Government by Magazine
Asked recently about his views on the use of neonicotinoids in farming and the potential environmental and agricultural damage these insecticides may cause, Mr Wiggin told the Ledbury Portal that the latest edition of Farmers Weekly had a useful response to the debate.
But should there be a debate when science has conclusive evidence?
The BBC recently reported that: scientists, who have carried out a four-year review of the literature, say the evidence of damage is now "conclusive".
Speaking in Parliament earlier about TB and culling badgers Mr Wiggin took a pro-science view: " "Let me return to the core of the debate, which is science and whether the Government have [sic] paid sufficient attention to the scientific detail and acted accordingly... If we are going to base our decisions on science, we should ensure that the scientists have been heard..."
But what happens if science undermines profit? Can a conflict of interests cause a contradiction of views within the mind of an MP?
This latest political cop out should not be viewed simplistically as Government by Magazine, but as an avoidance to put up a fight against elite corporations and agriculturalists who are profiting from products that are causing this damage. Mr Wiggin's silence - his viewlessness, along with all the other MPs sitting in Parliament, predictably defends the indefensible.
Mr Wiggin refuses to speak directly to the Ledbury Portal, because by doing so he cannot control the news agenda. But it should be his constituents' right to put important issues into the public domain, and as our only representative in Parliament, Mr Wiggin should be openly responsive and not hide away behind an uncritical or selective establishment-minded media.