MEP's vote this week, how sustainable are they?

DEFRA supports the spraying of agricultural pesticides next to residential properties and other buildings such as schools and hospitals. Despite the report of the Royal Commission DEFRA CONTINUES TO SHOW CONTEMPT for the UK residents who are repeatedly exposed to highly toxic chemicals in this way. The European Parliament are voting on new safety policies which will provide more protection for people who live near to sprayed crops.

One very important new regulation in the European Commissions pesticide proposals, would be to introduce buffer zones between sprayed crops and peoples homes.

If you are concerned to protect your health from exposure to agricultural pesticides through inhalation, or skin contact, or water pollution, please contact your MEP's today by email. Please recommend to your MEP that they vote for the Environment Committee's adopted reports which will now all go to plenary to be voted on by all MEP'S.

You can find MEP's names and email addresses on the website http://www.europarl.org.uk/ They vote next week!

Urgent.EU vote on pesticide policy proposals.

1000 species of insects, plant diseases and weeds are now resistant to pesticides.-but humans are not!

Rainwater in parts of Europe contain such high levels of dissolved pesticides it would be illegal to sell it as drinking water.


If these facts are of concern to you, it is not too late to email your MEP today, before he/she votes on the EU pesticide proposals this month!


The pesticide proposals include the following amendments, which you might like to support in your email.,

• the prohibition of pesticide use in 'substantial no spray zones' around residential areas, parks, public gardens, sports grounds, school grounds, playgrounds amongst other places, especially to protect local groups, such as babies, children, pregnant women, the elderly, those with pre-existing medical conditions and who may be taking medication, along with all other vulnerable groups. The amendment also specified that in all these areas non-chemical alternatives should be used.
• a new legal obligation to inform residents and neighbours about pesticides spraying in their locality.
• a new legal obligation for farmers and other pesticide users to provide information on the pesticides used directly to residents and neighbours.
• a clear definition of a substance of concern being any substance that has or potentially has either carcinogenic, mutagenic, endocrine disrupting, neurotoxic, immunotoxic, reprotoxic, genotoxic or skin sensitizing capabilities should be regarded as a substance of concern.
• the entire terminology used throughout the adopted text of the Regulation proposal, including the title, to be changed from "Plant Protection Products"(PPP's) to pesticides.
• a new definition for the prioritization of non-chemical methods of plant protection and pest and crop management (including rotation, physical and mechanical control and natural predator management).

After next year the European Commission plans to abolish set-asides. The reason for this is to make way for the growing of cereals for animal feeds and biofuels. Consequently more land will be sprayed with pesticides, providing no breathing space (literally) for wildlife, and a visually more barren and polluted agricultural landscape for all of us. This makes it even more urgent that large buffer zones be provided between sprayed crops and residential areas.

Biofuels, Agro-fuels,-Myth and Rip-off.

Why are we using precious land
to feed our gas-guzzling cars?

Governments and corporate bodies present agro-fuels as the panacea for the problems of a post peak oil era.

Their bold assertions are myths.

(text in colour are quotes from an article of Eric Holt-Gimenez, Ph.D.Executive Director,Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy)

It is now acknowledged by the scientific community that biofuels are not the magic bullet to the problem of either carbon emmissions or the transition from peak oil to a renewable fuel economy. The industrialized countries are aggressively promoting an agro-fuels boom, through mandating renewable fuel targets. However, these targets far exceed the agricultural capacities of the Industrial North. Consequently Northern countries expect the Global South to meet their fuel needs, and most Southern governments seem happy to oblige. Indonesia and Malaysia are rapidly cutting down forests to expand palm-oil plantations targeted to supply up to 20% of the EU bio-diesel market. In Brazil-where bio-fuel crops already occupy an area the size of Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Great Britain combined-the government is planning a five-fold increase in sugar cane acreage with a goal of replacing 10% of the worlds gasoline by 2025.

In Columbia, land-grabbing from local peasants as well as from indigenous and minority groups. Should anyone resist they or members of their family might be made to disappear, by paramilitaries.

