NEW
European Commission livestock transport rules could add more than £1.6 million
a year to the costs of producers in the Highlands and
Last
Wednesday more than 1,000 dairy farmers closed down five Asda milk distribution
centres, from
Zac Goldsmith, the editor of The Ecologist and son of the late Sir James
Goldsmith, keeps a herd of pigs on his farm in
The
European Commission has decided today, (2 September) to turn down GMO-free zones
as it rejected a request from the Upper Austrian regional Government to ban the
use of genetically engineered seeds. The Austrians had
asked permission from
It would be virtually impossible to stage Europe's largest one day sale of sheep at Lairg in Sutherland if the EU's latest proposals covering the welfare of animals in transit are approved. That was the unanimous view expressed in Lairg yesterday when 25,000 North Country Cheviot lambs were offered for sale. NFU Scotland, the British Veterinary Association and the Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland, who in addition have the support of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, joined forces in condemning the proposals from Brussels. Bob Howat, the vice-president of NFU Scotland, said: "An event like this at Lairg clearly highlights the problems and takes no account of the market situation and the practical logistics. "The EU has problems with transcontinental transport, but some of the proposals are laughable. But we will just have to bat away to ensure that we get a satisfactory answer, and all of us here today will work towards that." The proposals are complex but the one area which is of particular concern to Scotland is the concept of limiting journey times to just nine hours. Thereafter the animals must be rested for a period of 12 hours, but that could be in the lorry. In addition it is proposed that stocking densities in vehicles should be considerably reduced. David Leggat, the president of the IAAS, said "This would be bad for Scotland, and especially for the north and the islands. The nine hours journey time is plain ludicrous." Sandy Clark, the president of the Scottish Region of the British Veterinary Association, was in total agreement. He said: The BVA believes that these new proposals would be a backward step. The system we have now is admirable and the loss rate is almost nil. "It is quite impractical to suggest that all vehicles should have air conditioning. The reduced stocking rate could well create more accidents. There is no joined up thinking in this with the EU stating that it wishes to keep animals in remote areas while at the same time making it virtually impossible to move them." (Scotsman 14/8/03)
BECAUSE
the
It
is Welsh Assembly policy to keep
The
new EU directive on sheep requires farmers to report any case of scrapie.
There are two options: to slaughter the
whole flock, or to have all sheep genetically tested for susceptibility to
scrapie. All animals scoring 4 or below on a five point scale to be killed. The
results so far on the voluntary scrapie-monitoring scheme are that out of
300,000 animals tested some 70% fell below the 4-point scale. In other words, 70%
of the whole
On
May, 23rd. 2003 the German Ministry of Agriculture (BMVEL) officially admitted
that a two year old sheep, tested for TSE under the fallen stock scheme
earlier, had been found positive for scrapie on the routinely used fast test
for TSE. Furthermore, tests on the genotype confirmed the initial finding that the
sheep was of the ARR/ARR genotype which is thought to be resistant against
infection with scrapie. The brain sample was in a state of deterioration
which made it impossible to carry out histophatological examination of the
tissue. Further tests are under way at the German Federal Research Institute (BFA)
Riems.
The European Commission has been informed and the SSC is asked to look into the
matter. Pending the outcome of further investigations it has to be decided on a
european level whether community measures dealing with scrapie have to be
changed accordingly. (
Although
only about 450 cases have been reported, the
Food Standards Agency claims that there are 40,000 hidden cases of scrapie
in the
"The real
time-bomb, which somehow escaped mention last week, follows from the fact that
when the EU enlarges next year to take in Poland and other eastern European
countries, even the limited farm subsidies they are allowed will leave
a shortfall on the CAP budget of £3 billion a year. Conveniently, that
happens to be just the sum the EU would save if, as indicated at recent meetings
of its budget control committee, it abolishes the
"As
Polish agriculture is forced, in the harshest possible way, to "modernise",
millions will be driven off the land....A very great tragedy is in the
making. ...the entrant countries will not receive full subsidies under the
Common Agricultural Policy until 2013. In
“According to EU law the only way we could continue the ban on the
commercial planting of GM foods is if there is scientific evidence that such
foods are harmful.” Statement by
the Environment minister Michael Meacher. There is no evidence. It is not
necessary to demonstrate that GM foods are harmless. Public objections to GM
foods on preference grounds are of no import. One reason there is no published
evidence as to the harmful nature of GM foods is that only the GM companies know
such information and they cannot be made to reveal the results of their
research. (BBC Farming Today
Comment
from National Pig Association Forum http://www.npa-uk.net/
"...Finally a pig farmer client of mine rang to say he had recently
received two letters from the "Ministry". One was to give him approval
for his farm diversification scheme to have a "green burial" site on
his farm for people to lay their grannies and other loved ones to rest and plant
an appropriate tree above their 6ft plot and the second letter was to say that
all on farm disposal of former livestock was to be banned. It's a funny old
world." (Warmwell.com
Millions
of acres of farmland in picturesque areas and national parks will be abandoned
or neglected to the detriment of wildlife and the landscape under proposed
European Union farm reforms. Environmental groups will back landowners in
telling ministers that proposals to allow farmers to trade their entitlements to
subsidy separately from the land would be environmentally damaging. While the
groups favour the main principle of decoupling payments from production proposed
by Franz Fischler, the agriculture commissioner, they are alarmed by the
proposal to make entitlements tradeable - providing windfalls for tenants who
want to get out of farming. This proposal - which means tenants would be able to
sell their entitlements and walk away leaving the landowner with land worth much
less than it was with subsidies on it - has already contributed to a drop of up
to 15 per cent in the land price so far this year. The Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds has joined the
Farmers already operating environmentally friendly farming will be penalised by CAP reform proposals. They will miss out on new "broad and shallow" schemes; incentives to use green farming methods. They will also not be eligible for the "Single Farm Payment" aimed to stabilise income. (Farmers Guardian 28-3-03)
In 1997 Britain was 80% self-sufficient in food. By 2003 this dropped to 62% and is likely to fall a further 25%. For example since 1998 the pig herd fell 29%, the sheep flock fell 17%, the beef herd fell 15% and the dairy herd fell 9%. Imports cost £6bn in 1997 and now cost £10bn in 2003. The CAP reforms mean that in Less Favoured Areas beef production will fall 38% and sheep by 11%. (Farmer’s Guardian 28-3-03)
GOVERNMENT plans to introduce stringent biosecurity measures on August 1 could force the closure of many more of Wales's smaller livestock markets and slaughterhouses. The Farmers' Union of Wales has expressed serious fears that proposals may signal the end for many small rural cattle markets and abattoirs. Defra's plans include a requirement for market operators to employ a vet to attend markets, a ban on animals being kept on such premises overnight and a requirement that all livestock vehicles leaving markets and slaughterhouses empty must be cleansed and disinfected on the premises. Farmers will also be required to consult a vet at least annually for advice about dis-ease detection, biosecurity and farm health plans. But Defra is seeking further consultation on another controversial proposal to introduce a limit of 150km (94 miles) within which animals could move to and from markets. "The proposal to limit animal movements to and from markets to 94 miles also has serious implications. It is totally unrealistic, inappropriate and detached from reality. "There are already so many pressures on our smaller abattoirs that many, if they have not closed already, are facing closure. Defra appears to be doing their utmost to put every pressure on the industry and their attitude beggars belief. "We recognise there is a need to address various issues of concern regarding livestock movements but these proposed measures are taking the matter a step too far and we will be consulting our membership for their views," added Mr Gardner. (Mar 22 2003 The Western Mail )
Sheep tagging: ". they are trying to turn us into a bloody factory," ...some industry leaders have warned they will simply refuse to comply with the regulation. "...They include National Sheep Association chairman Peter Baber, from Christow, near Exeter, who says the red tape could wipe out the entire British sheep sector. The scale of the costs now suggests that is no overstatement. The estimates, allowing £12 an hour for labour plus on-costs, indicate tagging and repeatedly checking sheep will cost a lowland farmer with 600 ewes £13,000 a year. For an upland farmer dealing with sheep ranging free miles from the farmhouse, the figure goes up to £16,000. Yet the latest figures released by Defra this week show the average lowland livestock farmer is only likely to earn £7,500 this year, and his upland colleague - who receives more subsidies - just £10,000. Exmoor sheep farmer Andrew Hawkins, who owns 1,000 ewes, says the costs involved, coupled with the loss of some subsidies, will mean an end to centuries of sheep farming on the moor. "It is a total nonsense. One minute they are telling us they want more natural farming systems, which is exactly what we are doing up here, and the next they are trying to turn us into a bloody factory," he said. (Western Daily Press March 24)
The new EU battery hen cages would cost 16% more and, due to WTO rules, the tax on egg imports into the EU would be lowered so allowing hens/eggs produced under inferior standards of animal and veterinary care in. These moves will allow price undercutting of our better quality birds and eggs and making UK production impossible to sustain. (R4 Farming Today 13/2/03)
