Agricultural experts: Get active to protect and produce America’s food
By: Gretchen Schlosser, West Central Tribune
WILLMAR, MN — “Don’t let what happened to us happen to you.” The words of a German farmer could well be a foretelling of the demise of American animal agriculture and of food safety and security in this country.
Those words were spoken more than 10 years ago but should be taken seriously , according to Chad Gregory, senior vice president of the United Egg Producers, who spoke Friday at the 2010 Strategic Animal Ag Conference in Willmar.
“Just look at Europe,” Gregory said. “They are literally getting to the point where they can’t feed themselves.”
Ten years ago, Europe exported more beef than anyone in the world. Germany’s egg industry was a shining star, with the latest technology.
Now due to restrictions brought about by activists, Gregory says, Europe is the largest importer of beef and 65 percent of the eggs German citizens eat are imported.
Gregory and the UEP stand at the forefront of the battle, between farmers using modern production practices to produce 95 percent of the country’s egg supply and animal rights activists like the Humane Society of the United States, who Gregory says just want to make money off animal welfare issues.
The HSUS is the force behind the California ban on keeping laying hens in cages and gestating sows in crates and behind efforts in many states to change or eliminate modern animal agriculture and U.S.-based food production, Gregory said.
Those efforts have enormous ramifications for all of agriculture and for consumers of food. “If you want your food produced in the U.S., you better get active,” Gregory said. Read More
Many times, our country is told by the Humane Society of the United States and others to look at what Europe is doing as an example of where we need to be with our food production policies. The problem is that they only talk about what they have changed, and not what the consequences of those decisions have been. While Europe is now living with those consequences, they have yet to be seen in states like California where voters have passed laws that restrict the ability of family farmers to produce food. The good news is that it’s not too late to stop this. If farmers and ranchers get active in sharing the accurate story of production agriculture, we can save this country from falling into the same trap Europe did.
Showing posts with label European Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Union. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Monday, June 22, 2009
Europe's Agriculture Situation
'Act now or face food shortages' warns farm expert
www.yourcanterbury.co.uk
A radical overhaul of food production is needed urgently or the UK will face food shortages, a farming expert from Kent has warned.
Dr Howard Lee, who runs the sustainable land management course at Hadlow College near Tonbridge, said that in as little as five years we were heading for “serious food scares”.
“We are going to be face some potential food shortages and we really need to start doing something pretty radical,” he said.
“The degree I’m running produces graduates energised to make some phenomenal changes. We need to overall food production systems.”
He said the UK needed to improve its self-sufficiency in terms of domestic food production.
“We need to be more self-sufficient but actually levels have been dropping over the years,” he said.
Dr Lee said: “Climate change and freaky weather is very bad news for agriculture.”
He said it could impact on the types of crops we produce such as sunflowers and Soya beans being grown in Kent.
“It is the basic food crops I’m more concerned about. We will not have some glorious Mediterranean climate it will be hot but there will be more flash floods,” he said.
To cope with a reduced availability of fertilisers and pesticides, which rely on minerals and fossil fuels, would mean that the huge cereal farms of eastern England would have to reintroduce livestock so that their natural waste would make it easier to build up soil fertility. Read More
Most anti-agriculture groups continually point to the European Union as an example of how the United States should be regulating our food production techniques. What they never tell you is that the EU system can’t feed their population. They are literally on the verge of starvation problems in that area of the world. They are relying on other countries to grow their food rather than doing it themselves. Now that is a great example of being unsustainable. We need to stop regulating our production abilities away or else we will be facing the same issues.
www.yourcanterbury.co.uk
A radical overhaul of food production is needed urgently or the UK will face food shortages, a farming expert from Kent has warned.
Dr Howard Lee, who runs the sustainable land management course at Hadlow College near Tonbridge, said that in as little as five years we were heading for “serious food scares”.
“We are going to be face some potential food shortages and we really need to start doing something pretty radical,” he said.
“The degree I’m running produces graduates energised to make some phenomenal changes. We need to overall food production systems.”
He said the UK needed to improve its self-sufficiency in terms of domestic food production.
“We need to be more self-sufficient but actually levels have been dropping over the years,” he said.
