Get the full story at thegrocer.co.uk 20 July 2019 | The Grocer | 23higgins
Megan TatumS
o oft en when we look
back on food scandals
the focus is on the big
picture. The stat s, the politics
and the changes implemented
as we try desperately to prevent
a recurrence. Oft en for valid
reasons, too. But what Mad Cow
Disease: The Great British Beef
Scandal (BBC2, 11 July, 9pm) did
so brilliantly was to shift our
focus to the individual cost.
With at times truly shocking
footage, the documentary
tracked the discovery and
development of BSE, or ‘Mad
Cow Disease’. From the virus
fi rst being detected in a lab in
1985, to the £1bn-plus impact
on the British beef industry
during the 1990s, to the
seemingly shameful attempts
by politicians to boost recovery
by insisting that infected beef
held no risk to humans.
The tragedy of course is that
they – that we – believed them,
consuming an estimated 1.5
million tonnes of infected beef
in that period. It has so far cost
178 lives. People like teenager
Claire McVey, her family
powerless as the disease saw
her consigned to wheelchairs,
struggling to walk, talk or
eat, before she died in 2000.
People like Stephen Churchill,
a 30-year-old who became the
fi rst recorded victim of BSE
in 1995, only diagnosed aft er
being sent to a psychiatric
hospital. And people like Grant
Goodwin, who died only 10
years ago, his father Tommy
holding out a tattoo that alleges
he was ‘murdered by greed and
corruption’.
This was a deeply sobering
watch that will undoubtedly
force industry to look back on
a series of choices with horrifi c
consequences. Proof that the
big picture doesn’t always tell
the full story.CRITICAL EYE
Support your farmers
second opinion
Professor Chris Elliott is director
of the Institute for Global Food
Security at Queen’s University,
BelfastF
armers are to blame for
climate change. They
are poor custodians of
the land, producing food that is
much less nutritious than it once
was. And they use chemicals that
are slowly poisoning us all.
These are not my views, I hasten
to add. They are views I encounter
on my t r ave l s. I cou ld n’t d i s ag re e
more. As former Irish president
Mary Robinson once put it: farm-
ers are not the problem, they are
the solution. Yet negative views
persist. Why? And what can we
do about it?
Confusion about who is
responsible for certain market
trends plays a big role, I believe.
Over 50% of the world’s calo-
ries come from just three crops –
maize, rice and wheat – and 75%
of the world’s food is generated
from only 12 plants and fi ve ani-
mal species. Who is responsible
for this? Not farmers, but ‘the
market’. What’s more, for the past
20 to 30 years, crops have been
selected mainly on three traits- productivity, size and colour.
Again, who made the decision to
go in this direction? The market.
Key players in that ‘market’
are the manufacturing, retail
and foodservice sectors – and of
course us, the consumer.
The debate is further compli-
cated by a lack of reliable data.
It’s become trendy to blame live-
stock farmers for raising animals
that contribute to environmental
pollution. Yes, livestock farming
has contributed to this, but the
extent is overstated. And the true
impact is hard to measure.A s f a r m i ng i s at t ac ke d f rom a l l
sides, I worry farmers could lose
the motivation to make improve-
ments to how they farm the land.
Because improvements do have
to be made. Soil health and the
state of trees and hedgerows are
huge areas of concern.
The vast majority of farmers I
have met are willing to work in
greater harmony with the envi-
ron me nt , but t he y ne e d ‘ t he m a r-
ket’ to be part of the solution.
I have previously argued envi-
ronmental footprints should be
measured in a more detailed and
consistent way, and that farm-
ers should be paid for achieving
true sustainability. This would
signal the end of the cheap food
policy we have had for years.
And it would send a clear signal
to farmers that we, the public, are
willing to support them.“Soil health and
the state of treesand hedgerows are
areas of concern”Chris Elliott