As any cereal farmer will tell you, the wheat harvest is underway �“ subject to the weather. The good news for Britain’s 30,000 or so grain producers is that the harvest is likely to be the most abundant since 2000. The Home Grown Cereals Authority, which monitors such matters, reports that the grain harvest should yield some 16.5 million tonnes. This compares with an average of around 14 million tonnes in recent years, and a low point last year when torrential rains cut the crop to 13.2 million tonnes.

This year, of course, the EU’s set-aside scheme ended, enabling farmers to plant tens of thousands of more acres across the country. That, together with a substantial increase in world grain prices should see British grain producers making a substantial profit this year �“ something that proves that there is a future in farming providing the circumstances are right. Now, no serious politician would claim to be able to control the weather, but the dropping of set-aside, something that can be controlled, has clearly been beneficial to the farmer in terms of increasing production. And before the misinformed begin whining on about how “farmers are coining it this year”, it should be remembered that most grain growers just about broke even last year and didn’t do too well the year before that either!

However, should this year’s grain harvest turn out to be as good as many are predicting, and that is subject to reasonable weather between now and the middle of the month, then the cereal yield across Britain could be up by an impressive 13% over last year �“ with wheat production up by 14% over the same period! Whereas two or three years ago wheat was selling at around £70 per tonne �“ it is currently selling at nearly double that. However, it must be remembered that prices are determined by the quality of the grain �“ an extended period of rain could even now reduce the quality and the price per tonne, rendering it only fit for sale as animal feed.

Many farmers plan to reinvest the profits from this year’s harvest into farm infrastructure and machinery �“ something many need to do as the cash has not been there for that purpose for some years now. As one farmer put it: “This is the year to bank profits against the future, restructure debt or reinvest in machinery and infrastructure.”

However there is one dark cloud looming on the horizon. Many grain producers will do well this year because they bought their inputs for the 2007 harvest, such as fertiliser and diesel for tractors, at last year’s prices �“ the cost of both having now rocketed skywards. They will go into next year without these advantages and be largely dependent on Mother Nature as to whether they will make a profit, break even or even suffer a loss!

But while many grain farmers are likely to be celebrating later this month when the harvest is safely in, the same cannot be said of Britain’s livestock farmers. This is largely because the sharp increase in the wheat price that has so benefited the growers, is now acting against the consumers in terms of animal feed prices. Although cereal farms are expected to see profits boosted by around 40% per cent, the average pig farmer, for instance, is expected to make a loss of more than £4,000, while poultry farmers are expected to see profits fall by a massive 90%.

The British National Party is the only political party in Britain that recognises the strategic importance of farming. It should never be forgotten that twice during the last century that this country was nearly brought to its knees by enemy blockade. The British farmer, together with the mariners of the Merchant Marine and Royal Navy saw us through. The role of the British farming industry is to feed the nation - it must be given every support in achieving and maintaining this responsibility. We alone, amongst the political parties, recognise the importance of the British farming industry to the nation and consequently we are not prepared to see it reduced or destroyed either by unfair foreign competition, unfettered free trade, Government intransigence or by any other factor; which is why the farming industry, particularly that part of it comprising the family-owned farm, will find no better friend in politics than this party.

There can be no doubt that few things are more essential to our everyday lives than food.

Unfortunately not enough people are asking themselves whether they can trust the food they eat. The politicians and food industry spokesmen tell us that the chemicals, growth hormones, additives and antibiotics the food industry insists on adulterating our food with is both “essential” and “good for us”! In addition, those who campaign for wholesome food and especially against GM products, are ridiculed as being “misinformed” or “backward looking”!

The British National Party believes the road ahead is for a return to unadulterated organic food, food we can trust. In particular we want a GM-free Britain and a return to proven organic production methods as far as is practically posible. During the last decade the quantity of organic food produced in Europe has gone up five fold, so clearly there is a demand for real food in this country of ours. Unfortunately the Government has done little to encourage British producers to expand organic production �“ this despite our country having one of the largest markets for organic produce in the Western World. It is a sad fact that less than half of the organic food we eat is actually homegrown. The British National Party will promote real food over the processed and adulterated variety, and encourage food producers to meet the resulting growing demand for real food, at an affordable price to the consumer.

