Food News

Will genetically modified crops feed the world
or increase poverty in the developing countries?"

Genetically Modified Crops are still very much in the news. The House of Lords Select Committee appointed to consider the matter issued a report in which they supported the benefits which could be gained by planting them. They also supported a broadening and strengthening of the processes of risk assessment and of the regulatory processes necessary to deal with the possible risks.

This report has caused concern at English Nature, which is the statutory advisory body to the Government on nature conservation in England. They are very disappointed that the Select Committee appears to have failed to understand the implications for farmland wildlife of growing crops which have been genetically modified to make them tolerant to herbicides (HT) and resistant to predatory insects (IR). The Select Committee says that these crops may benefit wildlife but, says English Nature, there is no scientific evidence to support this from Europe, the USA or Canada, where these crops are being grown.

The point they make is that by growing HT crops many more farmers will be able to apply broad spectrum herbicides without damaging the crops but destroying all weeds in the fields. This will enhance the ability of the crop to grow well but will have a seriously adverse effect on already beleaguered field wildlife. English Nature is also concerned that IR crops will have serious effects on non-targeted insect populations, reducing still further the food available to farmland birds.

"Will farmers and politicians agree on a
new Common Agricultural Policy?"

The EU recently published its long awaited reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Final negotiations are expected to be completed in March. The objectives of the reform are to reduce European agriculture’s dependence on price support, and to make it more robust and competitive in the face of increasingly open world markets. The backbone of the CAP has always been price support, which is now to be much reduced. Instead there will be direct payments to farmers to help them adjust, but these are not open ended, neither will there be 100% compensation and there will be a limit to support for individual farms.

One interesting proposal, which is likely to be agreed, is that individual Governments will have some areas of discretion in applying the CAP money - £3 billion in the UK. Rural development measures are proposed. One oddity is what is known as ‘modulation’. This can be translated as encouraging farmers to employ more labour on farms. Another interesting development is that it will become compulsory for farmers to take what environmental measures EU Member States think appropriate to the land concerned. Various methods of ensuring that these measures are carried out are suggested but, in the end, the effective one will be reduced direct payments.

At a MAFF conference about the CAP reforms, milk producing farmers were agreeable to the end of milk subsidies.... in 2006! They clearly realised that price subsidies, could not continue at present levels with the enlarging of the EU and the forthcoming trade negotiations in the World Trade Organisation.

A Foods Standards Agency at last?

The draft Bill to bring into being the Food Standards Agency was published on January 27th. Agriculture Minister, Nick Brown, said that there would be an eight week consultation period to give interested parties the opportunity to contribute their ideas and make comments about the Bill’s proposals. He made it clear that the Agency would be answerable to the Department of Health, not Agriculture.

He was asked whether the Bill would become law this year and replied that this depended on the progress of other legislation through Parliament, but he certainly hoped so.

How was it to be paid for?

The main cost would come, as now, out of central taxation, to pay for the work that was already going on under the aegis of his Department. There were extra start-up costs and the Agency would incur extra running costs if all the plans in the Bill came to fruition. These would be met by a flat rate levy on food outlets of about £90 per year, or, as the Minister pointed out, about £1.70 a week..

Not unexpectedly, this proposal, described by several commentators as a new Poll Tax, was criticised, particularly by representatives of small, independent outlets. They said that it was unfair that a corner shop grocer or butcher, for instance, would have to pay the same levy as the nearby supermarket, which was, compared to the small operator, making huge profits. We will examine the Bill and make comments and recommendations in good time.

John Brown

Return to Index for current issue                         Return to Main Magazine Index