Dear Editor,
I have recently become aware that there is a movement afoot concerning farmer’s markets, bake sales and the like. I am concerned that the new guidelines may have an end result of small non-profit societies not being able to fundraise.
While the  new proposed guidelines appear to be reasonable on the surface, they become cost prohibitive for the small producer. Small communities such as the one I live in have relied on our neighbours for farm-fresh produce as well as baked goods. We look forward to the opening of our market and line up from the first day until the close in September. This is not a small event as our community believes in supporting local owners, producers, farmers, etc. Without local support, the individuals may become reliant on provincial or federal government support. I believe that our economy will be in much better shape if the dollars spent by individuals circulate rather than stop with taxes.
The farmers’ market and local charity societies bake sales have traditionally done well in every community, large and small. As a purchaser of local goods, I  believe, and others are aware that the goods are not produced in an approved facility, nor are they inspected. It is just such a product that we wish to buy. We are tired of the mass-produced products available in our supermarkets that have been inspected or produce in approved facilities. Our news stories are full of word of e-coli, saboteurs, and malfunctions of the governments inability to only give us what they are personally willing to consume. We trust that they have a love of life and wish to continue existence. With the supermarkets, we do not have a personal relationship or knowledge of the producers’ practices or use of pesticides. Even in large communities, we can have a personal relationship with our suppliers as we shop with them on a regular basis.
The proposed guidelines appear to wish to make the small supplier work as though they were competing on a large scale like suppliers for supermarkets. This concept is so far from the truth of the situation with small suppliers. It would appear that the movement afoot wishes to make all small suppliers disappear just as the small farmer has become a thing of the past. Continual government regulations have forced many small farmers to sell out to the large corporate farmer. It is all the small requests or regulations that have added incremental costs to the produce without any added price received that have forced small business to close their doors. Why is it that governments appear to favour large corporations who have in fact forced the small local supplier to accept minimal profit for their product?
The request to label all products will add costs to the product without any added value to us as consumers. We know or can ask the local producer what the products contain as we make the purchase. This cannot happen in a supermarket.
The discussion about potentially hazardous food products and risk assessment has the potential of closing the doors on the small producer as the cost will be prohibitive. The public will quickly become aware in a farmer’s market situation that a local producer is selling bad products and the public will either stop buying from that producer or will talk with them or the local community about the inferior product. The practice will discontinue as the local producer is not going to be able to continue making sales of the inferior product to the community it serves. We are educated to believe that we are in a capitalistic system of marketing, but the continual enforcement of new government regulations is making the economy a communistic one. Is this the hope of our government?
Continual government regulations are taking the freedom of choice away from the citizens of this country. If we, as individuals wish to take the minimal chance that our neighbours are not being careful in the production of their product, why is the government taking that choice away?
I personally prefer the product produced locally over the mass-produced government-inspected one as I know my supplier and personally know the practices they follow. I trust this process far more than I do the “safe, inspected” one that has proven to be faulty.
To expect the small producer to label ingredients by percentage is ridiculous. Many of our local producers are fine people who lack the education necessary to make this kind of label. They however, do not lack the ability to produce a superior product that does not contain preservatives and was not grown using pesticides. They might also lack the computers to mass produce a label without adding an increasing amount of time to hand produce a label. With increased time put into the product, the consumer is going to have to pay an increased cost without any added benefit.
The list of prohibitive products will force consumers to purchase from larger stores. This is taking away free choice and not to the benefit of consumers as we have been able to deduce from news items concerning the health risks involved in the purchase of chain store products. There is not a week that goes by that there isn’t a news item that discusses recall of product, e-coli, contamination in the government inspected product, enforced shut down of a government regulated facility that is inferior but has given until this point product that has been passed onto the consumer.
In closing, I wish to protest the new guidelines as given to the local farmer’s market dated April 16, 2010. I will be passing this letter on to all the concerned, involved people in my community as well as those known people within the provincial government structures and to the local newspapers.
Sincerely,
Mary Lou Planer
Maple Creek