• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Member496333
  • Start Date Start Date
lucylocket61 said:
Where will we get the oxtail from if the cattle numbers are reduced by 80%?
Click to expand...
When I lived in the UK pre 1970, they came from Bechuanaland in Africa in the shops where I worked at, not many fresh local tails about.

Australia exports offal including oxtail

aV8zwvD.jpg
 
Tipetoo said:
When I lived in the UK pre 1970, they came from Bechuanaland in Africa in the shops where I worked at, not many fresh local tails about.

Australia exports offal including oxtail

aV8zwvD.jpg
Click to expand...

But most lilely to be banned and/or way too expensive.
result..farmers on SA going under.
Bread basket to basket case easily done as Mugabe proved so eloquently

yet another unintended (or is it ) consequence of a rash decision.

still should lower the numbers let to eat, if the old (most likely to have T2D if not T1)
the Obese..( lots more chemically enhanced carbs in the Non meat meats, at some point i'll bet as the fields yield less and less..)..arer allowed to waste away or prematurely die.

and those Young un's voting for this, won't care..I didn't/.

I was never going to get sick and the Gov't wouldn't lie to us ..would they ....?
.
so they might be happy with the status quo changing for now..
but once those arthritis/obesity/Diabetes/Early death... issues start to appear closer to the horizon as they age..
their time of reflection may be way too late.
 
lucylocket61 said:
I am not aware that anyone, of any age, has voted for this. The decisions have been made globally without asking any of the populace of any country.
Click to expand...
You know we Love referendum-mums Then we would know how the turkeys feel about Christmas. Mabe thats the idea?

When you find out that 79 of the top 80 world environmental scientists who authored the Eat Lancet Global Diet plan are either vegetarian or vegan, then you know where its coming from and that it has been planned for decades.
 
Oldvatr said:
You know we Love referendum-mums Then we would know how the turkeys feel about Christmas. Mabe thats the idea?

When you find out that 79 of the top 80 world environmental scientists who authored the Eat Lancet Global Diet plan are either vegetarian or vegan, then you know where its coming from and that it has been planned for decades.
Click to expand...
Yes, but my point still stands that the general public have not been asked about this legislation or given a say before it came about.
 
When I said there were 80 renowned authors of the Global Diet , I would like to add the list of organisations that paid for the environmental report called FRESH that was used to justify the global diet. This was taken from Page 2 of that report when it was published and they were proud of how well supported they were.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Oops my bad...
Mugabe and

Zimbabwe..

But the point isn't where, it's how quickly something can have a serious impact on a country if not properly thought out, and implimented with care to ALL the possible outcomes.
 
Dark Horse said:
I've skim-read through that rather long article and I couldn't find the part that relates to the question of whether soy is toxic to cows - could you quote the pertinent parts for me, please?
Click to expand...
The article discusses another aspect of the debate that is pertinent to the thread. We are both capable of reading the entry in wikipedia that you have already posted here. You have ovbiously not read my commentary either that there is an obvious economic reason why farmers do not feed soya to ruminants and the question of it being toxic or not is not so relevant. It is IMHO cruel to feed cattle on soy since it causes distress.

The argument is over the claims being pushed in the media and apecifically the article in the Guardian today that soy is imported to feed the cows and those things i said here since explain why it is incorrect.
 
Slightly off topic, but heavily entangled;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51281986

Yet another example of infallible 'experts' basically making stuff up, using "scientific assumptions" (also known as assumptions) to reach half-truths that get labelled as 'settled science'. Will we ever learn? Climate and nutrition science are little more than a bad joke.

EDIT to add a little further clarity: I take issue with the term "settled science" that people cling to like a comfort blanket, when in reality it's very often little more than a guess. When it comes to climate and, more saliently, nutrition, there's isn't any settled science. Yet it's being used as a tool to remove freedom of choice and dictate what I should eat :mad:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oldvatr said:
The article discusses another aspect of the debate that is pertinent to the thread. We are both capable of reading the entry in wikipedia that you have already posted here. You have ovbiously not read my commentary either that there is an obvious economic reason why farmers do not feed soya to ruminants and the question of it being toxic or not is not so relevant. It is IMHO cruel to feed cattle on soy since it causes distress.

