Can Canadian Dairy Farmers Absorb Trump's Tariff Shock?

But it is hard to fix.

Milk is still being produced, but some of the usual buyers in the US are no longer buying it.

So this is not just about one farm losing sales, is it?

No, it affects the whole system.

One farmer in Abbotsford, British Columbia, said about 28,000 litres leave his farm every second day.

Most of that milk is used in Canada.

But some had been sold across the border.

That trade has largely come to a standstill.

A 50 percent tariff on Canadian dairy goods began on August 22.

That is a huge tariff. What does that mean for farmers on the ground?

It means the milk does not stay still for long.

Dairy farmers there do not choose the export market themselves.

They sell into a provincial system.

Processors then decide how much milk they need.

If a processor cannot sell into the US, it may need less milk from farmers.

So the pressure moves back through the chain, from the buyer to the farm.

Yes. And that is what makes dairy different.

Milk is perishable, so farmers cannot simply wait.

If demand drops, they may have to dump milk.

In a worst-case scenario, they could even cut the herd.

That sounds very harsh. You cannot just pause cows and start again later.

Right. One dairy leader said exactly that in plain language.

Cows are not like a tap.

You cannot just turn them on or off.

That line captures the problem very well.

What about selling the milk somewhere else instead?

That is the big question, and nobody is sure yet.

A dairy public affairs director said there is still considerable uncertainty about the impact of the tariffs.

He said it is too early to know whether milk no longer sold to the US can find another market.

He also said it is too early to know whether that can soften the losses.

So this is still developing, but the risk is already real.

Yes. The key point is that tariffs do not just hit the exporter.

They can spread through processors, farmers, and the wider supply chain.

One dairy association leader called the tariffs unwarranted.

He said they affect both Canada and the US.

Thanks, Sophie.

Nvidia’s boss is pushing back hard against fears that AI could end the world.

Now we go to Noah, our LinguaWire correspondent for technology.

Thanks, Daniel. Jensen Huang has called warnings about human extinction by the end of the decade “doomsday narratives.”

He said 2030 is not going to be the end of the world.

That is a very strong line. Was he just rejecting the worst predictions?

Or was he saying more than that?

He was doing both.

In an interview, he said there is “0% chance” that 2030 will be the end of the world.

He also said scaring people is unnecessary and irresponsible.

So he is not only calm about the future.

He is also criticizing the way some people talk about it.

And this comes after a lot of public worry about AI safety, right?

Yes.

In recent weeks, researchers and some industry leaders have warned that AI could bring serious risks.

Some executives have even called for development to slow down.

That debate has become much louder.

But Huang seems to think those warnings go too far.

He does.

He said such predictions are not grounded in science.

He also suggested that some firms asking for a slowdown may be trying to reduce their legal risk.

That could matter if their products cause harm later.

That is an interesting angle. So this is also a business fight, not just a science debate.

Exactly.

Huang said Nvidia has a direct interest in safe products because the company’s success depends on them.

If AI tools are seen as unsafe, that can hurt trust and value.

So he is linking safety to business reality.

And Nvidia matters here because its chips are so important for AI systems.

Yes.

The company makes the advanced chips that many AI models need.

That gives Huang a lot of influence in the debate.

He also pointed to a recent UK summit where King Charles warned tech leaders about the existential dangers of AI.

So the warning from the king and the warning from Huang are almost opposite.

They are.

And in the US, President Donald Trump has also dismissed some AI fears.

He even called Huang during a tech conference in Los Angeles and criticized calls to slow AI development.

So the debate is now happening at the top level, among business leaders and political leaders too.

That makes the argument feel much bigger than one company’s opinion.

It really does.

This story shows a split in the AI world.

Some people want a brake, while others say the panic is exaggerated.

The focus should stay on responsible use.

Here are three useful words from the first story.

tariff

A tariff is a tax on goods from another country. In the first story, the US tariff made Canadian dairy sales much harder.

Example: The new tariff made imported cheese more expensive.

processor

A processor is a company that turns raw farm goods into products people buy. In the first story, processors decided how much milk they needed.

Example: The processor bought the milk and made yogurt.

supply chain

The supply chain is the full path from producer to buyer. In the first story, the tariff affected the supply chain, not just one farm.

Example: A delay at the port can break the supply chain.

You can’t just turn them on or off.

We use can and can’t to talk about ability or possibility. After can, we use the base verb.

can

can

can’t

You can’t just turn them on or off.

You cannot just pause cows and start again later.

Repeat after me: can’t turn them on or off