Farm Bureau Supports Access to Canada's Chemicals

July 27, 2001

The American Farm Bureau Federation is supporting legislation that would allow farmers, cooperatives and farm supply stores access to lower-priced Canadian agricultural chemicals that are identical or "substantially similar" to those sold in the United States. Testifying before a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee, Montana Farm Bureau President Dave McClure said, "There is a price disparity among some agricultural chemicals in the U.S. and Canada that impedes our competitiveness and profitability. We believe this legislation will remove that disparity."

Introduced by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Montana's Sens. Max Baucus (D) and Conrad Burns (R), the measure would enable producers to use crop protection products now available in Canada but off-limits to them due to U.S. law barring imports of agricultural chemicals. "Farm Bureau believes this legislation is a significant step toward achieving the goals of gaining access to affordable and needed products for U.S. farmers while at the same time maintaining U.S. standards designed to protect consumers, farmers and the environment," said McClure, an AFBF board member.

McClure, who raises wheat, barley, cattle and hay in Lewistown, MT, cited studies which have found varying prices for the same product on each side of the northern border. "Recent surveys have found that U.S. farmers can pay as much as 117% to 193% more than farmers in Canada for virtually the same products," McClure said, while acknowledging the price differences are sometimes less extreme.

Under the bill, states could ask the Environmental Protection Agency to issue labels that could be placed on Canadian crop protection products when the only significant difference between the U.S. and Canadian versions is the price. The U.S. product label would allow farmers to buy the Canadian pesticide for use only in the particular state that asked for the pesticide label and only on approved crops. EPA label instructions still would have to be followed. A similar bill is pending in the House.