The EU directive banning the burying of fallen stock on farms starts in May 2003. The government has made no provision to deal with a large volume of dead stock. There is a peak in the spring from dead lambs and ewes. Large pig producers have their own incinerators or contracts with the few remaining knackermen. But they are very concerned at the threat to bio-security from contaminated vehicles entering security ring-fences in future to collect dead stock. In some areas knackermen no longer exist. No government help will be given to farmers to install incinerators. Furthermore, new EU regulations for small incinerators require them all to be licensed and to have additional instrumentation fitted. DEFRA claim they already operate a national collection scheme for over 30 month (OTM) cattle and cull ewes suspected of scrapie. But it does not intend to extend the scheme. In reply to a parliamentary question the government said that hunt kennels would supply a disposal service. (It wants to ban hunting). The effect of the new regulations will undoubtedly lead to the illegal disposal of large numbers of dead animals. (BBC Farming Today 3/2/03)
Under a new EU directive British farmers are required to supply pigs with environmental enrichment by means of "manipulable" material. DEFRA defines this a "balls." Failure to give pigs toys such as balls can lead to a fine of £2,500. The British Pig Farmers Association say that we have eliminated stalls and tethers for pigs, which still exist in the EU. This leads to higher costs for UK farmers while supermarkets import cheaper pigmeat from EU suppliers who raise pigs in, in our terms, illegal conditions. (BBC R4 Today programme 3/2/03)
There might seem no reason why anyone, let alone a British farmer, should bother to recall that this month marks the 40th anniversary of President de Gaulle's famous veto on Britain's bid to join the Common Market in 1963. But if Britain's farmers wonder why, four decades later, they seem to be facing such a bleak future, the anniversary becomes curiously relevant. Only recently have academic researchers begun to uncover the true story behind de Gaulle's veto. It does much to explain why in 2003 Britain's farmers are so much worse off than French ones. What has come to light is how desperate de Gaulle and his advisers were becoming in 1963 about the state of French agriculture, on which at that time 25% of France's population depended for their living. Most French farmers were still tiny, backward peasant holdings, infinitely less productive than their British counterparts. Even so they were producing more food than France could eat. What terrified de Gaulle was the prospect that, if exposed to competition, most of these small French farmers might go bankrupt. There would be a mass flight from the land. Disaffected country-folk would swell the left-wing vote. De Gaulle and his colleagues would be buried in a Socialist or even Communist landslide. The Common Market still had no agricultural policy. If Britain was allowed in, without customs barriers, her farmers would be able to undercut the French, which would only help bring this disaster about. It was therefore vital to keep Britain out until France could set up a common agricultural policy (CAP) especially designed to help the backward French farmers. Even after 1963 it still took another six years. Other countries were strongly opposed and it was necessary for de Gaulle to veto Britain's entry again in 1967. Finally, in 1969, France got what she wanted: a CAP which would take up 90% of the entire Common Market budget, of which French farmers would get 60%. German taxpayers would have to pay to keep French peasants on the land and the Gaullists in power. But the French were cleverer still. They designed the CAP in such a way that, if Britain were now allowed in, she would have to pay the biggest share of all because she imported more of her food from outside Europe than anyone else. Not only would new tariffs force her to buy food from France, levies on her overseas imports would go directly to paying for the CAP. No sooner had the CAP been agreed than word went out that Britain could join. The next year Edward Heath made the application which led to British entry three years later. In the past half century the year when British farm incomes were in real terms at their highest was 1973. It was the year we joined the Common Market and the CAP. (Private Eye - 24th January 2003)
Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler has announced that EU farmers would no longer get higher subsidies for growing more crops or producing more livestock but instead would get a single income support payment which will reduce over time. Larger farms getting more than fifty thousand Euros a year face steeper cuts than smaller farms and as that accounts for far more UK farmers than in other EU countries the idea has been greeted angrily here. Meanwhile concerns have also been raised on the environmental aspects of the reforms. Plans to put more money into rewards for farmers who encourage wildlife have been scaled down and there are now fears that the UK, which has committed to introducing these measures could be penalised for moving faster on this reform than other EU countries. (BBC Farming Today 23/1/03)
In one of those articles whose headline belies its actual contents (PM's adviser scorns 'unrealistic' Prince - Telegraph) we read the Prince's perfectly realistic and well argued support for British Farming and note that the "advisor" is Lord Haskins, who - it is rumoured - has been busily buying up agricultural land in Poland : "...... In his article last week, the Prince - who won the Farmers Weekly Personality of the Year award - dismissed ministers' fears that a "buy British" policy would contravene EU competition rules. He has studied the legal arguments and is convinced that public bodies can buy any food they wish. Farmers hailed Prince Charles as a champion of the countryside and said the Royal Family had shown a greater understanding of rural issues than the Government. John Daw, who chairs the National Farmers' Union in Devon, praised the Prince's article. He said: "Do you think the French give their armed forces and schools anything other than French products? Not on your nelly. "It's a matter of interpretation. It's high time we started interpreting the rules like other EU countries do, which is to look after themselves first and the EU second The Ministry of Defence said recently that its food supply contract "is required to secure the best value for money for the UK taxpayer". As a result, only two per cent of the lamb it buys is British, along with 16 per cent of the chicken. ....." (Warmwell.com 29/12/02)
Farmers yesterday reacted
with unrestrained horror to new European Commission proposals on sheep
identification, saying they were completely unworkable. NFU Deputy President
Tim Bennett said the Brussels bureaucrats had demonstrated their ignorance of
the sheep industry with plans to demand that all sheep in Europe carry not
one, but two 14-digit ear tags. "Not only are sheep ear tags prone to
falling out, the 14-digit number will be a record-keeping nightmare," he
said. "To add insult to injury, farmers will be liable for prosecution if
the tags fall out." In fact, the proposal is so bureaucratic and
impractical that it will be a backward step in respect of the identification and
traceability of sheep. (The Journal 19/12/02). The EU
mills grind exceeding slow – the NFU was protesting against ear tagging sheep
in 1993 (farmers Guardian
The Government traumatized farmers, damaged health and the rural environment and broke animal welfare rules during its handling of last year's foot and mouth outbreak, according to a report adopted by the European Parliament today. "Vaccination should replace the disastrous contiguous cull as the response of first choice in any future outbreak, the report also concludes. The report was adopted by the European Parliament in Strasbourg today after almost a year of meetings, sifting evidence and visiting affected rural communities by members of a specially appointed Temporary Committee into the outbreak. The committee's Vice-President, Green MEP Caroline Lucas, welcomed the report. She told the Strasbourg Parliament: "It is quite clear from the evidence we received and the communities we visited that much of the blame for the devastation which followed the outbreak lies at the door of the British government." Dr Lucas added: "I'm particularly pleased that the Parliament has rejected attempts by Labour to water down the report and to re-write history. "Their efforts to pretend that their were no violations of animal welfare, no intimidation of farmers, no health or environmental effects from pyres and burial sites were a cynical attempt to whitewash the past with no basis in fact." With the exception of Amendment 11 on Uruguay (not one of the the most important ones), every single one of the Labour amendments were defeated. Stronger wording was won on animal welfare and on the human trauma caused by the handling of the crisis. Unfortunately, the amendments on carrier animals (making case that risk of transmission has never been demonstrated) were lost, as was access to automated computerised virus laboratories (Professor Ruth Watkins' proposal). Nevertheless, the overall result is very good - it was passed with 481 votes in favour, and only 32 against - including many UK Labour MEPs who voted against the final report. (Warmwell.com 17/12/02)
Cheap imports of sugar, wheat and milk produce from Italy, France and Spain will be on sale in Warsaw at prices that undercut those paid to Polish farmers. Struggling farmers in Poland will end up in effect subsidising their better-off opposite numbers in France. More than one-fifth of Poles are dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods, creating a powerful constituency that is at least sceptical of EU membership. (The Telegraph Dec 16 2002)
Smaller UK abattoirs
and cutting plants will be forced out of business if two new pieces of EU
legislation are implemented, the Country Land & Business Association,
National Federation of Women's Institutes and Soil Association warned today. The
damaging impact would spread far beyond the meat and livestock industry, and 150
organisations have signed a letter to Defra Secretary of State Margaret Beckett
to strengthen the Government's hand in imminent EU negotiations. Speaking on
behalf of the CLA, NFWI and Soil Association, CLA Executive Committee Member
Caroline Cranbrook said: "These new EU regulations would have disastrous
consequences and must be stopped. Providing for full recovery from the
industry of all meat inspection costs and for changes to the arrangements
for disposal of blood by-products, they would spell the end of the line for the
UK's small and medium-sized abattoirs, while the large ones would become less
competitive. "Defra must stand firm in fighting for the survival of a
diverse UK meat processing industry. The Curry Report and the FMD inquiry
reports all recognised the significance of small and medium-sized enterprises to
a sustainable rural economy. We can't afford to lose our smaller local abattoirs
and cutting plants - they currently process 49% of UK livestock and are needed
to deal with specialist and local meats, to provide jobs in rural communities
and to minimise the distances travelled by animals." The EU Proposal for
Official Feed and Food Controls proposes full recovery from the industry of all
meat inspection costs. In the UK, this would include the cost of Meat Hygiene
Service and BSE measures. Charges for all plants would increase substantially.
