Eating Less Meat

[Timb]

I saw the various news items this week picking up on climate change and a need to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, and a need to cut down on meat production and consumption.

I reckon our household maybe has meat once a week, fish twice a week and some other dish the rest of the time. that is a big change from maybe 10 years ago.

It has been brought about by doctors advice (50 year health check) and a general improvement of whats on offer nationwide, on menus with dishes that contain no meat. And FGR 's stance on climate change and their menu.

I am not feeling hard done by, in fact my recent health check has shown marked improvement, without the need to cut down on beer consumption.

It seems the issue is now being taken seriously which is a good thing. By everyone except the current Climate Minister Claire Perry who seems to be running scared of delivering the message nationwide. It's pretty much a dereliction of duty.

What is she scared of?

[The Old TomCat]

Tim,

The caveman had a diet of both meat and vegetable.
We are all descended from cavemen.
Eating meat is in our DNA.

Claire Perry is correct not to 'nanny' adult people in what to eat.
There would be a backlash with more people eating extra portions of meat for the sake of 'poking her in the eye'.
Dale Vince has the far better method of quietly conveying his vegan message without any draconian measures at TNL.
Fans are permitted to bring in pork pies etc into ground but cannot buy same within stadium area.
I know increasing number of supporters have heeded DVs message and stopped eating meat.

[Timb]

Tom, when cave men were walking the planet there were considerably less Home Sapiens walking the planet.

It's also a fact that with the advent of exponential population growth and industrialisation especially in the meat production field that we all eat meat until it comes out of our ears. Which is actually unhealthy.

There's nothing Nanny State about passing on good advice as opposed to ignoring the situation to keep big business happy, and you.

At the same time as ignoring the advice to eat less meat I see the government is to make it mandatory for flour manufacturers to add Folic Acid to all products for other unrelated reasons.

Do you see this as Nanny State as well?

[chopsy]

The government give advice on a range of health issues, such as what to eat and drink, smoking and exercise.

They also advise on a number of environmental issues. Given the impact the meat industry has on climate change, they should also be advising people to eat less meat. This would not result in a nanny state but a country where people have the required information and make informed decisions about what they do.

Personally I would also stick an extra tax on products that are bad for the environment but I could see why that would be controversial

[The Old TomCat]

Tom, when cave men were walking the planet there were considerably less Home Sapiens walking the planet.

It's also a fact that with the advent of exponential population growth and industrialisation especially in the meat production field that we all eat meat until it comes out of our ears. Which is actually unhealthy.

There's nothing Nanny State about passing on good advice as opposed to ignoring the situation to keep big business happy, and you.

At the same time as ignoring the advice to eat less meat I see the government is to make it mandatory for flour manufacturers to add Folic Acid to all products for other unrelated reasons.

Do you see this as Nanny State as well?

Tim, please re-read my post.
I don't disagree with what you say but do with your solution.
Having a government minister tell us to eat less/no meat is nannying.
Quietly, quietly is far more effective, which I used in the Dale Vince example.
And as you say yourself you remain a meat eater. That is because meat eating is in your DNA. The world population may have risen but they all arrived in world from caveman stock.
The only solution to the problem is one from Victorian times and that is to make the cost of buying meat so expensive that almost nobody can afford it. I grew up almost vegetarian simply because in those days, after the war, everybody was poor and could not afford meat dishes. Horrible streaky bacon once a week and a small chicken on Sunday. That is why I now enjoy my steaks.

[Pitchfork]

Having a government minister tell us to eat less/no meat is nannying.
Quietly, quietly is far more effective, which I used in the Dale Vince example.

Quietly, quietly didn't work for 'seatbelts', 'reducing alcohol when driving' or 'no smoking in restaurants/pubs'. All three needed a loud message from government, backed up by legislation to make people conform to what was desirable for society. The government need to spell out the dangers of too much meat for the sake of the planet and the health of Homo Sapiens. This is not nannying, it's the government doing its job

Dale's message is LOUD & CLEAR, it has been heard all over the planet. He has reached parts of the world governments only dream about. The FGR stance is something to be proud of.

The government give advice on a range of health issues, such as what to eat and drink, smoking and exercise.

