Archive Article: 2001/03/09
Lets stick to just one standard
We thought that BSE was a tragedy for British agriculture and since Christmas the sheep trade picked up to the extent that the sheep sector hoped it had turned the corner. Now we have the disaster that is foot-and-mouth disease.
Farm assurance and traceability seem to be the most important elements to the supermarket buyers. So why are we importing meat from countries known to have foot-and-mouth disease?
If we are going to have a standard for our livestock producers, lets have a standard and adhere to it. We do not want one standard to give confidence to the buying public and another standard which will reduce livestock prices to the producer by bringing in cheap foreign imports. Farmers, markets, abattoirs and traders are not all going to be blamed for this dreadful disease.
It is the cheap food policy that has been adopted since the war that is to blame. The government must tighten the rules for the import of food from countries that do not adopt our high standards.
R Hyde
Brim Field, Nr Ludlow, Shropshire.
It always comes from abroad
After a suspected outbreak of swine fever on a nearby farm in the 1960s, I remember how quickly MAFF vets descended upon me to check my stock.
I also remember how I felt when everyone around got to know about it and they all naturally thought I had the disease.
A pig farmer stated recently on the radio that he was worried that people would think he had foot-and-mouth disease because he had sent some pigs to Cheale Meats. It is very unfair that these incidents get reported and distortions of the truth end in false innuendoes. We live in an age when everyone is very quick to judge and then seek scapegoats to keep the public feel-good factor.
The only fact any foot-and-mouth disease inquest should identify is that the disease, like swine fever, always comes from another country because it does not normally exist in the UK. No amount of UK farm legislation, recording or policing will have the slightest effect on diseases such as foot-and-mouth entering Britain and causing devastation to our livestock and farms. So why have any of it in the first place? The only answer is to keep thousands of people in jobs that do not really exist while paying them with money extracted from farmers. I call that corruption.
Sam Millward
36 Scalby Road, Burniston, Nr Scarborough.
Food safety is not a priority
I can easily explain to Sylvia R Manley (Letters, Feb 23) why the Food Standards Agency refuses to ban beef imports from France and Germany.
Not upsetting our European neighbours is the number one priority; food safety comes a distant second.
David Pestell
Highbury Farm, Banningham, Norfolk.
Extend foot and mouth bans
Should the foot-and-mouth bans not be extended to incoming foreign stock and vehicles? Also shouldnt we increase the inspection of carcasses at ports?
Representations should be made to ensure that no general election should be called while livestock movements are banned.
Judith Shelley
Judy@mfhshelley.fsnet.co.uk
Right-to-roam Act utter folly
The disaster of foot-and-mouth highlights the utter folly of the governments Right to Roam Act. The legislation should be reversed immediately.
Walkers should always be strictly confined to footpaths and green lanes which could, if necessary, be fenced. Dogs should be banned completely from farmland bearing in mind the contribution which badgers, foxes and rats may make towards the spread of the devastating foot-and-mouth disease.
It is all very well allowing free access to livestock land and pretending that everything will be all right.
Clearly, as in the present case, things are not all right at all, and firm measures are necessary to safeguard our livestock and countryside from disease.
The awful possibility that the present outbreak may be the work of an enemy using biological warfare methods, or other experiments, must be considered.
W F Kerswell
Sallins Cottage, Picklescott, Church Stretton, Shropshire.
Hare coursing hasnt stopped
With the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, hunting and coursing have been suspended and ramblers asked to practice caution where they walk. I am sure all these people involved in these pastimes will adhere to this decision by the government. What has not stopped however is illegal hare coursing.
On Sat, Feb 24, we were once again plagued by people trespassing over our farm. They had driven up from Kent to course in Lincs and Cambs and who knows where else en-route?
They have no respect for the countryside, its people, its wildlife and obviously the livestock. At present they are endangering livestock and in the future endangering the very existence of the brown hare itself in many parts of the country. These people are above the laws of this land. I am sure, should a ban on hunting with dogs come into force, they will remain so.
This problem will remain with us as long as we have laws to deal with this problem that have not changed since they were introduced in the 1800s. And a police force in the countryside that cannot enforce them.