If full cost recovery were applied on a plant-by-plant basis, smaller plants
could see the cost per animal increase from around £3 to a staggering £100,
while for large plants this would mean an increase from £2 - £3 to £10 per
animal. Large plants would become less competitive against their overseas
counterparts and smaller plants would cease to be financially viable. The CLA,
NFWI, Soil Association and other partner organisations are urging Defra to hold
its position on keeping the status quo and maintaining charges at a
proportionate level. The Animal By-Products Regulation, scheduled for
introduction in April 2003, would require all abattoirs to collect and store
blood for later disposal by costly means not currently employed in the UK. While
some large abattoirs already collect and dispose of blood through renderers,
many do not and the by-product is disposed of with the approval of water
companies via the sewage system or to land. Under the new arrangements, smaller
abattoirs would have to invest in refrigerated storage tanks, where blood would
await collection, probably on a weekly basis. As well as the expense, this
could give rise to planning issues. Disposal by this means would mean
substantially increased long-distance lorry journeys, creating additional
emissions, hazards and possible nuisance. There is no scientific or other
rational basis for the imposition of blood storage and central disposal. (CLA
press release 26 NOVEMBER 2002) EU
commission has retreated from this proposal (January 2003)
The EU Commission on Wednesday withdrew a case against France in
European Court of Justice for its refusal to lift a ban on British beef.
France will only have to pay the legal costs of the long-running dispute. The £100,000-a-day fine for its illegal ban on British beef was lost after the case against France collapsed.
(EUobserver.com
14.11.2002)
The UK
government's blind adherence to a discredited EU directive, 64/433/EEC, forces
the unnecessary live export of 10,000s of small lambs to Greece. Lightweight
lambs are popular in Greece but they must have a pink, not fatty, appearance.
This is achieved by injecting air into the carcass under the skin - insuflation.
This used to be done by mouth and the EU feared that the meat could be infected
with TB. Now it is done by machine but the UK still insists on obeying the EU
ban. (BBC Farming Programme 4/11/02)
Until
1996 France was the biggest export market for Britain's old milking cows,
precisely the animals most susceptible to BSE. The French imported hundreds of
thousands each year, to make pies and other meat products. Yet, if there was
genuinely any link between eating beef and CJD, why were only two cases ever
reported in France? Neither the French Government nor our own scientists
were ever asked this question, because an honest answer might have suggested
there was no link between British beef and CJD at all. But when everyone is in
the grip of the kind of hysteria that was unleashed by this greatest of all food
scares, the last thing you can expect of any politician is to look at the
facts." (C Booker, Sunday Telegraph 27/10/02)
Another
day, another stitch-up in the corridors of power of the European Union. Some EU
leaders have hailed as a 'breakthrough' the agreement between Jacques Chirac
and Gerhard Schröder to finance enlargement by capping the CAP, the Common
Agricultural Policy that pays farmers to produce food no one wants at prices
that distort world markets and impoverish developing world producers. If this
was a breakthrough, it is hard to imagine what a setback would have looked like.
With ten new member countries poised to join the EU and share in the spoils,
there is scant difference between a blank cheque and a very large one. A
great opportunity has been missed and it will cost Europe dear. Setting a
ceiling on agricultural expenditure from the year 2007, without even a nod
towards any meaningful reform of the system, is a long way from what Germany,
Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands had demanded in advance of accession. Even
the fairly timid reforms proposed by the Commission last year, to switch
subsidies away from overproduction and towards rural development, have been
rejected. By breaking ranks, the Germans have dashed any hope of genuine reform
until 2007 at the earliest and probably until 2013. New member countries will be
offered 25 per cent of the direct farm aid received by EU farmers in 2004,
rising to 40 per cent in 2007 and by 10 per cent a year thereafter. EU leaders
also agreed to Danish plan to offer them 23 billion euros in regional aid for
the first three years. The new agreement marks France's greatest and most
damaging victory since it convinced Germany to abandon its beloved mark and sign
up to the euro. (The Times October 26, 2002)
Britain
should already have been equipped and obliged by law to carry out a full-scale
emergency vaccination programme within days of the first outbreak being
identified. .... In the Sunday Telegraph today we read another angle on the (No)
Lessons Learned Report: "...The country could have been spared the worst of
a disaster that cost the economy at least £3.8 billion; the lives of those
millions of illegally killed animals could have been saved; and rural
communities would have been spared their most traumatic experience in modern
times. .... this tragedy was made inevitable by a complete breakdown of the
system devised by the European Commission in the 1990s for tackling any future
outbreaks of foot and mouth. Successive British governments failed to meet even
the inadequate Brussels requirements for drawing up proper contingency plans.
..... Britain was wholly unprepared for what happened. Yet because Brussels and
Whitehall were both at fault, they agreed to hush up just how seriously their
joint system had failed. " (Sunday Telegraph 28/7/02) (Warmwell.com)
The
minister of agriculture said that the government wanted to stop the personal
allowance of one kilo of meat and dairy products that long haul visitors can
bring into the country, for fear of bringing in diseases such as Foot &
Mouth. We could not implement such a law as this was within the jurisdiction
of the EU. (BBC Today programme 8/7/02)
The UK
expressed grave doubts on Thursday about the European Commission's plans to limit
the level of subsidies to individual farms, as is planning in its CAP
mid-term review. Margaret Beckett, the agriculture minister, backed the broad
thrust of reform plans due to be unveiled in two weeks, but stressed she could
not accept anything that would undermine the UK farming industry. Initial
estimates from the National Farmers' Union suggest that almost 600 English
farms - about 2 per cent of the total - would exceed the 300,000 euro
ceiling, representing a total financial loss of about 96 million euro if the
measure was approved. About 30 Scottish farms would also be affected. (EUobserver.com
28/6/02)
The
latest government TSE (BSE, Scrapie) regulations, SI843, was put before
Parliament on March 27 and came into law on April 19. What worried a number of
people who read the 220 pages of the regulation was the section dealing with TSE
monitoring. Supposedly these sections merely detailed how the relevant EU
Regulation 999/2001, which the UK cannot reject in any case, would be put
into effect. However, it became clear that the statutory instrument went much
further than the EU regulation in some crucial matters. The EU regulation,
for instance, speaks of the need to monitor animals suspected of having TSE or
suspected of having been in contact with TSE. The monitoring and testing would
be done after slaughter. Nothing wrong with that. The statutory instrument,
on the other hand, refers repeatedly to "TSE susceptible" animals
and explains that all animals, up to and including fish, are classed as such.
The one exception, for no apparent reason, is the canine. As there is no known
test for TSE on living animals, all those deemed to be susceptible, would have
to be slaughtered. The inspectors thus acquire very extensive powers and
there is virtually no appeal for the farmer or animal owner. Since all
animals are deemed to be TSE susceptible, pets are at risk as much as
livestock. Powers of entry given to inspectors were exactly the ones that
disturbed people who read the Animal Health Bill which dealt with scrapie as
well as foot and mouth. One cannot quite escape the suspicion that, having
failed to pass the Bill, DEFRA is putting the same provisions into a regulation.
