DOCSLIB.ORG

FOOD ETHICS Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FOOD ETHICS Report Open access. Some rights reserved. As the publisher of this work, the Food Ethics Council has an open access policy which enables anyone to access our content electronically without charge. We want to encourage the circulation of our work as widely as possible without affecting the ownership of the copyright, which remains with the copyright holder. Users are welcome to download, save, perform or distribute this work electronically or in any other format, including in foreign language translation without written permission subject to the conditions set out in the Food Ethics Council open access licence, which you can read at the back of this publication. Please read and consider the full licence. The following are some of the conditions imposed by the licence: . Food Ethics Council and the author(s) are credited; . The Food Ethics Council website address (www.foodethicscouncil.org) is published together with a copy of this policy statement in a prominent position; . The text is not altered and is used in full (the use of extracts under existing fair usage rights is not affected by this condition); . The work is not resold; . A copy of the work or link to its use online is sent to the address below for our archive. Copyright Department Food Ethics Council 39-41 Surrey Street Brighton BN1 3PB United Kingdom [email protected] You are welcome to ask for permission to use this work for purposes other than those covered by the Food Ethics Council open access licence. Food Ethics Council acknowledges the work of Lawrence Lessig and Creative Commons, which inspired this approach to copyright. We are very grateful to James Wilsdon, of Demos, for allowing us to use Demos’s adapted version of the ‘attribution/no derivatives/noncommercial’ Creative Commons licence. To find out more about Creative Commons licences go to www.creativecommons.org. ISBN 0-9549218-0-1 Price £10 © Food Ethics Council Some rights reserved – see copyright licence for details Food Ethics Council, 39 – 41 Surrey Street, Brighton BN1 3PB t: 0845 345 8574 or +44 (0) 1273 766 654 f: +44 (0) 1273 766 653 [email protected] www.foodethicscouncil.org The Food Ethics Council is a registered charity (No. 1101885). The seventh report published by the Food Ethics Council © Copyright Food Ethics Council 2004 www.foodethicscouncil.org . The Food Ethics Council reports on ethical issues in food and agriculture. We develop tools to help make ethical thinking a standard practice in policy, in business and in everyday life. We work towards a food system that is fair, humane, secure and sustainable. Previous reports Engineering nutrition: GM crops for global justice? (September 2003) TRIPS with everything? Intellectual property and the farming world (November 2002) After FMD: aiming for a values-driven agriculture (December 2001) Farming animals for food: towards a moral menu (December 2000) Novel foods: beyond Nuffield (October 1999) Drug use in farm animals (June 1999) All these reports may be downloaded, free of charge, from our web site: www.foodethicscouncil.org. Subject to availability, hard copies may also be obtained by contacting the Food Ethics Council Office. Members of the Council Ms Helen Browning: (Chair) Organic farmer; Food and Farming Director, Soil Association Prof Ruth Chadwick: Director, ESRC Centre for the Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics, University of Lancaster Dr David Challacombe: Retired consultant paediatrician specialising in nutritional and gastrointestinal disorders Dr Elizabeth Dowler: Department of Sociology, University of Warwick, researching food and social policy Prof Carlo Leifert: Director, Stockbridge Technology Centre, University of Newcastle Ms Jeanette Longfield: Coordinator of Sustain – the alliance for better food and farming Dr Peter Lund: Senior Lecturer, School of Biological Sciences, University of Birmingham Prof Ben Mepham: Director, Centre for Applied Bioethics, University of Nottingham Dr Doris Schroeder: Reader in Ethics, Centre for Professional Ethics, University of Central Lancashire Mr Geoff Tansey: Freelance writer and consultant Mr John Verrall: (Treasurer) Pharmaceutical chemist Acknowledgements This report develops discussions that took place at a workshop on Agri-food research: participation and the public good, which the Food Ethics Council held in March 2004. We are very grateful to everyone who took part in that workshop, and the many other people since who have contributed to our understanding of research on food and farming. We owe a special debt of thanks to members of the external Review Panel for this report, who met twice prior to publication and contributed detailed comments on earlier drafts. The Review Panel members are: Dr David Barling (City University) Dr Jofey Craig (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology) Professor Sir John Marsh (University of Reading) John Turner (Farm) Dr James Wilsdon (Demos) In order to help open debate around the issues covered in this report, we invited the Review Panel members to write individual comments. These postscripts can be found at the end of the report. The Review Panel do not necessarily endorse this report. We also wish to express our sincere thanks to Dr Christopher Stopes (Ecos Consultancy) and Dr Paul van Heyningen (Biotechnology Commission/AEBC), who attended Review Panel meetings as observers. The Biotechnology Commission has been gathering evidence for a report on Research Agendas and we thank the commission for its openness in sharing relevant information. We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, the Allen Lane Foundation and the Polden Puckham Charitable Trust. The working group for this project consisted of Helen Browning, Ben Mepham and Geoff Tansey. This report was drafted by Dr Tom MacMillan, with assistance from Shaila Seshia and Ann Baldridge. It was designed and printed by PDC Copyprint (Brighton). The Food Ethics Council Summary 1. Introduction 1.1 Just knowledge? 