READERS LETTERS
READERS LETTERS
EUs tribes will never integrate
Giles Tawell asks if there is something about EU federalism he has missed (Letters, Dec 4).
Establishing a United States of Europe to counter the USAs abuse of power is desirable but not possible.
The US is composed of people from throughout Europe. Each individual emigrated and lost their nationalism. By the second generation, they spoke the same language and adopted American culture.
In Europe each country is a tribe. They overrun other tribes. They do not integrate. That is why we want England to win at sport. Tito tried integration in Yugoslavia, the Russians in the former USSR. Gandhi tried the idea in India as have all countries in Africa.
Those attempts which did not end in bloodshed were suppressed. In Europe, the strong will suppress the weak, creating a sham federalism, which will be no match against the USA. Does anyone believe there will be true harmony in Bosnia?
Our beef is now safe. Not because 2m cows were slaughtered or because they have found a cure but because Labour has signed up to the Social Chapter.
George Scales
Scales Farms Ltd, Cobblers Pieces, Abbess Roding, Ongar, Essex.
Britain will not vote for EMU
Eric Clark (Letters, Nov 20) makes a number of good points about the dangerous and undemocratic scheme for European economic and monetary union.
But he can take heart from the fact that before the government can take Britain into EMU it must surmount the obstacle of a referendum. And it must do so amid growing signs of public opposition. In October I commissioned ICM to ask whether Britain should replace the £ with a single European currency. The overall results were: Yes 32%; No 56%; Dont know 11%. Of those expressing a view, the figures were: Yes 36% and No 64%.
For Conservative voters, the results were: Yes 16%, No 76%; Dont know 8%. Of Labour voters, 42% support replacing the £ with the euro but 47% oppose, with 11% undecided. The most enthusiastic pro-euro party is the Liberal Democrats but just 38% of their voters want to scrap the pound, while 51% want to keep it and 11% are undecided.
On Nov 29 The Sunday Telegraph reported that authoritative government-funded research, carried out by the Social and Community Planning Research organisation, shows that "only 17% of the British public supports changing over to the euro while 61% of the electorate is in favour of keeping the pound."
A significant body of opinion believes that the EMU experiment will cause participating countries such difficulty and grief in the next few years that the British will become as firmly inoculated against the project for a federal superstate as they have been against the ERM since Black Wednesday in September 1992.
Dr Julian Lewis MP
3 The Parade, Southampton Rd, Cadnam, Hampshire.
Organic attack so prejudiced
I was delighted to read the nonsense espoused by Geoffrey Hollis (Talking Point, Nov 27) in his attack on organic food. Packed with prejudice and ignorance, it read like the death throes of an agrochemical dinosaur.
To address every point would stretch the endurance of many readers, so I will focus only on his point about energy use. He claims that the green movement should be concerned that "more energy would be consumed by agriculture" if farmers converted to organic.
The facts show the opposite effect. Conventional farming is far more energy intensive. The comparison of energy use is shocking if we internalise the massive energy used in manufacturing fertilisers and pesticides into his favoured conventional farming. If we also add to that the costs of cleaning up drinking water and, if Mr Hollis can stomach it, the costs of disasters like BSE, we see organic food production as the bargain of a lifetime.
Organic production is backed by consumers worried about food safety, conservation bodies for its wildlife benefits, and water companies for its cost savings in cleaning up water pollution. Mr Hollis is not alone in twisting the organic facts. But such inaccurate, frightened ramblings are a great advert for organic food.
The boom in modern organic farming is not, as he suggests, a passing fad. But conventional chemical farming may be an expensive, lingering disease.
Joey Hughes
Policy analyst, Elm Farm Research Centre, Hamstead Marshall, Near Newbury, Berks.
Keep MAFF away from food
Geoffrey Hollis neednt imagine (Talking Point, Nov 27) that because he no longer works at MAFF, he can escape the flak that is rightly aimed at him.
MAFF has been perceived in recent years by farmers and the public as a docile agent of large agrochemical corporations plugging the use of noxious chemicals into the food chain, often as a substitute for labour and for sound land management. Often we have witnessed bureaucrats led by the nose by junk science.
The most blatant example of this, and we have not heard the last of it yet, was the compulsory use of organophosphate insecticides on cattle and sheep and the continuing disgrace of their permitted addition to stored cereals.
