How Can We Get These Main Stream?

I am petrified of the recent David Attenborough Climate Change - The Facts documentary (around 52 minutes in the negative reference to meat) and the Extinction Rebellion Movement. These both directly have anti-meat and supporting foods agendas / disinformation (in my view). When this is coupled with the continual Keto bashing, beyond meat etc; how long can those of us who rely on these attacked foods expect big money (Bill Gates, our very own Richard Branson, etc) to "allow" us to have cost effective access to our choices?

Make no mistake we now have a deadline of "something must be done" within 10-12 years. Ordinary people have been supporting Extinction Rebellion which has the above proxy agenda to destroy animal production systems in favour of plant based alternatives - this should be choice lead not forced. I am of the opinion that many supporters believe the increased cancer risk for red meat based on the drip feeding of the media, and plausible names such as Oxford University, Harvard and the WHO promoting the studies (I would if I didn't have Type 2 and performed my own initially stumbled on research).

Do you have any ideas as to how we almost engineer discussions / committees like the below video which would hit the media?


I would ideally like to see persons like Sarah Halberg, Jason Fung, Gary Taubes, Eric Westman, Zoe Harcombe, Ivor Cummins, Dave Feldman, Ted Naimen and maybe 20 others debating all areas of public health, nutrition, sole depletion etc with "experts" who are currently shaping opinion. I hate it when the broadcasters say "experts" agree such and such, when I know this is …. and I can find alternative experts who also went to Harvard or similar also, with differing opinions (but without the megaphone / platform / financial backing).

What ideas do you have, that might cut through. The clock is ticking, and I see this moment as the same as circa 1977 when the USDA were a conduit for the untested low fat, high carb diet we enjoy today. The difference this time, is that if ruminants and similar are wiped out / further genetically modified etc, it will be impossible to reverse - just look at wheat or even bananas (any sweet fruit production).

Guzzler said:

I don't have answers for you except to say that taking a complacent attitude to non mainstream ideology is a dangerous stance. Make use of the press? Lobby our MPs? Will this be enough? I'm not sure.

Click to expand...

I feel we are sleep walking into a situation that without coordinated rebuttal will have inevitable consequences. I have an objective to have the same level of access to meat, fish, dairy and low sugar fruit indefinitely, with just standard inflation upticks in cost. I would prefer for these foods to not be altered any further as a right.

I wrote to half of the MP's twice and got 1 response. I am not advocating the type of promotion Extinction Level Rebellion has undertaken (but they have gone from nowhere to a household acknowledgement, so perhaps well organised peaceful equivalents might spark a debate). Just really frustrated that "we" don't have a common voice and body that say the press would always turn to for responses - without this I fear momentum will eviscerate our choices.

Guzzler said:

The Wisdom of Crowds will play its part.

Click to expand...

I hope so, but would prefer something tangible.

Again all over the news today and highlighted on the most popular talk radio show (LBC - on Nick Ferrari's breakfast show):

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/eating-less-meat-and-dairy-could-help-cut-greenhou/ :
The Five Things You Can Do To Reduce Climate Change
1. Turn your thermostat down to 19C in winter
2. Eat less meat
3. Take the train instead of flying
4. Switch to an electric car
5. Reduce food waste as much as possible and separate it from other rubbish

Nick spoke to a lady called Amy who hammered the eating less red meat by 20%. Nick joked with her about the amount he eats a week, but as is usual no challenge to the number and why meat is being picked on - this universal "zombie-ish" acceptance of the "facts". I phoned up and Nick's gatekeeper hung up on me when I said a certain movement were using climate change as a proxy (the disbelief and disdain in his voice was palpable, as if I was a nut job - if this is the general feeling real meat accessibility is going to be limited).

Page 12 of the attachment (which is being considered at government level) has the following:

"The group’s discussions about the potential for social change also highlighted an important distinction between emergent social changes that could help to meet emissions targets, and social changes that will require directed intervention (e.g. by government) to counteract their impacts on emissions.


• A good example of an emergent social change that could help achieve net zero is the shift in diets that is starting to gain some momentum, particularly with the reduction in the consumption of meat and an increase in flexitarian, vegetarian and vegan diets (CCC, 2018b). The CCC already assumes a 20% reduction in the consumption of lamb, beef and dairy by 2050, but a further reduction may be possible if dietary changes are more rapid and extensive than they expect. This could also make other contributions to achieving net zero, through associated land use change."

This continual chipping away (even made my regional news, where people were interviewed and some commented that they would reduce meat in the context of climate change) I don't think is being taken seriously enough by those of us who have a different view. I have made up my mind to try what little an individual can, others will have to look in the mirror who have more influence and say what am I / we doing as a response - blink and a nutritious food will be priced out of our reach and higher carb fake equivalents or lab grown alternatives will be there for our grand children.