The objective of this report is to provide a literature review on the economic benefits of biodiversity to Canadian producers of cereals, oilseeds and special crops. The review focuses on the economic benefits of biodiversity to crop farmers that are undertaking farm practices that contribute to biodiversity. The farm practices include the maintenance of permanent and temporary wetlands, generation and renewal of soil and natural vegetation, maintenance of wildlife habitat and moderation of extremes of temperature and force of winds. Publicly available research is included in this report and it includes peer-reviewed academic journal articles and reports from various governmental and non-governmental sources. Studies on the economic benefits of biodiversity to crop farmers (or society in general) are mainly from Canada and the United States. In summary, the results generally show that biodiversity provides economic benefits to crop production in terms of providing pollination services, biocontrol of pests, soil formation, nitrogen fixation, improvements or maintenance of water quality, sequestration of carbon and the protection of crops from the force of winds (shelterbelts). Economic values of the benefits of biodiversity, to society and farmers, are also included in the report.
In light of recent food safety crises and international trade concerns associated with food or animal associated diseases, traceability has once again become important in the minds of public policymakers, business decision makers, consumers and special interest groups. This study reviews studies on traceability, government regulation and consumer behavior, provide case studies of current traceability systems and a rough breakdown of various costs and benefits of traceability. This report aims to identify gaps that may currently exist in the literature on traceability in the domestic beef supply chain, as well as provide possible directions for future research into said issue. Three main conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, there is a lack of a common definition of traceability. Hence identifying similarities and differences across studies becomes difficult if not impossible. To this end, this study adopts CFIA's definition of traceability. This definition has been adopted by numerous other agencies including the EU's official definition of traceability however it may or may not be acceptable from the perspective of major Canadian beef and cattle trade partners. Second, the studies reviewed in this report address one or more of five key objectives; the impact of changing consumer behaviour on market participants, suppliers incentive to adopt or participate in traceability, impact of regulatory changes, supplier response to crisis and technical description of traceability systems. Drawing from the insights from the consumer studies, it seems as if consumers do not value traceability per se, traceability is a means for consumers to receive validation of another production or process attribute that they are interested in. Moreover, supply chain improvement, food safety control and accessing foreign market segments are strong incentives for primary producers and processors to participate in programs with traceability features. However the objectives addressed by the studies reviewed in this paper are not necessarily the objectives that are of most immediate relevance to decision makers about appropriate traceability standards to recommend, require, subsidize etc. In many cases the research objectives of previous work have been extremely narrow creating a body of literature that is incomplete in certain key areas. Third, case studies of existing traceability systems in Australia, the UK, Scotland, Brazil and Uruguay indicate that the pattern of development varies widely across sectors and regions. In summary, a traceability system by itself cannot provide value-added for all participants in the industry; it is merely a protocol for documenting and sharing information. Value is added to participants in the marketing chain through traceability in the form of reduced transactions costs in the case of a food safety incident and through the ability to shift liability. To ensure consumer benefit and have premiums returned to primary producers the type of information that consumers value is an important issue for future research. A successful program that peaks consumer interest and can enhance their eating experience can generate economic benefits to all sectors in the beef industry. International market access will increasingly require traceability in the marketing system in order to satisfy trade restrictions in the case of animal diseases and country of origin labelling, to name only a few examples. Designing appropriate traceability protocols industry wide is therefore becoming very apparent.