We are now saddled with a statutory instrument that gives draconian powers to
DEFRA officials and various inspectors; that prattles blithely about TSE
susceptible animals, though scientists still do not know enough about the
different types of scrapie and how they interrelate; that has introduced
complicated and contentious legislation with the minimum of debate and
information. (Helen Szamuely, Warmwell.com 24/5/02)
The Comments on the Transmissable Spongiform Encephalopathy (England) Regulations 2002 SI 843 by Sheila Crispin MA, VetMB, BSc, PhD, DVA, DVOphthal, DipECVO, FRCVS and Janet Bradshaw BVSc, BSc, MRCPath, MRCVS may be read here. Among its conclusions: *There is currently no evidence of naturally occurring BSE in sheep. *Scrapie has been present in sheep for many hundreds of years. It seems odd that this historic disease must suddenly be dealt with in this precipitate and unscientific fashion. *Selecting for scrapie-resistant genotypes is not necessarily the correct approach to controlling scrapie and certainly cannot be extended to controlling the theoretical risk of BSE in sheep. *To allow inspectors, eg NOT VETS, the right to forcibly enter premises on possibly tenuous grounds, to take samples or even slaughter animals and to threaten those sheep keepers who object with imprisonment and fines is taking control measures to excessive levels with clear infringement of animal welfare and personal liberties. * It would appear that DEFRA and its Government Ministers have learnt nothing from the 2001 Foot and Mouth epidemic, in which huge numbers of healthy hefted sheep were slaughtered unnecessarily. * The Government is incorrect to assert that SI843 is in line with EU regulations. EU regulations currently in force apply to animals with disease, or suspected of having disease, not to animals susceptible to disease. (Warmwell.com 14/5/02). Hilary writes "Apart from Lords Willoughby and Ferrers, the opposition was not strong. The New Labour benches were packed with people who obviously knew little and cared less about farming, but they were efficient and ruthless at scaremongering. Lord Whitty set it up like Morton's fork: you give outrageous power to Defra or there is no legislation at all to stop scary encephalopathies killing us all. It would of course be irresponsible not to take every precaution to stop the spread of disease. With this argument, he ran rings round Lady Byford. This is only about TSE's he said. Not about Foot and Mouth. But they've got what they wanted. It will be easily extended now. Democracy is a sick joke. Law is the rule of the most unscrupulous" (Warmwell.com 16/5/02)
A report presented to the the European Parliament's inquiry into Foot & Mouth by a British MEP Jeffrey Titford, leader of the UK Independence Party, shows that, had it not been for the total breakdown of a strategy for the handling of foot and mouth outbreaks by the European Commission, more than nine million animals might have been spared from slaughter and the British economy could have been saved more than £10 billion. One of the best-kept secrets of last year's disaster was the extent to which, under European Community directive 85/511, overall direction of the handling of foot and mouth had been handed over to Brussels. Under a second directive, 90/423, Britain should have had a detailed contingency plan in place, requiring a full-scale emergency vaccination programme within days of the start of the epidemic. However, the report shows how the system broke down at every point, with liability for its failure split equally between the Commission and the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The first failure highlighted by his report was that, when the Commission in 1990 ordered every member state to draw up a contingency plan for dealing with a foot-and-mouth outbreak, its guidelines did not allow for an epidemic remotely on the scale of that which hit Britain in February 2001. They did, however, require governments to submit detailed evidence that they knew exactly what to do in the event of an outbreak and had sufficient resources in place to implement those plans. The second failure was that Maff's response, as can now be seen from the plan it submitted, did not meet the guidelines and was woefully inadequate. The third failure was that, although the Commission formally approved all the member states' contingency plans in 1993, it did so without examining them. Another requirement of the 1990 directive was that, if an outbreak was anything but small-scale, capable of being overcome by the instant slaughter of infected animals, governments must be equipped to use emergency vaccination. In 1999 the Commission's scientific veterinary committee issued a confidential report warning that the risk of foot and mouth in the EU was "extraordinarily high". Advising member states that additional measures should be taken "to prevent a local outbreak becoming a disaster", it laid down 10 criteria to determine whether or not vaccination should be used. Governments had to be fully equipped to vaccinate as soon as any of these criteria were met. When foot and mouth was identified in Britain in February 2001, it rapidly became clear that Maff had been caught short in every respect. Within a week at least seven of the 10 criteria requiring vaccination had been met. But because Maff had not complied with Commission guidance, it was forced to rely on the mass-slaughter policy which the Commission had already advised was inadequate even in an epidemic much smaller than Britain's. It will be fascinating to see if the inquiry pursues this evidence that the EU system failed, or whether most MEPs simply close ranks in endorsing the cover-up. (Sunday Telegraph 28 April 2002: Christopher Booker)
" The most bizarre element in the new reporting protocol was the requirement to examine the suspect FMD case last of all, perhaps hours after first arriving at the farm. The instruction was to begin examining the outlying stock and work towards the suspects. On many Cumbrian farms this must have caused delays of several hours before any diagnosis. This ludicrous procedure was first justified on the spurious grounds of gathering "epidemiological" information but later admitted to be a requirement of Brussels. Once the full horror of the situation was grasped, it was no longer insisted upon." The experienced vet, Alan Richardson's very full and clear criticisms, first hand knowledge of what really happened with Foot & Mouth. (warmwell.com 30/4/02)
EU Regulations require non-domestic compost heaps to have a licence and an environmental risk assessment if the compost heap is within 250 metres of a dwelling or workplace. The penalty for failing to get a licence is a £5,000 fine. The National Trust, which has the largest gardens in the country, has been forced to apply for hundreds of licences for compost heaps. The Department of the Environment, however, does not seem to know what its enforcement agency is doing. The department is exhorting parks and local authorities to compost to cut the nation's growing pile of waste. Michael Meacher, the environment minister, put composting at the top of his list of "best options" for reducing the nation's waste mountain when he revealed the waste strategy a month ago. The National Trust planned to use compost instead of peat. But the regulations say that even licensed compost cannot be spread on the land if wild animals - including birds - have access to it. That means in theory that all compost has to be buried. Tamzin Phillips, of the trust, said: "We have had to instruct every one of our gardeners to apply for a licence for their compost heaps, and we have had to do a full environmental risk assessment. It is all proving very difficult and in some cases we still cannot get permission." An embarrassed environment agency said yesterday it would not be prosecuting individual gardeners or asking them for a licence. Householders are exempt but guidance on health effects is being formulated. "We are hoping to get the regulations amended and make them clearer, and hope the Department of the Environment will come up with something within two months," a spokesman said. (May 1, 2002 The Guardian)
Fallen stock have traditionally been buried on farms or eaten by hounds. Following its success in creating the largest mass graves ever, the government is to follow EU legislation and outlaw all burial. If the hunt kennels, which collected 366,000 carcasses in 2000, are abolished, as the government intend, then the only legal course will be to pay for a truck to come grinding through the lanes, to collect every dead lamb and calf for haulage to a distant gas-fired cremation – another environmental triumph. In remoter areas many farmers have used "exposure burial" – putting small animal bodies out as a present for foxes and buzzards. For large carcasses, including cows, burial in muck works well – after a year there is nothing left except bones. All of which may well continue with sheep, but with the 600 staff of the British Cattle Movement Services, obsessively tracking the movements of every one of our 11m bovines, will doubtless be used to hunt down any farmer who thinks he can pop one more calf in the ground. (Gumboot, Private Eye 1051 18/4/02)
"United Milk have cut the milk price to their suppliers by 4.6p a litre. The collapsing milk price is across the board - it doesn't matter whom you are trying to sell to." David (dairy farmer) writes, " Someone suggested I sell my milk to a specialist cheese maker who might pay me a better price but why should he? The point is any processor looking for milk to process can buy it at 12p a litre right now so why bother to pay a farmer the price needed for the farmer to be sustainable - which is 24p a litre? The Government is totally impotent - unable under the terms of the CAP to support its own farmers even if it wanted to. We are so asleep in this country that we have not woken up to the fact that our contributions to the EU are effectively being used by other member states to subsidise their farmers in order that they can undercut our markets. The Government could try to help by either pulling out of the CAP altogether (if it could), cutting off the funding that is undercutting our market (saving £bns) or pull out of the EU full stop. (9 April 2002 www.warmwell.com)
Ben Gill, leader of the NFU, shows where his loyalty lies when he said the latest regulations will cost farmers millions of "euros". (BBC Today Programme 14/3/02)
The fiction has been maintained that all is well with the enlargement process. In reality, none of the really difficult issues have been addressed. In particular, the pattern of agricultural subsidies was never discussed, even though access to subsidies is one of the main reasons why Eastern European governments all want to get their snouts into the euro-trough in the first place. Now, with a nonchalance bordering on the sadistic, the Commission has coolly announced that in fact the level of subsidies paid for agriculture to the new member states will be mere fraction of that paid to present members. The new states will start off with 25% of the current level ascend to 100% only by 2013. Moreover, in the intervening period, their agricultural sectors will have to "modernise". What this means in reality is that, as is already the case with the CAP, only large farms will receive subsidies. Small farms, by contrast, will be allowed to go to the wall. That way, the price of land will fall and German and Dutch agri-businesses will be able to move in, buy up land for a song, turn the landscape of, say, Poland, into a huge prairie, and then set up farms which will be "modern" enough to receive subsidies. This is why the EU has demanded that EU citizens (i.e. Germans) will be allowed to buy land in new candidate countries without restriction. Citizens of the new candidate countries, however, will not be allowed to come and work in the rest of the EU for seven years, so that the German and Austrian labour markets are not subjected to competition. (European Foundation Intelligence Digest Issue No. 135 7th February 2002)
What Sir Donald Curry and his team have come up with on the future of farming is no more than a massive dollop of make-believe. They begin with their dream of how they would like to see farming in England develop. Only peripherally do they acknowledge, however, that is not in England that most of the key decisions will be taken but in Brussels. What they are really saying is not so much "this is what a British Government should do to help English farming", as "this is how the Government should try to persuade our European partners to reform the Common Agricultural Policy". And they are then forced to concede that no reform of the CAP will be possible until 2006 at the earliest, even if our partners can be talked into seeing things their way. But here comes another massive snag which Curry does not even mention: that it is precisely this new system he favours which more than anything highlights just why British farmers are now the worst off in Europe and likely to become more so. The 'rural development fund' enables Brussels to provide subsidies only when national governments are prepared to chip in equal money from their own taxpayers. But in Britain's case our government must put in not 50 percent but 83 percent. This is thanks to the small-print attached to the famous EU budget rebate negotiated by Mrs Thatcher in 1984. The tight-fisted Treasury is therefore reluctant to claim such funding, because it means British taxpayers must contribute four fifths of the cash. The result is that while Britain currently receives £230 million a year from this fund, much of which goes to consultants, France gets £1.2 billion. Ireland, with only a quarter Britain's number of farms, claims £500 million. Yet it is precisely with these other EU farmers that British farmers have to compete to sell their produce. Add to this that all subsidies are in euros, which have so massively devalued against the pound, and it is hardly surprising that British supermarkets are rushing to buy their products much more cheaply from the continent. And for Britain to join the euro at the current exchange rate would only lock us into this disadvantage for ever. This is the real answer to the riddle of why British farming has been brought to its knees. Because it is expected to compete on a playing field about as unlevel as the north face of Everest, largely thanks to our own government. Add to this the fact that we also have a government which seems to have a visceral hatred of farmers and everything the countryside stands for, and you can see why the vacuous wishful thinking of the Curry report is not worth the glossy paper it is printed on. (Daily Mail Christopher Booker 30 January, 2002)
