The NFU and the National Food Strategy

delilah

Member
I know there is a food strategy thread, but I am so hacked off i'm starting another one.

The National Food Strategy had two bodies advising Mr Dimbleby.

https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org/advisory-panel-2021/

https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org/fdsc-2021/

There is one person - only one - who had a seat on both bodies. Quite right to: without farmers there is no food to write a strategy about.

What I want to know, is how the hell did that person allow this report to see the light of day ? A report that says meat consumption needs to fall by 30%. A report that blames livestock above all else for the destruction of the natural environment. Not food transportation, not refrigeration, not supermarkets burning electricity 24/7, not the mountain of packaging waste. Livestock.
A report that recommends cows be kept in sheds with methane collection helmets, so that they look like something out of Doctor Who.

Again, how can this representative of our industry, with a unique position of being able to influence the two panels advising Mr Dimbleby, allow this to happen ?
Angry doesn't come close to it.
 

delilah

Member
Apologies, but I am not prepared, remotely, to let this fizzle out. Have just looked on the NFU fb page to see what they have to say about the National Food Strategy. You know, the big news event of the day, putting our industry centre stage with every single member of the British public. Nothing. All they have to talk about is 'what are your favourite memories of staying in a farmhouse B and B ?'


Well, I suppose they got that bit right, because memories will be all folks will have once all the cows are shut in sheds with methane helmets on. "Mummy, what's a cow ?". "ssssh darling, we don't talk about them, they are what we used to eat when we were barbarians" . Does no-one give a flying feck that this is what your national representative body is allowing to happen to your industry ?
 

delilah

Member
Then the media will be full of stories over the next few days explaining how livestock are part of the solution not part of the problem ?
No. It's already yesterday's news. The damage is done.
We wrote this report. We were, uniquely, on both of the panels. We must have known its contents as it was developed, and we must have seen the final version weeks ago. All that time to influence it. All that time to have media releases prepared explaining why fitting methane masks to cows would make fa difference to UK GHG emissions. All that time to be briefing journalists on how PP is our most stable, most effective land use for carbon sequestration.
And the absolute crux of it: All that time to be explaining to Mr Dimbleby that the need for change is not on farm, but in all the links in the chain between us and the consumer. Yet we couldn't do that, because we are more concerned with staying pally with the corporations than we are with supporting our members.
What other reason can there be ?
 

delilah

Member
NFU Press Release

The National Farmers Union have slammed a report calling for a cut in meat consumption, pointing out that it is based on flawed science and will do more environmental harm than good.
The National Food Strategy, written by Henry Dimbleby, calls for a 30% cut in meat consumption, saying that the methane from cows causes climate change.
"Mr Dimbleby needs to go up in his loft and find his school science books" says NFU President Minette Batters. "Methane burped by cows is a natural part of the carbon cycle, it makes no contribution to manmade greenhouse gas emissions".
"If Mr Dimbleby had commissioned the UK's leading scientists to come up with a machine to convert nature's bounty into nutritious food with minimal environmental impact, they would come up with the cow".
"If we cut cow numbers grassland will revert to scrub or be ploughed up, meaning less carbon capture and increased climate change"
"Climate change is caused not by cows but by the burning of fossil fuels. It is the food chain that Mr Dimbleby needs to focus his attention on, as that is where damage is being caused by our globalized food system. It is the supermarkets, not farmers, who need to change."
" If consumers wish to help the planet they should eat locally produced meat, and as much of it as they wish, safe in the knowledge that they are cutting emissions and maintaining the British countryside we all cherish"

ENDS


At which point I woke up.
 

