A farming supporter of Land & People recently described the difference between the Labour and Tory parties thus:

Labour is the crazed madman who runs at with a knife with the obvious intention of doing you harm. The Tory is the quietly spoken type who smiles to your face before plunging a dagger into you as soon as you turn your back!

The recent history of the farming industry would appear to bear that observation out. We’ll give you three examples to demonstrate the point.

Example One: When the debate over fox hunting raged and Labour was preparing its anti-hunting legislation, Tories the length of and breadth of Britain were telling the hunting fraternity how much they supported their cause. Yet despite Labour arguing for a ban on supposed animal welfare grounds the Tories refused to play the one card that would have seen Labour dropping their proposed anti-hunt legislation faster than the proverbial hot potato. That “card” was �“ ritual slaughter.

Ritual slaughter, is an imported and barbaric practice, which requires the slitting of the throat of live un-stunned animals �“ thereby consigning these unfortunate creatures to a prolonged and painful death through the slow haemorrhaging of blood. It is to the eternal shame of this country that literary millions of British animals suffer this horrific death annually for no other reason than to satisfy the theological requirements of imported religions �“ such as Islam. There can be not the slightest doubt that ritual slaughter, much of it by the halal method, is the single most prolific form of animal abuse practised in Britain today. And yet, whilst Labour argued for a ban on hunting on animal welfare grounds - quoting a figure of some five thousand foxes being destroyed each year �“ the two-faced treacherous Tories remained silent over the slow-death killing of up to five million cattle, sheep, lambs and chickens per annum!

So why didn’t the Tories play the ritual slaughter “card” to destroy Labour’s case for a ban on hunting?

The reason is quite simple. Not only would they have lost the financial support of a number of their key ethnic minority millionaire backers �“ but they would have also lost the support of hundreds of thousands of their ethnic minority voters in communities that adhere to ritual slaughter religions!

And, as is so often the case, the Tories made all the right noises for the benefit of the hunting lobby whilst avoiding, like the proverbial plague, the one issue that would have killed Labour’s anti-hunting proposals stone dead!

Example 2: When the dairy industry was in crisis due to the miserable price being paid by the creameries, dairies and supermarkets to dairy farmers for liquid milk at the farm gate - what were the Tories doing? Once again they were busy making the “right noises” - reassuring producers that they were “on their side” and doing “everything they could” to get a better deal for dairy farmers.

Considering the quantity of hot air expended by the Tories in pledging their support it is somewhat surprising that they failed to achieve anything of note for struggling producers. But, then again, perhaps it wasn’t so surprising - considering how much money the two-faced treacherous Tory Party was receiving from its commercial backers, particularly those having an interest in keeping the price of milk low!

Example 3: Then, of course, we have the ongoing issue of cheap foreign imports undermining the British producer �“ Eastern European milk and South American beef being just two products that spring singularly and powerfully to mind. Whilst the two-faced treacherous Tories continue to sweet talk producers on how they “sympathise with the plight of farmers” they continue to support both the EU legislation and unbridled free trade that is facilitating the importation of huge quantities of cheap Eastern European milk and sub-standard Brazilian beef into Britain, to undermine the very producers they claim to be supporting! Needless to say, cheap imported milk and beef being two products, amongst many, that whilst helping to eradicate the British producer, turns in handsome profits for the supermarkets so beloved of by the two-faced treacherous Tory Party!

Tories �“ running with the fox whilst hunting with the pack!

Over the next few months British Sugar will be processing virtually the entire British sugar beet crop to produce refined sugar for use in a multitude of industries ranging from confectionary to bio-ethanol. It is thought likely that this year British growers will produce in the region of 7.5 million tonnes of beet �“ mostly in the East Midlands and East Anglia �“ from which British Sugar will refine around 1 million tonnes of white sugar.

With substantially increased fuel and fertiliser costs, British producers were very unhappy with the £24/£25 per tonne price originally offered by British Sugar for their beet crop. After some persuading the National Farmers Union (NFU) recently met up with the company in an attempt to negotiate a better deal. Producers want around £30 per tonne, but despite the efforts of the NFU �“ efforts that have not impressed many producers from what we understand �“ the best they have been able to achieve is a revised offer that equates to around £26 per tonne. Now, whereas the big landowners and company owned combines can derive a useful profit based on this offer - due to being able to apply economies of scale - the smaller producer can’t.

By anyone’s standards £26 for a tonne of sugar beet can hardly be considered just reward. For the average beet producer it just about covers the cost of production with a little to spare �“ only the “big boys” on the large private and company estates have anything to celebrate. It is certainly not the sort of price on which the average producer will make his fortune, and brings into question the long-term viability of the sugar beet industry inasmuch as the “small man”, working the family-run farm, is concerned.

Yet, according to British Sugar’s own promotional blurb, last year they bought the entire British sugar beet crop for approximately £180 million �“ which suggests a price paid to producers of around £25 per tonne. That was, of course, before this year’s huge increases in both diesel and fertiliser costs.

