James Leman, J L Foods Ltd

Stephen K Lomax, BVSc, MRCVS, Barrister

Naved Syed, MD, Janan Meat

Steve McGrath, Chief Executive

It's good to see the government has finally joined the debate on food. It appears that the various warnings over food security have finally permeated the thick skin of ministers and the response is the first major food policy strategy since the Second World War. In some ways that fact simply highlights the scary lack of interest in food production that the government has shown in the past 60 years. Who would have thought that something so fundamental to our survival could generate such a lack of political interest in the UK.

I have just read the Farm Animals Welfare Council's Report on 'Past, Present and Future' October 2009. It is very detailed and informative, mentioning all aspects of the work, with recommendations.

It was very encouraging to read in the last edition of the MTJ that Geoff Ogle and Peter Styler are committing the MHS to working in partnership with industry.

I would like to reassure George Debman and many other supporters of the EBLEX Quality Standard Mark that reports of the demise of the scheme have been very much exaggerated.

The mere mention of livestock consumption in relation to climate change tends to send many manufacturers running for the hills. Fair enough, their livelihood depends on producing meat, so why would they want to hear about reducing the amount they produce? But it's more complicated than that a point I'd like to pick up on following the recent article, 'WWF: government should do more to cut meat consumption' (MTJ, 2 October).

Well, well, well Mr Smith! I think you have got your facts wrong. From reading MTJ, I understand that you say operators are responsible for animal welfare at their plants when they are actually paying for a vet to look after it. I thought that is what the vet is paid for.

I would like to express my sadness at the Red Tractor logo replacing the Quality Assurance schemes run by Eblex and Bpex, which craft butchers like myself have benefited from, enabling us to promote ourselves as people you can trust.

In his column in the 18 September issue of MTJ Steve McGrath asks the industry to embrace "the spirit and detail of the law". There are few members of the industry who would wish to do otherwise. Their businesses depend on providing a safe product for consumers.

I am writing in response to your editorial criticising World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) for urging parents not to put ham and other processed meats in their children's lunchboxes. Firstly, it is not correct to say the evidence linking processed meat with cancer is limited. In fact, as part of our 2007 report, an independent panel of 21 world-renowned international scientists evaluated the wealth of scientific data on this issue and agreed the evidence processed meat increases risk of cancer was convincing. WCRF does not recommend diets with no meat, but it does recommend limiting intake of red meat to no more than 500g (cooked weight) per week and, with processed meat, we advise people to avoid it. Scientists estimate about 10% of UK bowel cancer cases could be prevented if everyone ate less than 70g of processed meat a week. We issue a number of press releases about the links between diet, physical activity and body weight and cancer to try to raise public awareness. As well as processed and red meat, we have done the same for our other messages, such as body fat and alcohol.Even after the recent coverage, only 40% of people are aware that eating processed meat increases the risk of cancer. It is important to increase awareness of the link, so that as many people as possible have the information they need to make their own informed choices.

I have been reading with interest your coverage of Ireland vs Brazil, which has involved more name-calling than a schoolboy football match. Not that I blame the Brazilians for trying to fight their corner. I am all for supporting local production, but the venomous manner in which the IFA is pursuing a ban on Brazilian imports does raise questions of protectionism. If the IFA was just concerned with ensuring that Brazilian farmers are subject to EU standards, then surely the debate should be over. The Irish have already succeeded in forcing the EC's hand and reducing Brazilian imports to a fraction of their former volume. The fact that they are now calling for a total ban suggests they do not just want a fair playing field - they want to play alone. What really bothers me, though, is the way in which the IFA has jumped on the environmental bandwagon in an attempt to further discredit Brazil. Padraig Walshe has used allegations over the Brazilian beef industry's complicity in the destruction of the Amazon rainforest to justify his call for a ban on Brazilian beef. He seems to have missed the vital point that these allegations refer to processed meat - and that for domestic Brazilian consumption, not the fresh beef he is trying to ban. And I would be fairly confident that Irish livestock are fed on soymeal from South America, the production of which has itself has been linked to massive rainforest deforestation. I would welcome genuine environmental and ethical concerns from Irish farmers, but I object to them clumsily wading into an argument they do not seem to understand for their own commercial gain.

As President of the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers I was keenly interested to read your leading article "Meat Hygiene Reform May Be Compromised" in the July 24 edition of the Meat Trades Journal.

I am responding to the article 'Healthy concerns', published in the last edition of MTJ (15 May 2009) which contained an anonymous interview with a Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) inspector.

We live in a busy and mad world and all have a tendency to take things for granted. I feel that the meat trade rather does that with Keith Fisher. Throughout the trials and tribulations of the MLC, right through to the current AHDB, Keith has been a constant factor in promoting and developing meat.

The very interesting comments from leading trade figures in 3 April MTJ questioned some of the basic defects and anomalies in the present set-up of meat hygiene regulations. Increased charges are damaging enough, but it is good to see industry leaders extending the discussion to the technical and legal bases of regulations. These matters should be settled before costs get completely out of control.

Professor Pennington has confirmed two truths we have known for ages: that hygiene controls vary unacceptably across the UK; and that the MHS self-audit has failed both industry and regulators alike.