The Grapevine (OFF TOPIC CHAT) Part II

Tar.Aldarion

Yeah it's not the best but I find it fairly essential for these kind of things unfortunately.

Zombienosh

Yeah I deleted facebook for a while but went back for the groups/events and interacting with business pages.

henryporter

Zombienosh wrote: »

Yeah I deleted facebook for a while but went back for the groups/events and interacting with business pages.

That's how insidious FB is - they keep reeling you back in!

Mr.Saturn

Draught Guinness is finally vegan-friendly, lads.

Thank you for your most recent email regarding Guinness. It is always good to hear from our loyal Guinness consumers. We are delighted to receive any feedback on our products and communications, as it keeps us in touch with the people that matter.

Innovation is at the heart of our brewing credentials. As one of the most progressive breweries in the world, our talented brewers have introduced a new filtration process which has removed the use of isinglass as a means of filtration.

All Guinness Draught produced in keg format at St. James’s Gate Brewery and served in pubs, bars and restaurants around the world, is brewed without using isinglass to filter the beer and vegans can now enjoy a pint of Guinness.

We want to reassure you that the recipe for Guinness and taste has not changed. Isinglass is not an ingredient and had no impact on the taste of Guinness. It was purely used a means of clarifying the beer. It’s the same great pint of Guinness it’s always been, loved by millions of people around the world.

Production and distribution has also commenced on the bottle and can formats of Guinness Draught. It will take some time to reach the full scale distribution of these formats, but this is expected by the end of 2017.

Our advice is to check https://www.guinness.com/en-gb/frequently-asked-questions/ for information about Guinness produced with our new filtration system.

We thank you for your interest in our brand and we look forward to hearing from you again in the future.

From what I've read, it's been 2 years since they first announced the move, but they've now got the new system in place, so it's all good.

henryporter

Mr.Saturn wrote: »

Draught Guinness is finally vegan-friendly, lads.



From what I've read, it's been 2 years since they first announced the move, but they've now got the new system in place, so it's all good.

I've been holding off now since I heard the news a couple of weeks ago - waiting for the old stocks to run out in the local, but soon..... :-)

Zombienosh

Jeez.... Its quiet. How's everyone?

loveisdivine

I just made the mistake of reading that thread in the farming forum about us extremist vegans. It was a really depressing read. Every single 'bingo' you could imagine. I know out of everyone on the planet, farmers are gonna be the last ones to change their views but it's still sad to read.

gozunda

loveisdivine wrote: »

I just made the mistake of reading that thread in the farming forum about us extremist vegans. It was a really depressing read. Every single 'bingo' you could imagine. I know out of everyone on the planet, farmers are gonna be the last ones to change their views but it's still sad to read.

I'm sorry you have taken the discussion that way. But the majority of posts there quite clearly refer to 'extreme' vegans responsible for sending death threats and etc to dairy farmers and their families and I am sure that is not in any way reflective of any of the regular vegans on here.

Yes there may be difference of opinion regarding views of farming - that is expected. However farmers - animal, arable and horticultural undertake a very difficult job at the best of times and I can say this is from first hand experience. Writing them all off as having outdated views is a somewhat naive view imo.

Dakota Dan

loveisdivine wrote: »

I just made the mistake of reading that thread in the farming forum about us extremist vegans. It was a really depressing read. Every single 'bingo' you could imagine. I know out of everyone on the planet, farmers are gonna be the last ones to change their views but it's still sad to read.

Sure what would us farmers know about farming?

Dakota Dan

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Sure what would us farmers know about farming?

Weird thing to say.

Poor you is it ?

Thankfully regardless of what you know there’ll be less of you in the not too distant future.

loveisdivine

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Sure what would us farmers know about farming?

The gleeful posts about plants having feelings tells me some of you might not know that much.

We also had classics such as -

" but worms/mice die to grow your vegetables" It's about REDUCING suffering, not pretending we can eliminate it entirely from the planet.

" the cow stands for the bull" so that definitely means she's consented to being a milk machine for humans.

"Vegans aren't living in the real world" - Erm, hello, I'm here living in the real world just like you, only I've reduced my contribution to animal suffering immensely.

"African families have a few chickens and a cow" - So that means it's ok for the rest of the world to continue with unsustainable and cruel factory farming?

" How do you know someone's a vegan? Don't worry they'll tell you" From the non vegans that started a thread about vegans ???

