A slice of ham in the school lunch box, is like sending them to school with 5 fags

Harry Palmr

Maybe farmers could adapt, think clever rather than post Churchill speeches to suggest an existential threat is posed by eating an evolved diet.

Eric Cartman

I realistically think this will help in the long run, now hear me out.

So at the moment our scenario is that most people eat meat, they just do it because its the done thing. All these vegan options and fake meat made in a lab are all expensive delicacies for bored middle aged housewives and college students fooled by ideology,

These products are all pretty new but soon will fall to the price point at which they are cheaper than adding meat to meat based products. You will start to see veganism / vegetarianism become more and more mainstream with the general public.

Then comes the rub, Its like a new designer handbag, its only cool until a girl from a council estate has one, then its not. With the lower end of the income band embracing a vegan / vegetarian diet (mostly on a cost basis as carbon taxes will make veggie sticks cheaper than a bag of frozen chicken nuggets) , The middle and upper classes will go back to meat as a delicacy. You won't have farmers with fresh corn fed chicken competing with chicken nuggets or in a race to the bottom on lidl shelves anymore, Meat will become a luxury product again, higher quality and higher price tags in toe, lower demand will eradicate the packers and producers for who a low price is their USP.

As the home of some of the finest meat and dairy in the world , without the use of as many hormones and chemicals as other countries, Ireland will see itself being a powerhouse of exporting an expensive, luxury product to the wealthier parts of the world.

500g of round steak mince costing 15 euro won't be an issue, the farmer can blame the carbon tax, the middle and aspirational classes will love that its a bit more exclusive than the universal veggie gruel and soy milk.

As a nation our farmers stand to profit heavily from it and leveraging brand Ireland, our heritage in meat production and quality and the lack of use of chemicals will secure us from charlatans re starting their low quality meat outlets. In the end I think we stand to win.

Eric Cartman

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Maybe farmers could adapt, think clever rather than post Churchill speeches to suggest an existential threat is posed by eating an evolved diet.

A load of money to be had growing hemp or cannabis legally if the government gets enough back bone to not listen to tobacco company lobbyists trying to set the standards astronomically high to keep farmers and entrepreneurs out of the running.

Harry Palmr

Yep, medicinal pot has plenty going for it as a cash crop if the market is allowed to exist.

Eric Cartman

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Yep, medicinal pot has plenty going for it as a cash crop if the market is allowed to exist.

I think it is coming, already these CBD oils and hemp building and insulation blocks are being made. Our climate works for a lot of strains, its a quick yield and easy enough to grow. The biggest thing will be trying to get the IFA or somebody onboard to lobby that it should be for everyone and not just pharma / tobacco companies. It would be a great way to rejuvinate rural Ireland and thats before we even start on the ethical minefield of recreational use which even if just legal to grow and export (not sell or consume locally) would be a great earner for the 'green isle'

gozunda

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Maybe farmers could adapt, think clever rather than post Churchill speeches to suggest an existential threat is posed by eating an evolved diet.

Read what's implied tbh. But whatever - you do know what humour is? Existential ? ffs:rolleyes:

emaherx

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Yep, medicinal pot has plenty going for it as a cash crop if the market is allowed to exist.

Think it would be near impossible to keep it in the fields.

Harry Palmr

It would be most appropriate if Ireland was the home of cannabis for medical use

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Brooke_O%27Shaughnessy

Eamonn8448

Look it was always very simple to me and for the townies city folk you love to stick their noses into things they think they know about ill make it even simpler
Grass is a form of a carbon sink but its not digestible to humans However cattle sheep etc turn that grass (carbon store which keeps growing ) into a form of food that is digestible , yes vegans - MEAT and Dairy. The carbon cycle goes on as it always has and if anything i would say when all the figures have been added up its more carbon friendly than veg growing, ideally in veg we should be letting animals in to feed off the stubble leftovers but time and land constraints work against us. I must look up the carbon content of meat - which itself can be viewed as a carbon store ,Yes, basic formula of proteins building block amnio acid is CHON - where did that carbon come from ?
Its about time farmers stop the cherry picking from this lot and them them put all the figures on the table not just the ones they want to push. Methane CH4 is just another carbon molecule but how much of the overall carbon intake was used to form this ? Cant be alot because they keep growing :rolleyes:

Dakota Dan

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Maybe farmers could adapt, think clever rather than post Churchill speeches to suggest an existential threat is posed by eating an evolved diet.

