Food enquiry - is that where the future is headed?
Evan raised the question of animal welfare and that was taken up by someone else saying,
"I walk regularly in the countryside. It shocks me to see the state of some cattle kept in stinking sheds, shit everywhere, over distended udders and covered in flies....."
I replied,
"Most farmers practise high welfare. Where standards slip it is often caused by stress of farmers, long hours, poor returns, isolation... which may explain but doesn't excuse. If you see bad practise report it to ... RSPCA."
The response to that was,
"I feel the massive scale and industrialisation leaves no room for animal welfare. Animals treated as units of 'yield' are never going to be well cared for"
My reply was,
"Not all farms are "massive scale and industrialisation." ... Small scale extensive farming is (usually) more expensive. That isn't (usually) reflected in higher prices.Will we pay higher prices? "
and the response
"I agree Robert. But ..., is that (massive scale and industrialisation )where the future is headed?"
So, where is the future headed? I hope the National Food Strategy (twitter)will help us think about where we're heading so we don't discover that we've got to where we don't want to be by mistake!
The question of animal welfare is clearly an enormously important issue. But not one that will be sorted in isolation. We need to avoid a silo mentality and look at animal welfare, human welfare and environmental welfare as all part of one big picture. There's little point expecting farmers to care for livestock or the environment if they haven't got the financial, personal and social resources to do so. The average income per farmer last year was just under £24,000. (that figure includes all income, including subsidy payments.) And as that is an average there will be some farmers earning a lot more, and many earning much less. For those at the bottom of the financial pile it may be that the lack of money results in them cutting corners with animal or environmental care.
For those at the bottom, the possibility of lack of self care exists. Excessive hours - because there isn't the money to pay anyone else to do the work- can lead to lack of social or family time and social/family stress to add to financial worries. Figures for suicides in England from 2011-2015 show that whereas a standardised mortality ratio, SMR, is calculated with 100 being "normal, for skilled farmers it's well above where it "ought" to be with a figure of 169 for men and 130 for women. For unskilled farm workers the figure is 191 for men and not calculated for women. Good animal and environmental welfare depends on decent rewards, both financial and societal, for farmers. Thank God for organisations like Farming Community Network which support farmers.
The financial reward is measurable - an average of just under £24,000 per farmer last year. However, the societal reward is unquantifiable. During and after World War 2, farmers were the heroes who had stopped Hitler starving us into submission. We knew then what farming was for: it was to grow food. Since then as a nation we have been less sure what farmers are for and the role they should play. That's because, I would suggest, we have an array of increasingly strident voices calling for different (and contradictory) uses for land.
I recall being at a presentation where a successful reintroduction of wetlands was being described and hearing about how, since the sea had been allowed in, there was all sorts of fascinating wildlife instead of "'orrible arable" as the previous use was described. There are calls for "rewilding" even if that impacts on food production. Indeed the Labour party's document on land use, Land for the Many, says "the main threat to nature in Britain today comes from industrialised agriculture." From being seen as heroes to being "the main threat" is a major and unpleasant change.
Then there's the militant anti-meat lobby. One of the few times I've led a church service with a protest outside was during the very wet summer of 2007. It had rained so long and so hard that farmers were struggling to harvest the crops. We held a service to pray for farmers at a difficult time. In the week between deciding to hold the service, arranging it and publicising it the weather improved and we had few farmers at the service. They were all out on their combines. But we did have a "meat is murder", "stop animal cruelty" picket that we had to go through to get to the church too pray for those working for harvest.
And yet there are, it would seem, many in the country who simply want cheap food. Supermarkets compete ruthlessly on price with two for one and BOGOF offers. If affordable chicken necessitates what Evan describes as "giant chicken hangers" then supermarket checkouts suggest that at least a sizable proportion of the country is happy to go along with them. (Incidentally large units- whether chickens, cows or other livestock- may seem unnatural but that doesn't mean that welfare standards are low). As I write Boris Johnson is announcing a review of “sin stealth taxes” following the government having the audacity to increase the cost of health damaging food.
I recall being at a presentation where a successful reintroduction of wetlands was being described and hearing about how, since the sea had been allowed in, there was all sorts of fascinating wildlife instead of "'orrible arable" as the previous use was described. There are calls for "rewilding" even if that impacts on food production. Indeed the Labour party's document on land use, Land for the Many, says "the main threat to nature in Britain today comes from industrialised agriculture." From being seen as heroes to being "the main threat" is a major and unpleasant change.
Then there's the militant anti-meat lobby. One of the few times I've led a church service with a protest outside was during the very wet summer of 2007. It had rained so long and so hard that farmers were struggling to harvest the crops. We held a service to pray for farmers at a difficult time. In the week between deciding to hold the service, arranging it and publicising it the weather improved and we had few farmers at the service. They were all out on their combines. But we did have a "meat is murder", "stop animal cruelty" picket that we had to go through to get to the church too pray for those working for harvest.
And yet there are, it would seem, many in the country who simply want cheap food. Supermarkets compete ruthlessly on price with two for one and BOGOF offers. If affordable chicken necessitates what Evan describes as "giant chicken hangers" then supermarket checkouts suggest that at least a sizable proportion of the country is happy to go along with them. (Incidentally large units- whether chickens, cows or other livestock- may seem unnatural but that doesn't mean that welfare standards are low). As I write Boris Johnson is announcing a review of “sin stealth taxes” following the government having the audacity to increase the cost of health damaging food.
So as a nation we aren't agreed what we want our countryside for - I haven't touched on recreation, tranquillity, military training, the view...- and the people caught in the crossfire of the arguments are the farmers.
Disputes about food are nothing new. Two thousand years ago in Rome the Christians had a major problem about whether it was OK to eat meat or whether it had to be a vegetable only diet. The ground the PM programme was covering is far from new! The disagreement was every bit as passionate as the disagreements today (though the reasons for vegetarianism/meat eating were very different). Long ago when I was at Theological College the New Testament lecturer suggested it was that meat v. vegetarian argument that caused Paul to write the letter he did. At great length and with immense theological complexity, Paul writes about what God has done for each of those Christians in Rome. Having described what God has done for each of them, he goes on to write "You then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? (14.10) ... Let us stop passing judgement on one another (14.13).... Let us make every effort to do what leads to peace (14.19)."
Disputes about food are nothing new. Two thousand years ago in Rome the Christians had a major problem about whether it was OK to eat meat or whether it had to be a vegetable only diet. The ground the PM programme was covering is far from new! The disagreement was every bit as passionate as the disagreements today (though the reasons for vegetarianism/meat eating were very different). Long ago when I was at Theological College the New Testament lecturer suggested it was that meat v. vegetarian argument that caused Paul to write the letter he did. At great length and with immense theological complexity, Paul writes about what God has done for each of those Christians in Rome. Having described what God has done for each of them, he goes on to write "You then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? (14.10) ... Let us stop passing judgement on one another (14.13).... Let us make every effort to do what leads to peace (14.19)."
That, I suspect, will be the challenge that Henry Dimbleby and the National Food Strategy face. I would be amazed if at the end of the enquiry there is unanimity about what food and farming should be like. In a society that seems to me to be finding it increasingly difficult to handle disagreement well (and yes the Church hasn't always handled disagreement as well as it might have done) and which seems to find it increasingly difficult to allow contradictory views, I hope that we can learn not simply to tolerate people with whom we disagree but to respect them.Or if we really wanted to follow St Paul's advice, to love them.
Comments
Post a Comment