All this nonsense being spouted is nothing new, we've heard it all before and we've got answers for all of it too.

http://yourveganfallacyis.com/en

gozunda

loveisdivine wrote: »

The gleeful posts about plants having feelings tells me some of you might not know that much.

We also had classics such as -

" but worms/mice die to grow your vegetables" It's about REDUCING suffering, not pretending we can eliminate it entirely from the planet.

" the cow stands for the bull" so that definitely means she's consented to being a milk machine for humans.

"Vegans aren't living in the real world" - Erm, hello, I'm here living in the real world just like you, only I've reduced my contribution to animal suffering immensely.

"African families have a few chickens and a cow" - So that means it's ok for the rest of the world to continue with unsustainable and cruel factory farming?

" How do you know someone's a vegan? Don't worry they'll tell you" From the non vegans that started a thread about vegans ???

All this nonsense being spouted is nothing new, we've heard it all before and we've got answers for all of it too.

http://yourveganfallacyis.com/en

And for each of the 'nonsense' examples listed above I have heard similar classic nonsense 'answers' from vegan sources - so no no-one wins there.

It is unfortunate that the like of Carbstrong is using mindgames and hysterics to promote veganism which is doing more harm than good imo.

For example most farming in Ireland is not 'factory type farming'. The examples and data to promote the more extreme forms of veganism are frequently those seen in the US etc.

Applying words such as 'rape to AI is illogical at best. The reasoning given is that as cows can't consent- it is 'rape'. Can any animal wild, domestic or otherwise consent to medical help or intervention? If a cow has other gynecological problems not involving AI and intervention is required to 'reduce suffering' - is that 'rape' Do we leave animals die just because they cant consent to any medical intervention? How would that reduce suffering?

The no matter what form of agriculture we adopt - animals are going to die in their hundreds of thousands- whether they are wild animals or birds displaced and killed through deforestation for or by arable farming or the farming of livestock directly. The method chosen doesn't help to reduce suffering - it simply shifts the goalposts. Animals die on our roads, animals die by our industrial processes. Animals die because of our waste and our need for houses and development. We can argue till the end if time about which one causes most 'suffering' but that does not change the basic fact that the pure weight of humans on this planet by itself is Armageddon to all the other animals.

That does not mean we should not try and adopt change. But even a small number of extremists attacking farmers and issuing death threats is going to produce a backlash. Gleeful comments such as one above "thankfully regardless of what you know there’ll be less of you in the not too distant future." are everybit as bad as those you exemplified.

And where does all that get us? Therin lies the real issue of the present discussion

loveisdivine

gozunda wrote: »

And for each of the 'nonsense' examples listed above I have heard similar classic nonsense 'answers' from vegan sources - so no no-one wins there.

It is unfortunate that the like of Carbstrong is using mindgames and hysterics to promote veganism which is doing more harm than good imo.

For example most farming in Ireland is not 'factory type farming'. The examples and data to promote the more extreme forms of veganism are frequently those seen in the US etc.

Applying words such as 'rape to AI is illogical at best. The reasoning given is that as cows can't consent- it is 'rape'. Can any animal wild, domestic or otherwise consent to medical help or intervention? If a cow has other gynecological problems not involving AI and intervention is required to 'reduce suffering' - is that 'rape' Do we leave animals die just because they cant consent to any medical intervention? How would that reduce suffering?

The no matter what form of agriculture we adopt - animals are going to die in their hundreds of thousands- whether they are wild animals or birds displaced and killed through deforestation for or by arable farming or the farming of livestock directly. The method chosen doesn't help to reduce suffering - it simply shifts the goalposts. Animals die on our roads, animals die by our industrial processes. Animals die because of our waste and our need for houses and development. We can argue till the end if time about which one causes most 'suffering' but that does not change the basic fact that the pure weight of humans on this planet by itself is Armageddon to all the other animals.

That does not mean we should not try and adopt change. But even a small number of extremists attacking farmers and issuing death threats is going to produce a backlash. Gleeful comments such as one above "thankfully regardless of what you know there’ll be less of you in the not too distant future." are everybit as bad as those you exemplified.

