Consumers are no longer directly connected to farms, and that creates issues in understanding how producers grow food.
If the agriculture sector wants consumers to know their story they have to be involved in telling it.
At least that is the belief of SaskCanola which initiated the creation of the documentary film 鈥楲icense to Farm鈥�.
鈥淐anada is a world leader in agriculture and food production. But farming doesn鈥檛 look the same as it did a hundred, fifty, or even ten years ago. Farmers are producing more with less, using more efficient and sustainable practices than ever before. So why do consumers carry so much doubt around the way their food is produced? When did fear begin to trump science and fact when it comes to food production 鈥� and how do we earn back that valuable consumer confidence?鈥� relates the film鈥檚 website at www.licensetofarm.com
鈥淚t is crucial for agriculture 鈥� particularly farmers 鈥� to take a seat at the table when it comes to conversations about food. Farmers can play a crucial role by engaging in meaningful conversations, opening the doors to their livelihood and building trust with their communities.鈥�
Dale Leftwich is a farmer from Esterhazy, and a Director with SaskCanola, was one of those producers who was part of 鈥楲icense to Farm鈥�.
As a Director Leftwich was able to provide insight into why SaskCanola chose to fund the film.
鈥淧eople are not as closely connected to the food that they eat as they used to be,鈥� he said. 鈥淎s a result people have a lot of questions about how food is produced and whether it is safe when it is produced this way. Farmers have not been a part of this conversation, and that has resulted in some of the most outlandish stories being created and passed off as 鈥榯he truth about food鈥�.
鈥淲ith this in mind I was talking to a friend, Garry Berteig, who happens to be a filmmaker, about how we could help farmers tell their stories.
鈥淲e felt that a movie might help, but it had to be different than what was already available. It had to be scientific but also display the 鈥榟eart鈥� that is in agriculture. A proposal was created by Garry and his team and that proposal was taken to the board of SaskCanola. Garry had also had many conversations with his brothers who are farmers in the Swift Current area. The board thought it was a good way to foster difficult conversations so they approved the production.鈥�
But did SaskCanola provide the filmmaker a framework of what he was to cover in the film?
鈥淭he filmmakers came to the board with a proposal, but it was a consultative process throughout, so that the farmers鈥� voices would form the backbone of the piece,鈥� offered Lefdtwich. 鈥淏erteig Imaging brought the craft, expertise and a feeling for public sentiment while SaskCanola personnel were able to provide logistics, familiarity with the industry, people to talk with, and make sure all the information was accurate.鈥�
Terry Youzwa, SaskCanola Chairman said getting involved was a huge step given farmers generally are not particularly outspoken on what they do.
鈥淔armers are generally speaking a humble group and not the most vocal,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he film provides them a resource or a tool to use in social conversations. They know that what they are doing is safe for the food and the land. They could use some support in this age of social media in being advocates for why they do what they do. Growers need to be encouraged to tell their story as they are trusted.鈥�
While only 30-minutes the film covers a lot of themes; farmers needing to talk for themselves, are genetically modified crops safe, is the food supply safe, are there enough safeguards in place, etc. So which is the key message of the film?
The framework of the film is a collaborated effort between the filmakers and SaskCanola, said Youzwa. Topic areas were identified and then SaskCanola identified experts in each of those areas and connected the filmakers with the experts. The film is not scripted so the sincerity of the growers and the experts speaks clearly.
鈥淭he key message for me is that farming is not a cultural practice that needs to be preserved like pickled cucumbers,鈥� offered Leftwich. 鈥淔armers adapt to changing times by using new methods that are more efficient and, in fact, safer than methods used historically. Contrary to what some might say, these methods are safer for the environment, safer for the farmer and much safer for the consumer.鈥�
At times there seem to be contradictions in the film, such as the narrator early in the piece talking about Canada having as many regulations regarding farming as anywhere, and then there are stated worries of needing to do something or we will end up regulated like Europe.
The question becomes what producers see as the actual situation?
鈥淲ith regards to regulation, what we are talking about is a science-based process,鈥� said Leftwich. 鈥淚n Europe they are far more restrictive even though their scientific organizations recognize these products are safe. Then, when it suits their policy-makers they create a different set of rules. For instance they restrict GMOs in some cases but then fully accept it for wine, cheese and insulin production.鈥�
Youzwa said Canada鈥檚 standards are working.
鈥淚t鈥檚 important to realize the high qualities and safeguards that we already have in Canada,鈥� he said.
