Soil association supporting green group Feedback in suing DEFRA

[L P]

Feedback, a green lobbying group are attempting a high court hearing against DEFRA against a failed DEFRA policy to commit to reducing livestock numbers by 30% in the UK... part of the "green initiative"
The Soil Association are supporting this move, somewhat naively off the back of dislike for industrial meat production, but equally against their ethos that livestock is crucial for our ecosystem. Low cost meat will regardless hit the shelves for budget buyers, yet a 30% meat reduction in the sector will likely hit the folk who ironically are the more ethical producers far harder than those producing industrially.
Government policy is already firmly set on "supply of goods for the public sector" aka rewilding, tree planting etc. A court ruling against DEFRA will only exacerbate the problem in hand.

 

[soapsud]

Defra's budget shouldn't be spent on defending their stupid decisions they feel committed too. Of all the things to spend it on!

 

[L P]

Defra's budget shouldn't be spent on defending their stupid decisions they feel committed too. Of all the things to spend it on!

Valid point, thank you. I have had a positive response from SA this morning wishing to look at a better stance to help, rather than hinder the sector. If we can keep the thread going I will go through it and make best of it as a response

 

[Grass And Grain]

Feedback, a green lobbying group are attempting a high court hearing against DEFRA against a failed DEFRA policy to commit to reducing livestock numbers by 30% in the UK... part of the "green initiative"
The Soil Association are supporting this move, somewhat naively off the back of dislike for industrial meat production, but equally against their ethos that livestock is crucial for our ecosystem. Low cost meat will regardless hit the shelves for budget buyers, yet a 30% meat reduction in the sector will likely hit the folk who ironically are the more ethical producers far harder than those producing industrially.
Government policy is already firmly set on "supply of goods for the public sector" aka rewilding, tree planting etc. A court ruling against DEFRA will only exacerbate the problem in hand.

Have I understood this correctly?

The Soil Association, many of their members who probably rely on livestock within their organic farming systems, are backing a motion to reduce farm livestock in this country?

Surely that's bonkers!

This isn't going to have any effect on consumer demand, so does this mean we'd just end up importing more? And if that's the case, then what's the point in reducing livestock here (in the name of climate change), if it means more livestock kept in other countries to fulfill our demand?

Positive that Soil Association are happy to rethink their policy on this one.

In regards to thoughts to help the Soil Association....

1. Grasslands run at about 10% soil organic matter. Veg growing soils struggle for 2%. Go figure.

2. Vote with feet and move over to Organic Farmers and Growers.

It's a strange view point from SA. I really can't think why they would have thought this policy was a good idea

 

[010101]

Feedback are more than a lobbying group if they are suing DEFRA.
They are part of a political movement. For them to justify this existence they have to act in a political manner, demonstrating to their supporters...wait for it...movement.
They need to be seen publicly doing this more than appeasing reasoning in the, by comparison, fewer and less media exposed, thorough and critical public debates.
The SA are an active political entity. More politicians trying to gain power over society.
We are gonna get a nation of active politicians with no society left for them to pretend to serve.

 

[renewablejohn]

I posted the court hearing and a comment on the SFI thread in agricultural matters post 1216. The actual hearing is tedious but the matters discussed will be devastating to the farming industry. Its all about government policy in getting to net zero by 2030. The source of these rediculous proposal was named in the court case as being Friends of the Earth with the stated aim of reducing meat and diary production as a big step in achieving net zero whilst in their opinion improving the nations health. Total garbage which it looks like Global Feedback can see and they have managed to secure a judicial review. We need as farmers to feed into this Judicial Review and call out this net zero garbage which uses bad science to destroy the farming industry.
From the opening post I cannot work out whether you support or are against global feedback. I always thought the Soil Association was fighting for a reduction in meat and dairy.

 

[Top Tip.]

I posted the court hearing and a comment on the SFI thread in agricultural matters post 1216. The actual hearing is tedious but the matters discussed will be devastating to the farming industry. Its all about government policy in getting to net zero by 2030. The source of these rediculous proposal was named in the court case as being Friends of the Earth with the stated aim of reducing meat and diary production as a big step in achieving net zero whilst in their opinion improving the nations health. Total garbage which it looks like Global Feedback can see and they have managed to secure a judicial review. We need as farmers to feed into this Judicial Review and call out this net zero garbage which uses bad science to destroy the farming industry.
From the opening post I cannot work out whether you support or are against global feedback. I always thought the Soil Association was fighting for a reduction in meat and dairy.

I think the question that has to be asked is how are we going to feed ourselves without meat in our diet because the vegan and vegetarian food companies are collapsing daily. This has to be an indication of the fact that these foods aren’t wanted.

 

[Spencer]

Not even so much as not wanted but in fact DANGEROUS to human heath. Cutting out meat/dairy/fish from the human diet and replacing with seed oils/pulses is absolutely crazy! Unless of course you are are large global corporation with huge vested interests

 

[ajcc]

The source of these rediculous proposal was named in the court case as being Friends of the Earth with the stated aim of reducing meat and diary production as a big step in achieving net zero whilst in their opinion improving the nations health.