This is a perfect example of exactly why MAFF must be disbarred from having responsibility for food safety issues. It was MAFF officials such as Mr Hollis and his colleagues whose policies have seriously damaged the reputation of British food because of the publics realistic concern as to its safety and freedom from chemicals. They were right to be concerned. Not a moment too soon has it been proposed that food should be removed from MAFFs remit.
While Mr Hollis is correct that most of the public, like him, would eat flavoured cardboard if it were cheap enough, the rapidly growing demand for organic food suggests at least some consumers are thinking about what they are eating.
Clearly, Mr Hollis is not one of them.
Stuart Pattison
Church Lane, Calstock, Cornwall.
Inaccurate facts on organics
How can farmers have faith in Geoffrey Hollis (Talking Point, Nov 27) when he cant get his facts right?
One of the many inaccuracies he uses in his enthusiasm to quash the only bright spark in British agriculture, is that the organic producer of the year was won by an ex-BBC producer.
It is true the excellent organic produce of Andrew Whitleys The Village Bakery won the top honour organic trophy of the year; a classic example of how UK agriculture needs new blood, ideas and above all else, marketing skills.
The reason for the success of the organic movement is that it is founded on faith and ideals, fuelled with strong public and market led demand and sound common sense.
It is not a government scheme run at vast cost to the taxpayer and proving to be a fools gold and failing those that need it.
Agriculture has four major problems: Over-supply, the worst public image ever, intensive, environmentally damaging practises and animal welfare questions.
Organic farming must be seen as the only thing that addresses each of these issues. It is something that the public is willing to pay a premium for. It also shows that people are prepared to pay more for their food and thats something farmers need above all else.
For your information, we are Organic Producer of the Year and have never worked for the BBC. After leaving agricultural college in 1983, I have continuously followed a career in agriculture, and used organic methods for the past 10 years. It has not been easy. There were no conversion incentives then and headage payments being a disincentive to this way of farming. Yet our belief in organic farmings long term future played a big part in difficult times. Farmers need to feel confident not only about agriculture but also in MAFF.
Short term fixes, including set-aside and the calf incineration scheme are not solutions, as the public recognises. Retail sales of organic food in the UK have risen from £100m in 1993 to £260m last year. That is proof of what the consumer, who buys our produce and pays our subsidies, wants from agriculture. The fact that 70% of this has been imported demonstrates that our farmers are missing a huge potential market.
Tim and Jo Budden
Higher Hacknell Farm, Burrington, Umberleigh, Devon.
OP residues: Be concerned
Geoffrey Hollis (Talking Point, Nov 23) is wrong to claim that it is impossible to tell organic from conventionally grown crops or that we should be unconcerned about residues of dangerous pesticides.
If so, there would be no need for the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations because pesticides would not present a health risk.
Furthermore, he should not claim that residues are under control when the data produced, even for those OPs used as undeclared food additives, is inadequate and based only on statistics which themselves are dangerously flawed. MAFF claims adequate testing for residues in wheat but that claim, like many others, does not stand close scrutiny.
The Pesticide Safety Directorate figures for one OP added to grain, despite admitted errors, indicates that about 100t of OP dust alone is added to grain annually to treat about 1m tonnes of grain. But it tests just 250 loaves of bread which is about 170kg of flour.
It admits the chemical does not break down in grain and yet they could not find any residues in most of the loaves tested.
This despite reports that bakers also add the chemical to flour during baking and yet they reported finding OPs in organic bread without explaining the source.
Of those, 100t of OP they found just a few milligrams. At that testing level, the most excessive doses would be missed. Even if 1% of 1m tonnes exceeds minimum residue levels that is 10,000t of grain fed to humans and animals alike.
Mr Hollis declares: "Its the dose that determines the poison." Yet cumulative poisons are just that. OPs in grain are proven to cause only partially reversible effects.
That means each dose fed adds to the irreversibly damaging effects. He is right. We are dealing with faith and not fact but he has faith in a dangerously flawed system.
The true facts about poisoned individuals are ignored by that system and by dishonest means. Consumers are not stupid.
His efforts on behalf of his sycophantic cronies at MAFF will not be forgotten.
Richard A R Bruce
Hill Place Cottage, Thorley, Yarmouth, Isle of Wight.
Real reason for Saxon omission
I was concerned to read the article (Arable, Oct 30) on new sugar beet varieties by seed specialist John Prince. He said the NIABs decision to remove Saxon from the recommended list was vindicated by the fact that only 500 units have been sold for 1999 sowing.