Furthermore, British Nationalists advocate proper and prominent labelling on food packaging. We believe the consumer has a right to know what they are being sold, so that they are better equipped to decide for themselves whether they want to buy it.

In addition, as part of our drive for a return to real food, British Nationalists advocate a major expansion in the provision of the traditional allotment �“ this being a facility that has served both families and communities well for many decades.

British Nationalists also believe that the British public, by and large, care - as we do - about the treatment of animals. We believe that farm animals have a right not to suffer, and our stand against intensive factory production lines promotes respect and compassion in farming. Furthermore, British Nationalists, unlike the so-called “Green” Party, are opposed to the most prolific form of animal cruelty practised in Britain today �“ that of the cruel and barbaric slow-death ritual slaughter of millions of our farm animals every year - for no other reason than to appease the theological dogma of certain religious groups.

The British National Party believes in local family owned shops selling the wholesome produce of local family owned farms and allotments, at affordable prices, to local people.

Hence our stance that as far as is possible food should be grown locally, for sale in local shops and markets, to local people. We see little value in chemically grown produce that has been transported thousands of polluting miles to reach the consumer - it’s time to rediscover real food and to refocus our farming industry into fulfilling that need.

A few days ago respected environmental campaigner and organic grower, Robert Baehr, shared some of his views with us, on the use of additives in our food. Since then a number of readers have commented upon one such additive - a “sweetener” widely marketed under the name of Aspartame.

For the benefit of our readership, we draw your attention to an article that begins:

“Today we have “Nutra-Sweet”, which is widely used in a plethora of consumables, despite a demonstrated neurological reaction in some people. In February 1996, it was decided to also use the product name “Benevia”. It is estimated that as many as 20,000,000 people cannot metabolize phenylalimine, and this inability is genetically inherited by children. The inability to metabolize phenylalinine can lead to mental retardation in children. This means a risk of retardation for millions of children. A multi-billion dollar enterprise, this substance is said to be “refined” from “natural” substances. Like other “refined” substances, it represents a health threat to the general public. No long term studies have been performed to evaluate the physiological effects of this substance, yet the public is lead to believe it is absolutely safe. Technically, the chemical is called aspartame, and it was once on a Pentagon list of biowarfare chemicals submitted to Congress. [1] Aspartame is in over 4,000 products worldwide and is consumed by over 200 million people in the United States alone. What follows is a skeletal examination of the chronology related to aspartame. A more detailed chronology is given later in this chapter based on information provided to us by the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network.

Approval was followed by a retraction based on demonstrated public concern over the fact that the substance produced brain tumors in rats. According to the 1974 FDA task force set up to examine aspartame and G.D.Searle, “we have uncovered serious deficiencies in Searles operations and practices, which undermine the basis for reliance on Searle’s integrity in conducting high quality animal research to accurately determine the toxic potential of its products.” The task force report concluded with the recommendation that G.D. Searle should face a Grand Jury “to identify more particularly the nature of the violations, and to identify all those responsible.” [2]

The remainder of this article may be found here .

A further point of interest within the article is mention of the American bio-tech giant Monsanto �“ a company that came to notoriety through its manufacturing of a “safe” dioxine herbicide know as “Agent Orange” �“ used as a tree defoliant by the US military in Vietnam and subsequently responsible for genetic defects and cancer amongst hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, pareticularly newborn babes. More recently Monsanto has been seen promoting its GM products in both Britain and Europe �“ products it, of course, claims to be “safe”!

In researching a suitable image to accompany this story we have come across several too appalling to publish on a site catering for family viewing �“ please take our word for it that the image above, alleged to show a five-year old victim of “Agent Orange”, is mild in comparison!