Today's News 19 February, 2009
Sam Allen Soil Association
We must produce more food says Hilary Benn "The Independent features an extract from the Environment Secretary Hilary Benn's speech at the National Farmers' Union earlier this week: 'I want British agriculture to produce as much food as possible. No ifs. No buts. The only requirements: that consumers want what's produced and that the way it's produced sustains our environment and safeguards our landscape. This is not about targets for production or self-sufficiency. We are a trading nation. Some of the food we grow, we export; nearly £12bn worth in 2007. And the food that we import is really important too. It is about productive, efficient farming. It is about the higher-yielding seeds, better irrigation and more sustainable use of fertilisers that have transformed agriculture in parts of the world.'"
http://www.independent.co.uk:80/opinion/commentators/hilary-benn-we-must-produce-more-food-8211-without-risking-farmers8217-futures-1625827.html
Editor's Comment: This kind of talk makes me sad, angry, and outraged. "I want British Agriculture to produce as much food as possible." Who cares what he personally wants? What is important is the health and welfare of our society. Runaway, catastrophic, population explosion should not automatically mean that we have to plow up every inch of our soil to export food. What about the health of the countryside? What about other beings that we share space with, the birds, animals, bees, flowers? We kill pollinating insects with government approved chemical poison. We kill earthworms with government approved fertilisers. Life as we know it cannot survive this eco-cide, this madness. This planet does not belong to homo sapiens to wreck in the name of consumerism driven by materialism and multinational corporations. No, no Mr. Benn. The answer is the curtailment of massive global food shipments and encouragement and financial support for local food provision around the globe. This enhances the health and sustainability of people, allows a cooperative sharing with Nature and is in harmony with efforts to deal with peak oil and global warming.
It has taken me a long tome to realise that multinationals don't appear to see the problem. Population to them is simply increased markets that lead to increased profits.
Sunday, 1 March 2009
Thursday, 5 February 2009
What exactly is it to be called Organic?
The following are my comments on the high cost of organic animal feed situation :
January 31, 2009
Farmers seeking organic 'holiday'
By Keith Doyle BBC News
"Farmers have approached ministers seeking a relaxation in organic rules to help them survive the recession. The BBC has seen figures showing a demand for organic food has fallen. The move would mean farmers could cut costs without losing their organic status. Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, said farmers could put animals on non-organic feed without their land losing its organic status. Sales of organic foods have plummeted by 13% in the last three months.
Editor's Comment: The Timesonline article on 22 December, 2008 stated: "Sales of organic food slumped 10 per cent in the 12 weeks up to the end of November, according to the latest figures from the consumer researchers TNS." [See Newsletter 273, 31 December, 2008] Again, I have searched the TNS site and cannot find this reference. Now the figure cited is 13% and I am no closer to finding the source of these statistics. Sales have dropped because growth has slowed. Many reports that I have seen confirm that growth has slowed but demand is still strong. Let me provide some examples here:
'Sales of organic produce fall 19%' (8 September, 2008)Clio Turton, of the Soil Association, says, "What we are seeing now is a plateau rather than reversal. Year-on-year over the last decade, average growth has been 25 per cent. We are predicting a 10 per cent growth for 2007. While this is down, it is still a growing market."Financial Times (5 Sept)
Asda: 25 per cent increase in organic salesAsda have sent out a press release titled "Supermarket bucks the trend and reports significant growth in organics." It writes: "Despite the bleak economic outlook, ASDA has seen an increase of 25 per cent in sales of its organic range in the last quarter whilst the rest of the market has grown at just under three per cent." (Sept 2008) It lists one of the reasons behind this growth as due to better availability of organic products as ASDA now stocks a range of 900 organic items.
"Wholefoods’ Mr. Besancon argued consumers were treating organic purchases differently from those of other premium products. '...When you buy organic you believe it is inherently better for you and the planet,' he said. 'Who can afford to get sick? So people are becoming more introspective about what they eat. There is growth in the category. It is just less than it was.'" BY NIGEL HUNT and BRAD DORFMAN, Reuters 29 January, 2009
"Patrick Holden, director of Britain’s leading organic certification body the Soil Association, said he was getting mixed reports, with some consumers switching from organic to cheaper free-range products. Demand for many products is, however, holding up well. Some are benefiting from growing demand for locally produced food. 'Organic food with a local story is bucking the recession," he said. "This recession has destabilized things a little, but not catastrophically.' Mr. Holden said about 20% of organic food sales were vulnerable, being bought by "light green" purchasers who had been influenced by the actions of other consumers. These he contrasted with the "deep greens" who make up 80% of demand and are committed to the benefits for health and the environment. 'Storm and tempest won’t affect their buying habits," he said. "I think that rump of committed consumers [is] with us to stay.'"
Editor's Comment: Then why ask DEFRA for a derogation to separate organic land from organic stock?
BY NIGEL HUNT and BRAD DORFMAN, Reuters 29 January, 2009
Editor's Comment: Why risk undermining consumer confidence in organic principles and procedures by twiddling the organic regulations to favour one set of organic producers [grain] over another set? [cattle] Surely the Soil Association charity should be keeping at arms length from these certification controversies. As Lawrence Woodward of Elm Farm Research says below: "It undermines the view that consumers have about the integrity of organic product."
The Soil Association has already asked Rural Affairs Secretary Hilary Benn to consider the benefits of relaxing the rules for an indefinite period while it consults other bodies. Mr Melchett said: "Over a dozen other certifying groups are backing the proposal which would allow meat and dairy farmers to use non-organic feed, typically costing half the price.
Editor's Comment: There are not a dozen more certifying groups operating in the UK, so this must take in other EU countries as well.
"The animals would not be sold as organic but farmers would not [editor's emphasis] have to go through the lengthy and expensive process of returning their land to being organic when the economy picks up."
