Author wrote:
Why cannot ads in papers and TV tell the real truth and explain to the
public what they are already eating, when they buy produce brought into the
UK from other Countries. I think there is nothng that angers the British
public most then , being duped by other Countries. I realise that we will
never stop the sale of imported goods, but at least let the consumer know
the truth, and they can make their own minds up.
I think Bryn raised an example of meat coming in from Brazil and what that
has been treated with. I think we are assuming that because we know, then
everyone knows what they are eating. The supermarkets are not going to be
spilling the beans, not in their interest, neither is it in the Governments.
A BRITISH FOOD GURU is needed. In spite of all the food scares here in the
UK recently, I still think many people do feel that British is best. Food
scares come and go. People have not stopped smoking and look what that does
to you, and that's a fact not scare mongering.
Not much help I realise, just some thoughts from Cumbria.
Coleen
----- Original Message -----
From: <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: [farmtalking] Article on FMD Vaccine.

Pat,

The two-fold problem is

a) persuading uk producers not to generate scares, and consumers that

there

is nothing to be scared of, and

b) finding a mechanism that will disable or deal with the danger to the

large

exporting companies arising from their overseas consumers potential
perception of the risk.

This latter basically entails reassuring every global citizen of the

safety

of UK vaccinated product – not feasible. How are we going to go about

this? I

have discussed this with a rep of the Dairy Industries Association, and he
himself ruled out compensation for lost markets as impractical – too open

to

abuse, an open cheque.

What about some sort of co-responsibility levy, imposed as a percentage on
all who trade in animal products, to set up a fund to deal with this;

perhaps

after a certain amount of comp. companies could take out insurance, find

other

markets, produce less, store more, adapt or take a minor loss for a time.

After

all, only the farmer, vet and a few others actually deal with the living
creatures; to everyone further up the food chain after the abbatoir, meat,
sausage, bacon, milk, custard, quiche etc. is just a product open to full

market

forces like everything else – nature red in tooth and claw, if you can't

stand the

heat get out of the kitchen, etc, etc.

I have the choice to leave the kitchen or not , our domesticated livestock
don't, nor can they speak, vote or petition. I believe that it is

incumbent on

us to act in a responsible manner towards them. Perhaps the RSPCA could

promote

such a levy, of say 0.5% – enough to accumalate funds without wreaking

havoc

in the economy. I know farmers are supported in many ways, but the

consuming

public cannot wash their hands of what happens in their name, determined

by

their elected representatives to put their food on their plate- the

consumer, via

a purchasing decision, is responsible for the method of production

(obviously

the poor have less choice).

I think your idea of asking a top businessman to front a campaign could be
useful; I suspect that at some point he/she would also need support from

the

'ethical sector' -CIWF, Soil Association, BDAA, an omniverous rock-star

or

two, Prince Charles (ideally), not to mention a galaxy of politicians,

chefs,

MEP;s, etc to raise the profile. This would have to be presented as a

difficult

technical exercise opted for because ethically (and scientifically)
progressive (as well as hopefully cheaper, cleaner, quicker, less damaging

to all and

sundry).

Actual work calls, must go,
Chris.

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking

To leave the group, email: ...