusion.

The post Underused housing tax undue burden on farmers, ag groups say appeared first on Grainews.

The justices voted 5-4 to uphold a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit by the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation seeking to invalidate the law, but they were divided in their reasons for doing so.

The industry had argued that the measure violated a U.S. Constitution provision called the Commerce Clause that courts have interpreted as empowering the federal government – not states – to regulate interstate commerce.

“While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list,” wrote conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the court’s main opinion.

The measure, approved by voters as a 2018 ballot initiative called Proposition 12, bars sales in California of pork, veal and eggs from animals whose confinement failed to meet certain minimum space requirements.

The law mandates pig confinement spaces large enough to enable the animals to turn around, lie down, stand up and extend their limbs.

The pork industry groups argued that the law violated the Constitution by forcing farmers in other states to change their practices in order to sell pork in California, a lucrative market. The Canadian Pork Council signed onto an amicus argument filed last June in support of the U.S. pork groups.

Kitty Block, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, praised the ruling.

“We won’t stop fighting until the pork industry ends its cruel, reckless practice of confining mother pigs in cages so small they can’t even turn around. It’s astonishing that pork industry leaders would waste so much time and money on fighting this commonsense step to prevent products of relentless, unbearable animal suffering from being sold in California,” said Block, whose group intervened in the case to defend Proposition 12.

Scott Hays, president of the National Pork Producers Council and a Missouri pork producer, voiced disappointment with the Supreme Court’s decision.

“Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation,” Hays said.

Seaboard Corp., the third-biggest U.S. pig producer, is prepared to supply California customers with “limited supplies of compliant pork” starting on July 1, company spokesperson David Eaheart said.

The company, which runs Seaboard Foods, converted a portion of its farms and plant operations to meet California’s requirements before the Supreme Court’s decision, Eaheart said.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a partial dissent that was joined by fellow conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, as well as liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The four said they would have allowed the challengers to the California law to pursue their claim in the lower courts.

“In my view, petitioners plausibly allege a substantial burden against interstate commerce,” Roberts wrote.

California farms collectively are only a small part of the US$26 billion-a-year U.S. pork industry. The size of cages used at U.S. pig farms is humane and necessary for animal safety, according to the industry, which asserts that California’s law gives the state unwarranted influence over the pork sector.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration sided with the pork producers in the case, saying that states cannot ban products that pose no threat to public health or safety due to philosophical objections.

Proposition 12 set the required space for breeding pigs, or sows, at 24 square feet. The current industry standard is between 14 and 20 square feet, according to a 2021 report from Dutch banking and financial services company Rabobank.

The Supreme Court took up the case after the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a judge’s decision to throw out the pork industry challenge.

— Reporting for Reuters by Nate Raymond in Boston and Andrew Chung in New York; additional reporting John Kruzel in Washington and Tom Polansek in Chicago.

The post U.S. Supreme Court upholds California’s pig confinement law appeared first on Grainews.

“I think that we’ve come to a very solid revised code,” David Wiens, DFC’s vice-president, said in an interview.

The National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) on Thursday released its revised Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Dairy Cattle, to take effect on April 1, 2024.

The code forms the backbone of DFC’s proAction quality assurance program, to which all dairy farms must adhere.

Key changes to the code involve a timeline to eliminate tie-stall housing for cows, a system in which the animals are tethered continuously or for long periods. Effective April 2027, cows may not be tethered continuously. New barns will be required to allow “daily, untethered freedom of movement and social interactions year-round,” the code says.

By 2031, calves will be required to be housed in groups or pairs by four weeks of age. If they’re housed outdoors or in hutches, they may only be tethered if they can move in and out of the hutch. They must also be able to have physical contact with another calf, unless they need to be separated for health and safety reasons.

“Both of these changes are supported by science in terms of promoting good overall animal welfare,” Wiens said.

Both changes garnered praise from Humane Canada, a federation of humane societies and societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals (SPCAs). Humane Canada is one of the founding members of the NFACC and sat on the committee that oversaw the code’s revision.

“Overall we feel positive about the improvements in the code,” said Kathy Duncan, director of national programs with Humane Canada.