And where does all that get us? Therin lies the real issue of the present discussion

When talking about consent, I think it's important to differentiate between taking action for your own benefit (like impregnating so you can take her milk) and taking action solely for the purpose of reducing the animals suffering (pain relief, treatment of disease, euthanasia etc)

You really can't equate providing medical treatment so an animal can live (in peace, free from human exploitation I might add) to planned insemination via bull or AI so you can profit from her. It's not remotely the same thing.

Yes, animals die to produce vegan food, like vegetables etc. But, as the link I posted explains -

Crop fields do indeed disrupt the habitats of wild animals, and wild animals are also killed when harvesting plants. However, this point makes the case for a plant-based diet and not against it, since many more plants are required to produce a measure of animal flesh for food (often as high as 12:1) than are required to produce an equal measure of plants for food (which is obviously 1:1). Because of this, a plant-based diet causes less suffering and death than one that includes animals.
It is pertinent to note that the idea of perfect veganism is a non-vegan one. Such demands for perfection are imposed by critics of veganism, often as a precursor to lambasting vegans for not measuring up to an externally-imposed standard. That said, the actual and applied ethics of veganism are focused on causing the least possible harm to the fewest number of others. It is also noteworthy that the accidental deaths caused by growing and harvesting plants for food are ethically distinct from the intentional deaths caused by breeding and slaughtering animals for food. This is not to say that vegans are not responsible for the deaths they cause, but rather to point out that these deaths do not violate the vegan ethics stated above.

I didn't make the comment you quoted about there being less farmers in the future, so I can't respond to it.

Yes there are some vegan extremists, death threats are "extreme". But the actual death/killing that farmers/meat eaters partake in is not?

I'd also like to see some hard evidence of these death threats. I know that young woman that did the video interview with the BBC lambasting us terrible vegans actually backtracked about a week later, saying that she herself hadn't actually received any death threats, but of course nobody was as quick to splash that over the front pages. Edit to add source - https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/farmer-admits-not-had-specific-death-threats-towards-me

I don't believe I've ever seen Joey Carbstrong being "hysterical" but maybe I've just missed that interview. Either way, it's awfully easy for people to say "Look, those couple of vegans are putting themselves under the spotlight and their views are "extreme" so I can discredit the whole movement and keep using and killing animals for my own benefit"

I see it as an 'easy out'. You want all vegans to be perfect and not saying anything you find offensive and then you'll consider veganism. But of course, conveniently, that will never happen. Everybody shouts extremism, the farmers supposedly getting death threats become the poor victims and the focus is pushed away from the actual victims, the sentient beings that are being used and killed every single day.

gozunda

loveisdivine wrote: »

When talking about consent, I think it's important to differentiate between taking action for your own benefit (like impregnating so you can take her milk) and taking action solely for the purpose of reducing the animals suffering (pain relief, treatment of disease, euthanasia etc)

No that has not been the case. One of the principle promoters of the 'rape' argument has been Mr Carbstrong et al. He repeatedly states because there is no 'consent' with what we do with animals then AI is 'rape'. By definition there can be no consent for any interaction we have with animals wild or otherwise - therefore saying that is 'rape' but something similar such as gynecological treatment which may also involve an individual putting their hand up an animals anus or any other treatment without consent is not - is at best disingenuous and a very poor argument imo.

loveisdivine wrote: »

You really can't equate providing medical treatment so an animal can live (in peace, free from human exploitation I might add) to planned insemination via bull or AI so you can profit from her. It's not remotely the same thing.

I did not make an analogy - I struck out the 'rape' argument for what it is - silly illogical and overemotive use of shock language.

loveisdivine wrote: »

Yes, animals die to produce vegan food, like vegetables etc. But, as the link I posted explains

-

No again the reasoning given fails animals in that it gives vegans a get out of jail free card to ignore the damage that all human activities do to other animals.

This is not to say that vegans are not responsible for the deaths they cause, but rather to point out that these deaths do not violate the vegan ethics stated above.

Yes animals are not the problem - humans are. All humans. Ignoring the issue won't make it go away or lessen it.

loveisdivine wrote: »

I didn't make the comment you quoted about there being less farmers in the future, so I can't respond to it.

And yet it remains a prime example of the type of comment thrown at farmers and non vegans - comments which do nothing but encourage further comments and back clapping.

loveisdivine wrote: »

Yes there are some vegan extremists, death threats are "extreme". But the actual death/killing that farmers/meat eaters partake in is not?

