Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Diabetes Soapbox - Have Your Say' started by Oldvatr, May 30, 2019.
Tbh,most of our UK Mp's, don't even have one brain cell between the lot of them ..............
Think it was a press report in a trade magazine, so is from a possibly biassed source, When I tried to verify it, the HMRC site had a paywall in place, and it was not publicly available. One had to apply for a code from the HMRC for each product to be considered, and then this would correspond to a tariff charge,
I see both 6,8 and 93.5/100kg so what happened to the 93.5? Isnt that part of the tariff charge too? I cannot find the current rate being charged for this commodity, so maybe the 60% is an increase above the current charge? I am not an importer or exporter, so this is not in my experience, so I cannot comment further,
Edit: Brexit no deal - can we assume MFN or preferential rates? Surely we need a deal in place to claim those.
I don't understand the €93.5/100kg either, but they are the tariffs that the UK will impose on all imports instead of the current tariffs which are determined by the EU. The tariff on meat and poultry is designed to protect UK farmers from cheap imports as the EU tariff supposedly does now. As regards exports I have no idea what tariffs the EU will impose on the UK.
Actually, I would like to see meat and poultry being eaten in the country that produces it, and has control of its welfare standards.
I agree wholeheartedly we should be protecting the British farmers and growers from cheap imports - and the manufacturers. I am an advocate of Buy British. Always have been, and stick to it wherever this is realistic.
When gov is taxing our food,you know its not going to benefit we the people.
One man meat is another man poison.
We all have control over what we choose to eat. Research or no research.
While I agree with your comment at the moment, the main tenet behind this thread is that there are moves to curtail choice and force this diet onto the world population in the name of saving the planet. These moves have already been accepted in several countries, and wil soon be discussed in the UK parliament with the idea of legislating a forced reduction of animal products, This ethos is IMO totally against democracy and freedom of choice, and we are sleepwalking into it,
What do you think will happen when livestock farming is stopped. Will we have fields of happy and contented cows, lambs, chickens? No they will be culled en masse, as is already happening in China, We could see extinctions of whole swathes of the animal kingdom, starting with the ruminants, and then progressing out into the wild as people scramble to get meat, Fish will likewise suffer and be decimated. This is not being put forward to save the animal kingdom, and will also harm the human kingdom too. It may save the planet, but at what cost?
Highly debatable.. may well kill agriculture faster as well as the entire human population..
I think I have got a bit lost in the flow of this thread.
The latter comments seem to be about cutting out meat entirely.
That is not my understanding of a flexitarian diet.
I understand flexitarian to be an increased intake of plant-based meals without completely eliminating meat.
Although to be honest, as with most diets, it is what you (or the dietician) want it to be. There is no formal definition like there is with vegetarianism or veganism.
Asking how much meat in a flexitarian diet is like asking how many carbs in a low carb diet - it is up to you ... or your body.
Respectfully, not really. The flexitarian diet, as it is being proposed, clearly defines a minuscule amount of meat. Some say in a bid to pretend it isn’t grounded in anti-meat hysteria, but that’s another debate. From the article;
Meat - 14g a day of red meat and 29g a day of chicken.
May as well not bother
Same with fish. My small tins of salmon 3 or 4 times a week are 105g. each.
Along with one egg per week
Not sure why my post has been labelled “creative” when it’s all clearly defined by the group pushing this diet. Hey ho
The diet to save the planet has been devised by the EAT Lancet consortium in Stockholm. This is a group of 21 scientists, of 20 are declared vegans, who originlly proposed a no animal / Plant Based diet for the world to save the planet, In their original draft of the plan, there were comments that the diet would need to be implemented by introducing taxation, and other restrictions on livestock to remove meat from the world diet. Some of the scientists were researching marine biology, so some fish was included in the plan, but red meat was prohibited. Not through choice, but by legislation.
Although in the final draft (as in the OP above), a small pat of meat per week is allowed, it is not a major jump to realise that once this plan is in place, then the obvious next step is to up the ante and complete the task. It will not be Flexitarian for very long. Indeed, the Canadian version of Eatwell has already had all animal products removed from it as well as dairy foods, and is now plant based. This version of Eatwell is now the official diet for all in Canada, This is why there is such angst from Omnivores who wish to retain choice for all.
Latest official guidelines from Canada
“all of your snacks throughout the day”
They are including some meats, plus fish and eggs.
@Oldvatr thank you for your response.
I believe we should have a choice of what to eat, whether to eat meat or meat based products or plant based products or fish (I am not sure whether this is included in the meat portion).
The Canadian guidelines you mention says "Choose protein foods that come from plants more often". The way I read this, it has not removed the meat based component as you suggest; it has recommended protein from foods more than protein from animals which is quite different and could be one eighth of the plate or one quarter of the plate half the time and probably more than the 14g of red meat and 29g chicken the article this thread originally referenced.
Other articles I have read on flexitarian diets are less prescriptive. Hence my first comment above.
At least they are honest and admit it is the Eat Lancet diet they are following for the planet according to this review
I like this section of the spiel for the nutritionists
Some fad diets can be restrictive and pose nutritional risks.
Canadians are exposed to the promotion of diets that are often commercially driven and promise a quick fix for weight loss or the management of a chronic disease. These diets are often referred to as ‘fad diets’. Sometimes these diets evolve from a medically indicated eating plan, and other times they are based on anecdotal observations and have little or no scientific basis. These diets are often used to promote or sell dietary products such as pre-portioned meals and cook books. Fad diets can be restrictive and pose nutritional risks, particularly when many nutritious foods are eliminated from the diet without appropriate planning for nutritional replacements. Nutrient inadequacies can have a significant and lasting impact on health. A healthy diet should provide sufficient energy to promote a healthy body weight, while minimizing the risk of having too much or too little of any particular nutrient. It should also allow for personal food preferences, which can reinforce the enjoyment of healthy eating.
There is no mention of how the movement away from animal foods as they advise so strongly may lead to essential vitamin deficiencies, which I find to be a major problem with their recommendations. They do not address these issues, but plug this diet plan as being super healthy for all. The low fat mantra survives intact as well. This is Eatwell on steroids
I have seen various quotes on population growth for the planet. Some predict the worst case whereby the growth continues as is and we need to harness Plan B and populate a 2nd planet or the alternative school of thought is that population growth on the planet will plateau out in the not too distant future, the slowing down of population growth of China being a key factor there in the second instance.
So it just depends on how you view the various predictions as to how worrisome it might be in terms of fulfilling a meat eating diet.
Honestly that all reads exactly like the typical anti low-carb/keto propaganda we see everywhere now that it’s becoming popular