For more information on Columbia -see September issue of 'Ecologist' September 2007.

MYTHS-
Myth 1- Agro fuels are clean and green.

Myth 2- Agro-fuels will not result in deforestation.

Myth 3- Agro-fuels will bring rural development.

Myth 4- Agro-fuels will not cause hunger.

Myth 5- Better "second-generation" agro-fuels are just around the corner.

(from foodfirst.org).

Pesticides in Farming, Driven by Supermarkets.

Agri-business, food processors and supermarkets have totally taken over control of our food, from the time it is planted, (or born) to its purchase at the retailers. They have degraded its nutritional value, and contaminated it with chemicals:pesticides and herbicides on crops, and antibiotics and growth hormones in animals. This is before it even reaches the processors where additives and more go into the mix.

This whole process is referred to by its protagonists as 'efficiency' but nothing could be further from the truth! It's simply convenient to the corporates, who centralise control.

Food manufacturers attempt to sqeeze more and more profit from food:..."the increasing 'fractionation' of foodstuffs into smaller and smaller biological components and ingredients and then the recombining of these fractions into 'value-added' retail food products. Such activity has spawned a massive food technology industry whose practitioners have been increasingly involved over the past ten years in 'adding' health 'benefits' to foods and beverages.
..........Corporations are often mainly concerned about sourcing a product with the least cost and then move the product where it can be sold at the highest price. In many poor countries workers in rural areas receive less than five dollars a day, with health and environment regulations unlikely to be enforced, again helping to drive down costs. It is remarkable how cheap labour characterises the supposed 'efficiencies' of the food supply chain. Behind low cost food can be even lower cost labour. Transnational corporations are experts at reaping the economic benefits of globalization while pushing the economic, social and environmental costs onto the public.
........some economists now openly argue that consumers in the developed world no longer need their own farmers because countries can import food from poorer countries more cheaply."*

The alternative to this crazy system is to cut these corporations out of the loop, and for us, the customer/consumer to deal direct with local farmers. This action would also benefit populations in the developing world who should be able to decide about their own food needs and the farming system they want to use.

*Quotes from 'Food Wars', Tim Lang and Michael Heasman.

Organic Farming-Small Farms versus Large Farms.

"Food, Trade And US Power Politics In Latin America." Toni Solo. 2004.

He quotes a statement by Columbian Senator Jorge Robledo Castillo:"A nation whose food supply was located somewhere else in the world stands to lose if for some reason it cannot be made available for domestic consumption......"

Toni Solo points out that "people at all levels across Latin America see this very clearly. A spokesperson for the Movement of Landless Workers in Brazil, states, "The principal base for forging a free, sovereign people is that it has the conditions to produce its own food. If a country becomes dependent on another in order to feed its people it becomes a dependent nation politically, economically, and ideologically."

Solo continues.........."Within the broader concern in Latin America about food sovereignty, anxiety about genetically manipulated foods is acute. Writers like Elizabeth Bravo of Equador's Accion Ecologica, have analized what the FTAA would mean in terms of the ability of the US multinationals like Monsanto and Dupont to penalise local agriculture by enforcing Intellectual Property Rights on plants and seeds through patents and related ownership rights. She argues this will introduce monopoly rights into the food production system, limit the free movement of seeds, increase erosion of genetic resources and force farmers to pay royalties on the seed they use, thus generally increasing food prices.

She goes on to point out that, "even without broaching the the ethical monstrosity of patenting life forms, these attempts to prioratise the agenda of the agribusiness multinationals will lead to monocultivation and eliminate small farmers. Latin America agriculture will become more insecure the more it comes to rely on foreign, especially United States, technology. Looking further afield, one has only to consider a country like Honduras to see where the "free trade" model leads: abject dependency, widespread poverty, massive unemployment"

Farming-Small Farms Produce More.

