Archive for the ‘Political action’ category

« Older Entries

Is the corporate-political nexus paving the way for the factory farming?

May 17th, 2013
Alastair Driver of the Farmers Guardian reported earlier this month that the Dairy Coalition – NFU, NFU Cymru, NFU Scotland, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Women’s Food and Farming Union and the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers – has asked Farming Minister David Heath to ‘call in’ the 15% of milk buyers failing to implement the voluntary code on milk contracts

NFU chief dairy adviser Robert Newbery said that the greatest resistance was coming from some of ‘big middle ground liquid processors’ who ‘don’t want to know’.

Dairy UK director general Jim Begg said that the approach of the dairy companies had been ‘both responsible and constructive’.

Three days ago Mr Driver showed figures collated by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) indicating that more than 30 farmers quit the industry in April alone in England and Wales. The number of dairy farmers in England and Wales have fallen by more than 40% from more than 18,000 in 2002.

The Kingshay Dairy Manager costings show total purchased feed costs increased by 1.27 pence a litre over the past year, but milk price only went up 0.54ppl.

DairyCo’s recent Farmer Intentions Survey showed that the current average farmgate milk price of around 30-31ppl is lagging behind the AMPE (Actual Milk Price Equivalent) market indicator, currently in excess of 38ppl.

NFU dairy board chairman Mansel Raymond said that if the leaving rate carries on for three months it will be serious: “The milk price has to go higher. The industry now needs that positive signal to move forward to increase production and invest.”

The Independent reports that an announcement on a timetable for plans for a farm in Foston, Derbyshire, stocking 25,000 pigs, is expected later this week. A decision on whether a 1000-cow mega-dairy near Welshpool can go ahead is also expected shortly.

Joyce Watson, Member of the Welsh Assembly for Mid and West Wales, said:  “With the full extent of the horsemeat scandal still coming to light, consumers want food they can trace and trust. Industrial-scale farms would be a big step in the wrong direction – bad for cows, bad for farmers, bad for consumers and bad for the environment.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

»

Posted in Admirable politician, Agriculture, Conflict of interest, Corporate political nexus, Economy, Environment, Government, Political action, Vested interests

Tags:

Who decides what we eat – in USA, in India and, coming your way, in Britain?

May 8th, 2013

Relevant to the previous post

tehelka logo

Valued contact Devinder Sharma asks this question in India, where the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has been ‘aggressively pushing’ for the spread of GM crops in the name of food security – just as the industry’s scientists do in Britain.

We summarise his article about the ‘bull-dozing of public resistance through a legally binding mechanism”.in this week’s Tehelka.

Background
  • In 2010 the Ministry of Environment & Forests questioned the veracity of scientific claims, and imposed a moratorium on the genetically engineered Bt Brinjal.
  • The 2012 report of the Standing Parliamentary Committee found “biotechnology regulation to be too small a focus on the vast canvas of biodiversity, environment, human and livestock health and therefore recommended an all-encompassing Biosafety Authority”.
  • Seven states – West Bengal, Bihar, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka and Kerala – refused to go in for open field trials of GM crops.
The incestuous relationship of the industry with government

Sharma sees a parallel between political developments in USA and India – both make obvious the incestuous relationship industry has with the government

The HR 933 continuing resolution — popularly called the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ —effectively divests the federal courts of their constitutional power to stop the planting or sale of genetically modified (GM) seeds and crops regardless of the health and environmental consequences.

Able- bio india - logo In April the Indian government introduced the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) bill 2013 which led the Association for Biotechnology Led Enterprises to express ‘jubilation’.

Sharma sees the BRAI bill as a precursor to passing legislation similar to the  ‘Monsanto Protection Act’. The US government has removed regulatory hurdles in the promotion of GM crops and the BRAI bill provides a single-window, fast-track clearance for GM crops.

Biotechnology companies and conspiring government officials

Citing ‘confidential commercial information’, the BRAI bill imposes restrictions on the application of Right to Information Act, so that with certain clauses that limit the jurisdiction of the courts over the decisions taken, the bill provides a strong and legally-tight protective shield to the biotechnology companies and conspiring government officials.

The need to curb transparency and accountability arises only when something dangerous has to be kept hidden from the public:
  • pro-industry scientists are appointed to senior government and university positions,
  • facts are misrepresented in the name of a ‘science-based’ debate
Conflict of interest

The Prime Minister’s Office then moved the introduction of the bill from the Ministry of Environment & Forests to the Department of Science & Technology, which is a promoter of the technology.

At the same time, citing ‘public interest’, the BRAI bill has taken away the role the states have over agriculture and health. The states can no longer refuse permission. They are left with only an advisory role.

As Sharma notes, the government has set aside all the concerns expressed by the 2004 Task Force on Agricultural Biotechnology led by Dr M S Swaminathan:
  • the safety of the environment,
  • the well-being of farming families,
  • the ecological and economic sustainability of farming systems,
  • the health and nutrition security of consumers,
  • safeguarding of home and external trade
  • and the biosecurity of the nation.
Source: Tehelka, May 11, 2013. Issue 19 Volume 10: http://tehelka.com/who-decides-what-we-eat/

 

»

Posted in Agriculture, Conflict of interest, Corporate political nexus, High Speed 2, Media, MEPs, Political action, Revolving door, Reward for failure, Secret State, Taxpayers, Vested interests

Tags:

Is the French seed industry lobbying the EC to extend advantages for large scale plant breeders?

