Sunday Times Magazine “Should we eat meat”

[primmiemoo]

Ruling on Dr Andrew Wakefield in MMR scare | Policy Navigator

Explore the history of NHS reform with our timelines of key policy themes.

navigator.health.org.uk

https://badgut.org/information-centre/a-z-digestive-topics/andrew-wakefield-vaccine-myth/

How disgraced anti-vaxxer Andrew Wakefield was embraced by Trump's America

Twenty years after his discredited paper linked autism to the MMR jab, the doctor – who was struck off the medical register in the UK – has become a leading light in the US and frighteningly influential worldwide

www.theguardian.com

All before the pandemic.

 

[mordan88]

When a Soil Association employee like Rob Percival comes out with such utter crap it makes me wonder why any livestock farmer would want to have anything to do with the Soil Association.

Have you read the book?

 

[Red Fred]

Nothing new. In the 1960's they ("experts")were saying astronauts would just take a couple of "food pills" every day rather than eat in the usual manner.

Oddly enough, at about the same time they were worried about the oil running out by the 1980's. Forty years later they are worried about it not running out-but that's probably because 90% of the population perished from CJD before the turn of the Century. As least those that died of CJD were saved from planes dropping out of the sky and your toaster turning on you when the "Millenium bug" kicked in at 23.59.00 on 31st December 1999.

For those of you under 30, all the above (food pills, Millinium bug, oil running out, mass millions dying of CJD) were real predictions by real experts at the time.

The CJD epidemic was luckily averted by the Ice Age that took place in the late 1990s just as the experts predicted it would when I was at school.

 

[Sandpit Farm]

I wish they would drop the term carnivore as well. I am not and will never be a carnivore. Who actually is a carnivore? apart from my dog?

 

[DaveGrohl]

I wish they would drop the term carnivore as well. I am not and will never be a carnivore. Who actually is a carnivore? apart from my dog?

Quite a lot of people are virtually full carnivore around the world and are very healthy in spite of all messages from the "nutritional" community.

 

[Swarfmonkey]

Have you read the book?

I managed five pages of it then sent it back to Amazon. It's exactly what you'd expect from someone whose been sucking up to vegan extremists as of late (especially that woman from Sentient Media).

 

[Red Fred]

When a Soil Association employee like Rob Percival comes out with such utter crap it makes me wonder why any livestock farmer would want to have anything to do with the Soil Association.

I wouldn't have anything to do with them anyway. The SA started off as an offshoot of the occult movement called Anthroposophy founded by early 20th century weirdo Rudolf Steiner. I knew several youngsters who got involved with the movement, which is a sort of cult, and I spent a lot of time finding out about it. They reckon that all-out Biodynamic farming with the moon, secret preparations, etc is needed to "heal mother earth" but organic farming is a more acceptable half way measure to sell to the public as environmentalism. Triodos Bank is another of their various enterprises, which all come back to their very strange religious belief system. I first I thought they were left wing hippies, but in fact the movement is more connected to the right, being popular with the back-to-nature Aryan beliefs of Rudolf Hess and co.

 

[primmiemoo]

Also Schwabbisch?

 

[Old Boar]

The Vegitarian Society wrote to the Government asking the Government to work towards cutting meat in the diet as part of the Net Zero Strategy.
Here is the reply from Defra which I thought may interest some here.

We have received a reply (excerpts of which are below) from Jo Churchill MP, Minister for Agri-Innovation and Climate Adaptation at DEFRA. Our original letter commented on the government’s lack of ambition on animal agriculture and reducing meat consumption. In the Minister’s reply, it states that these will be considered in upcoming Food Strategy white paper. We’ll be watching for updates very attentively.

Thank you for your letter of 21 October to the Prime Minister about animal agriculture and meat consumption in relation to the Government’s Net Zero Strategy. […]
Defra has a vital role to play in delivering the Government’s Net Zero Strategy and ensuring nature-based solutions are a vital part of the climate agenda. Our areas of responsibility are a huge and exciting part of the net zero story.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy leads across Government on climate change mitigation and net zero, and Defra is the Government lead for climate change adaptation. Defra is also responsible for efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the following sectors: agriculture, waste, land-use and fluorinated gases (F-gases). We also have responsibility for promotion of forestry in order to capture carbon. This represents 19% of total net UK GHGs, with agriculture being the biggest contributor (about 10% of total UK emissions).

We have nearly halved our emissions from these sectors since 1990. However, we recognise the need to go further and are taking forward a number of commitments set out in the 25 Year Environment Plan to reduce emissions further. While technological fixes will be part of the solution for net zero, Defra recognises that they should be part of a balanced approach which also respects and enhances our natural environment. This means decarbonising while restoring nature, using nature-based solutions, protecting the environment and promoting biodiversity.

