And so it begins: Eat less meat or we’ll make you.

[Oldvatr]

I will admit I have not read the proposed bill, but it would change the whole purpose of the Levy which is to support meat production. I have used its online resources for in formation. The AHDB, which takes the levy for use is a non govermental department, it is run to support the farming industry, there is also an opt out every so many years, so producers could choose to disband it.
'We exist to enhance the profitability and sustainability of the English beef and lamb sector.'
They could use the R&D to support alternatives to meat production but I doubt whether this would comply for the reason for it existance.
The change of its purpose is not in its news section,https://ahdb.org.uk/news

I posted the bill link on this thread earlier. I watched the Lords debate on the bill second reading, and there was absolutely zero discussion on it, so it passed by default. Since the levy seems to be existing legislation, why was it added to the farmers bill? It does not make sense there Except that it brings it under legal control of the government so maybe has hikacked it from the system you know. Again, Why?

 

[WackyJacky64]

I have seen it. It's a load of rubbish and no evidence from start to finish. Posted by a person the family sacked for trying to exploit her. Looking behind the source of news is a good idea.

In your opinion it is a load of rubbish , but what makes your opinion any more valid than mine? Its as if people can't have an opinion different to others these days without being bored to death that theirs is wrong.
As for Greta she in my opinion is being used by the establishment . We can look after the planet without being dictated to by her .
Not everyone likes her method of dictating to us that climate change is real .

 

[WackyJacky64]

There's also videos on Youtube that state the Earth is flat, vaccinations are a government conspiracy and gods are real.

And so you are arguing the voracity of sources not the actual issue, the fact is the majority of what we accept to be true is based on what we chose to believe, we do not live long enough to research every source of every decision we make, so please do not tell me your or anyone else's opinion is more valid than mine.

 

[Oldvatr]

If anyone is in doubt that the Climate Change Committee is representing an unbiassed viewpoint, I have now dissected a paper that was in their archive. It is a report on a meeting by the Diet and Welfare section of that committe, which I did post a link to earlier on theis thread, The meeting is a subcommitte set up to advise on diet and the way it interacts with the Nett Zero narrative.

I out of curiosity began to look at the credentials of those attendees to see if there was any evidence of untoward bias. For each delelgate I reviewed their academic records, their twitter feeds, and their Pinterest activity, along with their employment details and papers published.
For a start, the Chair of the Comittee is a known vegan activist from the Oxford Martin School who also chairs and organises the Livestock Environment And People (LEAP) symposiums. Those conferences are held annually at the Oxford Martin School, and are occasions where the environmental impact of livestock gets pilloried by the anti meat lobby. The conference does not discuss any mitigation or science advances that could help reduce carbon footprint at all. The science is sll provided in house and there are no independent experts to give any alternative views.

Certainly the Chair of the CCC subcommittee has an active vegan agenda in his twitter feed, and several anti meat papers to his name.

Looking at the composition of the rest of this important meeting on the National Diet, we have a total of 14 attendees listed. Of these 3 are confirmed vegetarian or vegan adherents. Six were either working for firms and businesses that actively support a vegetarian or vegan WOE to the extent of organuising conferences and exhibitions. Many of this grouping were also actively supporting increased vegetable and Plant Based diets, or discussing methods by which public support for this could be engendered by the application of psychology and sales pressure. Most of these players wer connected in other ways by providing consultancies to others in the grouping so these were not isolated individuals.

There were 5 others for whom I was unable to find any obvious signs of overt bias. Some had written theses or had degrees in plant agriculture or behavioural sciences, but this was insufficient to make any judgement on. One of this group was Dr. Alison Tedstone, who is known to some here for her activities in PHE, SACN and Eatwell.

The minutes do not show any discussion occurring on whether the diet was suitable for all or supplied proper nutrition, and was mainly concerned with how to engage the public in diet change

 

[Mike d]

This is a great thread ... may it not be censored given the gravity of it for all, not just diabetics

 

[Oldvatr]

In your opinion it is a load of rubbish , but what makes your opinion any more valid than mine? Its as if people can't have an opinion different to others these days without being bored to death that theirs is wrong.
As for Greta she in my opinion is being used by the establishment . We can look after the planet without being dictated to by her .
Not everyone likes her method of dictating to us that climate change is real .

I have no problem with Greta, but I have major issues with the media who put her on a pedestal so others can guru-worship like she is spouting the truth. She is not, she is generally reading a prepared speech from autocue in a monotonic voice, We do not know if she writes it or someone else does, The face is a child, but the words that come out are adult beyond her years IMHO I see other schoolkids are now being groomed to take over from her.

She is certainly suspected of being manipulated by others because they need to indoctrinate our children. Give me the child until he is seven, and I will give you the man (St Francis), It is worrying that in infant and junior schools these brainwashing techniques are being used to further a certain message. We will soon have a generation of schoolkids that may never see a farm animal except in old books

 

[Member496333]

Thunberg is a human shield.

