Archive Article: 1997/10/18
Dangerous
nonsense feeds lawyers
THERES nonsense, and dangerous nonsense. UK agriculture has had to put up with a lot of the first; now it faces the second, in the shape of new proposals in Brussels.
As part of the backlash on the BSE crisis, it is suggested by the European Commission that any consumers who suffer health problems resulting from food should be able to sue the primary producers for damages. At present growers can only be sued if it is proven that any health-affecting defects in their products were due to negligence. The new strict liability proposals would remove the need to prove negligence.
It doesnt take a genius to realise that this legislation could open the door to a host of claims, in the arable as well as the livestock and dairy sectors.
Its ironic that the new traceability schemes would make it possible for anyone with an upset tummy to track down the grower of the offending food substance and sue for compensation. No matter that the contamination may not have been the fault of the producer, he would still be liable. Potentially more far-reaching, we could see those with a health-related aversion to pesticides taking issue through the courts.
The only winners would be the lawyers and insurance agents. If this legislation is approved, growers would have no option but to take out indemnity insurance. They couldnt afford to do otherwise.
Surely a better approach is to continue down the route of quality assurance, with the whole industry working together to improve food safety standards, monitored by the new Food Safety Agency. Lets leave the lawyers out of it.
Ministerial nobbling
NOBBLE your Minister now while stocks last! Few Ministers of Agriculture have seemed so hell bent on dispensing with their post as Jack Cunningham.
While Labour chewed the fat in Brighton, Mr Cunningham was making it plain that the whole concept of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food really is up for change – radical or otherwise.
Hes said it before, of course, but recent signs of a penchant for organic farming and other non-mainstream activities point to a Minister very much in a muddle. The danger is that the Ministry of Food, Ministry of Consumer Safety or Department for Superstores may turn out to be responsible for a similar hotch-potch of wonderful but impractical ideas.
All the more reason then to put your questions and point of view to Mr Cunningham at the Huntingdon Crops Conference on 2 December – in Scotland Lord Sewel is at your disposal the week before. This could after all be one of the last occasions on which a UK Minister of Agriculture addresses an industry conference.
The response he gets must be clear. The industry accepts change and will thrive on it but its confidence needs to be bolstered by a clear framework of future policy and non-equivocal guidance from Whitehall.
Natures poison
SOME hot air, but also some burning issues were discussed at a recent European symposium on crop protection and food quality.
Scientists told fellow scientists and a smattering of agronomists, processors and retailers that further restriction of pesticide use would put the nations health at real risk from naturally occurring toxins.
Poor risk assessments were grossly overstating the risk from minute doses of pesticides but virtually ignoring the effect of natural toxins from plant defence mechanisms and fungal mycotoxins.
But with nobody to hear and discuss the message from consumer organisations and health bodies and only a brief appearance from two of the supermarket chains, the crop protectionists were left to preach mainly to the converted.
What a pity. We have lost yet another golden opportunity to address the balance of public perceptions about pesticides.
Scottish woes
NORTH of the border, this harvest is one that growers will prefer to forget. As the combines went through, cereal yields simply vanished into thin air. Crops which had looked reasonably respectable in the field, failed to fill the trailers. There was little there.
Blame is being cast on the cold weather during flowering in early June. Many grain sites were empty, and even those grains which were present failed to plump up, creating problems with exceptionally low specific weights and high screenings.
A large supply of poor quality grain spells bad news for prices. Much is staying in farm stores for the present, rather than risk a discount market. Where it will end up is not clear.
Already hauliers are bringing grain up from the south to satisfy Scottish demand. Even oats from this harvest have suffered on quality and quantity.
Without imported Scandinavian supplies, many porridge bowls would be empty this year.
But the sorry state of the 1997 harvest is not the only bad news. To add insult to injury, Scottish growers will have to put up with yet another reduction in area aid. The overshoot for non-Less Favoured Area is predicted to be 7.3% – a record. If this figure is accepted, Scotland can expect to lose 7.3% off area aid payments. Last year it was 4.4%.
This overshoot has grown steadily year on year, adding weight to the argument that the Scottish Office got it wrong when the base area for Scotland was first calculated. Meanwhile there is a corresponding undershoot on the acreage classed as Less Favoured Area.
Its high time for the balance to be redressed. It was suggested last year that the overshoot on non-Less Favoured Area be offset against the undershoot on Less Favoured Area. This wouldnt be enough to wipe out the 7% penalty, but it might knock a few percentage points off the total.
It appears this idea has been agreed in principle, but last season the bureaucracy in Brussels wasnt geared up to making the necessary regulatory changes fast enough. This mustnt be allowed to happen again. Some Scottish farming businesses will go to the wall as a result of this disastrous harvest – the industry must do what it can to alleviate the suffering.
The buzz from decaf
FOR the health conscious, that morning cup of coffee is likely to be a decaf. But theres a dilemma facing them. Would they still choose decaf if it came from a genetically-modified coffee plant?
This scenario is nearly with us. The coffee giant Nestle is joining forces with biotech company ForBio, to genetically modify the coffee plant.
Taking the caffeine out of coffee beans is currently an expensive business. Naturally Nestle is attracted to the easier option of starting with a caffeine-free plant.
Removing caffeine also requires repeated washing of the beans with a series of chemical cocktails – not an attractive thought, for the health-aware consumer.
So a caffeine-free plant might on the face of it be considered the more safe alternative – until the GMO issue comes into the picture.
The choice awaits. Which way will the decaf consumer go? Down the more environmentally friendly route in terms of processing, but with GMO plants – or will traditional decaf continue? Its an ethical dilemma…and could be a turning point for European acceptance of GMOs.
Price watch plunges
A FEW weeks ago Crops asked you what prices you were paying for a range of autumn products around the regions – Price Watch. It has been a resounding flop!
The office phones have been red hot – but not with a single reader response. Not one price was faxed our way, just a number of agrochemical manufacturers – spurred by irate distributors. They say that bald price quotations dont take into account other services – such as advice. True.
But we thought you might want prices to be more visible – particularly given the variation from county to county. Clearly you are all getting that special deal and dont want to boast about it…