Eat less meat

[essexpete]

Speaking to friends relations and customers I hear quite a lot who either do not eat meat, cut out/reduced red meat consumption, are vegetarian for health reasons or vegetarian for ethical reasons and some pescatarian. I would also guess that those that have made a decision based on health tend to be quite affluent and probably well educated. Some younger folk are changing for health reasons but also because they believe what they are fed (NPI) by the media. Most of the people I meet are not folk struggling to feed a family on a small budget. The vegetarian angle may be higher than average as some are horse owners and been involved with animals for a large part of their life. I guess what I am trying to say is that the changes are already underway although the folk I meet are not necessarily representative of the average UK family.

 

[Top Tip.]

The only reason that the figures are coming out in favour of cutting meat eating is because we are not allowed to offset the carbon sequestrated in the production of that meat. Having done 3 carbon audits now , i am convinced that if we were working on a level playing field ie.allowed to offset. My meat production would be carbon negative.

 

[Castle Farm]

Another band wagon going nowhere, just like the 'lets all love blacks and Asians'. Before we are forced into destroying agriculture and farming in the UK. Sort the major polluters out like China USA and Russia. Sick of this virtual signalling sh!t.

 

[PSQ]

For sure, we can all push our own product. But what should the message from the industry, to the public, be ?

Dont confuse extensive British / European farming methods, with the intensive US feedlots and South American rainforest destruction.

While there are issues with importing Brazilian soy meal for example, the EU's own figures show that we are being accused of US levels of GHG when the reality is very different. The media are following the GHG accusations which Vegan and 'anti farming' interests seem to be using as a 'Trojan horse' to attack livestock production, and the likes of the BBC dont have the wit to realise all farming practices are not the same.

Are the media just ignorant of these differences, or are there Vegan / 'urban' agendas quietly at work with ulterior motives?

This makes very interesting reading : https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache/16817.pdf
But you'll never hear it referenced on the BBC. WHY?

 

[Treg]

The message is simple..
Soya & Palm oil are the most destructive crops on the planet.

 

[PSQ]

Pinched from Gareth Wyn Jones Facebook. Two views published on the same day, which one do you believe?

 

[DaveGrohl]

Dont confuse extensive British / European farming methods, with the intensive US feedlots and South American rainforest destruction.

While there are issues with importing Brazilian soy meal for example, the EU's own figures show that we are being accused of US levels of GHG when the reality is very different. The media are following the GHG accusations which Vegan and 'anti farming' interests seem to be using as a 'Trojan horse' to attack livestock production, and the likes of the BBC dont have the wit to realise all farming practices are not the same.

Are the media just ignorant of these differences, or are there Vegan / 'urban' agendas quietly at work with ulterior motives?

This makes very interesting reading : https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache/16817.pdf
But you'll never hear it referenced on the BBC. WHY?

Of course the extremely inconvenient truth is that the US feedlot system produces 3-3.5% of the US emissions which is the lowest percentage of any country, precisely because it's so efficient. There's more to it than that of course. The animals are only in the feedlot for a few months for instance, and the US emissions in general are humungous, but it just shows how actual figures are completely swept aside in the propaganda diatribe where righteousness trumps science and debate.

 

[MattR]

the wasteful use of land for alcohol production and consumption

Always surprised that this issue doesn't get talked about more, especially by the green lobby. How many acres of this country are used to grow malting barley? And grapes on the continent? All we hear about is meat, meat, meat, but surely the environmental impact of alcohol production must be huge?

 

[Jackov Altraids]

Of course the extremely inconvenient truth is that the US feedlot system produces 3-3.5% of the US emissions which is the lowest percentage of any country, precisely because it's so efficient. There's more to it than that of course. The animals are only in the feedlot for a few months for instance, and the US emissions in general are humungous, but it just shows how actual figures are completely swept aside in the propaganda diatribe where righteousness trumps science and debate.

"Of course the extremely inconvenient truth is that the US feedlot system produces 3-3.5% of the US emissions which is the lowest percentage of any country" is absolutely meaningless, it just highlights how unsustainable the country is with gas-guzzling cars etc.

Should we encourage more air travel and coal-fired power stations in the UK so our % will decrease?

