Burning Issues

Don't stamp out our Post Offices!

The results of this will be loss of a significant amount of business for smaller Post Offices which often combine with village shops. They will no longer be viable and will therefore close. People who at present rely on their weekly benefit from the Post Office, in cash, will have to have access to a bank account/cash machine - which means they will probably have to travel into the nearest town to gain access to their money. The costs of this in terms of time and money will have to be borne by the benefit recipients! The cost in terms of loss of facilities, pressure on transport (or through extra car travel on the environment) will be borne by us all. The young and the elderly will be affected. How will the disabled cope? What will happen to those who do not have bank accounts ?

Once again it is the rural areas which will suffer most.
If you are concerned:- Ask your local Post Office if they have a petition to sign. Write to your local M.P. and write to the relevent government minister expressing your concern. Ask for benefits to continue to be paid through our Post Offices.

Genetically Modified Crops:

1)By careful selection and breeding using cross - pollination to enhance favourable traits. This has been taking place for hundreds of years and has led to the high - yielding food plants that we now have. It does mean that it takes many years to produce enough seeds or cuttings to make a new variey commercially viable.

2)By the identification and removal of a specific gene from one species and inserting it by mechanical or biological means into the DNA of a different species. This means that genes can be selected from an animal and inserted into a plant. (e.g. a gene from the fish called the Arctic Flounder can be used in a strawberry to prevent frost damage). Plants modified by this method are the ones commonly called 'GMOs'.

These two methods are totally different but are often confused. It needs to be remembered that in using the first, human beings are working with nature. Fertilisation is strictly controlled but the genes remain in their places within the DNA of the plant species.

In using the second method genes are inserted into existing DNA with no control over their exact placing. Genes can be and are affected by their neighbours. There have been reports recently of problems with plants modified in this way, the most recent being damage to the soya bean plant after drought. These reports suggest that the insertion of a herbicide resistant gene may have led to a weakness in the cellular structure.

Advantages and Disadvantages:

My own thinking is I believe in line with many in the farming community. Although there may be long term possibilities from this line of research, we have not yet reached the point of going commercial. There are too many unknown factors and too high a risk of breakdown for there to be releases into the environment, especially in the U.K. where we have a great variety of wild species on and around farmland. I believe that there should be a long term programme of testing under controlled conditions

(e.g. in glass-houses with air-filtration to avoid pollution by modified pollen) before any field trails take place.

A few comments on the research industry: I believe that it is here that much of the danger lies.

1) Some members of the scientific community seem to have short memories. DDT (discovered in 1939) was used widely before its long term toxicity was recognised. The damage caused by organophosphorous compounds (discovered about the same time as DDT) in sheep-dip and warble fly dressing is still being investigated. It took many years to discover the effects of these chemicals on the environment.

I believe that there should be thorough testing by independent scientists over a period of years to ensure that as far as possible all aspects of the new organism have been verified as safe.

2) There are very few totally independent research laboratories. Many of those who are involved in research depend on agro-chemical companies for funding! Scientists' jobs are on the line if they cannot produce commercially viable seed within a short time scale. This I believe is dangerous and puts the environment at risk. The 'profit - motive' should not be allowed to endanger God's creation.

T.W.B. 1/12/99

Food Safety

This raises a number of difficulties for farmers. The greatest of these is the lack of clear labelling as to the source of ingredients in cattle feed. Until this is done there can be no guarantee of the source of soya and other modified protein.

The National Farmers Union has been demanding the clear labelling of all feed ingredients for many years. They need the support of the general public to bring about change in the law, which would force the feed manufacturers to declare the source of their raw material.

We should remember that other countries in the E.U. have NOT banned the use of meat and bone meal in animal feed and that meat from the continent does not necessarily undergo the same rigorous inspection as in the U. K.

T.W.Brighton. 19/1/2000

Abattoirs:

Rare Breeds will become extinct if small abattoirs close

The following letter, an extension of the version to Nick Brown in 'Archive' may be copied or adapted for you to send if you wish:-

To: The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair.

The House of Commons,

Westminster, London,

SW1A 0AA

Dear Mr. Blair,

I am writing to express my concern at the excessive inspection charges still being proposed for small abattoirs. For every small abattoir that closes 20 other jobs may be affected, and medium sized abattoirs may employ up to 40 people - plus the 'knock-on' effect. This will have a devastating effect on the rural economy which, as far as farming and related industries are concerned, is struggling with the worst crisis since the beginning of the last century.

Farmers, the Rare Breeds Association and the Soil Association among others are asking for help! Abattoirs slaughtering less than 20 animals per week have been given some relief from the proposed legislation . However for those who slaughter 50-60 animals per week charges will be the same as for the big industial plants that can kill an animal every 10 seconds.These will be unable to operate cost effectively.

The implications are massive in terms of human health and animal welfare; for farmers markets and the organic sector. Even if the large abattoirs will slaughter for individual farmers can they be 100% certain of getting their own animal back? Organic farmers and the rearers of rare breeds could find it impossible to have their animals slaughtered, or to verify which are actually their carcases. At present with the small abattoirs they do have that confidence.

Farmers have been told to diversify and are selling their products through farmers markets, in farm shops and organic shops. All of these businesses too will be threatened if these abattoirs go out of business. Freedom of choice needs to be maintained for both producer and consumer.

There is also the question of animal welfare to be considered. (The last abattoir on the Isle of Wight has already closed, and as a result all livestock has to be brought off the island by ferry for slaughter and the carcases returned!) Across the country animal welfare will suffer as cattle are trucked up to 200 miles to the big slaughter houses! Animals are also stressed by the system of cattle runs big firms need to use. Small firms are more humane and less stress means better quality meat.

I understand that there is provision made for small abattoirs under the 1991 amendment to Directive 64/433. Please implement this and put in place the necessary legislation for a 'headage' policy for all abattoirs. Charges will then be fairly distributed across the industry.

In addition the interpretation of the rules should be the same across the EU with regard to:- the headage qualification for categorizing as a small abattoir for exemptions should be set as high as any others in the EU (e.g. 30 head per week as in Germany).

the meat inspectors qualification, (i.e. using veterinary technicians rather than fully qualified veterinary surgeons, or retaining the use of the present inspectorate.)

the government should recognise that these are in fact food hygeine rules and pay them from central funds rather than passing them back to the abattoirs, thus removing the need to implement a complicated payment exemption scheme by effectively exempting them all.

This and other farming issues need urgent, positive action to remove 'red-tape', punitive charges, and excessively interpreted EU rules. Only then will our farmers be able to produce good food at fair prices. The outlook otherwise is bleak. There will be fewer farmers, less animal welfare, possible extinction of rare breeds, less consumer choice and a breakdown of the rural infrastructure.

What are you going to do for our farmers, abattoirs and rural economy Mr. Blair?

Note to letter writers.

Please feel free to hand/photocopy this. Handwriting is considered more effective - if you have time, with photocopies of that for other interested parties.Please send a copy of the letter to your own M.P. as well as the one to Tony Blair.

Some of the proposed charges have been deferred for the smallest abattoirs in the short term, but they and medium sized abattoirs are still under threat.

'headage' means that any payment is made per animal passing through the abattoir.

The derogation rules permit a different system of checks allowing for the fact that the abattoir is not in full use every day.

Small firms also carry less chance of infection (easier to keep clean, and very conscious of the need to supply a good product to their customers many of whom they will know personally.)

One Wiltshire beef farm had to send an animal to a large abattoir recently and they do not believe they had their own animal back. This could jeopardise their reputation as an organic supplier.