Back to Shepway FoE index page                                                                                     

In this issue:
click in box to go straight there - use your back button to return

ELECTION HUSTINGS: IS THE ENVIRONMENT A LIVE ISSUE? FoE held what has become its usual Environmental Hustings on the Saturday evening before the election.  Because the local press were more pre-occupied with the candidates’ shoe size and second favourite television soap, there was very little pre-publicity for the event.  As a consequence, although we had a sizeable audience it was nowhere near the packed houses we have had on previous occasions, and it consisted in the main of committed party workers ready to clap or jeer each speaker. The arrangements otherwise were well up to standard, and the meeting was chaired with great control, sympathy and good humour by Mike O’Sullivan. We issued each candidate beforehand with three questions - on integrated transport, renewable energy and clean food.  They were given a two-minute time slot each to give their prepared answers, followed by ten minutes of supplementary questions from the floor on the same topic. Inevitably there was a considerable amount of party political point scoring, but all the candidates acquitted themselves very well as representatives for their parties.  Occasionally, however, it was apparent that one or two of them were papering over the omissions in their various manifestos by inventing policy as they went along.  The second half of the meeting was a free-for-all of questions from the floor, which came thick and fast.  The test for the candidates in this section was to quickly marshal an on-message response. The professionalism of the more seasoned campaigners produced smoothly-crafted replies, while the less experienced had to rely on speaking from their own knowledge and the hope that their homework was adequate. We recorded the event, but a glitch in the technology resulted in the first third of the speeches being recorded as silence punctuated by Beatles songs, and a long section on the topic of food disappearing down a “gloosh!” sound in the tape – next time we will revert back to the primitive system of the woman with the pen and pad.  However, there follows a selection of the candidates’ responses to our searching questions: HIGH FUEL TAX Peter Carroll – Bus companies operating in community transport schemes already claim back tax on fuel, and this scheme could be extended to charities.  The Labour government has used the fuel escalator under the pretext of environmental concern to fund their expenditure on other budgets.  The tax from fuel should be ring fenced for use in producing  a real integrated transport policy, which was very far from achievement at the moment. Michael Howard  - It would be difficult to implement any fuel tax rebate system. At the moment charities and most rural dwellers have to pay a very high tax, and Lib Dem policy is to increase still higher the tax on fuel.  There has been no improvement in the environment as a result of the high tax which “clobbered” ordinary people. We pay higher taxes on fuel than most Europeans, who seem to be able to meet the Kyoto treaty reductions in CO2 emissions without charging prohibitively for fuel. Albert Catterall - Schemes for charging different rates for fuel for different people would be unworkable – this was apparent during the recent fuel protests when “priority” workers could not find fuel.  Private transport produces an immense cost to this country, especially if the true costs of pollution, damage to health etc are included in the calculation.  The Government proposes to impose a levy on foreign lorry drivers, the proceeds from which will help to fund the Government’s commitment of £180bn for the improvement of public transport. John Baker – We have to decide what we want to spend money on – are we certain we want to prevent people using cars?  Let’s hope we never see a repeat of scenes from the miners’ strike. RENEWABLE ENERGY Michael Howard  - Conservative policies include funding for the Green Energy Commission, a target of 30% of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2030, arranging for anyone who generates excess energy from such sources as solar panels to sell it to the national grid at the same rate as the grid would normally sell to them, and the grant of 100% first year capital allowances to any project involving renewable energy. The Conservatives would support research into such schemes as tidal barriers and solar power “within the constraints of public spending”. Albert Catterall  - The Government has a good record – energy from renewable sources has quadrupled since 1997; £800m has been saved through the energy efficiency programme; 5m tons of carbon has been taken out of the atmosphere; and the programme of insulation grants has not only saved energy but has saved money for individual people.  The future target for energy producers is that 10% should be produced from renewable sources. Budgets presented by Gordon Brown have been acclaimed by FoE as being the greenest yet produced.  The technology for producing energy from wave barriers is not yet in place, and more research is required. Peter Carroll – 50% of all energy produced in the UK is wasted through inefficient use, and 4m people are in “fuel poverty”.  The Lib Dems will impose a target of 10% energy from renewable sources by 2010, increasing thereafter – this will be a legal obligation on power  generators.  The sale of insulation material will be zero rated for VAT. £268m will be spent on the development of renewable energy over 10 years, but incineration as a source of energy will be opposed.  The issue of renewable energy requires huge amounts of investment, which have not yet been forthcoming from the present Government. John Baker – Although his party is not convinced that CO2 emissions are a real threat to the environment, it will encourage research into and the use of biotechnology, wind wave and solar power, together with high levels of insulation in new homes. There have been schemes many years ago to produce energy from turbines in the Channel, and they came to nothing – investment in such schemes would require high taxation. THE CAR Albert Catterall – Found it “tiring” to justify John Prescott’s policy on car driving!  In Germany car ownership is twice the UK level but the Germans use their cars far less than we do.  The car should be an additional, not the main means of transport. The Government has allowed the people in London to decide their own transport policy.  Real money, £180bn, will be allocated over 10 years to improve public transport. Peter Carroll – John Prescott’s policies have failed.  This is an issue which cannot be tinkered with; what is required is a real change in attitude, supported by charges for driving and parking in town centres, and a fresh look at the real cost of out-of –town supermarkets. Some pain is required to address this issue. John Baker – A policy opposing driving in town centres would be political suicide.  However, eventually matters will deteriorate to the point where trams and trolleybuses will need to be re-introduced. Michael Howard – Out of town supermarkets do not necessarily have a harmful effect. For instance, Sainsburys at New Romney now attracts shoppers from the locality who would previously have shopped in Ashford, involving longer car journeys. The car-owner will not be tempted out of his car unless there is attractive, affordable and available public transport for him to use. GEORGE BUSH AND THE KYOTO TREATY John Baker – Mr Baker is not convinced that climate change is much affected by human activity.  The last Ice Age finished very quickly, and in the 50’s there were fears of a new Ice Age following some very cold winters. Michael Howard – Human activity and carbon emissions have an important effect on global warming.  John Prescott nearly achieved a deal in The Hague but unfortunately the French delegates would not listen to reason.  A similar kind of thing happened in the run-up to the Rio summit in 1992 when the USA was unwilling to attend.  Mr Howard went to Washington without publicity and brokered a deal with ministers through quiet negotiation, which resulted in Bush Senior going to Rio. (This anecdote was repeated subsequently on the Today programme – obviously much on his mind!) Peter Carroll – The USA is now so powerful economically and militarily that it requires a counterbalance.  A strong EU will provide such a force. Albert Catterall – The USA broke their agreement.  Their current political system means that oil barons can, in effect, buy votes and this has resulted in George Bush’s policy.  Our strength, in the EU, is the only solution to this situation, through the use of rules and the international legal system. FOLKESTONE TOWN CENTRE Michael Howard – Mr Howard is currently working hard with SDC to find a developer to replace the Dutch firm which pulled out of an agreement very recently. Albert Catterall – Folkestone has endured decades of lack of progress and being bypassed by developments enjoyed by Ashford. There must be an end to the lack of economic activity, and businesses must be given more encouragement to come to the town.  It would be a mistake to shut off commerce with France. Peter Carroll – Folkestone needs a good town centre, a marina and a research park.  Our MP must be a champion for the town. POPULATION CONTROL Peter Carroll – Factors of religion and culture make any political activity very difficult in relation to this critical issue. Michael Howard – The promotion of prosperity in the third world will lead first of all to a decline in the increase in population, then to a decrease.  This is an issue requiring everyone to take common responsibility, through a common bond of humanity. Albert Catterall – The rate of population growth is decreasing through natural causes, but in any case there can be no enforcement of population regulation.  In the Netherlands, the population is high but the communities are very green. We would welcome any correspondence from the candidates, successful or otherwise, members of the hustings audience or readers of the newsletter on all the topics aired at the meeting at any point in the lifetime of the next Parliament – we will be watching both the Government and the opposition policies with keen interest.