Editor's Comment: Of course, this does not apply to the stock. The Soil Association made it quite clear on 22 December Today's News entry - "Farmers would be encouraged to return to full standards as soon as possible and would need to go through the same conversion period as any converting farmer."
Dairy farmer Noel Marsh has spent two years and hundreds of thousands of pounds to make his farm organic, but is living through tough times. He told BBC Breakfast: "People are buying less organic milk and more conventional. "And the product we are selling is not achieving the price it should at the moment, with feed costs higher than we have ever known them."
Editor's Comment: The question that is crying out to be asked here is: Who decides what the price should be? For instance, what should the price of a house be? As for the cost of organic feed, as I wrote to Helen Browning, who provides organic grain? If the problem is that organic grain is too high, then I recommend that this problem be investigated. Is it the organic grain producer that is charging too much? Is it the wholesaler? Is it the retailer? Find out and put pressure where it is needed. Or, maybe the problem is the attitude that justifies a business to simply charge as much as the market will bear.
Mr Marsh is undecided on whether the proposal would work for him but thinks other organic farmers would benefit. But Lawrence Woodward of the Organic Research Centre rejected the idea as "muddled" and "arguably stupid". He said: "It undermines the view that consumers have about the integrity of organic product, about the fact that organic farmers are principled producers. "Their farming system is based on principle, that the system that we have developed is a system that really delivers these things and every time we talk about things like taking holidays from principles it undermines that belief and that integrity."
Editor's Comment: Lawrence Woodward has captured the essence of this situation exactly and clearly stated it. I thoroughly agree with him here.
Renee Elliott, founder of the Planet Organic chain, said: "Consumer trust is crucial. It's a very complicated, very well regulated mechanism for producing the best quality food. This cannot affect that." The National Farmers Union has not yet endorsed the proposal, saying it wants to be certain that anything which helps one group of farmers does not harm another. And the Government is biding its time, saying it wants more evidence showing just how bad the situation is for organic farmers and how much support the Soil Association has.
Editor's Comment: Technically, an organically certified producer is prohibited from bringing in manure from a non organic farm for the obvious reason that the animal will have passed through possibly harmful pesticides, herbicides and fungicides from the feed. This is just one of many problems that will come up if this derogation is allowed. What makes a farm organic and who decides what procedures and principles are organic? Well, folks, since 1991, it has been the European Commission. (formally ECC)
January 31, 2009
Farmers seeking organic 'holiday'
By Keith Doyle BBC News
"Farmers have approached ministers seeking a relaxation in organic rules to help them survive the recession. The BBC has seen figures showing a demand for organic food has fallen. The move would mean farmers could cut costs without losing their organic status. Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, said farmers could put animals on non-organic feed without their land losing its organic status. Sales of organic foods have plummeted by 13% in the last three months.
Editor's Comment: The Timesonline article on 22 December, 2008 stated: "Sales of organic food slumped 10 per cent in the 12 weeks up to the end of November, according to the latest figures from the consumer researchers TNS." [See Newsletter 273, 31 December, 2008] Again, I have searched the TNS site and cannot find this reference. Now the figure cited is 13% and I am no closer to finding the source of these statistics. Sales have dropped because growth has slowed. Many reports that I have seen confirm that growth has slowed but demand is still strong. Let me provide some examples here:
'Sales of organic produce fall 19%' (8 September, 2008)Clio Turton, of the Soil Association, says, "What we are seeing now is a plateau rather than reversal. Year-on-year over the last decade, average growth has been 25 per cent. We are predicting a 10 per cent growth for 2007. While this is down, it is still a growing market."Financial Times (5 Sept)
Asda: 25 per cent increase in organic salesAsda have sent out a press release titled "Supermarket bucks the trend and reports significant growth in organics." It writes: "Despite the bleak economic outlook, ASDA has seen an increase of 25 per cent in sales of its organic range in the last quarter whilst the rest of the market has grown at just under three per cent." (Sept 2008) It lists one of the reasons behind this growth as due to better availability of organic products as ASDA now stocks a range of 900 organic items.
"Wholefoods’ Mr. Besancon argued consumers were treating organic purchases differently from those of other premium products. '...When you buy organic you believe it is inherently better for you and the planet,' he said. 'Who can afford to get sick? So people are becoming more introspective about what they eat. There is growth in the category. It is just less than it was.'" BY NIGEL HUNT and BRAD DORFMAN, Reuters 29 January, 2009
"Patrick Holden, director of Britain’s leading organic certification body the Soil Association, said he was getting mixed reports, with some consumers switching from organic to cheaper free-range products. Demand for many products is, however, holding up well. Some are benefiting from growing demand for locally produced food. 'Organic food with a local story is bucking the recession," he said. "This recession has destabilized things a little, but not catastrophically.' Mr. Holden said about 20% of organic food sales were vulnerable, being bought by "light green" purchasers who had been influenced by the actions of other consumers. These he contrasted with the "deep greens" who make up 80% of demand and are committed to the benefits for health and the environment. 'Storm and tempest won’t affect their buying habits," he said. "I think that rump of committed consumers [is] with us to stay.'"
Editor's Comment: Then why ask DEFRA for a derogation to separate organic land from organic stock?
BY NIGEL HUNT and BRAD DORFMAN, Reuters 29 January, 2009
Editor's Comment: Why risk undermining consumer confidence in organic principles and procedures by twiddling the organic regulations to favour one set of organic producers [grain] over another set? [cattle] Surely the Soil Association charity should be keeping at arms length from these certification controversies. As Lawrence Woodward of Elm Farm Research says below: "It undermines the view that consumers have about the integrity of organic product."