In light of recent food safety crises and international trade concerns associated with food or animal associated diseases, traceability has once again become important in the minds of public policymakers, business decision makers, consumers and special interest groups. This study reviews studies on traceability, government regulation and consumer behavior, provide case studies of current traceability systems and a rough breakdown of various costs and benefits of traceability. This report aims to identify gaps that may currently exist in the literature on traceability in the domestic beef supply chain, as well as provide possible directions for future research into said issue. Three main conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, there is a lack of a common definition of traceability. Hence identifying similarities and differences across studies becomes difficult if not impossible. To this end, this study adopts CFIA's definition of traceability. This definition has been adopted by numerous other agencies including the EU's official definition of traceability however it may or may not be acceptable from the perspective of major Canadian beef and cattle trade partners. Second, the studies reviewed in this report address one or more of five key objectives; the impact of changing consumer behaviour on market participants, suppliers incentive to adopt or participate in traceability, impact of regulatory changes, supplier response to crisis and technical description of traceability systems. Drawing from the insights from the consumer studies, it seems as if consumers do not value traceability per se, traceability is a means for consumers to receive validation of another production or process attribute that they are interested in. Moreover, supply chain improvement, food safety control and accessing foreign market segments are strong incentives for primary producers and processors to participate in programs with traceability features. However the objectives addressed by the studies reviewed in this paper are not necessarily the objectives that are of most immediate relevance to decision makers about appropriate traceability standards to recommend, require, subsidize etc. In many cases the research objectives of previous work have been extremely narrow creating a body of literature that is incomplete in certain key areas. Third, case studies of existing traceability systems in Australia, the UK, Scotland, Brazil and Uruguay indicate that the pattern of development varies widely across sectors and regions. In summary, a traceability system by itself cannot provide value-added for all participants in the industry; it is merely a protocol for documenting and sharing information. Value is added to participants in the marketing chain through traceability in the form of reduced transactions costs in the case of a food safety incident and through the ability to shift liability. To ensure consumer benefit and have premiums returned to primary producers the type of information that consumers value is an important issue for future research. A successful program that peaks consumer interest and can enhance their eating experience can generate economic benefits to all sectors in the beef industry. International market access will increasingly require traceability in the marketing system in order to satisfy trade restrictions in the case of animal diseases and country of origin labelling, to name only a few examples. Designing appropriate traceability protocols industry wide is therefore becoming very apparent.
A recent letter to the editor in The Edmonton Journal ended with the question, \"How many more needless death?\" [\"More Wheat, Less Rye,\" Edmonton Journal, p. A13 (17 January 2005)] The letter was not addressing the violence in Darfur, distribution of pharmaceuticals, or AIDS -- it was a comment on new dietary guidelines released a few days earlier in the United States. The tone of this letter highlights the growing concern over the linkages between food and health. Especially over the last ten years, such issues have received increasing public attention in both the policy and media arenas. One of the major drivers of public policy interest in this area is an increase in health costs that are attributable to diet-related causes. Lawsuits over issues of dietary liability, the popularity of books and movies such as Fast Food Nation and Supersize Me, and a barrage of quotable and terrifying statistics have all helped contribute to a growing consensus that we are facing a new crisis of food-related health concerns. If we are to address these concerns as a society, we must first recognize that consumer food choices are complex. Designing effective policies to change consumer attitudes may therefore be difficult and costly, and requires and integrative approach. Incentives offered to primary food producers, processors, retailers, and restaurateurs must be in line with societal goals, regulatory oversight must be consistent, and consumers must be provided with adequate information. In order to work toward better, more effective policies, it is desirable to review the actions and recommendations that the medical profession, multinational organizations, NGOs, the food industry, and national governments have undertaken. It is also important to assess the impacts of policies that have been proposed in other contexts, such as those developed to control the use of tobacco or those that govern the agri-food distribution system. To that end, University of Alberta researchers, at the request of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, undertook a literature review that addressed the following major areas: I. Part I consists of an overview of health and disease and the relationship between health and individual food consumption. Data are drawn from the medical literature. Discussion centres on a summary of various meta-analyses that link health to foods consumed. II. Part II summarizes major international organizations' views about food health issues. We detail the FAO and WHO's position on food and health and discuss the actions taken by various NGOs, including Canadian cancer and stroke organizations. III. Part III focuses on the food industry. The authors provide examples of the ways in which North American food firms have responded to health issues. This section also includes a summary of major food manufacturers' product advertising activities. IV. Part IV centres on public policy issues, such as the development and marketing of the Canadian Food Guide and governmental regulation of advertising for individual foods. V. Part V includes a synopsis and recommendations for further research.