The Government wants to make it as easy as possible for people to shift towards a greener and more sustainable lifestyle, whilst maintaining people’s freedom of choice, including in their diet.

Our forthcoming Government Food Strategy White Paper will consider these issues and set out our ambition and priorities for a food system that will deliver for people, nature and climate. In doing so it will support our farmers to continue to produce the high-quality, high welfare produce for which they are renowned.

Defra is introducing three environmental land management schemes that reward environmental benefits: the Sustainable Farming Incentive, Local Nature Recovery, and Landscape Recovery. Together, these schemes are intended to provide a powerful vehicle for achieving the goals of the 25 Year Environment Plan and our commitment to net zero emissions by 2050, while supporting our rural economy.

The Government will support farmers to adopt low carbon farming practices, and increase the carbon stored on their farms, helping to improve business productivity and profitability gains. For example, the UK Government is actively investigating the promising role that feed additives with methane inhibiting properties may have in delivering emissions savings in the medium-term.

 

[DaveGrohl]

They haven’t said much there, could’ve been worse.

However they still haven’t got the actual science on methane judging by the last sentence, and their insistence on using the GWP100 metric in blanket fashion generally.

 

[wanton dwarf]

I wish they would drop the term carnivore as well. I am not and will never be a carnivore. Who actually is a carnivore? apart from my dog?

Keto diet.

 

[mordan88]

I managed five pages of it then sent it back to Amazon. It's exactly what you'd expect from someone whose been sucking up to vegan extremists as of late (especially that woman from Sentient Media).

But he's not vegan, and he is pro livestock. He is clear about that. Maybe you should have read on...

It's typical of those on either side of the polarised debate to say "the other side knows nothing and won't listen to anything I have to say", but then not actually engage in a piece of literature which in my view takes a very balanced look, right down the middle of the debate. Livestock farmers can't help what the media decide to print when it comes to meat - no, it's almost always not correct and lacks nuance. But the answer to that isn't to dig heels in and claim that all meat is fine. Intensive systems are hugely problematic - we all know that. A failure to engage in this discussion just means switching off to the changing narrative. A need to properly listen to what customers are saying they want and engaging in unemotional discussion is a must for the future of UK farming. I'm not saying that trying to have a chat to a vegan on Twitter is useful - but the fact is that people are becoming switched on the climate and biodiversity impacts of their food - so the farming sector needs to show why they want to move away from the most damaging practices which fuel those crises, and promote positive examples of how UK farming is a part of the solution - because it is - but IMO, too often it feels defensive, sneering and unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion - the concentration of efforts in damaging milk alternatives for example, rather than promoting what is great about milk is a classic example of childish, fingers in ears, head in the soil stubbornness. Some (like yourself) come across as the opposite end of the spectrum to an "extremist vegan" - that's not where you want to be - you're more likely to change opinions by being more balanced, listening more and stating your case positively (without simply ignoring where the sector can improve). I think Rob does this very well, but you sneer at him as well.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

But he's not vegan, and he is pro livestock. He is clear about that. Maybe you should have read on...

It's typical of those on either side of the polarised debate to say "the other side knows nothing and won't listen to anything I have to say", but then not actually engage in a piece of literature which in my view takes a very balanced look, right down the middle of the debate. Livestock farmers can't help what the media decide to print when it comes to meat - no, it's almost always not correct and lacks nuance. But the answer to that isn't to dig heels in and claim that all meat is fine. Intensive systems are hugely problematic - we all know that. A failure to engage in this discussion just means switching off to the changing narrative. A need to properly listen to what customers are saying they want and engaging in unemotional discussion is a must for the future of UK farming. I'm not saying that trying to have a chat to a vegan on Twitter is useful - but the fact is that people are becoming switched on the climate and biodiversity impacts of their food - so the farming sector needs to show why they want to move away from the most damaging practices which fuel those crises, and promote positive examples of how UK farming is a part of the solution - because it is - but IMO, too often it feels defensive, sneering and unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion - the concentration of efforts in damaging milk alternatives for example, rather than promoting what is great about milk is a classic example of childish, fingers in ears, head in the soil stubbornness. Some (like yourself) come across as the opposite end of the spectrum to an "extremist vegan" - that's not where you want to be - you're more likely to change opinions by being more balanced, listening more and stating your case positively (without simply ignoring where the sector can improve). I think Rob does this very well, but you sneer at him as well.

the problem with discussing with a vegan, is, they are arguing from a compassionate conservation stand point, i.e. all killing animals is bad or wrong, it just "feels wrong". I am arguing from a scientific viewpoint, building soil humus, sequestering carbon, food nutrient density, ecosystem services from grazing, using land not suitable for anything else. I have no answer to the killing animals feels wrong argument, because it feels OK to me (with the proviso that the animals have a good life before we eat them).