The Soil Association has already asked Rural Affairs Secretary Hilary Benn to consider the benefits of relaxing the rules for an indefinite period while it consults other bodies. Mr Melchett said: "Over a dozen other certifying groups are backing the proposal which would allow meat and dairy farmers to use non-organic feed, typically costing half the price.
Editor's Comment: There are not a dozen more certifying groups operating in the UK, so this must take in other EU countries as well.
"The animals would not be sold as organic but farmers would not [editor's emphasis] have to go through the lengthy and expensive process of returning their land to being organic when the economy picks up."
Editor's Comment: Of course, this does not apply to the stock. The Soil Association made it quite clear on 22 December Today's News entry - "Farmers would be encouraged to return to full standards as soon as possible and would need to go through the same conversion period as any converting farmer."
Dairy farmer Noel Marsh has spent two years and hundreds of thousands of pounds to make his farm organic, but is living through tough times. He told BBC Breakfast: "People are buying less organic milk and more conventional. "And the product we are selling is not achieving the price it should at the moment, with feed costs higher than we have ever known them."
Editor's Comment: The question that is crying out to be asked here is: Who decides what the price should be? For instance, what should the price of a house be? As for the cost of organic feed, as I wrote to Helen Browning, who provides organic grain? If the problem is that organic grain is too high, then I recommend that this problem be investigated. Is it the organic grain producer that is charging too much? Is it the wholesaler? Is it the retailer? Find out and put pressure where it is needed. Or, maybe the problem is the attitude that justifies a business to simply charge as much as the market will bear.
Mr Marsh is undecided on whether the proposal would work for him but thinks other organic farmers would benefit. But Lawrence Woodward of the Organic Research Centre rejected the idea as "muddled" and "arguably stupid". He said: "It undermines the view that consumers have about the integrity of organic product, about the fact that organic farmers are principled producers. "Their farming system is based on principle, that the system that we have developed is a system that really delivers these things and every time we talk about things like taking holidays from principles it undermines that belief and that integrity."
Editor's Comment: Lawrence Woodward has captured the essence of this situation exactly and clearly stated it. I thoroughly agree with him here.
Renee Elliott, founder of the Planet Organic chain, said: "Consumer trust is crucial. It's a very complicated, very well regulated mechanism for producing the best quality food. This cannot affect that." The National Farmers Union has not yet endorsed the proposal, saying it wants to be certain that anything which helps one group of farmers does not harm another. And the Government is biding its time, saying it wants more evidence showing just how bad the situation is for organic farmers and how much support the Soil Association has.
Editor's Comment: Technically, an organically certified producer is prohibited from bringing in manure from a non organic farm for the obvious reason that the animal will have passed through possibly harmful pesticides, herbicides and fungicides from the feed. This is just one of many problems that will come up if this derogation is allowed. What makes a farm organic and who decides what procedures and principles are organic? Well, folks, since 1991, it has been the European Commission. (formally ECC)
Saturday, 31 March 2007
Climate change false claims
False Claims about Climate Change causes
(1) The Associated Press Says:
"North Sea water temperatures have climbed 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years, and that has shifted currents, carrying a major food source, plankton, away from the cod, said scientist Chris Reid of the Partnership for Observation of the Global Oceans in Plymouth, England.
"The only way that these increases can be explained is by greenhouse gas emissions," Reid said. In their larval stage, the cod feed on the minute plants and animals known as plankton. Chances of survival without them are slim. North Sea cod that do survive today are smaller and less successful at mating and reproducing, Reid explained. In addition, warmer temperatures increase cod metabolism and the larvae's need for nutrition, he and other marine scientists noted in a 2003 research paper.
Sky Comments: Water temperature in the northern hemisphere always increases during interglacial periods. Temperatures: "Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar temperatures at that time were 3 to 5°C higher than present, because of differences in the Earth’s orbit."
The Quote above was taken from: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science BasisSummary for Policymakers vContribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Page 8 of 21
We must remember firstly that humans did not significantly add carbon to the atmosphere in the previous interglacial period and yet, as quoted above, temperatures in Greenland were higher than at present. There is no way to accurately separate out the natural glacial/interglacial 100,000 year cyclic rise in temperature from the human effects on the greenhouse gasses. Until we can accurately accomplish this, one must be careful with statements such as the above "The only way" implying certainty. There simply is no certainty. Orbital forcing data comparisons of 12,000 year ago and 112,000 years ago do not correlate and I don't believe there is a high degree of agreement among scientists as to the relative weighting to be given to the effects of obliquity, eccentricity and precesion on global temperature highs and lows. Surely this research must proceed with the highest intensity and priority if we are to choose the most effective strategy to counter the effect of increased carbon (methane, CO2, and nitrous oxide) emissions.
(2) The Associated Press says:
"Scientists say rising sea temperatures worldwide are causing more coral bleaching — the draining of color when the fragile animals that form reefs become stressed and spew out the algae that give coral its color and energy to build massive reef structures.
Oceans are also absorbing more carbon dioxide, increasing their acidity and eroding coral's ability to build reef skeletons."
Sky Comments:
Afraid not:
"Another process, called "the biological pump," transfers CO2 from the ocean's surface to its depths. Warm waters at the surface can hold much less CO2 than can cold waters in the deep.
"This is the 'soda bottle on a warm day' effect," says Agassiz professor of biological oceanography James McCarthy, "and is not unique to carbon dioxide; it applies to all gases dissolved in water. There is a higher capacity to hold a gas with a lower temperature than with a higher temperature."
This means that when deep ocean waters rise to the surface as part of normal ocean-circulation patterns, the water heats up and actually releases CO2."
The quote above taken from:
The Ocean Carbon Cycle http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102198.html
Occasions of invalid claims such as the one above are harmful because they add ammunition to the cause of those trying to deflect and defeat efforts to stem the increased flow of human caused greenhouse gasses.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_sc/climate_species_impactThis report was written by AP correspondents Charles J. Hanley, New York; Ben Fox, San Juan; Rohan Sullivan, Sydney; Karl Ritter, Stockholm; Beth Duff-Brown, Toronto; Courtney French, London; and Heidi Vogt, Dakar.
(1) The Associated Press Says:
"North Sea water temperatures have climbed 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years, and that has shifted currents, carrying a major food source, plankton, away from the cod, said scientist Chris Reid of the Partnership for Observation of the Global Oceans in Plymouth, England.
"The only way that these increases can be explained is by greenhouse gas emissions," Reid said. In their larval stage, the cod feed on the minute plants and animals known as plankton. Chances of survival without them are slim. North Sea cod that do survive today are smaller and less successful at mating and reproducing, Reid explained. In addition, warmer temperatures increase cod metabolism and the larvae's need for nutrition, he and other marine scientists noted in a 2003 research paper.
Sky Comments: Water temperature in the northern hemisphere always increases during interglacial periods. Temperatures: "Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4 to 6 m higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar temperatures at that time were 3 to 5°C higher than present, because of differences in the Earth’s orbit."
The Quote above was taken from: INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science BasisSummary for Policymakers vContribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Page 8 of 21
We must remember firstly that humans did not significantly add carbon to the atmosphere in the previous interglacial period and yet, as quoted above, temperatures in Greenland were higher than at present. There is no way to accurately separate out the natural glacial/interglacial 100,000 year cyclic rise in temperature from the human effects on the greenhouse gasses. Until we can accurately accomplish this, one must be careful with statements such as the above "The only way" implying certainty. There simply is no certainty. Orbital forcing data comparisons of 12,000 year ago and 112,000 years ago do not correlate and I don't believe there is a high degree of agreement among scientists as to the relative weighting to be given to the effects of obliquity, eccentricity and precesion on global temperature highs and lows. Surely this research must proceed with the highest intensity and priority if we are to choose the most effective strategy to counter the effect of increased carbon (methane, CO2, and nitrous oxide) emissions.
(2) The Associated Press says:
"Scientists say rising sea temperatures worldwide are causing more coral bleaching — the draining of color when the fragile animals that form reefs become stressed and spew out the algae that give coral its color and energy to build massive reef structures.
Oceans are also absorbing more carbon dioxide, increasing their acidity and eroding coral's ability to build reef skeletons."
Sky Comments:
Afraid not:
"Another process, called "the biological pump," transfers CO2 from the ocean's surface to its depths. Warm waters at the surface can hold much less CO2 than can cold waters in the deep.
"This is the 'soda bottle on a warm day' effect," says Agassiz professor of biological oceanography James McCarthy, "and is not unique to carbon dioxide; it applies to all gases dissolved in water. There is a higher capacity to hold a gas with a lower temperature than with a higher temperature."
This means that when deep ocean waters rise to the surface as part of normal ocean-circulation patterns, the water heats up and actually releases CO2."
The quote above taken from:
The Ocean Carbon Cycle http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102198.html
Occasions of invalid claims such as the one above are harmful because they add ammunition to the cause of those trying to deflect and defeat efforts to stem the increased flow of human caused greenhouse gasses.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_sc/climate_species_impactThis report was written by AP correspondents Charles J. Hanley, New York; Ben Fox, San Juan; Rohan Sullivan, Sydney; Karl Ritter, Stockholm; Beth Duff-Brown, Toronto; Courtney French, London; and Heidi Vogt, Dakar.
Tesco Stifling Choice
21 March 2007
Tesco 'ruining towns and stifling choice'
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent The Independent
"Tesco is descending like a black cloud over Britain's towns and cities, stifling choice and fostering a sense of alienation: those are just some of the claims made in a new book about Britain's biggest supermarket. Tescopoly, by Andrew Simms, an economist, charts the rise of Tesco's " pile it high, sell it cheap" approach and damns its ethos, methods and influence. Tesco is depicted as a megalomaniac company that mistreats suppliers and rivals, manipulates planners and helps create "clone towns". With annual profits of £43bn, Tesco takes almost one-third of food spending in the UK but its expansion is being opposed by a varied army of campaigners. A website, Tescopoly, founded by the environmental pressure group Friends of the Earth, the charity War on Want and other organisations, aims to co-ordinate local campaigns. In an independent book of the same name, Mr Simms, the policy director of the New Economics Foundation and one of the site's founders, argues Tesco has a pernicious influence on society." Tesco in numbers
12 Countries with stores (Britain, Ireland, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey, China, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea)
979 Global stores in 2002
2,672 Global stores in 2006
20m British customers weekly
£43bn Sales in 2005/06
£2.2bn Profit in 2005/06
30% Share of UK grocery market
£3.9m pay for Sir Terry Leahy Read more Here
Tesco 'ruining towns and stifling choice'
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent The Independent
"Tesco is descending like a black cloud over Britain's towns and cities, stifling choice and fostering a sense of alienation: those are just some of the claims made in a new book about Britain's biggest supermarket. Tescopoly, by Andrew Simms, an economist, charts the rise of Tesco's " pile it high, sell it cheap" approach and damns its ethos, methods and influence. Tesco is depicted as a megalomaniac company that mistreats suppliers and rivals, manipulates planners and helps create "clone towns". With annual profits of £43bn, Tesco takes almost one-third of food spending in the UK but its expansion is being opposed by a varied army of campaigners. A website, Tescopoly, founded by the environmental pressure group Friends of the Earth, the charity War on Want and other organisations, aims to co-ordinate local campaigns. In an independent book of the same name, Mr Simms, the policy director of the New Economics Foundation and one of the site's founders, argues Tesco has a pernicious influence on society." Tesco in numbers
12 Countries with stores (Britain, Ireland, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Turkey, China, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand and South Korea)
979 Global stores in 2002
2,672 Global stores in 2006
20m British customers weekly
£43bn Sales in 2005/06
£2.2bn Profit in 2005/06
30% Share of UK grocery market
£3.9m pay for Sir Terry Leahy Read more Here
SALSA - Completely Unnecessary and costly
Helping the small producer? I don't think so.