Are you trying to say a vegan diet is an evolved diet?

_Brian

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Maybe farmers could adapt, think clever rather than post Churchill speeches to suggest an existential threat is posed by eating an evolved diet.

The threat is people spreading misinformation as fact such as the EAT Lancet report. This report is a sham put out by people on the pockets of big business to direct them to eat specific products.

The only evolution involved is the evolution of the population into a species that have no ability to see when they are being manipulated by big commercial interests.

gozunda

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Are you trying to say a vegan diet is an evolved diet?

The main thing about that diet that in the event of any type of catastrophe, is that they will likely be the first to starve given the absolute dependence on cheap imported foods (often produced with few if any ethical or environmental standards) 'Evolved' my rear end.

_Brian

We should definitely be eating more vegetables and a wider range too.

Bit not instead of meat, eating more vegetables and a greater diversity of vegetables along with good quality cuts of meat is a super balanced diet.

_Brian

Still waters wrote: »

From reading this thread it just looks like the farmers on here need to get over yourselves, Leo saying he's going to try and limit his consumption of red meat or vegan billboards isn't going to affect the normal Joe soap, people will continue to eat meat, a very tiny minority of vegetarians won't influence meat consumption and never will, maybe if farmers groups and their representatives put their energy into getting fairer deals from the factories and stopping supermarkets selling farmers produce below cost as loss leaders instead of picking battles with the few hundred vegans in the country they'd be better off, but it suits the the ifa and the politicians in their pockets to have the spotlight off the real agendas affecting the farming community

I think the biggest risk is that by beef production being consistently attacked the public opinion is eventually eroded.

We all know that politicians are fickle shallow decision makers and we have little to no representation at a governmental level.

When the joe public already accept beef farming as a “problem” then lazy politics will scapegoat it for carbon emissions rather than say airline travel because it will be an easier sell to punters. Levi those pesky farmers rather than their €10 trip across Europe in a jetliner.

We have to watch the long game here, the public are slowly and surely being turned against farming, the people who produce the food that’s eaten. All too many vested interests are quite happy with that.

Dakota Dan

gozunda wrote: »

The main thing about that diet that in the event of any type of catastrophe, is that they will likey be the first to starve given the absolute dependence on cheap imported foods (often produced with few if any ethical or environmental standards) 'Evolved' my rear end.

Yeah, some English man dreamed it up in 1944 and first called it non dairy vegetarian diet. It wasn’t until 1951 that the cult called it a vegan diet.

gozunda

_Brian wrote: »

...

We have to watch the long game here, the public are slowly and surely being turned against farming, the people who produce the food that’s eaten. All too many vested interests are quite happy with that.

I think you are right there. The now discredited 'EAT' 'planetary health diet' (sic) showed the huge amount of money, investment and bs propaganda being pushed by the 'plant based' corporate food industry.

That it was given credence and airtime as genuine research is what makes all whole bolloxology all the more amazing.

Imo there needs to be a lot more holding this stuff up to scrutiny and outing it for what it really is.

That doesn't mean we can't also concentrate on continuing to produce high quality locally produced foodstuffs.

bigpink

I don’t take either side but I can ask what’s the Irish farming community views on less meat?
Like do they think we all have to change our ways

gozunda

bigpink wrote: »

I don’t take either side but I can ask what’s the Irish farming community views on less meat?
Like do they think we all have to change our ways

The first question I would ask is why is there a 'push' for less meat?

And who is asking it?

An Ri rua

It most certainly is.

An Ri rua

gozunda wrote: »

_Brian wrote: »

...

We have to watch the long game here, the public are slowly and surely being turned against farming, the people who produce the food that’s eaten. All too many vested interests are quite happy with that.

I think you are right there. The now discredited 'EAT' 'planetary health diet' (sic) showed the huge amount of money, investment and bs propaganda being pushed by the 'plant based' corporate food industry.

