Latest news with #NationalFarmersUnion
The Guardian
30-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
UK farmers warn against including lower-welfare chicken in Gulf trade deal
An imminent trade deal with Gulf states including Saudi Arabia could have a destructive impact for UK farmers, industry figures have warned, suggesting that any deal to import chicken would involve far lower welfare standards in the Gulf than British farmers must adhere to. The £1.6bn deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – is expected to be signed soon, though the conclusion may be delayed until after Eid al-Adha in early June. Industry figures said the deal could include uncapped access for chickens if the imports met hygiene standards, which is critical because of the agrifoods deal the UK hopes to seal with the EU in the coming months. But those standards do not cover welfare, sparking alarm among farmers who have recently had to meet new, higher standards under British law. The National Farmers' Union president, Tom Bradshaw, said if such a deal was done it would 'mark a clear betrayal of the government's own promises to uphold our high animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards, standards which are globally renowned and driven by consumer demand. 'For example, British poultry farmers are continuing to improve welfare standards by lowering the number of birds per flock. They must not be undercut by imports produced in ways that would be illegal here. I'm not sure how many times we have to repeat it – we must not sign any deal that undermines UK farming. The public won't accept it, and neither will British farmers.' Bradshaw said the prime minister, Keir Starmer, the business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, and the environment secretary, Steve Reed, all committed to protecting farmers from being undercut by low standards and low welfare in trade deals. 'So we expect the government to stand its ground and ensure that poultry products produced in ways that fail to meet our own production standards remain excluded from market access concessions within this deal,' he said. The UK has previously promised the deal would not compromise environmental, public health, animal welfare and food standards. UK farming is governed by relatively strict animal welfare laws, which differ significantly from GCC countries, including housing density, slaughter methods and living conditions. Farmers have minimum standards to reach in terms of space for birds to live in, and there is mandatory pre-slaughter stunning in most cases. In the six Gulf countries involved in the deal, poultry must be slaughtered according to halal principles, though stunning is sometimes used. Poultry are often raised in intensive indoor systems, especially given the harsh heat. The UK has some of the strictest standards for chicken space in the world. Poultry farmers must give their flock a minimum of 750 cm squared of space per bird, and 600 cm squared must be usable. This is stricter than EU standards, which require the same space per bird but do not specify the amount that must be usable. Chickens are also required to be given enriched areas, with things they can peck such as hay, string or mineral blocks, and perches to sit on. The Gulf states give less than half the space per bird than in the UK, at 300cm squared, and there is no limit on the number of birds raised in one house. Chickens in the Gulf are raised to halal standards and are subjected to non-stunned slaughter. This is legal, but less common, in the UK. The deal, which has been led by the trade minister Douglas Alexander, is likely to be particularly beneficial for the car industry and financial services, though estimates suggest a free trade agreement would be worth less than 1% of GDP by 2035. Trade with the six-member bloc is worth about £59bn a year, according to UK government estimates, as the UK's seventh-largest export market, with a trade deal expected to increase trade by about 16%. The deal has caused alarm among human rights groups about the lack of provisions for improving rights in the region.
Telegraph
23-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Mastermind finalists find love after fierce rivalry
A pair of Mastermind finalists have put their rivalry behind them and found love. Claire Reynolds and John Robinson locked horns in a tense battle for the coveted title – where the latter emerge victorious by just a single point. The final of the BBC quiz show aired earlier this week but was filmed back in November. Ms Reynolds, an actuary with National Farmers Union Mutual society, now seems to have got over the disappointment of defeat as the unlikely romance blossomed. The pair said they began going for drinks and combining their prize-winning general knowledge at local quizzes before 'one thing led to another'. She told the Times: 'The show was shot in Belfast and we were both flying back to Birmingham and were on a flight together. 'We had some time to kill at the airport so we had a few drinks, got the plane back — and stayed in touch. Although we started as friends, it's more than that now, to be honest. 'It did generally start with the two of us just going out and having a drink together over a pop quiz. We happened to be single. And then naturally one thing led to another and we became a couple.' During the hotly contested final, Ms Reynolds scored an impressive 29 points after securing 12 points with no passes on her specialist subject of German mathematician Emmy Noether and a further 17 in general knowledge. She was beaten to the title by her now partner Mr Robinson – a teacher at Bishop Challoner Catholic College in Birmingham. He also scored 12 with no passes on his specialist subject of the Empire State Building, and 18 in the general knowledge round. The performance won him the much-coveted glass bowl trophy in the final of the 52nd series of the BBC show. Mr Robinson, who previously won £50,000 on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? said: 'The first thing I said to her was, 'I feel really bad, because you did so well in the general knowledge, you deserved to win it' 'Obviously, I was delighted for myself, but I also felt really bad.' Ms Reynolds admitted that losing by a single point would always haunt her. She added: 'There were a few questions where I knew the answer, but because I was trying to answer quickly, the wrong thing came out. 'But I don't mind, he was a very good quizzer.' The couple now enjoy competing together in local quizzes. Mr Robinson said: 'So we've gone from being rivals to working as a team. Although I think I'm probably more competitive than Claire.'
Times
22-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Times
Mastermind rivals find love after nail-biting final
It is one of few prime-time game shows that forfeits teamwork for solo acumen so Mastermind was the last place the contestant Claire Reynolds expected to find a romantic partner. However, after just missing out on the top score in the final of the 52nd series, it was the season's victor — John Robinson, a teacher at Bishop Challoner Catholic College in Birmingham — who became Reynolds's team-mate in life. Reynolds, 42, from Stratford-upon-Avon, was beaten by Robinson by a single point in the last seconds of the show, which requires contestants to answer questions on a specialist subject of their choice and another round on general knowledge. Reynolds, an actuary with National Farmers Union Mutual society, said the single-point loss would always bother her.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Starmer's reset inflicts real harm on the British economy
There is a coherent case for Britain to rejoin the EU as a full member. There is an even more coherent case for it to be a self-governing nation under its own Parliament, laws and courts, geared towards world trade and diplomacy. There is no coherent case for what Sir Keir Starmer has just agreed with Brussels. It breaches a large constitutional and democratic principle by submitting Britain to the EU's law-making machinery over food and farming, as a satellite state without voting rights, which is what 'dynamic alignment' means. It violates the terms of our membership in the Asia-Pacific trade pact (CPTPP) and guarantees lawsuits that will put us in an invidious position. It shows that Britain cannot be trusted to uphold a treaty arrangement that it has just joined. It signals to the world that there is no longer much point trying to do a deal with Britain since the country has given up part of its regulatory autonomy. Can anything now be salvaged from talks about stage two of the US trade talks? Labour recrossed this legal Rubicon without a mandate, for no plausible economic gain and probably at a substantial economic loss. It could hardly have made a greater mess of the matter. The only reason why a sane government would agree to such one-sided terms is if the true objective is to shift this country back into the EU orbit one step at a time, creating a series of precedents via the incremental Monnet method until the logic becomes unstoppable. The key stakeholders supposed to benefit from the 'great prize' of Sir Keir's reset do not want it on these terms. British farmers and the food and drinks industry would certainly like to cut the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) barriers imposed by Brussels in a needlessly aggressive fashion after Brexit, but they have also stated that this is no longer paramount and should not be sought at any price. They are finding that life outside the EU has its compensating advantages after all. Tom Bradshaw, the president of the National Farmers Union, fired a warning shot last week. 'It's vital that any progress on an SPS agreement protects our ability to make our own production choices. The new EU-UK SPS agreement must respect the UK's autonomy while reducing barriers to trade,' he said. Ministers present dynamic alignment as a cleaning-up exercise to remove barriers in one area for mutual gain. This is political malpractice. The clause gives the European Commission deep reach into laws governing wide areas of the British economy, extending into biosciences and the fast-growing ag-tech sector. The EU did not insist on dynamic alignment in its deal with New Zealand for the obvious reason that global trade is not conducted on such terms, and Wellington would have walked away. Consenting sovereign states normally trade on the basis of mutual recognition, and agree to differ on laws. To add parody to injury, Britain had to pay for Sir Keir's prize with 12 years of fish, along with the continued eco-degradation caused by European bottom-trawling megaboats. Will the UK have to repeal its post-Brexit ban on live animal exports and the use of animals for testing cosmetics? Presumably, the UK will have to replicate the EU's curbs on gene-editing, and in particular a 2018 ruling by the European Court of Justice that raises the bar on gene-edited crops to near impossible levels. Will it have to accept the EU's Novel Foods Regulation, which has led to an exodus of European start-up companies developing lab-grown proteins and precision fermentation, both of which will be required to feed the world? A majority of EU states are digging in their heels, calling cellular agriculture a 'threat to genuine food production methods at the very heart of the European farming model'. The Italian, French, Spanish and Romanian agro-industry knows how to weaponise the 'precautionary principle'. How is this going to be compatible with the Food Standards Agency's new regime for cultivated protein, which aims to create a top global hub in Britain for ag-tech innovation? 