Assuming producers are forced to accept the £26 per tonne currently on offer, then the cost to British Sugar of this year’s crop will be around £190 million. A lot of money �“ but perhaps not that much considering white sugar for October delivery is currently commanding a price of £398 per tonne! This would suggest that British Sugar’s £190 million outlay will realise some £398 million in terms of refined white sugar!

Under the circumstances, Land & People is left wondering what is preventing British Sugar from upping their offer from £26 per tonne for beet to at least £28 per tonne �“ if not the full £30 per tonne requested? Surely margins in the world of sugar refining can’t be that tight?

As matters stand both British Sugar and the NFU are leaving a taste in the mouths of producers �“ and it isn’t a sweet one! Additionally, the NFU is again seen as leaving itself open to the accusation that it is run by and for the “big man” �“ to the detriment of the many “little men” in the industry.

Land & People supports calls for a fair deal for our beet producers.

Land & People reported only a few days ago how the banks were doing very nicely out of the succession of crises hitting British farming in recent years. We can now tell you just how nicely. According to recently disclosed Bank of England figures the current level of lending to agriculture is now at an all-time high of £10.6 BILLION and growing.

Even more alarming is the revelation that this figure has increased by almost one billion pounds in the last year alone!

To get some idea of what £10.6 billion worth of debt equates to we’ll refer to this year’s anticipated bumper wheat harvest. At the present time and subject to the weather, it is estimated that a record 16 million tonnes of wheat will be harvested by the end of the month. Now, although the price of top quality wheat is around £140 per tonne the poorer grain, to go as animal feed, will probably reduce the overall price per tonne to around £100. In other words Britain’s bumper wheat harvest is estimated to be worth around £1.6 billion.

Taking into account the cereal harvest and all other agricultural production this year, it is probable that this has a value of around £12 billion. In other words the current level of indebtedness of the industry to the banks approximately equates to the entire annual agricultural output of the industry! Put another way, the banks own the harvest �“ not just of wheat but of all other agricultural commodities!

But, in a very real sense, the problem is even worse - as this is interest bearing debt that is serviced by interest payments that probably exceeds half a billion pounds per annum!

Returning to the cereal producers for a moment; it is likely that many will make a tidy profit this year �“ as opposed to breaking even last year, and the year before that. They, of course, are the lucky ones �“ for they will have the luxury of being able to choose whether to reduce their bank borrowings, to invest in new plant or a little of both. Other farmers, particular livestock producers, won’t have that luxury �“ as the high price of feed combined with rocketing diesel and other costs means that most will make a loss. To some extent the same can be said of dairy farmers, where the profit made from increased milk prices has been eroded by higher operating costs.

The bottom line is clear, whilst the industry as a whole is “soldiering on” �“ some farmers better than others �“ it is doing so whilst servicing an extraordinary level of debt. This is manageable during times of bumper harvests �“ but what is going to happen when harvests are not so fruitful and when the Bank of England base-lending rate is ratcheted significantly upwards from the current 5%?

Land & People asks: How many well-run family farms could survive a substantial and prolonged base-lending rate increase in a poor agricultural year we wonder? Furthermore �“ should the economy continue to decline and the banks apply “the squeeze” with a vengeance �“ with this Labour regime come to the aid of the industry or support the banks? Silly question really �“ because on recent past experience we all know the answer to that one!

One of the best nature videos (in our opinion) on YouTube is that showing a year in the life of the River Torridge, sister to The Taw, in North Devon. This being set to one of Ralph Vaughan Williams’ compositions. The courses of the Torridge and Taw form much of North Devon’s “Tarka Trail” - well worth exploring - using the old market town of Barnstaple as your base. The trail is named after Henry Williamson’s creation - Tarka the Otter - which, as it happens, is just one of the creatures to be seen in the video.

It is reported that over the last two years London’s beekeepers lost half their hives. Indeed, during last winter alone, it is estimated that almost a third of British hives lost their bees. According to the chairman of the London Beekeeepers Association: “If you give hives a thump, you get a little roar coming back, and I didn’t get any roars. Some had bees but the mysterious ones had virtually nothing. Everything had disappeared.” The last time bee losses were this serious, according to the record books, was before the First World War.

Land & People has previously reported on “Colony Collapse Disorder” (CCD), a so far unexplained phenomenon that has led to the loss of more than a third of US hives this year and a considerable number across Europe. Although a number of theories to explain this phenomenon are extant �“ the favoured appears to be that the radiation from mobile phone mast transmitters are disorientating bees to the extent they are unable to find their way back to their home hive.

The problem is larger than many appreciate and goes much further than the production of honey. According to DEFRA, bee pollination alone is worth around £200 million per annum to agriculture. So potentially serious is the issue that DEFRA commenced a public inquiry on improving the health of honeybees, which concludes at the end of this month. In addition the loss of so many bees will inevitably have an effect on Britain’ honey producers �“ an industry that normally produces around £30 million of honey per year.