 

[agri knives]

Sorry, I know it has been thrashed about before, but it needs sorting.
Kath Dalmeny was on r4 this morning. When she speaks, people of influence listen.
https://www.sustainweb.org/news/oct18_kath_dalmeny_one_of_top_ten_campaigners_2018/
Kath said, and I will have the words largely correct here:
"It is accepted by everyone, including farming representatives, that we all need to eat less meat".
And she is right. Both the AHDB and the NFU say that we need less cows and more trees.
Question then: Are you as an industry supporting this line ?
And don't start talking about grass fed/ imported feed etc.
The public only hears one message.
Is the message from you, to the public, "Eat less meat", or not ?

Grass sequences more carbon than trees , the tree myth is a load of bull , forestry destroys the countryside , wildlife do not live in these planted forests , and if it’s spruce trees they polite the ground water, well farmed grass land , especially new high yielding grass takes in huge amounts of carbon and helps to feed the world. I never seen anyone eating a tree yet.

 

[DaveGrohl]

"Of course the extremely inconvenient truth is that the US feedlot system produces 3-3.5% of the US emissions which is the lowest percentage of any country" is absolutely meaningless, it just highlights how unsustainable the country is with gas-guzzling cars etc.

Should we encourage more air travel and coal-fired power stations in the UK so our % will decrease?

Indeed, that's what I mentioned in my post. I could've used more words of course.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Dont confuse extensive British / European farming methods, with the intensive US feedlots and South American rainforest destruction.

While there are issues with importing Brazilian soy meal for example, the EU's own figures show that we are being accused of US levels of GHG when the reality is very different. The media are following the GHG accusations which Vegan and 'anti farming' interests seem to be using as a 'Trojan horse' to attack livestock production, and the likes of the BBC dont have the wit to realise all farming practices are not the same.

Are the media just ignorant of these differences, or are there Vegan / 'urban' agendas quietly at work with ulterior motives?

This makes very interesting reading : https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache/16817.pdf
But you'll never hear it referenced on the BBC. WHY?

Seriously?

Don't tell me, you drive a DeLorean?

 

[Dry Rot]

Lots of criticism of the media here (as usual). I had the following from an established Fleet Street journalist.

Journalists are lazy and need to be spoon fed.

They can't resist a good story, especially if it's been written for them. They'll still get paid.

If you want them to use the facts, write them down in a list of bulleted points. Don't go into long winded explanations.

People are interested in people. Statistics are boring -- unless backed up by a good human interest story or two.

Don't ask "Why do journalists do this? Why does the BBC do that?". They are doing it because that's what some pressure group has fed them. Why aren't we doing the same?

Every piece of fake news needs to be countered with the truth. The Press will publish both sides and, in fact, it has a duty to do so, but if our side says nothing, guess what they'll print? Joe Public is not stupid and given the facts, he'll see through the lies.

 

[PSQ]

Of course the extremely inconvenient truth is that the US feedlot system produces 3-3.5% of the US emissions which is the lowest percentage of any country, precisely because it's so efficient. There's more to it than that of course. The animals are only in the feedlot for a few months for instance, and the US emissions in general are humungous, but it just shows how actual figures are completely swept aside in the propaganda diatribe where righteousness trumps science and debate.

The problem being that the US is the stick that those with an 'anti-meat' agenda are using to attack UK ag via the media.

Have you watched the US anti meat film Cowspiracy? The angle used is that Cows are destroying the planet, and to do that they have used film of US feedlots and giant lagoons lakes full of slurry, with those same images used by the media in the UK against farmers. Remember the Edinburgh university campaign to ban meat from being sold in the Union?. The argument given to the Uni by the women advocating the ban was that 'meat accounts for 51% of CO2 production'. Yet the EU puts the figure at 10% for all food production, so who is right? I asked Elena Silverstein where she got the 51% figure, and she said it was taken from Cowspiracy. Read the link above where someone asserts that "an average beef burger uses about 2,500 litres of water to be produced... enough said".
Now it's clear as day, the truth is optional when it comes to using GHG's as a weapon against farming.