I provide some quotes below from a policy brief by Peter M Rosset, Ph.D. Executive Director Food First/The Institute for Food and Development. The policy brief was prepared for "Cultivating Our Futures" the FAO/Netherlands Conference on the Multifunctional Character of Agriculture and Land,12-17 September1999, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

.."In this policy brief I challenge the conventional wisdom that small farms are backward and unproductive. Using evidence from Southern and Northern countries I demonstrate that small farms are "multi-functional"-more productive, more efficient, andcontribute more to economic development than large farms. Small farmers can also make better stewards of natural resources, conserving biodiversity and safe-guarding the future sustainability of agricultural production.

....Small Farm Productivity

How many times have we heard that large farms are more productive than small farms? Or that they are more efficient? And that we need to consolidate land holdings to take advantage of that productivity and efficiency? The actual data shows exactly the reverse for productivity: that smaller farms produce far more per unit area than larger farms. Part of the problem lies in the confusing language used to compare the performance of different farm sizes. As long as we use crop yield as the measure of productivity, we will be giving an unfair advantage to larger farms.

Total Output versus Yield.

If we are to fairly evaluate the relative productivity of small and large farms, we must discard "yield" as our measurement tool.Yield means the production per unit area of a single crop, like "metric tons of corn per hectare." One can often obtain the highest yield of a single crop by planting it alone on a field--in a monoculture. But while a monoculture may allow for a high yield of one crop, it produces nothing else of use to the farmer. The bare ground between the crop rows..."empty niche space" in ecological terms...invites weed infestation. The presence of weeds makes the farmer invest labour in weeding or capital in herbicide.

Large farmers tend to plant monocultures because they are the simplest to manage with heavy machinary. Small farmers on the other hand, especially in the Third World are much more likely to plant crop mixtures--intercropping---where the empty niche space that would otherwise produce weeds instead is occupied by other crops. Thet also tend to combine or rotate crops and livestock, with manure serving to replenish soil fertility.

Such integrated farming systems produce far more per unit area than do monocultures. Though the yield per unit area of one crop-corn, for example- may be lower on a small farm than on a large monoculture, the total output per unit area, often composed of more than a dozen crops and various animal products, can be far, far higher. Therefore if we are to compare large and small farms, we should use 'total output' rather than yield. Total output is the sum of everything a small farm produces: various grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder, animal products etc. While 'yield' almost always biases the results towards large farms, total output allows us to see the true productivity advantage of small farms.

Surveying the data we indeed find that small farms almost always produce far more agricultural output per unit area than larger farms. This holds true whether we are talking about an industrial country like the United States, or any country in the Third World.".......

Pesticide Pollution,Farming, the Environment, and Gordon Brown's plans.

This is really about the lack of Gordon Brown's plans for the future of agriculture and the agricultural environment. Given the urgency of the need to create strategies for energy, efficiency and production in all fields(excuse the pun), there is almost a deafening silence from government. There are the occasional suggestions for using low energy light bulbs, but that's about the extent of their creative thinking. Let's have some concerted planning and incentives for really moving away from our dependence on oil!
In relation to farming I wonder if Gordon is going to opt for the environmentally sustainable option, or whether he will cave in to the agri business ,or the GM biotechnology industry.
It's a sobering thought that 75% of the UK is agricultural land and 31,000 tons of pesticides are sprayed on UK land every year......" The toxicity of pesticides used in agriculture has increased by an estimated factor of 10-100-fold since 1975.Despite this, resistence is spreading; POPS (persistant organic pollutants)are becoming less effective: they accumulate in the food chain, persist in the environment and travel by being bioaccumulated (as animals eat each other, so the POP is stored in fat and thus consumed and stored).Pesticides are a key route for POPS,, notably through aldrin, chlordane,DDT, dieldrin, endrin and heptachlor. 1000 species of insects, plant diseases and weeds are now resistant, an environmental impact known as the 'treadmill effect'."
Rain water in parts of Europe contains such high levels of dissolved pesticides it would be illegal to supply it as drinking water.
So, Gordon, what's it to be? Give us a clue.