May 1st, 2013
EU DG health consumers logoA Cumbrian fruit grower has expressed alarm about a draft proposal for a new regulation on which the EU Directorate General for Health & Consumers has been working for some time. On Monday, the 6th of May they will present their proposal to the conference of commissioners. If a majority votes in favour, the proposal will be placed before the EU Parliament and Council.

The website is woefully out of date in all respects. A search on ‘seeds’ and ‘seed laws’ gave no result for 2013, and nothing relevant for the earlier years. The EU press office was no more helpful, though there are said to have been press releases endeavouring to meet these objections, saying that there will be reduced charges for small growers and that farmers will not be affected.

Conflict of interest allegations

There have been allegations of a conflict of interest as the new regulation has mainly been drafted by Isabelle Clement-Nissou, an employee of GNIS, the French lobby of the seed industry, who was sent as a national expert to Brussels to “support“ the EU Directorate.

The seed industry has spent a lot of money in lobbying to influence the seed legislation and it is said that they want the issue settled now and not postponed until after the election of a new parliament in May 2014.

Objections to the proposal

Objections to the proposal may be seen in the Arche Noah summary. Arche Noah is a Central European association of seed savers with 10.000 members who have worked for 20 years to preserve and cultivate endangered vegetable, fruit and grain diversity, bringing traditional and rare varieties into gardens and on the market again.

Note that the genetic diversity of our livestock is also under the spotlight, after a Government report finds that 75% of native breeds are under threat.

seed sovereignty campaign

 

The current EU seed legislation is said to handicap the marketing of traditional varieties that could be grown on European fields and favours homogeneity and large scale breeding and the European Court of Justice has failed to respond to the concerns of seed savers across the EU. Consumers and farmers must now reclaim ownership of their food. IFOAM’s EU Group calls on European citizens to speak out for EU laws that favour diversity on the plates, healthy food for all and diverse landscapes.

Antje Kölling, policy manager of IFOAM EU Group points out that: “A diversity of domestic plants is the basis for our long-term food security. Climate change, emerging plant pests or even new allergies may require us in the future to use plant varieties that we do not necessarily consider important today, due to their specific genetic characteristics”,. “The FAO estimates that 75% of domestic plant varieties globally have been lost in the last 100 years. This trend must be urgently reversed.”

Update: Listen again?

On Radio 4’s Farming Today Anna Hill hears warnings that EU proposals to make seed registration compulsory could lead to the loss of old and rare crop varieties, and stop people sharing seeds. The European Commission argues that updating the legislation will protect buyers and that there will be a ‘light touch’ when dealing with heritage varieties.

 

1 comment »

Posted in Advisors and consultants, Civil servants, Conflict of interest, Corporate political nexus, Economy, Environment, Health, Lobbying, Political action, Revolving door, Vested interests

Tags:

Secret State – 11: MI5 surveillance

April 29th, 2013
MI5 logoMany readers will remember that MI5 held files on MPs and members of the public  (‘60s-80s), opening correspondence and tapping phones – in some cases without going through the correct channels.

A book called – ironically? - The Defence of the Realm, by Christopher Andrew, covers this defence of the realm coversubject, referring to MI5’s description of Bruce Kent, one-time CND chairman, as a “possible anarchist”.  He records that Labour party leaders passed MI5 a list of MPs they suspected of being influenced by Moscow, so the Security Service could check up on them. Two Quaker groups told the writer that they routinely received opened parcels.

Andrew’s book also refers to the surveillance of (now MP) Joan Ruddock, later chair of CND, because she met Mikhail Bogdanov, who – unknown to her – was a KGB agent, the surveillance of Harriet Harman, Labour’s deputy leader, and former cabinet colleague Patricia Hewitt, when they were officers of the National Council of Civil Liberties.

greenham common camp fenceMI5 also opened a permanent file on the Greenham Common women’s peace camp on the grounds that it was “subject to penetration by subversive groups”.  The writer, who visited Greenham once, placing a photo of her baby son on the fence (left) and went on several CND marches, found her foreign mail and any packages were opened and the phone was tapped.  An extension upstairs would ring about ten times before the main phone downstairs.

A complaint to the postman about their opened and unsealed post was met with dismay, “They should have sealed them up” but also understanding: “Ah yes, I know what that will be. Just leave it to me and you’ll have no more trouble. And that was correct, the phones worked properly from that day and no more correspondence was damaged . . . until this year.

Round 2 – the new targets, the old tactics?

Andrew continues: “MI5 virtually gave up these activities in the mid-1980s, after the miners’ strike, to concentrate first on Northern Ireland and, later, on countering Islamist-inspired terrorism”.

However, once more the writer’s airletters from Mumbai are being opened – but this time at least correctly placed in a plastic envelope with an apology.

Opened airletter -1Opened airletter -3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They were slit open into jigsaw pieces ad several lines cut through making it either difficult or impossible to understand part of the family news contained therein.

We also read in March that the GMB union discovered that a blacklist, kept by the Consulting Association, used by employers to flag up workers involved in union or political activity or whistleblowers who raised health and safety issues, also included about 240 environmental activists.

This time the postman who was consulted said that he was unable to put matters right – but gave the correct address after some prompting.

A complaint will be made to Royal Mail. Other readers who are facing this problem could do this – with a copy to their MP.

 

Comments Off »

Posted in Advisors and consultants, Books or reports, Civil servants, Defence, Democracy undermined, Environment, Government, MPs, Political action, Secret State

Tags: