ITV Tesco advert

[primmiemoo]

It is an eating disorder an it is sickening how those afflicted are trying to send impressionable, image conscious young girls to an early grave. It really is disgusting if you think about it.

A troubling part of the tesco ad is that it shows a girl who's more or less at menarche - an age when a child changes and needs a balanced diet to develop in body and brain.

Further troubling is the indulging, infantilised father figure. Had that been a character giving a vegan diet to his cat, there would be outrage in the media.

No problem with a diversity of vegetables, but a big problem with substitution of processed, probably denatured, vegetable gloop for real, healthy meat and dairy.

 

[tr250]

I wouldn’t worry too much my wife (don’t ask how?) managed to buy some vegetarian chicken nuggets we didn’t mention it to the kids just cooked them and served as normal as didn’t want to waste them. One bite they spat them out saying they were disgusting even the dog wasn’t too impressed.

 

[topground]

There are probably a dozen people in the country who control supermarket buying and advertising strategies. All on mega money and quite happy to destroy any other business while they look after number one. Find out who they are, picket their houses and make life uncomfortable ( legally) for thses people to make them accountable . Only a dozen people inconvenienced. The public dont even need to know. If they give food producers a fair deal call the dogs off.

 

[@dlm]

We are all fully aware we won't get any help or advice balanced argument from bbc. Channels with adverts we don't have financial clout of supermarkets and our levies directed to adverts generally are accepted as poor. Appreciate this won't change our industry but oaks grow from small acorns scenario. We have an average parish with adverts each villages birthdays and adverts and well I think that's it. Is a whole page to farming news that hopefully I will take over writing. It's sales are just shy of 1000 a month. OK not daily mail or telegraph but local and people that only hear cows farting kill the world and we should grow plants not grass for animals. Small chance to say maize for animals is one of highest converters of co2 to oxygen. Large parts of UK can't grow crops. Doing donuts in f1 car that has transported 100s via plane and another plane for cars tyres and parts is more damaging than a cow eating grass. As said won't change industry but cheap informative and possibly rewarding way to get truth said for once to a small proportion admittedly. But maybe free advertising for home kill and promotion of UK products. Just a thought

 

[Farmer Roy]

so, while all you girls are pissing your panties, wringing your wrists and wailing about this, I started this thread the other day https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index...crisis-say-european-livestock-farmers.302451/
only 2 people have commented . . .

European Livestock Farmers . . .

so, I put the challenge to YOU - British Farmers - what are YOU doing ?
are you countering this "threat" head on, with an organised campaign, factual information, charismatic spokespeople, an engaging social media presence, winning hearts & minds, telling your stories etc etc ? ? ?

or are you just blubbering & claiming "its not fair" ?

or is my post rubbish because it mentions EU farmers, or the Guardian ? ? ?

DO SOMETHING

GET THE PUBLIC ON SIDE

FFS

















if this is the quality of your industry representation - then you deserve to be swamped by the vegans or ANYONE else with even a modicum of conviction in their cause

they obviously are more passionate about their world view than you are about your own industry . . .

pissweak pansies the lot of you

 

[Farmer Roy]

and I posted this https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index...ce-promoting-regenerative-agriculture.302174/ thread about how the BBC World Service was PROMOTING regenerative agriculture, & all I could hear was the crickets chirping . . .

 

[firther]

if people don't want to eat meat, then why buy a substitute that looks like meat and named as a meat, but tastes like soggy cardboard.
why not just eat vegetables instead of over priced rubbish that costs more than meat

 

[Farmer Roy]

if people don't want to eat meat, then why buy a substitute that looks like meat and named as a meat, but tastes like soggy cardboard.
why not just eat vegetables instead of over priced rubbish that costs more than meat

because "fake" meat isn't aimed at vegans / vegetarians

its aimed at meat eaters who want something familiar

it is promoted / pushed by the large industrial food processors & the agro chemical companies, to increase THEIR profits . . .
it has NOTHING to do with saving the planet or reducing animal "suffering" - quite the reverse in fact !!!

when joe public drop into the supermarket tonight on their way home, looking for something for dinner & look at sausages, for example. They will see the "fake" sausages & all those negative subliminal messages about meat being unhealthy, about fat being bad, about animal welfare concerns in piggeries, of environmental issues with slurry etc etc will be in the back of their mind. So, they might pick up the pack of fake sausages out of curiosity & some mildly confused idea that they are somehow better for them & the planet . . .

it ISNT vegans who are the problem ( it is VERY difficult to be a committed vegan, you have to be VERY disciplined ) & its very unlikely, given the obvious lack of discipline the general public show regarding their diet & lifestyles, that you will end up with a majority vegan population.
No, the real enemy is the agro industrial chemical food processing industry _ THEY are the ones who stand to make the most out of any "anti meat" campaign - just as they did with anti - animal fats about 50 yrs ago . . .

