Meat eating and the flexitarianism
- This topic has 157 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
<p class=”story-body__introduction”>The number of sheep and cattle in the UK should be reduced by between a fifth and a half to help combat climate change, a report from the government’s advisory Committee on Climate Change (CCC) maintains, because beef and lamb produce most greenhouse gases. The report foresees an increase in the number of pigs and chickens because these produce less methane.</p>
The CCC says a 20-50% reduction in beef and lamb pasture could release 3-7m hectares of grassland from the current 12m hectares in the UK. The un-needed grassland could instead grow forests and biofuels that would help to soak up CO2. Carbon is stored in plants and in the soil, so the CCC recommends that farm subsidies should raise the proportion of UK land under forestry from 14% to 19%, and restore peat bogs.The committee’s advice on producing less red meat is less radical than NHS Eatwell guidelines on healthy eating, which proposes a reduction in consumption of 89% for beef and 63% for lamb, and a 20% decline in dairy products.
BBC News understands that the committee have deliberately taken a more conservative position in order to minimise confrontation with the farmers’ union, the NFU.
Committee on Climate Change (CCC), Chris Stark, told BBC News: “Climate change is going to change the way the UK looks – and we also have to alter the way we use land so we don’t make climate change worse.”
George Monbiot told BBC News: “This is a timid and inadequate report. Roughly four million hectares of uplands is used for sheep, yet sheep account for just 1.2% of our diet. Allowing trees to return to a significant portion on this land has a far greater potential for carbon reduction than the puny measures proposed in this report.”
Friends of the Earth’s Guy Shrubsole said: “We need to reforest far more of Britain than the government’s current puny tree-planting targets – going beyond what this report calls for and doubling forest cover to lock-up carbon and help prevent floods.”
Guy Shrubsole is quoted in the Guardian saying “This report is a wake-up call for a complacent government that we must completely transform the way we use land to avoid climate breakdown and make space for nature.”
The CCC says as UK temperatures have risen by 0.8°C over the last 40 years, farmers have made the impacts worse. Loss of soil fertility, plant and animal species are now apparent, it says, mainly driven by intensive food production.
Projections suggest more warming, sea level rise, greater risks from flooding and drought.
“Despite some opportunities,” the report says, “The negative impacts on our soils, water, vegetation and wildlife are likely to be significant.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-46235155
“…She said: “I was brought up a vegetarian, for 18 years. I never knew anything different.”
After eating meat from livestock raised on crofts run by her parents and a friend, she said she felt it was only right she learned the processes behind the food on her plate.
“Deer stalking is very clinical process. You are harvesting a wild animal and it is putting healthy food on the table. Death (for the deer) is as quick as it can be,” said Megan, adding that stalking involved making sure the deer selected to be shot were unaware of the stalkers so to “minimise stress”….”
Don’t say i never give the other side of the debate
Bugs are going on the shelves of Sainsbury’s as it becomes the first big UK grocer to stock edible insects.
The retailer will start selling roasted crickets – described as “crunchy in texture with a rich smoky flavour”.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization says at least 2 billion people regularly consume insects. More than 1,000 insect species are eaten around the world but hardly feature in the diets of many rich nations. Insects are naturally very low in calories and suitable for gluten- and dairy-free diets, as well as being exceptionally high in protein. Gram for gram, dried crickets contain more protein than beef, chicken and pork – with 100g containing 68g of protein, compared with only 31g of protein in beef. Bugs emit considerably lower levels of greenhouse gases than most livestock and are more efficient in terms of the resources needed to farm them.
“As the population increases, we urgently need to look at alternative protein sources to make the most of land available for food production,” the food policy manager at WWF UK, Duncan Williamson, said. “Insects are incredibly sustainable and can help to reduce our carbon footprint.”
I’m not a great fan probably due cultural/culinary upbringing but my family are, frequently snacking on them. Once rented a house next to neighbours who raised insects for food…easy to feed…just egg cartons…but it made 24/7 humming noise.
Surprised the pet food industry aren’t the early innovators rather than a new meaning for Pub Grub.
As a matter of interest, what is the vegetarian/vegan official line on eating insects. Are they kosher?
Vegans don’t eat insects (on purpose anyway)”, as they are sentient beings. There is some debate amongst them about eating bivalves (mussels, oysters, etc) as bivalves don’t have a formal brain structure and whether or not they can feel pain is debatable. I’m not sure what the rule is for killing animals for non food reasons, pest control, etc.
“Are they kosher?”
Grasshoppers/locusts are kosher and halal but not other insects
On insect pain and veganism
Thanks but that’s nothing compared to the Jains who we happened to be discussing in the pub after the anti-racism demonstration yesterday:
The Jain cuisine is completely vegetarian and also excludes underground vegetables such as onion, garlic, etc, to prevent injuring small insects and microorganisms; and also to prevent the entire plant getting uprooted and killed .
There’s nowt so queer as folk.
The Jain priesthood usually had someone sweeping in front of them as they walk so not to step on an insect and some wear masks so as not to inadvertently swallow a flying insect. But i never saw any Jain priests, probably because of those sort of rules they more likely to be confined to their temples
In practical terms in south India there exists a distinction between a restaurant with vegetarian meals and a pure veg restaurant (and they have big signs designating them) – the pure veg restaurant’s kitchen, the utensils, the pots, and pans, cannot have been used for any meat dish.
I usually ordered a potato (aloo) curry, btw, Jain-approved pure veg restaurants do serve those, can’t remember if garlic and onions were in the recipe.