That it was given credence and airtime as genuine research is what makes all whole bolloxology all the more amazing.

Imo there needs to be a lot more holding this stuff up to scrutiny and outing it for what it really is.

That doesn't mean we can't also concentrate on continuing to produce high quality locally produced foodstuffs.

All research needs to be held up to scrutiny. It's just a pendulum swinging, and meat and dairy producers are on the back foot here. There's been a wall of propoganda to suit their agenda until now.
I would also mention the anti-Northern Irish milk campaign. Yes, they have different standards and that's relevant. But from an economic point of view, those Irish people answer to a different empire than down here. Here, farmers are in thrall to Europe and are the number one 'fumble in the greasy till' merchants in this quasi Republic.
Eating vastly less red meat than we do is proven out in longevity statistics worldwide. Do some research.
This cafuffle is like when Ned O'Keeffe tried to have Babe banned as it would damage pigmeat sales. I wholly agree with ye that this is a propoganda war. But it's always been, ye're just on the receiving end of this debate for once. The Indo is a dirty ragmag and the Examiner is fake news and false leaks. The Irish Times is full of typos.
It's every man (sentient being) for himself!

I was born on a farm. We need to adapt as the EU empire is in charge of your fate now. It's what ye campaigned for, anti-freedom.

Buford T. Justice XIX

bigpink wrote: »

I don’t take either side but I can ask what’s the Irish farming community views on less meat?
Like do they think we all have to change our ways

Meat is a quality, nutrient dense food containing all the required amino acids for the human diet and the mineral and vitamins in meat would also be ones more available for absorption. There's no need for the majority of the population to be taking food supplements once a balanced omniverous diet is followed. Pregnant women would still be advised to continue taking folic acid supplements.



Then you have issues like the necessity of the elderly needing a higher protein diet to cater for a generally poorer ability to digest as humans age. And you also have those who have illnesses who would also require a more nutrient rich diet than would ever be available to vegan adherents.



Meat would be produced on land that's marginal for grain, legume and vegetable production but is ideal for growing grass due to soil depth, structure, slope, altitude, distance from markets, climate etc etc etc.



That grass, which is grown of land that is best suited to grow grass, converts human inedible food stuffs like grass, lower quality grain crops and byproducts from processing human food into edible, extremely high quality protein rather than turning even more rainforest into grain and soya monocultures.

gozunda

An Ri rua wrote: »

All research needs to be held up to scrutiny. It's just a pendulum swinging, and meat and dairy producers are on the back foot here. There's been a wall of propoganda to suit their agenda until now.I would also mention the anti-Northern Irish milk campaign. Yes, they have different standards and that's relevant. But from an economic point of view, those Irish people answer to a different empire than down here. Here, farmers are in thrall to Europe and are the number one 'fumble in the greasy till' merchants in this quasi Republic.Eating vastly less red meat than we do is proven out in longevity statistics worldwide. Do some research.This cafuffle is like when Ned O'Keeffe tried to have Babe banned as it would damage pigmeat sales. I wholly agree with ye that this is a propoganda war. But it's always been, ye're just on the receiving end of this debate for once. The Indo is a dirty ragmag and the Examiner is fake news and false leaks. The Irish Times is full of typos.It's every man (sentient being) for himself!
I was born on a farm. We need to adapt as the EU empire is in charge of your fate now. It's what ye campaigned for, anti-freedom.

The point is that rubbish does not constitute 'reseach'. The proposed 'diet' has been shown not to even meet normal nutritional guidelines. And yet it was held up as gospel. You'd swear from the propaganda everyone is bathing in meat or something. The truth is good quality meat is a recommended part of a healthy diet. Eating ****e highly processed foods whether vegan or otherwise remains the issue with regards to most western diets. That's the issue here and not whether some plant advocate wants to dictate what the rest of us eat or otherwise.

SortingYouOut

The future is now old man

_Brian

_Brian wrote: »

The threat is people spreading misinformation as fact such as the EAT Lancet report. This report is a sham put out by people on the pockets of big business to direct them to eat specific products.

The only evolution involved is the evolution of the population into a species that have no ability to see when they are being manipulated by big commercial interests.

So in going to quote myself here in an attempt to make a point.

