LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

here, can be obtained from PAN UK, www.pan-uk.org. Thanks to the campaigns of environmental organisations including PAN UK, various worldwide conventions on pesticide use have ruled that many on the list (including the better-known poisons, DDT and lindane) can now be used only with prior consent between the importing/exporting countries. However, three on the list, namely aldicarb, DBCP and paraquat are not yet internationally regulated.

      In the UK the government-backed Pesticide Residues Committee tests samples of food from various groups four times a year, and publishes the findings on the internet. For each pesticide it has established a Maximum Residue Level (MRL) to enable it to measure the safe use of pesticides. Council-funded local trading standards offices also test for pesticides. Anti-pesticide voices claim that MRLs are not low enough and pesticide residues are found on far too many everyday fruits and vegetables. They also say that the ‘cocktail effect’ of multiple residues poses the real danger.

      The Soil Association, which operates the most stringent standards in the UK organic farming sector, permits its members in special cases to use six agricultural chemicals on crops: copper, sulphur, rotenone, soft soap, paraffin oil and potassium permanganate. They may use pyrethroids in insect traps. Those that defend the use of pesticides as a whole will always leap on this fact when attacking organic standards to weaken the position of the organic sector. It is a slim argument, taking into account the 450 or more chemicals available to conventional farmers and the fact that each individual organic farmer must go through hell and high water to get permission to use one of the six on a crop. The Soil Association argues that the pesticides they permit are either of natural origin or simple chemical compounds compared to the complex chemicals used in conventional farming.

      As far as savvy shoppers should be concerned, the traceability of organic food and its comparative freedom from residues is a standard to chase. Farmers who strive to reduce pesticide use and reintroduce wildlife to farms, like those signing up for the environmentally concerned farming scheme, LEAF, should be encouraged – if not quite celebrated. But while no ideal system is in wide use, buying seasonally and locally boosts trust and is good value for money. Viewed another way, it is easier to check up on the tomato grower down the road than the one in Brazil.

      Organic versus conventional

      Organic is a great standard, especially when a producer has Soil Association accreditation, the most stringent in Europe. But conventional can mean high standards, too. It depends on the producer, and that is why buying food is a confusing business. A farmer might produce food responsibly but prefer not to go through organic conversion, which can be an expensive investment.

      The organic movement (specifically the Soil Association in the UK) was founded on the principle of the holistic benefits of ‘soil health’. It recognises a connection between human health and that of the soil. Organic crops grow in healthy soil fertilised with natural manures. Organically reared livestock are naturally fed on organically grown feed and standards of welfare are exceptionally high. But is this better than a responsible conventional farmer?

      I have visited farms where enormous care is taken to prevent animal and plant disease through good husbandry, but which are not organic. They keep hedgerows, leave buffer zones between crops and hedges and, like organic farmers, will not spray unless absolutely necessary. I know farmers who care for their livestock, stock them loosely, give them proper shelter and plenty of water, and grow all their feed. Their animals are rarely ill or stressed and are totally traceable – but they are not organic. Some of the best cheeses, hams and even potato crisps in the UK are made by responsible, non-organic farmers.

      Other conventional farmers blindly use every pesticide available to them, intensively rear animals in cruel systems and think only of the margins at the end of the day. The problem is that both types of conventional farmer dislike being put down as a bad farmer, even though only one has some justification in feeling this way. So organic standards get attacked – particularly, to my amazement, by the authorities. The Food Standards Agency, of all people, does not accept that the organic standard is one to strive for.

      For shoppers, the problem is not how to choose organic food – if it has a Soil Association or other British organic logo, you can more or less rest assured – the real task is picking good conventional food out from the bad.

      Organic always costs more. This is related to higher labour costs, slower growth rate of both livestock and plants, lower yields and the higher cost of ingredients in naturally processed foods. The only time I am wary of the pricing is when farm-gate prices of organic food match that of the same food in London shops. Sales at the farm gate should be cheaper than those that have gone through any middle man.

      Animal welfare and disease

      Animal welfare and disease should be grouped together because the latter is often a consequence of low standards in the former. Good animal welfare practice should include:

      

      • Natural feed with a low protein content for slow growth, plus plenty of forage.

      • Room to move – what is known in the business as low stocking density.

      • Free access to outdoors in daylight.

      • Good deep bedding, preferably straw.

      • Access to plenty of water.

      • Natural lighting.

      • Freedom to behave naturally.

      • No long road journeys.

      • Low stress at slaughter, a rest beforehand and low noise levels.

      

      The majority of farm animals never know a stress-free existence like this. As you will find out in this book, pig and poultry farms are especially intensive. With low stress, the incidence of disease is minimal. Viruses and bacteria spread in intensive rearing systems, and trucking livestock around the country does not help – as proven by the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic.

      Eating meat is a big deal, and much respect is due to an animal that has been reared for food. With the emphasis on plentiful and cheap – a mantra followed in food supply for the last 50 years – the welfare of animals has somehow become unimportant to those who eat them. We have picked up some nasty habits: eating only the fillets and prime cuts as if the rest of the animal did not exist; eating a burger or chicken breast a day for just a few pennies; but, worst of all, a lack of curiosity. No one asks, so nothing changes.

      Over the last decade, much time has been invested in debating how a fox should be killed, yet the majority of chickens we eat eke out their wretched existence in a broiler house, in conditions that should shame meat eaters. And animal welfare is a problem for vegetarians, too. Milk and egg production still see some of the cruellest practice in the food business. Dairy cows can spend their entire lives being unable to graze, going through lactation after lactation with all the inherent health problems that such a system can create.

      Just a few questions when shopping for meat will make an enormous difference. There is much that shoppers can and should ask butchers and retailers before they buy. That is how free-range eggs found their way into supermarkets.

      Finally it is worth bearing in mind that British animal welfare standards, while not good enough in the intensive farming sector, are still a vast improvement on welfare standards in Europe and elsewhere.

      Country of origin

      When shopping, keep one labelling legal loophole to the front of your mind: if a food has been grown or reared in, say, Holland but packed or processed in the UK, it can call itself British. So a side of pork that is cured in Holland and then packed in Britain is British bacon. EU competition laws prevent the real truth coming out on the pack, but responsible shops will often stick a Union Jack or recognisable British mark on the pack. Having said that, plenty of imported meat slips into ready meals and is never labelled as such. This matters mainly because animal welfare systems are even worse abroad than here, and some practices are still legal in other countries –

Скачать книгу