My Shameful Secret - I'm a Meat Eater

So the hoo-ha about meat eaters destroying the planet has surfaced again, this time via a Times interview with Lord Stern, noted scientist and author of the 2006 review of the cost of tackling climate change. The Times front page headline announced "Climate Chief: give up meat to save the planet", and in the body of the interview Stern reckoned that people's attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable.

So, is meat eating about to become a shameful secret, admitted, like listening to Country and Western music, only to one's most trusted friends,and undertaken behind closed doors. Will meat eaters, driven underground by public opinion suddenly feel the need to burst out of the closet, shout about their meat eating, and join "Meat Pride" marches through the streets of London? Will, heaven's above, the nanny state actually ban meat eating?

To be fair, on BBC's Today programme Lord Stern started by saying that the Times headline was "unfortunate", and that his message is about global leaders needing to take climate change seriously with meat eating being just one of many factors which need consideration. Too late. The headline writers have roared into action.

The voice of reason needs to speak up.

For starters, sheep and cattle are vital to preserving the character and biodiversity of the British countryside. They graze on moors, hills and coastlines, keeping land that cannot be cultivated for grains or vegetables from becoming brown stretches of dead bracken incapable of supporting plants or wildlife. The National Trust understand this, as does Natural England. Both have been active in reintroducing cattle to ungrazed stretches of the countryside, resulting in more rare plants and bird life. Perhaps they could speak up.

Meat, as the Food Standards Agency on its website and Times nutritionist Amanda Ursell both point out, contains essential nutrients in an easily absorbable form. The FSA says " Meat is a good source of protein and vitamins and minerals such as iron, selenium, zinc and B vitamins".

There's also the very practical issue that if there are no cows then there are no milk and dairy products.


And farming is a voice which needs to shout very much louder, communicating their plan (assuming there is one) to minimise farming's environmental impact.

FSA Research Furore Shows Organic Movement Must Get Back to its Roots

The FSA’s pronouncement that organic food is no healthier than that farmed conventionally has generated acres of headlines, hundreds of comments, and thrown the organic world into disarray.

It’s interesting to reflect on why the reaction has been so vocal. After all, the FSA was very specific in its research. It stated that its remit was only to look at nutrient content of organic versus conventionally produced products, and it also stated that conclusions were drawn from 55 fully defensible, peer reviewed scientific studies. Its findings echo those of the pro-organic, scientifically based EU project QualityLowInputFood who at the conclusion of 5 years of research said - “Health claims for organic foods are not yet substantiated.”

So why the furore?

One of the problems with the rise and rise of the organic market is that its recent explosion has been due more to hype than substance, fuelled by uncritical affluence.

Any publication over the last few years about organic food implies that it is better for you. Celebrity chefs, food writers in the broadsheets, and bodies such as the Soil Association have all insisted that organic food is the only sensible thing to eat, but they have rarely backed this up with scientific facts. Indeed even after the FSA report was published, a writer in a middle class paper was saying that there are certain food purchases that should always be organic, but yet again gave no reason why, and a Sunday paper had a full page article headlined “We dig out the facts from the manure”, but still filled the page with opinionated claim and counterclaim rather than facts. So one reason for the uproar could be that food writers and chefs may well be feeling very silly about supporting something unfounded, and possibly worried about their credibility.

The Soil Association and other organic supporters will understandably be concerned that their carefully built market will collapse down round their ears, especially in the current difficult economic climate.

So how should the organic world respond?

Instead of rushing to damn the FSA’s findings, organic practitioners should be re-evaluating in a calm, fact based and non spun way, the reasons why people might consider buying organic food.

They are fortunate in that already there is a highly committed core of organic devotees. A look at the reams of comments which newspaper articles generated from the general public gives a good steer on what they value. These people suggest that the main reason for purchase is not what is in organic food but what isn’t. The vast majority say that the reason they buy organic is to avoid pesticides. A few said they just have a belief that the whole system with its focus on the soil onwards is the right way to farm, some feel it is better for the environment, and some feel it promotes higher standards of animal welfare. (Few mentioned taste, although in a health story this is perhaps not surprising).

