Congratulations to Farmers Weekly for spearheading the campaign to "Save Our Sprays". It is,of course, unbelievable that the EU could come up with proposals to ban most of the crop protection products we use on farms at a time like this. But common sense is in short supply in Brussels, it seems, so we must do all we can to muster public opinion to point out to MEP's and Commissioners how daft and dangerous their plans are.
Indeed it is vital that consumers are pursuaded to join on our side as well. If the group of organisations that have grouped together to try to reverse the proposals can spread their message to those who buy what we produce, with the undoubted fact that if it went ahead the price of food would rise even higher and that even the availability of food might be at risk, we might gain some powerful allies.
There are those in politics and farming who say there's no need to worry; that the proposals will never come to fruition and even if they do only a handful of products will be lost. To my mind that attitude is far too relaxed. It is not what the draft legislation says. Until this threat to our production and our livelihood is removed we must take it seriously and fight it all the way. So, support the FW petition, for the good of your customers as much as yourself.
Comments (3)
Dear David
I read you comments with interest and understand how worried you must be about profits and livelihood.
I have always given the Farmers the benefit of the doubt about their stance on health versus profit, but unfortunately this plan of campaign only serves to demonstrate that the Farmers are being encouraged to kill and maim innocent people, not to mention the destruction of the environment and damage to our wildlife.
This is the turning point and Farmers have been given the opportunity to review their future using safer methods of farming.
If they accept their responsibility for the damage they are doing and change course now it could save them millions of pounds in compensation claims in the future.
Therefore I cannot understand why you are encouraging the destuction of our Farmers in this way.
Posted by j parson | August 5, 2008 5:18 AM
Posted on August 5, 2008 05:18
Dear J Parson
Where do you get your justification for such outrageous assertions? There is no scientific evidence that, used responsibly and sparingly, government approved crop protection products harm human health or do permanent damage to the environment. If we followed your approach I am afraid we really would be responsible for the hunger of untold numbers of people around the world because organic farmers would be unable to produce sufficient volumes of food for their needs and that which they did produce would be too expensive for them to buy. So, I do not apologise for advocating support for the Save Our Sprays campaign. And may I please ask you to examine the real facts before you accuse me of getting it wrong.
Posted by David Richardson | August 5, 2008 3:06 PM
Posted on August 5, 2008 15:06
During WWII the UK and much of Europe found itself desperately short of food. At the end of the war Govenment of the day and public opinion at large dictated that countries affected in this way; the UK in particular, would never again be subjected to such a food security risk. To this end public funded research and development into the ways of improving agricultural productivity was developed for the farming industry to adopt for and on behalf of the public. The production of food using chemicals has never been farmer driven and blame for the adoption of the developed technology does not rest with farmers. Agricultural research, development and production is a public commodity. Historically, farmers have been actively and financially supported by the public in the drive to adopt this new technology as it emerged.
Our farming industry is second to non as far as its ability to embrace technological develoments from this public funded research and in its application to increase productivity per unit land area and per unit labour is concerned. The public have benefitted beyond all imagined expectation in availability, range and above all price of food. The proportion of real disposable income that the public must dispense on essential food for survival is at an all time low. While at the same time the proportion of real disposable income spent on food returning to farmers is at an all time low. Lower than it was 50 years ago and it continues to decline.
If it is now the general public belief that it is in their best interest to support the European Parliament proposals to dispense with production of food under the current system which requires much of the chemicals that have been developed to improve availability and reduce costs of food. Then the public will have to accept the fact that if this change is to be implemented in a short period of time then they will have to accept the burden of rapidly increasing food price accompanied with reduced availability and range of foods in the shops. In some parts of the world food shortages will be severe. The proportion of real disposable income spent on food will have to increase. No more two car families maybe even no more one car families, a return to using public transport, no more overseas holidays, no more designer clothes, very few luxuries in life at all.
However, the possibility does exist for a new direction to be taken in food production for our general public without chemicals if that is what they now want. Remembering that the "general public" does include farming families also. However, the development of this will require considerable investment in public funded farming systems research and development over a period of at least 50 years to achive the required objective.
A sudden, fashionable, whimsical and what is possibly seen to be a politically correct decision taken in Europe today in regard to the use of chemicals in food production will only result in significant socio-economic strife worldwide.
Posted by Graham McNally | August 30, 2008 5:45 AM
Posted on August 30, 2008 05:45