PDA

View Full Version : Soil association promotes eating less meat?



Cumin
Apr 19th, 2007, 09:24 AM
Yesterday morning (Wed 18th April) on BBC Radio 4 in the UK, Lord Melchett (representing the Soil Association) was taking part in a debate about population growth and the predicted shortages in food. He was up against a defendant of intensive agriculture and GM crops (Prof Bill McElwey), and was defending the use of organic farming. Prof B. said the only choices were using more land (rainforest) or using GM crops - a shocking pair of options!
The program had been repeating these options (only) during the news roll for about 2 hrs, and I was getting rather frustrated. So I was very glad to hear Lord M. begin his response by saying that we could feed everyone if we put less resources into intensive livestock production and reduced the meat in our diets.
I was rather disappointed when the host immediately responded by saying "you can't dictate to people what they eat.."
Lord M. of course also made his very valid points about organic crops and how GM crops have not been proven to improve yield.

You can hear the debate here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/today) (note that the link may only work for today - the 19th) The debate can be found at approx time of 2:19:00 in the recording.

The reason for this post is that I'd like to know if :
a) The Soil Association have declared this support before
b) others think Lord M. did a good job with his response.

eco
Apr 19th, 2007, 10:09 AM
I heard this and the "you can't dictate to people what they eat..." response stuck in my mind. Well, dictating anything to people is undesirable but giving people the facts about how their meat eating habits are going a long way to destroying the panet and causing those in the developing world to starve have to be said and of course, people don't want to hear it. No doubt the interviewer (like the vast majority) likes his meat and doesn't want to face up to the facts and gets a bit defensive when they are put to him.

Here's a list of the Soil Association's campaigns:

http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/GetInvolved/policy.html

And their views on animal welfare:

http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/cfff6730b881e40e80256a6a002a765c/9850316eb45db34780256df6003150eb!OpenDocument

"1. If you eat meat, make sure it's organic. We agree with Compassion in World Farming that we must all eat less, but better quality organic, meat to safeguard the health of our animals, the environment and ourselves."

"Eat no meat" would of course be better :)

I though Melchett could have come back with a better response to the interviewers comment but he at least may have got some people thinking about their meat consumption and the environmental impact it has.

harpy
Apr 19th, 2007, 10:14 AM
Thanks for that, Cumin. Will try and have a listen before it disappears. Not sure about the Soil Association's official policy but pro-organic people quite often suggest that people should eat less meat while ensuring that what they do eat has been reared as humanely as possible, don't they? I suppose it might be difficult for the SA to make an "eat less meat" message too explicit because of the farmers they work with.

ETA oops, sorry, Ecoanimal - hadn't read your message when I posted.

Cumin
Apr 19th, 2007, 10:18 AM
ecoanimal - thanks for finding that quote. I looked on their site and couldn't see anything along those lines.


I suppose it might be difficult for the SA to make an "eat less meat" message too explicit because of the farmers they work with.


I agree, which I why I was so pleasantly surprised to hear him say it. The SA work with a lot of meat producers too, and it must get their hackles up. :)
It is great though that they are so active in condemning poor animal welfare practices too.

harpy
Apr 19th, 2007, 10:21 AM
Mind you organic meat producers would probably do quite well if the whole meat-eating population switched to buying organic meat - i.e. if they spent the same amount but ate a smaller quantity.

Personally I think that would be a good thing (though obviously not as good as if they bought vegetables instead). I know a lot of people here aren't keen on this way of thinking though.

Cumin
Apr 19th, 2007, 11:29 AM
Personally I think that would be a good thing (though obviously not as good as if they bought vegetables instead). I know a lot of people here aren't keen on this way of thinking though.

It may not be ideal, but it would be a great improvement, and therefore I'd be pleased to see it too.

This programme has reinforced my thoughts that the soil association could turn out to be a surprisingly useful ally to our cause.