Dr Lee said: “Climate change and freaky weather is very bad news for agriculture.”
He said it could impact on the types of crops we produce such as sunflowers and Soya beans being grown in Kent.
“It is the basic food crops I’m more concerned about. We will not have some glorious Mediterranean climate it will be hot but there will be more flash floods,” he said.
To cope with a reduced availability of fertilisers and pesticides, which rely on minerals and fossil fuels, would mean that the huge cereal farms of eastern England would have to reintroduce livestock so that their natural waste would make it easier to build up soil fertility. Read More
Most anti-agriculture groups continually point to the European Union as an example of how the United States should be regulating our food production techniques. What they never tell you is that the EU system can’t feed their population. They are literally on the verge of starvation problems in that area of the world. They are relying on other countries to grow their food rather than doing it themselves. Now that is a great example of being unsustainable. We need to stop regulating our production abilities away or else we will be facing the same issues.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
US Beef Headed to EU
Beef deal a gleam of hope for US-EU trade tensions
Wed May 6, 2009 6:03pm EDT
By Roberta Rampton - Analysis
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States and European Union have agreed to temporarily put aside a 20-year fight over beef and do some business -- a new pragmatic stage in a testy trade relationship that experts say could bode well for other bilateral fights.
The four-year provisional deal on beef does not solve the fundamental divide over food safety regulations that has kept most U.S. beef out of the EU market since the late 1980s.
But it shows a willingness on both sides to try to start to find ways to work through thorny food issues, observers said.
"The significance of this deal is the fact that it is an attempt by both sides to see if we can overcome the lack of trust," said Gregg Doud, chief economist of the U.S. National Cattlemen's Beef Association, in an interview.
"There is such a low level of trust between the two sides on trade issues at the moment, in particular on agriculture." Read More
US beef will finally start heading into the European Union after an agreement was announced yesterday. Situations like this arise when sound science is thrown out the window in favor of emotional arguments. In this case, the situation has lasted for 20 years and has cost the industry an incredible amount of money. Using safe technology, like growth promotants, has allowed us to greatly increase our efficiency. It takes less water, less feed and less land to raise cattle than it would otherwise.
Wed May 6, 2009 6:03pm EDT
By Roberta Rampton - Analysis
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States and European Union have agreed to temporarily put aside a 20-year fight over beef and do some business -- a new pragmatic stage in a testy trade relationship that experts say could bode well for other bilateral fights.
The four-year provisional deal on beef does not solve the fundamental divide over food safety regulations that has kept most U.S. beef out of the EU market since the late 1980s.
But it shows a willingness on both sides to try to start to find ways to work through thorny food issues, observers said.
"The significance of this deal is the fact that it is an attempt by both sides to see if we can overcome the lack of trust," said Gregg Doud, chief economist of the U.S. National Cattlemen's Beef Association, in an interview.
"There is such a low level of trust between the two sides on trade issues at the moment, in particular on agriculture." Read More
US beef will finally start heading into the European Union after an agreement was announced yesterday. Situations like this arise when sound science is thrown out the window in favor of emotional arguments. In this case, the situation has lasted for 20 years and has cost the industry an incredible amount of money. Using safe technology, like growth promotants, has allowed us to greatly increase our efficiency. It takes less water, less feed and less land to raise cattle than it would otherwise.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Hormone Debate
US agrees to postpone duty hikes in beef hormone row: EU
19 hours ago
BRUSSELS (AFP) — Washington agreed Wednesday to postpone for two weeks introducing additional duties on a number of EU products in a long-running row over beef hormones, the European Commission said Wednesday.
The new duties, including a crippling 300-percent import duty on France's Roquefort cheese, were supposed to take effect on Thursday, but the two sides agreed instead to seek a negotiated solution.
The EU has had a ban on hormone-treated beef in place since the early 1980s which has long been a source of trade disputes with partners such as the United States and Canada.
The World Trade Organization in 1998 ruled that the EU had violated trade rules by banning the hormone-treated beef, thereby allowing the United States and Canada to impose trade sanctions on the bloc. Read More
The EU doesn’t want our beef because of the estrogen implant we use to increase efficiency. What the news media never tells you is that even conventionally raised beef has less estrogen in it than most other foods. Take for example cabbage, it has over 1000 times more naturally occurring estrogen in it than in beef. And after several decades of use, it’s safety has been proven.