FOOD & FARMING There has been crisis after crisis relating to food and farming in recent years: E-coli, salmonella, pesticide / hormone / antibiotic residues, BSE, and now FMD. Today's food production has more in common with an industrial production line. Crops are grown in huge monoculture plots and routinely sprayed with pesticides (eg. lettuces are sprayed 15 times) and the vast majority of the 860 million farm animals slaughtered each year, are reared intensively in overcrowded conditions, leading to the rapid spread of disease and the routine use of antibiotics. Sustain - the alliance for better food and farming can provide good information about these issues. 0207 837 1228 In 1939, 13% of the population worked on farms, now its only 2%. The production of food is falling into fewer and fewer hands and with it control of the food chain is being concentrated in the hands of vast agribusinesses, financial institutions and multinational companies. These unaccountable organisations have little interest in farmers' well being, or that of consumers, animals or the environment. Well-travelled food Despite the supermarkets' claims to support British farmers, the amount of food imported from abroad continues to increase. We now consume more French apples than English, despite England being an ideal climate for growing apples. Even produce that is British probably isn't local: in the last 20 years the average distance our food travels within the UK has doubled. Some of the consequences can be seen in the Foot & Mouth epidemic and last year's Swine Fever outbreak. "If you have local food and local shops, things may go wrong - but they don't spread like this" Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy, Thames Valley University. Farm gate prices The big four supermarkets sell over half of our food in the UK. This dominance gives them a stranglehold on producers. Supermarkets know that farmers have little choice and dictate how and what should be produced. Farmers receive minimum prices, being played off against each other. In 1998, enraged by the fall in the amount they received for meat, farmers blockaded ports and supermarkets, forcing an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading which later announced that supermarkets were doing nothing wrong. British supermarkets are roughly three times more profitable than similar companies in France, Germany, Italy and Spain! Winning friends and influence Despite their blatant greed, supermarkets continue to gain custom and have had no problem making friends with politicians. Lord Sainsbury, the former Chief Executive of Sainsbury's, is the richest man in Britain, and a Labour peer. Last year, Sainsbury's made £580 million pre-tax profits and Tesco's an enormous £955 million. They find it easy to influence policy so that they can usually build what they want where they want, even in National Parks. It is not unusual (or illegal) for them to offer sweeteners to the authorities (such as building roads and community centres) in return for permission to build their stores. You can read more about supermarkets' influence in George Monbiot's book 'Captive State'. What's next on the menu? Chemical residues, artificial additives, hormones and irradiation are just some of the treats that industry has already forced on people. They tell us they are simply responding to consumer demand and that it is all for our benefit, but their motives are higher profits - from lower costs and extended shelf life. One of the latest offerings is genetic engineering. The industry assures us that it is safe and they promise greater yields for farmers, improved quality for us, eco-friendly production and a solution for world hunger! But GMO's threaten biodiversity and have already been shown to be unsafe having cross-pollinated with wild species and sparked allergic reactions. And farmers aren't seeing greater profits - the only farmers making money from GM are those who aren't growing it and can prove it. The emotive use of the 'feed the world' argument is a cynical ploy, world hunger is caused by economic and political factors and not insufficient food production. Protests & Alternatives Farmers and consumers around the world have identified globalisation, 'free trade' agreements and profiteering corporations as major causes of their problems and have been displaying their discontent while also building alternatives up from the grassroots, challenging the increasingly global and unaccountable institutions such as the World Trade Organisation. Farmers markets, allotment growing, community supported agriculture etc. have all been bringing consumers and producers together and empowering people. The cost of 'convenience' Supermarkets may be destroying our farming industry, but haven't they given us convenience, choice, jobs and cheap goods? How convenient is it to get to an out of town shopping centre, rather than pop to your local shop (especially if you've got no car). When supermarkets move into an area, small shops go down the pan. A government report in 1998 concluded that food shops in market towns lost up to 50% of their trade when a supermarket opened. In 1950, there were 221,662 food shops in Britain but by 1997 there were less than 37,000. Is that what they call more choice? What about job creation? Supermarkets employ one-fifth of the staff per unit area than smaller shops, and how can working in a supermarket compare to working in a local store? But at least supermarkets are cheap? It may come as a surprise but they're not. Although they tempt people in with cheap bread and baked beans, a lot of their other goods are more expensive. Independent specialist shops have been found to be 30% cheaper than the big chains, and buying direct from a local farmer or farmers' market can provide even greater savings. To find your nearest farmers markets, check out www.farmermarkets.net Farming conference in Oxford In March, Pete & Ben attended a conference that aimed to seek out the common ground between farmers and environmental and social justice campaigners. They heard about a deep distrust of the NFU and the Countryside Alliance and various ways in which farmers were trying to provide an alternative voice to represent their interests. Small and Family Farmers Alliance - 01726 843647 A Cornish farmer spoke about the huge difference between the prices paid to farmers by supermarkets and packers, and the prices shoppers pay when they buy from supermarkets. He explained how supermarkets play different farming regions and countries against each other, continually lowering the prices they pay. Such practices have, alongside other factors, led farmers to intensify in order to compete, enlarging fields, setting up factory farms, pulling up hedgerows - going bust in the rush which leads to fewer but larger farms. Time was spent in small groups discussing the issues, and what action could be taken. It became obvious that there is an urgent need to close the gap between the producer (farmers) and the consumer (shoppers) - to reinvigorate local markets and local economies. Various ideas and problems surfaced, the most concrete being a campaign highlighting farmgate/supermarket price differences. A new survey by the Food Standards Agency, reported on 8 May [1], shows that most canned food is contaminated by the proven hormone disrupting chemical Bisphenol A [2]. The survey shows that everyday canned foods such as Heinz baked beans. Tesco Tuna and Sainsbury's fruit cocktail are contaminated with this chemical, which mimics female hormones and has been shown to affect development at low doses, for example enlarging the prostate gland of developing male mice. The highest levels were found in some cans of Princes ham. There is a scientific debate raging about what is a safe level for exposure to bisphenol a, with a number of scientists finding effects on animals at very low doses, only slightly higher than those that this survey estimates. However, the UK Government has been pushing at EU level for these 'low dose' studies to be ignored - but other Member States are pushing for a more precautionary approach [3]. Commenting, Friends of the Earth's Safer Chemicals Campaigner Dr Michael Warhurst said: “These are disturbing results. The Government must put pressure on the canning industry and supermarkets to get rid of this risky chemical. In the mean time, the public has a right to know which cans contain this hormone disrupter. The Government should stop protecting its friends in the chemical industry and start protecting our health.” Notes [1] ‘Most canned food contains bisphenol A, study finds’. Report 315, April 2001. The Food Standards Agency’s surveillance paper is available at: http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/fsainfsheet/2001/no13/13bisp.htm. [2] Safer Chemicals Campaign web site: http://www.foe.co.uk/saferchemicals. Press briefings: http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/safer_chemicals/in_depth/#press. More detailed information on Bisphenol A http://website.lineone.net/~mwarhurst/bisphenol.html [3] 'UK regulators in storm over low-dose effects of bisphenol a'. ENDS Report 314, March 2001.