1.2 Ethics and science 1.3 Our approach 2. Activities 2.1 Science and technology 2.2 Research ethics 2.2.1 An ethic of honesty 2.2.2 Codes and guidelines 2.2.3 Scientists in society 2.3 Governing technology 2.3.1 Product assessment 2.3.2 Technology assessment 2.3.3 Towards social assessment 3. Organisations 3.1 Food and farming 3.2 Stakeholders 3.2.1 Professional stakeholders 3.2.2 Citizens 3.2.3 Engagement and accountability 3.3 Policies 3.3.1 Science policy 3.3.2 Agricultural policy 3.3.3 A sustainable science policy 4. Resources 4.1 Public and private 4.2 Financial resources 4.2.1 R&D spending 4.2.2 Infrastructural investment 4.3 Human resources 4.4 Natural resources 4.5 Intellectual resources 5. Conclusion: towards a just research system Review panel comments Abbreviations Notes Copyright Just knowledge? Public confidence in the governance of science and technology has been severely shaken by a succession of controversies about risk regulation, new technology and public health. The policy response has been to promote public engagement in research and ‘upstream’ in research planning. But giving people greater access to decision-making about science will not alone earn public trust. The ethics of science and technology – the values and assumptions that get built in during research, innovation and regulation – must be opened to greater public scrutiny and challenge. This report explores how that can be done. We explain why the view that science is ‘just knowledge’ is a misunderstanding which presents a real barrier to a robust research policy. Farming and food have been at the centre of public unease about science, in the wrangling over bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), genetically modified (GM) crops and, of late, obesity. We focus on food and farming research, and on policy in the United Kingdom (UK), though much of our analysis and many of our recommendations apply more generally. Research ethics Research scientists cannot avoid ethical issues. In the first place, in the practice of research, they are faced with numerous ethical codes, guidelines and procedures, covering issues that range from confidentiality and data protection to the ethics of publication and animal experiments. Some of these codes must be followed by law, others as conditions of professional or funding bodies. However, these requirements and guidelines only address a small subset of the ethical issues that arise in research. They focus on the conduct of research, and are largely blind to its social context and consequences. They do not address the ethical questions that many non-scientists care most about – what is the wider purpose of the research and what are its social implications? It is essential for scientists to deliberate on the social consequences of their work. Funding bodies should reward applicants who consider the social context of their research. It is also important to encourage young people to reflect on the social and ethical implications of science. Now that ethical and social objectives feature in science curricula, we recommend that science teachers in schools and universities are given the support, training and resources they need to achieve them (Section 2.2.3). Governing technology Some official discussions of ethics and public concerns draw a line between science and its application. As the Prime Minister has put it, “Science doesn’t replace moral judgement… with scientific advance we need stronger analysis of how to use knowledge for good not ill”.1 The implication is that if issues are not addressed during research, they will be addressed downstream. This clear-cut divide is inconsistent with government policy on innovation, which recognises that the research, development, regulation and use of new technologies are inseparably linked. Nor does it fit with the government’s current focus on upstream public engagement, which aims to address concerns sooner rather than later. But the research-application divide is most misleading because many ethical issues and public concerns are not addressed downstream in technology regulation: .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IB Process Plant Study Page 2 of 107