 

[Robinredbreast]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50572041

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...on-record-have-occurred-since-2002-met-office

interesting articles, just two of many

 

[WackyJacky64]

Thunberg is a human shield.

The agenda is damaging though . Even the extinct rebelion lot are going too far . I have a clip where they walked into a Brexit party office and laid on the floor dressed as bees , they were fluttering their legs and arms , they were asked if they would like a cup of tea and some said yes please, but they were informed the kettle was plastic and would they still want one . It is getting ridiculous . And i for one do not like being dictated by a school girl such as Greta .

 

[Member496333]

To be fair @Robinredbreast, Earth is billions of years old and has gone through more climate change and cataclysmic destruction than any human could ever imagine. Measuring climate change across decade time spans is fairly ridiculous. I'm not saying it isn't happening, but I don't believe there's much proof one way or the other. There certainly doesn't appear to be any proof that humans are having a material impact. Proof <> groupthink.

Sadly, modern science seems to no longer require proof of anything. A hypothesis and a truck full of money seem to be all that's needed in order to force desired public policy. Reminds me of "we don't have time to wait until all the evidence is in." (paraphrased) right before the last catastrophic dietary policy was forced upon the world. Anyone remember how that went?

Humans: https://qz.com/967554/the-five-universal-laws-of-human-stupidity/

 

[Member496333]

A tenuous link, perhaps, but this is a short story of the events that led to the rolling-out of dietary guidelines based on a hunch. It didn't go too well;

 

[Oldvatr]

To be fair @Robinredbreast, Earth is billions of years old and has gone through more climate change and cataclysmic destruction than any human could ever imagine. Measuring climate change across decade time spans is fairly ridiculous. I'm not saying it isn't happening, but I don't believe there's much proof one way or the other. There certainly doesn't appear to be any proof that humans are having a material impact. Proof <> groupthink.

Sadly, modern science seems to no longer require proof of anything. A hypothesis and a truck full of money seem to be all that's needed in order to force desired public policy. Reminds me of "we don't have time to wait until all the evidence is in." (paraphrased) right before the last catastrophic dietary policy was forced upon the world. Anyone remember how that went?

Humans: https://qz.com/967554/the-five-universal-laws-of-human-stupidity/

Indeed, Siberia used to be tropical , Egypt and Canaan was the breadbasket of the known world. We in the UK were hundreds of metres below glaciers and South America used to be below sea level before the mountains were raised. Tibet was at sea level once and Gondwanaland was the only land mass. In the 1950's we were being threatened with extinction from a mini ice age.

I am in favour of taking steps to preserve what we have and we do need to change how we treat the earth. But it needs to be thought out properly and soberly, There is a limit to the number of batteries that we will be able to make so that is a very short sighted solution IMO. Especially since they cannot be recycled effectively so have a limited life anyway. Wind turbines present a significant waste disposal problem since they cannot be recycled either.

Last year global CO2 levels remained static according to WHO, but no one is listening. We ignore the true scientists, and make up the story as we go it seems. Finding ways of storing carbon is essential so that we can use sustainable resources makes sense to me.

 

[Honeyend]

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ta/file/814208/BPS_2019_scheme_rules_v2.0.pdf

I posted the bill link on this thread earlier. I watched the Lords debate on the bill second reading, and there was absolutely zero discussion on it, so it passed by default. Since the levy seems to be existing legislation, why was it added to the farmers bill? It does not make sense there Except that it brings it under legal control of the government so maybe has hikacked it from the system you know. Again, Why?

Is this what you call the farmers bill?
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8702
https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/expert-insight-the-agriculture-bill-2020/

True there could be an enviromental tax on emissions and by products, you can already only dispose of manure on your own land, you have to pay to have it moved off and get a ticket, and there are nitrate limits for use on land already. The irony being you need manure to keep the fertility and structure of the soil, bagged nitrates are not good for the soil. Everything in farming is already under legal control, from when you can cut your hedge, what you do with your manure, and what you feed your animals.
Its an industry.
If this is the Bill you are talking about, you could look at it two ways, it could be a benchmark to make sure we produce enough of our own food, with quotas/ decisions not dependant on the rest or Europe, or as some think the way in through WTO agreements that food imported does not comply with our welfare and production standards.

If its this Bill its about payments,
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2019-20/directpaymentstofarmerslegislativecontinuity.html
which is linked to 'payments for public goods' , when we leave the EU transition period the goverment has agreed it will maintain BPS payments, so needs a legal mechanism to do so, not EU law, but will decide at a later date how these payments will be earned
,https://assets.publishing.service.g...ta/file/814208/BPS_2019_scheme_rules_v2.0.pdf
'There are no details in the Bill of the new Environmental Land Management Scheme expected to form the centrepiece of the new system. Nor does the Bill set out the manner in which direct payments (BPS) will be phased out. An updated policy paper setting out further details is expected to be published during the Bill’s passage.'
Perhaps we will be paid to plant trees.

