Doubts on Defra

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) used to look after farming, fishing and food. Now it seems more interested in the environment and the rural society. These are two aspects which allow subjective opinion full scope.

While farming is left with keeping the countryside tidy, policymakers are free to exercise their natural prejudices. They can choose the wildlife they favour and the type of communities and landscape they prefer. Intensive farming need not apply, as pig farmers in Yorkshire found when suburbia expanded into their localities and did not like the smell.

It is not surprising that the department’s recent thoughts on farming (“Defra expert says policy needs a ‘re-imagination”, The Scotsman, 15 March) are not very positive.

The Chatham House report by Ian Mitchell (formerly one of the senior economists at Defra) envisaged the disappearance of parts of UK farming and greater reliance on food imports as one favoured option for future policy.

Prof Ian Boyd’s contribution goes further down this track. His thought that current policies are “broken and inefficient” seem belied by the fact that farmers here and in the EU are producing most of the food needed, generally at competitive prices.

Neither Prof Boyd nor Ian Mitchell seem worried about food security.

Depending on imports, however, seems fraught. Our suppliers before we entered the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973 have found markets in Asia and elsewhere. Nor are they heartened by the lower purchasing power of sterling

If we look back to the 1970s, shortage of commodities led to high prices and the United States embargo on oil seed exports.

These developments led to the Food and Agriculture Organisation calling a World Food Conference then. No wonder prof boyd is relying on imagination to develop future agricultural policies.

Whether we can rely on ideas to fill empty stomachs remains to be seen.

L. V. MCEWAN St Albans Road, Edinburgh