 

[firther]

because "fake" meat isn't aimed at vegans / vegetarians

its aimed at meat eaters who want something familiar

it is promoted / pushed by the large industrial food processors & the agro chemical companies, to increase THEIR profits . . .
it has NOTHING to do with saving the planet or reducing animal "suffering" - quite the reverse in fact !!!

when joe public drop into the supermarket tonight on their way home, looking for something for dinner & look at sausages, for example. They will see the "fake" sausages & all those negative subliminal messages about meat being unhealthy, about fat being bad, about animal welfare concerns in piggeries, of environmental issues with slurry etc etc will be in the back of their mind. So, they might pick up the pack of fake sausages out of curiosity & some mildly confused idea that they are somehow better for them & the planet . . .

it ISNT vegans who are the problem ( it is VERY difficult to be a committed vegan, you have to be VERY disciplined ) & its very unlikely, given the obvious lack of discipline the general public show regarding their diet & lifestyles, that you will end up with a majority vegan population.
No, the real enemy is the agro industrial chemical food processing industry _ THEY are the ones who stand to make the most out of any "anti meat" campaign - just as they did with anti - animal fats about 50 yrs ago . . .

its a load of bollox though, and like i keep telling people the only animals world wide that are not near to extinsion are farm animals, where millions of sheep and cattle are put back in to the breeding programme every year.

where do they think all these extra vegetables are going to be grown on an ever expanding world population(which as increased by a billion in 20 years) with no pesticides allowed.

yep lets chop down the rest the of the amazon because lets face it we can't grow crops on vast moorllands

 

[Farmer Roy]

its a load of bollox though, and like i keep telling people the only animals world wide that are not near to extinsion are farm animals, where millions of sheep and cattle are put back in to the breeding programme every year.

where do they think all these extra vegetables are going to be grown on an ever expanding world population(which as increased by a billion in 20 years) with no pesticides allowed.

yep lets chop down the rest the of the amazon because lets face it we can't grow crops on vast moorllands

have a read of this
it was published in the "lifestyle" type magazine that falls out of the weekend edition of one of our major national newspapers

• Home
• weekend australian magazine

Share this article

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Whatsapp
• Email
• Print
• Save

So you’re a vegan ... but are you, really?
The number of animals that die each and every day to produce vegan food is astonishing.
By Matthew Evans

Matthew Evans. Picture: Alan Benson

• From The Weekend Australian Magazine
  June 29, 2019
• June 29, 2019
  9 minute read
  439 Comments

Share this article

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Whatsapp
• Email
• Print

There’s a lot to be said for veganism. For the thinking eater, it gets around a whole bunch of ethical grey areas. If you care about what you put in your mouth, it is probably the most black and white way to approach the whole meat thing. There are no grey areas about so-called “ethical” meat, or questions over exactly how “free range” are the hens when there are 10,000 chickens to the hectare. Not eating meat, not buying products that come from animals — surely that means you’re doing better not only for those animals directly affected, but also the environment, and your health? But while veganism is on the rise in Western nations, it’s still far from mainstream. Why, then, is it so hard to convince people of its worth if it really is a win all round? The vegan philosophy is, at its heart, quite often about reducing suffering. By not eating animals, you — by definition — reduce suffering. It’s a lovely idea. And I wish it were that simple.
Let’s start with peas. Collydean (not its real name, but a real farm) is a 2700ha mixed farm in northern Tasmania. They grow beef cattle, some sheep, do agroforestry, have barley and some years grow peas. A lot of peas: about 400 tonnes a season. And to protect the peas, they have some wildlife fences, but also have to shoot a lot of animals. When I was there, they had a licence to kill about 150 deer. They routinely kill about 800-1000 possums and 500 wallabies every year, along with a few ducks. (To its credit, Collydean only invites hunters onto its farm who will use the animals they kill — for human food, or for pet food — and not leave them in the paddock, as most animals killed for crop protection are.) So, more than 1500 animals die each year to grow about 75ha of peas for our freezers. That’s not 1500 rodents, which also die, and which some may see as collateral damage. That’s mostly warm-blooded animals of the cute kind, with a few birds thrown in.
Collydean’s owners assure me it wouldn’t befinancially viable for them to grow peas without killing animals. Which means that every time we eat peas, farmers have controlled the “pest” species on our behalf, and animals have died in our name.
Read Next

• The number of animals that die to produce vegan food is astonishing. Consider wheat, a common crop in Australia. And let’s look at the nutrient density of the food in question, because not all foods are created equal. According to an article by Mike Archer, Professor in the Faculty of Science at the University of NSW, roughly 25 times more sentient beings die to produce a kilo of protein from wheat than a kilo of protein from beef. Thanks to monocultures, mice plagues and our modern farming systems, a hell of a lot of small animals die to produce wheat. Yes, most of them are rodents, but surely in the vegan world all warm-blooded life should be honoured equally?