A recent letter to the editor in The Edmonton Journal ended with the question, \"How many more needless death?\" [\"More Wheat, Less Rye,\" Edmonton Journal, p. A13 (17 January 2005)] The letter was not addressing the violence in Darfur, distribution of pharmaceuticals, or AIDS -- it was a comment on new dietary guidelines released a few days earlier in the United States. The tone of this letter highlights the growing concern over the linkages between food and health. Especially over the last ten years, such issues have received increasing public attention in both the policy and media arenas. One of the major drivers of public policy interest in this area is an increase in health costs that are attributable to diet-related causes. Lawsuits over issues of dietary liability, the popularity of books and movies such as Fast Food Nation and Supersize Me, and a barrage of quotable and terrifying statistics have all helped contribute to a growing consensus that we are facing a new crisis of food-related health concerns. If we are to address these concerns as a society, we must first recognize that consumer food choices are complex. Designing effective policies to change consumer attitudes may therefore be difficult and costly, and requires and integrative approach. Incentives offered to primary food producers, processors, retailers, and restaurateurs must be in line with societal goals, regulatory oversight must be consistent, and consumers must be provided with adequate information. In order to work toward better, more effective policies, it is desirable to review the actions and recommendations that the medical profession, multinational organizations, NGOs, the food industry, and national governments have undertaken. It is also important to assess the impacts of policies that have been proposed in other contexts, such as those developed to control the use of tobacco or those that govern the agri-food distribution system. To that end, University of Alberta researchers, at the request of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, undertook a literature review that addressed the following major areas: I. Part I consists of an overview of health and disease and the relationship between health and individual food consumption. Data are drawn from the medical literature. Discussion centres on a summary of various meta-analyses that link health to foods consumed. II. Part II summarizes major international organizations' views about food health issues. We detail the FAO and WHO's position on food and health and discuss the actions taken by various NGOs, including Canadian cancer and stroke organizations. III. Part III focuses on the food industry. The authors provide examples of the ways in which North American food firms have responded to health issues. This section also includes a summary of major food manufacturers' product advertising activities. IV. Part IV centres on public policy issues, such as the development and marketing of the Canadian Food Guide and governmental regulation of advertising for individual foods. V. Part V includes a synopsis and recommendations for further research.
Une lettre récemment envoyée à l'éditeur en chef du Edmonton Journal se terminait sur cette question : «Encore combien de décès inutiles? »1 Elle ne faisait pas allusion à la violence au Darfour, à la distribution de médicaments ou au sida; il s'agissait plutôt d'un commentaire sur les nouvelles lignes directrices en matière d'alimentation publiées quelques jours auparavant par le gouvernement américain. Le ton de cette lettre met en évidence le fait que la population se préoccupe de plus en plus des liens qui existent entre les aliments et la santé. Depuis dix ans particulièrement, les questions touchant l'alimentation et la santé ont suscité de plus en plus d'attention, tant dans les milieux politiques que médiatiques. Une des principales causes de l'intérêt pour les politiques gouvernementales dans ce domaine concerne l'augmentation des coûts de santé attribuables au régime alimentaire. Des poursuites concernant des responsabilités alimentaires, la popularité de livres et de films tels que Fast Food Nation et Supersize Me, ainsi qu'un déluge de statistiques étonnantes et terrifiantes, ont contribué à accroître le consensus autour de l'idée que nous sommes confrontés à une nouvelle crise de confiance à l'égard de notre alimentation. Avant de nous pencher sur ces questions en tant que société, nous devons tout d'abord réaliser que les consommateurs se trouvent devant des