UK Public now Eating Significantly Less Meat

[primmiemoo]

Christ alive that Lancet article you linked is a veritable treasure trove of misinformation.

Yeah-but-no-but, got Oxford in it, innit.

 

[JP1]

The BBC in full flow this morning. The agenda is writ large

UK public now eating significantly less meat

Britons are cutting their meat consumption, but not quickly enough, according to scientists.

www.bbc.co.uk

And when you listen to the Iplayer edition on R4 Today this morning they started with 17g a person less and yet on the website published yesterday they are talking 17%...............

Hear it yourself from 13.00 minutes in

Today - 08/10/2021 - BBC Sounds

News and current affairs, including Sports Desk, Weather and Thought for the Day.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[texelburger]

I've managed to reduce my intake of bullsh*t by 99% over the last 3 years by ditching the tellie license and not listening to Jeremy Vine, but I can't quite make it 100% as I still listen to Popmaster,. The 10 O Clock news this morning carried the meat story at the end with the self righteous study lady explaining that 17% was a hopeful start on reducing "harmful red meat" (I think thaose were her exact words), but we still need to reach 30% in the next 10 years. I maintain that the BBC is far more harmful to my health than any meat I might eat.

I heard that too,would be interesting to know who sponsored her research.To me red meat is part of the solution especially grass reared.Compare that to all the plant foods grown ,where billions of lives of lost and huge emissions are created to grow and transport around the World.

 

[Goweresque]

Given the same BBC that is spouting 'eat less meat' is the same BBC that is pro-mass immigration, I don't think farmers need worry. Overall meat sales are up, so who cares if its very slightly less per head, for every middle class tofu eater there's a newly arrived immigrant for whom meat is a necessity of life. There's no way the overall population of the UK is going to do anything but rise, otherwise why are they madly building houses everywhere?

 

[Goweresque]

And anyway its based on a survey, not sales data, so is about as accurate as surveys are.....

 

[Derrick Hughes]

The sad thing is that a reduction per head equals an increase in something else. It's the something else that needs cutting back on not the meat. Just look at the increases in obesity and diabetes in the same ten years, it's not rocket science is it?

Chicken sales are up
Problem is beef being hit two ways , health and environment , it's all over the radio and TV , so hard to fight against it

 

[JP1]

Then on their website 17%

UK public now eating significantly less meat

Britons are cutting their meat consumption, but not quickly enough, according to scientists.

www.bbc.co.uk

Either way it's absolute BS

 

[Goweresque]

Then on their website 17%

UK public now eating significantly less meat

Britons are cutting their meat consumption, but not quickly enough, according to scientists.

www.bbc.co.uk

Either way it's absolute BS

Its not necessarily wrong, its entirely possible that consumption is down 17% AND 17g per person per day. It is a bit of a coincidence admittedly, but you can't assume that the two have been mixed up. If consumption per head was 100g a decade ago and is now 83g, thats both a 17% reduction and a 17g reduction.

I think the more important flaw in it (being just a survey of 15,000 people) that it does not in any way match the industry production and sales figures which show overall meat consumption (including poultry) is up per head by some amount.

 

[Tubbylew]

Then on their website 17%

UK public now eating significantly less meat

Britons are cutting their meat consumption, but not quickly enough, according to scientists.

www.bbc.co.uk

Either way it's absolute BS

It always amazes me that they spout this shite like they actually belive it.

 

[JP1]

Its not necessarily wrong, its entirely possible that consumption is down 17% AND 17g per person per day. It is a bit of a coincidence admittedly, but you can't assume that the two have been mixed up. If consumption per head was 100g a decade ago and is now 83g, thats both a 17% reduction and a 17g reduction.

I think the more important flaw in it (being just a survey of 15,000 people) that it does not in any way match the industry production and sales figures which show overall meat consumption (including poultry) is up per head by some amount.

Somewhere else a fellow TFFer who's wife is a statistician called it BS. 17g is less than one chicken nugget (apparently, never had one)

 

[Highland Mule]

17g is less than one chicken nugget (apparently, never had one)

Or the difference between a 4oz and 3.5oz fillet steak.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Its not necessarily wrong, its entirely possible that consumption is down 17% AND 17g per person per day. It is a bit of a coincidence admittedly, but you can't assume that the two have been mixed up. If consumption per head was 100g a decade ago and is now 83g, thats both a 17% reduction and a 17g reduction.

I think the more important flaw in it (being just a survey of 15,000 people) that it does not in any way match the industry production and sales figures which show overall meat consumption (including poultry) is up per head by some amount.

Well, quite. I had to search right through the Lancet article (which made me queesy) to find that 15,000 figure. All based on those wonders of accuracy food diaries, comical.

 

[Goweresque]

Well, quite. I had to search right through the Lancet article (which made me queesy) to find that 15,000 figure. All based on those wonders of accuracy food diaries, comical.