Leopard…..Spots. Tony Juniper…… Natural England.

 

[L P]

I posted the court hearing and a comment on the SFI thread in agricultural matters post 1216. The actual hearing is tedious but the matters discussed will be devastating to the farming industry. Its all about government policy in getting to net zero by 2030. The source of these rediculous proposal was named in the court case as being Friends of the Earth with the stated aim of reducing meat and diary production as a big step in achieving net zero whilst in their opinion improving the nations health. Total garbage which it looks like Global Feedback can see and they have managed to secure a judicial review. We need as farmers to feed into this Judicial Review and call out this net zero garbage which uses bad science to destroy the farming industry.
From the opening post I cannot work out whether you support or are against global feedback. I always thought the Soil Association was fighting for a reduction in meat and dairy.

No, I'm not in support of Feedback, am a member of Soil Association for our organic certificate. Meeting with SA next week to go over this in hope the bad science can be exposed and relayed back to Feedback as to quite what consequence they are likely to cause against their own ethos

 

[delilah]

@Swarfmonkey I think I read a comment from you on Rob Percival at the SA ? If it was you, could you give a quick summary, would be useful re the above. thanks.

 

[Swarfmonkey]

He's awfully chummy with a lot of vegan nutjobs (particularly the ones from Sentient Media) @delilah . His Twitter feed will be a goldmine of information if you want to do some digging.

If you want to ask the SA a difficult question or two ask what they promised in return for the huge amounts of money the Esmee Fairburn Foundation has been bunging it (>£430,000 this year alone, so far) and whether they should be taking cash from a tax-dodging philanthropy that is also bankrolling overtly anti-livestock orgs like Feedback (they're still listed under their old name, Global Feedback).

 

[slackjawedyokel]

Here is the SA’s press release on the feedback action:
"The Climate Change Committee has called for government action on dietary change, supporting people to reduce consumption of both red and white meat. While the spotlight often falls on ruminant meat, intensively farmed poultry and pork are far more prevalent in British diets. Chicken poses a particular challenge as it makes up almost 50% of all meat consumed in the UK, and demand has been rising year-on-year. Not only is industrial chicken a climate issue - due to the agrochemicals and land-conversion associated with the production of chicken feed - our appetite for white meat is also placing a terrible strain on nature, especially our rivers. We support this legal action from Feedback and urge the UK Government to act on diets, while also ensuring that farmers are paid properly for nature-friendly production, such as organic."’

 

[slackjawedyokel]

Interesting to note that the large grant to the SA was made on the same day as a grant to Feedback. Just a coincidence surely?

 

[Swarfmonkey]

They ain't throwing that kind of money around without getting something in return.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

I’ve always before been more or less aligned with the views and policies of the SA. If not in agreement with them, they didn’t bother me enough to actively disagree with them. Similarly with Feedback- most of their aims and campaigns I kind of agree with.

It’s not much good when someone claims they are your friend then stabs you in the back though, and that’s what I think is happening here. I don’t see any reason why a 30% (then a 50%) reduction in livestock production will be a good thing for the ‘sustainable’ pastoral livestock systems they claim to support. I think the ‘top end’ of the market is likely to disappear as food gets even more expensive and folks (particularly those most acutely affected by the cost-of-living-crisis) choose cheaper food.

Hmmm. The EF foundation seems to be funding at least some rewilding-type projects. Is it too much of a conspiracy theory that the ‘inefficient top-end’ of livestock production gets driven out to make land available/cheaper for ‘nature recovery, carbon capture’ type projects?

 

[slackjawedyokel]

Interesting to note that the large grant to the SA was made on the same day as a grant to Feedback. Just a coincidence surely?
View attachment 1123498
View attachment 1123497

PS. Flipping heck- the grant to Feedback wasn’t just a quid or two:

 

[Swarfmonkey]

Hmmm. The EF foundation seems to be funding at least some rewilding-type projects. Is it too much of a conspiracy theory that the ‘inefficient top-end’ of livestock production gets driven out to make land available/cheaper for ‘nature recovery, carbon capture’ type projects?

There's certainly a couple of EFF trustees that would directly financially benefit from conversion of agri land to rewilding types bollox through their other business interests (Beatrice Holland, Edward Bonham Carter, and Prof David Hill).

 

[slackjawedyokel]

There's certainly a couple of EFF trustees that would directly financially benefit from conversion of agri land to rewilding types bollox through their other business interests (Beatrice Holland, Edward Bonham Carter, and Prof David Hill).

God I hate this sort of thing. You go down rabbit holes wondering who/what is behind the warped policies you see and rapidly end up sounding like a conspiracy nutter when you’re only concerned about the present and future of the industry you love.

 

[Swarfmonkey]

It's funny how many rabbit holes you go down only to find someone, somewhere, trying to make lots of £.