Henarar

Member
Livestock Farmer
NFU Press Release

The National Farmers Union have slammed a report calling for a cut in meat consumption, pointing out that it is based on flawed science and will do more environmental harm than good.
The National Food Strategy, written by Henry Dimbleby, calls for a 30% cut in meat consumption, saying that the methane from cows causes climate change.
"Mr Dimbleby needs to go up in his loft and find his school science books" says NFU President Minette Batters. "Methane burped by cows is a natural part of the carbon cycle, it makes no contribution to manmade greenhouse gas emissions".
"If Mr Dimbleby had commissioned the UK's leading scientists to come up with a machine to convert nature's bounty into nutritious food with minimal environmental impact, they would come up with the cow".
"If we cut cow numbers grassland will revert to scrub or be ploughed up, meaning less carbon capture and increased climate change"
"Climate change is caused not by cows but by the burning of fossil fuels. It is the food chain that Mr Dimbleby needs to focus his attention on, as that is where damage is being caused by our globalized food system. It is the supermarkets, not farmers, who need to change."
" If consumers wish to help the planet they should eat locally produced meat, and as much of it as they wish, safe in the knowledge that they are cutting emissions and maintaining the British countryside we all cherish"

ENDS


At which point I woke up.
You should send that to our "great" leader
 
Location
Devon
I've been too busy to study the report but I did hear Mr Dimbleby a little on the radio and thought there seemed to be a marked sidestep in that he completely accepted livestock weren't a problem beyond the amount of land they use.
He said that livestock numbers needed to be cut to meet the governments' requirement to return 30% of land to nature.
What exactly does 'return to nature mean'?

and

What do they think that will achieve?

They seem have finally noticed that their 'livestock are killing the planet' is wrong but they still don't seem to get that in many cases grazing is vital to nature.
 

Hindsight

Member
Location
Lincolnshire
Apologies, but I am not prepared, remotely, to let this fizzle out. Have just looked on the NFU fb page to see what they have to say about the National Food Strategy. You know, the big news event of the day, putting our industry centre stage with every single member of the British public. Nothing. All they have to talk about is 'what are your favourite memories of staying in a farmhouse B and B ?'


Well, I suppose they got that bit right, because memories will be all folks will have once all the cows are shut in sheds with methane helmets on. "Mummy, what's a cow ?". "ssssh darling, we don't talk about them, they are what we used to eat when we were barbarians" . Does no-one give a flying feck that this is what your national representative body is allowing to happen to your industry ?

Milton Keynes was as so often as proven ahead of the game.
 

DaveGrohl

Member
Location
Cumbria
I've been too busy to study the report but I did hear Mr Dimbleby a little on the radio and thought there seemed to be a marked sidestep in that he completely accepted livestock weren't a problem beyond the amount of land they use.
He said that livestock numbers needed to be cut to meet the governments' requirement to return 30% of land to nature.
What exactly does 'return to nature mean'?

and

What do they think that will achieve?

They seem have finally noticed that their 'livestock are killing the planet' is wrong but they still don't seem to get that in many cases grazing is vital to nature.
I truly hope you're right. I'm not holding my breath though.
 

Hindsight

Member
Location
Lincolnshire
I've been too busy to study the report but I did hear Mr Dimbleby a little on the radio and thought there seemed to be a marked sidestep in that he completely accepted livestock weren't a problem beyond the amount of land they use.
He said that livestock numbers needed to be cut to meet the governments' requirement to return 30% of land to nature.
What exactly does 'return to nature mean'?

and

What do they think that will achieve?

They seem have finally noticed that their 'livestock are killing the planet' is wrong but they still don't seem to get that in many cases grazing is vital to nature.

More a case of some tacit acceptance that livestock are not killing the planer, but trees / afforestation will 'save the planet' and thus as the livestock compete for space with afforestation the livestock just have to go,
 

LIVE - DEFRA SFI Janet Hughes “ask me anything” 19:00-20:00 20th September (Today)

  • 17,409
  • 128
Hello, I’m Janet Hughes. I’m the Programme Director for the Future Farming and Countryside Programme in Defra – the programme that’s phasing out the Common Agricultural Policy and introducing new schemes and services for farmers.



Today (20 September) between 7pm-8pm, I and some of my colleagues will be answering your questions about our work including the Sustainable Farming Incentive, Farming in Protected Landscapes, and our test and trials.



We’ll try to answer at least 15 of your top voted questions, so please vote on the questions you’d most like me to answer.



You can read more about our Future Farming policy on our blog.



I’ve answered some of your questions previously: you can watch the videos on...
Top