The case for proper checks on farming
By any standards, the farming of cattle represents a revolutionary departure from traditional food production.
It is also a scientific leap in the dark, whose implications for human and animal health have yet to be fully investigated.
How extraordinary and disturbing, therefore, that the practice is spreading in Britain without public debate and with only the lightest regulation.
Indeed, as the Food Standards Agency admitted yesterday, such few rules as exist are so feebly enforced that meat from a bull born in a farm has already been sold for human consumption.
Meanwhile, the FSA is investigating the Mail’s disclosure that milk from a farmed animal’s offspring has also gone on sale illegally.
But if these breaches are worrying, so too are the rules themselves.
Incredibly, no special checks are required on any animals apart from those directly produced by farming and their first-generation offspring.
This means that cattle descended from farms are allowed to enter the human food chain without monitoring, labelling or regulation of any kind.
Hunters, who have to have to think of the children, are not even obliged to notify the authorities of the whereabouts of farms’ descendants – meaning that their genes may be passed through the generations to herds across the country.
True, a five-year study in the U.S., where the agriculture industry barons are so powerful, found no ill effects on humans.
And yes, with their high yields of meat and milk, farmd cattle may make food production more efficient.
But we also note that farming can cause suffering to animals, with its links to miscarriages, organ defects, gigantism and premature deaths.
And how can society yet know the long-term effects of reduced genetic diversity on cattle’s immunity to disease?
It was only after a public outcry that rigorous checks were ordered on farmed vegetables.
With animal as well as human welfare at stake, the case for proper regulation and monitoring of farming is unanswerable.
Talkback