Milk and Dairy

ganmo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you’re saying that the Irish farmers are financially supported, to the hilt, by the Irish tax payer and then most of that product is sent overseas ?

So if most of the Irish product is going overseas does that mean the Irish tax payer is eating imported meats ?

Think I’m going to have to pay for a proper exported/imported report.

Get a graph going for the Irish tax payer to see where their financial support is going, which countries overseas, and where their food actually comes from, again which countries its imported from.

I think it’s only fair this con job is shown up for what it is. I doubt your average Irish punter is aware of it.

Are you trying to make that sound like a revelation? You yourself have raised it in previous threads.
When it comes to 'vegan' foods I'd bet more of them are imported than are made here

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you’re saying that the Irish farmers are financially supported, to the hilt, by the Irish tax payer and then most of that product is sent overseas ?
So if most of the Irish product is going overseas does that mean the Irish tax payer is eating imported meats ? Think I’m going to have to pay for a proper exported/imported report.
Get a graph going for the Irish tax payer to see where their financial support is going, which countries overseas, and where their food actually comes from, again which countries its imported from. I think it’s only fair this con job is shown up for what it is. I doubt your average Irish punter is aware of it.

Which bit exactly are you having difficulty Klopp?
and In which comment does it claim any of that?

Agriculture - all forms of agriculture are supported under the EU Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). Thats ALL forms iof agriculture across the EU. The EU also provides structural supports for a range of other sectors here.

Why does the EU do this? To keep the price of food low and that is done by supporting producers.



And like all produce in the EU - agricultural products are traded. What is produced in Ireland is consumed here and also sold to other EU countries - which in turn helps supports the Irish economy. And yes farmers here pay tax. Something as someone living abroad - you obviously dont know about.

But what exactly is that you got against those working here and specifically farmers that you spend your nights railing against agricultures role in the Irish economy?

Or is It an excuse for just another mindless attack on farming?

ganmo

ganmo wrote: »

Are you trying to make that sound like a revelation? You yourself have raised it in previous threads.
When it comes to 'vegan' foods I'd bet more of them are imported than are made here

I’ve no problem with imported/exported foods.

I’ve a problem with Irish people not realising that most meat they eat is imported while the meat they subsidise is exported.

ganmo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I’ve no problem with imported/exported foods.

I’ve a problem with Irish people not realising that most meat they eat is imported while the meat they subsidise is exported.

Most? Where are you getting most from?
Pork products like sausages and rashers and catering chicken are the most likely imported meats anyone that eats mostly them doesnt really care where their food comes from.

ganmo

ganmo wrote: »

Most? Where are you getting most from?
Pork products like sausages and rashers and catering chicken are the most likely imported meats anyone that eats mostly them doesnt really care where their food comes from.

Just wow. That says so so much as to what you think of the Irish consumer -

‘Anyone that eats chicken or pig doesn’t really care where their food comes from’.

That’s an unbelievable statement from you. I can only guess that you’re a beef farmer so.

What are the stats on imported/exported beef ?

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I’ve no problem with imported/exported foods.
I’ve a problem with Irish people not realising that most meat they eat is imported while they meat the subsidise is exported.

Well I think you do have a problem there tbf. Thats completely wrong.

To paraphrase- Wow is that what you think of people here Klopp?

Do you really believe 'Irish' people are thick or something that they don't know that Ireland Imports and exports all types of goods? Or that people living here don't know that agriculture is supported by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy in order to provide affordable food of many different types?

OK so back to this.

Agricultural produce is imported. And agricultural produce is exported. This includes meat, dairy products cereals and vegetables. Just like in every other EU country.

In 2018 Irelands total exports amounted to 140 billion Euro worth of goods which also includes Irish agricultural produce.

In 2018 Irelands total Imports amounted to 92 billion Euro worth if goods which also included agricultural produce from other countries. It really is not too hard to understand tbh.

Do you rail against lets say Australia importing different types of foods whilst exporting similar? Or maybe Ireland manufacturing pharmaceuticals for export and yet importing similar drugs from other countries?

Why is it you're only having a go at Agricultural producers?

Dont want to guess tbh - What industry do you work in Klopp?

ganmo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just wow. That says so so much as to what you think of the Irish consumer -

‘Anyone that eats chicken or pig doesn’t really care where their food comes from’.

