Report abuse

Now that the golden pensions debate is temporarily on the back burner you must have some spare time on your hands?

Have you seen today’s Press ad for five kitchen assistants for the exciting new high-tech rooftop refectory at Elizabeth College?

Report abuse

There is no discernible health risk eating red meat if it is lean, clean, unadulterated and eaten in moderation in small quantities. We humans have been eating it like this for thousands of years and it is positively healthy for us this way when combined with veg, fruit, nuts, pulses etc.

It is only since we started mucking about with our meat, putting all sorts of nasties into it and eating it in portions and amounts that are clearly not good for us that these health problems have arisen.

PS You still haven’t answered. Are you a vegan?

Report abuse

I totally agree, there should be a reduction in waste and better that meat eaten locally is locally produced however maybe a better way to deal with that and protect the competitive edge of local suppliers is to have a tax on imported meat products? I admit I don’t really know how this would work. Perhaps it should be the same as milk is dealt with and imported meat should be restricted altogether.

I take on board your valid well made points. We are lucky that we can choose, others cannot and I think even if I was not a vegetarian I would still say that people should think carefully about the quantity and quality of meat they consume and generally have respect for its provenance, the animal and the production process.

Report abuse

I think mine is a valid point bout the abattoir. It is a conflict of interest when HSSD official advice is that red meat is bad for public health. Also, it’s not purely a vegetarian ideology point it applies to anything which benefits private enterprise but does not benefit the public. This is where the States should cut costs.

If the price of red meat goes up because of the cost of the abattoir being absorbed by the industry and passed on to the price charged to consumers, people would hopefully eat less red meat and then it would be a win win for the States because cancers and heart problems would reduce.

I am not convinced the States should be subsidising the dairy either, my feelings are that it should be and could be a profit making business, Guernsey milk and other produce are luxury products and should be sold at a price which reflects that, and surplus should be marketed properly and exported with pride.

I agree with your final point totally, any of these type of issues which cause people to think twice about what they eat is beneficial.

Report abuse

If you were honest you would admit that your objections to public money going into a new abattoir are purely ideological.
If we needed a new dairy right now I bet you wouldn’t object to any money going into that. Unless you are a full on vegan of course. Please tell us you’re not a vegan?

One thing I think we can all agree on is that this whole meat scandal saga has made us less inclined to stuff our faces with cheap and nasty processed food and that cannot be a bad thing.

Report abuse

God knows how much of this food source, that could feed people and keep money within the island by generating much needed revenue for local farmers, is literally thrown away each year, whilst we profit farmers and suppliers from ‘elsewhere’ importing more of it.

Economically speaking, this is a ridiculous situation, and throwing away what many consider perfectly good food, whilst others in the world starve, not really justifiable, so I for one cannot see a reason to object to this….

but still retain my right not to eat it, as one of the fortunate ones who is able to choose.

Report abuse

Re being sceptical about climate change. Learning about how thin the atmosphere is made a big difference to me. You look up at the sky and it looks like it goes on for ever because you can’t see the edge of the atmosphere, but actually this little bubble of atmosphere that the world sits in is tiny. Chucking billions of years of previously locked away carbon ( a known GHG) into that thin envelope seems to be asking for trouble.

But at the end of the day, for me it comes down to Pascall’s wager or in other words, risk management. There is far more for us to lose if we ignore the warnings and the scientists are proven right than if we listen to the scientists and they turn out to be wrong.

Report abuse

Yes, your 8.36pm post was a good clear and interesting read

Report abuse

Good post. Lots of info there.

I don’t think my slightly skeptical viewpoint is being rash really I just don’t think there is much we can realistically do to change the situation. In any case ultimately what is the point in postponing the inevitable? How will failing to postpone global warming make it worse? There is real suffering occurring all over the world right now and that is the first priority in my opinion.

Unfortunately there is no scientific consensus regarding climate change. There may well be some benefits to the planet which are derived from meat farming which offsets the CO2 produced, however I still believe that eating meat increases an individual’s carbon footprint. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I will support any local government initiatives aimed at protecting the environment, but I don’t think any pensioners should be penalised for failing to separate their rubbish and I don’t think anyone is going to tell the rich that they must stop taking their families on 6 holidays a year. These are small scale futile efforts.

We must agree to disagree on whether all human activity is natural! It’s not supernatural is it? :-) That is a strange comment that the world would be better without us? Climate change and the wrath of mother nature would continue but no one would be worried about what to do!

Ultimately the sun will die and the world will be gone. If humans can devise a way to stop that in the next few million years that probably would be supernatural!

Report abuse

Hmm, very true. But why should public money pay for the new abattoir?

Report abuse

Report abuse

“The Earth would’ve naturally warmed up without our presence”, if you are referring to climate change during the last 300-400 years, possibly not because the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’, the Maunder Minimum,was experienced between 1650-1750, thereby meaning that, if the period circa 1750 wasn’t characterised by the onset of industrial activity, the Earth may have contined to remain cold for some period of time. This thus corroborates (doesn’t prove, though) Spartacus’ theory that we may be suppressing a glacial period.

With regards to our degree of contribution to recent climate change, the period from 1750 to present day was characterised by an increase from 280-383 parts per million, which coincides with industrialisation. Also, the idea that this is human-generated climate change is strongly given credence by the fact that the period from 1950-2000 was the warmest 50 year period for 1,300 years and that this era was characterised by the emergence and flourishing of ‘Tiger Economies’ in Asia and Newly Industrialised Countries such as Brazil and thriving Western economies, which gave way to widespread affluence and thus use of devices that emit fossil fuels.

Furthermore, though there have been natural events that have been responsible for irregular weather conditions, there effects have been insignificant on the whole as the sulphur dioxide emitted by the volcanic eruptions of Tambora, Krakatau and Pinatubo created only temporary climatic cooling episodes.

Report abuse

Report abuse

No side effects as far as I can see,except that when my grandson asked me how many hundreds of thousands Mr Rice has secretly handed over to AFR Advocates I tapped my right foot on the ground five times

Report abuse