Yes, I do, and I put that in my letter to them. I am not dairy, but a beef and arable farmer. I have no problem with oat milk, just the way it is being put across. Hell, all the best to them for selling oat milk and if it means the price of oats go up that is great, but please sell it with the befits of your product, not by slagging off people who are linked in to growing both oats and milk/meat.Anyway, don't farmers grow oats ?
Not the wrong approach, but an approach. I am not expecting the ASA to do much, but they may do something. I would appreciate those that represent us to do more though. On the other thread about the AHDB advert, their representative has come on here and said what they are doing with their FB page. I do not feel that them and the NFU are keeping up with the way things work now, and they are the ones that should be hitting on it, not necessarily us. (Although not being an NFU member I can complain too much!) If you know of other channels to go down with it then please be my guest.Am I the only person on here who thinks that it is completely the wrong approach to complain to the ASA ? What, precisely, do you expect to achieve ?
Thanks. Believe me it was a difficult one to write and remain calm. I want to be able to discuss it with them and not for them to just throw it in the bin.Good letter. I can't get over how polite you are given how outrageous their bare-faced lies are.
You seem to be missing the point that what they are saying is a lie. It's not a different version of the truth, it's a lie and I bet they know it. They've had a lot of complaints about this advert already, mainly from people outraged that it is trivialising alcoholism......
Livestock farmers aren’t falling out with oat growers, I have porridge for breakfast every morning.
The problem is a buisness beyond the farm gate using mistruths to promote their product, I dare say even arable farmers won’t think that’s fair play.
Now who is it on here that keeps saying there’s nothing wrong our side of the farm gate.
Why is other land use put with Agriculture and Forestry, ffs why can't it have it's own slice of the pie???Their headline statistic is wrong. 24% is the global fig. for all agriculture from the latest IPCC stats. Livestock emissions are within that total, approx half globally. Which makes it less than 'transportation' as a sector.
View attachment 934435
Also note this important sentence from the IPCC report: This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector.
I'll put something together for ASA.
Why is other land use put with Agriculture and Forestry, ffs why can't it have it's own slice of the pie???
I often think if you added up all the claimed amounts of co2 emmissions from all the various sources when they blame this or that for x amount/ % , the total probably comes to about 300% of actual co2 emmissions.Latest work from IPCC does separate it out.
Forestry and other land use - 5.8 +/- 2.6Gt CO2e/Year
Agriculture - 6.2 +/-1.4Gt CO2e/Year.
Total anthropogenic emissions - 52.0 +/- 4.5 Gt CO2e/year
So, at worst agriculture accounts for 16% of total anthropogenic emissions, at best it accounts for 8.5%.
It also illustrates how p!ss poor the IPCC’s estimations are when the best case scenario is almost half that of the worst case scenario.
Absolutely correct. And this is the problem with this area of "science". It isn't remotely scientific. When you have a body such as the IPCC taking info from the likes of Poore & Nemecek you know that they're just plucking figures from whatever source they can. It looks like they've done a lot of work so we'll accept it as correct. There's no checking going on in this. Add in things like the EAT-Lancet report and it's no wonder people are confused. And again, in all of this it's emissions emissions emissions, never any mention of absorption.I often think if you added up all the claimed amounts of co2 emmissions from all the various sources when they blame this or that for x amount/ % , the total probably comes to about 300% of actual co2 emmissions.
X amount given off for every Google search for eg. Multiply that up for the total number of searches, and is that actually an accurate representation of what's going on?
I think the IPCC originally said that agriculture/forestry contributed 23% of GHG and mitigated against 24% of all other emissions. It was around page 86 of the report but most media only reported on the emissions.Latest work from IPCC does separate it out.
Forestry and other land use - 5.8 +/- 2.6Gt CO2e/Year
Agriculture - 6.2 +/-1.4Gt CO2e/Year.
Total anthropogenic emissions - 52.0 +/- 4.5 Gt CO2e/year
So, at worst agriculture accounts for 16% of total anthropogenic emissions, at best it accounts for 8.5%.
It also illustrates how p!ss poor the IPCC’s estimations are when the best case scenario is almost half that of the worst case scenario.
+/-100%, ffs you couldn't make this shite up.Latest work from IPCC does separate it out.
Forestry and other land use - 5.8 +/- 2.6Gt CO2e/Year
Agriculture - 6.2 +/-1.4Gt CO2e/Year.
Total anthropogenic emissions - 52.0 +/- 4.5 Gt CO2e/year
So, at worst agriculture accounts for 16% of total anthropogenic emissions, at best it accounts for 8.5%.
It also illustrates how p!ss poor the IPCC’s estimations are when the best case scenario is almost half that of the worst case scenario.
So if we are putting our case across what figures do we use? in the UK agriculture is 10% with livestock half, so around 5%
The organisations wouldn’t bother, but plenty of that way inclined individuals would.The most effective land use in removing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is grass.
More effective than crops, more effective than trees. And much, much more effective than factories producing manufactured artificial 'food'.
The only reason that farmers grow grass, is so that it can be eaten by cows and sheep.
No cows and sheep means no grass, which means increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
If you are concerned about climate change - and you should be - then eat beef and lamb.
You think the vegan society, or the manufacturers of oat milk, would take you to the ASA for that ? No, because they understand that it would be a waste of their resources to do so. Stop fannying about and start fighting fire with fire.
No different to most media, just because it's written and published doesn't mean it's true.If you read the report @FonterraFarmer you'll soon question a lot of what they say.
So it seems that you can put an advert out and get away with saying just about anything.