Looks like plans for the 'mega' pig unit at Foston won't now go before the planners until the autumn... 

One of the country's top lawyers has expressed opposition to this...

Tim

I not a member of Compassion in World Farming but I have spoken to them about their decision not to oppose the Foston superpiggery.

My understanding is that CIWF have strong reservations about the animal welfare standards in the proposed superpiggery but accept that welfare might be better in the superpiggery than in the majority of intensive pig farms in this country.

That's hardly an endorsement of the welfare in the superpiggery - more an indicement of welfare in existing piggeries.....

 

 

branston pickle:

That's hardly an endorsement of the welfare in the superpiggery - more an indicement of welfare in existing piggeries.....

It's not meant to be. Exactly the same rational could have been applied to Nocton but they didnt hold back there. The reason CIWF arent being  as vocal over Foston and have effectively sub-contracted out the mud-slinging to the Soil Association, WSPA and the 'Pig Business' celebrity circus, is that they (CIWF) apparently had some input into the design of Foston and therefore can't give it a full-on kicking...in public at least

How much must that be annoying Lymbery now?   All those tin-rattling and fawning mealy-mouthed PR opportunities squandered  because of a momentary lapse of concentration. CIWF are now reduced to urging their followers on Twitter to sign up to an online poll opposing the Mega Dairy in the Archers.....erm...is it not time to move on now chaps?

 As for the Soil Association's latest foray into the Foston debate... its a little too coincidental that they decide to dust off a three-year-old and widely discredited report from the Pew Commission on the alleged but unsubstantiated health risks associated with intensive livestock production only a matter of days after the  Environment Agency's  withdrawal of its objection to the project?  With demand for organics staring into the abyss, I can understand their  feeling the need to up the ante, but  Melchett & Browning's 'food taliban' may have overstepped the mark this time. Their overtly divisive, fundamentalist stance is starting to alienate their core membership. Many of the more 'moderate' commercially focused Organic producers I've spoken to find the SA's recent antics both unwelcome, embarrassing and a wholly innappropriate use of members subs.

I'm sure the thinking man's organic body OF&G will be busy preparing for a slew of membership enquiries from disenchanted SA members fleeing the lunatic fringe!

Every cloud.....

The Soil Association has made a bid to stop the Foston pig farm....

As we would expect from this organization, utter nonsense. The Luddites are still protesting, first they were opposed to the mechanization of the cotton industry and now, those keeping the spirit of the original Luddites alive, are seeking to stop our industry from grasping the future and would if they could return us to the old fashioned interminable grind of pre 1914 Agriculture.

Millions of people are desperately short of nourishment so we need all the modern tools of efficient food production if we are to avoid a world starvation on an epic scale and carrying on with 19th century methods of Agriculture will not save humanity, indeed it will condemn countless people to live with insufficient to eat.

Dick

No surprises there as you say. For the Soil Association, 1914 is pushing the boundaries of modernity to an almost unacceptable level. They really are a shameless bunch of flat earthers, pandering to consumers neuroses with their pseudo science and self-righteous doomsaying For years they have denied and refuted countless proven and established scientific studies that show that Organic agriculture cannot feed the world and that Organic food has absolutely no nutritional or health benefits to consumers , yet they now in their new role of champions of the public well being expect us to accept an unproven hypothesis drawn from an unreliable data set as hard evidence. It would be laughable if it weren't for Farmers Weekly and the like continuing to print this crap and in so doing provide them with the platform they crave to undermine progressive agriculture in the UK. It's also worth noting that while the source issues a caveat about the reliability of the data on which the hypothesis, that there might be a link between large farms and increased incidence of disease, is based , they do not offer any hint of the scale of that possible increase. i.e is it. 0.2% or 200%? The very fact that no figure is offered would tend to suggest that, if there is any link at all, it will most likely be closer the former than the latter and well within the safety limits of any half decent piggery's biosecurity protocol. In other words it is at best a total non story, yet FW still lap it up in true tabloid fashion The VLA on who's unproven 'research' the claim is based are a government agency and are the established experts in the field of zoonotic disease risk management. As such they will almost certainly be, either directly or indirectly, a consultee to the planning process on environmental health issues. If this data is robust and the proposed pig farm represents a genuine public health risk then it will be raised as an issue, if it hasn't already, through the appropriate channels. I wouldn't recommend anyone at the Soil Association hold their breath waiting though...... ...on second thoughts

I see the National Pig Association has hit back at the Soil Association...

 devil's advocate, I have just caught up on your post of 7 Dec. You have put so much valuable truthful information into those few lines I simply had to tell you. I particularly like the first 6.

I am not opposed to farming organically and practice it as far as reasonably practicable.

The soil association should get there own house in order and there so called organic farming. just a way to get a payout then do what you like so far as I can see

Old Macdonald. I too have no  issue with organic farming per se.  There are many fundamental principles of sustainable agriculture, regretably abandoned by much of the conventional farming sector, that are enshrined within organic standards. Many organic farmers are highly professional operators who do an excellent job of producing high quality products that satisfy a genuine and high value market demand, for which the should be applauded.  

 Where my patience runs out however is with the organic-fundamentalists and science deniers of organisations such as the Soil Association who are more preoccupied with the narrow, isolationist and conceited politics of the 'organic lifestyle'  than with the reality of market economics or addressing the fundamental challenge of sustainably feeding 70 million in the UK and 9billion worldwide in the next 50 years.

I have always been sceptical of any individual or organisation  that prioritises rubbishing the competition over promoting the benefits of  their own offering. In this regard the Soil Association are the Lib-Dems of food production....a superficially appealing proposition with little if anything to back it up.  Quick to criticise and to promise the earth, safe in the knowledge that they will never have to make good on their claims; and in so doing muddying the waters for those engaged in the serious business of feeding the worlds growing population.

As for their outrageous claims about Foston ; FW needs to be careful before it dignifies the Soil Association's cynical attempts to undermine another innovative and sustainable proposal that will enhance the competitive position oif the UK livestock sector, with column inches.  Presenting unsubstantiated hypotheses based on unreliable data as a credible argument  simply because it offers an alternative view is just lazy journalism and undermines the credibility of the magazine as well as damaging the reputation industry it purports to promote.