FG farm news blog

Is it just me or is the Daily Mail waging a campaign to destroy the British farming industry?

I'm no fan of the Mail - in fact few newspapers make my blood boil with such regularity, but this week it has reached new heights.

This morning marks its third front page on the cloned cow revelations which have focused a media storm on one unsuspecting farmer in Inverness.

Under the headline 'Farmer with 96 Clones : As the big supermarkets vow NEVER to sell clone meat or milk, the Mail tracks down the farm at the centre of the controversy' it carries a picture of Steven Innes who runs Newmeadow Holsteins.

They have portrayed the poor man like a criminal as they whip up a frenzy about cloned milk and meat.

It's nothing short of disgusting.

Those 96 cows are NO DIFFERENT to any other cows. They are the offspring of the offspring of a cloned cow. They were born and have lived exactly the same way as any other cow.

Scientists have said their meat and milk is safe.

The FSA has said it is safe.

And the European Food Safety Authority says it is safe.

Yet the Daily Mail is convincing the public it is not.

That's not to say there are not issues over traceability, transparency for consumers and animal welfare - these are all perfectly legitimate.

But by stoking the fires of food safety concerns, the Mail engages in scaremongering of the worst kind and even the most intelligent consumers, normally immune to the scare stories the Mail comes up with, are falling for it.

Even Eamon Holmes (and I'm probably being a little kind calling him intelligent after this cracker!) said on Sky News this morning it was a little like BSE in that farmers put public health at risk for the sake of trying to boost production.

What a ridiculous suggestion!

No other national newspaper has gone for the story in the same way the Mail has, and no other journalist has framed the story quite like Sean Poulter (who we can thank for previous scares over 'Frankenfoods') has.

It begs the question, why is the farming industry not getting its point across? And the FSA and Defra too?

They should be moving to assure the public meat and milk that has entered the food chain is perfectly safe.

If they fail to do that the damage will be done and - as one consumer commented on the Mail's website on Monday (yes, for the purposes of research I was forced to read it) - people will switch to buying French meat and milk.

The industry can not afford to let this roll on and needs to act decisively to assure consumers there is no risk.

Only once it has done that can we have a reasoned debate about animal welfare and traceability to ensure procedures are put in place to ensure the LEGITIMATE concerns this has raised are properly addressed. 

Otherwise the likes of the Mail will win the day and it will turn a very bad week for some farmers into a PR disaster for an entire industry.

I wonder who would win the election if only cows could vote. They are the real rural vote - they live, breathe and eat the countryside.

They are the signature of rural life.

But how would they vote? Let's consider the evidence.

Labour would have a very strong shout given that the head honcho at Defra - Hilary Benn - is a vegetarian. No cow could accuse him of eating one of the family - which is helpful in an election.

However, it is under the Labour Government that the dairy herd has dropped by 22 per cent and the beef herd has dropped by 13 per cent. (These are genuine Defra figures by the way). I don't see how the cow population would vote Labour when these stark figures are taken into account.

What about the Tories? Jim Paice, hoping to be next farm minister, would woo the cows by promising to tackle their arch enemy - the disease ridden badger. Assuming badgers don't get a vote in this animal election, Jim would pick up lots of votes here.

After all, just under 40,000 cattle were slaughtered in 2008, at huge cost to farmer and taxpayer. If Jim could tackle TB, that is a lot of extra Tory votes walking the British pastures. 

But the obvious and awkward question for Jim Paice remains - why would I vote for you, you ate my brother.

No, cows won't vote Tory.

The Liberal Democrats would have a good chance of winning key votes because they have promised to redistribute CAP cash to Britain's most vulnerable farmers and it is often these farmers that look after cows.

The cows will like this.

But the Lib Dems also want much greater integration with Europe. Cows simply don't like Europe (especially France) - the bringer of deadly diseases such as bluetongue.

A real vote loser.

The Green Party won't get a look in either - they always complain about the cow's flatulence problem. Which given most greens live on a diet of nuts and berries, is quite rich.

No, it is obvious who cows would vote for.

But I went canvassing in a field in Devon yesterday and asked who they would vote for, just to make sure.

Most, if not all cows, said Moo...

And I am more than convinced they were trying to say the Moonster Raving Loony Party. So there you have it.

Cows vote for Loonies.

Either that or they were attempting to say Moove over humans, we want a go.

Or they were just cows and didn't understand me.