I think you will find it was death threats issues by 'extremists'. On the other hand you are labelling all deaths / killing as an 'extreme act.
By that logic therefore any animal which kills another animal (an extreme act) could/should face the penalty or threat of 'death? I also can't quite believe you are by extension equating death threats because such acts are by your definition 'extreme'.

loveisdivine wrote: »

I'd also like to see some hard evidence of these death threats. I know that young woman that did the video interview with the BBC lambasting us terrible vegans actually backtracked about a week later, saying that she herself hadn't actually received any death threats, but of course nobody was as quick to splash that over the front pages.

I believe this issue has been quite well covered in another thread which contains recent links to death threats against farmers by extremist vegans both in Ireland and the UK. Again I find it illogical that on one hand that equate all 'extreme death/killing and yet with the other you question whether such death threats issues by extremist could be true at all.

loveisdivine wrote: »

I don't believe I've ever seen Joey Carbstrong being "hysterical" but maybe I've just missed that interview. Either way, it's awfully easy for people to say "Look, those couple of vegans are putting themselves under the spotlight and their views are "extreme" so I can discredit the whole movement and keep using and killing animals for my own benefit"

But that was not the point made was it? The use of hyperbole and disingenuous argument unfortunately does nothing but encourage the lunatic fringe - ie a subset of individuals who will flock to a cause as a result of evangelical type preachering and by result become radicalised. Unfortunately the death threats would not be a first in the animal rights movement.

loveisdivine wrote: »

I see it as an 'easy out'. You want all vegans to be perfect and not saying anything you find offensive and then you'll consider veganism. But of course, conveniently, that will never happen. Everybody shouts extremism, the farmers supposedly getting death threats become the poor victims and the focus is pushed away from the actual victims, the sentient beings that are being used and killed every single day.

Erh I think you will find you are putting words in my mouth and no I don't 'want all vegans to be perfect'. Changing the topic doesn't help the problem as why veganism is being received negatively by many and why proper discourse is apparently unlikely ....

Tar.Aldarion

gozunda wrote: »

No that has not been the case. One of the principle promoters of the 'rape' argument has been Mr Carbstrong et al. He repeatedly states because there is no 'consent' with what we do with animals then AI is 'rape'. By definition there can be no consent for any interaction we have with animals wild or otherwise - therefore saying that is 'rape' but something similar such as gynecological treatment which may also involve an individual putting their hand up an animals anus or any other treatment without consent is not - is at best disingenuous and a very poor argument imo.

Ignoring the use of "rape", it's pretty basic social philosophy that it is ok to do things to others for their benefit (such as doctors helping unconscious or mentally ill people) and not for something against their interest/for your own interest.

No again the reasoning given fails animals in that it gives vegans a get out of jail free card to ignore the damage that all human activities do to other animals.

The whole point of veganism is to accept blame for what humans do and to lessen the impact. People (loud minority aside) are fully away their hurt others by living.

gozunda

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Ignoring the use of "rape", it's pretty basic social philosophy that it is ok to do things to others for their benefit (such as doctors helping unconscious or mentally ill people) and not for something against their interest/for your own interest.

Yet it remains that the issue was the use of hyper emotive language ie 'rape' purely to achieve an end regardless of how realistic or logical that language is.

I would disagree that this issue necessarily relates to social philosophy* (defined as the study of questions about (human) social behavior and interpretations of society and social institutions in terms of ethical values rather than empirical relations)

I think it might be more appropriate to consider it with regard to the philosophy of human rights* (which attempts to examine the underlying basis of the concept of human rights and critically looks at its content and justification) - in this case with regard to animals

The whole point of veganism is to accept blame for what humans do and to lessen the impact. People (loud minority aside) are fully away their hurt others by living.

Ok - however what many see / hear is the loud minority claiming moral authority over others and then beating them with it.

I would also argue that it is environmentalism (as a movement) which seeks to primarily mitigate the impacts of all humans and human activities on animals, plants and non-living matter. The issue with some extreme vegan thought is that all the blame is squarely laid at the feet of others with the promise of utopia and a cruelty free world if only the whole world goes vegan.

* Wiki definition

I don’t understand why people are bothering. It’s clear gozunda doesn’t grasp the point of view of a vegan and some of the comments are quite absurd.

It also seems gozunda could be carrying a battle in here from a different thread.

I’m not having a go at you gozunda but the whole debate seems fairly pointless when coming from your starting position.

