Re: RE:deception

Originally from: coleen
                        
Hi David,

I have read that – but surely that is not all Pat was implying.

Yes, it was flawed on the part of this Governement – and the way it acted, and yes the EU let it all roll by. But have we ever really established it was not part of the Great European plan! Why did TB then, when things were getting hot regarding vaccination, just simply call on the EU to intereven, and get them to tell everyone to 'vaccinate'. It would have got him out of a sticky situation. It just does not add up to me.

True the EU has spoken out about compulsory vaccination, one year on. I ask myself what has changed here in the UK since the last case was confirmed. We have been given no evidence, nothing to suggest it will not happen again, in fact all the signs are, that it will happen again. The vaccination issue, has never been fully debated. I know farmers who have no more insight into vaccination – then they did when it was first raised last year. What has changed between the supermarkets and other distributers, will they buy and sell vaccinated meat or milk. Will Ben Gill once again, tell farmers not to, it is financial suicide. Non of this is clear, is it? How will the EU make vaccination compulsory? Especially if the resources are down to each member State?

I can see this turning into mess, in much the same way as fmd did.

Coleen
                        

Originally from: chris stockdale
                        
Coleen – I don't presently know how the EU plan to force compulsary vaccination but I would suspect that in the first instance they will offer free vaccine plus support in administering it, combined with legislative powers to not compensate non-compliers who become IP's, backed up with legal liability for all consequential transmission attributable to those stock , including cost of cleansing, etc.(other than genuine hardship reasons if applicable, ie bereavement, flooding, etc.) As we know, a small modicum of non-compliance would not derail a vaccination programme or prevent it's efficacy.
 The EU will find ways to get Ben Gill or his replacement on-side. He himself has said that we need vaccines but 'better vaccines'. The EU and global FMD community are working hard to bring the policies, from every perspective, up to date and should be able to persuade Gill to leave the age of the dinosaur behind.With a bit of luck we might have a more progressive or enlightened President of the NFU, and / or a system in place which will automatically bring in a wider cross-section of stakeholders.
 How to make big business do the sensible thing? I don't know right now, I don't think there is one quick and easy answer, I suspect the answer to that will be the Holy Grail of agri-politcs for the forseeable future; the obvious lines of approach assuming that we are not talking a change of Govt. would be via a farmers leader or agricultural/ rural PR campaign that the public could actually trust, which , following John Gummer's daughters' beefburger could be a long time; thereagain, wasn't the Soil Association slogan, 'Food You Can Trust'?
 Best wishes, Chris.
                        

Originally from: David
                        
What is the betting the EU rule that vaccinated animals are culled at a later date.

David

Originally from: chris stockdale
                        
Good point David, I can't give you the odds.
 I think that a lot will depend on who the Agricultural Commissioner is, what the findings of the EU Inquiry are and how well we lobby and work to ensure that vaccination to live, if implemented, is nor politically reversible.
 The whole point of the EU is that we (Europeans) all hang together, that we are all in it together and that what one suffers we all suffer and work to relieve.That said, I agree our present Govt. appear ridiculously keen to throw UK agriculture to the wolves, to the financial delight of our fellow Europeans. I don't think that this is particularly the fault of Europe, it's a home-bred problem with a home-bred solution; we need to engage the Urban majority in what it is we do (and why) and recover the respect that used to be afforded the land and those who work on and with it; as I said before, a massive PR campaign, multi-branched, multi-media and all pervasive.
 Ben Gill standing up is like a red rag to a bull to many urban voters
-- who will regard him as despoiler in chief both for his role in ensuring that the cull continued and for his support of GM crops.If the urban majority can figure out that ...
 a)there is enough food in the world right now and that starvation is due to a failure of distribution due to war, corruption, market forces, whatever, and therefore we do not need GM crops.
 b)why take any irreversible risks with the environment for no need.
 c)why not spend more money on Rand D for developing safer agricultural techniques that can really help farmers both at home and abroad to conserve moisture, build fertility without chemical fertilisers and control pests and disease using safer technologies -- radionics, Homeopathics, and such-like, if helping really is the aim.
 d ) the argument that farmers need the market opportunity does not wash because the gains, if they exist at all, are only temporary because as more comes onstream the price will fall.
 The only gainers are the Biotech industries, and the large Multi-National Corporations (MNC's) who can hike their margins out of lower commodity prices and develop their vertical and horizontal grasp over the 'life-sciences industries'. Many townies twigged this long ago,so their respect for the likes of Gill is nil.Truly , as Scargill was to the miners, so Gill is to farming. M ust go, best wishes, Chris.