The new countries that will join the European Union as of 2004 will have to wait 10 years until they get full access to money for their farmers, according to a 20 page document seen by EUobserver.com on Sunday which will be unfolded by the European Commission on Wednesday. The eagerly awaited Commission’s proposal is set to upset the candidate countries, which have claimed equal rights with the present EU countries upon accession. The Commission is set to propose that direct payments to farmers from the new EU countries are phased in starting from the level of 25 per cent of the present system in the EU and reaching EU levels in 2013. The 10-year transitional period will be organised in two phases: during the first stage, direct payments will be slowly increased by three steps of 5 per cent per year, while during the second phase the levels would be further increased by 10 per cent every year. (EUobserver.com 28/1/02)
All animal medicines currently sold by specialist merchants and agricultural suppliers will only be sold by vets. 1000 businesses to go. This directive has been referred to a working party. Tack shops will be forbidden to sell fly repellent (Horse & Hound 18/11/93). New EU legislation to reclassify all medicines for farm livestock and horses as "Prescription Only Medicines" means farmers and riders would be unable to purchase many medicines through their local saddler or farming supplies merchant. At present many non-prescription medicines commonly used to protect health and welfare of both farm animals and horses are available through registered suppliers who employ professionally qualified staff. Making these available only on veterinary prescription will further damage the viability of agricultural merchants in the UK, who are already suffering because of decline in farm incomes, by taking away a substantial part of their turnover almost overnight. Many of the 3,500 people whom currently hold a professional qualification allowing them to authorise the sale of animal medicines could end up losing their jobs. The inevitable result will be the development of a black-market in animal medicines as exists in the EU where there is no competition in supply to keep prices down. (The Farmer January 2002)
There are controversial plans to make the UK a non-protected zone for the sugar beet disease rhizomania. The proposals, due to be debated in Brussels, will not just affect beet growers but growers of crops such as potatoes who will then only be able to export to other rhizomania "dirty" countries. Farmers who currently sell items like seed potatoes to other clean areas - outside Europe as Europe is mainly classed as a "dirty" area - would lose their market. UK farmers fear that their voices will not be heard in Europe against the louder noises coming from French and German farmers who are envious of the UK's clean status. Europe doesn't like having these different systems. Holland, France and Germany are the main players and if they have rhizomania over there they want Britain to share the pain. (The Farmer January 2002)
Livestock farmers throughout England fear for the future of their businesses after the announcement of proposed new regulations covering the disposal of farm manure. This means the EU's Nitrate Vulnerable Zones could be extended to 80% or even the whole of the English countryside. This means lorries transporting manure and slurry from region to region. Farmers would have to build huge new stores to collect manure and slurry at vast cost. Ironically these proposals will have a profound impact on expanding organic dairy and beef farms, where the use of manure is an integral part of the management of the system. The reasons for this unnecessary, bureaucratic and hugely expensive EU regulation are risks to health. But World Health Organisation research has shown conclusively that no such risk exists. (The Farmer January 2002)
The UK interpretation of the European directive on Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) will mean farmers having to jump through bureaucratic hoops simply to plough their fields. Any land not ploughed in the previous year would have to have an EIA. Only where grassland has more than 25% ryegrass will farmers be sure that they do not need permission from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to plough it or to plant new crops. The CLA says this is a clear case of "gold-plating" only a month after the government pledged there would be no more. (The Farmer January 2002)
With the fall of communism, Poland lost guaranteed markets for produce further east. The government, keen to join the EU with a modernised agriculture, seems happy to allow the small, often organic, holdings to disappear. The majority of Poland's farms are tiny, less than 10 acres in size. EU officials say they are inefficient, unsanitary, they perpetuate poverty and they must be thoroughly modernised if Poland is to become a part of the Union. (BBC News 12/1/02)
EVERY farm in Britain should have a computer with a link to Whitehall to ensure that they comply with ministry decrees, according to plans drawn up after the foot and mouth crisis. The plans - condemned as "Big Brother for farmers" by the Small and Family Farms Alliance - also confirm that the Government is working on a licensing or registration scheme for farmers or farming activity. The proposals, being considered by Margaret Beckett, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary, are part of "a radically different approach to the way we deal with farmers and other land managers" outlined in an internal Defra memo seen by The Daily Telegraph. The memo proposes the "very ambitious objective" that "ultimately each farm business would be able - or be required - to have an e-enabled whole farm plan". Michael Hart, chairman of the small farms alliance, said the costs involved would be "another nail in the coffin of the small family farm". The scheme would require every farmer to draw up a business plan encompassing the total assets of the farms - the soil, water, trees, stock, pastures, crops and wildlife - with details of how they propose to make best use of them in sustainable farming terms. This "e-enabled whole farm plan" would have to be lodged electronically with Defra, giving the ministry an unprecedented insight into every farmer's activities. It would mean every farmer buying a computer capable of being connected to Whitehall. The aim would be to provide farmers and enforcement authorities with tools to facilitate compliance with legal requirements," it says. (Daily Telegraph 15/12/2001)
THE European Parliament is to hold its own inquiry into foot and mouth, which could lead to the Prime Minister being called to give evidence. Details of the European inquiry emerged on the day that the Government's "lessons learned" inquiry, chaired by Dr Iain Anderson and held in camera, announced that it had begun. Labour MEPs tried to block the European investigation but were overruled by members of the parliament's agriculture committee, although the form of the inquiry will not be decided until the New Year. Government sources hope to avoid a full-scale committee of inquiry, which would have the powers to call any witnesses it wished, including the ministers directly responsible - the most senior being Tony Blair. Peter Ainsworth, the Tory environment spokesman, welcomed the announcement of the European inquiry. He said: "Despite repeated calls for the Government to order a full independent public inquiry, they have stubbornly refused to hold one. "Thanks to Conservative MEPs, we now stand a much better chance of finding out the truth about how, and when, the disease got into Europe and what lay behind the terrible complacency of the Government's early response." (Daily Telegraph 15/12/2001)
This letter and parliamentary bill do not mention Brussels but remember, we have no power over agriculture, nothing happens without Brussels' approval. For example, Mrs Diana Organ New Labour MP for the Forest of Dean, when asked why this Bill was being brought in when nothing was being done to screen imports, she "agreed that regulations were "too loose" but declared oddly, "it was because of the EU. We have to accept imports from Italy, Spain etc because of trade agreements."- Ed : SIR - An increasing level of serious concern is being expressed about the Animal Health Bill among council members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. It is accepted that the 20-year-old Animal Health Act needs some degree of amendment. However, the haste with which the legislation is being driven through Parliament does not allow a full and informed debate. No consultative process preceded the publication of this Bill; its second reading on November 12 was accompanied by the excuse that the Bill was urgently needed in the present foot and mouth disease epidemic. But no positive blood tests had been found in the country since September 30 and no virus isolation since September 15; so why the panic? No rational person would deny that the slaughter of all FMD-affected animals immediately, and all dangerous contacts within 24 hours, is an essential part of disease control. However the slaughter being extended to all animals on premises designated by a computer, because they are deemed "contiguous", gives considerable problems to veterinary surgeons, as they have been and could be instructed to kill animals without any good scientific or clinical reasons. This is an ethical issue which is critical to the regulatory role of the RCVS. There is also no scientific definition of "contiguous" in the Bill. In the section concerned with scrapie in sheep and goats, many unsupported scientific judgments are made. The Government is therefore urged to look again and consult widely before embarking on a course of action likely to antagonise the main people they need to assist in any disease outbreak: farmers. Late reporting of disease could make the recent epidemic very small by comparison. From: Roger Green, President, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, London SW1 (Daily Telegraph 11/12/01)
British government views on reform of the European Union's common agricultural policy were described as "laughable" yesterday. Robert Gooch, a Brussels-based consultant, told a crops conference at Perth that the proposals for change by Margaret Beckett, secretary of The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, were "far too simplistic". Gooch said: "DEFRA's ideas for European farm policy reform are laughable. "Phasing out support payments will not happen in the next reform, contrary to what ministers have been saying over the past few months. "Common agricultural policy reform is an evolutionary process. There will be changes, but none will equal the impact that currency has had on UK farm incomes over the last four to five years. "The strength of sterling is responsible for 95 per cent of the drop in arable incomes. If the euro was worth 75p then most of your problems would disappear. (The Scotsman 2001.11.16)
The World Trade Organisation meeting in Doha reached a compromise deal which should allow a new round of trade liberalisation negotiations to begin next year. The talks were almost derailed by French demands that a clause referring to the "elimination" of farm subsidies be dropped. French Finance Minister Laurent Fabius said that "no European" could accept any wording that implied that subsidies might eventually be abolished (Independent, 14 November). France eventually gained a compromise deal, which inserted a face-saving qualification into the agreement. French opposition to agricultural liberalisation, even in principle, is likely to hamper the trade negotiations next year. Liberal Democrat Trade Spokesman Vincent Cable accused the Government of allowing themselves to be "suckered" into a weak agreement on agricultural liberalisation which would allow the EU to avoid reforming the Common Agricultural Policy. Dr Cable also called for the replacement of EU trade commissioner Pascal Lamy, "who made it very clear his primary responsibility was to represent producer interests in France" (PA, 15 October 2001).