Cognitive dissonance could be at play but it’s plain to see you are not very close to understanding what animal lovers understand.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don’t understand why people are bothering. It’s clear gozunda doesn’t grasp the point of view of a vegan and some of the comments are quite absurd.

It also seems gozunda could be carrying a battle in here from a different thread.

I’m not having a go at you gozunda but the whole debate seems fairly pointless when coming from your starting position.

Cognitive dissonance could be at play but it’s plain to see you are not very close to understanding what animal lovers understand.

Attack the post etc lol? Bar referring to me in the third person - it would be more appropriate to acknowledge an open exchange of views. :rolleyes: But hey whatever you like.

Tbh I for one don't believe that there is one single definitive "point of view of a vegan" or othodoxy - like all beliefs there is an evident continuim of opinions and views.

The ones I have been highlighting clearly appear to have come from a small number of extremists. However not having a go at you either but if you wish to lump everyone together for a more sensationalist angle I can't stop that. And yes there are different types of "animal lovers" out there - some are perhaps more informed and rational than others imo.

As I advised others not to get involved I won’t either.

It would be hard for me to converse with someone that doesn’t see any difference between trying to help a wild animal, like a duck with a broken wing or injured foot, to imprisoning an animal, raping it, torturing it and then killing it.

If someone in ‘real life’ were to convey that to me I would most definitely laugh or back away slowly depending on their size.

Over and out.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As I advised others not to get involved I won’t either.
It would be hard for me to converse with someone that doesn’t see any difference between trying to help a wild animal, like a duck with a broken wing or injured foot, to imprisoning an animal, raping it, torturing it and then killing it. If someone in ‘real life’ were to convey that to me I would most definitely laugh or back away slowly depending on their size.
Over and out.

Im sorry I do not wish to be flippent in anyway about rape - but 'rape' a 'duck - seriously? The use of that word in such a manner is truely deranged. And yes you are getting involved by commenting on what I have posted and by again saying things I have not said.

I would suggest rereading the post above relating to the illogical and frankly bizarre use of terms such as 'rape' in your statement and how that does more harm than good to any such argument. I can't put it any plainer than that.

Tar.Aldarion

Deleted User wrote: »

I don’t understand why people are bothering. It’s clear gozunda doesn’t grasp the point of view of a vegan and some of the comments are quite absurd.

It also seems gozunda could be carrying a battle in here from a different thread.

I’m not having a go at you gozunda but the whole debate seems fairly pointless when coming from your starting position.

Cognitive dissonance could be at play but it’s plain to see you are not very close to understanding what animal lovers understand.

I don't see any problem with chatting to anybody, you know who said they'd never go vegan? Nearly every vegan, including myself. If something such as animal use is so endemic in society it's rather hard to change or have views contrary to the norm without a lot of thought and introspection. Thinking back, I would have a completely different view of animals when I was an omnivore vs vegetarian vs vegan, a lot of it stemmed down to traditional morals instilled by society and because I was a "steakholder" in the use of said animals. It's easier to break away from that when you don't take part in it any more which is why so many vegans that become so for health/environmental reasons (plant-based definitions aside) end up fervently taking part due to animals well-being eventually.

gozunda wrote: »

Yet it remains that the issue was the use of hyper emotive language ie 'rape' purely to achieve an end regardless of how realistic or logical that language is.

I would disagree that this issue necessarily relates to social philosophy* (defined as the study of questions about (human) social behavior and interpretations of society and social institutions in terms of ethical values rather than empirical relations)

I think it might be more appropriate to consider it with regard to the philosophy of human rights* (which attempts to examine the underlying basis of the concept of human rights and critically looks at its content and justification) - in this case with regard to animals



Ok - however what many see / hear is the loud minority claiming moral authority over others and then beating them with it.

I would also argue that it is environmentalism (as a movement) which seeks to primarily mitigate the impacts of all humans and human activities on animals, plants and non-living matter. The issue with some extreme vegan thought is that all the blame is squarely laid at the feet of others with the promise of utopia and a cruelty free world if only the whole world goes vegan.

* Wiki definition

I suppose there are a few reasons people use words like "rape" and some can definitely be for what you say. My point was aside from that there is logical consistency in doing something to a being without it's consent in some case and in some cases this is not deemed acceptable. I avoid any mention of associations with traditionally human-centric words such as rape as it is emotive and derails conversation away from the meaningful points concerning moral agency.

Environmentalism is encompassed in veganism however the opposite is not true. Environmentalism says nothing about torturing animals or hurting them in an environmentally friendly way amongst a cornucopia of different scenarios. However, environmentalism is a vital part of veganism as it maximizes the wellbeing of all of us on the planet. Anybody that lays the blame on others and not themselves also is not taking to heart the whole point of veganism - that we are no better than anybody else, every movement will have anger and outrage however it's never a reflection of the true meaning. I can understand that it is hard to see past that when people are threatening or trying to get a reaction.

seamus

Is it me or does it seem like the NDC is actually really worried about the anti-dairy trend?

Between the "plant based dairy" ad last year, the press release they had radio stations regurgitate, purporting to be scientific research, and the current set of milk ads, they seem to be laying it on really thick with the "Please drink milk" schtick.

I know non-dairy has started to become popular amongst hipsters, like the non-gluten fad. And tbh if it makes non-dairy more popular and available like it did for gluten free foods, then it matters not a jot whether those drinking it are actually vegan/vegetarian.

But is it really making a severe dent in dairy sales?

I don’t know but a few invested posters will be along soon to tell you how it’s having no impact and it’s only a fad.

Non dairy ‘milk’ is probably bad for you. They’ll be telling you that too.

Tar.Aldarion

Have no idea how it is affecting their sales but you can see from just being in the supermarket that everybody from teenagers to the elderly have it in their baskets now and the Tesco ones are always sold out. My office now uses a load of almond milk when before there was none, here is one of the fridges:



One of the biggest milk producers in the US shut down and reopened selling plant based milk. Over there milk sales have been reducing for decades anyway as new drinks in general replaced people drinking milk. I'm sure the figures for here are online, no matter what, even if they are stable or increasing it's beginning to take a lot of sales away from the industry and the trend is worrying for them. There have been a lot of campaign posters by the goveganworld crowd around too.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don’t know but a few invested posters will be along soon to tell you how it’s having no impact and it’s only a fad.

Non dairy ‘milk’ is probably bad for you. They’ll be telling you that too.

By that view farmers are not the only ones with a 'vested interest' in that issue?

Seriously though - there have been some poor and some ok discussions on these issues and yet you dismiss any exchange of views or debate continuously as negative? Such things are rarely so black and white. There will always be preachers telling others certain things are "bad for you" ...

Though that I suppose you do have a point when you have a poster claiming to be giving their opinion and informing others of the 'facts' as in a recent thread in Diet & Nutrition - when it turns out they were plagiarising someone else's views and opinions from a 'vegan' related website - much of which was shown to be factually incorrect. That really doesnt help either imo.

gozunda

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Have no idea how it is affecting their sales but you can see from just being in the supermarket that everybody from teenagers to the elderly have it in their baskets now and the Tesco ones are always sold out. My office now uses a load of almond milk when before there was none, here is one of the fridges:


One of the biggest milk producers in the US shut down and reopened selling plant based milk. Over there milk sales have been reducing for decades anyway as new drinks in general replaced people drinking milk. I'm sure the figures for here are online, no matter what, even if they are stable or increasing it's beginning to take a lot of sales away from the industry and the trend is worrying for them. There have been a lot of campaign posters by the goveganworld crowd around too.

During the recent shortages - Tesco and the other major supermarkets I visited all ran out of ordinary milk and other dairy products . The plant based alternatives were still on the shelves....

I dont believe that any comparison with the US dairy industry is practically comparable to Ireland or even most parts of the rest of the world tbh. The govegan stuff is just pure hype imo and very poorly done.

Tar.Aldarion

gozunda wrote: »

During the recent shortages - Tesco and the other major supermarkets I visited all ran out of ordinary milk and other dairy products . The plant based alternatives were still on the shelves....

I dont believe that any comparison with the US dairy industry is practically comparable to Ireland or even most parts of the rest of the world tbh. The govegan stuff is just pure hype imo and very poorly done.

The majority of people still buy dairy milk, even those that buy plantbased buy dairy milk too generally. The only brands that are generally sold out are the Tesco ones as I said, as they cost so little which you may have misunderstood as it's not so clearly written. I've barely been able to buy their unsweetened soy milk for months and it's rather annoying but in a good way I guess. The reason I won't rush to buy them is also that it is longlife, I had no need to go buy more, I have some sitting on top of the fridge.

