Off topic fishing Ban 548

Look forward to your article. Sounds as though you took the trouble to find out but I never doubted what you said on that topic. Will have a browse however.....

It's a more complicated situation than implied here. The most I can do is mention some of the issues involved. . The cause of BSE has never been established beyond doubt but there is a great deal of evidence supporting the theory of bonemeal in feeds so I'm happy to accept that as the most likely cause for the purposes of this do not seem to have had the backing needed for proper investigation including manganese and OP Treatments (mandatory then). . Feeds containing bonemeal were recommended by experts of the time. They gave good growth and so were used; under those circumstances I do not call that use "greed"; the calves appeared to be doing well on it. . Farmers did not necessarily know what went into their feeds; commercial confidentiality allowed the manufacturers to refuse to say exactly what the ingredients were. If I looked at some of our feed labels now I would find contents listed such as sugars x%, carbohydrate y% etc.; the physical ingredients which provide these components are not necessarily listed. With our supplier I can phone up and ask what they put into it - say, lucerne or what - and they will tell me but that would not always have been possible then. And farmers trusted government advice then!

Recording requirements are stronger now. Feed records must be kept which will allow you to find what feeds were bought, what batches etc for all food animals.

Don't quite understand - same as what? But the main problems we were aware of were largely due to the government's actions - the initial delay in banning stock movements, the transport of suspect corpses through clean farming areas in waggons which allowed body fluids to leak on to the roads, taking decisions away from local expertise and making judgements on the basis of computer models in London, importing vets who had no experience of the disease and keeping out vets who had worked through the last outbreak on the basis that they were "too old", showing a complete contempt for both animal and human welfare. Regulations which closed local abattoirs and hence resulted in animals having to travel long distances to abattoirs, maybe mixing with other animals on the way all added to the spread of disease. Plus leaving animals lying dead for several days before processing them and using "dirty vets" ie those who had visited suspect premises, to visit premises where the disease had not been confirmed.

I can't see how any of this can be said to be bad practice or cost cutting on the part of farmers - apart from bad practice at the index site and there the govt must also take some responsibility since it was inspected shortly before. I think what we should be worrying about is not UK farming practice but the frequent perfectly legal imports of meat from countries where F&M is endemic and the govt's lack of concern about illegal import of meat products - inadequate airport surveillance for instance. A few more (or many more) sniffer dogs might not come amiss.

May I repeat, bonemeal was considered the right thing to feed by the experts at the time. And please my I introduce a sense of persective. vCJD is a nasty disease but the feeling is that you were in less danger from eating beef than from crossing the road to get to the butchers - or smkt!

In UK they are checked by accredited buttociations before they can use the breastle or continue to use it. We have far less butturance about foreign organic; definitions differ and we cannot be sure of inspections.

I'll take your word for it then.

I think people here will know my views.

Cetainly seems so.

Yes.

Again yes. Modern mums have a very hard job. And many were brought up on processed foods so they do not know what real food is and how important it is to give it to their children.

No I wouldn't. When schools stop teaching food preparation and concentrate on how to design food packaging instead I'm not at all surprised when the pupils don't know how to make themselves (and their families) a meal.

OK. I think we all here have opinions on that.

OK. You just expressed the sentiments expressed by many people who had never had the experience of running a business.

The idea that business should take responsibility for the outcome of actions of theirs, which in themselves are perfectly legal, is interesting ...and intriguing. How would it work? Up to now, businesses have operated simply to make profits for their owners-shareholders; this is their function. This is not to deny that many business owners did try to benefit their local communities but they did that as a separate function separate from their businesses although the advertising probably helped and they might have been able to amke it a business expense - dunno. Responsibility for the consequences of business activities is taken by the government which uses laws and regulation to control what businesses are allowed to do.

How would you express the responsibility a business is supposed to take? How should, say a smkt group since we have been talking about them, take practical responsibility for (a) effects on local businesses (b) effects on larger economies by their "deals"; just those for starters?

But do you think that resentment could be deemed to be "greed"?

It's not that simple to get out of farming either; you don't just hand in your notice, you have to sell the factory (to make an analogy). It's worst of all for the tenant farmer. He often has a clause in his tenancy that he must continue farming - even if he makes more of a loss by farming than not and with dairy farming that's often the case at present. If he gives up he can be turned out of his home but will be deemed by the local authority to be intentionally homeless so they won't do anything to help.

Absolutely. How would you implement business responsibility in this case? What should the Gas Board be obliged to do?

I am as you might have guessed.

Cheers Jane

--