Sir, - Senior politicians of the main parties love to claim a commitment to agriculture, food security and sustainability. The reality is very different.

This latest example comes from the Small & Family Farms Alliance in Britain, and the October 19 edition of the Bangkok Post! It's relevant to every acre of your circulation area, but it is not to be found among the Government's press releases.

It seems that last month BAE Systems Ltd and our own government sealed a contract with the Thai military to provide armaments for a Joint Rapid Reaction Command. As a sweetener for the deal, the UK agreed to promote sales of Thai agricultural produce in Britain.

We haven't yet been able to find out how it will be done. The most likely candidate for increased imports is cheap intensively-reared chicken-meat.

Most is highly processed in intermediate factories to "add value" before it reaches the UK supermarket shelves and High Street takeaways. No doubt Tesco, Grampian Foods and Kentucky Fried Chicken, who already have interests in Thai production units, will be quite happy to play their patriotic part. The UK market share of Thai-produced chicken will increase further.

So where does this intervention by the government and the arms manufacturers leave our local producers? What does it mean for "food security" - our ability to feed ourselves? What does further growth of this absurd energy intensive trade do for the environment? And is supplying arms in exchange for food and money really the best way to help a developing country become self-sufficient?

The Green Party is no lover of intensive rearing wherever it takes place, because of its intrinsic association with animal exploitation and environmental degradation. When it swells unnecessary global trade in highly processed food, in exchange for arms, it only makes things worse.

The story from Bangkok certainly demonstrates that the Green Party priorities of sustainable farming to meet local needs make far more sense than the global food trading system ever will.

PETER GOODWIN

Teesside Green Party

Church Howle Crescent,

Marske-by-Sea.

Worthless

Sir, - One would expect that if consent is given for mineral extraction any planning conditions would subsequently be enforced.

This is not the case in the old quarry at Nosterfield where a drainage pipe had to be installed to return the land to agricultural use.

This pipe has been blocked, resulting in the periodic flooding of the agricultural land in this quarried area. The Nosterfield Nature Reserve is situated in part of this old quarry and S Walker, speaking for the Lower Ure Conservation Trust/ Swale and Ure Washlands Project has expressed reservations about my suggestion that the drain be unblocked and a valve fitted. This drain just happens to run under land which has clearly been earmarked for quarrying.

I have had no satisfactory response from the minerals planning authority and have been told that "things change over time".

If this is true then any planning conditions regarding quarries are meaningless and has serious implications for future quarry applications.

R J LONSDALE

Nosterfield.