After reading the Ecologist and a few other bits of disappointing news items, I reached a new low when I read about the new initiative designed by some of the most lofty free trade flag flyers to "help" the small producer.
One of the most depressing aspects of starting up a small business is the fact that most of the regulations and restrictions favour the large producer. From health and safety to compost making, only the large, already established can afford to meet the requirements. To add insult to injury one soon encounters the army of inspectors from embedded echelons of bureaucracy in both governmental and private but government supported sources. The most iniquitous are those that in the guise of "helping"- be it the consumer or the producer - obtain funding to provide jobs to "assure" often what the law already requires.
In Smallholders Online Newsletter 178 (28 November, 2006) I submitted the following quote from one of the Red Tractor derivitives:
"Operators of the assurance scheme which underpins the Red Tractor standards have called on livestock markets to apply before Christmas to join up or risk facing potentially damaging delays in attaining assured status. The impact on farmers could be severe if delays occur because, from 1 April 2007, any assured livestock sold through a market which has not joined the scheme will lose its assured status, Assured British Meat has warned."
I claimed that it was coercive to sell assurance to the producer and then take it away because their livestock market refused to pay. Now I fear that yet another expensive assurance scheme will assure that only the large and well established small businesses will be able to afford to access small retail outlets.
The perpetrators bill it as a "local food boost." What a joke. Below I comment on some quotes lifted from the SALSA news item.
"The Safe and Local Supplier Approval (SALSA) scheme removes many of the practical barriers preventing small producers from directly supplying local retailers and caterers."
Sky: If there are barriers, they have been constructed artificially and imposed on the producer by government supported organisations that have frightened retailers into agreeing that they should only buy from companies that carry an expensive label that certifies that they have conformed to what the law requires anyway.
"SALSA is a low cost, but highly rigorous, scheme which works with local producers to ensure they have robust food safety procedures in place. Membership of the SALSA scheme allows producers and processors to demonstrate their ability to meet the necessary legislative requirements."
Sky: At £450, SALSA is not low cost. What is "highly rigorous" about a check sheet that simply follows what DEFRA has already made perfectly clear in booklet after booklet that explains the law and the legal requirements? Farmers are in despair over the reams of paperwork, ear tags, passports and a plethora of other checks to see that they obey the law. The scheme "allows" producers to demonstrate that they meet legal requirements. You see, the fundamental flaw here, as in all inspection schemes, (SALSA calls them "audits") is the mistaken inference that an inspection threat or act will make people honest on the next and subsequent days following the inspection. If a person wants to cheat, they will find a way. Just last week the RSPCA "assurance" scheme received stark criticism:
"The footage gathered by workers at the Hillside Animal Sanctuary, in Frettenham, and passed on to the Evening News shows:· A duck being punched and others being treated roughly and violently grabbed round the neck before being thrown onto the back of a vehicle to be taken for slaughter.· Ducks, some of them obviously injured, being kept in cramped conditions, while dead birds lay beside them on the floor.· The floor of an industrial turkey shed littered with injured and dying birds and one dead bird which is being eaten away by flies.· Squalid conditions at a pig farm near Norwich, where two of the animals appear to be lame and left in pain.All of the farms supply food to leading stores and have been sanctioned by the RSPCA farm animal welfare scheme, Freedom Foods, which is designed to make sure firms rearing animals for food are meeting stringent welfare standards.Farms approved by the RSPCA are allowed to put the "Freedom Foods" logo on their products and demand higher prices."
From Smallholders Online Newsletter Number 191 19 March, 2007. www.smallholders.org
A few years ago I was speaking to an organic certification inspector who told me that not a day goes by that someone doesn't telephone head office to report someone cheating. Yet, the inspection system propaganda continues to treat people as dishonest by telling them that they cannot be trusted. Of course, elementary psychology has shown us that people are much more likely to be trustworthy when they are trusted to begin with. This is especially evident in the behaviour of children. Passing an inspection does NOT demonstrate honesty.
"British Retail Consortium, (BRC) Director General Kevin Hawkins said: 'SALSA is about making it easier for stores to supply local people with goods produced by local suppliers. '"
Sky:
"National buyers, traditionally geared up to source food and drink in quantities suitable for national distribution, require an assurance that the locally sourced food which they are buying meets fundamental legal, food safety and due diligence requirements. SALSA has been developed to meet this need."http://www.salsafood.co.uk/pages/about-us/why-is-salsa-needed.php
Who says they "require" assurance? What about our tax money which funds DEFRA who will enter your property without permission and kill your animals if your paperwork is no in order? If that's not policing the regulations, what are you looking for, the Army?And then there is the Food Standards Agency, FSA.
"[ Enforcement:"The Food Standards Agency oversees local authority enforcement activities for food law. It sets and monitors standards and audits local authorities’ activities to ensure enforcement arrangements are proportionate, consistent and transparent. Powers to enable the Agency to monitor and audit local authorities are contained in the Food Standards Act 1999. The Agency also supports local authorities by funding training, providing grants and making other resources available.]"The FSA is huge and has a lethal bite. And then what about each county's Trading Standards. "[Trading Standards OfficerThe workTrading standards officers (TSOs) protect consumers by making sure that goods and services are bought and sold in a safe and fair trading environment. They advise consumers and businesses, check that businesses keep to the law, investigate complaints and prosecute any traders that break consumer laws. TSOs are employed by local authorities, and their duties may include:
*taking samples of food and goods for testing
*checking that traders’ scalevisiting local traders and businesses to carry out routine checks or investigate complaints
*weights and measures are accurate
*making sure that labelling is correct and advertising is not misleading
*advising consumers and traders about the law
*investigating suspected offences – this may include undercover or surveillance work
*preparing evidence and going to court in prosecution cases
*giving talks to schools and community groups
writing reports and keeping records.]
