Letters: Eating obsession

I agree with you that the "national collective neurosis" about food has got out of hand. Of course, good nutrition is conducive to good health. But it is not the only factor in maintaining well-being.

Exercise, fresh air, and a balance of work and play are also important. Getting obsessive about what we eat is greatly damaging our quality of life. But many people fall prey to the idea that "chemicals" in food are bad for us. In fact, many of the chemicals used in food production have contributed to the luxury we now have, of having enough to eat all the time.

"Chemicals" stop us losing a whole grain crop to fungi or insects. "Chemicals" enable us to maintain the health of farm animals, giving them medicine when they are sick (read James Herriot).

"Chemicals" preserve fruits and vegetables, enabling us to enjoy fresh produce from around the world, all year round.

"Chemicals" stop our bread going mouldy too quickly, and enable us to enjoy the convenience of shopping weekly, instead of daily.

Many of the diseases we now see, such as Alzheimer's Disease, are degenerative diseases of old age. As we are now living, on average, to an older age than before, is it surprising that there are more degenerative diseases around?

We have to die of something. Spending our lives agonising over whether we should dare to eat a doughnut today seems to me a sad way of spending this extra life expectancy. Enjoy the doughnut - you might get run over by a bus tomorrow.

Helen Johnson

Hunters Ride,

Appleton Wiske.

Natural food

Sir, - It was good to read Rik Dent's articulate response to your editorial attempt (D&S, Aug 9), to play down the impact of the agrochemical industry on the food we eat. It's only half the story, though.

Intensive production of food and other crops has impacts way beyond the personal health of the consumer. Consider, for instance, workers world-wide obliged to work with dangerous chemicals. Consider people cleared from the land so intensive chemical monocultures can be introduced in the name of efficiency.

Consider the massive use of pharmaceuticals, especially antibiotics, in intensive rearing systems, and the capacity of nature to find new ways to resist them. Remember that these methods deplete our soil capital, inducing a deeper dependency on chemical applications. And bear in mind that global markets, encouraged by the "efficiency" of agribusiness, consume unprecedented levels of energy in both production and in global distribution.

None of these "costs" is borne by the industry; that's why they appear to produce cheaply, and can present themselves as efficient. Is that what leads to your own curious assertion that "the world will still need food produced with the aid of science"?

If you are suggesting that only agrochemicals can feed the world's hungry, remember there is more than enough food to go round. The real problem is the poor can't afford it. That is a very different issue. I'd like to think the South African Earth Summit might dare to question the economic orthodoxies that create an ever-widening gap between rich and poor, but so far the signs are unpromising, as the "free traders", including the agrochemical lobbyists, seem to have forced anything so controversial off the summit agenda, just as they have convinced you that there's nothing to worry about.

It seems strange to equate science with agribusiness, and to imply - without offering a shred of evidence - that the "non-chemical" sector is no more than a matter of faith or of fad.

In practice, non-chemical methods can claim a near perfect scientific pedigree, having been tested and developed over millenia, while looking after the natural capital of the soil, the climate, and the community, aided by good husbandry and, yes, by research in the lab and in the field.

By contrast, agribusiness is built on bulk marketing, externalising costs, and maximising "shareholder value".

When we choose not to buy an intensively reared chicken, a "dollar" banana, or an "ordinary" cotton T-shirt, we're not being eccentric - we're thinking it through.

Peter Goodwin

Teesside Green Party,

Green Howle Crescent,

Marske-by-the-Sea.

Pub quandary

Sir, - I refer to the article by Brian Redhead (D&S Aug 2) regarding the decision of the Government inspector David Brier to reject the appeal by the owners of the Millbank Arms pub at Well, against the original decision of the Hambleton District Council.

Mr and Mrs Wilson, the owners, have been treated appallingly in this matter. It would seem that the non-viability of the pub over the last 20 years or so is accepted by both the inspector and the council planners.

I suggest that the people of Well have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they do not wish to patronise their pub. Also, efforts to attract custom from other areas have failed.

I am at a loss to understand how the council can levy business rates against a loss-making concern, on the grounds that the said business is not vital to the Well community, whilst the same council refuses to allow the unfortunate Wilsons to close their business and live in it as a house, or sell it at better terms.

After all, who would purchase the Millbank Arms at a reasonable price now?

The council planners, now reinforced by the inspector's decision, are guilty of false reasoning. Their argument appears to be that there is a possibility of yet another owner of succeeding. The probability is that they would not and an irrefutable historical record supports this.

A High Court judge's decision would be more likely to favour probability as opposed to possibility and I hope and pray that Mark Wilson and his wife have the determination and the will to secure their basic rights at law.

ALAN BENN

Burneston Village Stores,

Bedale.

Aghast at mast

Sir, - I can't believe that Hawes Church still intends to go ahead and have a phone mast on the tower despite the opposition - a petition with 327 names against masts in the town, opposition from the local council and school, and after it was initially turned down by the planning authority.

The church is in the centre of Hawes which means a lot of people live, work and go to school not far from it. The school is only a short distance away.

There are reports from various parts of the country of clusters of cancer and leukaemia in people living near phone masts; eg. a six-year-old girl in Devon contracted leukaemia after a phone mast was installed near her home.

Three of her neighbours also got cancer the same year. One of the mast beams goes through her bedroom. Readings show radiation levels in the rest of her home twice as high as EC safety recommendations.

No mobile phone masts should be placed in residential areas until health and safety aspects are fully known.

The church is supposed to be a Christian, caring place, but it looks as if this is not so when money is involved. It seems the church is completely ignoring the concerns of the people of Hawes because it is being paid for the mast.

Any objections can be sent to: The Diocesan Registrar, Ripon & Leeds Diocesan Registry, Cathedral Chambers, 4 Kirkgate, Ripon, North Yorkshire, HG4 1BA.

MARIAN ALDERSON

The Hill,

Hawes.

Station welcome

Sir, - On behalf of the Wensleydale Railway, I should like to thank all the people in the Leeming Bar area who have been so welcoming since we opened the station to visitors on August 1.

We have really appreciated all the offers of help with the buffet coach and shop and the kind remarks about future rail services.

Leeming Bar station will continue to be open to visitors every day until Sunday, September 1. Pilgrim, the miniature steam train, is a highlight with the children (and many parents and grandparents!) and we look forward to the day - hopefully not too far away - when we can offer real rail services.

Meanwhile, anyone wanting information is invited to call at Leeming Bar station, or the Wensleydale Railway shop at Leyburn station, to phone 01609 779368 (office hours) or 01969 625182 (until 8pm) or to look at the web site www.wensleydalerailway.com

Ruth Annison

Dyke House,

Askrigg