press watch
The Guild is operating a press watch service for the agricultural industry that attempts to have mistakes on agricultural matters made by our colleagues in print and broadcast journalism corrected.
The BBC and Daily Telegraph have been tackled with some success, and most recently The Observer has been taken to task over an article that contained numerous factual errors on the dairy industry.
Although The Observer printed a correction covering the mistaken belief that dairy cattle in the UK are fed hormones and that cows can calve twice a year, the Guild’s Watchdog, Joe Watson (Press & Journal, Aberdeen) has tackled the newspaper and the article’s author on further errors in the story.
For those of you who want to understand Joe’s angst over this article, the original can be found at:
http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/consumer/story/0,,1714078,00.html
Joe is more than happy to raise issues on factual inaccuracies with any media organisation. Contact him if you see any such material.
Beyond tackling errors when they have been made, the Guild intends to raise its profile among the non-specialist media with a view to being a source of advice and industry contacts on matters agricultural so that errors of fact can be avoided in the first place.
National coverage of a regional issue – BBC taken to task
The Guild’s Press Watch officer, Joe Watson, has taken BBC Radio 2 to task for reporting wage negotiations for England’s farm workers as a national issue.
In a letter that drew a quick response from Helen Boaden, director of BBC News, he pointed out the misleading statement that the outcome of negotiations between employers’ representatives and Unite, the union representing farm workers claiming a 6% pay rise, would apply across the UK.
“Britain has a system of statutory wages boards and the negotiations reported on by the BBC applied to England only,” Joe explains. “It was therefore quite wrong to say ‘across the country’ in the report.”
In his defence, the BBC’s rural affairs correspondent, Jeremy Cooke, explained that the story was based on a press release from Unite sent late on a Friday that refers directly to "UK agriculture and horticulture". He acknowledges that he should have known that Scotland has a different system, a fact that would have furthered listener understanding had it been included in the report.
Helen Boaden wrote: “Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention and please be assured that across News we have taken on board the Trust's report [regarding national reporting of regional issues] and we are taking steps to ensure that we do even better in our reporting of the UK's nations and regions.”
Caged Chickens
9th January 2008
Letter to Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall regarding comments made on the BBC's The One Show
Congratulations on your campaign [for consumers to reject standard broiler produced chickens in favour of free-range] that has been featured on Channel 4 television over the last three evenings. If consumers have a soul they may well listen; if not then your efforts will have been pointless.
I must, however, correct a statement you made on BBC's The One Show earlier tonight. You incorrectly stated that the ban on battery cages for egg production has been "delayed and delayed".
This is not so. The European Agriculture Council took the decision in 1999 to outlaw so-called unenriched (battery) cages from 2012. Industry was informed then so it had time to prepare for a major change in European law and to spread the costs.
The European Commission yesterday reaffirmed the ban as it published a report that showed significant scientific and welfare benefits from making the change from unenriched systems. Spain, France and Poland had all been pressing the commission to delay the implementation of the ban, but health commissioner Markos Kyprianou refused yesterday and said the 2012 ban would go ahead as originally planned.
The UK Government has today similarly reaffirmed its position on 2012; it couldn't really do anything else as it would have been in contravention of EU law.
That said, it could have implemented the ban earlier, but I suspect it had learned the lesson of 1998 when it unilaterally banned stall and tethers in pig production many years ahead of the rest of Europe. That resulted in the shift of pig production out of the UK to other EU nations where stall and tethers are still allowed and where production costs are significantly less.
Supermarkets and others have gone to these markets for supplies and further added to the woes of UK pig producers.
The only delay there has been in the process of implementing the battery cage ban has been in the publication of the EU report that was finally revealed yesterday, [January 8, 2008] three years late. The saddest point is that while battery cages will be banned in Europe they will not be in other parts of the world and eggs from these nations will still be allowed to flood into the EU to undercut domestic production.
The only issue I had with your [broiler versus free-range] programme was that you did not raise the plight of the poor chicken producer. They have for years been at the end of the price chain, operating on wafer thin margins while supermarkets do everything to maintain their profits on chickens.
It was interesting to note that those on your show tonight believed that in increasing the demand for free-range and organic chicken the price of it might be cut. I say ‘interesting’ as any price cut agreed by the retailer will simply be passed down the line to the poor farmer and whose margins will come under even further pressure. Their returns currently are already desperately low as the soaring price of cereals and the increase in production costs that has brought has not yet been reflected by many retailers, resulting in an even bigger financial squeeze on both processors and farmers.
I hope you accept the points raised, and that you will use them in future so you are better informed.
All the very best, and kindest regards.
