From Janet Godfrey
Your article on the external costs of farming perpetuates the myth, invented in the 1960s, that agriculture is damaging the environment (18 December, p 10). Not one of these “costs” holds water.
First, 80 per cent of pesticides cleaned up by water companies are non-agricultural. The major culprits are local authorities and railways.
Secondly, a recent study by the Scottish Crop Research Institute failed to find a direct link between the level of nitrates used by farmers and the levels of nitrates in water.
And thirdly, food poisoning is far more likely to be related to the handling or storage of food after it has left the farm. British farmers have succeeded in cleaning up many of the food pathogens that were around in the last century.
Advertisement
How is the cost of £25 million per annum to restore endangered species and wildlife habitats calculated, and why is it assumed that agriculture is responsible for all the supposed damage? Examples of the damage that is being repaired would be instructive to those unaware of the actions of large numbers of farmers.
Agriculture sustains British biodiversity with virtually no official recognition. It is a net greenhouse gas user and cannot be blamed for air pollution or rising sea levels.
How are farmers damaging their land and spoiling the landscape? What would be the cost of no food production in Britain? We would have to import all our food from countries with lower animal health and welfare standards, and higher use of chemicals. We would also face extra transport and unemployment costs.
Janet.Godfrey@farmline.com