19 hours ago
BRUSSELS (AFP) — Washington agreed Wednesday to postpone for two weeks introducing additional duties on a number of EU products in a long-running row over beef hormones, the European Commission said Wednesday.
The new duties, including a crippling 300-percent import duty on France's Roquefort cheese, were supposed to take effect on Thursday, but the two sides agreed instead to seek a negotiated solution.
The EU has had a ban on hormone-treated beef in place since the early 1980s which has long been a source of trade disputes with partners such as the United States and Canada.
The World Trade Organization in 1998 ruled that the EU had violated trade rules by banning the hormone-treated beef, thereby allowing the United States and Canada to impose trade sanctions on the bloc. Read More
The EU doesn’t want our beef because of the estrogen implant we use to increase efficiency. What the news media never tells you is that even conventionally raised beef has less estrogen in it than most other foods. Take for example cabbage, it has over 1000 times more naturally occurring estrogen in it than in beef. And after several decades of use, it’s safety has been proven.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
EU Officials Learn Farming By Doing
Bureaucrats who handle EU's big farm budgets to be sent out to pasture
White-collar bureaucrats handle the biggest chunk of the EU budget — farming — so to make sure they know what's needed, they will be trading in their pinstripes for overalls.
By RAF CASERT
Associated Press Writer
BRUSSELS —
White-collar bureaucrats handle the biggest chunk of the EU budget — farming — so to make sure they know what's needed, they will be trading in their pinstripes for overalls.
In other words, the European Union wants these administrators to get firsthand experience on the farms they subsidize, so they will be sent to work on one for several weeks.
Often reviled as out-of-touch bureaucrats who go straight from university to their EU offices, these staff members will be sent to get their hands dirty in a program being launched next year, EU Farm Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said Wednesday.
"I am definitely in favor of giving possibilities to those that have never been on a farm. They simply don't know how things work," Boel said. "It is definitely not meant to be a punishment, but a possibility to see what is out there." Read More
What a concept! The idea that in order to write legislation that pertains to agriculture you should have some knowledge of the business is quite amazing. I actually need to congratulate Commissioner Boel for implementing the idea. How many times has the idea been mentioned but never taken seriously. Do you suppose Vilsack would suggest this idea for his employees, or maybe Congress?
White-collar bureaucrats handle the biggest chunk of the EU budget — farming — so to make sure they know what's needed, they will be trading in their pinstripes for overalls.
By RAF CASERT
Associated Press Writer
BRUSSELS —
White-collar bureaucrats handle the biggest chunk of the EU budget — farming — so to make sure they know what's needed, they will be trading in their pinstripes for overalls.
In other words, the European Union wants these administrators to get firsthand experience on the farms they subsidize, so they will be sent to work on one for several weeks.
Often reviled as out-of-touch bureaucrats who go straight from university to their EU offices, these staff members will be sent to get their hands dirty in a program being launched next year, EU Farm Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said Wednesday.
"I am definitely in favor of giving possibilities to those that have never been on a farm. They simply don't know how things work," Boel said. "It is definitely not meant to be a punishment, but a possibility to see what is out there." Read More
What a concept! The idea that in order to write legislation that pertains to agriculture you should have some knowledge of the business is quite amazing. I actually need to congratulate Commissioner Boel for implementing the idea. How many times has the idea been mentioned but never taken seriously. Do you suppose Vilsack would suggest this idea for his employees, or maybe Congress?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Europe seeks animal welfare standards in global trade agreements
By Janie Gabbett on 2/11/2009
Global animal rights groups pushed for animal welfare provisions to become part of every international trade negotiation at last month's Conference on Global Trade and Farm Animal Welfare in Brussels, Belgium.
National Cattlemen's Beef Association Chief Veterinarian Elizabeth Parker attended the meeting and shared her impressions with Meatingplace.
What did you hear at the conference that was new?
Animal welfare groups and some European Commission members want animal welfare standards to become part of every trade negotiation. Several European Commission-member parliamentarians spoke. They were very bold about what they wanted. They have problems within their member states because the cost of animal production in Europe has gotten so high due to non-science-based restrictions. The EU can import meat cheaper than they can raise it in Europe. So they are calling for equivalency. They have done this already in biotech and some other areas. I was interested in how open and upfront they are about it.
What are some examples of the types of welfare provisions they are looking to include in trade agreements?
There was a lot of talk about swine and chickens. For example, on the swine side, many European countries have banned castration or mandated anesthesia and pain medication. On the poultry side, there was a lot of talk about battery cages. The Humane Society of the United States was represented at the conference and made a presentation.
How do you see the United States stacking up against European countries on humane handling?
Our approach is quite different. We don't regulate our industry to death based on non-scientific standards. In Europe they base policies on public opinion through the use of the Eurobarometer surveys. We take good care of our animals. At NCBA we update our Beef Quality Assurance Program every year as new research emerges. We haven't been touting what we do because it is part of our everyday business practices. I think we need to do a better job of talking about what we do. The ultimate goal is to make sure we take care of our animals and produce safe and affordable beef supply and we do that. It is hard to see how the European regulations have improved animal handling.
Will you be making any recommendations to NCBA based on any best practices presented at the conference?
No. There was nothing scientifically based that was presented there. There was an interesting presentation from the [Food and Agriculture Organization] about the need to improve human conditions in developing countries so that they can improve conditions for their animals. From Europe, it was all animal rights groups. We can learn from what they are doing about what might be coming to this country — they pay 40 percent of their wages on food.
What do you see as the priority this year for meatpackers and producers in the area of animal welfare?
We need to do a better job of educating Congress, administrative officials and consumers about all the things we currently do, why we do them and how we developed them. People don't know the science that has gone into our policies. We have left a void for groups to come in and fill with misinformation. Our challenge is to educate. Link
If we want to know what is coming down the line as far as animal welfare and livestock production regulations, we need only look across the pond at Europe. They have continued to regulate the agriculture out of business. As a consequence, their food costs are four times as high as ours and they import about 40% of it. That will happen in this country if we continue down this path.
By Janie Gabbett on 2/11/2009
Global animal rights groups pushed for animal welfare provisions to become part of every international trade negotiation at last month's Conference on Global Trade and Farm Animal Welfare in Brussels, Belgium.
National Cattlemen's Beef Association Chief Veterinarian Elizabeth Parker attended the meeting and shared her impressions with Meatingplace.
What did you hear at the conference that was new?
Animal welfare groups and some European Commission members want animal welfare standards to become part of every trade negotiation. Several European Commission-member parliamentarians spoke. They were very bold about what they wanted. They have problems within their member states because the cost of animal production in Europe has gotten so high due to non-science-based restrictions. The EU can import meat cheaper than they can raise it in Europe. So they are calling for equivalency. They have done this already in biotech and some other areas. I was interested in how open and upfront they are about it.
What are some examples of the types of welfare provisions they are looking to include in trade agreements?
There was a lot of talk about swine and chickens. For example, on the swine side, many European countries have banned castration or mandated anesthesia and pain medication. On the poultry side, there was a lot of talk about battery cages. The Humane Society of the United States was represented at the conference and made a presentation.
How do you see the United States stacking up against European countries on humane handling?
Our approach is quite different. We don't regulate our industry to death based on non-scientific standards. In Europe they base policies on public opinion through the use of the Eurobarometer surveys. We take good care of our animals. At NCBA we update our Beef Quality Assurance Program every year as new research emerges. We haven't been touting what we do because it is part of our everyday business practices. I think we need to do a better job of talking about what we do. The ultimate goal is to make sure we take care of our animals and produce safe and affordable beef supply and we do that. It is hard to see how the European regulations have improved animal handling.
Will you be making any recommendations to NCBA based on any best practices presented at the conference?
No. There was nothing scientifically based that was presented there. There was an interesting presentation from the [Food and Agriculture Organization] about the need to improve human conditions in developing countries so that they can improve conditions for their animals. From Europe, it was all animal rights groups. We can learn from what they are doing about what might be coming to this country — they pay 40 percent of their wages on food.
What do you see as the priority this year for meatpackers and producers in the area of animal welfare?