You are right, in a way, that the US is not the 'great Satan' of agricultural GHG production. Assuming the IPCC know their stuff, then this makes the point as to where most polluting agricultural GHG's are produced, and it isn't either of the US or EU:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg3-chapter8-1.pdf

 

[Grass And Grain]

Always surprised that this issue doesn't get talked about more, especially by the green lobby. How many acres of this country are used to grow malting barley? And grapes on the continent? All we hear about is meat, meat, meat, but surely the environmental impact of alcohol production must be huge?

Exactly!

 

[Bald Rick]

Sorry, I know it has been thrashed about before, but it needs sorting.
Kath Dalmeny was on r4 this morning. When she speaks, people of influence listen.
https://www.sustainweb.org/news/oct18_kath_dalmeny_one_of_top_ten_campaigners_2018/
Kath said, and I will have the words largely correct here:
"It is accepted by everyone, including farming representatives, that we all need to eat less meat".
And she is right. Both the AHDB and the NFU say that we need less cows and more trees.
Question then: Are you as an industry supporting this line ?
And don't start talking about grass fed/ imported feed etc.
The public only hears one message.
Is the message from you, to the public, "Eat less meat", or not ?

The CCC report also said that we should eat more lab grown meat as a replacement.

That will be hard to swallow

 

[thesilentone]

There is an opportunity to redress things available right now, and we are missing the chance.

Anyone who wrote to the BBC regarding the programme ' Meat a threat to our planet ' then followed up after they were found against, will have had little to no response to the question, what they intended to do to repair the damage caused to the UK beef industry.

Every few months a standard email arrives apologising for the delay. See a copy of the mail below. They are clearly hoping if left, the problem will go away, or get referred to Ofcom, who are as good as nothing.

The NFU (if they also followed up after) I assume will have had the same response, so should make mileage from it in the press and with their lobbyists to bring the subject from below to the top of the table.


Received 5-12-20

"Your Reference CAS-xxxxxx1-Pxxxxxx 

We are contacting you to apologise that we’ve not been able to reply to your complaint within the time period we aim for. Although we manage this for most complaints, we regret it’s not been possible so far because we have been dealing with a higher than normal number of cases.

If you wish to refer this delay and the substance of your complaint to the BBC’s regulator Ofcom, you can do so online at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-a...laint/bbc-tv-channel-radio-station-bbciplayer or by post to: Ofcom, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA. Please include for Ofcom your latest correspondence from and to the BBC and any BBC case reference numbers which you have been given.

Full details of the BBC’s complaints process can be found by visiting https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/how-we-handle-your-complaint, and full details of Ofcom’s complaints process are available at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/guidance/procedures.

In the meantime we appreciate your patience and will respond as soon as we can.

Kind regards

BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided."

 

[hally]

Flat the rainforest then plant the UK with trees for packham to hide in.☹
[/QUOTE
I am sure a good nightsight would find him

 

[Sid]

If we get paid to "capture carbon" and the return is as good or even better than food production, where is the problem?

 

[hally]

I think that in terms of what the media want to tell everyone it doesn't really matter what the NFU or AHDB think, they're largely ignored anyway. It is important at a govt level though in terms of stupid policy decisions. Govts don't need much of an excuse to invent new taxes, let alone right now when we've borrowed squizzilions, a cow tax would seem like a no-brainer for them. They don't need to be scientifically justified, it's all about the perception and the media controls the perception.

What is worrying is that no one at the top of our organisations appear to understand what is actually quite basic science. They've obv had it explained to them by (let's be frank) thick scientists and swallowed it. It's a pretty general truth that the graduates who end up in climate science aren't intelligent enough to go into more complicated areas of science. Obv there will be exceptions, but in the main it's true. It is inevitable we will end up with policies that are stupid when the source of these policies haven't thought things through properly.

It doesn't bode well. You just need to look at the bizarre direction food recommendations in general took from the 50s on the say so of one man, Ancel Keys. How may billions of people worldwide have has their lives cut short or suffered illness because of his misguided belief he knew everything? Some people knew he was wrong at the time but they got drowned out. Sound familiar?

It’s a massive failure of the pr skills of our representatives that they are mainly ignored, they should be challenging this propaganda at every level to stop the drip feed of rubbish that in time will be considered fact.