"East Sussex Trading Standards advise businesses about and enforce numerous pieces of food standard legislation, including regulations on food labelling. http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/business/tradingstandards/foodsafety/default.htm#subtitle2"These people will close you down if you don't uphold the law.How about the Health and Safety Executive?
"[Health and Safety ExecutiveLegislation The aim of this site is to raise awareness of the range of health and safety legislation that applies to workplaces in Great Britain. It has been designed to:
*help users discover specific legislation that applies to their industry
*explain how to trace and obtain Acts and regulations
*provide links to organisations that can offer advice and guidance on legislation ]"
And then there is each county's Health and Safety department. The following is an example from my own district council.
"[Workplace Health Connect is a new service launched in February this year. It provides free, confidential and impartial advice on creating a safer and more healthy workplace for smaller businesses in England and Wales. http://www.torridge.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=6736]"
All the above are funded by taxpayer money and in place to assist businesses to protect the consumer. So why this expensive "assurance?" Of course, with my sales hat, I can easily imagine talking a retailer into going along with my contention that they "need" my services. I will promise to save them a couple of telephone calls checking up on a supplier. I might be able to persuade them that my inspection (auditing, sorry) will protect them from cheaters. I can ask them to help my organisation take in more fees and get bigger so it can "help" more producers. Following that, I can warn the retailer that in the future the government might force them to accept only SALSA approved product. And, of course the clincher is that the retailer pays absolutely nothing for this convenience. No, the producer pays. So, many retailers might shrug and figure it costs them nothing, so why not? SALSA provides services for "due diligence requirements"? What can this mean? Well, of many definitions, most having to do with legal issues, I came up with this one:
"Due DiligenceThe process of systematically evaluating information, to identify risks and issues relating to a proposed transaction. http://www.strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insof-sdf.nsf/en/so03149e.html"This is what it boils down to: Verify that information is what it is proposed to be. A retailer can do this with a telephone call or check with their local council.The SALSA website claims that the scheme is:
"self funding and founded on not-for-profit principles; it has received start up funding and support from DEFRA, Highland and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise. Standards pdf (pg 3)"
How can a scheme be self-funding when it has received start-up public money and charges the small producer £450? Founded in not-for-profit principles? Is it a not for profit company? Their website says " non-profit making" Is it a corporation limited by guarantee? I don't think so.My fear is that the powerful backers of SALSA will achieve what the BRC has achieved with large retailers. I can't find out the total cost of the BRC but the following from their website will reveal just how large, powerful and expensive they have become since 1998. If they charge £230 for just a copy of their standards document, just imagine what the total package must be worth. Perhaps they have saturated the large retailer market and see expansion downward as the only way to grow.
"British Retail ConsortiumWhy do we need BRC Certification? Who needs BRC Certification?(a) Most large UK retailers will only consider business with suppliers who have gained certification to the appropriate BRC Global Standard.Most manufacturers are required to show that they are certificated to the BRC Standards and continuously comply with the legal and quality requirements of its retail customers.This is because they have a legal responsibility for the products under the Food safety act of 1990 for their own retailer label. Brand owners also have a legal responsibility for their brand under this act.British Retail Consortiumhttp://www.brc.org.uk/standards/default.asp?mainsection_id=10&subsection_id=35
PLEASE NOTE: If you represent a food, packaging or consumer product manufacturer and have been asked by a retailer that you need BRC in order to be a supplier, your company needs certification against the appropriate a BRC Standard. Full details of the certification process can be found on the BRC Global Standards website: http://www.brcglobalstandards.com. andhttp://www.brc.org.uk/ContactUs04.aspFood and Packaging Standards plus Guidelines (Print Version) Standard and Guideline Pack English £230.00http://www.brc.org.uk/standards/default.asp?mainsection_id=2&subsection_id=2"
Above, I have submitted considerable detail in an attempt to establish that SALSA is:
(1) Completely unnecessary to either the producer or the retailer.
(2) An unecessary burden of cost on the small and local producer.
(3) Completely unhelpful to the small and local business.
I can only hope that small retailers will be fully informed as to the cost and adverse effects this scheme will have on their small suppliers before they turn down product from those who simply cannot afford this expensive and unnecessary scheme.
Thursday, 15 March 2007
What is and what is not organic?
14 March 2007
ORGANIC GRAIN SHORTAGES A WORRY FOR POULTRY FARMERS
JOE WATSON
"Huge shortfalls in the supply of organic grain needed to feed the nation's rapidly growing poultry flock will remain for at least another two years."The (grain and feed) trade tells me that most of them will squeeze through this year with supplies and that most will manage, but that they will not have the carryover over of grain that they would like to take into next year. Increasingly they are having to go farther afield for supplies."
Sky's Comment: Where is the crisis here? So the carryover is not large enough to ensure the lowest prices and so the price has gone up.
"That was the warning in Edinburgh yesterday at Scotland's first conference for organic egg producers.
The European Commission is currently considering proposals to temporarily alleviate the problem, which exists across the EU, by doubling to 60% the amount of grain that can be used in organic feeds from farms that are in the process of converting.
Sky's Comment: So here we go again, the old story. Let me ask, In the eyes of the European Commission, [this is the institution that is demanding the destruction of organic by formulating acceptance of 0.9% contamination of grain with GMOs]what drives organic regulation policy? Is it quality of animal life? Ensurence of food devoid of harmful chemicals?