HORMONE DISRUPTERS FOUND IN APPLE JUICE The latest report of the Pesticides Residues Committee (PRC) has revealed that more than a quarter (27%) of apple juice samples contained the pesticide carbendazim. This pesticide has been found to affect the production of sperm and damage testicular development, as well as cause birth defects in rats. Carbendazim now appears on a European Commission list of substances which are suspected of being hormone disrupters. This pesticide was only found in low levels in all the samples tested, but hormone disrupters can have an effect at much lower levels than other chemicals, so this is no guarantee of safety. Apple juice brands which contained carbendazim included Copella and supermarkets’ own brands from Safeway, Sainsbury’s and Tesco. The PRC tested one organic apple juice, from Tesco, and this was free of any residues. Two thirds (67%) of all grapes tested by the PRC also contained pesticide residues including chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate pesticide. Its use on grapes was severely restricted in the US last year to protect the health of young children. One sample of white seedless grapes from Israel, which was sold in Somerfield, contained chlorpyrifos at illegal levels. Chlorpyrifos is listed by the German Federal Environment Agency as a potential hormone disrupter. Pressure is needed on both Government and retailers if we are to get these risky residues out of our food. FOE has written to the major supermarkets urging them to stop their suppliers, both in the UK and abroad, using hormone-disrupting pesticides. FOE is also calling on the Government to ban these substances.   Real Food Campaign Local Groups Newsletter, April/May 2001