Text in blue is information taken from 'Food Wars' by Tim Lang and Michael Heasman.

No Synthetic Fertilizers, No Pesticides in Cuban Organic Agriculture.

There is an interesting article by Megan Quinn called 'The Power of Community:How Cuba Survived Peak Oil.' It features on the website of Global Public Media.
I'll just quote a little bit about farming in Cuba, but her article is well worth reading for other aspects of cuban life.

....."Havana, Cuba--At the Organiponico de Alamar, a neighborhood agriculture project, a workers collective runs a large urban farm, a produce market and a restuarant. Hand tools and human labour replace oil-driven machinary. Worm cultivation and composting create productive soil. Drip irrigation conserves water, and the diverse, multi-hued produce provides the community with a rainbow of healthy foods.
In other Havana neighborhoods, lacking enough land for such large projects, residents have installed raised garden beds on parking lots and planted vegetable gardens on their patios and roof tops.
Since the early 1990's an urban agriculture movement has swept through Cuba, putting this capital city of 2.2 million on a path toward sustainability.
A small group of Australians assisted in this grass-roots effort, coming to this Caribbean island nation in 1993 to teach permaculture, a system based on sustainable agriculture which uses far less energy.
This need to bring agriculture into the city began with the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of more than 50% of Cuba's oil imports, much of its food and a percent of its trade economy.Transportation halted, people went hungry and the average Cuban lost 30 pounds.....
....Cubans are also replacing petroleum-fed machinary with oxen, and their urban agriculture reduces food transportation distances. Today an estimated 50% of Havana's vegetables come from inside the city, while in other Cuban towns and cities urban gardens produce from 80% to more than 100% of what they need......"

Please read the rest of the article, it's interesting.

Pesticides versus Set-asides.

Setasides are being scrapped next year to make way for the crazy rush to grow biofuel crops. Biofuel crops are also displacing food crops. Truly crazy in a country as small as Britain.

Setasides are not an escape into bygone times-just the opposite. They have been recognized as vital green arteries for wildlife and biodiversity, which are buffers against the burgeoning pressures of intensive farming and pesticide use. They support a critical eco system for the maintainance of food crops and nature.

Georgina Downs, anti pesticide campaigner, points out that 'despite the increasing costs involved in this process and the decreasing number of active substances on the market, actual consumption and use of pesticides in the EU has not decreased within the last ten years. At the same time, the percentage of food and feed samples where residues of pesticides exceed maximum regulatory limits is not declining, but remains around 5%. In addition,certain pesticides are commonly found in the aquatic environment at concentrations well above the regulatory limit, and there is no sign of any decrease'.

So, I enclose some pictures of fields and wild plants/flowers which are due to disappear forever from Britain.

Farming and Food Supply, Who Owns It?

All the big players are jostling for control of the land and control over how it is farmed. The combined power of agri-business and government has taken away a fundamental human right of the international population to make choices about foods grown in our own nations, geographical regions, and local communities.

They deprive us of choice as to whether we have pesticide residues in our food, or whether our food is genetically modified. Remote corporations tell us that the 'free market' provides consumer choice-but giant corporations have deep pockets and their marketing practices manipulate consumer choice. Supermarkets demand strict 'cosmetic' specifications of colour size and shape of produce from the farmer, which forces the farmer to use even more unnecessary chemicals, harmful to human health and animals and the environment.....Agribusiness refers to this system as 'productive, highly efficient, market focused agriculture.'

Foot and Mouth Disease

With this latest outbreak, hopefully things will be handled more efficiently and more humanely than the previous attempts which I described in my previous posts. When this foot and mouth outbreak is over, the arguments for moving to more sustainable, less intensive farming systems becomes even more important. Even in 2007, it is better to work with nature, rather than trying to squeeze every last drop of economic gain out of an exhausted land. Sustainable systems are undoubtedly the best way forward. DEFRA is responsible for critical decisions which have to be made in agriculture, but what are their priorities?