MILLIONS of acres of grassland can no longer be ploughed up without permission after a Government decision to bring farm land under European Union planning rules. The move, which has enraged landowners and is intended principally to protect Britain's dwindling reserves of wildflower-rich pasture and hay meadow, comes as a leaked memo shows ministers are under criticism from their own civil servants for ignoring the views of the people who own the countryside. Meanwhile, in a decision by Lord Whitty, the Food and Farming minister, landowners have just been informed that they will have to seek an environmental assessment if they want to plough up uncultivated land or semi-natural areas from Feb 1. Any permanent pasture that has not been ploughed in the last 12 months may now have to be assessed before any farming activity can take place upon it, unless it can be seen that the grass grown is less than 25 per cent modern ryegrass. Ministers twice informed the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) of their intention to require such cultivation effectively to require planning permission, but refused to meet landowners to discuss their concerns. Oliver Harwood, head of land economy at the CLA, said the regulations, which would tie up millions of acres of pastures, were a case of "gold plating" EU directives that Tony Blair had promised to stop. (Daily Telegraph 15/12/2001) A new EC directive requires farmers to commission an official environmental impact statement if they intend major changes to farming practice. For example, if permanent grassland is to be ploughed up then a statement costing up to £5,000 has to be submitted to DEFRA. The fine for not making the statement is also £5,000. The consequence is that many farmers are ploughing up old grassland before the regulation comes into force to avoid the cost, or penalties of the new regulation. (BBC Radio 4 Farming Today 13/11/01)
Danish farms are full of fictitious cows, writes Danish paper Information. This species was invented when the EU passed from paying subventions to the farmers per litre of milk produced to supporting the individual milk cows. Because Danish cows produce significantly more milk than, for example, Portuguese cows, the system found a solution - Denmark and other highly-productive countries were attributed a greater number of cows than the countries really had. This solution came about after pressure from the Danish farming lobby which accused the EU system of "punishing the most efficient farmers," according to Information. (EUobserver.com 07.06.2001)
THE sheep annual premium for 2001 will be equivalent to about £5.60/ewe, in response to sky-high lamb prices on the Continent, claim industry experts. The forecast was made by Meat and Livestock Commission analysts ahead of a Brussels meeting when the premium will be assessed on Monday (8 May). At the meeting, European Union officials will recommend a rate for first 30% advance of the sheep premium which will then be ratified on Friday (12 May). "Sheep prices have been forging ahead in France and Ireland, up 20% and 15%, respectively," said MLC sheep strategist Jane Connor. "But due to foot-and-mouth export restrictions, the UK has been left behind. This will really skew the sheep annual premium calculation against us." (Farmers Weekly 4/5/01) http://www.fwi.co.uk/live/
"The role of rural England as the food provider for the nation is no longer an essential one". Quote: from the first paragraph of 'The Government Rural White Paper' [The Seventh Report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Vol. 1, 2000.05.03]
According to a report from the Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute (NILF). In Finland, farmers need twice as high subventions in order that ever fewer of them can produce almost the same quantities as before European Union membership, writes the Norwegian newspaper, Nationen. According to NILF researcher Klaus Mittenzwei, Norway would have had fewer farms and fewer people employed within the agricultural sector than what they have got now, but the production would have been more or less the same as it is now – provided that subventions had been significantly increased. In Finland, subventions to farmers have more than doubled in order to make the agricultural production survive. Thus, the budget subventions rose from 0.57 bill. Euros in 1994 to 1.7 bill. Euros in 1996. (Euobserver.COM 25.07.2001)
Governments from across the EU are set to reject mass slaughter and instead endorse vaccinating livestock against foot and mouth. European Union nations will meet this autumn to overhaul the rules for fighting the disease. They are almost certain to reject the culling and burning policies pursued by the British government. The move is being pressed particularly strongly by the Netherlands - the European country most affected by the current epidemic after Britain - which successfully controlled its outbreak by immunisation. It will mean a humiliation for Britain which not only invented the policy of mass slaughter but successfully persuaded the rest Europe ten years ago to abandon vaccinated herds as a preventative measure. Ministers continue to insist publicly that their policies are right, although they have so far cost taxpayer £2.5 billion and done even more damage to the tourism industry, far out weighing the value of the meet export industry they set out to protect. There has been no case of foot and mouth in the Netherlands since the 22nd April, and the country resumed meet exports ten days ago, giving the lie to be claim here that vaccination makes exports impossible. Other disasters predicted in Britain - that vaccinated animals pass on the disease and consumers would refuse immunised meat - also failed to materialise. (Independent on Sunday 8/7/01)
The lessons from the Foot & Mouth Disease outbreak in 1967/68 were clearly set out in the official enquiry report: As soon as a vet identifies the disease the animals should be shot and buried. These lessons were not followed because we have surrendered control of our agriculture, we can do nothing without permission from the EU, and this all takes time. Why can't a vet take immediate action to slaughter infected animals? Because Commission directive 85/511/ECC states that, "diagnosis of the disease and identification of the relevant virus must be carried out under the auspices of responsible laboratories the co-ordination of which must be ensured by a reference laboratory appointed by the Community." Why are the boundaries around infected areas expressed in kilometres when we measure distances in miles? Because directive 85/511/ECC says, "Member States shall ensure that, once the diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease has been officially confirmed, the competent authority establishes, around the infected holding, a protection zone based on a minimum radius of 3 km and a surveillance zone based on a minimum radius of 10 km." Why can't we vaccinate at will, the modern way of dealing with viral sickness? Because 90/423/ECC says, "Member States shall ensure that: the use of foot-and-mouth vaccines is prohibited". However, it allows vaccination, "in extreme situations where an epizootic disease threatens to become extensive". But, "the decision to introduce emergency vaccination shall be taken by the Commission..." Why can't healthy stock from "surveillance" zones be slaughtered for human consumption? Because despite having asked Brussels for permission weeks ago the bureaucrats there have only just agreed on the type of meat stamp that can be used to identify British meat. Even so we can't send animals, many in desperate squalor, some starving, some drowning in mud, to abattoirs before 23 April. Why can't rare breeds be vaccinated straight away? Because 90/423/ECC says: "This Commission decision shall have particular regard to ... the need to protect special breeds". In fact our government has not yet asked for permission. Why can't we bury carcasses to avoid the spread of the virus by smoke? Because 80/68/ EEC on the protection of groundwater makes it much more difficult; it is far easier, bureaucratically, to burn instead of to bury. But these pyres run the real risk of offending against EC91/156 which prohibits the "burning of waste materials that were not produced on the land where the fires are situated".(Editor's analysys 12/4/01) But behind the Commission is a shadowy organisation known as the Standing Veterinary Committee (SVC). The SVC is one of the EU's nine "regulatory committees", set up under Council Decision 68/361/EEC to "carry out the duties devolving upon it under the instruments adopted by the Council in the veterinary field". Its relationship with the Commission is simple. While the Commission makes the decisions, it can only to so on the basis of an opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee, and cannot deliver any decision unless it is agreed by the SVC. In other words, the SVC actually approves the text of Commission decisions - in effect, it runs the show. As to the composition of the SVC, its membership is made up of the chief veterinary officers (or their equivalents) from the 15 member states of the EU. One member is Jim Scudamore, the British chief veterinary officer. By an odd quirk of the EU system, therefore, Scudamore wears two hats. On the one hand, he is a British civil servant, where his role is to implement the policy determined by his minister. But, on the other hand, as a member of the SVC, he is partly responsible for telling his minister what to do. Depending on which hat he wears, therefore, Scudamore is either servant or master. He judges the adequacy of British action, formulates policy and then goes home to implement it.(Dr Richard North FMD update 7, 17 April 2001)
In 1998, an EU meeting of Agriculture Ministers was told of the European Commission’s long-term plans to abolish livestock farming in the UK, and convert it to an area of arable farming only. (eurofaq posting Tanner Management 21/3/01). Dr Benjamin Rush, a civic leader in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said as the first shots were fired in the American War of Independence in 1775, "A people who are dependent on foreigners for food or clothes must always be subject to them." (16/12/01 Tanner Management)