ADHD Follow Up Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – the subject of an article in the last Newsletter, has a ‘sister’ – ADD, or Attention Deficit Disorder, which is the same as ADHD, without the hyperactivity bit. The condition has the same causes – food additives (mainly colourants) and the same treatment, Ritalin, to damp down the symptoms. Fortunately there are genuine organisations around who are trying desperately to force a change in attitudes to the food additives problem. One such, the Hyperactive Childrens Support Group, was formed way back in 1977, about the time the orange colourant Tartrazine E102, was identified as the main cause of hyperactivity. The HCSG is doing sterling stuff in its battle to eradicate additives, but it is a mightily uphill battle, with such forces ranged against them, as public ignorance, the power of industry and the unwillingness of governments (Tory and Labour) to effect the necessary legislation and who would prefer not to think about the possible consequences to society as the dysfunctional ‘citizens of tomorrow’ grow to maturity. The HCSG currently lists 40 E numbers or additives known to have adverse effects. Of these, there are 15 colours and 7 preservatives, which are known to cause ADHD and ADD. The remaining 28 are designated as dangerous or detrimental to asthmatics. The HCSG can only recommend avoidance of these substances. It has no power to do more. But, just how are these additives to be avoided? We all eat convenience food – if not regularly, at least occasionally. And, a significant proportion of our population lives on little else. Some supermarket chains have seemingly taken a step in the right direction, by introducing a range of additive-reduced foods, but, in my opinion, their action is little more than a marketing ploy, rather than an act of altruism. I suspect an opportunity to create a captive customer base. Sainsbury’s, for instance, launched a brand called “Blue Parrot Café”, whereby the company claims its policy of reducing additives is” welcomed by the HCSG”. However, it is noticeable that no products are additive free. And, in looking at them, I saw various enigmatic statements upon the packaging. What does ‘Restricted colours’ mean, when one of them was annatto, on of those on the HCSG’s hit list? Or what do ‘Controlled fat’ or ‘Controlled salt’ mean? Does it mean that they are ladled in willy-nilly in similar additive-packed offerings? And the claim, ‘No added colours’ tells us nothing about the colours in the original ingredients that were brought together to make the dish. I could go on – but the best thing is to look yourselves. Whilst you are at it, read the packaging on other products. Some of the claims to be additive free make interesting reading. Take Birds Eye, for example. On some of their frozen vegetables, you will see, ‘No ingredients added, naturally.’ It sounds altruistic – but what exactly is its meaning? If there are indeed no added ingredients, why not leave it at that? Why add, naturally? It is the use of the word that gives the game away. It means that the product remained additive-free in its natural state, whilst growing but which were later added unnaturally – during the processing phase. Have these people no conscience, no integrity? Plainly not. David Horsley

