GM debate reheated (From Gazette & Herald)

GM debate reheated

OUR district council's bold but extraordinary decision to declare Ryedale a GM-free area has rekindled the embers of the great debate. I am not sure what practical effect this unilateral declaration can or will have, as presumably the council only controls the land which it owns, but I should be interested to hear if there are further implications.

Viewed from the long room, so to speak, the two sides are playing a very different game of cricket.

Those on the side of advancing bio-technology are prepared to experiment with their bowlers, trying to find a winning combination, but the anti-GM batsmen are vehement in defence of what they believe is the environmental wicket.

There is no doubt there is a lot of strong feeling amongst those mainly not involved in our agricultural industry who vehemently believe that the march towards GM technology must be stopped at all costs. They regard the promotional support of the multi-national companies as sinister; and quote as good evidence the Canadian experience, where the use of GM oil seed rape has reduced by almost one-third over the past few years.

The Canadians found that growing herbicide-tolerant GM rape did initially reduce expenditure and increase yields; but, after a few seasons, the new crops seemed to create a sort of "super weed" which is resistant to the usual herbicides and has actually increased spray costs.

Their disillusionment has put some flesh on the arguments of the anti campaigners.

For my own part, and I believe probably like most of the agricultural industry, I take a more pragmatic approach at the moment.

In principle, progress cannot and should not be stopped, if only because we will find ourselves left behind once again in the world league tables.

Conversely, I certainly reserve the right to reject the use of GM crops, but feel that we should have good evidence for so doing.

It is quite unacceptable that the antis feel at liberty to go and destroy trial crops such as those growing at Broom's Barn Research Station last week. The director, Doctor John Pidgeon, represented the views of many when he said:

"These trials were designed to produce information highly relevant to the current public debate on GM crops.

"Their destruction is part of continuing attempts by minority groups to censor the public debate and impose their view on society by denying the public essential information on the environmental impact of GM crops."

Nell Trevelyan is a newly-elected Ryedale councillor with genuine concern on the issue, and also a delightful sense of humour.

She has had an attack of limerickitis and I reproduce a couple to lighten the debate.

Science is fearsomely clever

The result of enormous endeavour

Can't turn back the clocks

Put it back in the box

It's with us for ever and ever

And is all the science quite straight?

Depends on whose funding it, mate.

More "peer review"

On the tests that they do

Need to be put on our plate.

If any reader has time whilst sat on his combine to compose a similar ditty, please send them in.

You may remember a few weeks ago we applauded the hard-fought achievement of Farmers For Action (FFA) in persuading the multiple supermarkets to lift their milk price by 2p per litre, which was destined to go back to the farmer.

I now have to report that the dairy processors, who are the middle men, are in some cases dragging their heels and quite inexcusably failing to pass back the price rise.

The situation is pretty muddled, but as far as I can see Robert Wiseman Dairies, Express and Dairy Crest are continuing to be the villains of the piece. Meantime, back at headquarters, battle lines are again being drawn up by David Handley, who is the chairman of FFA, with stirring statements about "teaching the processors a leasson".

Whatever the disputes amongst the big players, it is really not on that the farmer once again becomes the scapegoat and the loser.

The 2p increase not only wants paying but backdating.

The latest news from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) is that Sir John Krebs is listening to the industry and going to accept that the Over Thirty Months Scheme dies a lingering death over the next couple of years.

This is essential if the beef market is not going to be turned on its head, and all the gains made since FMD lost to the winds.

For the layman, I should explain that since BSE in 1996, all cattle over 2 years old have gone into the burner and cost the country money, rather than being an asset.

The quality of this beef is mainly from cows and used for manufacturing, but the quantity would add 30pc to current output which is a massive 200,000 tonnes per annum.

Latest proposals seem to be heading for phasing this meat back into the food chain, from January 1, 2004, initially for only those cattle born after August 1996, and then a further tranche allowed in 2005, with the final demise of the scheme in 2006.

As the full effects of bringing back this beef onto the market are yet unknown, the Government is being lobbied to provide a safety net, which is unhappily called a "purchase for destruction scheme".

This support will provide a very basic price, probably similar to OTM levels at the minute, which the farmer can opt into if the trade collapses.

I spent a pretty miserable afternoon last week being enlightened by our eminent local solicitor, John Broadbridge, who is an expert on employment law.

By signing up to Europe's Social Charter, this Government has exposed the workforce of this country to a whole plethora of regulation, be they employers or employees.

The main thrust of the new employment law is that it will apply right across the board, and there will no longer be a threshold limit of companies employing over 15 people.

I listened with little enthusiasm as John told me that there have been 147 changes to employment law in the past two years, and that there are more in the pipeline including the latest draft regulations on disability discrimination.

I flag this up in case there are some farmers employing two or three staff who believe that they escape the net - you don't!

This glorious spell of weather has been too much for the early birds to resist and combines have started to roll. I saw the odd field cut when I went to Roland Mason's sale on Saturday and George Bratley went into a field of six-row barley at Stamford Bridge yesterday. It was coming off at just over 15pc and looked as good a sample as one could expect with this variety.

I saw Chester Bosomworth in the market on Tuesday, and he'd just pulled his machine into the first crop so no doubt it will be all action from now on.

The best of luck to everybody.

Forward on July 15 were 84 cattle including 55 bulls; 562 sheep including 504 lambs.

Steers, light to 135p/kilo from G I Marwood, Harome (ave 107.5p/kilo), heavy to 106p from J E Remmer, Pickering (100.09p).

Heifers, light to 125p/kilo from G I Marwood (106.8p), medium to 138p from G I Marwood, (110.60p).

Bulls, light to 100p from F C Wardle, Yedingham (95.6p), medium to 106p from D Sunley, Nawton (98.5p), heavy to 104p from T Maw, Thornton-le- Dale ave 95.3p/kilo.

Black & white bulls to 88p fromo W Smith, Salton (83.2p).

Lambs, standard to 130p from T Towse, Buckton (122.1p), medium to 128.5p from P Bannister, Butterwic (120.1p), heavy to 125.6p from W Burdess & Son, Harpham (120p).

Ewes to £64 from C Hamilton, Acklam (£52.01).

Updated: 11:48 Wednesday, July 16, 2003