If Mr Blair wants a real debate on the future of our countryside, he should begin with the biggest scandal of all. Britain's farmers are being short-changed by billions of pounds available to their continental and Irish competitors. What Blair and Brown tried to avoid explaining was just how tightly their hands are tied by EU rules which restrict compensation only to farmers whose animals must be incinerated because they have caught the disease. Nothing can be paid towards the far greater losses suffered by all those farmers, hauliers and others less directly affected, thousands of whom will be driven out of business. But a much wider scandal which has come to light through this latest crisis is the price Britain's farmers have for years been paying for the refusal of their Government properly to operate the rules of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. If Mr Blair wants to know the real reason why Britain has to import billions of pounds-worth of cheaper food from overseas, and why the supermarkets have an "armlock" on Britain's own food producers, he should look at how our farmers have to compete on a playing field rendered grotesquely unlevel by his own government. Under the basic subsidy system, Irish farmers alone received 70 percent more pro rata than their UK competitors, who if rewarded at the same rate would have received £3.7 billion. The British government systematically refuses to apply for a hefty proportion of the money it is entitled to claim on behalf of British farmers, because under the arcane provisions of the "budget rebate" negotiated by Mrs Thatcher in 1984, a large proportion of the additional money would be knocked off the rebate. Whatever one thinks of subsidies, the point is that this represents money which has been paid to all the farmers who compete with our own, which is why they are able to produce food much more cheaply. Nothing indeed is more striking about this dismal story than the way every other EU Government seems to fall over backwards to help its farmers, while our own Government does the very reverse. And this is not even to mention the uniquely damaging way in which the UK Government has enforced thousands of CAP directives and regulations, burdening British farmers with far more red tape than anywhere else and forcing the unnecessary closure of thousands of businesses, from abattoirs to quail farms. What makes all this particularly shocking is that, on a truly level playing field, British agriculture could easily compete with any in Europe. Yet so viciously has that field been tilted by the zeal of our own bureaucrats and the blindness of our politicians, that there is today a real threat that much of it could soon be lost forever. (Booker notebook Sunday Telegraph 4/3/01)
After failing to persuade its European Union partners to do more to prop up cattle farmers, many of whom are suffering from the collapse in beef prices caused by the consumer panic over mad cow disease, France has decided to go its own way and offer its farmers a 1.4 billion franc (200 million euro) aid package, reports the International Herald Tribune. Whilst farm union officials and lobbyists welcome such a move, it raises questions about whether France's actions spells the beginning of the end of a common agriculture policy within the EU. (EUobserver.com 1/3/01)
In countless damaging ways we are now seeing the consequences of handing over control of our food production to Brussels system. And when Mr Yeo also complains that we have not enough state vets to handle the Foot & Mouth crisis, this is because, in the words of one meat expert, "the vets are all now sitting round in abattoirs doing crossword puzzles". This too of course is thanks to that laughable system of meat inspection imposed by the last Tory Government under the rules of its beloved single market. (C Booker Sunday Telegraph 25/2/01)
The desperate situation created by this week's outbreak of Foot & Mouth disease in Britain can be laid at the door of the European Union The impossible cost burden of excessive Single Market measures designed to harmonise hygiene standards, enhanced by the customary 'gold plating' efforts of our own public officials, has led to the closure of hundreds of small and medium-sized slaughter houses - with many more threatened. That is why the Essex slaughter house at the centre of the present crisis was dealing with animals from as far away as Eire, Devon, Gloucestershire, Norfolk and the Isle of Wight. Dr Richard North, Research Director for the UKIP and EDD Group at the European Parliament, says: "In terms of animal welfare and the containment of any health problems that arise, it is logical and desirable that the area served by an abattoir should be as local as possible. Compliance with EU policy makes this impossible" (Dr R North, press release. 22/2/01). The UK is an island and could impose quarantine on animal imports but this is forbidden by the EU. The consequence of soaring costs in UK abattoirs is that it is cheaper to transport pigs to Portugal for slaughter and re-export them to the UK. Similarly it is cheaper to send chickens to France for slaughter. Although the government pays for slaughtered infected animals it is forbidden by the EU to compensate for any other consequential losses - regarded as unfair subsidy. This means no compensation for the 63,000 abattoir workers sent home for a week on government orders. Foot & Mouth disease is relatively common and it is quite possible that it has occured in the EU but, like BSE, has been hushed up. (BBC Radio 5 Live Dr Richard North 25/2/01)
Mr Yeo raised the political temperature by questioning whether delays by the Government in banning meat imports from South Africa, where an outbreak of foot and mouth was reported in September, had resulted in the disease spreading to Britain. The Government prohibited the importation of fresh meat from South Africa on Jan 15. But there had been a four-month gap in which infected meat could have entered the country. Yet within 24 hours of the outbreak being confirmed in Britain, a worldwide ban on the export of live animals, meat, milk and other animal products had been introduced by the European Union. Mr Yeo said: "The Government should have acted sooner to prevent the risk of this disease entering Britain through sub-standard meat imports." He also criticised the EU, saying that it had known about the South African outbreak in September, but had allowed imports to continue because the authorities "have taken measures to contain the outbreak of the disease". Neighbouring countries had banned the import of South African meat last September, yet the EU had not immediately banned such meat. The outbreak could be due to the "lax regime" in Britain regarding control of imported food. (Daily Telegraph Thursday 22 February 2001)
Under the organic food regulations (UKROFS) vitamin and amino acid supplements are permitted for organic egg production. Now the EU has banned the inclusion of synthetic amino acids in feeds. These are necessary for chicken nutrition. If they are absent then the birds will eat each other's feathers. Feed compounders have to add fishmeal to compensate, but this taints the eggs and has led to complaints from consumers. This is a disincentive to organic egg production and encourages uncontrolled industrial fishing, which deprives larger fish species and sea birds of their food. (BBC R 4 You & Yours 26/1/01)
The European Commission has today adopted a report on intensive pig farming and a proposal amending EU legislation on the protection of pigs to improve welfare conditions. The proposal prohibits the confinement of pigs during most of their pregnancy to individual stalls which severely restrict their freedom of movement. It also sets out rules to improve the living environment of pigs and piglets in general, setting requirements for living spaces, floor surfaces, and proper feeding systems. New requirements for training of pig handlers are also introduced. In addition the Commission is proposing tougher regulations of noise and light levels, access to food and materials for rooting, timing of weaning of piglets, flooring surfaces, and the prohibition the worst types of routine mutilations. These plans should remedy the main problems found in intensive pig farming, revealed by the Commission's report that is based on a thorough analysis from its Scientific Committee for Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW). Five (UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Sweden) Member States already have put in place more restrictive national legislation than foreseen in the 1991 Community legislation. These are in particular measures to ban individual stalls for pregnant sows and to provide proper surroundings facilitating natural behaviour and social interaction. (EU press release 16/1/01) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out17_en.html
FARMERS have been driven to the brink of bankruptcy by over-zealous adoption of European Union red tape, according to a report commissioned by Tony Blair to be published today. Producers suffering from a combination of collapsing world prices, the weakness of the euro and the impact of "modest" reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy, simply cannot afford the extra costs of regulation, it says. The report, by the Better Regulation Task Force, headed by Lord Haskins, the chairman of Northern Foods, acknowledges that most farms are losing money and that smaller producers are on the verge of bankruptcy. It paints a nightmarish picture of farmers struggling against some of the strictest health, safety, animal movement and environmental controls in Europe and pestered by inspectors descending "in hordes" to enforce them. It calls for the scrapping of the Common Agricultural Policy and its replacement by a Common Environmental Policy to foster a simpler, "whole farm" approach. Lord Haskins told The Telegraph: "Britain needs to handle EU directives much more sensibly. Some 80 per cent of our environmental regulations are, correctly, of European origin. We have been too eager to adopt Brussels proposals before others do, and we tend to be much too prescriptive when we incorporate them into British law. "We do not engage early enough in discussions about regulatory proposals. Too often the proposals emanating from the European Parliament and the Council of Environmental Ministers do not sufficiently take account of British interests." (Daily Telegraph Wednesday 15th November 2000)
Britain's armed forces import 78% of lamb, 50% of beef and 75% of chicken meat, mostly from France because the MOD is keen to observe the EU's "procurement rules". These state that all public contracts must be offered to our EU partners and the cheapest bid accepted. The NFU supports this blind adherence to EU rules. (Private Eye 17/11/00)
A potential crisis is looming over the entire sugar-beet growing,
sugar processing (British Sugar) and ancillary sugar industries of East
Anglia. The crisis is caused by two simultaneous developments: 1. The
addition by a new European Commission Regulation of sugar to the
"Everything But Arms" initiative- which will lead to quote cuts of up
to 40% for English sugar beet growers (in a very short space of time), in order
to assist 48 Third World countries with their sugar exports (although many of
them don't actually export sugar!) 2. A new E.U. 'Sugar Regime'. The news about
the EBA Regulation and the new 'Sugar Regime' has caught the Region on the hop;
there was no prior consultation or warning, and in truth there seems to
be little practical that one can do in the immediate future to alter the
Commission's Regulations and accompanying proposals. The Commission is playing
down the story by claiming that the possible adverse effects on the East Anglian
sugar industry are being 'grossly exaggerated'. (UKIP Eastern news 30/11/00)
www.independenceuk.org.uk. 