Nearly two thirds of Canadian dairy farms use tie-stall housing, Duncan said, and the previous code of contact took no steps toward eliminating the practice. Though Humane Canada is disappointed in the length of the phase-out periods for the changes, she said they are steps in the right direction.

“There are a number of areas of improvement,” Duncan said.

She highlighted added requirements that are intended to address animal abuse and work to ensure low-stress handling.

“We’ve seen some pretty horrific video of different types of handling on-farm and in slaughter,” Duncan said.

There are also stronger requirements and recommendations for oversight of farm workers.

Allowed stocking density will also decrease to 1.1 cows per stall in a free stall system from 1.2 cows per stall, effective April 2027. As of April 2031, that will be reduced to one cow per stall.

Wiens said he already stocks below the allowed rate.

“We find that cows are actually more productive at a slightly lower stocking rate,” he said.

The 2023 code notes that with lower stocking rates, cows have more access to feed bunks and can spend more time lying down — particularly for less dominant cows.

The code doesn’t include requirements for emergency preparedness planning, which is a disappointment, said Duncan. She pointed to the 2021 floods in B.C., which inundated many farms, including dairy farms. Many animals died, and other were left stranded and in dire need of food and water, according to one CBC report from November 2021.

The code contains many recommendations for emergencies, including the suggestion to develop a plan for evacuating cattle. It references “comprehensive resources to support emergency planning” that are separate from the code.

The code attracted “overwhelming interest” from Canadians, Duncan said.

Nearly 6,000 individuals or groups responded during the public consultation for the code, NFACC documents show. Forty per cent identified as dairy producers, just over 31 per cent were concerned citizens or animal welfare advocates, and just over 17 per cent identified as consumers.

— Geralyn Wichers is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator.

CLARIFICATION, April 4, 2023: A previous version of this article stated the updated code would require the elimination of tie stalls as of April 2027. Specifically, the code calls for elimination of tie stall housing, meaning the continuous or lengthy tethering of dairy cows in their stalls. The article has been edited to further clarify.

The post Continuous tie-stall housing to be phased out in new dairy code of practice appeared first on Grainews.

JBS Foods Canada, which operates Brazilian meat packer JBS’s plant at Brooks, Alta., on Tuesday announced the launch of what it calls the “Homebuyer Dream Fund,” providing zero-interest loans to put toward a down payment.

The pilot’s budget will come from JBS USA’s “Hometown Strong,” a US$100 million program that backs community projects in areas of the U.S. and Canada where JBS operates.

The fund was set up “to address the growing demand for affordable family homes in Brooks,” and is “specifically designed to help team members overcome financial hurdles when purchasing or upgrading their homes.”

JBS has almost 3,000 employees at its beef slaughter and packing plant at Brooks. The plant is one of Canada’s two biggest, with a slaughter capacity estimated at around 4,000 head of cattle per day.

Improving the working and living conditions for employees in Canada’s meatpacking sector took on added significance in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw major outbreaks in which hundreds of workers at the country’s major meat plants were infected and several died.

JBS workers at Brooks in early February voted 81 per cent in favour of a new six-year collective bargaining agreement, which their union, UFCW Local 401, said will provide “unprecedented” gains in wages and also provides for improved health and safety standards.

The pandemic also put a spotlight on plant workers’ living conditions, showing many lived in larger households or with multi-generational families, or lived with one or more roommates to limit housing costs.

In Brooks — a city of about 14,700 people, about 170 km southeast of Calgary — data from real estate firm Re/Max put the current average asking price for residential real estate at almost $357,000, including homes, apartments, multi-family units and available land.

To qualify for the Homebuyer Dream Fund, JBS said, an employee must commit to a minimum of two years of service, be “in good standing with the company” and have an annual salary of $120,000 or less. Homes purchased with a loan from the fund also must be within 75 km of the JBS plant at Brooks.

The fund would allot a $10,000 loan per eligible employee, to be used toward a down payment. That loan would require no repayment during the first 12 months, would accrue zero interest, and would be repaid through payroll deduction over four years, JBS said.

JBS Foods Canada president David Colwell, in the company’s release, said the new fund “addresses a critical need of our workforce by removing barriers to purchasing an affordable home in our community.”

Brooks Mayor John Petrie, in the same release, hailed the announcement as offering “a good opportunity for JBS Foods Canada workers to get their own home or to move into something bigger.”

Margaret Plumtree, executive director for the Brooks Chamber of Commerce, said the fund “will also benefit the community as a whole through the movement of home sales, renovations, new home builds and quality of family life.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post JBS to help fund home purchases for Brooks staff appeared first on Grainews.

As part of the review, surprise inspections of working and living conditions on farms will immediately increase, Ashley Michnowski, communications director for Canada’s employment minister, said. Other changes are being developed, she said.

At least 17 Ontario farms have seen outbreaks. Two Mexican workers died after contracting the virus.

Migrant workers cited a litany of concerns, including cramped, decrepit housing and being forced to work while awaiting COVID-19 test results, according to a report this month by Migrant Workers Alliance for Change.

Canada’s review of the program was first reported in the Globe and Mail newspaper.

Mexico’s labour ministry said Tuesday it will stop sending temporary workers to Canadian farms with outbreaks that do not have proper worker protections.

Canadian farmers rely on 60,000 temporary foreign workers, mainly from Latin America and the Caribbean, to plant and harvest crops.

“The piece that’s missing is enforcement,” said Santiago Escobar, national representative of Agriculture Workers Alliance, an association that represents non-unionized migrant workers.

Another factor contributing to the outbreaks may be a patchwork of housing standards. In Ontario, they vary by municipality, while other provinces set standards themselves, said Beth Connery, a Manitoba vegetable farmer and chair of the Canadian Horticultural Council’s labour committee.

Some foreign workers do not report sickness because they may not get paid during self-isolation or because they don’t understand the health care they are entitled to, said Dr. Wajid Ahmed, medical officer of health for Ontario’s Windsor-Essex County health unit.

Others do not follow physical distancing because of crowded accommodations or when they meet workers from other farms, he said.

— Rod Nickel is a Reuters correspondent covering the agriculture and mining sectors from Winnipeg.

The post TFW program to be overhauled after COVID-19 outbreaks on farms appeared first on Grainews.

The Toronto food firm announced Wednesday it’s the first Canadian company to secure “sustainability-linked terms” for its credit facilities.

Specifically, the company has picked up an unsecured committed revolving line of credit and two unsecured committed term facilities for a total of $2 billion in funding, for a period ranging from this year to 2024.

The credit facilities include an amendment which provides for terms that reduce the interest rate “as key sustainability targets are met.”

Maple Leaf had announced Nov. 7 it would now bill itself as “the first major food company in the world to be carbon-neutral.”

That designation comes from a combination of emissions reduction work, cutting its use of electricity and natural gas, with investments in “independently verified, high-impact environmental projects” throughout Canada and the U.S., such as wind energy, methane recovery and biomass programs, to offset its remaining carbon footprint.

It also announced at that time it has become “one of just three animal protein companies in the world” to set targets approved by the international Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi).

Maple Leaf in August released its latest annual sustainability report, in which it highlighted work done during 2018 to reduce artificial ingredients and sodium levels and produce meat and poultry raised without antibiotics, as well as “continually advancing leadership in food safety.”

The same report also made note of Maple Leaf having transitioned about 44,000 sows, or 67 per cent of its sow herd, to an open housing system, as well as its plans to move all remaining sows under its management from gestation crates to advanced open sow housing by the end of 2021.

The report also described the company’s work with organizations to reduce food insecurity in Canada, including investment of more than one per cent of Maple Leaf’s pre-tax profit in advancing “sustainable food security.”

Maple Leaf at that time also noted it had already set goals to cut its environmental footprint by 50 per cent by 2025 (including a 20 per cent reduction by next year), calling for “significant” reductions in the company’s energy and water use and solid waste.

By the end of 2018, Maple Leaf said in August, it was “ahead of target in both electricity usage and solid waste” and was developing what it described as “a comprehensive carbon management strategy.”

BMO Capital Markets is sole bookrunner on the credit facilities and acted as a “sustainability structuring agent” working with Maple Leaf to integrate the sustainability targets into the credit facilities, the company said Wednesday.

Co-lead arrangers on the credit facilities were BMO Capital Markets, Scotiabank, RBC, CIBC and Rabobank Canada, Maple Leaf said, with other participating lenders including Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, National Bank Financial and Toronto Dominion Bank. — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Maple Leaf lands ‘sustainability-linked’ credit appeared first on Grainews.

There is currently an “overwhelming lack of knowledge” on basic questions such as suitable species, their housing and feed requirements, managing their waste and that escaping insects do not wreak havoc on the ecosystem, they said.

Unless such issues are studied and discussed in a critical manner, “we risk creating an industry that replaces one environmental problem with another,” they wrote in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution.

Globally, growing demand for animal protein has led to expanded cultivation of soybeans to feed livestock and poultry, but critics say the system is unsustainable and leads to deforestation and overuse of farm chemicals.

Nutritionists and scientists have been touting insects as sustainable and cheap sources of protein to feed a growing world because they are high in protein, vitamins, fibre and minerals.

Insects emit fewer greenhouse gases and less ammonia than cattle or pigs and require significantly less land and water than cattle, according to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

More than 1,900 species of insects are edible, according to the FAO.

Businesses are already jumping into the sector, producing burgers made of buffalo worms, sweet potato soup made with bugs, grubs as pet food and DIY insect farms.

However, “future environmental impact of the mass rearing of insects is largely unknown,” said the Swedish scientists.

“How do you produce the feed they eat, where do you produce it, what do you use? There are so many questions,” said Asa Berggren, a conservation biologist at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and the paper’s co-author.

“Are we going to use fossil fuels for heating and cooling the facilities (where insects are grown)? What about transportation?” she said to the Thomson Reuters Foundation via phone.

“One of the biggest threats to both natural systems and production systems the world over is invasive species. What happens if insects are accidentally released in a country to which they are imported? Insects are tiny and they get out,” Berggren said.

“We don’t believe it’s good enough to just switch from some species to another,” she said.

Other outstanding questions include whether reared insects that fall sick risk transmitting diseases to consumers, how the insects’ wastes are disposed of, and how animal welfare should be measured in insects, the researchers said.

Further research is also important, Berggren said, because “there could be a lot of insects that could be very good for us to eat but no one knows because no one has looked at that.”

— Reporting by Thin Lei Win for the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, climate change, women’s and LGBT+ rights, human trafficking and property rights.

The post Farming insects may solve one problem, create others appeared first on Grainews.

One of the requirements for farms hiring temporary foreign workers (TFWs) is that the farm provide workers with “adequate, suitable and affordable housing as defined by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation.”

Said housing can be either on-farm, such as a bunkhouse, or off-site, such as a commercial hotel/motel.

Whether it’s on-farm or off-site housing, farm employers are required to provide proof it has been inspected by the appropriate provincial/territorial/municipal body or by an authorized private inspector with proper certifications.

Effective Jan. 1, however, housing for temporary foreign workers under the TFW program’s Primary Agriculture Stream will have to have been inspected within the eight months prior to the date when a farm’s labour market impact assessment (LMIA) application is received at Service Canada.

The new rule, which will also cover TFWs under the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP), requires that a farm’s submitted housing inspection report must have “all relevant sections completed,” with proof of inspection.

Inspection reports submitted to Employment and Social Development Canada will also have to indicate the maximum number of workers permitted per approved accommodation, the government said Thursday.

Farm employers also must now provide proof all issues listed in a housing inspection report have been “fully addressed” before they’ll be allowed to hire foreign workers.

Failure to meet the housing inspection report requirements without justification will result in a farm’s LMIA application being considered “incomplete,” the government said.

In British Columbia, farms also must use the British Columbia Agriculture Council’s (BCAC) housing inspection form and have the housing inspection done by a BCAC-sanctioned inspector who’s authorized for housing inspections.

Employers are responsible for any costs connected with having the housing inspected, the government said, and “under no circumstances” can those costs be recovered from a worker.

The government reiterated Thursday it will run more on-site inspections to verify firsthand that TFWs’ working and housing conditions meet program requirements.

“These new housing measures will help to ensure that temporary foreign workers in the agriculture industry have safe and adequate housing while working in Canada,” Patty Hajdu, the federal minister of employment, workforce development and labour, said in a release Thursday. — AGCanada.com Network

The post Ottawa tightens rules on housing foreign farm workers appeared first on Grainews.