I am not normally one to nail my colours to the political mast but I am now happy to admit it: I am seriously considering voting for the Liberal Democrat Party in the general election.

I have one Very good reason and I think you'll find it hard to disagree.

No, it's not because of that oh so cunning trick where they hid for 90 years in the ITV studios before jumping from behind the set and scaring the life out of Brown and Cameron. (Although that was brilliant).    

My reasoning is simple: It is Lord Paddy Ashdown, the former SBS officer and king of cunning.

There is no single politician more suited to clearing the air to allow our gridlocked airlines to get back into the skies.

Only Paddy will get our food imports flowing again and only he will rescue our stranded citizens from the far reaches of the world (mostly Benidorm and the Algarve).

Vote Lib Dems: vote Ash Down. 

The Election is everywhere.

You can't turn a corner without seeing David Cameron's shiny Timotei hair, or Gordon Brown's stick on grin. I have even seen Nick Clegg who, it turns out, is the Lib Dem leader (I always thought it was Vince Cable).

Turn on the TV. It's Clegg. Turn on the radio. Brown. Look on the internet and I have been sent a mocked up version of Cameron dancing like a leprechaun across my screen.  

I love it. I even listened intently to the leader of Plaid Cymru (the party of Wales) on the radio this morning. Amongst other things, Plaid intends to win votes by campaigning for the Welsh flag to be allowed on Welsh number plates. I would vote for them just for that.

The election is one long comedy sketch.  

It was masterful the way Gordon Brown stone-walled Nick Robinson's repeated attempts last night to get him to repeat his view that the Tories had 'deceived' business leaders over National Insurance. Brown was brilliant and defiant. Using the oldest trick in the book he played deaf and point blank refused to answer the question.

Meanwhile David Cameron looked like a school boy as he free-wheeled into the House of Commons on his bike yesterday - although I was aghast to see his helmet swinging from the handlebars and not on his head.

I am now waiting for Clegg to re-affirm his GQ comments over how many people he has slept with ('no more than 30' he said at the time). Wow.

And what about the Labour billboard campaign with a smarmy looking David Cameron sitting on a red Quattro with the slogan: 'Don't let him take Britain back to the 1980s'.

The Tories liked the billboard so much they have adopted it for themselves with a more friendly expression from Cameron and the slogan changed to: 'Fire up the Quattro. It's time for change'.

THE Tories want to put the 'F' back into Defra.

It was, after all, the present government that took it out in a highly symbolic gesture in 2001.

Actually, it was the letter 'A' but the effect was the same. In a post-election departmental revamp, Tony Blair replaced the disgraced Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Maff), with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

'Agriculture' out, 'Environment' in. The NFU had to fight hard to even get the word 'food' onto the Nobel House nameplate, it is said.

MAFF, long seen as an agent of the industry, had paid the price for the foot-and-mouth disease calamity.

Defra arrived with a new agenda. It placed the environment at heart of all it controlled, including food and farming policy - all-too-often, farmers maintained, at the expense of their ability to produce food.

The Conservatives pledge to put 'Farming' or 'Agriculture' back on the Nobel House nameplate, if elected on May 6, is a neat ploy to state their farming credentials against this backdrop.

In reality, farming will not be a frontline issue during this General Election campaign. It never is. The economy, more than ever before, plus the likes education, health, Europe and law and order will dominate.

But, politically, farming is now higher up the agenda than it has been for a very long time.

The events of 2008 - soaring food prices at home and food riots across the globe - focussed minds on food security, while farming's intrinsic links with the environment, biodiversity, climate change, energy security and nutrition are now widely recognised.  

The main parties are at least taking farming seriously, hence the Tories' judicious use of the 'F-word'.

"First and foremost we need to put British food production back to the top of the agenda," Shadow Agriculture Minister said recently, explaining the 'F-word' plan.

The Tories believe their traditional rural roots and current farming policies identify them as the natural industry allies.

It is not that straightforward, however. The events of 2008 led to a very real change within Defra, under Secretary of State Hilary Benn's leadership.  

In October 2008, Defra lost its cherished climate change remit but was given a brand new focus - to drive government policy on food.

Mr Benn and his Ministers began championing farmers and British food production in public, never more so than when Farming Minister Jim Fitzpatrick described them as the nation's "future heroes" at the 2009 Labour Party Conference.

Mr Benn's core message at the 2009 NFU conference was: "I listened and I changed our approach."