Joe Watson
Chairman - Guild of Agricultural Journalists of Great Britain
Complaint against the Daily Mail
The Guild’s media watchdog took the Daily Mail to task in September, pointing out several incorrect statements in a story asserting that antibiotics are fed to chickens. The author responded promptly, accepting the observations made in the following letter:
Sir: Sean Poulter incorrectly writes in your newspaper today in his story on chickens that "millions are fed antibiotics which have the effect of speeding growth, effectively pumping up the birds".
Your consumer correspondent should check his facts before making such sweeping statements. Had he done so then he would have found that the use of antibiotic growth promoters in the production of chicken was banned Europe-wide in January this year.
Had he checked he might also have found that the British chicken industry led the way in introducing a voluntary ban on the use of antibiotic growth promoters as long ago as 1998, and indeed long before the European Commission took action itself.
What Mr Poulter does not say is that antibiotic growth promoters are still used in the production of chicken overseas.
Indeed, with imports of poultry soaring into the UK from both Thailand and Brazil, it is of no surprise that the chicken consumers eat is pumped full of antibiotics.
Here again we have a scenario where Europe has taken steps to outlaw practices that could endanger human health, but where our supermarkets and caterers appear not interested in these endeavours. Their only interest is in the buying price of chicken and the fat profits they can make from it.
The cheaper they buy it – and the cheapest is imported chicken –the greater the profit. As the retailers say, every little helps.
Joe Watson
Deputy chairman
Guild of Agricultural Journalists of Great Britain
* * * * * * * * * * * *
From: Sean Poulter, Daily Mail:
Mr Watson: It is a fact that millions of birds are fed antiobitics. They have been banned as growth promoters from January. However they are still being fed to millions of birds as a therapeutic measure.
This is because of the problem of disease spread in the sheds. These drugs do have the effect of promoting growth.
Some UK poultry producers did impose a voluntary ban on certain antibiotics - avilamycin - in 2003. They garnered popular coverage as a result. However, a number, such as producers supplying Tesco, then reintroduced them. They said they were necessary on welfare grounds.
You are absolutely correct in your concern that supermarkets are screwing down prices paid to UK farmers - and using cheap imports from Brazil/Thailand.
I am very happy to identify concerns about imported meat. Indeed, I
recently had a Daily Mail front page raising concerns about imported beef and hormones. I have written about poor quality Brazilian beef, which is part Zebu. Previously, I have also written about imports of Christmas turkeys from Brazil.
I am always happy to hear more on the issue of imports and standards.
I note that some retailers are finding a commercial advantage in improving chicken welfare eg Marks & Spencer and Waitrose.
Sean Poulter
The Observer
As a result of earlier – and somewhat protracted – exchanges with The Observer (see above), the newspaper’s Readers’ Editor pre-empted our Watchdog’s wrath with the following:
Mr Watson
Earlier this year you wrote complaining about inaccuracies in a farming
piece in The Observer. I fear we may have repeated some errors again last Sunday in the following piece, and would be grateful for your observations.
Stephen Pritchard
Mr Pritchard
Indeed you have repeated some of the issues.
No cow in the UK is fed hormones as it is illegal under Europe law. It is also wholly inaccurate for the organic movement to state that organic dairy cows do not get antibiotics. That's utter rubbish. Where cattle, organic or conventional, need treatment with prescription drugs they get it, and the organic sector fully recognise that. It is good organic practice to treat animals that are suffering ailments.
One could also dispute the claims being made on the basis that not all countries have the same organic production standards as the UK. For instance, in the US organic cattle will get hormones, antibiotics and are more than likely to be farmed just as intensively as conventional dairy cattle.
You also fall into problems over "organic cows being milked less intensively". Rubbish. Cows, regardless of whether conventional or organic, are generally milked once in the morning and once in the evening. There would also be many organic producers who milk three times a day. Those farmers with robotic dairy systems, and I know of one organic producer in Scotland with this, have their cattle milked ad lib. The cows themselves develop an instinct for getting milk and go to the machine to have it done.
Where organic farming differs in the UK is that cattle are farmed less intensively and rather more extensively. They also get a greater part of their diet for grass, silage and hay, as against the compound feeds given to conventional cattle to boost milk yields.
As to scientific claims about the structure of the milk, far be it for me to dispute research conducted initially by Aberdeen University. It is well accepted in the science world that cattle, and indeed sheep, fed largely on grass-based diets produce food that is more nutritionally beneficial to the human species.
Again, I fear a situation where you've swallowed the organic PR machine's often repeated puff.
Joe Watson
Deputy chairman
Guild of Agricultural Journalists of Great Britain
Maintained by Landwriter - Created by The Cogworks