'The UK has a unique opportunity to be a global leader in the alternative protein industry,' said Lydia Collas, from the Green Alliance, a think tank. She said the sector could be worth almost £7bn a year by 2035, but whether that happens depends on securing a 'specific exemption' from alignment as the detailed terms of the deal are thrashed out. It is an example of the rising costs of moving back into the EU legal orbit, but only one of many. Brussels has also shot itself in the foot on AI by trying to become the world's super-regulator, rushing through a sledgehammer directive before it understands what the technology does. We have probably gone beyond the economic crossover point on Brexit. We have been through the adjustment – and survived, in better shape than I feared. At this stage the British economy would probably suffer net damage by becoming entangled in the EU Acquis again. The calculus depends on what you think has happened since 2016. What I see from my angle covering the world economy is that the UK has done no worse than the big three eurozone economies. Any Brexit effect has been overwhelmed by the larger shocks of Covid, Putin and Trump. What puzzles me about this reset saga is why Labour is still in thrall to the EU since a) it is an increasingly reactionary project; and b) it is in serious economic trouble. The political centre of gravity has moved to the Right. The European Council and Parliament are becoming hostile to Labour's belief system. Hard-Right parties are ascendant or waiting in the wings across most of the major states, and Hungary and Slovakia have gone over to Putin. Why does Labour want our laws to be set by the parties of Marine Le Pen, Giorgia Meloni, Geert Wilders or by Alternative for Germany, rather than by our own Parliament? I would advise Labour ministers to shut themselves away for a morning and read the Draghi report. All illusions will fall away. They will learn just how far the EU has fallen behind America in digital tech, and how far behind China in green tech. Why is this still a model in the Labour mind? I don't wish to be stubbornly purist about an EU reset. I backed Rishi Sunak's Windsor deal. I back closer defence ties, though not if presented as a British 'ask'. I am relaxed about free movement – within limits – because we are in a new era of cut-throat global competition for high-skilled labour. If the plan is to shoehorn the UK back into the EU, Labour should have told us in its manifesto last year. It went to great lengths instead to disguise any such intention. Why might that be? This is to repeat the insidious practice of both the EU priesthood and the British establishment over the last half century of slipping through European integration by stealth, with hooks in the fine print of seemingly innocuous texts, and lying to the people at every stage. God forbid that we should ever go back to that. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hamilton Spectator
15-05-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Haldimand-Norfolk MPP calls for ‘Foodbelt' to protect Ontario's farmland
Dave Kranenburg got up early Tuesday to plant trees on his 28-hectare farm in the Oak Ridges Moraine. Then the director with the National Farmers Union drove to Queen's Park in Toronto to show his support for a private member's bill designed to protect farmland like his. At a news conference, Kranenburg said the Protect Our Food Act is 'vitally needed' as Ontario's arable land falls victim to encroaching development. 'We're investing a lot of our time, our energy, our resources in protecting this soil, the water around us, and to grow food for our neighbours,' he said. 'And I want to know that it's going to be there in 20 years.' The bill, co-sponsored by Haldimand-Norfolk MPP Bobbi Ann Brady and Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner, would see the province create a 'Foodbelt' — like the Greenbelt, but for farmland. The proposed legislation would assemble a task force of farmers, agricultural experts and land-use planners to craft a 'Foodbelt protection plan,' Schreiner explained. Farmland inside the Foodbelt would be permanently protected from development. The plan would include strategies to reduce land speculation, improve soil health, and 'enhance farmland,' all with an aim to 'grow more food right here in Ontario,' Schreiner said. 'Because food security is national security, and without farmland, there are no farms, no food, no future.' With the province losing nearly 130 hectares of farmland every day to urban sprawl, aggregate mining and highway construction, swift action is needed, Brady added. 'So that we can feed ourselves, we must cease the constant subtraction of arable land,' she told reporters. 'This legislation will help prevent further land degradation and protect farmland and arable land for future Ontarians and Canadians, all while respecting farmers who want to create succession plans and reinvest in their farms.' Brady said the farmland lost every day in Ontario could be used to grow 23.5 million apples, 37 million strawberries or enough grapes to fill 1.2 million bottles of wine. 'If we don't protect our food-producing land, we will send shock waves across our economy,' Brady said, noting the agriculture and food processing sector employs nearly one million Ontarians and adds $50 billion to the economy every year. Schreiner and Brady's bill is supported by Ontario Farmland Trust, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. At Tuesday's news conference — held a few hours before the bill was tabled in the legislature — OFA director Mark Reusser called farmland 'a strategic resource that can't be made (after) you destroy it.' 'We need to save this precious resource,' Reusser said. Safeguarding Ontario's food sovereignty trumps partisan politics, Schreiner said, adding MPPs should 'put people before party (and) work together to tariff-proof our economy and protect the places we love in Ontario, especially the farmland that feeds us.' Brady said conserving farmland 'is a passion near and dear to my heart,' as she comes from one of Ontario's most productive agricultural regions. This is the independent MPP's second try at getting farmland protection into law. A similar private member's bill she tabled in 2023 was voted down by the government. This time, with formal support from the Greens and a proposed task force to be led by farmers themselves, Brady is more optimistic. She said she plans to consult with rural stakeholders to 'really drill down and get the best piece of legislation that this government can't say no to this time.'