On average, 1 billion mice are poisoned every year in Western Australia alone. According to a 2005 Senate report, if we didn’t kill mice the cost of food would rise drastically; even with heavy baiting programs, mice cost the Australian economy about a $36 million a year.
Let’s look at birds. Over a five-year period up to 2013, rice farmers in NSW killed nearly 200,000 native ducks to protect their fields. That’s right, to grow rice. That’s in addition to the animals indirectly affected, such as those that once thrived in the waterways drained by such a heavily irrigated crop on a dry continent. That’s how farming works. To grow something, other things are affected. Sometimes it’s an animal, sometimes it’s a helluva lot of animals. The most animals that die on Fat Pig Farm, our property in the Huon Valley south of Hobart, are the snails and slugs that would destroy our garden if left unchecked. We kill close to 5000 moths, slugs and snails each year to grow vegetables, and thousands and thousands of aphids.
Picture: Getty Images
Insects bear the brunt of all annual vegetable production. And the most exploited insect of all is the European honeybee. True vegans don’t eat honey because it’s the result of the domestication, and utilisation, of the European honeybee. They don’t eat it because eating honey is “stealing” honey from the hive, and because bees die in the process of beekeepers managing the hives and extracting the honey. And they’re right, bees do die in that process. Problem is, honeybees are very, very good pollinators, and a whole heap of crops are pretty much reliant on these bees to produce fruit — and even more crops would suffer from far lower production due to poor fertility if we didn’t have bees. About one-third of all crops globally benefit from direct interaction with pollinators, of which European honeybees are by far the most efficient. Whether we eat honey or not, we are the beneficiaries of the work of the domesticated European honeybee. In their absence, some crops would come close to failure, and others increase substantially in cost. Gobs of bees die every year doing the work of pollination for us. According to Scientific American, up to 80 billion domestic honeybees are estimated to have a hand in the Californian almond industry each year, up to half of which die during the management process and the long journeys to and from the large almond orchards. And that’s the carnage from just one crop.
What about vegan wine, you say? It doesn’t use fish bladders, or milk extracts, or egg as a fining agent (ingredients used to clarify many wines, beers and ciders). But don’t forget the harvest. Come with me to watch grapes being picked, watch as huge tubs of plump grapes are tipped into the crusher along with mice, spiders, lizards, snakes and frogs. Sadly, vegan wine is a furphy.
Picture: Getty Images
Let’s move on to peanut butter, that wonderful practical protein staple. Do you know how many parts of an insect are in each jar? According to Scientific American, each of us eats about 0.5-1kg of flies, maggots and other bugs a year, hidden in the chocolate we eat, the grains we consume, the peanut butter we spread on toast. According to US regulations (which are easier to access than Australian data), 125g of pasta (a single portion) may contain an average of 125 insect fragments or more, and a cup of raisins can have a maximum of 33 fruit fly eggs. A kilogram of flour probably has 15g of animal product in it, from rodent excreta to weevils to cockroach legs.
I don’t bring this up for the “ick” factor, but simply to show the true impact and cost of food production. When you eat, you’re never truly vegan. When humans grow and process food, any food, other things die — and often we eat them.
It does seem that food production gets unfairly singled out for killing animals, when every human activity has an effect on other living things. We kill animals when we drive. We kill animals when we fly, or transport goods by plane. We kill when we build railway tracks, when we farm grain, grow apples and mine sand. We alter ecosystems when we put up new housing developments, build bicycle factories and ship lentils. We push native animals out of their environments all the time, with the resultant pain and suffering you’d expect.
Perhaps, for those not interested in eating meat, or who choose not to eat meat, it’s about context. All the creatures killed in the raising of crops — the rodents, the insects, the birds — are just collateral damage. This line of thinking is based on the fact that meat eaters (or their agents, the farmers, slaughtermen, butchers and chefs) “choose” a victim, so this is different to an animal dying as a result of random chance. But a death is a death. Suffering is suffering, regardless of whether a human was involved, directly or not. All impacts of our actions need to be considered. And this I think goes to the heart of the matter.
What actions produce the least suffering? Some commentators believe that annual crops produce more suffering for more animals. The view is that life is life, that life begets life, and to live we must consume something that has lived, with impacts on other forms of life well beyond our circle of thinking. You eat a plant, and that affects an animal — one that was going to eat that plant (say a nut from a tree in the wild), one that dies because it was going to eat that plant (perhaps grasshoppers or caterpillars on farm crops), or one that might’ve lived in the wild if we didn’t farm that plant at all.
Killing an animal for food or fibre is a small effect. Bigger is the ecological footprint of livestock on the land. Bigger still, and more destructive, is the growing of plants for food, thanks to topsoil loss, the legions of animals killed to maintain monocultures, and the use of artificial fertilisers and chemicals available to the modern farmer. All of us, vegans and omnivores, are the beneficiaries of the fertiliser and compost that come from either animal waste or fossil fuels. Organic farmers use compost made from animal by-products, whereas conventional farmers use nitrogen fertilisers, which are produced using large amounts of fossil fuels. About 2-3 per cent of the fossil fuels burned each year is for making nitrogen fertilisers — accounting for roughly 3 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions, including emissions from nitrogen released to the atmosphere. And then there’s the global transport system, which uses fossil fuels to ship your Brazilian soy beans and Californian almonds across the world.
If you don’t use fertilisers made from fossil fuels, you need animal by-products. There’s barely an organic fruit and vegetable farmer out there who doesn’t use some kind of animal by-product (manure, blood and bone) or the compost that contains it. And there’s barely a farm that isn’t reliant on gas and oil to make the fertiliser, run the tractors and ship the goods. Most estimates put it that the amount of fossil fuel needed to grow a calorie of food and get it to the table is 10 times more than the food calorie itself. It’s a negative-sum game. Grains and monoculture crops are worst among them — whereas grass-reared animals, killed and sold locally, are among the more efficient producers of food energy for fossil fuel use.
Take away the use of animal waste in the farming system and things will swing further to one side. If you want truly vegan agriculture, you’re going to have more fossil fuel emissions and in the process end up with more expensive food, poorer pollination and reduced variety thanks to the removal of domesticated bees.
Matthew Evans on his farm in southern Tasmania. Picture: Alan Benson
I have been fortunate enough to be on all sides of this debate. I’ve experimented with vegetarianism. I’ve thought about becoming vegan. I’ve been to intensive chicken and pig farms. I’ve “smelt money” and seen despair. I’ve also raised animals, killed animals (wild and domesticated) and cooked animals. What I’ve found is that the animal world isn’t isolated from the world of plants, and the place for nuanced, sensible debate about meat consumption should sit firmly with all, including with the omnivores of this world — a debate in which condemnation, aggression and intolerance should play no part.
Vegans are welcome to voice their opinion that raising and eating meat has consequences. Indeed, some of those consequences, from the personal to the animal to the environment, are worth serious thinking about. It’s quite possible that eating less meat might mean less suffering. But don’t be fooled into thinking that being vegan hurts no animal.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

