Letter: Hidden costs of intensive farms

Monday 23 September 1996 18:02 EDT

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Replies to Prince Charles's call for more natural sustainable farming methods ("BSE is an offence against God, says Prince Charles", 20 September) repeatedly claim that food produced intensively is cheap.

However, it is not cheap when the hidden costs of factory farming are taken into account - for instance, the cost of removing pesticides from the water supply. There is the cost of compensating farmers with taxpayers' money after food crises such as salmonella and BSE.

Most government subsidies go to intensive farming, with only a tiny fraction to help natural organic farming.When all is taken into account,chemical farming is not cheap at all.

A WELLS

Ruislip,

Middlesex

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

0Comments

Thank you for registering

Letter: Hidden costs of intensive farms

Join our commenting forum

Thank you for registering