|
Written by Steve Bettison
|
|
Monday, 19 November 2007 |
|
 "The Silent Invasion" is the latest offering from The Soil Association (SA) (the cover of which has a not to subtle jab at the US). In this latest report of an investigation they carried out they found that most of the “non-organic” food sold in the UK came from animals that has been fed on GM feed. The SA wants all food produced from these animals to be labelled as such, and advises the public the best way to avoid this is to (surprise, surprise) buy organic.
Plainly the SA is attempting to give its members another advantage over other producers by scaring the public into thinking that the “non-organic” GM fed food it is consuming is somehow not safe. Is it any wonder they are chasing after food produced using GM feed, could it be that this food is somehow cheaper than the organic alternative?
The European wide ban on GM food being available to the consumer has meant that there is a large stock of material that can’t be used to feed humans but is fit for animals to consume. Rather than allowing this to go to waste it is fed to animals; the consumer benefits from this with cheap food that is safe to consume and choice in the marketplace. How best does the SA seek to narrow this competition, by trying to whip up public fears and hope that there will be legislation passed based on their own recommendations.
The Soil Association probably wishes to see the remove of all competition to organic food in this country and desires that all food produced is done so to its own exacting and expensive standards. There is no thought to the consumer; the Soil Association shows nothing more than the selfish pursuit of profits for its members through protectionism and the heavy hand of legislated regulation.
Adam Smith was correct when he said: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
|
|
Written by Tim Worstall
|
|
Friday, 09 November 2007 |
There's one point about this credit crunch/sub-prime crisis (call it
what you will) which I've been banging on about a bit here and there.
Everytime someone announces huge losses and writedowns I cheer. Not
because I actually like such things, of course, but because it's
getting us closer to the solution. For the thing is, the actual crisis
hasn't been caused by people having lost money. It's that we don't know
who has or how much they have. This is what makes people unwilling to
lend and thus the crunch itself.
Over at Chicago Boyz they've noted something about quarterly reporting .
The very fact that US companies do have to report quarterly figures
means that the losses there are being brought out into the open faster
than they would be with a system of simply annual reports. The
solution, knowing who has lost what, is therefore that much closer.
So, in this instance at least, far from quarterly reporting being a
problem, something leading to that dread "short-termism", it's a boost,
a benefit, in clearing up the current financial mess.
|
|
Written by Dr Eamonn Butler
|
|
Thursday, 01 November 2007 |
Labour MP Andrew Miller, head of the House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee, was our guest at a Power Lunch yesterday.
He – and indeed anyone involved in regulatory reform – has a difficult
job. I'm all in favour of checks and balances so that Parliament has
control over the executive. Maybe it stops the state expanding and
power being centralized. But when you actually want to do something
useful, like cutting regulation, it can be a nightmare. I'm sure that
the Committee would love to deregulate lots of things, but by the time
both houses of Parliament have got through with it, not a lot actually
gets deregulated.
So we continue to add more regulations, maybe 300 a year, than we
ever get rid of. One of our lunch guests made the point that
Parliamentarians' whole purpose, as they see it, is to pass laws –
which in turn require regulations. Attacking regulations is seen as an
attack on them. So why should they agree to it? And of course if they
did suspend a regulation and someone got hurt, everyone would be
blaming them. Much easier to keep the red tape.
So if anyone has any ideas on how to make progress on this issue, I'd like to know.
|
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 14 of 20 |