Shambo, and hundreds more.

"The next day there was no dawn chorus"

Shambo hit the headlines.He seemed to symbolize something very dysfunctional with the way DEFRA manages crisis in farming.On the radio this morning a farmer related his experience; he lost hundreds of cattle when they were slaughtered by DEFRA in the last foot and mouth outbreak. He described how his cattle were left in a huge pile,after the slaughter, waiting to be disposed of. DEFRA informed him that the carcasses might have to be left there for a week, in his field. The farmer and his family were expected to live for a week with the piled carcasses of the animals they had cared for, lying nearby. He rightly described this as 'not decent', and described DEFRA as incompetent.

These animals were ,like us, capable of feeling pain, and fear. They were treated as lumps of meat even whilst they were alive, in a country which is supposed to be civilized.

The farmer described how the next day there was "no dawn chorus, everything was totally silent.....there were no birds....the birds disappeared....for weeks"

The return to smaller farms,or farms where acres are divided into smaller units to incorporate more diversity, where animal husbandry, ecology and environmental issues are easier to manage, would provide a sustainable way forward. A system that regularly expects hundreds of animals to be slaughtered because of disease is a brutal and in the end brutalising system,which requires people to shut out of their minds the reality behind the packaged food we buy at the supermarket.

Shambo has gone,-do we feel better now?-problem solved?

Shambo held up a mirror to DEFRA and will remain as a symbol against the 'maximum production at all costs' policies of DEFRA.

Farmers call to scrap set-aside a year early.Set-asides give way to more pesticides.

Set-asides are due to make way for yet more pesticides all over again!

Quote from the Press and Journal:-"cereal farmers are demanding set-aside is scrapped early as floods at home and severe droughts elsewhere in the world increase the prospect of more poor harvests-and potential food shortages."

Ironic isn't it, when it is 'intensive' farming which helps contribute to climate change, and causes soil degradation, which further contributes to the whole environmental problem. But they refuse to abandon the short term policies, and rush towards more environmental destruction-. ".....European farmers' organization Copa-Cogeca now wants a decision on set-aside by September so that growers can plan their 2008 cropping, and bring the land back into production to ensure more grain supplies and resolve problems created by surging demand for wheat to convert into bioethanol for fuel."

There are already big doubts by the experts that bioethanol is going to solve the problem of fuel supply, infact they fear that bio ethanol crops will add to environmental problems, but you can see why farmers and businesses will want to jump on the band wagon.

So, the tiny little vestige of effort that agriculture and DEFRA temporarily made towards stemming the damaging effects of pesticides on the environment and wildlife and livestock, by introducing set-asides, is now going to be abandoned.

Bovine TB

With the intensive farming system it is difficult to track the source of food. An American farming report which I read the other day, stated that hamburger meat may contain the meat of as many as 1000 cows!! We might be able to trace our own food produced in the UK, but do we know what sort of conditions the animal was reared under? Remember Bernard Mathews and his factory farmed turkeys and the avian flu outbreak? There are overwhelming arguments for buying local,organic and free range,not least the need for humane treatment of animals, and the avoidance of inflicting stress and pain on them.To talk round and round in circles about whether or not to cull or to vaccinate seems to be missing the point. Questioning our own behaviour and attitudes towards food and the farming systems which produce it for us would be good all round, for humans and animals I think,- but I know a lot of people disagree-usually for cheap food reasons.

Intensive Farming,and Factory Farming of Livestock. Culling, killing and slaughter.

The devastating effects of
livestock diseases which have

occurred in the UK are difficult to forget;
There is a correlation between livestock diseases and farming practice, including movements of cattle around the country.
The point of industrial agriculture is lower cost products to create greater productivity. When epidemics and mass culling happen, all farms and their livestock(even healthy animals) can be effected, whether their agricultural practice is intensive farming or sustainable farming.
The question I'd like to raise in this post is how many repeated mass slaughters are we, the food consumer ,prepared to accept in the quest for cheap food. I haven't discussed various farming systems, the effects on health and the environment, or animal husbandry here. I do not mean to imply that individual farmers who have suffered the devastating effects of culls on their farms were in any way responsible.
SE(bovine spongiform encephalopathy)- In November 1986 scientists first became aware of the disease. Up to the end of Jan 1998 approximately 170,000 cases were confirmed in the UK. 100,000 cattle were culled.
The human form of the disease, CJD, killed 165 people in Britain.

