Originally from: Susan Staunton
                        
Restrictions to remain harsh

RESTRICTIONS on livestock farmers are likely to remain "fairly draconian" in the wake of the food-and-mouth crisis, said food minister, Lord Whitty yesterday.

But he did hold out an olive branch in the form of a promise to consider seriously any effective alternatives, particularly on the 21-day standstill rules applied to livestock brought on to farms.

As things stood, however, the proposals laid down in the Animal Health Bill presented last week were likely to remain policy for the foreseeable future and there was no point in farmers saying they would "fight like hell" against them.

He strenuously denied there was any pressure within the UK government or the European Commission to squeeze out British livestock production. This was "absolute rubbish", he told delegates to the National Sheep Association's annual conference in Worcestershire.

There was no "God-given right" for any industry to continue , he said, but as far as he was aware no representative of the UK government or EC official had decreed that the sheep sector should be wiped out.

Against that, he said that, to survive, the industry had to become more efficient and sustainable. This would demand rationalisation and restructuring and there would be "slightly fewer sheep and slightly fewer sheep farmers" in future.

Casualties would include rams displaying genetically low resistance to scrapie. They would either be culled compulsorily or castrated.

In the face of total opposition to the 21-day rule from delegates, Lord Whitty said this would continue at least until there was an effective animal traceability system, probably based on electronic identification against a database, or an effective interim system.

He dismissed calls for meat imports into Britain to be subject to the same level of traceability. As part of the single european market, Britain had to look to the EU to come up with suitable controls.

Sean Rickard of Cranfield University said that farming was at the tail end of an era in which government intervention in industry was acceptable: "Market protection and subsidies are going to be removed. it is only a question of the length of time over which they are going to do it."

Farmers would have to look to the market for a living. But they had to be aware that changes were taking place in that market. Increasingly affluent consumers were looking for new tastes and experiences. They were concerned about animal welfare and the environment but they were not prepared to pay any extra for their food to match these concerns.

Farmers who thought they could supplement their incomes substantially by catering for the so called "multi-functional" aspects of the countryside were kidding themselves, he added.

They might continue to receive the "brown envelopes" with cheques for looking after the countryside, but this would divert them from their real business of food production.

It was a "dangerous myth" to suppose that anyone could serve two masters. Farmers had to become more efficient and to form closer links with the rest of the food chain.

Vic Robertson
Thursday, 8th November 2001
The Scotsman