    Industrial Biotechnology Process Plant Study March 2015 A report for: The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Innovate UK and The Industrial Biotechnology Leadership Forum (IBLF). Authors: David Turley1, Adrian Higson1, Michael Goldsworthy1, Steve Martin2, David Hough2, Davide De Maio1 1 NNFCC 2 Inspire Biotech Approval for release: Adrian Higson Disclaimer While NNFCC and Inspire biotech considers that the information and opinions given in this work are sound, all parties must rely on their own skill and judgement when making use of it. NNFCC will not assume any liability to anyone for any loss or damage arising out of the provision of this report. NNFCC NNFCC is a leading international consultancy with expertise on the conversion of biomass to bioenergy, biofuels and bio-based products. NNFCC, Biocentre, Phone: +44 (0)1904 435182 York Science Park, Fax: +44 (0)1904 435345 Innovation Way, E: [email protected] Heslington, York, Web: www.nnfcc.co.uk YO10 5DG. IB Process Plant Study Page 2 of 107 Acknowledgement NNFCC wishes to acknowledge the input of the many stakeholders who provided information on the pilot scale equipment present in their respective facilities and more specifically the following stakeholders who gave of their time and experience, either in the workshop, or in one-to-one discussions with the project team. We would like to thank all for their valued input. Sohail Ali Plymouth Marine Laboratory Mike Allen Plymouth Marine Laboratory
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Term Experiments
    ROTHAMSTED LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTS Guide to the Classical and other Long-term experiments, Datasets and Sample Archive Edited by A. J. Macdonald Contributors Andy Macdonald, Paul Poulton, Ian Clark, Tony Scott, Margaret Glendining, Sarah Perryman, Jonathan Storkey, James Bell, Ian Shield, Vanessa McMillan and Jane Hawkins. Rothamsted Research Harpenden, Herts, AL5 2JQ, UK Tel +44 (0) 1582 763133 Fax +44 (0) 1582 760981 www.rothamsted.ac.uk 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 THE CLASSICAL EXPERIMENTS 7 Broadbalk Winter Wheat 7 Broadbalk and Geescroft Wildernesses 19 Park Grass 20 Hoosfield Spring Barley 31 Exhaustion Land 34 Garden Clover 36 OTHER LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTS 37 At Rothamsted 37 At Woburn 39 RESERVED AND DISCONTINUED EXPERIMENTS 41 Barnfield 41 Hoosfield Alternate Wheat and Fallow 41 Woburn Market Garden 42 Agdell 42 The Woburn Intensive Cereals Experiments 43 Saxmundham, Rotations I & II 43 Amounts of Straw and Continuous Maize Experiments 44 (Rothamsted and Woburn) METEOROLOGICAL DATA 45 LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTS AS A RESOURCE 45 THE ROTHAMSTED SAMPLE ARCHIVE 47 ELECTRONIC ROTHAMSTED ARCHIVE (e-RA) 49 THE ROTHAMSTED INSECT SURVEY (RIS) 50 UK ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE NETWORK (ECN) 52 NORTH WYKE FARM PLATFORM 53 MAP OF ROTHAMSTED FARM 28 REFERENCES 56 The Rothamsted Long-term Experiments are supported by the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Front cover under the National Capabilities programme Broadbalk from the air, 2015 2018 © Rothamsted Research grant (BBS/E/C/000J0300), and by the Back cover ISBN 978-1-9996750-0-4 (Print) Lawes Agricultural Trust. Park Grass from the air, 2015 ISBN 978-1-9996750-1-1 (Online) 2 FOREWORD It is a testament to the foresight and Managing and documenting these experiments commitment of Sir John Lawes and Sir Henry and their associated data and archives is Gilbert, as well as others who have come after not a trivial task.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Edition 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    Revised Edition 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Written and researched by: Ian Fitzpatrick, Richard Young and Robert Barbour with Megan Perry, Emma Rose and Aron Marshall. We would like to thank: Kath Dalmeny Adele Jones Christopher Stopes David Gould Stuart Meikle Marie Christine Mehrens Anil Graves Dominic Moran Thomas Harttung Jules Pretty Patrick Holden Hannah Steenbergen for helpful comments on draft versions or sections of the report. All interpretation, opinion and error is the responsibility of the authors alone. Designed by: Alan Carmody, Midas Design Consultants Ltd. and Blue Moon Creative Production Coordinator: Hannah Steenbergen Printed by Vale Press Ltd. First published November 2017 Revised and corrected July 2019 We would like to thank the following organisations for their invaluable support for our work on True Cost Accounting, as well as the Brunswick Group, who kindly hosted our report launch in November 2017: THE HIDDEN COST OF UK FOOD FOREWORD 3 PREFACE TO THE 2019 EDITION 5 PREFACE 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 Hidden costs in 2015 ............................................................................................................................................8 Challenges to be overcome .............................................................................................................................10 Addressing the challenges ..............................................................................................................................10 The purpose of this report ...............................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Agrochemicals - the Silent Killers Case Histories
    Case histories Agrochemicals - the Silent Killers Rosemary Mason MB, ChB, FRCA and Palle Uhd Jepsen former Conservation Adviser to the Danish Forest and Nature Agency JUSTIFICATION The purpose of this document is to highlight the problems of the current and future use of agrochemical products, using a series of case studies. Have we forgotten Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring from 1962? Many of these chemicals are far more toxic (and persistent) than DDT. They are the silent destroyers of human health and the environment. CONTENTS CASE HISTORIES 2 Honeybees 2 Bumblebees 3 Super-weeds 5 The controversial BBC Countryfile programme 6 Why are the European authorities determined to get GM crops into Europe? 7 EFSA has recently given positive opinions on old herbicides at the request of industry 8 Another GM, herbicide tolerant seed in the pipeline 9 What is the role of the Commissioner of the Health and Consumers Directorate? 9 The effects of GM crops on humans in Latin America 10 Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling 13 Danish farmers report side effects with GM Soya fed to pigs 14 Desiccation of crops with glyphosate to dry them 15 Scientists complain that the EC has ignored independent scientific advice about Roundup® 15 RMS (DAR) studies on glyphosate 16 Other EFSA reasoned opinions for modification of MRLs in food 17 Lack of ecological knowledge from industry and governments 17 Humans are bearing the brunt of these genotoxic chemicals and will do so even more 18 The Faroes Statement: Human Health Effects of Developmental Exposure to Chemicals in Our Environment 2007 19 The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal 19 Peoples’ Submission 19 The Verdict 23 Summary of Verdict by members of the Jury 23 1 Summary of complaints to the Ombudsman 1360/2012/BEH about the EC and EFSA CASE HISTORIES Honeybees Dead queens and workers.
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 48 (2014) 51E62
    Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 48 (2014) 51e62 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ibmb Identification of pheromone components and their binding affinity to the odorant binding protein CcapOBP83a-2 of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata P. Siciliano a,b, X.L. He a, C. Woodcock a, J.A. Pickett a, L.M. Field a, M.A. Birkett a, B. Kalinova c, L.M. Gomulski b, F. Scolari b, G. Gasperi b, A.R. Malacrida b, J.J. Zhou a,* a Department of Biological Chemistry and Crop Protection, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Herts. AL5 2JQ, United Kingdom b Dipartimento di Biologia e Biotecnologie, Università di Pavia, Via Ferrata 9, 27100 Pavia, Italia c Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the AS CR, v.v.i., Flemingovo nám. 2, CZ-166 10 Prague 6, Czech Republic article info abstract Article history: The Mediterranean fruit fly (or medfly), Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann; Diptera: Tephritidae), is a serious Received 30 July 2013 pest of agriculture worldwide, displaying a very wide larval host range with more than 250 different Received in revised form species of fruit and vegetables. Olfaction plays a key role in the invasive potential of this species. Un- 17 February 2014 fortunately, the pheromone communication system of the medfly is complex and still not well estab- Accepted 18 February 2014 lished. In this study, we report the isolation of chemicals emitted by sexually mature individuals during the “calling” period and the electrophysiological responses that these compounds elicit on the antennae Keywords: fl fl of male and female ies.
    [Show full text]
  • Profits and Potatoes
    Rothamsted Research and the Value of Excellence: A synthesis of the available evidence Report to Rothamsted Research By Sean Rickard October 2015 Séan Rickard Ltd. 2015 1 Forward by the Director and Chief Executive of Rothamsted Research Professor Achim Dobermann Assessing the impact of agricultural research is difficult because science is a complex and lengthy process, with pathways to impact that vary widely. It is common that research and development stages towards new technologies and know-how last 15 or even more years, followed by many more years for reaching peak adoption by farmers and other users of new technology. Adoption is often slow and diffuse, also because unlike in manufacturing many agricultural innovations need to be tailored to specific biophysical and even socioeconomic environments. Some of the many impact pathways may be known well, whereas others are not or are very difficult to quantify. Attribution presents another problem, i.e., it is often very difficult to quantify how much of the observed technological progress or other impact can be attributed to a specific innovation or an institution. Progress in productivity and efficiency is the result of many factors, including technology, knowledge and policy. Even more difficult is to assess the impact of agricultural technology on a wider range of ecosystem services and consumer benefits. Nevertheless, in science we need to be willing to rigorously assess the relevance of our research. In his report, Sean Rickard has attempted to quantify the cumulative impact Rothamsted Research has had through key impact pathways that are most directly linked to its research. The economic approach used is in my view sound, providing a robust framework and a first overall estimate of the wider impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Rothamsted Repository Download
    Patron: Her Majesty The Queen Rothamsted Research Harpenden, Herts, AL5 2JQ Telephone: +44 (0)1582 763133 WeB: http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/ Rothamsted Repository Download A - Papers appearing in refereed journals Firbank, L. G., Attwood, S., Eory, V., Gadanakis, Y., Lynch, J. M., Sonnino, R. and Takahashi, T. 2018. Grand challenges in sustainable intensification and ecosystem services. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2 (7), pp. 1-3. The publisher's version can be accessed at: • https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00007 The output can be accessed at: https://repository.rothamsted.ac.uk/item/84746/grand- challenges-in-sustainable-intensification-and-ecosystem-services. © 28 March 2018, CC-BY license applies 17/09/2019 09:05 repository.rothamsted.ac.uk [email protected] Rothamsted Research is a Company Limited by Guarantee Registered Office: as above. Registered in England No. 2393175. Registered Charity No. 802038. VAT No. 197 4201 51. Founded in 1843 by John Bennet Lawes. SPECIALTY GRAND CHALLENGE published: 28 March 2018 doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2018.00007 Grand Challenges in Sustainable intensification and ecosystem Services Leslie G. Firbank 1*, Simon Attwood 2,3, Vera Eory 4, Yiorgos Gadanakis 5, John Michael Lynch 6, Roberta Sonnino7 and Taro Takahashi8,9 1 School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, 2 Bioversity International, Maccarese, Italy, 3 School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom, 4 Land Economy, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), Edinburgh, United Kingdom,
    [Show full text]
  • HGCA Project Report 504.Pdf
    Patron: Her Majesty The Queen Rothamsted Research Harpenden, Herts, AL5 2JQ Telephone: +44 (0)1582 763133 WeB: http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/ Rothamsted Repository Download D1 - Technical reports: non-confidential Cook, S. M., Doring, T. F., Ferguson, A. W., Martin, J. L., Skellern, M. P., Smart, L. E., Watts, N. P., Welham, S. J., Woodcock, C. M., Pickett, J. A., Bardsley, E., Bowman, J., Burns, S., Clarke, M., Davies, J., Gibbard, C., Johnen, A., Jennaway, R., Meredith, R., Murray, D., Nightingale, M., Padbury, N., Patrick, C., Von Richthofen, J-S., Taylor, P., Tait, M. and Werner, P. 2013. Development of an integrated pest management strategy for control of pollen beetles in winter oilseed rape (HGCA Project Report No 504). Kenilworth Home Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA). The publisher's version can be accessed at: • https://cereals.ahdb.org.uk/media/198124/pr504.pdf The output can be accessed at: https://repository.rothamsted.ac.uk/item/8qvwy/development-of-an-integrated-pest- management-strategy-for-control-of-pollen-beetles-in-winter-oilseed-rape-hgca-project- report-no-504. © 1 February 2013, Home Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA). 29/10/2019 11:38 repository.rothamsted.ac.uk [email protected] Rothamsted Research is a Company Limited by Guarantee Registered Office: as above. Registered in England No. 2393175. Registered Charity No. 802038. VAT No. 197 4201 51. Founded in 1843 by John Bennet Lawes. Feb 2013 Project Report No. 504 Development of an integrated pest management strategy for control of pollen beetles in winter oilseed rape by Samantha M. Cook1, Thomas F. Döring2,3, Andrew W, Ferguson1, Janet L.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Horticultural Science in England, 1910-1930
    The Development of Horticultural Science in England, 1910-1930 Paul Smith Department of Science and Technology Studies University College London Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy July 2016 I, Paul Smith, confirm the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm it has been indicated in the thesis. 2 Abstract This thesis explores how horticultural science was shaped in England in the period 1910-1930. Horticultural science research in the early twentieth century exhibited marked diversity and horticulture included bees, chickens, pigeons,pigs, goats, rabbits and hares besides plants. Horticultural science was characterised by various tensions arising from efforts to demarcate it from agriculture and by internecine disputes between government organisations such as the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Education and the Development Commission for control of the innovative state system of horticultural research and education that developed after 1909. Both fundamental and applied science research played an important role in this development. This thesis discusses the promotion of horticultural science in the nineteenth century by private institutions, societies and scientists and after 1890 by the government, in order to provide reference points for comparisons with early twentieth century horticultural science. Efforts made by the new Horticultural Department of the Board of Agriculture and by scientists and commercial growers raised the academic status of
    [Show full text]
  • British Food: What Role Should UK Producers Have in Feeding The
    This is a repository copy of British Food- What Role Should UK Food Producers have in Feeding the UK?. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/112876/ Monograph: Doherty, Bob orcid.org/0000-0001-6724-7065, Benton, Tim G., Fastoso, Fernando Javier orcid.org/0000-0002-9760-6855 et al. (1 more author) (2017) British Food- What Role Should UK Food Producers have in Feeding the UK? Research Report. Wm Morrisons plc Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ 02/2017 British Food What role should UK producers have in feeding the UK? British Food: What role should UK producers have in feeding the UK? in feeding have UK producers should role What British Food: 02/2017 CONTENTS Chapter 1 03-05 Introduction: Food systems under pressure Chapter 2 06-07 The food we eat: where is it sourced? 02 Chapter 3 08-13 Is more food trade a good idea?