Foot and Mouth Disease,Spring and Summer 2001.There were 2,000 cases of the disease in farms in most of the British countryside. Around seven million sheep and cattle were killed in attempting to control the disease. This involved concentrating on a cull & then burning all animals located near an infected farm.
Avian Influenza. Feb 2007.160,000 turkeys were killed at a Suffolk 'farm' owned by Bernard Mathews.
Cattle TB. In 2005, 3,300 cattle were thought to be infected with bovine tuberculosis, with the figure rising at 18% each year. Badgers have long been blamed for the spread of TB in UK herds and the government has threatened a cull if further studies back this up. Other research has found that cattle movements are the biggest single factor in TB transmission. This same analysis threw up several issues of farm management, with hedges being particularly prominent; TB was markedly less likely in farms with abundant hedgerows and ungrazed strips of land along fences; but markedly more likely where hedges had lots of gaps. (Dr Fiona Mathews, Oxford University) calculates that "hedge-poor" farms are 60% more likely than "hedge-rich" ones to experience an outbreak.

ECONOMIC COSTS of OUTBREAKS

BSE- Farmers were offered a one-off compensation of £85 million pounds.

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE.-By April 2001, the UK government had announced the following compensation packages;

*£247 million compensation for slaughtered animals.

*£156 million 'agrimonetry' compensation of the sheep, beef and dairy sectors(over the £15 million compulsory aid.) .

*£200 million compensation for 'welfare' slaughter of livestock.

*£40 million payment of the pig industry restructuring fund brought forward to 2001.

*Rates relief for businesses affected by FMD., eg tourism.

*Rates relief for small businesses in rural areas affected by FMD, eg food shops pubs, garages with a rateable value under £9000.

* Unemployment benefits to people whose ability to work is effected by MD.

AVIAN INFLUENZA-Bernard Mathews was told by government he would receive £600,000 in compensation for healthy birds slaughtered in the bird flu outbreak, (despite health safety precautions having been breached)

CATTLE TB- No figures for yearly compensation are yet available here.£35m was spent on a government-funded study on potential culling of badgers, known as the 'Krebs Trial'.

Sustainable Farming v. Intensive Farming Systems

One third of everything we eat is pollinated by bees; this includes all fruit and most vegetables. According to many scientists working in this area, we have taken the process of pollination in agriculture forgranted. They say that even in this country, the uk, we have had a narrow vision of agriculture, which has been driven by the economic goal of quick, cheap food.
Quick, cheap food has led to mono-crops, and pesticide use. 31,000 tons of pesticides are sprayed on UK land every year.The photograph shown here is not smoke rising up above the trees, it is pesticide spray.

One example amongst many, of mono-culture in this country is the use of rye grass rather than clover. Mono-crops mean lack of bio diversity for bees as well as humans, which means that their immune systems are weakened. Mites have been cited as another possible cause of ccd (colony collapse disorder)in bees,but some mites are now resistant to two different pesticides, and scientists say there are no alternatives to these two chemicals.

Scientists and others are worried because research into ccd is being carried out by scientists working for the agro-chemical companies. They say that this research should be carried out by independent scientists, for obvious reasons! The agro-chemical industries risk loosing a lot of money if their pesticides, fungicides are found to be responsible. The UK government should be doing more to finance independent research into this serious threat, before colony collapse disorder takes effect here and in Europe.