You didn't have to do that, the 15k survey figure was mentioned in the BBC article.

 

[delilah]

Really can't be bothered to yet again find the various NFU and AHDB quotes to show that all the BBC are doing is reporting official industry policy, so instead, a question:

Given what is going on in the food chain at the moment, isn't the bigger threat to the industry the increasing difficulty of finding folks prepared to do the job of turning a bullock into a burger ? What's the answer to that ? Increased automation ? Or go back to making it more of a craft skill than a production line ? Or get folks in from Africa to do it ( because I reckon the East European's are gone for good) ?

 

[JP1]

Really can't be bothered to yet again find the various NFU and AHDB quotes to show that all the BBC are doing is reporting official industry policy, so instead, a question:

Given what is going on in the food chain at the moment, isn't the bigger threat to the industry the increasing difficulty of finding folks prepared to do the job of turning a bullock into a burger ? What's the answer to that ? Increased automation ? Or go back to making it more of a craft skill than a production line ? Or get folks in from Africa to do it ( because I reckon the East European's are gone for good) ?

Like Minette said last night on QT, Gov can automate what it wants but where are the farmworkers coming from , ditto how do you automate a hotel bed maker etc

 

[Foregoneconclusion]

In the small print is that people are eating more white meat (as it’s cheaper) and less red. So basically no change in the trend seen since 1960.
Population has grown though so demand is still strong.

And the shame about this is that white meat especially chook meat comes from abroad and has much higher footprint due to intensive way animals are kept and produced..less so pork but still high dependency on grain n soya.. unlike the outstandingly tasty UK grass reared beef n lamb

 

[Castle Farm]

Did anyone see George Eustice along with the NFU interview supporting meat and British farming.
NO! neither did I.

 

[ISCO]

The BBC is the broadcasting equivalent of processed food, pouring ground up and easily digested pulp into the heads of their diminishing public. I haven't registered with their gestapo to let them know I don't have a TV as I still believe we should be innocent until proven guilty and shouldn't have to explain why we don't want to conform. As a result, I'm getting increasingly threatening letters which inform me that on 15th October, my details will be passed to the Bristol enforcement team who will place my house under investigation and their operatives will be paying me a visit.
There is a line of thought that says that simply not watching TV is like burying your head in the sand, but I don't see why I should pay the wages of people who promote an end to my way of life. Time saved by not watching TV can be more usefully spent on interactive media where at least you can debate alternative points of view.. From their own figures, I see the number of licenses has been static and dropped by half a million over the last decade while there are 6% more households, and I know quite a few folks who don't watch any more.

We are getting same type of letters. It was due in July and not paid but there again we have no signal at the moment as Bilsdale transmitter is buggered.
I can say that in the lastv3ish months of no TV I have not missed it one bit.
As you say the BBC is firmly anti meat so why subsidise them.
Let them believe there own figures on meat consumption rather than Savilles. They believe they are halfway there already to the required 30%.

 

[Goweresque]

Like Minette said last night on QT, Gov can automate what it wants but where are the farmworkers coming from , ditto how do you automate a hotel bed maker etc

Its simple, people will have to pay more to stay in a hotel/have an coffee/eat a burger. That is to say they will have to pay the true price of those goods/services, not the one that has been artificially depressed by allowing unlimited cheap labour to flood the country. The entire country has become addicted to just importing cheap labour to do all the cr@ppy jobs, in the future they'll have to pay a decent wage to entice people to do the cr@ppy jobs.

In fact I can see that in the future the cr@ppy jobs will provide a better living than a degree in some useless subject from a former technical college now masquerading as a university. Which is the way it should be - if you want to sit in a nice warm office and play with a computer all day you won't get paid what a care worker gets to wipe old people's backsides, or an abattoir worker gets to slaughter animals, or what farm workers gets to pick fruit and veg.

 

[JP1]

Its simple, people will have to pay more to stay in a hotel/have an coffee/eat a burger. That is to say they will have to pay the true price of those goods/services, not the one that has been artificially depressed by allowing unlimited cheap labour to flood the country. The entire country has become addicted to just importing cheap labour to do all the cr@ppy jobs, in the future they'll have to pay a decent wage to entice people to do the cr@ppy jobs.

In fact I can see that in the future the cr@ppy jobs will provide a better living than a degree in some useless subject from a former technical college now masquerading as a university. Which is the way it should be - if you want to sit in a nice warm office and play with a computer all day you won't get paid what a care worker gets to wipe old people's backsides, or an abattoir worker gets to slaughter animals, or what farm workers gets to pick fruit and veg.

It will be even simpler, possibly. Your commodities will be produced elsewhere and brought in to the New Singapore. Have you thought which job you'll retrain to do as you're next !