FOOD FOR THOUGHT When you next go shopping – take a long look at what is on offer. Rows and rows of biscuits, crisps, cereals and ‘convenience foods’. All full of sugar, saturated fat, salt and chemicals. Do we really need any of them? Yes, they’re ‘nice’, they’re ‘quick and easy’ but what of the downsides? The hyperactive kids, the obesity, tooth decay, diabetes, heart problems, etc. OK, so there are other factors too – stressful lives or is that intensive lives to match the intensive farming (or visa versa). Intensive farming degrades the soil. Britain’s soils are degraded with up to 40% badly so. The situation in Europe, America and much of the third world is the same. Such soils produce crops lacking in vitamins and minerals – further processing worsens this – hence, in part, the burgeoning ‘health pill’ market. Now the biotech industry purports to have the answer – genetically modified crops giving us larger yields, bigger fruit and vegetables and rice with vitamin A genes, etc. Long-term effects? “Don’t worry”, we are told. There is a better answer though – sustainable agriculture. In Latin America small farmers have found that crops such as the Mucuna Bean and Star hemp restore degraded soil or near bare rock to a stable condition without pesticides or tilling the soil within 3 years. It also avoids erosion and withstands tropical storm floods. Similar crops grown here would help our farmers and by cutting down processing we could all have an adequate, healthy diet, thus reducing many health problems. FOE’s ‘Food and Farming’ campaign is about changing our perceptions and ideas about what we eat. It suggests ways to improve soils – to switch to organic food - or cut down on or cut out the ‘rubbish food’. To buy only locally grown foods which are in season or imported from as near as possible. By insisting that shops and supermarkets label food properly and switch to local farms for supplies (organic if possible) and provide information on where and how it is sourced. Some are doing so already, but do we need organic prawns from a fish farm in Ecuador?! Write letters to MPs, newspapers and shops etc, but equally support those who campaign directly outside conferences and government meetings, and don’t believe the media nonsense, which focuses on the small number of troublemakers. Encourage your family, friends and neighbours to do the same. So, settle back and have some wholemeal pittas with organic veg (and meat if you must) or at least locally produced items – but beware of that cup of coffee – the beans ripen individually and are hand harvested, creating work for many – but some wag in a US Corporation has a GM spray which makes all beans ripen together, thus allowing mechanical cropping which will put thousands of people out of work and off their land into city slums. Ray Duff