Yeah they are there own country so it's irrelevant to a local topic, have no idea how the milk producers are doing here but I'm guessing the reasons for backlash are primarily due to campaigns like the above and the increasing plantmilk sales in general.

gozunda

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

That's not really got anything to do with any of the points being made, nobody is saying that people don't buy milk. The only brands that are generally sold out are the Tesco ones as I said, as they cost so little which you may have misunderstood as it's not so clearly written. I've barely been able to buy their unsweetened soy milk for months and it's rather annoying but in a good way I guess. The reason many we won't rush to buy them is also that it is longlife, I had no need to go buy more, I have some sitting on top of the fridge.

Yeah they are there own country so it's irrelevant to a local topic, have no idea how the milk producers are doing here but I'm guessing the reasons for backlash are primarily due to campaigns like the above and the increasing plantmilk sales in general.

I didn't say they did. What i was saying is that ordinary milk sales are certainly not going down by the demand shown and wasnt only talking about Tesco either but certainly my local Tesco have a range of plant based alternatives such as their own stuff & Alpro and others... I think outside of the big cities (even with those silly billboards) not so many people buy this stuff...

To be honest I don't see the 'backlash' you talk about. Dairy products as regular every day products are promoted / advertised just as much as other fresh products imo.

But ya I'm personally not fan of long life foods...

Tar.Aldarion

I edited that first bit as it seems a bit aggressive. Demand can go down with demand still being high. Demand can even go up but the industry know that it should have gone up much more and not be happy with the limited increase (eg population increase). Demand has reduced in the US for 60 years and is around 7 times less per capita now but demand is still very high. Even if milk consumption is going down in Ireland it would still be in the order of magnitude of millions of litres per week. This can still affect the milik industry badly for individual farmers however. A litre of plantbased milk sold is pretty much one litre of dairy milk not sold which may affect some people who complain to the council to do something.

I'm from a farmland area and our local shops have as good a range as Dublin however I have no real way of knowing how much sells apart from that indicator. Regarding the backlash, in the last year there is a marked increase of advertisement which is a lot of added money, even a popup dairy store in the middle of Dublin, rugby players being brand ambassadors and buses being platered with advertisements. I'd never notice these things before and as others are intimating the same it seems plausible that it's accurate. It could be the dairy industry trying to catch up with the rest of the world either and realise that advertisement is important, in an industry where it is the defacto choice for so long that can be hard to realise.

gozunda

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I edited that first bit as it seems a bit aggressive. Demand can go down with demand still being high. Demand can even go up but the industry know that it should have gone up much more and not be happy with the limited increase (eg population increase). Demand has reduced in the US for 60 years and is around 7 times less per capita now but demand is still very high. Even if milk consumption is going down in Ireland it would still be in the order of magnitude of millions of litres per week. This can still affect the milik industry badly for individual farmers however. A litre of plantbased milk sold is pretty much one litre of dairy milk not sold which may affect some people who complain to the council to do something...

Hey no problem. Tbh I knew not to take it as that - as that wouldn't be your usual style of posting imo .

Back to the topic in hand. Again rather than guesstimating - I believe there would need to be some academic (independent) studies to indicate whether there are any observable statistically significant changes in the supply and demand for milk and / or plant based products and IF there it is possible to identify any correlation and causation within those sectors. Without that all this is just anecdotal wiff waff- and I include my own amateur observations with that.

Worth noting that the Irish dairy sector is not solely dependent on the national market. Billions of euro worth of dairy ingredients and products are exported each year to destinations worldwide

I think it is also not important not to link fairly normal / standard advertising with what some would jump at - as a 'backlash'. Although I would agree that advertising is much more proactive and innovative than ever before right across the board - for all types of products and consumables.

Howevet the billboards campaign imo is skating too far at the extreme end of the Ice Rink to be able to draw any worthwhile conclusions from it.

Again I think we need to leave out the US out of this - as it's markets and product demand sectors do not approximate Irish production or market conditions and afaik adds nothing to the overall issue than giving space for some rather vague comparisons.

Edit: Just checked on the Central Statistic Office figures and milk production was up by over 9% in 2017. For the same year butter production was up almost 14%

Milk producers generally sign contracts which mean that the milk processors agree to buy all milk produced so some variation in fresh milk sales is not going to affect the overall milik industry one way or the other for individual farmers