Personally I would also stick an extra tax on products that are bad for the environment but I could see why that would be controversial

So would I chopsy. Yes controversial, but brave and showing leadership on saving the planet. I would tax all single use plastics immediately, most manufacturers have been far too slow to react to the horror stories so well documented in the media.

[The Old TomCat]

Having a government minister tell us to eat less/no meat is nannying.
Quietly, quietly is far more effective, which I used in the Dale Vince example.

Quietly, quietly didn't work for 'seatbelts', 'reducing alcohol when driving' or 'no smoking in restaurants/pubs'. All three needed a loud message from government, backed up by legislation to make people conform to what was desirable for society. The government need to spell out the dangers of too much meat for the sake of the planet and the health of Homo Sapiens. This is not nannying, it's the government doing its job

Dale's message is LOUD & CLEAR, it has been heard all over the planet. He has reached parts of the world governments only dream about. The FGR stance is something to be proud of.

The government give advice on a range of health issues, such as what to eat and drink, smoking and exercise.

Personally I would also stick an extra tax on products that are bad for the environment but I could see why that would be controversial

So would I chopsy. Yes controversial, but brave and showing leadership on saving the planet. I would tax all single use plastics immediately, most manufacturers have been far too slow to react to the horror stories so well documented in the media.

1. I know an MP who voted for the seat belt law and regretted it afterwards. Drivers drove more cautiously beforehand. Afterwards less people killed in car but more pedestrians taken out.
2. I have never smoked in my life but the smoking ban is draconian. There should be compromise and perhaps a small side room here smokers can enjoy a puff.
3. Reason why people generally don't drink and drive is because of the law. Not because a nanny government minister told them not to do so.
4. Good reason why a government minister should not speak out alone. It comes across as nannying and detractors will decry it as purely party political. If Tim & you and others are concerned then it is best that you make representations to your local MP for it to be debated in Parliament by all parties.

[Greeners]

Hi

I see the government is to make it mandatory for flour manufacturers to add Folic Acid to all products for other unrelated reasons.
Do you see this as Nanny State as well?

I do!
What research has been carried out to find the effect of a lifetimes consumption of Folic Acid?
It has previously, only been used for a few months at a time on generally 1 to 4 different occasions by less than half of the population.

[greenstripe]

It's always nice to have the luxury of choice with anything in life. Having good information available is always helpful to broaden our horizons.

As a child I never liked meat but was pretty much forced to eat it. Times and attitudes were different back then. I compromised and developed a linking for processed meat products!

My wife gave up meat two or three years ago, this effected the amount of meat I ate. I havne't eaten meat for the last six months. I do miss some things, but an event in the family finally pushed me to cutting out meat all together. (Well for now anyway). I guess its no big deal really, It doesn't effect other people what I eat, and I choose not to talk about it generaly, because it engenders resentment most of the time.

Thing is I still eat a of lot of dairy products! So that is not really helping my cause in a way. All in good time perhaps, unless climate change dictates just what is available to eat in the mean time.

[Greeners]

Hi
Just imagine a Breakfast of Bacon and Eggs with a cup of coffee/tea with milk.

The cow has an interest.
The chicken has an interest
The Pig is committed.

If you have buttered toast as well, again that cow has an interest but the wheat is no more.

[Kentstripe]

I know some vegetarians and enjoy the occasional veggie meal, but I certainly wouldn’t want to live on it. Think the best thing is a healthy balanced diet.

[cookiemonster]

The recent IPCC report is telling us, in essence, that greenhouse gases released on current volumes are as deadly to humankind in the long run as other noxious substances like CFCs. Governments all over the world made bold moves to reduce CFC emissions for the collective good of humanity. So, why not on carbon dioxide, methane, etc? And if that includes bearing down on meat consumption (and, therefore, production) then so be it.

[king giraffe III]

Tom, when cave men were walking the planet there were considerably less Home Sapiens walking the planet.

It's also a fact that with the advent of exponential population growth and industrialisation especially in the meat production field that we all eat meat until it comes out of our ears. Which is actually unhealthy.

