Re: US sanctions
 

Since only 8.8% of small farms use use it and the overall usage is roughly twice that....... I don't know. It's safe to say that it's the large producers that will be exporting, and they like to maximise their yield as much as anybody so you'll probably have to have trousers altered.

Re: US sanctions
 

This one.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...577d1dbc82.png

Re: US sanctions
 

Trump's announcement of a US-Mexico agreement was bizarre. He seems intent on breaking alliances apart.

Re: US sanctions
 

In his mind perhaps 'Divide and Conquer' !

Foolish man.

Re: US sanctions
 

He has a mind? :)

But yes, that's probably his m.o.

Re: US sanctions
 

Not really. It appears to me that he believes he has struck a good deal with Mexico and has indicated that he will agree to a similar deal with Canada. Canada likely won't do so because, as outlined above, the Canadian government is not prepared to allow its citizens to obtain cheaper access to goods as it may piss off a few in Canada that control the market. Benefitting the few at the expense of the many.

It seems analogous to Brexit to me. The deal that Germany would likely be willing to strike with the UK will be different from the one that the UK will strike with the whole of EU. Just look at the issues that were raised by Wallonia (or whatever it is called) when Canada struck a deal with the EU. Far easier to tailor bi-lateral agreements that it is to tailor multi-lateral ones.

Re: US sanctions
 

All I can see with Trump is an interventionist. From what's been reported on the Mexico deal, requiring higher Mexican wages undermines trade (although Mexican factory workers won't, in the short term, be complaining).

Irrelevant to draw parallels with a non-EU Germany - it doesn't exist.

Re: US sanctions
 

Map from the globe and mail last year.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...6ad7b7304b.jpg


Based on comments from both sides, seems the sticking point is dairy. WI is the only major producer (2nd largest) who voted Trump, and largest producer (California) didn't support Trump, so Trump could lower US subsidies to US dairy if Canada lowers the tariff amount on milk, butter and cheese, he will lose WI but if he gets a good deal in regards to autos he would keep the other rust belt states most likely happy.

Re: US sanctions
 

I was simply arguing for the fact that it is easier to agree to bi-lateral agreements than multi-lateral ones if getting the best deals with States that have different wishes is your objective.

Re: US sanctions
 

If your buying in the US you just have to read the label, the companies using milk free of artificial hormones are very happy to label their products as such.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nneYiBmeyr...0/IMG_4615.JPG

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...-9rDJK3bnbfvfq

https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99...05-138y4ri.jpg

Considering Canada does not permit artificial hormones in milk, doubtful they would permit said milk to be imported.

Re: US sanctions
 

I say let the purchaser decide. I accept that that requires proper labelling.

Re: US sanctions
 

Hormones may be the least of it
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...childrens-food

Re: US sanctions
 

Certainly not unique to the US, that pesticide is available and used in Canada as well and found in our domestic food as well.

Can't use pesticides for decades and not expect it to not end up in our water and food.

Good start would be to ban it at the retail consumer level where I doubt most are using it correctly let alone disposing of it correctly.

Re: US sanctions
 

Glysophate is a herbicide used worldwide and is inactivated on contact with soil, so not residual. This was why the National Trust favoured it.Consumer product is a lot less concentrated than the commercial. The problem with cereal crops is, it is being sprayed onto mature plants to kill them, so the grain dries faster. It is unnecessary, waiting a few weeks and it dries naturally.

Re: US sanctions
 

Roundup has been banned in Ontario for years.