He reeled off a long list of policy initiatives intended to show how that 'change' has worked through to farmers on the ground. From better food labelling, to the supermarket ombudsman, investment in agricultural research, the voluntary approach to replacing set-aside and his overarching Food 2030 strategy it was as if he was hailing 'New Defra' in the way New Labour was born in the mid-90s.

Impressive as it was, the reality is that a large credibility gap remains as far as many farmers are concerned. His attempts to convince sceptics we really are seeing a 'New Defra' are constantly undermined by one issue where farmers are adamant he has 'not listened' - bovine TB and badger.

The Liberal Democrats will also have a very big say in this election and, if the outcome is a hung Parliament, its aftermath.

The party is strong in rural areas and its pro-farming credentials were highlighted at the NFU conference, where Lib Dem Shadow Defra Secretary Tim Farron's populist speech received comfortably the best reception among the three main Parties.

In Scotland, Alex Salmond's Scottish National Party will make the case strongly that it is able to deliver a better deal for Scottish farmers than any of the London-based parties. Plaid Cymru will do the same in Wales.

The UK Independence Party (UKIP) will argue that the nation and its farmers would be better off without the 'ineffective and cumbersome 'Common Agricultural Policy, while other 'niche' parties - too many to mention here - will have their say on issues affecting farmers.

This is the most important General Election for the nation for almost a generation. It is hugely important for farming, too.

IT WAS during the dark days of foot-and-mouth 2001 that the prospect of passing some of the public cost of animal disease control on to farmers was first raised by then agriculture Minister Nick Brown.

Yet nine years on, after various working groups, public consultations and seminars have grappled with how responsibility and cost sharing could work in reality, the subject is shrouded in more uncertainty than ever.

As one industry veteran remarked this week, each stage of this process seems to answer some questions but raise twice as many new ones.

Arguably, the biggest one to come out of this week's Draft Animal Health Bill is whether Defra has lost control of the cost sharing element of the equation.

From the very early days, the emphasis has been on ensuring responsibility and cost sharing are intrinsically linked.

Two sides of the same coin. One policy.

Industry figures close to the process therefore fully expected the Draft Bill to cover both sides of that coin.

It was a surprised to learn the cost sharing measures would be covered at a later date under a future Treasury Bill. A 12 page Q & A on the Bill made no attempt to explain why.

It is no secret that the Treasury was unimpressed with Defra's botched attempt last summer at cost sharing proposals that included an unworkable compulsory insurance plan, now ditched, and other figures that spectacularly failed to add up.

If that is the case, do farmers have more to fear from it than the Defra they know?

All we can say with any certainty is that, while the responsibility sharing plans are taking shape, we now know less about the cost sharing side than we did before.

Not for the first time, the French are leading the way in European discussions about the future of farming.

Last week, the French Agriculture Minster invited 21 'like minded' EU Member States to gather in Paris to discuss how best to dish out a CAP budget worth almost £50 billion.

Monsieur Bruno Le Maire said Britain was not 'like-minded' hence no invite.

It was an embarrassment for Defra, although the line from Whitehall was that Hilary Benn, Environment Secretary, was busy and a representative had gone in his place. 

Either way, invite or no invite, it is clear Defra has a mountain to climb if British interests are to be adequately fought during discussions of the CAP post-2013.    

The memory lives strong of deal struck in 2002 between France and Germany to protect farm spending, against the express wishes of the UK Government.

It happened again in 2005 when the Government was promised a shake-up of farm subsidies in return for giving up the hard-fought budget rebate, worth around £7 billion.

Today the promised shake-up still seems far away but this year Britain's contribution to the EU budget will rise by 60 per as the rebate slips away.

The danger of being outmanoeuvred once again must demand a change in the Government's tactics.

The route of the problem is clear - it is Defra's wholehearted and ideological desire for a fundamental reform of the CAP.

It wants to remove all subsidies and protection so the market can reward farmers for their outputs and it wants the CAP to provide a reward for social benefits, such as environmental goods, that the market cannot provide. 

To some the stance is admirable, perhaps even desirable, but it stands in direct opposition to France, and 21 other member states' who wish to protect their farmers from the market.

More importantly, it precludes the UK from being involved in the debate.

If Defra is to influence policy in Europe, it must be seated at the top table and for this it may need to soften on its ideology.

France does not have British farm interests at heart and it would be naïve to think that by excluding Defra from talks, our farmers will be given a better deal. They won't.

Defra must to be engaged in Europe. It is then the job of British Agriculture Plc. to ensure Defra represents farmers' best interest.