No, not at all, it is clearly a form of price protection, some call it pragmatism. In what kind of regulatory system does the harmfulness of chemicals vary with the slight shortage of grain? Atrazine is harmful and remains harmful regardless of the price of grain. It has taken organisations such as Garden Organic (HDRA) and the Soil Association years and years to build public confidence in organic now to see it undermined by the administrative body of the EU.
("The endocrine-disrupting effects of atrazine are not restricted to frogs. Atrazine reduced olfactory-mediated endocrine functions in salmon at levels commonly observed in polluted water. And it was found to inhibit testosterone production in prepubertal rats." [1])
"Yesterday's conference was organised by John Retson, of Blairgowrie-based poultry supplier JSR Services. He decided to host the event after ditching the firm's stand at the Royal Highland Show. He hoped it would stimulate debate in the organic poultry sector and give producers access to some of the country's biggest packers - Deans, Glenrath Eggs and Strichen-based Farmlay, which is run by the Chapman family."
The whole story is Here
ORGANIC GRAIN SHORTAGES A WORRY FOR POULTRY FARMERS
JOE WATSON
"Huge shortfalls in the supply of organic grain needed to feed the nation's rapidly growing poultry flock will remain for at least another two years."The (grain and feed) trade tells me that most of them will squeeze through this year with supplies and that most will manage, but that they will not have the carryover over of grain that they would like to take into next year. Increasingly they are having to go farther afield for supplies."
Sky's Comment: Where is the crisis here? So the carryover is not large enough to ensure the lowest prices and so the price has gone up.
"That was the warning in Edinburgh yesterday at Scotland's first conference for organic egg producers.
The European Commission is currently considering proposals to temporarily alleviate the problem, which exists across the EU, by doubling to 60% the amount of grain that can be used in organic feeds from farms that are in the process of converting.
Sky's Comment: So here we go again, the old story. Let me ask, In the eyes of the European Commission, [this is the institution that is demanding the destruction of organic by formulating acceptance of 0.9% contamination of grain with GMOs]what drives organic regulation policy? Is it quality of animal life? Ensurence of food devoid of harmful chemicals?
No, not at all, it is clearly a form of price protection, some call it pragmatism. In what kind of regulatory system does the harmfulness of chemicals vary with the slight shortage of grain? Atrazine is harmful and remains harmful regardless of the price of grain. It has taken organisations such as Garden Organic (HDRA) and the Soil Association years and years to build public confidence in organic now to see it undermined by the administrative body of the EU.
("The endocrine-disrupting effects of atrazine are not restricted to frogs. Atrazine reduced olfactory-mediated endocrine functions in salmon at levels commonly observed in polluted water. And it was found to inhibit testosterone production in prepubertal rats." [1])
"Yesterday's conference was organised by John Retson, of Blairgowrie-based poultry supplier JSR Services. He decided to host the event after ditching the firm's stand at the Royal Highland Show. He hoped it would stimulate debate in the organic poultry sector and give producers access to some of the country's biggest packers - Deans, Glenrath Eggs and Strichen-based Farmlay, which is run by the Chapman family."
The whole story is Here
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Supermarket Exploitation
8 March, 2007
Shopped! How supermarkets rip you off
By JOANNA BLYTHMAN
The Daily Mail Supermarkets use clever tricks to push up their profits
"Think you're making a saving by shopping at a superstore? Joanna Blythman reveals the devious tricks the big supermarkets use to make rip-offs look like bargains. Fall for one con - get another one FREE: Every little helps! The very best for less! Everyday low prices! Quality food attractively priced! Listen to our supermarkets' slogans and you might be persuaded that they all compete madly to give price conscious shoppers the very best deal. But do they? Earlier this week, it was revealed that Tesco's 'half-price' fruit and veg promotion in the New Year was not all that it seemed. The price of the produce was doubled for one week, making it twice as expensive as normal, before being cut back to its usual price, thus enabling the supermarket to claim that it was offering a 50 per cent discount. So what other marketing gimmicks and sly pricing strategies do the supermarkets use to fool the customer? Here, Joanna Blythman - a leading food campaigner and author of Bad Food Britain: How A Nation Ruined Its Appetite - explains how its done." Editor's Comments: Doubling the price of sale goods just before the sale is not a new trick. Joanna continues with an explanation of:
THE DAZZLE FACTOR - These are loss leaders, not a new trick either.
FRESH FOOD GOLDMINE - "that's because in these key fresh food categories, supermarkets are nearly always pricier than traditional High Street shops."
THE VITAL ECO IMAGE - organic and Fairtrade products are targeted for high profuit margins because we expect to pay more (at least 36%)
SQUEEZING - two for one, the supermarket is not paying for this, guess who? "In order to be an approved supplier to a supermarket, farmers and food producers are expected to underwrite the cost of any special promotions themselves." "......But if they don't jump to the supermarkets' tune and agree to fund these special offers, the farmer or supplier risks being axed altogether."
SPEND, SPEND, SPEND! - "A staggering 40 per cent of all food bought in the UK is thrown out uneaten. Good news for the supermarket, not good news for their customers' bank accounts." Why, because we are encouraged by the huge display of variety and abundance to buy more than we need.
A NUMBERS GAME - "But there are lots of traps for the unwary. For example, that eyecatching 'Half-price' or '£1 off' banner might relate to the price-per-kilo, rather than the price-per-pack, meaning that on relatively light items, such as spinach, the heavily-promoted reduction is, in fact, utterly insignificant."".........Equally, when you rush to buy those two-for-the-price-of-one punnets of blueberries, you may not notice that the pack size has been reduced from normal - leaving you paying the same price by weight as before, while thinking you've got a bargain." "...........Incidentally, while greengrocers, butchers and fishmongers tend to advertise their prices in kilos, supermarkets specialise in arbitrary pack sizes, like 225 grams.This makes it far harder for customers to work out how much they are paying for what quantity."
