Imperfect science of intensive farming | Letters
Written by Letters
Intensive farming does not represent the best use of our agricultural land, says Sue Pritchard
The Crop Protection Association (CPA) criticises the RSA Food, Farming and Countryside Commission report, Our Future in the Land, for its absence of science (Letters, 22 July). As much as they’d like us to believe it, they do not have the monopoly on the scientific arguments.
Good science is a rigorous and critical process of inquiry: it is far from perfect, neutral and incontrovertible. It was science that gave us DDT, thalidomide and lead in petrol; and science told us it would be fine to give antibiotics prophylactically to intensively reared livestock. We know now that the science was at best “incomplete”, and it is fresh science that tells us that we must change.
Continue reading...
Since you’re here …
… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps fund it, our future would be much more secure. Support the Guardian – it only takes a minute. Thank you.