In the US not only has the industry been ravaged by CCD for much longer than either here in Britain, or across the Channel in Europe, but the scale of the problem is far larger. There the US Department of Agriculture estimates that bee pollination adds around £8 billion to crop values. Consequently it should come as no surprise that US government scientists are engaged in an investigation into the problem. Amongst possible causes being investigated are pesticides, natural diseases, parasites, man-made factors (mobile phone radiation) or any combination of these!

Here in Britain the experts tell us that we have all the components of the US-style disorder in terms of disease. In addition, it is clear that the onus is on DEFRA to act because failure to resolve the problem will be reflected in lower crop yields. Bee pollination is estimated to be worth around £90 million to apple producers and around £20 million to both oilseed and raspberry growers.

The importance of the humble bee to agriculture is enormous - bees pollinate a third of everything that we eat - a shortage of bees means a shortage of food �“ the problem extends far beyond honey.

Yet despite the importance of this issue Labour’s DEFRA has only budgeted a paltry £200,000 on research �“ this is about what it costs to “run” a single one of their parasitic Westminster MPs. To put this figure into some sort of comparison, the beekeepers’ association says an extra £7.7 million is needed over five years to properly fund bee studies. As one expert commented: “In the sum of the whole of the agriculture business, it’s a drop in the ocean. There’s insufficient allocation for research, and bees are so fundamental to our environment.”

To make matters worse it is believed that funding of the bee health program is unlikely to change next year, though an additional £90,000 is being spent this year for the National Bee Unit to study the winter losses, DEFRA claims.

Land & People are agog at the Government’s apparent apathy in respect of this problem. Are ministers incapable of grasping the potential enormity of this issue we ask? Can’t they comprehend that failure to pollinate crops on a substantial scale not only threatens abysmal harvests but puts huge sections of the farming industry at risk? In a recent article on this Government’s attitude towards the farming industry we asked whether Labour’s mismanagement of farming was due to misfortune or design? We are still asking!

A great many farmers are up in arms over legislation being prepared by the EU Commission that seeks to slash the number of pesticides used in agriculture, to reduce what it sees as potential threats to human health in particular and to the environment in general. Now Land & People is all for the expansion of organic growing and the reduction, as far as is reasonably practical, of the use of pesticides, fungicides and herbicides in British agriculture.

However, although we accept that the EU Commission may be acting with good intentions, the fact is that this initiative is likely to make the situation even worse, whilst disadvantaging the British producer into the bargain. We’ll now explain why.

Firstly, a reduction in the use of sprays is almost certainly going to result in reduced crop yields per acre �“ this being particularly true as far as potato, brassica and cereal production is concerned. This, in turn, will reduce farm incomes �“ which is no light matter bearing in mind the number of smaller farms, in particular, that are barely breaking even these days. Some farms, but certainly not all, will be able to increase their acreage under cultivation to make up for some of the loss �“ even though this will, in itself, incur further costs in terms of extra fertiliser and diesel.

Secondly, with less productive harvests, the law of supply and demand is likely to kick in with a vengeance. The deficit created through reduced yields will create a vacuum in the market that will be filled with cheap imported produce �“ something further undermining the viability of our producers!

Thirdly, and here’s the rub, imported produce �“ unlike our British produce �“ will, most likely, have been grown with little or no restrictions on the use of chemical sprays. In other words, the public’s exposure to sprayed produce is likely to increase, rather than decrease. Not exactly what is intended we would suggest!

Lastly, the EU Commission’s proposals will be enforced right across the community we are told. But we all know what that means �“ we only have to look at the “enforcement” of fisheries legislation. Whereas a succession of British governments have vigorously policed the rules, the governments of other countries �“ Spain and Italy spring immediately to mind �“ cannot be said to have displayed the same enthusiasm. Now whereas we can guarantee that Brown’s Labour regime in Westminster will enforce every petty fobbing rule to the letter �“ can the same be said of the Slovak, Polish or Rumanian governments in respect of their producers? Of course not and once again the British producer will not only be shafted by unfair Third World competition but also by our supposed “partners” with the EU.

As an aside, Land & People believes the EU Commission’s approach to this issue to be fundamentally flawed. We believe they are applying the wrong yardstick in addressing this issue. Their yardstick is that of “hazard” �“ not that of “risk” - as we would advocate. To explain what we mean consider this:-

A cigarette is hazardous in that it contains a whole raft of carcinogenic and other harmful chemical compounds. However the risk is in the usage. All things being equal, the one cigarette per day man is at considerably less risk than the forty per day man! The hazard for each man is the same - but the risks are entirely different.

It is therefore our opinion that the reduction of chemical spray use in agriculture, which we believe is entirely desirable, should be undertaken in the light of studies that evaluate risk rather than hazard, and implemented in a staged way that neither disadvantages the British producer, nor denies him the time to adapt �“ whilst protecting the consumer from the “chemical-warfare” agricultural produce of less discerning lands.

Yes, let’s rid agriculture of as many chemicals as we reasonably can �“ but let’s not destroy the British producer in the process!

As matters stand, should the EU Commission implement this legislation then we are likely to see the British market flooded with cheaper Third World and Eastern European produce, over which there has been little or no control as far as the application of sprays are concerned.

Does that make any sense at all?

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!