I’ve mentioned it before in exchanges – working in a slaughter-house is dehumanising and in socialism, i think it is doubtful people will engage in this industrial assembly-line butchery.
“…Farmers Weekly has revealed that 10,000 positions are unfilled at major abattoirs … the report explains that for most potential applicants, the industry’s low pay is not the problem but that “people simply do not want to do this work any more”.
Slaughterhouse work has been linked to a variety of disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder and the lesser-known perpetration-induced traumatic stress. It has also been connected to higher incidents of domestic violence, as well as alcohol and drug abuse.
A pig slaughterer said the “worst thing” about the work is its “emotional toll”. He explained: “Pigs down on the kill floor have come up and nuzzled me like a puppy. Two minutes later I had to kill them – beat them to death with a pipe.”.
Most people don’t like to think about the effect that buying meat has on animals and the environment. Few are even aware of the plight of slaughter workers. But market forces are simple – every time you put meat in your shopping trolley, you are funding the slaughter, globally, of 70bn farmed animals each year, the destruction of the environment and yes, the exploitation of vulnerable workers…”
<aside class=”element element-pullquote element–supporting”>
<p class=”pullquote-paragraph”></p>
</aside>
Lancet article
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)32971-4/fulltext
The lowest-impact meat causes “much more” environmental impact than the least sustainable forms of plant and vegetable production…So what is a healthy amount of red or processed meat? It’s looking increasingly like the answer, for both the planet and the individual, is very little.
I think you should have made it clear that the first quote is not from the Lancet but that it is the Lancet quoting an article in another scientific journal. I say this because the Lancet article ends with a statement (you quote) about “red or processed meat” not about meat in general.
Agriculture is by nature a change in the ecological environment so does the study take into account the destruction of the trees that originally grew on the land cleared for agriculture (nothing wrong with that of course as long as a new stable ecological balance is established)? Also, I believe you pointed in another post to the global-warming gas, methane, being released by growing rice (your staple diet?).
Incidentally, is processing vegetables more environmen-friendly than processing meat?
A pig slaughterer said the “worst thing” about the work is its “emotional toll”. He explained: “Pigs down on the kill floor have come up and nuzzled me like a puppy. Two minutes later I had to kill them – beat them to death with a pipe.”.
Where is that from? Modern methods do not entail beating to death with a pipe. It is still not a pleasant business but..
Yes, this pro-vegetarian propaganda is getting out of hand. People might get the wrong impression and not realise that the Party’s position is that what workers eat (or drink or wear) is a private matter that has nothing to do with socialism and that we certainly don’t tell people what they should or should not eat.
This is a discussion list and i question the implications of questioning my contributions.
Am i to assume that party members are restricted in what to discuss because a non-member maybe looking over his or her shoulder.
Has advocating vegetarianism, veganism or flexitarianism or whatever become grounds for bringing Party discipline charges?
I would also be interested to know if there are any complaints that this “pro-vegetarian” propaganda has spread to any of our social media or blogs.
As for the quote Matt, i provided the link in the Guardian. We know what goes on in slaughterhouses and abattoirs is not always what is claimed – that they are humane killing factories.
But i used google and found this
Breaking: Pigs’ Heads Are Bashed in With Metal Pipes in Cambodian Slaughterhouse
https://campaigns.peta2.com/cambodia-pig-slaughterhouse/
Mother Pigs Killed with Hammers – Secret Video Exposing Italian Ham
But the reference i made was not so much the killing technique but the psychological effect on workers – to reinforce an earlier claim of mine that people living in a socialist society will simply not volunteer in the numbers required to maintain the present level of meat-eating when even today the food industry concede they have a labour shortage which isn’t to do with pay-scales but the nature of the work itself. Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” was written to focus on the brutal working conditions but it was turned into a public health issue.
Not sure of your question ALB – is producing a tin of peas equivalent to a tin of spam? In manufacturing the tin can (or plastic), and the transportation to our tables, probably the same. I am sure that raising crops does leave a level of carbon footprint, after all unless it is organic, artificial fertilisers and pesticides are used as well as complicated machinery utilised in raising cereals. But research into hothouse gas emissions in organic farming shows it is beneficial compared to conventional methods.
Processed meat is a specific product and nothing to do with the packaging and is included in WHO health warnings alongside red meat.
One article from our blog citing the health concerns of processed meat UNDER capitalism.
https://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2018/03/processed-meat-for-processed-people.html
As for the source of the first claim, i cited a quote in the Lancet article which came from an equally authoritative source a peer reviewed Science journal…I think you are beginning to academic quibble, ALB, when the forum is a more informal exchange of information.
Highlighting the environment and the health impacts of a predominant meat diet i do not see contravening any party rules. I think it is legitimate to speculate what a future socialist society will produce and how it does.
These are not private matters but social questions and when people are empowered they will democratically decide on what is made available. It will be the contrarian minority who will have to resource their personal option, not society or the community. As attitudes on what is considered animal abuse can be expected to change so social acceptance may very well be minimum.
The agriculture and livestock farming form part of the environmental debate, held responsible by overwhelming scientific authority as a contributory element to climate change, we cannot be part of the denialist that global warming is unaffected by our dietary behaviours which is not an individual choice but made socially by the capitalist market and the power of the existing food industry.
We currently take action within the Party on lifestyle choices such as banning smoking in HO. We debate what is on our menu at ADM.
So will socialism allocate resources to tobacco growing? Will opium poppy growing be as big as it is today? Will socialism facilitate self-inflicted body harm? I think socialism will be a rational system and people will make reasoned decisions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.