The organic movement needs to slow down, concentrate on what is true and factually supported about this approach to farming, tell the public and allow them to make an educated choice. Any supporting facts need to be backed by rigorous and defensible research.

This is not a strategy which will support fast growth. Recent IGD research shows that the number of people actively interested in avoiding pesticides for health reasons is relatively small . Far higher is the number seeking to promote good animal welfare, but many issues have been addressed by conventional farming such as free range eggs, and higher welfare pork and chicken. Those interested in animal welfare can choose to buy locally produced meat, and see for themselves whether the animal welfare standards behind their meat is what they want.

So whilst massive market growth will not come from a slower approach, and there may even be a sales decline in the short term, the movement can be sure that their integrity will be protected, the public will be reassured, and longer term, the organic movement will achieve the sustainability and public confidence that it seeks.

What is striking about the organic movement is that its current high powered, fast talking, heavy spinning marketing focus, with its frequent denigration of conventional agriculture, is the complete antithesis of what organic farming is all about. Organic agriculture is a slow maturing way of farming which aims to work in harmony with the natural world to ensure long term sustainability. There is little about it which is unnatural or false. It would be good if organic marketing and organic production were more closely aligned.

Consumers,Clones and Concerns

The Food Standards Agency research findings that consumers do not support animal cloning for food have been widely reported, (apart from in the farming press, bizarrely), and both the findings themselves and consumer reactions to the reports merit pause for thought. The research is thorough, and the reports on it were confined to the facts, with no hysterical headlines. Media commentators reactions were also well balanced, with a couple of commentators coming out in support and one asking for a reasoned debate on the subject. The facts are though that consumers are unlikely to buy food from cloned animals.
In the research itself, people were worried about the animal welfare implications of cloning for both the mother who, because of the high failure rate risked becoming a breeding machine, and for offspring who in most instances are born with disease and deformity. People vividly remember BSE and CJD, and so were concerned about whether the food would be safe to eat; and they doubt whether those involved can be trusted, be they biotech companies, breeders, farmers, or retailers. All the worries were compounded by an inability to see any benefits from cloning apart from more profit to those in the cloning chain.
I don't think that this research can be dismissed as the views of a tiny number of people who may have particularly strong views about animal welfare or food safety or the ethics of cloning.Those taking part were screened to ensure they had no extreme ideas about any aspect of food, and findings are in fact very similar to those from America where they have carried out extensive research on the topic.
Reaction to media commentators columns also showed resistance from the public, but with a sizable minority being open minded. Melanie Reid in the Times came out strongly in favour of cloned food. 29 people were moved to respond to her views, of whom 8 said it sounded ok to them. The rest were strongly against, with some saying her piece was an illogical and factually incorrect piece of journalism. The Observer's Tim Haywood sat on the liberal fence saying that whilst he did not like the idea himself, there should be a reasoned debate about it, a point of view endorsed by 6 out of nine people commenting on his article. Hannah Strange also of the Times concluded that the animal welfare issues associated with cloning would mean that UK consumers would not support it.She drew one response saying that cloning needed the same animal welfare safeguards as ant other animal related activity, and one feeling that there was no cause for concern.Many of those reponding to articles, whether for or against,called for clear labelling so that consumers knew what they were buying and could avoid if they wished. The Mail, mouthpiece of middle England, reported the research and of the people who commented half were open minded, particularly if cloning would help feed the world.
At first sight therefore, public response seems more favourable than the FSA research might indicate. However there are two major findings which lead to the conclusion that UK consumers just will not buy cloned food.First, the research shows clearly that the more consumers know about cloning the more alarmed they get. As yet the cloning debate is still in its infancy in the UK, but anxiety will grow with more publicity. Second, there is a striking attitude difference between men and women. 60% of women reject outright the idea of buying cloned food, compared with one third of men. Conversely, about a third of men are prepared to buy cloned food, but only 14% of women.The key point here is that its still women who do most of the food shopping.
So, there are major drawbacks in consumers minds already about cloned meat, and as the debate unfolds there will be alot who will not accept it.
But this consumer unease won't come as a surprise to farmers, many of whom instinctively understand the public's feelings.