Food Production in the News

UK farmers are rallying to spread the word that food prices are on their way up over yonder, thanks to the European Parliament recently backing legislation to scale back the use of certain pesticides. According to this article in The Telegraph, farmers are saying that 10 per cent of chemicals will have to come off the market in the next few years and that in the UK, this "could halve potato crops, reduce wheat yields by a fifth and cause the loss of the entire carrot crop". There's an article in The Guardian about the predicted possible loss of the entire UK carrot crop. Are we supposed to believe that carrots really cannot be grown without pesticides? I buy organic carrots here in Canada and they're not a whole lot more expensive than conventionally grown carrots. Root vegetables are notorious for leaching metals and chemicals out of the soil (not to mention the contamination coming from pesticides sprayed on the plants above ground), so buying organic is always the safest bet anyway.

---------------------------
The Fooducate blog had a story on Sara Lee's introducing a new labelling system for its products. In it, they included a link to a short history of food / nutrition labelling (mostly in the US). It's worth having a look, if only to see how ridiculously splintered labelling efforts have become as different companies set their own respective standards for their multitudes of products.

Biofuels -- let the wars begin

Even as the EU backs away abruptly from its previous biofuels usage goals in the face of ''soaring world food prices blamed partly on competition for farmland from agri-fuel producers'', agribusiness giants Monsanto, Dow and Archer Daniels Midland are joining forces to mount a lobbying crusade (worth millions, natch) on Washington to build a case for continuing and / or increased usage of biofuels.

From controlling the world's food to controlling the world's food and energy...

The future of battery cages

According to a short, vague and all-around badly written announcement on WorldPoultry.net, Unilever and McDonald's have recently stated that they will stop using eggs from battery caged chickens for their products, with Unilever (maker of Hellman's mayo, et al.) beginning with Europe and then moving on to the ''rest of the world''. WorldPoultry.net had been reporting that McDonald's and Unilever were recently given the Compassion in World Farming's Good Egg award. Where are the misinformation police when you need 'em? Their facts about what McDonald's and Unilever are doing are -- er -- a little skewed.

According to a statement by Unilever on the Compassion in World Farming website, ''most Western European countries will be moved to non-caged eggs by 2010 and all countries before 2012, starting with UK in June this year''. I checked the Unilever website and was unable to find any references to this at all. Google News brought up no press releases from Unilever, either. I'm guessing that by ''all countries'', they mean the rest of Europe, since they specify Western Europe for the first phase.The thing is, though, that the EU, the world's second largest producer of eggs, will already be implementing a ban on battery cages by 2012. So short of importing eggs from outside the EU for all of their products sold in the EU, it seems that Unilever is acting out of economic necessity more than anything, but getting a pat on the back for it in the process.

As for McDonald's -- as per a statement by one of their reps on the Compassion in World Farming website, they've already phased out battery cage eggs from 90% of their products sold in the EU. They intend to phase out the remaining 10% sold in the EU by 2010. There's no mention of phasing them out in the rest of the world in their response to receiving the award, plus I couldn't find anything about it on their website. And the way WorldPoultry.net worded it, it sounded as if this was some sort of amazing breaking news on an international scale.

In the end, it sounds like more rhetoric from the pro-''happy meat'' camp that Gary Francione writes about, and that the folks at Vegan Freaks reference frequently during their podcasts. People think that because the chickens will no longer be kept in conventional battery cages, that somehow it becomes more ethically acceptable to eat them or their eggs. Here's the full scoop, though, on what the upcoming EU ban on conventional battery cages really entails.

Public relations and the possible elimination of the hakapik

Danny Williams (Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador) and Paul Okalik (Premier of Nunavut) have called for the hakapik to be banned. Hakapiks are the spiked clubs that are used to drag -- and often kill -- seals. The call for a ban stems from Williams' delegations recent visit to the EU where it was made clear by representatives of the various countries visited that the hakapik. Sealers are opposed to a ban for what they call safety reasons. Animal rights activists are calling it a public relations stunt to attempt to soften the image of the seal hunt as the EU officially prepares to propose a ban on seal products obtained using inhumane methods.

This is in fact old news that seems to have resurfaced as a kneejerk reaction to the EU's possibly moving towards banning Canadian seal products. A little less than two years ago, a hakapik ban had been proposed by Premier Williams, again because of its negative image.

In a Reuters article on the matter, HSUS director of Canadian Wildlife issues Rebecca Aldworth points out that if the hakapik were banned, the cruelty of the hunt would in fact increase, since hunters would be unable to finish off wounded seals and could end up cutting into them while the seals were conscious. Aldworth has been monitoring this year's seal hunt and her latest report, as well as the sometimes graphic HSUS footage from it, can be found here.