SUGAR
growers can look forward to another five years of quotas and guaranteed prices.,
after the European Union extended the existing regime. After months of haggling
between European agriculture ministers and the European Commission, a compromise
was reached on Tuesday 22 May. (Farmer's Weekly 23/5/01)
The EU proposes to pass a directive to limit tractor drivers to two hours work without a break. The move has emerged in new health and safety rules proposed for the time people work with vibrating machinery. The aim is to limit "total body vibration" for workers to protect their backs. . (The Times 23/11/00) The EU proposes to pass a directive to limit tractor drivers to two hours work without a break. The move has emerged in new health and safety rules proposed for the time people work with vibrating machinery. The aim is to limit "total body vibration" for workers to protect their backs. (The Times 23/11/00). Lord Inglewood, a Conservative MEP, who farms near Penrith, Cumbria, said: "Brussels bureaucrats sitting in air-conditioned offices have no idea that farming in Britain is a game of hide and seek with the weather. "Arbitrary rules of this kind simply sound the death knell for farming. The sun can't be made to shine according to an EC initiative." The Physical Agents Directive, which applies to all industry, proposes to make it illegal to use certain machinery for more than a limited number of hours because of the health risk of whole body vibration. Farmers' union officials say the legislation could put farmers out of business. They say there is no scientific evidence to justify it. Vibrating farm machinery covered by the proposals includes tractors, combine, potato and forage harvesters and even quad bikes. The directive is expected to be approved this summer. British farmers have been given nine years to comply. (Daily Telegraph 9/3/01)
The cost of chemical fertiliser has increased by 40% in the last five months and is set to keep on rising, putting still more pressure on the agricultural sector. Until recently, farmers were able to buy imported ammonium nitrate from Poland and Ukraine at a discount of up to £15 a tonne. However, a provisional decision by the European Commission - introduced this summer - has imposed a tariff of about £20 a tonne on these imports, making them more expensive than UK chemicals. (FT 8/9/00)
The Commission proposes uniform tests of carcasses to determine whether the animal died of BSE. Experts argue that this is especially crucial when animals are slaughtered in one country and sold to another for consumption. But the Commission plans to leave it to member states to decide where to conduct such tests and most countries have said they would limit them to regions where problems have been found. (European Voice 4/5/00)
Farmers have called on the government to introduce spot checks on beef imports and in overseas meat plants, saying strict controls aimed at eliminating mad cow disease could not be confined to locally produced beef. The NFU of Scotland denounced the lack of a level European playing field. The Meat and Livestock Commission said it wanted the 185,000 tonnes of overseas beef expected to be brought into the country this year checked for spinal cord and other ineffective tissues. (EU regulations forbid the examination of EU food at British ports- Ed.) (FT 19/7/00)
The EU is threatening the Channel Islands again. This time its their prize herds of Jersey and Guernsey cows. The EU says the islands cannot have a monopoly with their herds - they have to allow other types of cows onto the islands and other countries to sell their milk too. (Eurofaq posting L Jenkins 7/7/00)
"We at Farmers For Action would like the little red tractor logo 'British Farm Standard' to be synonymous with top quality British_ produce. The food must be 'British' in origin and of the highest quality. It is therefore unfortunate that Mr Ben Gill (current NFU President) has allowed the logo to be used on 'imported' meat and other produce...this sort of attitude does nothing for the beleaguered farming industry. Mr Gill must realise that the consumer does not want to be misled; we feel it is imperative that the consumer knows the 'origin' of all food produce...British farming is in crisis". If British supermarkets were to run a 'genuine' British origin labelling scheme, the E.U. has the power to fine the supermarket concerned up to 10% of its turnover because to clearly label food with its true country of origin would breach one or more E.U. Directives. (FFA Press Release 13/6/00) FARMERS were furious yesterday after the new "little tractor" logo designed to boost sales of British food was found on a packet of imported meat on a supermarket stand at the the Royal Show, Stoneleigh. John Pratt, a beef producer, from Brecon, claimed that he was chased, assaulted and called a thief after seizing the meat - New Zealand lamb - and leaving £5 to pay for it. Members of the Farmers For Action pressure group descended on the Sainsbury stand yesterday to demand an apology. (D Telegraph 5/7/00)
E.U DIRECTIVE ON VETS AND SLAUGHTERHOUSES - Jeffrey Titford UKIP MEP complains of E.U. bias against Britain and in favour of Spain: "This proposal introduces an extension of a current exemption to Directive 64/432, applicable to the Spanish Government. Without this exemption, it would be required to implement a system of vetinary checks for brucellosis and tuberculosis for each bovine animal exported from its region - already implemented by other Member States. This exemption has important implications for my country. "My point is, that while Spain is being given exemption, the British meat industry is suffering heavily from the implementation of an allied directive, which requires ruinously expensive vetinary checks in our slaughterhouses. My government has had to recruit large numbers of E.U. vets, of which some 300 have come from Spain. "Now, if Spain has such a large surplus of vets that it can afford to send so many to my counntry, why is it having such difficulty implementing the system of vetinary checks required by Directive 64/432?" (Speech In European Parliament, Wednesday 15 March 2000)
New European pollution controls will for the first time include certain farming enterprises into a previously industrialised sector of regulation. The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control directive has to be implemented by the year to 2007. It essentially applies to industrial installations such as petrochemical works, but has just been extended to cover pig and poultry production, but no other agricultural sectors. It covers units of more than 40,000 birds, which includes most of the UK poultry industry, but excludes a lot of poultry enterprises in the rest of the EU, except perhaps Spain and Italy. In the future it will be necessary to get a permit from the Environment Agency to operate poultry production, as well as the pig industry. The permit will be looking to control emissions from the farm to the atmosphere, to water and land. As far as poultry operations are concerned there is little pollution involved, particularly compared to other types of farming. Charges in the UK were being interpreted entirely differently from the rest of Europe and will be disproportionately higher than independent auditing companies would charge to audit farms for comparable assurance schemes. Proposed charges are £1,215 per day. It has been suggested by the Agency it will take between 10 and 15 days to assess each poultry farm. This will mean a cost of £19,000 per farm, just to get a permit to continue to do what they are doing now. The directive doesn't have to come in until 2007, but in the UK the Environment Agency is going to bring the regulations in early, 2003 for poultry and pigs a year later. (The Farmer January 2000). This matter of the government permit without which an enterprise is not allowed to function, is an essential part of the continental system. The (low-paid) government-appointed bureaucrat has the power to grant or withhold or - crucially - to *delay* the granting of a permit. Since every day of delay is costing the entrepreneur very large sums (especially when compared to the bureaucrat's salary) the possibilities for money changing hands become very broad. (Eurofaq posting TDErikson 23/1/00)
Candidate countries, "naturally want to feed at the same subsidy trough as their EU counterparts"..."The applicants argue that without CAP support, their farmers could be wiped out by subsidised competition from the west."..."To strengthen claims for EU finance, some applicant countries are increasing their own support payments to bring agricultural policies closer into line with the CAP. A region in which farm aid is still commendably low by world levels risks becoming addicted to subsidies." (FT 7/1/00)
Demand for farm subsidies. " The six countries heading the queue for entry into the EU are seeking the full benefits of the CAP from the start of their accession, putting them on a collision course with existing members. Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Slovenia and Cyprus have submitted "position papers" rejecting long transition periods and pressing for the payment of the full range of subsides to their farmers. The CAP costs E41bn (£25.5bn) a year to run, taking up nearly half of the EU's budget. Applying the full benefits of the CAP to the six potential new entrants - all of which have agricultural sectors larger than the EU average - would add about E6bn to the annual budget according to Jorge Nunez agriculture analyst at the Centre forEU Policy Studies. Since most of the accession countries would be net beneficiaries of the EU budget, more than 80 per cent of the extra cost would have to be borne by existing members. (FT. 4/01/2000)
The European Commission on Friday criticised Poland's block on some grain imports from the European Union, saying its position was a bad omen ahead of farm talks with enlargement candidates due to start later this year. Poland has imposed new quality controls on imports of cereals since November, leading to some German, Dutch and Danish deliveries being rejected. Berlin has officially complained that the new inspection regime was unjustified. Polish government officials have defended the policy, saying it was designed to stamp out trade in "illegal" products as some farmers had been buying the grain to make a profit on it. Warsaw has frequently complained that subsidised EU exports undercut local prices. (Reuters Jan 7, 2000)
The EU has encouraged farmers in the south of Portugal to plant pines and eucalyptus in place of cork oaks. This has been an ecological disaster and has destroyed a delicate ecosystem. Streams have dried up, the water table has fallen and desertification has started to spread. (BBC R4 Food Programme 2/1/00)
Bureaucratic bungling in Brussels will prevent British farmers going organic from the new year because the government will be unable, for at least six months, to hand over grants for the helping them to make the change. As well as halting a booming agricultural revolution in its tracks, the error will stop the government from paying farmers to plant woods on their land, and would devastate a new scheme for environmentally friendly farming in Wales. Organic agriculture is just about the only aspect of farming that is thriving. Under the EU's new Rural Development Regulation, member states have to draw up plans for encouraging farmers to work in environmentally sensitive ways, which must then be approved by the commission. In an extraordinary oversight, the regulation forbids new agreements with farmers between 31 December and the commission's approval of the plans. No one expects that two happen before July 2000 and it could take a lot longer. (Independent on Sunday 31/10/99). Denied by the CEC (CEC Press release 13/4/00)
Franz Fischler, European agricultural commissioner, insisted that a UK rescue plan for the sheep industry could not go ahead under EU rules. Donald Dewar, Scotland's first minister met Mr Fischler in Brussels to highlight the crisis in the industry, which has seen prices collapse. The commissioner said he was sympathetic to the plight of farmers, but stressed the ewe-cull plan breached regulations on state aid (FT 13/10/99)
English apple growers have been denied up to £250,000 in the EU aid for promotions because they refused to abandon claims that the apples taste better than imports. Attacking this "banal " decision yesterday, growers said the money would have helped them to cope with a price war caused by a glut of New Zealand apples. Adrian Barlow, head of the English Apples and Pears promotion campaign, said "English rarely does taste better but we are unable to access EU funding to support promotions with this message because they are deemed ineligible." (Daily Telegraph 17/9/99)
The UK has very strict welfare regulations covering the removal of antler horn from deer. The EU permits the import of antler horn produced under cruel and inhumane conditions in foreign countries. (BBC radio 4 20/10/99)
The EU's executive said on Thursday it aimed to resume GM authorisations after the expected approval by the union's governments and parliament of tighter licensing laws in the autumn. Although the legislation will not come into effect for another two years, the Commission plans to push for licensing of scientifically-approved GM products provided companies agree to apply the new rules. The Commission's stance will be welcomed by the biotechnology industry and the US, which is home to many companies producing GM products and has long argued that the EU's de facto moratorium is unjustified. However environmentalists warned that the decision would meet strong public resistance. Some EU governments are also likely to adopt hostile stances. EU environment ministers are highly influenced by public concern on genetic modification and will be under pressure to resist at least some, and possibly all, authorisation requests. Five EU members, including France and Austria, have banned some of the GM products the EU had previously approved. However, under EU rules the Co