Mobile Phones v Gorillas In 2001 it is expected 500 million cell phones are likely to be sold – all containing, in the capacitor, powder made from a mineral called coltan. The sources of coltan are the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Australia. In 1996, Rwanda and Uganda invaded the DRC, including the Kahuzi-Brega National Park. This park is home to a species of Mountain Gorilla (10,000 in 1990). It is also a coltan mining area. Since the 1994 war and later invasion, mining has become a free-for-all, including the miners subsisting on bush meat, and most of the mineral smuggled on to the market due to low price payment by the company concerned. Half of the 250 odd gorillas in the miners’ area have been shot – the rest on another part of the mountain area are in danger. It’s not even the miners who make money out of the coltan but the middlemen. Rwanda and Uganda protect gorillas in their countries, but Rwanda does not in its area of the DRC. Companies such as Nokia and Motorola need to be made aware of the negative impact they are having on one of our closest relatives and fund research into alternatives to coltan. Give them a call! Source: George Schaller, BBC Wildlife Magazine, May 2001 Ray Duff

DIARY DATES

 

Friends of the Earth are working for lasting change
on all these vital fronts

Genetic Engineering
We have long had concerns that genetic modification of food breaks nature’s safety barriers. Now not only has Prince Charles publicly agreed that genetically modified foods reduce consumer choice and damage the environment, but all the major supermarket chains have now banned their use in their own-brand products. Friends of the Earth are calling for a five-year moratorium on their use, and there is increasing public concern about the possible dangers.

Nuclear Power
After five years of campaigning, we have won our campaign against Nirex’s plans to site a nuclear waste dump at Sellafield. The expansion of civil nuclear power has been discredited and brought to a halt, but there will be more battles to fight to protect local communities and the environment from the possible dangers of nuclear waste

Traffic Reduction
Our Road Traffic Reduction Act is only a start. We now have to work with government, local councils and industry to develop sustainable transport patterns - including improved public transport, safe cycle routes, improved pedestrian facilities, and new ways of organising work to reduce unnecessary travel.

Air Pollution
Our recent report Prescription for Change exposed the appalling effects of air pollution, which kills some 10,000 people in England and Wales every year, and helped to alert the public. We now plan to lobby at European level for effective controls over nitrogen dioxide and ozone emissions, and for targets to be set for reducing them. Achieving this may take a great deal of time and effort, but it is essential for the nation’s health.

Saving the Forests
The recent Presidential decree banning new mahogany logging concessions in Brazil is a welcome step forward, but it is only one step on a long road.

Climate change
Climate change, caused by increasing levels of carbon dioxide and the release of other ‘greenhouse’ gases into the atmosphere, is a global disaster in the making. We played a big part in drafting the Home Energy Conservation Act, which is helping to reduce emissions. We intend to step up research into practical solutions based on the replacement of fossil fuels by alternatives such as wind, wave and solar power.

Cutting down on waste
In Britain, we bury 5 million tonnes of paper every year in landfill sites. Not only does this accelerate forest destruction and create growing pressure on land use; it also contributes to global climate change because rotting paper releases methane, a climate-changing gas.

Would you like to know more, or perhaps become
a member of Shepway Friends of the Earth?

Annual membership costs £6 (waged) or £2.50 (unwaged); you will receive a regular newsletter and have the opportunity to join in our campaigns. We can be contacted at:

3 Abbott Road, FOLKESTONE, Kent CT20 1NG
Telephone (01303) 257046

BACK TO TOP OF PAGE