Dairy Farmers of Ontario declare February 12 “Food Freedom Day”

It seems the DFO were influenced by that old Apple computer advertising slogan “Think Different”. Either that, or they have a singular focus on economics. Here’s a bit of what they say about their concept of Food Freedom in a recent website post on their “corporate news” page:

Board room photo from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario "about us" page.

“On February 12, 2010, the average Canadian had earned enough income to pay his or her individual grocery bill for the entire year, making it Food Freedom Day!

Food Freedom Day occurred on the same day it did last year, due largely to the fact that Canada’s food costs have risen by less than one per cent over the past year. This is very low, especially when compared to the United States and the European Union where food prices have gone up by four per cent and in some cases over five per cent. Despite the low rise in food prices for Canadian consumers, the Farmers’ Share, a recent study commissioned by prairie members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA), showed that, on average, only 27 per cent of the cost of an entire week’s worth of groceries for a family of four goes back to the farms where the food is produced….”

Read their whole story on this page

4 Comments

Filed under News

4 responses to “Dairy Farmers of Ontario declare February 12 “Food Freedom Day”

  1. “… there’s still an overwhelming consensus among medical experts that raw milk presents a real risk to public health” – Premier Dalton McGuinty.

    The only risk raw milk presents, is to the business of public health. A healthy population doesn’t need that many health experts now does it. These same experts are eager to have us poison ourselves with H1N1 shots and fluoride in our water. A disgrace.

  2. thebovine

    An amusing bit of spam that someone tried to post on the bovine:

    “Hello, just wanted you to know I have added your site to my Google bookmarks because of the informative content. Simple but effective. Sometimes I realize that it is difficult to find some good information about products but I think that I have found most of what I was looking for here. Thank you once again”

    The all-purpose comment — you could post that anywhere!

  3. Michael Schmidt

    Why do we think Government is wrong when we are the ones who had the power to change things. rising out of emerging needs of all of us. The notion of THEM and US is wrong . The notion of WE ARE the Government is right. Silence is consent. This way a revolution transforms into a human evolution with a high regard for the”dignity of others” (some call them enemies)

  4. thebovine

    One further thought on this story is that in the past at least, Hill and Knowlton have been the lobbyist of record for the DFO at Queen’s Park. I’m suspecting they might have had a hand in this attempt to change the meaning of “food freedom”.

    Readers may remember that it was Hill and Knowlton’s “PR” that helped send America to the first Gulf war in 1991. Here are some excerpts from the PR Watch story “How PR sold the war in the Persian Gulf”:

    “….Every big media event needs what journalists and flacks alike refer to as “the hook.” An ideal hook becomes the central element of a story that makes it newsworthy, evokes a strong emotional response, and sticks in the memory. In the case of the Gulf War, the “hook” was invented by Hill & Knowlton. In style, substance and mode of delivery, it bore an uncanny resemblance to England’s World War I hearings that accused German soldiers of killing babies.

    On October 10, 1990, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus held a hearing on Capitol Hill which provided the first opportunity for formal presentations of Iraqi human rights violations. Outwardly, the hearing resembled an official congressional proceeding, but appearances were deceiving. In reality, the Human Rights Caucus, chaired by California Democrat Tom Lantos and Illinois Republican John Porter, was simply an association of politicians. Lantos and Porter were also co-chairs of the Congressional Human Rights Foundation, a legally separate entity that occupied free office space valued at $3,000 a year in Hill & Knowlton’s Washington, DC office. Notwithstanding its congressional trappings, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus served as another Hill & Knowlton front group, which – like all front groups – used a noble-sounding name to disguise its true purpose.80

    Only a few astute observers noticed the hypocrisy in Hill & Knowlton’s use of the term “human rights.” One of those observers was John MacArthur, author of The Second Front, which remains the best book written about the manipulation of the news media during the Gulf War. In the fall of 1990, MacArthur reported, Hill & Knowlton’s Washington switchboard was simultaneously fielding calls for the Human Rights Foundation and for “government representatives of Indonesia, another H&K client. Like H&K client Turkey, Indonesia is a practitioner of naked aggression, having seized . . . the former Portuguese colony of East Timor in 1975. Since the annexation of East Timor, the Indonesian government has killed, by conservative estimate, about 100,000 inhabitants of the region.”81

    MacArthur also noticed another telling detail about the October 1990 hearings: “The Human Rights Caucus is not a committee of congress, and therefore it is unencumbered by the legal accouterments that would make a witness hesitate before he or she lied. … Lying under oath in front of a congressional committee is a crime; lying from under the cover of anonymity to a caucus is merely public relations.”82

    In fact, the most emotionally moving testimony on October 10 came from a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, known only by her first name of Nayirah. According to the Caucus, Nayirah’s full name was being kept confidential to prevent Iraqi reprisals against her family in occupied Kuwait. Sobbing, she described what she had seen with her own eyes in a hospital in Kuwait City. Her written testimony was passed out in a media kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait. “I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital,” Nayirah said. “While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die.”83

    Three months passed between Nayirah’s testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows, and at the UN Security Council. “Of all the accusations made against the dictator,” MacArthur observed, “none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City.”84

    At the Human Rights Caucus, however, Hill & Knowlton and Congressman Lantos had failed to reveal that Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father, in fact, was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait’s Ambassador to the US, who sat listening in the hearing room during her testimony. The Caucus also failed to reveal that H&K vice-president Lauri Fitz-Pegado had coached Nayirah in what even the Kuwaitis’ own investigators later confirmed was false testimony.
    If Nayirah’s outrageous lie had been exposed at the time it was told, it might have at least caused some in Congress and the news media to soberly reevaluate the extent to which they were being skillfully manipulated to support military action. Public opinion was deeply divided on Bush’s Gulf policy. As late as December 1990, a New York Times/CBS News poll indicated that 48 percent of the American people wanted Bush to wait before taking any action if Iraq failed to withdraw from Kuwait by Bush’s January 15 deadline.85 On January 12, the US Senate voted by a narrow, five-vote margin to support the Bush administration in a declaration of war. Given the narrowness of the vote, the babies-thrown-from-incubators story may have turned the tide in Bush’s favor.

    Following the war, human rights investigators attempted to confirm Nayirah’s story and could find no witnesses or other evidence to support it. Amnesty International, which had fallen for the story, was forced to issue an embarrassing retraction. Nayirah herself was unavailable for comment. “This is the first allegation I’ve had that she was the ambassador’s daughter,” said Human Rights Caucus co-chair John Porter. “Yes, I think people . . . were entitled to know the source of her testimony.” When journalists for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation asked Nasir al-Sabah for permission to question Nayirah about her story, the ambassador angrily refused.86…”

    Read the whole report here: http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s