Could chlorinated chicken from the US be on the menu in the UK?

It may be a concept alien to members of our ruling Tory party that one function of government is to intervene in markets when the results of such an intervention would be in favour of its population – in this case with food.

Whilst Coffey eschews personal blame, she does have the responsibility to action a credible plan to mitigate the damaging effect of Brexit on our food supply. There are no such shortages in Spain, France, or the rest of Europe.

We cannot get all the food we need from abroad. Government inaction impairs food production and distribution at home. Fruit and vegetables are affected now, but the “generous” EU-replacing trade deals with Australia and New Zealand will adversely impact our meat producers who are already missing out on the EU market. Fish is a familiar losing story.

Could chlorinated chicken from the US be on a future menu? These actual and potential deals exist because of Brexit and it is British farmers who will fail as consequence.

Are the question-dodging Coffey and her party really this bad at their job? We appear to be losing out both in quantity and quality. Our very necessary domestic production suffers. They offer no useful comment and we have to draw our own conclusions regarding causation. Brexit, a Tory-bred animal, looms large among them.

David Nelmes

Newport

In times past, Guernsey was a traditional source of tomatoes for the UK. But overseas supplies were deemed “cheaper” by the supermarkets, so many growers went out of business. One can still see acres of abandoned farms on the island. Short-termism and profit, as always, by the big boys. Nobody was interested in food security. Is it too late for a rethink? Probably not, since the retailers would ditch them the instant regular suppliers resumed despatches.

James Mason

Address Supplied

More than 100,000 people signed a petition delivered to the prime minister this week calling on the government to fund research into the health impact of plastic. Ahead of the spring budget on 15 March, the petition urges the government to implement a £15m plastic research fund.

Last year, Common Seas launched groundbreaking research showing that 77 per cent of people tested had plastic in their blood. The existing sparse body of research indicates potentially devastating short and long-term effects of plastic on human health. Research has determined that each day we are exposed to plastic particles, which have been found widely in our food, drink, and the air we breathe. Our bodily exposure is only set to increase as global production of plastic is on course to double by 2030, according to the United Nations – making this a public health risk that must be immediately investigated.

For a commitment of less than 0.1 per cent of government R&D spending, the National Plastic Health Impact Research Fund would establish the UK as the world leader in plastic and human health and help drive forward the UK’s ambitions as a global science superpower. It has become very clear that microplastics are not just an environmental problem, but also a health one. A research fund would establish the UK as a science superpower in this vital area of research. We hope with the support of so many people the Government will address the urgent need to implement research into the health effects of plastic pollution.

Jo Royle

CEO, Common Seas

Earlier this week, Shamima Begum failed in her latest appeal to overturn the 2019 revocation of her British citizenship. By continuing to revoke her citizenship, the UK government is extending an embarrassing moral failure and pursuing a policy that is counterproductive in the global fight against Isis.

Begum was born and raised in the UK, her actions and the hurt she caused in both Syria and the UK cannot be overlooked or justified. She should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law – but the process should happen in her home country, which has responsibility for its citizens wherever they may be.

The decision to uphold the revoking of Begum’s British citizenship this week is nothing more than a shameful shirking of the UK’s duty to deal with its citizens. Without British citizenship, Begum will remain in a detention camp in Syria and never be brought back to the UK to face legal punishment here. Instead of prosecuting, punishing, and rehabilitating one of our own citizens, the UK government has offloaded its responsibilities.

This is not only morally wrong – it risks making the UK government an international outlier and causes embarrassment on the global stage. The UK is the only G20 nation that revokes citizenship on a broad scale and remains one of the slowest Western countries to repatriate its citizens from Syria.

However, the risks of continuing to revoke Begum’s citizenship are not only moral or reputational – they also jeopardise our security and the global fight against Isis. Without citizenship and repatriation for prosecution here in the UK, Begum will be held in limbo at a detention camp in northeast Syria. Isis regularly organises attacks on prisons in northeast Syria to free its former members, while opinions differ on Begum’s role as a perpetrator or victim, there is no question that leaving foreign Isis members in Syria will undermine our security and provide Isis with opportunities to free them.

While this week’s decision ignored the reality that Begum was born and raised in the UK, we have both a moral and practical responsibility to repatriate her and prosecute her in the UK, despite all the challenges involved.

Continuing to revoke her citizenship is tantamount to sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring our responsibilities – both to our allies and the global coalition against Isis. The decision to uphold the revocation of Begum’s citizenship will have long-lasting consequences for Britain but it will not solve the fundamental issue of what to do with British citizens who joined Isis and remain in Syria. It may however spark a national discussion which is long overdue.

Broderick McDonald

Associate Fellow at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and a Postgraduate Researcher at the University of Oxford

Our esteemed secretary of defence, Ben Wallace, is glamouring for an increase in our defence spending, believing that within seven years our country will be embroiled in a hot or cold war. Looking back in history, it appears evident that wars were only ever started by rebellious individuals, tribal leaders, kings, emperors or politicians, either elected to not. The general populace only ever went along with those sentiments after sufficient goading, promises, threats or induced fears. And paid the price for it, mostly with their suffering and their lives.

Should the prime focus of our politicians not be on preventing any future wars, of finding ways to listen to each other’s concerns and fears, finding ways for peaceful coexistence? Focussing on our survival on an increasingly threatened planet?

Tony Blair believed that Saddam Hussein would attack the UK within 20 minutes and went to invade Iraq, shoulder to shoulder with the Americans. There was no foundation for his belief. Who paid the price?

Gunter Straub

London