Sustainable Farming

Global trade in food isn't viable anymore. Lots of reasons why not. Even apart from the problems caused by global warming, there are important reasons for nations to meet their own food needs;
Farmers and communities in the developing world are often exploited by globalization. Deprived of their old diversity of food crops which provided a good staple diet, they have to produce huge acreages of one crop(mono-cropping, or mono-culture) for export, often using vast quantities of pesticides.
If countries were able to meet their own national needs, free from the exploitative stranglehold of supermarkets and agro chemical industries,and market forces,- farming systems would be able to adapt more easily to the changing local conditions brought about by climate change. Closer communication between farmer and consumer would bring about a more democratic system.
Independant scientists(ie independant from agro-chemical companies)make an informed hypothesis that mono-crops are partially responsible for the colony collapse disorder in bees in the United States. Another strong suspect for causing this serious state of affairs, is the use of pesticides. I discuss this in my next post.

Pesticides in Orchards.

Exposure to toxins can be by inhalation, skin contact, eyes and ingestion. The diagram(by agro-industry) at the top of the page gives the very misleading impression that spray falls neatly onto the crop, and nothing else. Nothing could be further from the truth. The spray is blasted high into the air, above tree canopies, and the vapour can be inhaled by people many hundreds of yards outside the perimeter of the orchard. This is actually the best scenario- if there is a wind the distance can be miles. Sprayed fields/orchards are a hazard to people using adjacent lanes or main roads, either on foot, cycling or in cars.

It is not safe to enter the orchard for four days after spraying, this is a defra regulation. -but unbelievably public footpaths, under council jurisdiction, often run through orchards. The government has refused to respond to the recommendation of the latest 'Royal Commission for the Environment' report, for on-site notices to warn walkers of spraying. Although it is obvious to any rational person that spraying poses a threat to the health of people who live close to sprayed crops, the government refuses to acknowledge this fact.

Pesticides- Farmers ignore safety regulations.

I often see farmers breaking safety regulations. They spray agricultural chemicals,(ie pesticides,fungicides) over public footpaths and rights of way, which traverse crops, sometimes only two or three minutes before walkers use the footpath.

These chemicals sometimes have rei's of 3or 4 days,(ie it isn't safe to enter the sprayed area for that time.) No notifications or warnings are put on site to warn walkers of the danger.

Crops are often sprayed when the wind speed is well above the 10 mph which is the legal limit for spraying.

Defra's propaganda that the UK has strict safety regulations is laughable. Defra is negligent and cavalier in the way it turns a blind eye to farmers breaking the law in this and in other ways.

Defra's main concern is overwhelmingly on financial and economic considerations rather than protecting the health of people who live or work close to agricultural land.

Genetically Modified Crops.

Shared Terrain or State Terra?

There's a lot of opposition to the use of agricultural pesticides, and the government sees this as an opportunity to promote what they claim are the benefits of genetically modified crops. There are currently two main types of genetically modified crops, those engineered to be resistant to herbicides in order to kill weeds and those engineered to produce toxins to to kill pests.


There are many concerns about introducing GM crops in the UK, and I refer here to the Soil Association for an outline of some of the issues. Coloured text below are quotes from the Soil Association website.


Health

Unlike new drugs, there is no requirement for GM foods to be routinely tested on animals or humans so scientists don't know what the effects are on health. GM food has been available in America since 1996, but no studies have been carried out to assess whether this has led to health problems.



The only known trial on humans of GM food was carried out by the University Of Newcastle in 2002 and commissioned by the Food Standards Agency.Seven people were given a meal containing GM soya and it was found that in at least three people the GM material entered their gut bacteria. The accidental contamination of many US food products with GM maize in 2000 is believed to have caused allergic reactions in over 50 Americans, some serious.

The Environment.
A number of worrying environmental impacts are developing in countries where GM crops are grown commercially:-

Widespread contamination of crops: in America and Canada contamination has caused major problems throughout the food and farming industry in just a couple of years, including the loss of nearly the whole organic oilseed rape sector in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. Seeds that are produced to be GM-free are difficult to buy and sometimes are later found to be contaminated.Those who are successful in sourcing non-GM seeds risk having their crops contaminated by neighbouring GM fields.