We need to do a better job of educating Congress, administrative officials and consumers about all the things we currently do, why we do them and how we developed them. People don't know the science that has gone into our policies. We have left a void for groups to come in and fill with misinformation. Our challenge is to educate. Link
If we want to know what is coming down the line as far as animal welfare and livestock production regulations, we need only look across the pond at Europe. They have continued to regulate the agriculture out of business. As a consequence, their food costs are four times as high as ours and they import about 40% of it. That will happen in this country if we continue down this path.
Friday, January 16, 2009
The Beef With Our Beef
USTR takes trade action in EU-beef hormones battle
By Tom Johnston on 1/15/2009
U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab said Thursday the USTR is modifying its list of European Union products subject to additional duties under World Trade Organization settlement rulings in an ongoing dispute with the EU over the use of hormones in U.S. beef production.
The modifications add and remove from the list of products subject to additional duties, change the EU member states whose products are subject to the duties and, for one product, increase the level of the additional duties.
The action represents the latest move in a long battle with the EU, whose ban on beef from animals administered certain growth-promoting hormones dates back to 1988. The United States, with authorization from the WTO, has imposed additional tariffs on EU products since 1999. The modified duties announced Thursday remain within the level authorized by the WTO, Schwab said.
"The existing duties have been in place for over 9 years; the goal of these modifications is to reach a resolution of the dispute under which the EU would allow market access for U.S. beef and the United States could end its trade action," she said in a statement.
EU's take
However, the EU said the move is illegal and promised to challenge it at the World Trade Organization.
"Transatlantic trade needs champions, not sanctions," EU Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton said in a statement. "This action is most regrettable in the view of many attempts by the EU to find a solution to the long-standing dispute over hormone-treated beef."
The modifications come a little more than a month after USTR closed a month-long public comment period, during which it received some 600 comments. Details of the modifications are contained in a Federal Register notice that will be posted Thursday on the USTR Web site and has been sent for publication in the Federal Register.
The modifications are effective March 23. Link
With absolutely no science to back their claims, the EU has continued with its ridiculous ban of our beef because of our use of growth promotants. Because of their refusal to accept our beef, we have been given permission to continue sanctions against them. Products that will be sanctioned will be on a rotating basis. Remember, the EU would starve to death in a matter of weeks if they didn’t continue importing food. They lost their ability to feed themselves years ago.
By Tom Johnston on 1/15/2009
U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab said Thursday the USTR is modifying its list of European Union products subject to additional duties under World Trade Organization settlement rulings in an ongoing dispute with the EU over the use of hormones in U.S. beef production.
The modifications add and remove from the list of products subject to additional duties, change the EU member states whose products are subject to the duties and, for one product, increase the level of the additional duties.
The action represents the latest move in a long battle with the EU, whose ban on beef from animals administered certain growth-promoting hormones dates back to 1988. The United States, with authorization from the WTO, has imposed additional tariffs on EU products since 1999. The modified duties announced Thursday remain within the level authorized by the WTO, Schwab said.
"The existing duties have been in place for over 9 years; the goal of these modifications is to reach a resolution of the dispute under which the EU would allow market access for U.S. beef and the United States could end its trade action," she said in a statement.
EU's take
However, the EU said the move is illegal and promised to challenge it at the World Trade Organization.
"Transatlantic trade needs champions, not sanctions," EU Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton said in a statement. "This action is most regrettable in the view of many attempts by the EU to find a solution to the long-standing dispute over hormone-treated beef."
The modifications come a little more than a month after USTR closed a month-long public comment period, during which it received some 600 comments. Details of the modifications are contained in a Federal Register notice that will be posted Thursday on the USTR Web site and has been sent for publication in the Federal Register.
The modifications are effective March 23. Link
With absolutely no science to back their claims, the EU has continued with its ridiculous ban of our beef because of our use of growth promotants. Because of their refusal to accept our beef, we have been given permission to continue sanctions against them. Products that will be sanctioned will be on a rotating basis. Remember, the EU would starve to death in a matter of weeks if they didn’t continue importing food. They lost their ability to feed themselves years ago.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The Hormone Debate
EU Wants Sanctions Justified in WTO Beef Hormone Case
By Jennifer M. Freedman
Dec. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The European Union wants the U.S. and Canada to drop sanctions stemming from EU restrictions on imports of hormone-treated beef, saying the 27-nation bloc’s laws are now “fully in line” with World Trade Organization rules.
