Misrepresenting the facts to favour the multi-nationals or to protect fellow members or their associates to the detriment of the health of the people of this Nation is a serious failing which can only be described as corrupt.
There is ample evidence to show that at various times in recent history official statements have been made which have proven to be knowingly false. Such statements have been common with BSE, organophosphates, Gulf War activities and on numerous other vital issues.
Claims that the real truth was not known at the time simply do not
stand close scrutiny and the perfect example is that of chronic OP
poisoning upon which subject the official line is that little is
known.
How can this be when it is recognised as an industrial injury in an
Act which is admitted to have been on the statute books in the UK
since 1965?
An interesting exercise is to examine the membership of the various Regulatory bodies and to look at their professional history and private interests. It is truly remarkable how many have direct links to the chemical companies upon whose products they must decide matters of safety.
Reassurances from these individuals mean little when we realise that one of their number actually accused those who warned of the dangers to human health posed by OP insecticides of causing increased environmental damage from the pyrethroid replacements.
It did not seem to occur to this "expert" that his statement was an admission that yet another chemical approved by his colleagues as "safe" was in fact a dangerous environmental toxin.
On the face of it there is an obvious need for individuals who have a
thorough knowledge of the subject to sit on the regulatory panels but
we must be certain that they do not simply "rubber-stamp" what their
former or even current employers claim to be true.
There must be checks and balances.
What is of grave concern is that evidence opposing the views expressed
by the regulators provided by outside sources is usually ignored.
The perfect example of this is the subject of GM contamination and
cross-pollination for the size of the boundaries set to prevent this
has become the subject for a debate which borders on farce.
How can they require any protective boundary whilst at the same time
freely permitting the adulteration of seed with up to 1% contamination
with a genetically modified variety?
Each GM seed will grow, produce pollen, and will be standing adjacent
to the non-GM crop that was the farmer's preference. The latter plant
will be pollinated by the former and the resultant seeds will be GM
seeds.
The planned introduction of GM crops has then succeeded - by the back
door - and with the full consent of the "independent" regulators who
were charged with protecting our native species.
Again we must examine the links between regulator and company.
If we examine BSE and vCJD we will see that the transmission by vaccine
and causation by pesticides were both dismissed as "unlikely" by the
regulators and yet there is ample evidence to support both means of
causation and spread of the disease.
In fact the officials themselves recognise a far higher risk of
"cross-infection" by injection than by feed and yet much of the cattle
testing for tuberculosis continues using common needles for entire
herds.
Even at the peak of the BSE crisis drugs for human medicines were
still sourced from cattle of unknown BSE status.
How can we know if the reason why these risks were dismissed is the
result of direct links to the chemical companies who would be most
damaged by such revelations?
Could it be that the regulators had inside knowledge of the real cause
but hid the facts in order to protect those companies?
We have evidence to show that evidence of real risk has been
ignored.
Recently the restrictions on import controls have been eased to comply
with the concept of "Free Trade" whilst at the same time the UK has
had her own exports banned because of the incidence of BSE and Swine
Fever.
Swine Fever and BSE are found in many other countries which face no
such restrictions and the UK still permits imports from those
countries.
We must ask why the UK is not permitted to protect its own people and
yet is penalised for its high animal welfare standards?
Britain has traditionally been free of rabies but once again she has now weakened the safety barriers to allow the freedom of movement of vaccinated animals. Once again she has lowered the barriers to serious disease after pressure from wealthy "pet lovers" who desire to take their animals with them on holidays and from neighbouring states where the disease is commonly found and spreading.
Strict import controls were placed on meat in order to prevent what was a highly prized UK livestock industry being destroyed by disease brought in from overseas. Now many farmers place the blame for the recent outbreak of Swine Fever firmly at the door of the regulators who allowed the situation to arise by lowering control standards.
Farmers were blamed for BSE by those who did not know. The truth was
that whatever the cause the blame lies with the regulators.
Commercial considerations denied the farmers knowledge of feed
ingredients.
Commercial considerations permitted the ending of solvent use in
rendering plants.
Commercial considerations permitted the lowering of rendering
temperatures.
Commercial considerations insisted on warblecides to aid the leather
industry.
Commercial considerations permitted the addition of rendered meal into
animal feed.
Commercial considerations advised farmers to use glyphosate on crops
fed to man and animals.
Commercial considerations forced farmers to add insecticides to
harvested grain or there was no sale.
Commercial interests declared that the UK needed GM crops, the trial
sites and imported GM foods.
Commercial interests sourced the materials from dead cattle to make
medicines for both man and beast.
All of these were recommendations from commercial interests which were approved by the regulators.
Farmers have been blamed for all these problems but they have been falsely accused.
Yes there are rogue farmers who misuse pesticides and they are unduly
protected by the system but again the regulators are at fault.
The Regulations are there to protect us all but they are not properly
enforced.
Dated 16/9/2000