I disagree. The reason for the small number is because when we received the seed order form, Saxon was not listed. Moreover, we were told by British Sugar that Saxon cannot account for more than 10% of our total order.
It is obvious that many farmers did not wish to sow a field with more than one variety if it could be avoided, and, no doubt reluctantly, left Saxon out of their order.
NIAB should not remove a commercially successful variety from its recommended list until a proven replacement has been found. Can NIAB tell me which variety I should consider to give the early drilling and the early harvest performance I get from Saxon?
Can Mr Prince please persuade British Sugar to allow me to change my seed order so that Saxon can account for 30% of my beet order not 10%?
Billy Watts
W G Watts Ltd, Rookery Farm, Runham, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk.
Farmers pay for intimidation
I write regarding the Country File programme (Sunday, Nov 29) about intimidation of meat inspectors in abattoirs. According to the programme, the meat hygiene service and Unison have conducted a survey of the meat inspectors which revealed more than 400 cases of intimidation ranging from verbal to physical abuse.
Most abattoirs are blameless but either 400 cases must cover a fair number or theres persistent harassment at a few sites. Intimidation must affect the ability of individuals concerned and their colleagues to maintain standards. As abattoirs passed the cost of these inspections to the weakest link in the food chain, farmers have ended up footing the bill for a guarantee of less than 100% meat safety. As the present system has been in operation for three years, its suspicious that good news on the BSE front is immediately countered by a negative story.
Richard Hornsby
3 Meadow Close, Northallerton, N Yorks.
BSP has never worked in UK
I write in support of NFU president, Ben Gill. He is right to say (News, Nov 19) that the present beef special premium should be abolished. It has never worked in the UK. The 90-head limit on male cattle discriminated against full-time finishers. If we are not to receive parity of compensation with other producers, the finishing end would be better as a subsidy-free zone. Headage payments never encouraged quality, just overstocking.
Sinclair Robson
48 Ballybracken Road, Doagh, Ballyclare, Co Antrim.
Simple question for merchants
The ACCS debate continues with thoughts now turning towards marketing the 1999 crop. I urge growers to write to their grain merchants to ask a simple question:
"Will it be a requirement of 1999 crop year sales to be a member of ACCS: Yes or No?"
Its a simple question which requires a simple answer. But it should eliminate the hints and innuendoes which some grain merchants are using.
Middlesex Farmer
Name and address supplied.
Swann advice was ignored
I write following your article (Livestock, Nov 27) expressing the views of two leading vets that welfare concerns should lead to extensifying production systems and reductions in the use of antibiotics.
In many cases, antibiotics are used in pig production to control respiratory diseases which could be remedied by improving hygiene and ventilation.
That is what the Swann Committee on the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry and veterinary medicine recommended nearly 30 years ago. It mentioned higher standards of hygiene and changes in animal husbandry to avoid the routine use of antibiotics.
As so often, the advice of a government committee, which could have had lasting effects on animal health, was ignored. Now producers will be forced to make the necessary changes.
J Bower
Hon. secretary, The Farm and Food Society, 4 Willfield Way, London.
Mating views common sense
In an otherwise excellent report (Livestock, December 4) on the recent DRC seminar at Reading University, I am said to have challenged Dr Maurice Birchards statement that it was a waste of time selecting bulls to correct individual cow traits. I certainly did, but not because I "believed it was important to maintain the correct shape".
I have too great a respect for Maurice as a geneticist, and for the superb job he did in putting the British pig in the forefront of the world, to challenge him with such a vague concept.
I defended corrective mating by suggesting that cows with wide front teats or low foot angle should be mated to bulls with strengths in these areas rather than randomly, as proposed by Dr Bichard.
Geoff Spiby
Olympian herd, Chalder Farm, Sidlesham, Chichester, W Sussex.
Get milk back into our schools
We dairy farmers must give credit to ABN for its promotion of milk in schools via the recent colouring competition "Milk is good for you because…"
I understand that a similar project will be running next year. All farmers, whether feeding their products or not, should take up the challenge and help to encourage local schools to participate.
Its in all our interests to work together to encourage youngsters consume dairy products and thus increase the liquid milk sales. We should try to get milk back into schools in the form of milk shakes which are taking on a trendy young image. FW readers should involve themselves in this brave step, and hopefully we can all make an impact to promote our excellent and underpriced product.
W.J. & F.J. Hadley,
Home Farm, Colne Engaine, Colchester, Essex.