Was flicking through twitter and reading comments abkut the Davos summet and Attenborough and all the leaders flying round the world to talk to each other rather than video confreres with less impact on the environment.



Hope that image loads.

Straight off someone said one cow probably produced more emissions than Attenborough’s flight.

Misinformation is an insidious thing, it slowly propagates itself, the more angles it comes from the more firmly rooted it becomes entrained in society. I see a very concerted effort to tarnish farming and farmers as dirty polluting animal abusers.

In my mind specifically to discredit their voices on food and food production so crackpot reports and commercial entities have free reign over food supply and information.

Chisler2

LeinsterDub wrote: »

That's a false equivalence. Nuts have cyanide in them but you wouldn't call them poison

The small amount of toxic compound has not been deliberately injected into nuts to make them "look nice"!...........nor is it common for folks to engorge large quantities of nuts several times a week throughout the year

...........so false equivalence.

emaherx

Chisler2 wrote: »

The small amount of toxic compound has not been deliberately injected into nuts to make them "look nice"!...........nor is it common for folks to engorge large quantities of nuts several times a week throughout the year

...........so false equivalence.

Having a ham sandwich is not quite engorging large quantities.

_Brian

Chisler2 wrote: »

The small amount of toxic compound has not been deliberately injected into nuts to make them "look nice"!...........nor is it common for folks to engorge large quantities of nuts several times a week throughout the year

...........so false equivalence.

What matter if it’s natural or added afterwards if it’s toxic ?

Cattlepen

Chisler2 wrote: »

The small amount of toxic compound has not been deliberately injected into nuts to make them "look nice"!...........nor is it common for folks to engorge large quantities of nuts several times a week throughout the year

...........so false equivalence.

Just for the record I snack on nuts all day at least 5 days a week. Do a lot of people not? The nut section in my local SuperValu seems to have a big throughout of nuts as i’m At the shelf every second day

Chisler2

_Brian wrote: »

I think the biggest risk is that by beef production being consistently attacked the public opinion is eventually eroded.

We all know that politicians are fickle shallow decision makers and we have little to no representation at a governmental level.

When the joe public already accept beef farming as a “problem” then lazy politics will scapegoat it for carbon emissions rather than say airline travel because it will be an easier sell to punters. Levi those pesky farmers rather than their €10 trip across Europe in a jetliner.

We have to watch the long game here, the public are slowly and surely being turned against farming, the people who produce the food that’s eaten. All too many vested interests are quite happy with that.

This is an example of how genuine issues - in this instance processing methods of bacon and ham - escalate into "warring camps".



Nothing in the original research is anti-meat or anti-farmers. The issues surfaced in the research are firstly, that a toxic substance is being deliberately added to healthy produce (ham, bacon) for COSMETIC purposes ("pinkness") and UNETHICAL PROFIT (extended shelf-life). Secondly there is an ESTABLISHED, SCIENTIFICALLY-PROVEN CORRELATION between consumption of the adulterated meat, and colon cancer. Thirdly, that this correlation (which is not equivalent to saying one causes the other) has been (first) SUPPRESSED and (then) denied by the processors.


My "big win" from this thread has been learning about Finnbrogue ham and bacon. My American spouse loves grass-fed Irish meat and his twice-a-week craving for grilled rashers has been of concern to me as I have been aware of the nitrate/nitrite research. We shall continue to enjoy our mixed grill of good food but with the toxin-free Finnbrogue option.

jmayo

Anyone that quotes the guardian, a piece of agenda driven tripe should be shot with a ball of ...... well you get the gist.

There are a lot of types now in Ireland that have gotten notions of themselves since the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon, Salesforce, Pfizer, etc came to town for the cheap taxes.

You have morons from representative bodies even let away with statements on current affairs shows that Brexit will not be that bad for Irish exporters because most of OUR exports are not to Britain.
Of course these people think solely in terms of percentage of total export revenue and that Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc are OURS and not some FDI that could sling it's hook in the morning.

Likewise you have someone equating American feedlot beef production with Irish grass reared beef or come out with carte blanche statements that modern meat products and dairy products are full of drugs.
And they are often given free reign to continually spout this shyte.