I'd have challenged him immediately, not after the event!

I was thinking the same

 

[Loftyrules]

Can’t find the thread where everyone posted to thank Tesco for this advert

 

[Farmer Roy]

because "fake" meat isn't aimed at vegans / vegetarians

its aimed at meat eaters who want something familiar

it is promoted / pushed by the large industrial food processors & the agro chemical companies, to increase THEIR profits . . .
it has NOTHING to do with saving the planet or reducing animal "suffering" - quite the reverse in fact !!!

when joe public drop into the supermarket tonight on their way home, looking for something for dinner & look at sausages, for example. They will see the "fake" sausages & all those negative subliminal messages about meat being unhealthy, about fat being bad, about animal welfare concerns in piggeries, of environmental issues with slurry etc etc will be in the back of their mind. So, they might pick up the pack of fake sausages out of curiosity & some mildly confused idea that they are somehow better for them & the planet . . .

it ISNT vegans who are the problem ( it is VERY difficult to be a committed vegan, you have to be VERY disciplined ) & its very unlikely, given the obvious lack of discipline the general public show regarding their diet & lifestyles, that you will end up with a majority vegan population.
No, the real enemy is the agro industrial chemical food processing industry _ THEY are the ones who stand to make the most out of any "anti meat" campaign - just as they did with anti - animal fats about 50 yrs ago . . .

Alexandra Craigie‎ to Soil4Climate
4 hrs ·

Wow, how much profit must there be in soybean oil for it to be worth investing $225 million in a processing facility?
Cargilll really won’t want people switching to regeneratively farmed livestock: no market for soybean oil if people eat whole foods and no market for soybean residue made into cattle feed.
And this is after Cargill has invested £100 million in the pea protein that goes into the Beyond Burger.
So much for the (false) argument that there’s no financial incentive coming from the intensive crop industry ?

foodbev.com

Cargill invests $225m in soybean crush and refined oils facility - FoodBev Media

 

[Farmer Roy]

 

[Still Farming]

 

[Steevo]

View attachment 840411

Next they'll be putting nappies in the chocolate aisle!