If as much manpower and resources had been extended to our police force as has been devoted to farming red-tape by the present and the past governments, we would have a far safer countryside to live in.
Rex Sly
Turfpits Farm, Queens Bank, Crowland, Peterborough.
Do lime layers really work?
Scientists tell us that the foot-and-mouth virus is deactivated by high pH of above 9. Given that disinfectants are now running short, we are now being asked by our customers to spread a layer of agricultural lime along farm access roads, and field gateways, to help limit virus spread by providing an alkaline barrier.
This practice is an old-fashioned solution; no doubt some of your readers will remember it as a disease precaution measure about 20 years ago, before it was superseded by chemicals. Its a quick and easy measure, and we are glad to try to help our customers. But how effective is it in the light of modern science? We have asked MAFF for official guidance on this practice but as yet theres no response.
Does anyone else have any information? For example, on how thick or wide the layer should be?
John Prentis
R+T Agricultural Liming, Warboys, Cambs.
Action wasnt fast enough
I have followed the foot-and-mouth crisis since day one. If the government/MAFF had banned first, the movement of livestock and second, public access to the countryside from the first report (Feb 19) of the outbreak, perhaps the spread of this extremely virulent and infectious virus would have been restricted to a smaller area of the UK.
By failing to restrict the movement of livestock and public access into the countryside the government has increased the time-scale of this crisis. It has availed a far wider spread of the disease and prolonged the agony of the rural community.
By restricting livestock movement and public access more quickly, the government would have restricted, if not removed, the risk of the spread of this disease to Europe. It would have also reduced the knock on effect to the associated rural businesses, the public as consumers and mitigated the cost to the British taxpayer. It seems to me a clear case of the government shutting the door once the horse has bolted.
Shuna Anderson
Shuna.Anderson@tesco.net
Turkeys didnt vote for Xmas
I write to correct a number of inaccuracies in Neil Datsons Talking Point (Feb 23).
The PIDS scheme was not an existing scheme but was drafted from scratch initially for the purpose of securing further aid for East Anglia. We anticipate that it will be ratified by parliament on Mar 1.
There was general agreement within the industry to combine the representative bodies into one organisation, the NPA, recognised now for negotiations on a number of fronts for the pig industry. The producer group has made and will continue to make difficult decisions to take the industry forward, especially, as in this case, when time is of the essence.
The producer group representatives have full access to information and are free to discuss any matter at our frequent regional meetings or at the telephone. Anyone who believes "the leadership" is unaccountable would be enlightened by some of the more robust members of the group.
The turkeys did not vote for Christmas. In anticipation of someone making this challenge, I excluded the East Anglians present from the levy vote. The vote was taken after much careful and often heated discussion.
Im disappointed that much of the criticism came without full consideration for the immediate plight of East Anglian producers, and worse still, without anyone proposing a workable alternative. Indeed I still await any hint of a workable alternative from the critics. Perhaps those who criticise from a distance do not and have not had to look an East Anglian producer in the eye.
Stewart Houston
Chairman, Producer Group, NPA, Agricultural House, 164 Shaftesbury Ave, London.
Nothing left for another levy
On listening to a radio interview on Feb 25 concerning the serious foot-and-mouth outbreak, I was amazed by the comments of Ian Gardiner of the NFU.
British agriculture is facing its greatest crisis in 70 years, farmers are crying out for support and guidance on how they will ride through this terrible storm and what do we get from Mr Gardiner?
He tells us that farmers should pay a levy to enable them to receive compensation for any future disaster like the present one.
Where does Mr Gardiner think all this money for yet another levy is going to come from?
Does he not study the figures put out by his own organisation that show we havent got anything left for another levy? And why should British farmers, pay for mistakes that have been made by government. If it wants a cheaper shopping basket, then it has to pay the penalty and the NFU must realise that as well. Perhaps Mr Gardiners time would be better spent making sure we had an import ban so that we can all make a living.
Wouldnt it have been more appropriate for the NFU, instead of paying £13.5m for Shaftesbury Avenue, used that money to help all the farming families in the UK?
David Handley
Chairman, Farmers for Action, Old Llanishen Farm, Llangoven, Monmouth.