choix complexes en matière d'alimentation. Il peut s'avérer difficile et coûteux de concevoir des politiques efficaces pour changer leurs attitudes. Pour y parvenir, il faudra recourir à une approche intégrée. Il est nécessaire que les mesures incitatives offertes aux producteurs d'aliments primaires, aux transformateurs, aux détaillants et aux restaurateurs soient conformes aux objectifs de la société, que le régime réglementaire de surveillance soit cohérent et que les consommateurs soient correctement informés. Cependant, pour élaborer des politiques meilleures et plus efficaces, il est souhaitable d'analyser les actions et les recommandations mises en œuvre par la profession médicale, les organismes multinationaux, les organisations non gouvernementales, l'industrie alimentaire et les gouvernements nationaux. Par ailleurs, il est important d'évaluer l'incidence des politiques proposées dans d'autres contextes, comme celles qui visent à contrôler l'usage du tabac et celles qui régissent le système de distribution agroalimentaire. Dans cette optique, les chercheurs de l'Université de l'Alberta, à la demande d'Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada, ont réalisé une analyse documentaire portant sur plusieurs thèmes présentés comme suit : I. La partie I offre une vue d'ensemble des questions de santé et de maladie et des relations existant entre la santé et la consommation alimentaire. Les données proviennent de la documentation scientifique. La discussion porte 1 "More Wheat, Less Rye," Edmonton Journal, p. A13 (17 January 2005).
Une lettre récemment envoyée à l'éditeur en chef du Edmonton Journal se terminait sur cette question : «Encore combien de décès inutiles? »1 Elle ne faisait pas allusion à la violence au Darfour, à la distribution de médicaments ou au sida; il s'agissait plutôt d'un commentaire sur les nouvelles lignes directrices en matière d'alimentation publiées quelques jours auparavant par le gouvernement américain. Le ton de cette lettre met en évidence le fait que la population se préoccupe de plus en plus des liens qui existent entre les aliments et la santé. Depuis dix ans particulièrement, les questions touchant l'alimentation et la santé ont suscité de plus en plus d'attention, tant dans les milieux politiques que médiatiques. Une des principales causes de l'intérêt pour les politiques gouvernementales dans ce domaine concerne l'augmentation des coûts de santé attribuables au régime alimentaire. Des poursuites concernant des responsabilités alimentaires, la popularité de livres et de films tels que Fast Food Nation et Supersize Me, ainsi qu'un déluge de statistiques étonnantes et terrifiantes, ont contribué à accroître le consensus autour de l'idée que nous sommes confrontés à une nouvelle crise de confiance à l'égard de notre alimentation. Avant de nous pencher sur ces questions en tant que société, nous devons tout d'abord réaliser que les consommateurs se trouvent devant des choix complexes en matière d'alimentation. Il peut s'avérer difficile et coûteux de concevoir des politiques efficaces pour changer leurs attitudes. Pour y parvenir, il faudra recourir à une approche intégrée. Il est nécessaire que les mesures incitatives offertes aux producteurs d'aliments primaires, aux transformateurs, aux détaillants et aux restaurateurs soient conformes aux objectifs de la société, que le régime réglementaire de surveillance soit cohérent et que les consommateurs soient correctement informés. Cependant, pour élaborer des politiques meilleures et plus efficaces, il est souhaitable d'analyser les actions et les recommandations mises en œuvre par la profession médicale, les organismes multinationaux, les organisations non gouvernementales, l'industrie alimentaire et les gouvernements nationaux. Par ailleurs, il est important d'évaluer l'incidence des politiques proposées dans d'autres contextes, comme celles qui visent à contrôler l'usage du tabac et celles qui régissent le système de distribution agroalimentaire. Dans cette optique, les chercheurs de l'Université de l'Alberta, à la demande d'Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada, ont réalisé une analyse documentaire portant sur plusieurs thèmes présentés comme suit : I. La partie I offre une vue d'ensemble des questions de santé et de maladie et des relations existant entre la santé et la consommation alimentaire. Les données proviennent de la documentation scientifique. La discussion porte 1 "More Wheat, Less Rye," Edmonton Journal, p. A13 (17 January 2005).