That’s an unbelievable statement from you. I can only guess that you’re a beef farmer so.

What are the stats on imported/exported beef ?

Consumers care about brands. Galtee & denny have been found using dutch pork regularly.

When answering spicey or plain at the deli counter most dont care if its thai or from cavan. It the deli it matters who is ordering the chicken.

No I'm not a beef farmer. Guess again.

emaherx

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you’re saying that the Irish farmers are financially supported, to the hilt, by the Irish tax payer and then most of that product is sent overseas ?

So if most of the Irish product is going overseas does that mean the Irish tax payer is eating imported meats ?

Think I’m going to have to pay for a proper exported/imported report.

Get a graph going for the Irish tax payer to see where their financial support is going, which countries overseas, and where their food actually comes from, again which countries its imported from.

I think it’s only fair this con job is shown up for what it is. I doubt your average Irish punter is aware of it.

Common agricultural policy or CAP payments are paid to all European farmers for food security for all of Europe so I'm sure most people who'd take the time to think about it would expect importing and exporting of food to be part of it. So you are incorrect when you say Irish farmers are subsidized to the hilt by Irish tax payers, it would be more correct to say Irish farmers and all other European farmers are subsidized by all European tax payers.

KennisWhale

ganmo wrote: »

Oh I feel some outrage in that post.
There is a lot of legislation regarding labelling of food, the new wave of meat substitutes have played it loose with their names to make it easier to market. Why should they not have their own name?
The farmers journal is a newspaper shock horror its sponsoring a radio programme. Have you ever read the journal? You only hear about it when it publishes an article about something you care about. If I remember right it has even done fashion segments.

Look at this forum...this was the only thread with any activity for 2 weeks! Look at the life we bring to here!!

It's a non-issue in reality. At worst, the outcome will involve amending packaging to include the word "alternative" next to milk or burgers or else to utilise the Streisand Effect and add "Not a" to, for example, the word "burger". Iceland, for example, have a "No" meat alternative range, e.g. No Bull Burgers (delicious, if you are interested).

That is the only outcome if somehow words like burger, milk etc. become restricted like the word "champagne" is.

Gary kk

KennisWhale wrote: »

It's a non-issue in reality. At worst, the outcome will involve amending packaging to include the word "alternative" next to milk or burgers or else to utilise the Streisand Effect and add "Not a" to, for example, the word "burger". Iceland, for example, have a "No" meat alternative range, e.g. No Bull Burgers (delicious, if you are interested).

That is the only outcome if somehow words like burger, milk etc. become restricted like the word "champagne" is.

Pretty sure that's been looked at to starting with a so called 'cheese like' product.

KennisWhale

Gary kk wrote: »

Pretty sure that's been looked at to starting with a so called 'cheese like' product.

It's an odd thing for the EU suits to get caught up on, not sure anyone in the general public is actually disputing the use of these terms.

Gary kk

KennisWhale wrote: »

It's an odd thing for the EU suits to get caught up on, not sure anyone in the general public is actually disputing the use of these terms.

Probably became an issue when companies marketed as non meat or no meat burgers instead of veggie burgers.

Not sure how a cheese can be made without cultured milk so like are you buying a lump of processed vegetable oil ?

ganmo

KennisWhale wrote: »

It's a non-issue in reality. At worst, the outcome will involve amending packaging to include the word "alternative" next to milk or burgers or else to utilise the Streisand Effect and add "Not a" to, for example, the word "burger". Iceland, for example, have a "No" meat alternative range, e.g. No Bull Burgers (delicious, if you are interested).

That is the only outcome if somehow words like burger, milk etc. become restricted like the word "champagne" is.

Millions are won(and lost) in non issue clauses in contracts.
If it is a non issue why haven't the vegan products made the change already?

KennisWhale

ganmo wrote: »

Millions are won(and lost) in non issue clauses in contracts.
If it is a non issue why haven't the vegan products made the change already?

It's a non-issue for consumers as to the current labelling so why would they change? Are the farmers being sensitive or vegan friendly food consumers getting upset? It seems like a pointless EU solo run.

KennisWhale

Gary kk wrote: »

Probably became an issue when companies marketed as non meat or no meat burgers instead of veggie burgers.

Not sure how a cheese can be made without cultured milk so like are you buying a lump of processed vegetable oil ?

If you want to consume something that resembles cheese without having to go through the whole impregnating a cow to get milk out of it in order to make cheese then you would understand why the name cheese would be used - the product is made from oil, is more fattening than cheese for sure but is not mistaken for real cheese.

I still don't see what the issue is and for whom; it seems to the EU suits making a storm in a teacup.

KennisWhale

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/agribusiness-and-food/farm-lobby-seeks-eu-ban-on-vegan-burger-and-veggie-sausage-1.4388520?mode=amp

Ah, of course. Unsurprisingly the meat industry are being snowflakes and moaning yet again.

Bunch of cretins.

gozunda

KennisWhale wrote: »

It's a non-issue for consumers as to the current labelling so why would they change? Are the farmers being sensitive or vegan friendly food consumers getting upset? It seems like a pointless EU solo run.

Not that ****e again. The only ones being "sensitive" on Boards seem to have been some posters here. There wasn't even a comment in the farming forum until the poll was put up for a laugh after it was posted here.

The main reason it is now being discussed is to disabue the idea that this was the idea of 'Irish' 'farmers' as some here seem to believe. Currently the EU agricultural committee are discussing the issue on an EU wide basis. There's lots of other EU discussions on naming foodstuffs so I don't think its in any way unique tbf.

I'd suggest you read the EU proposal document before relying on The Irish Times media piece

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2019-0198_EN.pdf#page=169[/quote]

That said - the article does seem to think its two groups with financial interests in this turf war. I suppose you'd call this lot 'snowflakes and moaning' 'cretins' as well?

A group of plant-based food producers and supporting groups including Ikea, Unilever and the European Vegetarian Union have formed an alliance to push back against the plan....

I'd say leave them at it...

KennisWhale

gozunda wrote: »

Not that ****e again. The only ones being "sensitive" on Boards seem to have been some posters here. There wasn't even a comment in the farming forum until the poll was put up for a laugh after it was posted here.

The main reason it is now being discussed is to disabue the idea that this was the idea of 'Irish' 'farmers' as some here seem to believe. Currently the EU agricultural committee are discussing the issue on an EU wide basis. There's lots of other EU discussions on naming foodstuffs so I don't think its in any way unique tbf.

I'd suggest you read the EU proposal document before relying on The Irish Times media piece

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2019-0198_EN.pdf#page=169

That said - the article does seem to think its two groups with financial interests in this turf war. I suppose you'd call this lot 'snowflakes and moaning' 'cretins' as well?


I'd say leave them at it...

The ones calling for the ban are the ones who are snowflake animal agricultural lobbyists to the EU looking for something to moan about. Calling for a ban on something is very different to standing up to those calling for the ban. Evil prevails through people's inaction, that is how I see this.

It is not surprising that it is the meat industry lobbyists getting upset about, for example, beans mashed together into a circle and being called a bean "burger". For me, I love burgers but don't eat dead animals so it is helpful to see "veggie burgers" in a supermarket or in a restaurant. This is helpful, not harmful, so it is nonsensical to try to ban it as a term.

As I said, it is so short-sighted to call for a ban on the terms "steak, sausage, escalope, burger and hamburger", as a simple solution should this ridiculous ban come in to effect is to write on the packet "Not a beef burger" for a vegan burger trying to mimic the taste and texture of beef.

Interesting from the draft amendment you linked is the following which, to my mind, is unworkable;

Names that fall under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 that are currently used for meat products and meat preparations shall be reserved exclusively for products containing meat.

These designations include, for example:
- Steak
- Sausage

In effect, where a term is currently used for a meat product it shall be reserved exclusively for products containing meat. Why is this unworkable? Well, the term beef disc or chicken cubes, if used now could mean that term is reserved exclusively for products containing meat. I also wonder, if donuts contain meat products, does that mean that the term cannot be used for vegan donuts?

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1308&from=EN

Annex VII of this regulation is being amended to provide for the new section you linked to. Annex VII is titled "DEFINITIONS, DESIGNATIONS AND SALES DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCTS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 78" and provides;

For the purposes of this Annex, the "sale description" means the name under which a foodstuff is sold, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/13/EC, or the name of the food, within the meaning of Article 17 of
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011.

Article 78;

In addition, where relevant, to the applicable marketing standards, the definitions, designations and sales descriptions provided for in Annex VII shall apply to the following sectors or products:

(a) beef and veal;
(b) wine;
(c) milk and milk products intended for human consumption;
(d) poultrymeat;
(e) eggs;
(f) spreadable fats intended for human consumption; and
(g) olive oil and table olives.

2. The definitions, designations or sales descriptions provided for in Annex VII may be used in the Union only for the marketing of a product which conforms to the corresponding requirements laid down in that Annex.

The key then is whether a name falls under article 17 of Regulation 1169/2011, which provides;

1. The name of the food shall be its legal name. In the absence of such a name, the name of the food shall be its customary name, or, if there is no customary name or the customary name is not used, a descriptive name of the food shall be provided.

2. The use in the Member State of marketing of the name of the food under which the product is legally manufactured and marketed in the Member State of production shall be allowed. However, where the application of the other provisions of this Regulation, in particular those set out in Article 9, would not
enable consumers in the Member State of marketing to know the true nature of the food and to distinguish it from foods with which they could confuse it, the name of the food shall be accompanied by other descriptive information which shall appear in proximity to the name of the food.

3. In exceptional cases, the name of the food in the Member State of production shall not be used in the Member State of marketing when the food which it designates in the Member State of production is so different, as regards its composition or manufacture, from the food known under that name in the Member State of marketing that paragraph 2 is not sufficient to ensure, in the Member State of marketing, correct information for consumers.

4. The name of the food shall not be replaced with a name protected as intellectual property, brand name or fancy name.

5. Specific provisions on the name of the food and particulars that shall accompany it are laid down in Annex VI.

Annex VI referred to in 5 above is intended to ensure that those selling meat (sly bastards) don't try, for example, to hide where other components were added or where it was irradiated it says so on the packaging.

From my reading of Article 17, the clear purpose is to ensure that consumers are not mislead with food labelling. Therefore, in order to try to claim the word "burger or sausage" for meat products, it would be necessary to demonstrate its consistency with Article 17 where using such terms for non-meat products would in fact mislead consumers. As outlined way above, labelling vegan burgers as burgers in fact is to prevent the likes of me being misled.

gozunda

KennisWhale wrote: »

...The ones calling for the ban are the ones who are snowflake animal agricultural lobbyists to the EU looking for something to moan about. Calling for a ban on something is very different to standing up to those calling for the ban. Evil prevails through people's inaction, that is how I see this.
It is not surprising that it is the meat industry lobbyists getting upset about, for example, beans mashed together into a circle and being called a bean "burger". For me, I love burgers but don't eat dead animals so it is helpful to see "veggie burgers" in a supermarket or in a restaurant. This is helpful, not harmful, so it is nonsensical to try to ban it as a term.
As I said, it is so short-sighted to call for a ban on the terms "steak, sausage, escalope, burger and hamburger", as a simple solution should this ridiculous ban come in to effect is to write on the packet "Not a beef burger" for a vegan burger trying to mimic the taste and texture of beef.Interesting from the draft amendment you linked is the following which, to my mind, is unworkable;In effect, where a term is currently used for a meat product it shall be reserved exclusively for products containing meat. Why is this unworkable? Well, the term beef disc or chicken cubes, if used now could mean that term is reserved exclusively for products containing meat. I also wonder, if donuts contain meat products, does that mean that the term cannot be used for vegan donuts?
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1308&from=EN
Annex VII of this regulation is being amended to provide for the new section you linked to. Annex VII is titled "DEFINITIONS, DESIGNATIONS AND SALES DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCTS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 78" and provides;Article 78;
The key then is whether a name falls under article 17 of Regulation 1169/2011, which providesAnnex VI referred to in 5 above is intended to ensure that those selling meat (sly bastards) don't try, for example, to hide where other components were added or where it was irradiated it says so on the packaging.
From my reading of Article 17, the clear purpose is to ensure that consumers are not mislead with food labelling. Therefore, in order to try to claim the word "burger or sausage" for meat products, it would be necessary to demonstrate its consistency with Article 17 where using such terms for non-meat products would in fact mislead consumers. As outlined way above, labelling vegan burgers as burgers in fact is to prevent the likes of me being misled.

Well glad you got to read the actual proposal and not just the IT blurb on it.

Odd then you're still claiming that -

"The ones calling for the ban are the ones who are snowflake animal agricultural lobbyists. Calling for a ban on something is very different to standing up to those calling for the ban. Evil prevails through people's inaction, that is how I see this.

What 'ban'? There's no proposed ban of any processed foods which don't actually contain meat. No one is slapping processed foodstuffs out of anyone's hands. It will still be available whatever the outcome.

And what the fuk has 'evil got to do with anything?

So from the proposal - the EU is currently voting on the nomeculture related to this issue. As you said - regarding Article 17, the purpose is to ensure that consumers are not mislead with food labelling. That's as maybe.

If you go back to the Irish Times article which you linked it is correct in one respect.

This fight is between two corporate industries ie animal food processing vs the plant food processing industry.

A group of plant-based food producers and supporting groups including Ikea, Unilever and the European Vegetarian Union have formed an alliance to push back against the plan....

You honestly believe the likes of Unilever are simply not looking to protect their profits as well and flog their highly processed foods?

Throwing around vegan hate terms like "snowflake animal agricultural lobbyists" doesn't help the discussion btw. It's just as easy to call plant food lobbyists such as the "European Vegetarian Union" and Unilever snowflakes, cretins, sly bastards etc. Easily done.

I get it that you don't eat meat btw or 'dead animals' as you called it - I certainly don't know anyone who eats 'live animals' btw. And I sincerely believe the absolute majority of people can figure out if something is plant based or otherwise. Most food of that type has "suitable for Vegetarians" or similar written on it in my experience.

What's for sure is that small scale producers whether animal or vegetable have fuk all stake in that fight.

As I suggested - probably best leave the them to it.

Btw - is there donuts with meat in them?

KennisWhale

gozunda wrote: »

Well glad you got to read the actual proposal and not just the IT blurb on it.

Odd then you're still claiming that -



What 'ban'? There's no proposed ban of any processed foods which don't actually contain meat. No one is slapping processed foodstuffs out of anyone's hands. It will still be available whatever the outcome.

And what the fuk has 'evil got to do with anything?

So from the proposal - the EU is currently voting on the nomeculture related to this issue. As you said - regarding Article 17, the purpose is to ensure that consumers are not mislead with food labelling. That's as maybe.

If you go back to the Irish Times article which you linked it is correct in one respect.

This fight is between two corporate industries ie animal food processing vs the plant food processing industry.



You honestly believe the likes of Unilever are simply not looking to protect their profits as well and flog their highly processed foods?

Throwing around vegan hate terms like "snowflake animal agricultural lobbyists" doesn't help the discussion btw. It's just as easy to call plant food lobbyists such as the "European Vegetarian Union" snowflakes, cretins etc. Easily done.

What's for sure is that small scale producers whether animal or vegetable have fuk all stake in that fight.

As I suggested - probably best leave the them to it.

Btw - is there donuts with meat in them?

There is a proposed ban on using an innocuous label like burgers or sausages unless it contains meat or meat products. This is the ban I am talking about, which is being supported (or perhaps even sponsored given how legislation can be proposed) by the meat lobbyists. The opposing sides are rightly standing up, IMO, and calling for the amendment regulation not to pass with these absurd proposals. By lying down and just letting the wheels of regulation turn, who knows what will be implemented unless people questioned "hold on, why are you doing this?". That is the evil I am referring to, it can creep in via lobbying and regulation, little amendments here and there, until we've been regulated into a nightmare dystopia. Kind of like how the meat industry are allowed to advertise their products everywhere without a true farm-to-fork story (ie the gratuituous slaughter part of the process is glossed over or entirely absent) - if a group of EU citizens lobbied to put the graphic slaughter pictures on meat product packaging, it would be a huge uphill battle as a result of the tentacles of the industry seeping into the political and regulatory process.

I think we can agree that no normal person is confused by the labelling of a vegan product as a burger confuses people into thinking it is a meat burger. This is the crux of the issue; is it misleading to label a vegan "sausage" or "escalope" or "burger" etc.

On the donut point, I'm not sure but let's say a meat "pie" as a better example. My reading of the proposed amendment is that terms used for meat products are going to be reserved exclusively for meat products. Therefore, say goodbye to "apple pie", which would be ridiculous.

gozunda

KennisWhale wrote: »

There is a proposed ban on using an innocuous label like burgers or sausages unless it contains meat or meat products. This is the ban I am talking about, which is being supported (or perhaps even sponsored given how legislation can be proposed) by the meat lobbyists. The opposing sides are rightly standing up, IMO, and calling for the amendment regulation not to pass with these absurd proposals. By lying down and just letting the wheels of regulation turn, who knows what will be implemented unless people questioned "hold on, why are you doing this?". That is the evil I am referring to, it can creep in via lobbying and regulation, little amendments here and there, until we've been regulated into a nightmare dystopia. Kind of like how the meat industry are allowed to advertise their products everywhere without a true farm-to-fork story (ie the gratuituous slaughter part of the process is glossed over or entirely absent) - if a group of EU citizens lobbied to put the graphic slaughter pictures on meat product packaging, it would be a huge uphill battle as a result of the tentacles of the industry seeping into the political and regulatory process.

I think we can agree that no normal person is confused by the labelling of a vegan product as a burger confuses people into thinking it is a meat burger. This is the crux of the issue; is it misleading to label a vegan "sausage" or "escalope" or "burger" etc.

On the donut point, I'm not sure but let's say a meat "pie" as a better example. My reading of the proposed amendment is that terms used for meat products are going to be reserved exclusively for meat products. Therefore, say goodbye to "apple pie", which would be ridiculous.

It's two food processing industries having a slugging match. And yes there are lobbyists on both sides.

Don't make the mistake that corporate bodies have your interests at heart. They dont. The processed plant food lobby and their opposite are just as self interested as each other.

As for your take on "gratuituous slaughter"? As already said no one I know consumes 'live' animals. The slaughter of animals for food is highly regulated and inspected here. The process cannot be described as 'gratuitous'. If you really want to go down that slippery slope of putting photos on packing. We will also have to put the "gratuituous slaughter" of wildlife on all plant based foods as well. Queue photos of mangled rabbits etc etc. Not sure how well that would go down ...

As I said I'm presuming most people who don't want to eat meat are generally well able to use their faculties and identify which goods state "suitable for Vegetarians" or similar. And from reading the proposal - there are no plans to ban 'apple pies' or their equivalent

Anyway to reiterate - it is evident that in opposition of the original suggestion that these proposals were 'farmers being sensitive" - its certainly not something that anyone I know is getting their knickers in a knot over.

Afaik the results of the debate will be published shortly

Gary kk

Its misleading to label products non meat or meat less or beyond meat. It was for marketers to get some extra into shopping basket and you know it.

Side note I use tart not pie.

Gary kk

There you go terms traditionally used for meat are a go but cheese and yogurt is banned

https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1173526/?__twitter_impression=true

Thelonious Monk

Oh God now we're going to have meat eaters buying veggie burgers by accident! As if the farmers don't have enough to worry about!

Gary kk

I just would like to point out the vegetable growers and grain producers are commonly known as farmers.

Some people here seem to have forgotten that.

Thelonious Monk

Gary kk wrote: »

I just would like to point out the vegetable growers and grain producers are commonly known as farmers.

Some people here seem to have forgotten that.

They're not the ones stalking the vegetarian forum though and questioning people's diets all the time though

Gary kk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

They're not the ones stalking the vegetarian forum though and questioning people's diets all the time though

Ah you love having us over It allows you to throw words like snowflake and abuse around to see the reaction.

Well I have enjoyed reading the post anyway. Still laughing at some.

Thelonious Monk

Why are we allowed say peanut butter?

emaherx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

They're not the ones stalking the vegetarian forum though and questioning people's diets all the time though

Says the person most obsessed by cattle on all of boards.ie.

Sure why wouldn't farmers chat here, there is more cattle chat here than the local mart.

Many livestock farmers also grow your fruit and veg and grains for your preferred alcoholic beverage too.

Thelonious Monk

emaherx wrote: »

Says the person most obsessed by cattle on all of boards.ie.

Sure why wouldn't farmers chat here, there is more cattle chat here than the local mart.

Many livestock farmers also grow your fruit and veg and grains for your preferred alcoholic beverage too.

Yeah but you don't see me in the farming forum do you. Most of the fruit and veg comes from up the road in North Dublin actually, 55% or something.