On September 30th, 2007, the government declared new Meat Inspection Regulations, devastating local farmers’ livelihood and Powell River residents’ choices for local healthy foods.

The Regulations state that any meat products must be sent to a licensed abattoir for inspection and slaughter before sale to the public, effectively halting on-farm slaughter and locally made meat products. Non-compliance is a regulatory offence, without jail time but with stiff fines no small farmer could afford.

The new legislation is impractical for ferry-bound Powell River, forcing the transport of livestock by road and ferry. Since our farmers raise animals in small numbers, the time and expense involved in moving livestock are especially prohibitive.

Will a large-scale abattoir, which has no attachment to the animals, be as humane as the farmer who raised them and prepared them for consumption on their own land? Are farmers forced to consign their animals to the horrible deaths common to large slaughter operations? Doesn’t the journey to the abattoir itself entail needless suffering and loss?
The main purpose of this new regulation is protection of exports. Should government not enact a larger scheme to protect us from imports containing viruses, bacteria and heavy metals? BC brings in tons of pork intestines for sausages and hundreds of thousands of chicken from China, lamb from Australia, and meat from the US—what’s the overall picture of consumer protection?

What to do? Some local farmers have cut back their orders for next year, preparing to quit. Others vow to carry on, undeterred by the moccasin-telegraph news that local feed stores are being asked to have customers sign off on feed purchases on a “voluntary basis for now”—indicating an unhealthy government interest in who’s doing what down on the local farm.

These issues could have their day in court once a farmer is charged with an offence under this regulation. Hopefully local interest groups would fund the farmer’s defense, including arguments that these provisions deny small meat producers the right to gain a livelihood in any province, a right guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, within demonstrably reasonable limits.

The problem with the wait-and-see-and-defend approach, aside from the pain people in lawsuits inevitably go through, is that there’s no guarantee that a successful defense will strike down the offending law. Even if the law is struck down, what’s to prevent the government from then enacting a different one? Back to Square One!

Local farmers, consumers, the Green party, Farm Folk/City Folk and the 100-mile-diet Society are pro-actively petitioning for a Powell-River solution to be added to the Regulation.

The petition requests the government work with farmers to create a different regulation for our area. Nicolas Simons has agreed to read the petition in the Legislature once it has 1,000 signatures.

Ferdinand Vondruska of C-Dar Farms and Lodge says, “Are we to sacrifice our small farms to protect those that have caused the problems—feedlots with thousands of cows penned side by side? We are about to cave in to very shady…foreign demands that will kill the small farmers. It will certainly not make meat any better!”

He points to Switzerland, where traveling butchers visit farmers on demand with trucks equipped to take blood samples of animals as well as ensuring proper registration. Farmers producing meat products receive certification of humane handling and the A1 standard of the Swiss Government, resulting in a better income to the farmer.

“Farming on 20 - 100 acres has nearly become an impossibility. It is only with the support of the public that the small holder or mini-farmer will survive. There still are hundreds of them; however, once they are gone, they cannot be replaced. A vital link in the production of wholesome food will quickly disappear. We have reached that point in history.”

Powell River farmers, pointing out there’s never been a problem with local meats from small farmers compared to agribusiness, don’t object to meeting public-health standards. What’s objectionable is the potential for harm to the animals and to the area’s livability, inciting rebellion against a law that not only fails to enhance a strong local economy but threatens to destroy an essential part of it—control over our own good food.

Should the petition work, PR may win an arrangement, perhaps like the Swiss, that hews closer to “reasonable limits” to Charter our rights to gain a livelihood. If not, groups had better get together and get ready for the first skirmish in a long legal battle.