Farming and agri industry is seen as old fashioned and not something the Ireland of the hip and trendy want to be associated with.
Hence it is easy for them to believe, without a second thought, the cr** that farm animals are a huge cause of our carbon emissions and thus must be culled so to speak.

These same morons will quite happily gulp down some overpriced super food that was shipped half way across the world or not care that their quinoa is coming from an area which has now a threatened ecologically fragile ecosystem.
Funny how the guardian are quick to argue that soybean farming is not bad for the environment, I wonder has it anything to do with it's tofu chomping writers and readers.
Of course they will argue most of the production goes to feed animals in say Brazil or US, and then they will lambast our grass fed animals.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Chisler2 wrote: »

This is an example of how genuine issues - in this instance processing methods of bacon and ham - escalate into "warring camps".



Nothing in the original research is anti-meat or anti-farmers. The issues surfaced in the research are firstly, that a toxic substance is being deliberately added to healthy produce (ham, bacon) for COSMETIC purposes ("pinkness") and UNETHICAL PROFIT (extended shelf-life).

That's your definition of ethics and is in no way correlated with the definition of ethics of society in general. If you consider extending shelf life to be unethical, you need to get out into society and examine the available finance of those that purchase this ham. Reducing shelf life is going to lead to shorter lead times for supplies of food a corresponding rise in food costs for those already struggling to supply adequate food quantities to their families when they are already living hand to mouth as it is.

Secondly there is an ESTABLISHED, SCIENTIFICALLY-PROVEN CORRELATION between consumption of the adulterated meat, and colon cancer.

You want to go down this route? Practically everyone knows that processed meats are a poor substitute for fresh produce but the one thing this food isn't is adulterated. The additives are tested and approved based on recommended quantities and there are no regulations on quantities that should be eaten, just recommendations.


Adulterated, the way you are using it, implies unregulated additions. It's regulated and legal though in no way ideal to be consuming in large quantities. This type of proselytising is neither needed nor wanted here.

Thirdly, that this correlation (which is not equivalent to saying one causes the other) has been (first) SUPPRESSED and (then) denied by the processors.


My "big win" from this thread has been learning about Finnbrogue ham and bacon. My American spouse loves grass-fed Irish meat and his twice-a-week craving for grilled rashers has been of concern to me as I have been aware of the nitrate/nitrite research. We shall continue to enjoy our mixed grill of good food but with the toxin-free Finnbrogue option.

There's a long and messy history of items being universally lauded and later testing finding in to be less than ideal.



In fact, a quick google search will easily lead you down a rabbit hole if you start looking into the effects of common hygiene products and a beautiful, endlessly deep one once you start looking into cosmetics. Indeed, you would be much safer in eating the processed meats you are decrying than applying mixtures of cosmetics and hygiene products.
But, for some reason, there doesn't appear to be any problem applying products with no testing of interactions, effects on the body or persistence. I wonder why that is?

Simmental.

Chisler2 wrote: »

Nothing in the original research is anti-meat or anti-farmers. The issues surfaced in the research are firstly, that a toxic substance is being deliberately added to healthy produce (ham, bacon) for COSMETIC purposes ("pinkness") and UNETHICAL PROFIT (extended shelf-life).

The reason sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate are added is because of consumers demand. Most consumers when they by a pork product wont buy a discoloured product and will normally pick the one with the longest shelf life.

Willfarman

O’Neill’s dry cure bacon lads. Taste the difference.

4068ac1elhodqr

Heard a TV ad today on the Sky box say
'A bacon medalion is as healthy as an egg"

That can't be right can it?
It's not bad, but nothing beats an egg for broad nutrition.

Neddyusa

_Brian wrote: »

CJhaughey wrote: »

I'm not a fan of the Redtop tabloids but the Mirror had a piece about the politics/money involved in this scam.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/globe-trotting-billionaire-behind-campaign-13872067

And there is a very interesting piece I read that debunks a lot of the pseudo science used in that report.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201901/eat-lancets-plant-based-planet-10-things-you-need-know

I really think the Lancet has taken a major downhill step with the publication of this stuff, as said before its not the publication it used to be and people have to learn to read between the lines to see the real picture.