 

[mordan88]

the problem with discussing with a vegan, is, they are arguing from a compassionate conservation stand point, i.e. all killing animals is bad or wrong, it just "feels wrong". I am arguing from a scientific viewpoint, building soil humus, sequestering carbon, food nutrient density, ecosystem services from grazing, using land not suitable for anything else. I have no answer to the killing animals feels wrong argument, because it feels OK to me (with the proviso that the animals have a good life before we eat them).

Yes, from my experience I would agree with that - most vegans are vegan for ethical/moral reasons. I wouldn't argue with anyone about the ethics of eating meat as it's a personal choice - there's little point. But there is a huge portion of society who are thinking about meat and dairy in their diets, and considering their choices for environmental reasons - and they are seeking scientific viewpoints to validate their choices. This is where some people are considering eating less meat. And, to me, that is a completely valid option - we do need to put an end to intensive livestock systems. I think if UK livestock farmers took a more balanced approach to making the case for eating meat, it would do them a world of good. Making the scientific case for the positive contribution livestock can make to a farm's ecosystem (whilst acknowledging we want to phase out intensive systems) would be a really convincing argument to many who are thinking about the impact of their diets from an environmental perspective. "Yes, eat less meat, demand is too high, but you don't need to stop eating meat. Meat isn't bad if you buy it from these systems which have a positive role to play in tackling the climate crisis." - To me, it is from this position that UK farming needs to be pitching its case from.

 

[kfpben]

Yes, from my experience I would agree with that - most vegans are vegan for ethical/moral reasons. I wouldn't argue with anyone about the ethics of eating meat as it's a personal choice - there's little point. But there is a huge portion of society who are thinking about meat and dairy in their diets, and considering their choices for environmental reasons - and they are seeking scientific viewpoints to validate their choices. This is where some people are considering eating less meat. And, to me, that is a completely valid option - we do need to put an end to intensive livestock systems. I think if UK livestock farmers took a more balanced approach to making the case for eating meat, it would do them a world of good. Making the scientific case for the positive contribution livestock can make to a farm's ecosystem (whilst acknowledging we want to phase out intensive systems) would be a really convincing argument to many who are thinking about the impact of their diets from an environmental perspective. "Yes, eat less meat, demand is too high, but you don't need to stop eating meat. Meat isn't bad if you buy it from these systems which have a positive role to play in tackling the climate crisis." - To me, it is from this position that UK farming needs to be pitching its case from.

Intensive (ie. efficient) agriculture, both arable and livestock, is what has kept the world nourished as the population has increased.

We don’t need to move away from it at all. We just need to get better at it- use less fossil fuels, less artificial fertiliser etc.

 

[mordan88]

Intensive (ie. efficient) agriculture, both arable and livestock, is what has kept the world nourished as the population has increased.

We don’t need to move away from it at all. We just need to get better at it- use less fossil fuels, less artificial fertiliser etc.

I was talking about intensive livestock systems.

 

[mordan88]

I was talking about intensive livestock systems.

Though arguably, with the amount of arable which goes to livestock feed this would reduce the burden and relentless focus on yields in these systems also.

 

[roscoe erf]

 

[Y Fan Wen]

Nothing new. In the 1960's they ("experts")were saying astronauts would just take a couple of "food pills" every day rather than eat in the usual manner.

Oddly enough, at about the same time they were worried about the oil running out by the 1980's. Forty years later they are worried about it not running out-but that's probably because 90% of the population perished from CJD before the turn of the Century. As least those that died of CJD were saved from planes dropping out of the sky and your toaster turning on you when the "Millenium bug" kicked in at 23.59.00 on 31st December 1999.

For those of you under 30, all the above (food pills, Millinium bug, oil running out, mass millions dying of CJD) were real predictions by real experts at the time.

Those who laugh about the non appearance of the Millenium Bug don't realise that its non appearance was due to all the programmers available working on eliminating it during the preceding five years. If you were unfortunate enough to need other programming work done in that period it was near impossible to find anyone to do it.
Many people don't understand that a forecast itself can actually change the outcome. For instance, if Mrs Y forecasts that we are going to run out of bread before the next shopping trip, we are able to act on that forecast and put corrective measures into operation.