Canada's shameful seal hunt and the forthcoming EU ban

Those of you following this year's Canadian seal hunt are already aware that the anti-sealing Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's ship the Farley Mowat was recently seized and boarded at gunpoint by Canadian authorities. Bail was later posted by the ship's namesake, Canadian author Farley Mowat. The dispute now seems to be over whether Canadian authorities acted illegally by seizing the Dutch-registered ship and its international crew in what Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society head (who, incidentally, hails from New Brunswick), asserts were international waters. Since authorities have seized the ship's contents, including its GPS system and computers, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society now doesn't have the means to prove where the ship was seized.

According to a Canadian Press piece on the seizure:

Captain Alexander Cornelissen, who hails from the Netherlands, and first officer Peter Hammarstedt are accused of steering the Farley Mowat to within 900 metres of the hunt. That's an offence under federal regulations unless an observer's permit has been granted. The Mowat does not have one.

Both Mowat and Watson said the seizure and arrests were illegal since the Farley Mowat is a Dutch-registered vessel and it was outside of Canada's 12-mile territorial limit.

On Monday, Hearn said the ship was seized within that zone, but the staff later said the minister misspoke.

Two Maritime law experts said Monday that Canada was within its right to arrest the ship and its crew if they were indeed violating seal hunt regulations.

"Canada has jurisdiction over fish and marine mammals out to 200 nautical miles," said Ted McDorman, a law professor at the University of Victoria. "So for purposes of marine mammal management, the waters out to 200 nautical miles are Canadian waters."

Without an observer's permit granted by the Minister of Fisheries, according to the Sea Shepherd Society, it's illegal in Canada to film, photograph or even witness a seal being killed. The Canadian government, under the guise of safety concerns, has basically legislated a cover-up of what actually occurs during the seal hunt. And according to recent news reports, if Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Wilson had his way, nobody would be allowed to observe the hunt at all. Wilson recently called Paul Watson a ''terrorist''; that seems to be the automatic ''go to'' place these days for anyone wanting to condemn the words or actions of environmental or animal activists.

According to Paul Watson, the ship was boarded by the authorities to avoid the embarrassment of having the footage taken by the Farley Mowat's crew shown to the rest of the world. The issue is indeed a sensitive one for the Canadian government right now, especially with the recent announcement following informal meetings of the EU environment ministers a few days ago that the EU environment chief is preparing to propose a ban on seal products coming from countries who cannot prove the seals were slaughtered in a humane way.

The Canadian seal hunt is on (and the Brits are getting an eyeful)

I've mentioned the changes the Canadian government announced this year to present the seal hunt as having become more humane. In the face of a possible EU ban on seal products that hinges on the horrific cruelty of the hunt, the feds hoped to present it in a better light. Everywhere in the news, however, there have been reports of how attempts by activists and the media to observe the purported effects of these changes in legislation on actual practices have been thwarted by officials, as well as by the seal hunters. (Actually, the term "seal hunter" is erroneous. From the footage and photos I've seen, these guys are more or less just walking right up to seals and clubbing them or axing them. There's not much "hunting" involved.) This account in Thursday's UK Daily Mail of one of their reporter's recent attempts to go observe the cull illustrates precisely that nothing has changed (warning: the story includes some very graphic photos and descriptions). This is happening as a delegation of Canadian politicians, sealers and public relations types recently visited Brussels to try make a last ditch case against the EU's possible ban. I really hope that more evidence makes it way to Europeans so that they can pressure their leaders to go forward with this thing. Belgium and The Netherlands imposed their own bans last year; it's time for the rest of Europe to take action.

GMOs in EU Revisited

I wrote about France's recent banning of Monsanto's genetically modified corn (MON810) last Monday. European farm ministers met today to discuss whether to allow it, three other types of maize and a type of genetically modified potato to be grown in Europe. The farm ministers couldn't reach an agreement, one way or another, which is tantamount to waving it through. According to Reuters:

EU law provides for rubberstamp GMO authorizations when ministers are unable to agree after a certain time. Since 2004, the Commission has authorized a string of GMOs -- nearly all maize types -- in this way, outraging green groups.

In the news, as well, concerning GMOs and the EU: Europe is purportedly facing a ''crisis'' in its meat supply because of political resistance concerning the use of genetically modified protein in animal feed. Without being able to either grow or import the feed, it seems livestock totals will have to be cut back and that the price of meat could increase drastically, and that the recourse would be to import meat from outside of the EU -- ironically enough, from animals raised on genetically modified feed. It's funny how the idea of just encouraging consumers to lessen their consumption of animal products couldn't be factored in somehow. I mean, is it really so unthinkable? Did I miss the part about the sky falling?