People are now only capable of reading g the 144 characters that exist in a click bait headline now. The between the lines truth is lost on rhem, they’ve read and believed the headline and moved onto the Kardashian’s next exploit already. All the after the fact debunking of these stories is only read and understood by a minority who probably didn’t really beleive the stupid headline anyway.

Humans as a species have become inherently stupid and conditioned to be drop fed articles that commercial enterprises want. In a way many are like battery chickens stacked 10 high in cages. All the technology to access a wealth of information has just made the masses stupider

Totally agree Brian that social media has made people even more superficial and stupid.....
It's also true that "when you're explaining you're losing".....
BUT....if the likes of Bord Bia were doing their job right they'd be producing the likes of this: https://youtu.be/BOJdz_LgDBE
on social media.

Alun

Simmental. wrote: »

The reason sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate are added is because of consumers demand. Most consumers when they by a pork product wont buy a discoloured product and will normally pick the one with the longest shelf life.

Many years ago when I lived in the Netherlands, we used to go to a butcher just over the border in Belgium who made his own bacon, ham, salami etc. all nitrite free. It looked a quite unappetising grey colour, almost as if it had gone off but tasted just fine.

Simmental.

Alun wrote: »

We used to go to a butcher just over the border in Belgium who made his own bacon, ham, salami etc. all nitrite free. It looked a quite unappetising grey colour, almost as if it had gone off but tasted just fine.

Adding them is an extra cost that process would prefer not to add but it helps sell pork making it look more appealing.
Its the same with beef often packed in a modified atmosphere to maintain it red colour. It would go brown colour without it and not be bought even though its still safe to eat.

farawaygrass

Is the truely Irish brand still on the go? They did nice rashers and sausages

gozunda

Ham and smoking?
Reminds me of this ...

Chisler2

farawaygrass wrote: »

Is the truely Irish brand still on the go? They did nice rashers and sausages

I regularly buy Truly Irish brand in Dunnes Stores.

gctest50

LeinsterDub wrote: »

That's a false equivalence. Nuts have cyanide in them but you wouldn't call them poison

You would if yer body didn't have Thiosulphate-sulphur transferase to deal with it

Cyanide damages your eyes though, better hope you've enough

Drumpot

Neddyusa wrote: »

Totally agree Brian that social media has made people even more superficial and stupid.....
It's also true that "when you're explaining you're losing".....
BUT....if the likes of Bord Bia were doing their job right they'd be producing the likes of this: https://youtu.be/BOJdz_LgDBE
on social media.

I agree with these sentiments to a degree. I regularly get into discussions with people on threads in here who are incapable of discussing a topic outside of newspaper clippings or Twitter crap. The art of debating is very much a lost art with people more used to attacking other individuals then making their point. I’ve given up in many cases trying to explain my points cause idiots just pick one piece of information or just ignore it completely and try to find something else to discredit me.

However I must admit I read the headline and got a bit of a fright as I give my children Ham sandwich’s every day. Then I read a snippet somebody linked that debunked a lot of the hyperbole but it also stated that it can be very hard to know who is behind the information and what their motive is, thus hard enough to know how trustworthy a source is. How do I know if the person debunking the information hasn’t their own agenda? Because they said they didn’t?

Propaganda and fake news is quite difficult to filter. Many people are so tired just trying to get by in this flawed capitalist system , that they don’t want to put anymore energy into other areas. Politics, well being and pretty much anything we can contract out to others is something we possibly do more and more in efforts to have more free time for ourselves.

I think sometimes ignorance is bliss and actually a more “intelligent” way of living. A balanced diet is still prob more practical and healthy then anything we can find on the Internet..... Simples......

Buford T. Justice XIX

Drumpot wrote: »

I agree with these sentiments to a degree. I regularly get into discussions with people on threads in here who are incapable of discussing a topic outside of newspaper clippings or Twitter crap. The art of debating is very much a lost art with people more used to attacking other individuals then making their point. I’ve given up in many cases trying to explain my points cause idiots just pick one piece of information or just ignore it completely and try to find something else to discredit me.