CHANGING PRICES - "Supermarkets are allowed to use 'dynamic pricing' - varying prices to take account of different markets.In practice, some supermarkets use this to charge more where they can get away with it - for example, in a more affluent area. Even within one town, a supermarket chain's prices can vary, so a box of cornflakes in one of their city centre convenience stores may well cost you more than if you bought it in their superstore nearby."
THE FEEL GOOD FACTOR - Sales to help the local school? Think again. "For example, last month the Mail revealed how in order to qualify for a 'free' trampoline worth £3,000 from Tesco, parents would have to spend the equivalent of £1 million at the supermarket tills."
THE SHOPPING 'SNOOP' - "Ever wondered why the person at the check-out is so keen to scan your 'customer loyalty card'? It's not because they're desperate for you to collect as many loyalty points as possible. No, it's so the chain can collate information about your shopping habits - where you shop, what you buy, how often and so on. When linked with the personal details you gave them when you signed up for the scheme, this enables them to target you with promotions by post that are tailored around your shopping habits."
This is only for starters.
If you feel inclined to learn how some supermarkets treat their suppliers and the farmer, then have a look at Felicity Lawrence's book "Not on the Label"
I thought I knew all the tricks but this one was a real shocker. Then their is Tesco's vast real estate, Walmart with ASDA Phew.
JOANNA BLYTHMAN is author of Shopped: The Shocking Power of British Supermarkets.
Shopped! How supermarkets rip you off
By JOANNA BLYTHMAN
The Daily Mail Supermarkets use clever tricks to push up their profits
"Think you're making a saving by shopping at a superstore? Joanna Blythman reveals the devious tricks the big supermarkets use to make rip-offs look like bargains. Fall for one con - get another one FREE: Every little helps! The very best for less! Everyday low prices! Quality food attractively priced! Listen to our supermarkets' slogans and you might be persuaded that they all compete madly to give price conscious shoppers the very best deal. But do they? Earlier this week, it was revealed that Tesco's 'half-price' fruit and veg promotion in the New Year was not all that it seemed. The price of the produce was doubled for one week, making it twice as expensive as normal, before being cut back to its usual price, thus enabling the supermarket to claim that it was offering a 50 per cent discount. So what other marketing gimmicks and sly pricing strategies do the supermarkets use to fool the customer? Here, Joanna Blythman - a leading food campaigner and author of Bad Food Britain: How A Nation Ruined Its Appetite - explains how its done." Editor's Comments: Doubling the price of sale goods just before the sale is not a new trick. Joanna continues with an explanation of:
THE DAZZLE FACTOR - These are loss leaders, not a new trick either.
FRESH FOOD GOLDMINE - "that's because in these key fresh food categories, supermarkets are nearly always pricier than traditional High Street shops."
THE VITAL ECO IMAGE - organic and Fairtrade products are targeted for high profuit margins because we expect to pay more (at least 36%)
SQUEEZING - two for one, the supermarket is not paying for this, guess who? "In order to be an approved supplier to a supermarket, farmers and food producers are expected to underwrite the cost of any special promotions themselves." "......But if they don't jump to the supermarkets' tune and agree to fund these special offers, the farmer or supplier risks being axed altogether."
SPEND, SPEND, SPEND! - "A staggering 40 per cent of all food bought in the UK is thrown out uneaten. Good news for the supermarket, not good news for their customers' bank accounts." Why, because we are encouraged by the huge display of variety and abundance to buy more than we need.
A NUMBERS GAME - "But there are lots of traps for the unwary. For example, that eyecatching 'Half-price' or '£1 off' banner might relate to the price-per-kilo, rather than the price-per-pack, meaning that on relatively light items, such as spinach, the heavily-promoted reduction is, in fact, utterly insignificant."".........Equally, when you rush to buy those two-for-the-price-of-one punnets of blueberries, you may not notice that the pack size has been reduced from normal - leaving you paying the same price by weight as before, while thinking you've got a bargain." "...........Incidentally, while greengrocers, butchers and fishmongers tend to advertise their prices in kilos, supermarkets specialise in arbitrary pack sizes, like 225 grams.This makes it far harder for customers to work out how much they are paying for what quantity."
CHANGING PRICES - "Supermarkets are allowed to use 'dynamic pricing' - varying prices to take account of different markets.In practice, some supermarkets use this to charge more where they can get away with it - for example, in a more affluent area. Even within one town, a supermarket chain's prices can vary, so a box of cornflakes in one of their city centre convenience stores may well cost you more than if you bought it in their superstore nearby."
THE FEEL GOOD FACTOR - Sales to help the local school? Think again. "For example, last month the Mail revealed how in order to qualify for a 'free' trampoline worth £3,000 from Tesco, parents would have to spend the equivalent of £1 million at the supermarket tills."
THE SHOPPING 'SNOOP' - "Ever wondered why the person at the check-out is so keen to scan your 'customer loyalty card'? It's not because they're desperate for you to collect as many loyalty points as possible. No, it's so the chain can collate information about your shopping habits - where you shop, what you buy, how often and so on. When linked with the personal details you gave them when you signed up for the scheme, this enables them to target you with promotions by post that are tailored around your shopping habits."
This is only for starters.
If you feel inclined to learn how some supermarkets treat their suppliers and the farmer, then have a look at Felicity Lawrence's book "Not on the Label"
I thought I knew all the tricks but this one was a real shocker. Then their is Tesco's vast real estate, Walmart with ASDA Phew.
JOANNA BLYTHMAN is author of Shopped: The Shocking Power of British Supermarkets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)