Archive for the ‘Conflict of interest’ category

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.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our special relation was lobbying politicians and agricultural officials for Monsanto and other similar corporations

May 15th, 2013
 Surprise, surprise?

The August 2011 WikiLeaks revelations showed that American diplomats had requested funding to send lobbyists for the biotech industry to hold talks with politicians and agricultural officials in “target countries” in areas like Africa and Latin America, where genetically-modified crops were not yet a mainstay, as well as some European countries that have resisted the controversial agricultural practice.

monsanto logoUS diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks showed that the State Department was lobbying worldwide for Monsanto and other similar corporations, a new report based on the cables shows Washington’s shilling for the biotech industry in distinct detail.

After a concerted effort to “closely examine five years of State Department diplomatic cables from 2005 to 2009 to provide the first comprehensive analysis of the strategy, tactics and U.S. foreign policy objectives to foist pro-agricultural biotechnology policies worldwide,” nonprofit consumer protection group Food & Water Watch published on Tuesday a report showing in plain detail the depth of the partnership between the federal government and a number of controversial biotech companies that have slowly but surely pushed their GMO products on a number of new countries in recent years.

Their pdf may be downloaded here: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/biotech-ambassadors/

Soapbox 499 – for the 99%

May 14th, 2013

99-3

The ‘captive state’ – a Britain organised under successive governments to suit the corporate few – grossly mistreats people like the late Stephanie Bottrill. A Cambridge reader writes:

This suicide should shock and shame the government.

Politicians on £64,000 per year have no idea how low-income people in this country
have to live.

How would they respond if they were suddenly required by law to move far away into a smaller house, away from friends and relations?

And yes, all sectors of our state are captive to the corporations, who are the real rulers of this country.

.

PCU: the ‘captive state’ – a Britain organised under successive governments to suit the corporate few – grossly mistreats people like the late Stephanie Bottrill

May 13th, 2013

Following posts on Birmingham and Solihull websites, readers who have responded fall into two categories:

Some – living on average or above average incomes have been quite unsympathetic:

  • In her place I’d cut my coat according to my cloth
  • Would losing £20 be such a big deal?
  • These people are always whining.
  • The son’s approach to the Sunday papers was motivated by financial gain.
  • Think of the mothers and children cramped in one-bedroom accommodation.
  • She didn’t care about the trauma she would be inflicting on the lorry driver

Others affected:

  • are thankful that this issue has been raised,
  • have written about similar problems they are facing,
  • say that their grand-children will not be able to stay with them if they move,
  • point out that to a person with a disposable income of £77 – £20 is a 25% cut,
  • and that for a single person, £20 is the amount a person will spend on food bill – not including fresh meat.
captive state cover
PCU sees the captive state – Labour and Conservative governments alike, in thrall to the rich and powerful.
Many politicians are eager for the crumbs falling from these corporates – not usually in brown envelopes but in the form of declared directorships and also undeclared lucrative opportunities for family employment.
Two of many examples where the ‘captive state’ is easy on the affluent but bears down on people like Stephanie Bottrill:

The government commandeered taxpayers’ money to bail out other affluent bankers and HMRC created a “bespoke” tax arrangement for Goldman Sachs in order to resolve a “huge relationship issue” with the bank. It excused Goldman Sachs from paying £10 million interest on tax it had not paid. The government also commandeered taxpayers’ money to bail out other affluent bankers.

No parallel desire is shown to create relationships and help the poor and powerless.

The case underlines the need for a new (cross-party?) incorruptible politics designed to offer equality of opportunity and security to all its citizens – not just the affluent few.
cllrs jc, ss, cw
Do readers know of any energetic and innovative, public-spirited politicians likely to make a difference? Three named in the West Midlands are pictured above.