Archive Article: 2002/02/15
Why Curry report is so pointless
I do not think that I am the only farmer who will be disappointed by Sir Donald Currys report into the future of food and farming. Margaret Becketts comments on the report, about how dramatic reforms must take place in British farming, were out of place at this time of adversity. But she is probably right in the long term.
Unfortunately, her ideas that farmers should develop as rural peasants who spend half their time producing food products, at less than the cost of production, and preserving and maintaining the environment will not take place. Potential young farmers will opt for the high life in cities on fat salaries as accountants or computer boffins. They will probably occupy their spare time drinking or clubbing without a thought for those who produce their cheap food – even if most is imported.
Arnold Pennant
Nant Gwilym, Tremeirchion, St Asaph, Denbighshire. arnpenn@aol.com
Farming not unsustainable
They used to carry sandwich boards with the message "Repent – the end of the world is nigh". Now they wear woolly hats and command the deference of the government. The influence is disproportionate to their numbers.
The first shot from the governments public relations department on the future of farming was on BBC news to the effect that UK farming is not sustainable. Other parts of the media were embargoed until 10am from making public their views on this highly questionable statement.
Although many would agree that the system of directly subsidised production should be phased out; there are other ways to increase efficiency without damaging the environment and keeping prices competitive. Those include cutting government red tape, such as removing the necessity of transporting livestock from East Sussex to a Somerset abattoir.
Also there should be greater incentives to producer co-operation. In that department, we have some way to catch up with our Continental and US competitors. Incidently, skylarks are on the increase around here, not in decline.
John Jenkin
Meads, Eastbourne, East Sussex.
That familiar footprint again
Does anybody recognise the boot print of the supermarkets on the Curry report? Supermarkets have obtained influence in high places and is this pay back time? What was that story about Enron?
Robert Persey
Upcott Farm, Broadhembury, Honiton, Devon.
No help from the Alliance
The Curry report on food and farming showed us where various rural organisations have set their sights, after it recommended a 10% cut in farming subsidy through modulation.
I can understand why RSPB and Friends of the Earth want 20% lopped off farmers subsidy payments to spend on their vision of a politically correct countryside. But why has the Countryside Alliance demanded a 20% cut, setting itself against the NFU, and given the government every assistance to eradicate farmers? The theory is beautiful – reform CAP and spend the money on rural infrastructure and marketing. The reality will be bankruptcies, families driven off the land, and the money spent on Countryside Agency morris dancing galas. If the Alliance wont support farmers, who will?
Tom Lissmore
Phoenix House, Thrupp, Stroud, Glos.
Fight viruses with vaccines
Are other readers astonished at the way the so-called measles epidemic is being treated compared with foot-and-mouth? Both are viral diseases; measles the government wants to fight with a vaccine. But government experts say they are unsure whether they can fight F&M the same way.
There is a chance of infection before immunisation and a fear of passing the disease on to another animal after stock have been immunised, warn the experts. No doubt Ben Gill will explain why immunisation is no good and, on behalf of all parents, reject vaccination.
The difference is the way the experts told the government how to control F&M and that it would probably cost this country about £70bn. How many new hospitals do we need?
F Wakefield
Parlour Farm, Bisley, Stroud, Glos.
Inconsistant over £ v k
George Eustice (Letters, Feb 1) accuses me of inconsistency on EMU. On the contrary, Mr Eustice is either unwilling or unable to distinguish between my warning of the dangers of currency movements outside EMU and the benefits to British farmers of a fixed link with the k.
Sadly, the farming industry now knows the truth of my warning. The appreciation of the £ against the k since 1999 has done great and lasting damage to the industry. But I am also right to warn of the danger of relying on a depreciating currency. As farmers also know to their cost, this results in inflation and high interest rates. It seems to have escaped Mr Eustices selective memory that outside EMU not only have we lost control of our own currency, but also British farmers have lost market share and their livelihoods as well as suffering higher interest rates than their counterparts within the eurozone.
On the matters of consistency, I note that George Eustice believes the best future for British farmers is to remain members of the European Union. Is this the George Eustice who stood in the European Parliament elections as a candidate for the UK Independence Party? As I recall, this Partys policy is immediate UK withdrawal from the EU. Consistent or what?
Sean Rickard
Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield, Bedford.
Homeopathy is gaining ground
I was delighted to see coverage of homeopathy (Opinion and Livestock, Jan 25). This form of natural therapy is gaining ground in the treatment of farm animals. Its use is without side-effects, without risk of drug residues in food and without risk of causing antibiotic resistance in bacteria. It acts as a direct stimulus to health in livestock, often achieving results where little can be achieved with drugs.
I have used homeopathy, on-farm, for 30 years and used to run a busy cattle practice, personally attending to 600 cows per week in routine visits alone, using homeopathy as a first-line medicine. That could only be done if it was extremely effective.
Trial results have demonstrated its powerful contribution to farm health. As well as mastitis, where it brings benefits, it seems well-able, in the right hands, to treat such conditions as ringworm, new forest eye, foul in the foot, infertility, pneumonia and many other scourges of farm livestock. It is just as useful for sheep and pigs.
Consumers like it from the food safety point of view. Farmers like it from the perspective of welfare, efficacy and costs. Although well suited to organic farms, where drug residue rules are stringent, it also brings benefits to conventional farms.
I commend your coverage of the topic and hope to see more news of this important field of farm medicine.
Christopher Day
Principal, Alternative Veterinary Medicine Centre, Stanford in the Vale, Oxon.
Scaremongering irresponsible
Speaking in the House of Commons on Feb 6, Mr Blair stated that scaremongering over the MMR vaccine was wrong and should not be allowed.
Will he explain the scaremongering over BSE in sheep? If the disease was found in sheep over 150,000 people could be affected, it was said. Then it was stated that BSE has never been found in sheep and the risk was hypothetical.
Mr Blair cant have it both ways. The government should keep quiet until it has proof. The government has done enough damage to British agriculture.
P Walker
North Yorkshire Smallholders Society, Littleacres, Pickhill, Thirsk, North Yorks.
Let down by the Church
I was concerned to read in the Church Times that a campaign is underway to persuade church leaders to encourage congregations to give up eating meat for Lent.
The campaign, called Veg4Lent, is being run by a charity called Christian Response and aims to revive an ancient Christian tradition of giving up meat during Lent. Sundays are not counted in Lent as fasting days, so they should be encouraged to continue with the Sunday roast.
They offer a Vegetarian Diet for Lent Action Pack and it concludes with a quote from Pope John Paul II that turning vegetarian "can also help you win salvation". That is a miss-quotation because it is a heresy to suggest that diet plays a part in winning salvation.
The Bible shows that we can do nothing to gain salvation but accept Jesus Christ as our Saviour. Jesus, a good Jew, would have eaten meat at Passover meals. St Paul tells us in Romans 14: "One mans faith allows him to eat everything, but another man whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables."
It is worrying that this campaign should come at a time when our livestock industry is in crisis. It is also bad for the church after a year when it has been so supportive of farmers through local contact and organisations based at the Arthur Rank Centre at Stoneleigh. Our local churches continue to pray at every service for farmers and the rural community.
Any church leader worth his salt will not encourage their congregations to give up meat for Lent or anything else. This is not the year for any "Christian" organisation to be seen to be hitting farmers while they are down. May God forgive them.
Mrs Rana Davies-James
Lower Sydcombe, Dorstone, Hereford.
Health plans beat treatment
I was interested to read your article on the importance of flock health plans for sheep (Livestock Jan 18). The RSPCAs welfare standards for sheep, as implemented in the Freedom Food scheme, have always required producers to have written veterinary health plans for the reasons outlined in this excellent article. Placing the emphasis on planning and prevention of health problems is beneficial to both producers and sheep, and can save time, money and suffering in the long run.
In order to assist Freedom Food members and other interested sheep producers and veterinary surgeons in drawing up such a plan, the society has worked with the Sheep Veterinary Society to produce a set of Veterinary Health Plan Guidance Notes for Sheep. Those provide information and advice on important areas to consider when developing a health plan, and are available free of charge from the RSPCA Farm Animals Department (0870-754 0183). Similar guidance notes for pigs, laying hens, broilers, beef cattle and dairy cattle are also available.
Dr Julia Wrathall
RSPCA Farm Animals Department, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex.
A question not yet answered
How does reducing the amount of subsidy paid to we farmers affect the amount we pay for food in the shop?
Andy Rush
andyrush@yaxham.fsnet.co.uk
We do support organic farmers
It is untrue to suggest the Soil Association promotes supermarket interests above small holder producer/retailers or independent retailers as Stuart Pattison suggests (Letters Jan 4).
The percentage of organic food sales through UK supermarkets is the highest in Europe, accounting for 80% of domestic sales. We are concerned about supermarket dominance of the organic market at the expense of independent retailers and farm shops. But, as most consumers buy through supermarkets, it is better to work with them to present the case on behalf of the UK organic sector. In 1998 the Soil Association established a working group with representatives of all multiple retailers to do that.
We also work hard to support and promote the independent organic sector. The Soil Association plays a key role in developing farmers markets. Our local food campaign seeks to encourage links between local organic producers and consumers, create a bigger UK market for locally grown produce and improve the policy framework for local food distribution systems.
Local FoodWorks, our new flagship project in partnership with the Countryside Agency, aims to address the needs of the local food sector. It will act as a catalyst for the establishment of local and regional networks that support and advise their local food community. It will also provide a national information service, building on the experience of the Soil Associations Local Food Links and Food Futures programme.
We recognise that direct marketing initiatives, such as box schemes and farm shops, require careful research and planning. And we support our members seeking to market independently through our technical guides, marketing and training events and network of contacts.
Our goal is to develop a diverse market for organic producers and consumers alike.
Phil Stocker
Head of agriculture, Soil Association Producer Services, Bristol House, 40-56 Victoria Street, Bristol.
Retailers profit from subsidies
Food production subsidies have always been regarded by non-farmers as feather-bedding But their main effect is to allow retailers to buy food cheaply and to sell it to consumers at relatively high prices.
Most of the value of subsidies becomes part of retailing companies profits. The remainder is swallowed by those, such as landlords and agrochemical companies, which use farmers ability to pay to set their charges at a level that cannot be otherwise justified.
As an organic farmer, I am saddened by the lack of enlightenment shown by the Soil Association. Its campaign to push the area of organic land to 30% in the UK and to receive a government subsidy to support organic farming, shows it is out of touch.
Subsidies should be phased out and replaced by a system where consumers pay a price for food which gives farmers reasonable returns. Thats still possible in the organic sector, but not if the area was pushed ahead of demand.
The confrontational attitude of the Soil Association is bad for all farmers. It disparages non-organic farmers, sets farmer against farmer and increases public hostility towards non-organic farmers, most of whom do not deserve it. Many non-organic farmers have excellent environmental credentials. This results in irrational and inaccurate attacks on organic farming by some non-organic farmers and others. It must be better to work together.
Tomorrows organic farmer was probably a non-organic farmer yesterday. If organic premiums do not hold up, he may return to being a non-organic farmer.
Soil Association aggression provides a publicity advantage since the media is more interested in extremists than moderates. It would benefit all farmers if the media consulted the moderate organisation Organic Farmers and Growers more often.
Martin Corley
Pucketty Farm Cottage, Faringdon, Oxon.
Business based organic targets
The Organic Targets Campaign is not based on purist ideology (News, Jan 25). It is based on the simple business idea that UK farmers should produce more of the organic food sold here. Almost three-quarters of the organic food sold in this country is produced abroad. Neither the environment nor our hard-pressed farmers get the benefits from increasing public demand for organic food.
That is why the UK government and the Policy Commission back the main aim of our campaign – an action plan for organic farming. The action plan will help develop the market, and the supply of home-produced organic food. For example, farmers will receive help on marketing before they convert and local authorities will be encouraged to source organic food.
Of course, the action plan must have targets. Without them, how can we hold the government to account? How will we know if the action plan is working? More than half of the countries in the EU have targets and action plans. Can they all be wrong?
Catherine Fookes
Organic Targets Campaign co-ordinator, Sustain: The Alliance for Better Food and Farming, 94 White Lion Street, London. organictargetsbill@sustainweb.org