However I must admit I read the headline and got a bit of a fright as I give my children Ham sandwich’s every day. Then I read a snippet somebody linked that debunked a lot of the hyperbole but it also stated that it can be very hard to know who is behind the information and what their motive is, thus hard enough to know how trustworthy a source is. How do I know if the person debunking the information hasn’t their own agenda? Because they said they didn’t?

Propaganda and fake news is quite difficult to filter. Many people are so tired just trying to get by in this flawed capitalist system , that they don’t want to put anymore energy into other areas. Politics, well being and pretty much anything we can contract out to others is something we possibly do more and more in efforts to have more free time for ourselves.

I think sometimes ignorance is bliss and actually a more “intelligent” way of living. A balanced diet is still prob more practical and healthy then anything we can find on the Internet..... Simples......

As the saying goes, you follow the money.

Drumpot

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

As the saying goes, you follow the money.

How do you follow the money?

And how do you trust whatever sources you are using to get to the bottom of it? It’s hard to know what information to trust and I don’t believe it’s always as simple as you say. I always question what I read but it doesn’t mean I investigate everything I’m unsure of!

And where do I draw the line? So I have to now try and investigate if a slide of ham is harmful?! What information do I trust and who do I trust? Everybody has a motive of some sort, even governments and state agencies. Sure the state coffers benefits if people die as soon as they hit state pension age, I wonder if I investigated motives behind certain initiatives would sub conscious strategies unfold ? ( older peopling dieing as result of poor care in state or poor medical services?). I’m not suggesting it’s true BTW, I’m showing how far you can go down rabbit holes with everything !

I’m not saying it’s impossible but I don’t personally have many resources on hand to investigate reports or information put out by people whose sole purpose is to confuse or muddy the waters. I also don’t feel compelled to spend a lot of what little free time I have googling said information and using the same resources that are being used against me to figure out what’s objectively true.

Balf

gozunda wrote: »

That doesn't mean we can't also concentrate on continuing to produce high quality locally produced foodstuffs.

Do we eat locally produced foodstuffs? Brexit seems to be highlighting the extent to which we import a lot of the food we actually eat - a recent article said 80% of our flour is imported, for instance.

On the other hand, most of what we produce is exported - with (IIRC) about half it going to the UK, and most of the rest going to the EU. Should UK and EU consumers regard that as locally produced? Would we regard flour imported from UK as locally produced?

Isn't there also a more practical level? The customer is always right. Whether people like the logic or not, UK consumers (our main market) are eating less meat - leaving aside Brexit for a minute, which could obviously just cause demand for Irish meat to evaporate.

If tastes of your main customer are changing, don't you need to do something different to continue serving them? Telling them that they're wrong, and that Betamax is a much better media format than VHS, is surely pointless. Just as pointless as expecting them to agree that VHS is better than Netflix.

alps

Drumpot wrote: »

How do you follow the money?

And how do you trust whatever sources you are using to get to the bottom of it? It’s hard to know what information to trust and I don’t believe it’s always as simple as you say. I always question what I read but it doesn’t mean I investigate everything I’m unsure of!

And where do I draw the line? So I have to now try and investigate if a slide of ham is harmful?! What information do I trust and who do I trust? Everybody has a motive of some sort, even governments and state agencies. Sure the state coffers benefits if people die as soon as they hit state pension age, I wonder if I investigated motives behind certain initiatives would sub conscious strategies unfold ? ( older peopling dieing as result of poor care in state or poor medical services?). I’m not suggesting it’s true BTW, I’m showing how far you can go down rabbit holes with everything !

I’m not saying it’s impossible but I don’t personally have many resources on hand to investigate reports or information put out by people whose sole purpose is to confuse or muddy the waters. I also don’t feel compelled to spend a lot of what little free time I have googling said information and using the same resources that are being used against me to figure out what’s objectively true.

From a food point of view, there is no need to take advise from anyone here, and from anyone "out there" either. We all have an agenda, however we do feel proud and confident in what we promote.

A contributor some time ago summed up food safety in the following statement

"That MAN was the only animal stupid enough to believe that food wasn't at it most nuitritous at the point where it was grown"

That a simple and safe mantra to follow, and anything beyond that is open to the promotion of the providor or their agents