The argument is over the claims being pushed in the media and apecifically the article in the Guardian today that soy is imported to feed the cows and those things i said here since explain why it is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Ah, OK. I was only responding to the assertion that soy was toxic and thought that your reply was addressing that.
 
Dark Horse said:
Ah, OK. I was only responding to the assertion that soy was toxic and thought that your reply was addressing that.
Click to expand...
3 lbs of soya bean per cow per day is the highest safe level. That is a very small proportion of the cows diet. And less is better, especially in grass fed pasture cattle which we have in the UK.

Anything more than that is toxic.
 
copilost said:
I've been working with nutritionists in Malawi, one said at a recent meeting "we've tried 50 years of vegetarianism and it hasn't worked for us", i hate (with a passion) the pressure to make climate change an individual responsibility when it's a political responsibility. telling me to shoulder the burden, let alone people who are malnourished, that it's "up to me" is disingenuous. this is a failure of leadership not a "personal choice".
Click to expand...

I think this is true - sociopolitical conditions, including the relentless drive to eat three times a day plus plus plus, eat cereals and sugar, processed foods that have the Dickens processed out of them, all to feed the coffers of Big Food, is a weighty part of the climate damage equation.
 
Apparently the Climate Change Comittee is presenting their white paper to Parliament tomorrow. It lays out the draft legislation that they need to be discussed and enacted this year, i.e. by 5 April 2020. No details leaked yet. This is after only 1 of the 4 Citizens Assemblies for Climate Change, so only 200 people have had the chance to discuss so far. So much for democracy. The Climate Change Comittee is what we used to call a Quango, and it sems to have no ministerial reporting. They have apparently contracted the Martin School of Oxford University to provide consultancy services and scientific advice. These are the same people that prepared the FRESH study, the EPIC Oxford Study, and EAT Lancet Apopogenic diet, They are also currently contracted by the government via the Lancet to provide the government initiative to defeat obesity,

So much for indepenfent oversight. Not quite what I understand as joined up thinking
 
Last edited:
I wasn;t aware of it but apparently the Environment Bill 2020 was passed yesterday.
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2019-20/environment.html
first read shows changes to legislation and enforcement coming, but does not seem to cover the land reassignment issue. will curb open fires and home heating issues, but not GHG per se.

There was no mention, no discussion of its contents in any of the media.

The Agriculture Bill 2020 is due for voting on next week apparently.
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2019-20/agriculture.html
Have not read this so not able to comment yet.

Edit: introduces a Red Meat Levy and new regulations on the use of fertilisers.

The energy bill is still being put together
https://assets.publishing.service.g...e/774235/national_energy_and_climate_plan.pdf
Apparently Nuclear energy is out, tidal is not viable for 2050 target, so biomass is king. Electric car infrastructure needs are discussed but not the power distribution requirements to support it.
 
Last edited:
Oldvatr said:
I wasn;t aware of it but apparently the Environment Bill 2020 was passed yesterday.
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2019-20/environment.html
first read shows changes to legislation and enforcement coming, but does not seem to cover the land reassignment issue. will curb open fires and home heating issues, but not GHG per se.

There was no mention, no discussion of its contents in any of the media.

The Agriculture Bill 2020 is due for voting on next week apparently.
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2019-20/agriculture.html
Have not read this so not able to comment yet.

Edit: introduces a Red Meat Levy and new regulations on the use of fertilisers.

The energy bill is still being put together
https://assets.publishing.service.g...e/774235/national_energy_and_climate_plan.pdf
Apparently Nuclear energy is out, tidal is not viable for 2050 target, so biomass is king. Electric car infrastructure needs are discussed but not the power distribution requirements to support it.
Click to expand...
I can't see the information about the red meat levy.
 
Clause 33 of the agriculture bill. The one you copied above was the environment bill. Click on the pdf link to see the contents
 
Back
Top