Today’s request for consultations comes two months after WTO appellate judges reversed most conclusions reached by a panel on the legality of the EU’s ban on hormone-treated beef and dismissed a finding suggesting that the bloc’s policies violate global trade rules.
“We are convinced that our legislation on hormones is fully in line with WTO law,” European Commission spokesman Peter Power said in a statement issued from Geneva. “The restrictions on hormone-treated beef are based on solid scientific evidence showing risks for human health.”
The WTO said in February 1998 that the EU moratorium on hormone-treated beef -- in place since 1989 -- wasn’t justified because the bloc hadn’t scientifically proven a cancer risk to consumers. When the EU failed to end the moratorium after a 15- month deadline, the U.S. and Canada were authorized to levy duties on European imports including Roquefort cheese, textiles, onions and dried carrots. Read More
In our travels speaking to groups across the country, one of the most requested pieces of information that we get is on hormones. In order for a person to get as much estrogen as there is in a birth control pill, they would have to eat over 3000 pounds of conventionally raised beef every day. The fact of the matter is that many vegetables have more estrogen in them than beef does. There is no such thing as hormone free in life. Hormones are required for life to function. Any food labeled as hormone free is a farce.
By Jennifer M. Freedman
Dec. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The European Union wants the U.S. and Canada to drop sanctions stemming from EU restrictions on imports of hormone-treated beef, saying the 27-nation bloc’s laws are now “fully in line” with World Trade Organization rules.
Today’s request for consultations comes two months after WTO appellate judges reversed most conclusions reached by a panel on the legality of the EU’s ban on hormone-treated beef and dismissed a finding suggesting that the bloc’s policies violate global trade rules.
“We are convinced that our legislation on hormones is fully in line with WTO law,” European Commission spokesman Peter Power said in a statement issued from Geneva. “The restrictions on hormone-treated beef are based on solid scientific evidence showing risks for human health.”
The WTO said in February 1998 that the EU moratorium on hormone-treated beef -- in place since 1989 -- wasn’t justified because the bloc hadn’t scientifically proven a cancer risk to consumers. When the EU failed to end the moratorium after a 15- month deadline, the U.S. and Canada were authorized to levy duties on European imports including Roquefort cheese, textiles, onions and dried carrots. Read More
In our travels speaking to groups across the country, one of the most requested pieces of information that we get is on hormones. In order for a person to get as much estrogen as there is in a birth control pill, they would have to eat over 3000 pounds of conventionally raised beef every day. The fact of the matter is that many vegetables have more estrogen in them than beef does. There is no such thing as hormone free in life. Hormones are required for life to function. Any food labeled as hormone free is a farce.
Friday, December 19, 2008
EU Wants More Labels
Increasing consumer awareness of welfare
News 19 December, 2008
By Jack Davies
(Note: This story is from the European Union)
ANIMAL welfare labels should be introduced across all meat and dairy products to help improve standards on the farm, a Government advisory panel claimed this week.
Publishing its opinion on Government policy instruments, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) recommended a new labelling system would encourage farmers to pay greater attention to animal welfare.
Overall, the report concluded Government instruments to protect animal welfare are appropriate, but advises more work could be done at a consumer level to promote welfare.
Read More
Any type of labeling system like this will only result in higher priced food. And with the European Union already unable to feed itself, this new recommendation has the potential to increase the problem. HSUS continues trying to convince Americans that we need to follow the European model of food production. And that model consists of higher priced food, more imported food, and a devastated farming economy.
News 19 December, 2008
By Jack Davies
(Note: This story is from the European Union)
ANIMAL welfare labels should be introduced across all meat and dairy products to help improve standards on the farm, a Government advisory panel claimed this week.
Publishing its opinion on Government policy instruments, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) recommended a new labelling system would encourage farmers to pay greater attention to animal welfare.
Overall, the report concluded Government instruments to protect animal welfare are appropriate, but advises more work could be done at a consumer level to promote welfare.
