What does Mr. McAnespie think of the petition?
Sensitive? Just fed up with having my words twisted and being told by people who know nothing about me what I think.
So we're looking at a 10% increase in the cost of basic foods on top of the rises that are already occurring? Given that revolutions sparked by the price of food are ongoing on the door step of the EU, which is embarking on unprecedented levels of austerity cuts right now, is that something that you think is going to go down well?
Even if you ignore everything else about what is currently going on how much appetite do you think there'd be for a campaign that seeks to whack up the cost of basic foodstuffs by around 10% on the basis of not liking big business very much?
Surely it's better to improve people's diets and preserve our fragile environment than boost the number of flat screen tv's or fast foods or other frivolous commodities that are supposed to improve our economies?
Well now you're moving into a completely different area of discussion. This is supposed to be about banning Neonicotinoids and looking at what the implications, specifically, of going down that route is.
If you want to start a discussion around diet, farming and the wider environmental impact of balancing those needs I'd be happy to engage in a discourse on that subject. This topic sadly has been framed solely around the aim of banning one particular class of pesticide, for it or against it, simple as that. Not my decision because I think it's far more nuanced than that but it appears I don't have any input into those rules.
don't pout.
you are,of course, quite right that neonics are just an emblematic target to attack concerning the way agriculture is going. i don't personally claim to have enough good information to be certain of just how harmful they are, whether 'correctly' used or sloppily, despite having read a lot about them.
Then there's the obviously posed point made of what will 'necessarily' replace them. for myself, i don't and wouldn't use any of them- certainly not as a default for each crop.if you can't grow a crop without initially lacing it with pesticide there's something wrong at the core of your planting plan.
anyway, i'm sure you are pretty fed up with these highly trodden tracks, but just suppose that due to their subtle work at low doses through generations-months- they really are as bad as some say.....
night night....
See, here's a thought, you're a farmer, an organic one at that. How many topics of interest do you think you could start on here that would engage people? I've been maybe too subtle before and I get passive aggressive responses in return.
You're obviously passionate about what you do, and you do it for a living, why don't you engage on that front? Most, if not all of us on here, keep bees as a sideline to what pays our wages. So rather than berate us over the choices your industry has made maybe you should try and engage us to your way of thinking about how your industry should work. We're affected by it and in a symbiotic relationship with it. But we're not the ones spraying stuff that affects bees.
I agree wholeheartedly that we would be better off nutritionally and environmentally if we grew organically, pest- herb-and every other -icide free, so why not petition for the positive, I'm sure you would garner much more support that way.
Yes, lets go 100% organic and starve 20% of the world as yields collapse.
It can be true that not using artificial fertilisers, biocides,GM crops etc., will sometimes reduce yields in the short term. Nevertheless, such commercial boosts are not sustainable.
These extra inputs yield less over time,and are becoming more expensive themselves.
Much better to work with systems which don't degrade, and produce higher quality food with far less environmental harm.
We bin more food than your suggested 20% defecit.
I have produced more and better food off my 170 acre Orkney farm in the last 12 years since becoming Organic than I did using more conventional methods.