There's nothing Nanny State about passing on good advice as opposed to ignoring the situation to keep big business happy, and you.

At the same time as ignoring the advice to eat less meat I see the government is to make it mandatory for flour manufacturers to add Folic Acid to all products for other unrelated reasons.

Do you see this as Nanny State as well?

Tim, please re-read my post.
I don't disagree with what you say but do with your solution.
Having a government minister tell us to eat less/no meat is nannying.
Quietly, quietly is far more effective, which I used in the Dale Vince example.
And as you say yourself you remain a meat eater. That is because meat eating is in your DNA. The world population may have risen but they all arrived in world from caveman stock.
The only solution to the problem is one from Victorian times and that is to make the cost of buying meat so expensive that almost nobody can afford it. I grew up almost vegetarian simply because in those days, after the war, everybody was poor and could not afford meat dishes. Horrible streaky bacon once a week and a small chicken on Sunday. That is why I now enjoy my steaks.

I guess eating meat is in my DNA but I haven't done it for years. I'm always entertained by watching MEFs argue about this one.

[king giraffe III]

I know some vegetarians and enjoy the occasional veggie meal, but I certainly wouldn’t want to live on it. Think the best thing is a healthy balanced diet.

Ha ha, so veg*ns can't have a healthy, balanced diet?

[Greeners]

Hi
https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/avo ... gan-bbc-qi

Does the Vegan Society's response at the bottom of the article ring true or are they just trying to make excuses?

[Timb]

I suppose it all boils down to whether you actually believe man made climate change exists and whether you can be bothered to do anything about it.

Kentstripe, would you eat less meat if you thought it would make a difference to climate change?

Or does everyone take the view that if the environment minister laughs it out of court, well those climate change experts must be having a laugh.

a bit like someone suggested smoking was not actually good for you last century. And was laughed at by the courts and government. Too much to lose in the economy.

For me it seems there are positive health benefits from not overloading your face with meat, and coupled with what is perceived to be a real climate issue. Surely government guidance would be appropriate.

Eating less meat is surely a no brainer, and the environment minister should stop worrying about losing votes and do her job. Which includes giving guidance advice.

That's not Nanny State Tom. it's good governance.

If she doesn't think it would make a difference to climate change then she should set out the reasons why she is going to ignore the advice, if she's actually got any, apart from that it would be perceived as being bad for business. I'm sure they'll provide all the ammunition they think she will need.

[paulK]

Isn't the thing about meat though, the effect of production on the climate? OK, less consumption is one solution. Reducing whatever it is that is being complained about another. Whatever it is though, at the root of it all is probably money.

As for these other past-Government actions:

As a non-smoker I welcomed the smoking ban. If there's one thing I hate about going abroad it is inhaling someone else's carciogenics whilst I am eating.

I am alive today only because I wasn't wearing a seat-belt whilst driving. I'm glad the law wasn't there when I had that particular accident.

Personally, I am quite happy to order a vegetarian meal. Often, pubs & restaurants go out of their way to make such options especially attractive. I still don't feel the urge yet to go totally vegetarian. Just have a balanced healthy diet.

[The Old TomCat]

[quote="Timb"]That's not Nanny State Tom. it's good governance. quote]

Tim,
Having given your post a lot of thought I will say that you are 100% wrong.

The message that you refer to is right and worrying but to demonise a meat eating government minister for refusing to issue a hypocritical nannying statement is out of order.
If she had done so as you proposed they you could bet that a photojournalist would be on her case 24/7 to destroy that message and possibly her career.
Some years ago at the end of the BSE crisis government minister John Gummer had his two children eat some beef to show it was now safe to consume. He got nothing but grief for it.
The only senior government minister with genuine clout to issue statement would be a vegetarian.

[cookiemonster]

As I understand it the IPCC is recommending a significant reduction in meat consumption, not total abstinence.

But the reason this government won't do the same is politics - they calculate it will lose them more votes than it gains. And that, in a nutshell, is why we are heading for oblivion.

[paulK]

Isn't the thing about meat though, the effect of production on the climate? OK, less consumption is one solution. Reducing whatever it is that is being complained about another.

Interesting article the morning after my post! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45865403 #savethepig