Foot'n'mouth

[Chris Burford]

At 11:52 04/03/01 +0000, James Heartfield wrote:
>The WEEK
>ending 4 March 2001
>
>Agricultural luddites
>
>Prime Minister Tony Blair added to the clamour of criticism of British
>supermarkets for holding down food prices - which he suggests is the
>reason for the foot and mouth outbreak. In fact it was increased
>productivity in agriculture that transformed the quality of life in the
>UK. In 1950 spending on food represented nearly 30 per cent of the
>household budget; by 1995 that was down to just over ten per cent.
>Increased consumer spending on leisure goods and IT is the consequence.
>Three years ago the Ministry of Agriculture Farms and Fisheries insisted
>that there was an excess capacity in abattoirs, and 'hopefully the
>smaller less efficient firms will be forced to close'. In today's
>backward-looking times, that advance is held to blame for the spread of
>diseased livestock. With meat prices temporarily rocketing, British
>shoppers will get a taste of what life would be like permanently, if the
>luddites got their way and agriculture was returned to its old labour-
>squandering techniques.

Despite some of my political differences with JH, I rather value his weekly 
column on this list as a way of contributing a focus from the UK.

The foot and mouth issue has again shown that some of the sharpest 
contradictions in capitalism in Europe at present are around the issue of 
agriculture.

Some papers are beginning to question the scare about foot and mouth, that 
has led to bare supermarket meat shelves. Foot and mouth is a virus that is 
not deadly, except to capitalist food production. It dries up milk 
production for weeks if not months. It causes beef cattle to lose 
substantial weight, which they do not put on again for months.

30 years ago, in 1967 when thousands of cattle were slaughtered in England, 
the outbreak was confined to a smaller geographical area of the country. 
Now the increased capitalist concentration of production and distribution 
methods, means that it has spread in many parts of England.

There is soul searching about whether the latest epidemic is just 
punishment for capitalist methods of agriculture, or has occurred despite 
them. The farmers lobby points out that there are more intensive methods of 
agriculture in the USA, which has not been plagued by BSE or foot and 
mouth. Also that ironically pigs are vulnerable to the air borne foot and 
mouth virus because in England significant numbers of them are reared in 
the open, unlike on the continent.

The attack on the supermarkets that James reports might just be an 
opportunist bit of luddism by the government, having got the donation to 
Labour Party funds from the Sainsbury family. But it might also point to 
the reality: that with the increasing centralisation of food distribution 
in England through a small number of monopoly capitalist supermarkets, 
social control, whether geared more to the interests of the consumer, or 
the environment, or both, could and should come through more leverage on 
this system.

I would suggest to James that much opposition to capitalism is immediately 
reactionary to the changes produced by capitalism. However such reactionary 
responses may sometimes contribute to a more progressive outcome, if 
guided, no doubt, by the wisdom of those  who understand the true course of 
events. If James believes he has something to contribute as one of these, 
how comes he eschews all reactionary forms of resistance?

After all, if cheap food has allowed the great British public to spend more 
of its disposable income on leisure activities, it might decide that these 
should include being able to visit a living rather than a dead countryside.

Chris Burford