Read More
Any type of labeling system like this will only result in higher priced food. And with the European Union already unable to feed itself, this new recommendation has the potential to increase the problem. HSUS continues trying to convince Americans that we need to follow the European model of food production. And that model consists of higher priced food, more imported food, and a devastated farming economy.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
EU Considers Pesticide Ban
The Future of Food: Farming without Pesticides?
Are European policy makers about to inadvertently deal a blow to food production and retail security?
This looks like a highly possible outcome, as European Union (EU) regulators go through the process of formulating new legislation that will limit the availability of pesticides on the European market.
In an effort to purportedly create safer food and a cleaner environment, policy makers in Brussels are in danger of ignoring the importance of pesticides for the sustainability of a continuous, Europe-produced supply of fresh foods.
In farms across the UK and Europe, alarm bells are ringing. If the proposals become law, European crop yields will fall dramatically and retail prices will rise significantly.
A report by ADAS, a British environmental consultancy, states that if the regulations are adopted, the UK could face a 25% reduction of the production of wheat, potatoes and green vegetables. Read More
With the European Union already importing around 40% of the food supply, dealing a blow like this to their ag community would only increase that number. These technologies are essential tools that will help us double food production in the next 50 years. While I am sure there are good intentions by the people pushing for this ban, the unintended consequences would be dire.
Are European policy makers about to inadvertently deal a blow to food production and retail security?
This looks like a highly possible outcome, as European Union (EU) regulators go through the process of formulating new legislation that will limit the availability of pesticides on the European market.
In an effort to purportedly create safer food and a cleaner environment, policy makers in Brussels are in danger of ignoring the importance of pesticides for the sustainability of a continuous, Europe-produced supply of fresh foods.
In farms across the UK and Europe, alarm bells are ringing. If the proposals become law, European crop yields will fall dramatically and retail prices will rise significantly.
A report by ADAS, a British environmental consultancy, states that if the regulations are adopted, the UK could face a 25% reduction of the production of wheat, potatoes and green vegetables. Read More
With the European Union already importing around 40% of the food supply, dealing a blow like this to their ag community would only increase that number. These technologies are essential tools that will help us double food production in the next 50 years. While I am sure there are good intentions by the people pushing for this ban, the unintended consequences would be dire.
Monday, May 12, 2008
EU's animal rights laws
Europe gets bullish on animal rights issues
LONDON — Spain's iconic sport, bullfighting, is known for its ferocity and flair. But the centuries-old spectacle may have met its match in an equally tenacious opponent: Europe's animal rights movement.
For the first time Thursday, doping tests were introduced at Spain's most prestigious bullfighting festival after allegations that bulls are given drugs to tip the balance in favor of the matador. Under pressure and falling ratings, Spanish TV has dropped bullfighting from its schedule.
The increasingly vocal anti-bullfighting lobby says it's only a matter of time before the sport is relegated to the history books.
"People in Europe are finally beginning to accept the animal welfare message," said Kate Fowler-Reeves, head of campaigns for Animal Aid, the UK's largest animal rights group. Read More
We’ve talked about the danger of following Europe’s lead on granting rights to animals before. The idea that chimpanzee’s were even considered to receive “personhood” is beyond comprehension. To read Trent’s comments on following the EU’s lead click here.
LONDON — Spain's iconic sport, bullfighting, is known for its ferocity and flair. But the centuries-old spectacle may have met its match in an equally tenacious opponent: Europe's animal rights movement.
For the first time Thursday, doping tests were introduced at Spain's most prestigious bullfighting festival after allegations that bulls are given drugs to tip the balance in favor of the matador. Under pressure and falling ratings, Spanish TV has dropped bullfighting from its schedule.
The increasingly vocal anti-bullfighting lobby says it's only a matter of time before the sport is relegated to the history books.
"People in Europe are finally beginning to accept the animal welfare message," said Kate Fowler-Reeves, head of campaigns for Animal Aid, the UK's largest animal rights group. Read More
We’ve talked about the danger of following Europe’s lead on granting rights to animals before. The idea that chimpanzee’s were even considered to receive “personhood” is beyond comprehension. To read Trent’s comments on following the EU’s lead click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)