 

[Oldvatr]

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ta/file/814208/BPS_2019_scheme_rules_v2.0.pdf

Is this what you call the farmers bill?
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8702
https://www.nfuonline.com/news/latest-news/expert-insight-the-agriculture-bill-2020/

True there could be an enviromental tax on emissions and by products, you can already only dispose of manure on your own land, you have to pay to have it moved off and get a ticket, and there are nitrate limits for use on land already. The irony being you need manure to keep the fertility and structure of the soil, bagged nitrates are not good for the soil. Everything in farming is already under legal control, from when you can cut your hedge, what you do with your manure, and what you feed your animals.
Its an industry.
If this is the Bill you are talking about, you could look at it two ways, it could be a benchmark to make sure we produce enough of our own food, with quotas/ decisions not dependant on the rest or Europe, or as some think the way in through WTO agreements that food imported does not comply with our welfare and production standards.

If its this Bill its about payments,
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2019-20/directpaymentstofarmerslegislativecontinuity.html
which is linked to 'payments for public goods' , when we leave the EU transition period the goverment has agreed it will maintain BPS payments, so needs a legal mechanism to do so, not EU law, but will decide at a later date how these payments will be earned
,https://assets.publishing.service.g...ta/file/814208/BPS_2019_scheme_rules_v2.0.pdf
'There are no details in the Bill of the new Environmental Land Management Scheme expected to form the centrepiece of the new system. Nor does the Bill set out the manner in which direct payments (BPS) will be phased out. An updated policy paper setting out further details is expected to be published during the Bill’s passage.'
Perhaps we will be paid to plant trees.

You are correct. I was mixing up two bills - 005 The Farmers Bill on Direct Payments, and 007 The Agriculture Bill. The Red Meat Levy is in 007. My Bad. They have both passed into royal assent, so the changes proposed are now law.

 

[DJC3]

I agree.
However, the cattle that graze here in my province eat the grass where nothing else grows. Not beans, vegetables or even trees.
I fail to see how trucking vegetables from other regions is better for the environment.
We have to eat. Soy beans and avocados with all the fertilizer and water they use for growing and fuel for transportation are not better in preventing climate change. The science is flawed.

Completely agree. Same with Highland cattle and sheep which graze the inhospitable uplands in Wales and the Lake District - this is not arable land.
If we stop eating meat and the farmers go out of business we will have to import soya, nuts and avocados. Madness. Sustainable farming is the way forward in my opinion.

 

[Mike d]

The IPCC used that word "sustainable" 263 times in a single pdf report published 5 years ago. Yes, I counted them. How very U.N.

 

[Honeyend]

You are correct. I was mixing up two bills - 005 The Farmers Bill on Direct Payments, and 007 The Agriculture Bill. The Red Meat Levy is in 007. My Bad. They have both passed into royal assent, so the changes proposed are now law.

I had to look it up. Farmers are the greatest moaners out, and I had not heard much about it.
Looking at the Red meat levy its more about the distrubution of the funds raised, at the moment the money goes where the animal is slaughtered not where is perhaps has spent most of its life. The purpose is so that cattle and sheep raised in Wales or Scotland, the money from the levy goes to that area, not to the area it is slaughtered. As far as I can see the reason for raising the levy has not changed at all, to support meat production, Wales and Scotland have devolved boards. Section 33.304

 

[Oldvatr]

I had to look it up. Farmers are the greatest moaners out, and I had not heard much about it.
Looking at the Red meat levy its more about the distrubution of the funds raised, at the moment the money goes where the animal is slaughtered not where is perhaps has spent most of its life. The purpose is so that cattle and sheep raised in Wales or Scotland, the money from the levy goes to that area, not to the area it is slaughtered. As far as I can see the reason for raising the levy has not changed at all, to support meat production, Wales and Scotland have devolved boards. Section 33.304

I see a trojan horse backdoor that could be used, Let us hope it is not. At least you know where the parliamentary bills get queued up

 

[dunelm]

What was that we were saying about choice? Looks like we’re edging one step closer to the removal of it.

People should cut the amount of beef, lamb and dairy produce they eat by a fifth to combat climate change, a report says. It says public bodies should lead the way by offering plant-based options with all meals. But it says if people don’t cut consumption willingly, taxes on meat and dairy might be needed. The report comes from the government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51210622

Is this why I don’t believe anything that the government or media comes up with. I am mainly a carnivour and won’t be moving to veg any time soon. My meat comes to the butcher from a farm a couple of miles away. I walk to the butchers.
Avocados are grown in places like Mexico, using masses of precious water and then flown over to the UK - all utterly bonkers.

 

[Oldvatr]

In my area this is becoming a serious problem
https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/28/vega...nt-8404499/?ito=article.amp.share.top.twitter
My local butcher has been threatened with being firebombed while he and his family sleep in the flat above the shop. His daughter has been seriosusly bullied at school and in the street because of his trade,