Follow Frances self-promotion
As an agricultural engineering consultant, I visited the Sima exhibition in Paris last week and also looked into the SIA event.
The British agricultural sector needs to promote itself in a similar exhibition to show the public how the food production system really works, presented by people with knowledge; not half informed TV presenters. There are plenty of specialist producers of food products who could promote their wares and the larger processors could join in to inform, educate and promote.
I feel that neither the Royal Show nor the Smithfield Show fit the bill. The Royal Show has lost its way since it is no longer a trade show, or a social event or anything specific. The Smithfield Show is a trade only event held in the dingy confines of Earls Court at the wrong time of year.
If British agriculture promotes itself properly, it can also demonstrate its quality to the buying public. It was noticeable that all of the French regional foods were being promoted and sold at the SIA exhibition, apparently without needing to comply with most of the hygiene and food handler dress requirements that are imposed on British traders in the name of EU regulations.
David Williams
15 Brookhurst Court, Beverley Road, Leamington Spa.
Fox-hunting ban a massive loss
If fox-hunting is banned the fox will lose his most influential friends. Thousands of hounds will lose their lives. The horse will lose an activity from which it derives much enjoyment and incalculable benefit. Fox-hunting humans from all walks of life will lose what is for many the core of their existence and raison detre, and for all, a source of great pleasure and interest.
The rural economy, already pressed as never before, will lose a significant contribution. The English countryside will lose a potent force for conservation and for helping preserve the vital balance between predator and preyed upon. Our English heritage will lose the basis of a 300-year-old tradition of art, literature, anecdote and song. A very substantial minority of respectable people will lose an age-old freedom at the whim of the uninformed majority.
But on the other hand, Prime Minister Tony Blair, that man of hidden shallows, may gain a few votes. Tony Banks and Michael Foster and their colleagues may gain the satisfaction of having done some "good".
John Bryant
Sleaford, Lincs.
What more can farmers do?
I would like to comment on statements from various influential people. First, Tony Blairs aid to farmers last year together with his message: "Trust me." They still do not and are leaving agriculture in droves.
Nothing will be done because ex-NFU economist Sean Rickard has advised the government that "one in four farmers could quit without discernible impact, leaving bigger, better farms which would put more money into the rural economy."
Also, the government tells us to diversify. But recently a local family cheese operation had to close. The business was well established and sold its product in supermarkets and Harrods, so what hope is there for the rest? I was always told to stick to what I know best and most have no choice.
Then, Lord Haskins, who no doubt has the governments ear, has indicated that "farming did not modernise itself in the 80s and 90s because it was cushioned by the CAP and subsidies." If it did not invest when it had the money, I cannot see it happening now.
Also Sir John Krebs of the Foods Standards Agency says consumers are confused by the British Farm Standard little red tractor. So the marketing tool which the NFU promoted as our salvation is, sadly, probably at best somewhat counterproductive. What is wrong with a good old Q for Quality mark with a big Union Jack?
Finally, children when asked what words sprang to mind when thinking of farmers came up with old, ugly and sweaty". My wife agrees, so nobody loves us now.
Brian Chattey
Langford Court North, Cullompton, Devon.
What cost EU membership?
After responding to the need to produce sufficient food to feed the nation from 1939 for at least a decade, British farmers were subjected to the propaganda of the EEC. This is the benign name for a club of the defeated nations whose principal aim was to turn the tables on the victors. With great cunning, their main spokesman, Charles de Gaulle, claimed to be opposed to British membership. This was good psychology, as it rapidly became the object of desire initially by the Tories under Mr Heath, then promoted to absurd heights by New Labour.
A change of name to European Union should have rung alarm bells. By that time the mainland Europeans had acquired all our fish and controlled our agricultural cropping programme so we could not grow what we needed or support an industry that had served this country well.
It is time we were given an honest balance sheet; how much does membership of this club cost the British people? The nation should support those who supported them in their time of need.
Perhaps a Boston Tea Party would show the way. We should reject EU directives and products to put Britain on the road to honour and self-sufficiency.
It is obvious that if you give the EU an inch, they take a kilometre.
M Everest-Todd
Ings Farm, North Kelsey, Lincs.