鈥淭he canola sector advocates for a science based regulatory approval process. If decisions are implemented without proven evidence then the potential to erode credibility in the global regulatory bodies exists. We support the continued review and testing of crop protection products. As growers, we seek to produce what is needed by consumers while also caring for our land and environment in a sustainable manner. We believe that this can be a mutually beneficial relationship 鈥�
鈥淕rowers want to make sure as an Ag industry that we are producing safe quality food.
鈥淥ur country has access to quality foods at a relatively low cost compared to other countries.
鈥淐osts are affected by production methods. We are all consumers and have an interest in safe quality food at a reasonable price.鈥�
Those in the film talk a lot about balancing progress against risk, the idea of what level of risk there is to GMO and intensive farming. In North America in particular, where food choices exist, food is relatively low cost, and abundant are consumers simply weighing the benefits of GMO foods and wanting to control their risk with non-GMO options?
鈥淵es we understand there are concerns, but we have to see this in context,鈥� said Leftwich. 鈥淧eople accept risk all of the time. People drive in cars, fly in planes and put their children on bicycles. The point is made in the movie that there has never been a single case of anyone harmed in any way from GMOs, yet people shy away from them. At the same time alcohol is a proven carcinogen and people do not think twice about that risk.
鈥淪o, while there is no known risk from GMOs there are known consequences from not allowing them to be used such as: more expensive food, more tillage of soil leading to greater soil degradation, more pesticides being used to control insects and so on and so on.鈥�
But consumers do face a number of situations where knowing exactly what the situation is not always clear. For example, there are lots of concerns out there about mega farms, industrial farms, and corporate farms. In many cases consumers seem particularly focused on intensive livestock. Are grain farmers unfairly lumped into this issue?
鈥淚 think that every case needs to be discussed on its own merit,鈥� said Leftwich. 鈥淟arge livestock enterprises are not a part of this documentary and there are others that are better able to talk about that issue. 聽
鈥淎s far as small or large grain farms there are lots of differences between them but that should not be translated as better or worse. Each family has its own set of circumstances and each family tries to create a happy and prosperous way of life. The film is trying to say do not judge a book by its cover. Whether they are small farms or large farms, they are almost all just families.鈥�
Youzwa said every farm is somewhat unique in what works best.
鈥淭here are many different farm models, this is not a one size fits all cookie cutter format,鈥� he said.
鈥淲hat works for one may or may not work for another. Each farm has its own story and is doing what it can to provide for their family. Their livelihood depends on continuing to produce a product that the marketplace wants and values. Ninety-seven per cent of farms in Canada are family owned and operated. We hope the film encourages conversations and helps people understand that farmers care about what they produce and how they produce it.鈥�
The viewpoints of the film are likely to have differing reactions depending on the audience. Statistically the Prairies already have accepted canola oil well, but do those involved have a 鈥榝eel鈥� yet what the reaction to the film among people in Toronto, or Vancouver is, and then beyond to New York and LA?
鈥淲e do not know how the movie will be accepted in urban areas,鈥� said Leftwich. 鈥淲e do know that it has been seen in 133 countries, so farmers are sharing it around the world. It may seem funny to say this, but we are not trying to persuade people of our point of view, we are trying to promote conversations so we, urban and rural people, can come to a common understanding about the science behind food production and the heart that is still in agriculture.鈥�
So has the film accomplished what Leftwich hoped for as both a producer, and a SaskCanola Director?
鈥淭he film has only been out a short time but we are very happy about the response,鈥� he said. 鈥淔armers have been letting us know how happy they are about the content of the film and how they are using it to help people know how food gets to their plate 鈥�
鈥淲e think we have made a great film that farmers can be proud of.聽 Because farmers are proud of it they want to share it, and we know that they are sharing it.
鈥淲e are all connected now electronically so it can be shared around the world with one click of a computer. What appears to be happening as well is that it is being shared by people who are not farmers, and that is very gratifying. Because it has been accepted so well by farmers and consumers we are going to try some other things, such as putting it in the Yorkton Short Film Festival and seeing what kind of audience it finds there. We hope it will continue to spark conversations in every environment.鈥�
Youzwa said it is early in terms of the film鈥檚 release, but so far reaction is positive.
鈥淚t has already had over 50000 views on YouTube and licensetofarm.com,鈥� he said. 鈥淭here is great interest in the film and we have received appreciative gratitude for making it publicly available. The film helps growers and the people involved in agriculture tell their story. Consumers are also appreciating the information in the film. The film is intended to help encourage conversations about food and how food is produced. It is playing a positive role in accomplishing this.
鈥淭he feedback has been overwhelmingly positive and it has come from not only across the country but around the globe. The intent was to encourage conversations between growers and consumers so that both sides can understand that we all care about the quality of the food we eat.鈥�
