Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?

How reluctant are you to give up your meat habit?


  • Total voters
    196
Status
Not open for further replies.
bcuster As Jeff has gone quiet I will ask the same question to you:

out of interest do you/have you use(d) any medical products that have either been partially animal derived or tested on animals.

Not a gotcha, just wondering where you personally draw the line
And the whataboutery notches up another level.
 
Jeff Robinson out of interest do you/have you use(d) any medical products that have either been partially animal derived or tested on animals.

Not a gotcha, just wondering where you personally draw the line

I avoid medical products that contain animal products as much as possible, I don't boycott medicines that were at some point tested on animals. I oppose all forms of animal testing (aka animal torture) but given its ubiquity in medical practice its all but impossible to avoid such products.

Veganism requires that we do what is “practicable and possible” to avoid participating in animal exploitation, it doesn’t require that we risk our health and life in the pursuit of purity. Vegan society article here:

 
12th student union votes to go vegan:


Hope lies with the kids on this one. Boomers too stuck and stubborn in their ways.
The Students Union at my youngest daughter's uni voted to go all vegan last year, the Uni caterers have totally ignored them and so have 99.9% of the students who continue to patronise the caterers whilst ignoring any calls for a boycott
 
The Students Union at my youngest daughter's uni voted to go all vegan last year, the Uni caterers have totally ignored them and so have 99.9% of the students who continue to patronise the caterers whilst ignoring any calls for a boycott
similar to what's going on in this very thread!
 
You wouldn’t be willing to try them?
And to answer the incoming question:

We have an allotment and grow veg, we have a local family run Greengrocer who champions local veg, I have a butchers shop, we champion local producers and a small family run abattoir.

I do not need to besmirch my palate with that ultra processed clap trap!
 
You wouldn’t be willing to try them?
If you are vegan, that's totally fine. Contrary to what some have claimed on this thread, there is no evidence that anybody here cares if you're vegan or not. No doubt most, and quite possibly all, of us would make an effort to make you something tasty that you could eat if you were invited around for a meal.

But please stop pretending this is some kind of political position. It's not. It's just your personal dietary choice, with no wider ramifications than that.
 
If you are vegan, that's totally fine. Contrary to what some have claimed on this thread, there is no evidence that anybody here cares if you're vegan or not. No doubt most, and quite possibly all, of us would make an effort to make you something tasty that you could eat if you were invited around for a meal.

But please stop pretending this is some kind of political position. It's not. It's just your personal dietary choice, with no wider ramifications than that.
To me, it’s an ethical pos. Not political or even necessarily being climate friendly
 
And to answer the incoming question:

We have an allotment and grow veg, we have a local family run Greengrocer who champions local veg, I have a butchers shop, we champion local producers and a small family run abattoir.

I do not need to besmirch my palate with that ultra processed clap trap!
I’ve really no issue with this.
 
To me, it’s an ethical pos. Not political or even necessarily being climate friendly
So why not start a thread about the ethics of eating meat?

You've been quick enough to refuse to discuss things on another thread because (iyv) the thread wasn't started with that discussion in mind.
 
To me, it’s an ethical pos. Not political or even necessarily being climate friendly
This is what your ethical position has involved on this page:

  • You posted up a story about how Tyson is polluting water. (NB: this was actually mostly a story about how the US’s regulations about industrial pollutants are woefully inadequate, as the article carefully explains that Tyson were almost completely operating within guidelines. And the US is very much not the UK on this score, as has been explained to you again and again and again. Just because the US food industry is allowed to do things, doesn’t mean those things are allowed in other countries. But I digress).
  • It was then pointed out to you that Tyson also make processed vegan food.
  • You responded that you would be delighted to eat Tyson’s vegan food.

So what are we left with? You apparently have no political position on this. Nothing that is actually about the food industry’s practices and its relationship with the processes of political power, either in terms of individualist, consumerist politics (namely, a personal boycott of Tyson) nor collective politics (organise to change the rules). The fact that the US food industry operates appallingly apparently doesn’t bother you at all. You just want to use it as a gotcha. You can’t even be arsed — ever — to read the stories you post. Your ethics amount to zero beyond “I like cute things”. Well, whoopsie-fucking-do.
 
This is what your ethical position has involved on this page:

  • You posted up a story about how Tyson is polluting water. (NB: this was actually mostly a story about how the US’s regulations about industrial pollutants are woefully inadequate, as the article carefully explains that Tyson were almost completely operating within guidelines. And the US is very much not the UK on this score, as has been explained to you again and again and again. Just because the US food industry is allowed to do things, doesn’t mean those things are allowed in other countries. But I digress).
  • It was then pointed out to you that Tyson also make processed vegan food.
  • You responded that you would be delighted to eat Tyson’s vegan food.