    [Show full text]
  • The Side Saddle Association® Newsletter Autumn 2018
    The Side Saddle Association® Newsletter Autumn 2018 THE 2018 NATIONAL SHOW Chloe wins Rider of the Year Title Cripps with ‘The Pirates of the Carribean’, riding Fabien van de Pluum, a magnificent Friesian stallion. This is the first time that the competition has been won by an overseas competitor and she and her team also won the “Wow” factor award. Kamilla Rohankova played Davy Jones and made the incredible outfit she wore, and the darkly handsome pirate was enacted by Jiri Budin. The Best Costume and Best over 40 went to Sarah Moreland whose Doris patiently put up with being dressed as an elephant with enormous ears. There was a large contingent from abroad attending the Association’s Show both as competitors and spectators. Juniors Carlijn and Annemarijn Arnoldus had a very successful show on the two ponies they had brought over from Holland, winning the Show Pony class and the Fancy Dress l-r: Mme E. Goudsmit-van der Putten, President the late Roger Philpot, 2018 Rider of the Year Chloe Marsh, plus numerous class placings. Alessandra Chairman Janet Senior and President of the Nederlandse Vereniging Het Damensadel, Mr Harro Goudsmit Continued....... arriage obviously suits 2017 Ireland with two horses. Her many other Reserve Rider of the Year, Chloe successes included the Working Hunter Marsh (nee Gunn), as she went Championship (Arctic Eclipse) and the Mone better this year to become Show Hunter Championship (Carnsdale Irish The Association’s 2018 Rider of the Year. Times). Reserve Adult Novice was Jennie She also took the Adult Amateur award Daniels riding her versatile Tilly Kingsclough and her mount Oaklawn Gypsy, owned by who also takes part in Re-enactments.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Closed/Closing Redundancies/Early Retirements Transferred/Transferring
    DEFRA AGENCIES AND LABS CEFAS 1 Lowestoft Latest revision of this document: //library.prospect.org.uk/id/2011/04237 2 Burnham, Essex Public sector 3 Weymouth This revision: //library.prospect.org.uk/id/2011/04237/2011-12-14 4 DEFRA Central Science Laboratory, York Veterinary Laboratories Agency science 5 Weybridge 6 Aberystwyth 7 Bury St Edmunds 8 Carmarthen 9 Langford, Bristol laboratories 10 Lasswade, Penicuik, Midlothian 11 Luddington, Stratford upon Avon 12 Newcastle 13 Penrith and sites 2008 14 Preston 15 Shrewsbury 16 Starcross, Devon 17 Sutton Bonington 18 Thirsk 19 Truro Closed/closing 20 Winchester Horticulture Research International Redundancies/early retirements 21 Wellesbourne, Warks 69 72 22 East Malling, Kent 65 Transferred/transferring to a 23 Efford, Lymington Hants 45 24 Kirton, Boston, Lincs university 25 Wye, Kent 31 Work likely to suffer under current NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL 26 British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge funding arrangements 27 Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool 30 70 28 National Oceanography Centre, Southampton Future funding levels uncertain 29 Plymouth Marine Laboratory 30 Scottish Association for Marine Science, Dunstaffnage, Argyll 31 Ardtoe Marine Laboratory, Argyll British Geological Survey 32 Nottingham 10 37 41 33 Wallingford, Oxon 34 Exeter 49 57 64 35 London 67 68 74 36 Cardiff 75 37 Edinburgh 71 73 66 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology 38 Bangor 39 Lancaster 40 Wallingford, Oxon 41 Edinburgh 12 42 Winfrith, Dorset 43 Monks Wood, Huntingdon, Cambs 44 Oxford 13 45 Banchory, Aberdeenshire
    [Show full text]