Increased use of chemical sprays: Contrary to claims from the biotechnology industry, farmers are now more reliant on herbicides(weedkillers). Certain crops have been engineered to be resistant to specific herbicides to enable farmers to spray weeds without damaging crops. However, weeds (sometimes referred to as superweeds) are developing resistance to these herbicides, and rogue GM plants that grow after a harvest(volonteers) have appeared and spread widely. In particular, GM oilseed rape volonteers- the crop most likely to be introduced into the UK- have spread quickly, and some plants have become resistant to several herbicides through cross pollination. As a result, farmers are making more frequent applications and reverting to older and more toxic chemicals.

Resistant Pests: Pests are becoming resistant to some GM cotton plant crops in Australia and China (which have Bt genes inserted). There are many laboratory studies to prove this and the biotechnology companies have acknowledged that Bt resistance will develop.

The market
There is also no market for GM food as it has been rejected by all the supermarkets in their own brand food and British Sugar has said it will not buy GM sugar.

GM technology is driven by four commercial biotechnology companies(Monsanto, Syngenta,Aventis Cropscience and Dupont) none is British.

Milliband and Defra Hear no evil, See no evil, Smell no evil.

Hear no evil, see no evil, smell no evil:-

This has always been the stubborn and perverse response by successive governments to successive 'Royal Commission for The Environment' reports over the years.Scientists have produced substantial evidence that agricultural pesticides and fungicides are unsafe to be used at all, let alone anywhere near to human habitation.

Georgina Downs, leading campaigner, has been given permission by the judge to challenge Government's pesticide policy in the High Court. She is contesting the current method of assessing the dangers and risks to public health from crop-spraying, which is currently based on the model of a bystander. She explains how this is based on a predictive model, which assumes that there will be only be occasional short-term exposure from the immediate spraydrift at the time of application, and to one individual pesticide at a time. It also assumes that the person can walk away and leave the area.

Georgina Downs- "Obviously this model is not appropriate or realistic to address the long-term exposure of a resident actually living in the sprayed area, where they will be repeatedly and frequently exposed to mixtures of pesticides and other hazardous chemicals, throughout every year and in many cases, like ours, for decades. Therefore as you can see this is a completely different type of exposure scenario to that set out for a bystander."

Pollution, Pesticides, and Defra decides.

The average western adult contains between 300 and 500 traces of man-made chemicals in their bodies. Before the second world war there were none.



During the war in this country there was a need to increase food production, and so the use of pesticides and fungicides began.

After the war 4000 farmers were disposessed of their land by government because they wouldn't farm in the intensive way that government wanted them to.
The government brought in legislation- 'The 1947 Agricultural Act' to make farmers adopt the use of chemicals and technology for high crop production.

There is no longer any necessity for this sort of intensive agriculture but government persists in their mantra that the more chemicals and technology are applied in agriculture, the more food will be produced and the lower the price will be for the consumer.

The following extract from the Ecologist Magazine, 'Fatal Harvest' 1/11/02 describes the background to this policy:-

..."This myth of cheap food is routinely used by agribusiness as a kind of economic blackmail against any who point out the devestating impacts of modern food production. Get rid of the industrial system, people are told, and they won't be able to afford food. Using this 'big lie' the industry has even succeeded in portraying supporters of organic food production as wealthy eletists who don't care about how much the poor will have to pay for food. Under closer analysis the US's supposedly cheap food supply becomes monumentally expensive.

The myth of cheapness completely ignores the staggering externalised costs of the food, costs that do not appear on supermarket checkout receipts. Conventional analysis of the cost of food ignore the exponentially increasing social and environmental costs customers are currently paying and will have to pay in the future. Americans spend tens of billions of dollars in taxes, medical care, toxic clean-ups, insurance premiums and other pass-along costs to subsidise industrial food producers. Given the ever increasing health, environmental and social destruction involved in industrial agriculture, the real price of this food production for future generations is incalculable".