So what are we left with? You apparently have no political position on this. Nothing that is actually about the food industry’s practices and its relationship with the processes of political power, either in terms of individualist, consumerist politics (namely, a personal boycott of Tyson) nor collective politics (organise to change the rules). The fact that the US food industry operates appallingly apparently doesn’t bother you at all. You just want to use it as a gotcha. You can’t even be arsed — ever — to read the stories you post. Your ethics amount to zero beyond “I like cute things”. Well, whoopsie-fucking-do.
Thanks for your summary of my position. Quite insightful..
 
Intense lobbying from the meat and dairy industry since 2020 has helped weaken and stall crucial climate policies in the European Union, according to a new report from InfluenceMap.

For the past three years, agricultural industry associations such as farmers’ union COPA-COGECA, European Livestock Voice, and the European Livestock and Meat Trades Union (UECBV) have spearheaded the pushback against six key EU climate policies, alongside meat and dairy companies such as Cargill, Arla, and Vion.

The report, published on 29 May by InfluenceMap, a think tank that analyses the impact of business and finance on climate change, found that the livestock industry had “largely succeeded” in weakening EU policies, which were designed to slash the climate impact of the meat and dairy sector.

The six policies targeted by the industry include the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy, the Industrial Emissions Directive Review – which aimed to reduce climate pollution such as methane released by farms – and the Sustainable Food Systems Framework, which aimed to drive the transition to more sustainable diets.

 
Nitrogen (N) in the form of nitrate is a common pollutant in both surface and ground waters. Nitrate-N can readily leach down beyond the root zone in agricultural soils and reach the ground and surface waters. At levels exceeding the permissible limits, nitrate-N makes the ground water unfit for drinking purposes. In surface waters limited by N, phytoplankton productivity is stimulated by nitrate-N resulting in eutrophication leading to widespread hypoxia and anoxia, loss of biodiversity and harmful algal blooms that can damage fisheries and pristine marine environments such as heritage coral reefs [1]. According to Howarth [2], as high as 10- to 15-fold increases in N flows in some areas are causing greatly increased coastal eutrophication. Glibert et al. [3] contended that the problem is exacerbated by the expansion in the use of urea fertilizer which is soluble and mobile in surface water flows.

Widespread pollution of water bodies by nitrate-N due agricultural intensification in the twentieth century in industrialized countries in North America and Western and Central Europe has been of major concern since early 1970s [4]. It was a direct consequence of applying large quantities of fertilizer N in these countries. Globally, 60% of areas with elevated nitrate-N in ground water occur in croplands [5]. As only 20% of the total cultivated land is under irrigated agriculture and accounts for about 40% of the global food production, fertilizer N use and loss of nitrate-N to natural water bodies from the irrigated cropland is much higher than from rain-fed agriculture (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natura...gures/all-facts-wwdr3/fact-24-irrigated-land/; Accessed 27 January, 2021). Although spatial and temporal distribution of nitrate-N in ground water under cropland will be determined by fertilizer N use per unit area, percentage of area under cereal crops, vegetable and orchards, percentage of irrigated area, per capita agricultural production, livestock per unit area, population per unit area and annual mean temperature, global fertilizer N consumption is increasing almost linearly in response to increasing demand for staple cereal food grains and animal-derived food (Fig. 1). But after the late 1980s, in many developing countries in East and South Asia, fertilizer N consumption increased several fold more than in the developed regions, where levels have stabilized since 1990 (Fig. 1). For example, in 2018, China in East Asia and India in South Asia, having 36.8% of the global population, used 42.3% of 108.7 Mt total fertilizer N consumed globally; North America and Europe consumed only 26.9% (FAOSTAT; Accessed 25 October, 2020). Of course, Africa and Oceania remained regions where fertilizer N consumption has been very low and is increasing at a very slow pace (Fig. 1). After 2015, fertilizer N consumption in East Asia started declining because China, the major fertilizer N consuming country, recognized the seriousness of the overuse of fertilizers and introduced the action plan for zero growth of fertilizer use [6]. The changes in fertilizer N consumption patterns in different parts of the world have discernible impacts on nitrate pollution of ground and surface water bodies in different regions. Thus, although leaching of nitrate-N from the soil–plant system is influenced also by climate, soil and other factors, in recent decades nitrate pollution of surface and ground water has emerged as a serious environmental issue in several countries in East and South Asia along with already affected regions in North America and western and central Europe [5]. Keeping in view that even in countries with low average fertilizer N consumption there exist regions with intensive agriculture and substantial fertilizer N use, nitrate pollution of ground and surface waters as linked with fertilizer N use is now a global issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom