Canada's new food security strategy promises billions of dollars for a more affordable and resilient food system . But investments in technology, infrastructure and production will only work if farmers have the knowledge and support to put them into practice.
Authors
- Khondokar Humayun Kabir
Postdoctoral Fellow, School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph
- Ataharul Chowdhury
Associate Professor of Capacity Development and Extension, University of Guelph
The need for such a strategy is clear. Canadians have faced among the highest food inflation rates in the G7 in recent years . Five retailers control three-quarters of grocery sales, and Canada imports 88 per cent of its fresh fruit and 72 per cent of its vegetables , leaving consumers vulnerable when supply chains are disrupted or tariffs increase costs.
In June, the federal government launched Canada's first National Food Security Strategy , committing more than $3 billion over 10 years to strengthen grocery competition, expand food processing, increase greenhouse production and reform regulations.
The plan aims to increase the share of healthy food produced in Canada from 75 to 85 per cent by 2032, double the value of greenhouse and indoor farming, and reduce greenhouse labour and energy costs through automation.
Achieving these goals will depend on farmers adopting new tools and practices suited to their operations, soils, livestock and budgets. That, in turn, depends on extension and advisory services : the agronomists, veterinarians, government specialists and educators who translate research, regulations and emerging technologies into practical decisions. Yet across its many pages, the National Food Security Strategy never mentions these services.
The countries Canada points to as models take a different approach. The strategy credits the Netherlands with one of the strongest agricultural knowledge systems among wealthy countries. France connects companies, researchers and producers, while Japan pairs investment in smart agriculture with farmer training.
In each case, investment is backed by co-ordinated advisory systems. Canada's strategy invests in infrastructure and technology, but says little about the people who help farmers put them to work.
What happened to Canada's farm advisors
Canada's advisory system has changed dramatically over the past several decades. For much of the 20th century, provinces employed publicly funded extension agents whom farmers could call for advice. Since the 1990s, governments have gradually pulled back from this involvement .
Today, farm advice comes from a patchwork of private consultants, seed and fertilizer companies, commodity organizations, non-profits and government programs. This system can leave farmers unsure of where to turn or whose advice to trust.
In our research with Ontario farmers and agricultural advisors , we found that farmers place a high value on individualized advice from someone who understands their specific operation. They also told us the advice they get is often inconsistent, duplicated and sometimes biased, because much of it now comes from people with something to sell.
Access is another concern. The system's attention flows toward large, innovative operations, while small and mid-sized farms get less of it . European studies found the same pattern after those countries privatized farm advice: smaller farms are often the first to lose access to reliable knowledge networks.
Canada has no national plan for farm advisory services and no shared standards, unlike the United States, which runs a coast-to-coast extension system anchored in its public universities. There is no research measuring what farm advice contributes to farm incomes , so we cannot even count what the retreat has cost. Meanwhile, the university programs that train extension professionals are shrinking .
Canada's fragmented extension system leaves many farmers without dedicated advisors or co-ordinated support . The absence of a national professional body limits efforts to attract, connect and amplify the voices of the extension workers who remain.
Farmers are turning to the internet
Without a trusted advisor, farmers increasingly rely on the same sources many people use for everyday questions: they go online. Facebook, YouTube and artificial intelligence have become first stops for identifying pests, choosing feed supplements or checking regulations.
Digital platforms can provide access to information quickly, but they also introduce new risks. Our review of misinformation research shows that false and misleading claims about farming practices, inputs and climate change circulate widely through these channels. When researchers in our group tested popular AI chatbots on real Ontario livestock questions , the answers mixed useful guidance with errors.
Recent research highlights that AI adoption can create new challenges including conflicting predictions, uncertainty in decision-making and inadequate preparedness for AI-related disruptions.
There is not yet evidence that AI chatbots are causing widespread harm in agriculture, and the risks should be considered carefully rather than overstated. But a strategy that encourages technological adoption while leaving farmers to independently verify online information creates an avoidable vulnerability.
5 fixes that would make the strategy work
This gap is fixable without rebuilding the government programs of the 1970s. It takes five practical steps.
First, federal, provincial and territorial governments should agree on common goals and quality standards for farm advice. The moment is already on the calendar: negotiations for the next five-year agricultural funding agreement begin in 2028.
Second, Canada needs to train more advisors. Universities and professional organizations require renewed support to educate and develop the specialists who will help farmers navigate technological and environmental change.
Third, Canada should create a national platform for extension professionals. Such a body could strengthen professional networks, improve co-ordination and ensure that front-line agricultural knowledge informs decisions about food security, innovation and rural development.
Fourth, governments should invest in research that measures the impact of advisory services. Canada needs evidence about which approaches improve farm incomes, productivity and resilience.
Finally, farmers and advisors need help navigating the digital world. Standards must be set for AI tools that give farm advice, and equip advisors and farmers to spot and counter agricultural misinformation.
Next to a $3-billion strategy, these measures would cost little and raise the return on every other dollar spent. New terminals, greenhouses and funds will not put more Canadian food on Canadian plates unless Canadian know-how reaches Canadian farms. A food strategy that skips the people who teach farmers how to use it is missing a step it cannot afford to miss.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
