Shop At Tescos...?

[andywg]

The truth finally comes out- you don't give a damn about what happens to farmers in this country, the very people that maintain a whole variety of breeds of domesticated or semi-domesticated animals- if we didn't have farmers, such animals would go extinct in this country (and this is the truth, many of the less productive breeds have already gone extinct or are nearing extinction), these are the people whose food you were raised upon, these are the people that work all day to provide the countryside with buisness and help sustain the local ecomonies.

Farming is an essential part of countryside life, if you don't care about farming, then why even care about the people living in the countryside?

"Finally comes out"? I haven't hid it at all. As I said, I see that pregress is necessary. We have no real engineering in this country because other countries do it just as well and cheaper, so we lost a lot of engineers who retrained and do other jobs. Farmers should do the same. That is the way the world moves on.

Did we all decide we should stop using motorcars because it put farriers and blacksmiths out of business? No.

If you had a house and buisness which you and your family had lived in and run for generations, how would you feel being forced to sell it up? I'm sure if you were in such a position, if you would feel a lot less happy about your views of "progress".

Actually no. I would be looking for the way the market is moving and try and be there before. Look at the land farmers have. Records storafe, computer disaster recovery. there are many ways farmers can still use their land for more profitable businesses, they just have to look away from what they have always done. Just because your dad was successful in a business does not mean you have a god given right to be.

I care most about this country because it is my homeland. I believe that before we delve into the problems of other countries, we should sort our own problems out. Foriegn food imports are driving our farmers out of buisness, we don't need these food imports, we are just being greedy and taking advantage of cheap foriegn labour in other countries where the human and workers rights in our country don't apply to them.

I have nothing against the african people, but africa's problems will never be solved by us buying food off them- africa's problems come down to corruption in their own country, which is mostly beyond our control.
So we should be concentrating on helping our own, instead of employing others at the expense of our own.

So to hell with the rest of the world so long as our farmers have enough money to buy the latest range rover? You must now surely retract your earlier point about suffering in foreign countries, because you admit you care far less for them than making sure that junior can follow in his father's footsteps, even if there is no real market there.

But if you care about the environment, surely you can see that we need to consider it as a global, and not a national, problem.

And remind me exactly just where I said that any subsidies go to small farmers. I can't see it in my post. Maybe you should read what I put more clearly.

You're forgetful in this thread today, see your quote below;

Your example is not common. The farming subsidies given to farmers by the governments and the EU under the CAP mean we have huge mountains of subsidised food which we dump on the developing markets at prices they cannot produce the food for. These subsidies keep our uneconomical farmers in business (some of whom then moan when they start to get squeezed by market pressures) at the expense of developping farmers who can't sell their food at the low prices our food is sold at.

The farmers which are having the hardest time selling their food at the moment in general are the smallest ones, what you said would essentially be saying that the subsidies are there to help the smaller farmers, which are either just starting out or have been going for a while.

Now see, you have made the same mistake. I did not, hell, let's repeat this in bold, I did not say the CAP goes to the small farmers.

I give you one last chance, show me exactly where I (not you summising) said that CAP goes to small farmers. Not what you think I am essentially saying, because that is just your opinion, not my statement.

 

[Underwurlde]

We have no real engineering in this country because other countries do it just as well and cheaper, so we lost a lot of engineers who retrained and do other jobs

As much as I hate to see someone put that into words, even on a forum for fish keeping, as an Engineer myself it still sorrows me to admit that in part that statement has an element of truth to it. I would still stand by the engineering excellence offered by this country - we are still the worlds best innovators IMO. But my (our) jobs are undervalued and as a result, underpaid - so as a result, who in their right mind would want to do it? Hell any Tom Dick & Harry can call themselves an 'Engineer' these days. If you think that is an arrogant statement, talk to the hand...

Andy

 

[andywg]

Some people are fed up. Many more people are perfectly happy. Look at the opinion polls in support of supermarkets due to ease and convenience.

Can you show me these opinion polls? No point in making a claim without the evidence to back it up.

Sadly not. The poll was discussed on Radio 4 where they pointed out many people would like supermarkets to do more to save the environment and would like more local choice, somewhere around 70% are happy with doing their shopping in one place.

You're exagerating by saying shopping at local shops takes half a day to do. It is true, some people with their jobs cannot shop locally, but there are those who can- you're indicating that no-one can that is why people should shop at supermarkets?

No I am not. we used to go out before 9 and wouldn't get home until after 12. That is the entire morning gone. My statement was that you are very lucky to have your small "local" shops a similar distance to your supermarket. You yourself say that local shops are rare, so surely less and less people are going to be able to go to them. I say people should shop where they want regardless of what your thoughts on supermarkets are. They do. They choose supermarkets.

And you are very, VERY much in the minority. And maybe if you visited your store more often you wouldn't have too much trouble. Or else, thesupermarket is badly run and needs the competition of another one nearby to get it inot gear.

Before making such a bold statement such as that i'm "very, very much in the minority", can you give me these opinion polls you have been talking so avidly about? I'm curious to see what information your views are founded on, or whether they are just assumptions etc.

Read my above quote again. Where do I rely on an opinion poll? That observation is based on the fact that everyone I talk to loves being able to shop for everything in one place. That and the fact that if you weren't in the overwhelming minority then more people would be shopping in local stores and as such they wouldn't be shutting down through lack of trade.

Do you have any basis on which to think my assumptions are incorrect? Especially as the above very much in the minority relates to you being closer or as close to "local shops" as you are to a supermarket.

Well i know the price, i've made plenty of well-founded example's in comparison to your only one about the New Zealand beef (which you have not even backed up with facts here).

Ok, here is the link to the story regarding scientific research (note it is lamb, not beef):

http/www.newstatesman.com/200705210019

A study conducted by New Zealand's Lincoln University found that producing one kilogram of lamb in the UK was four times as costly in carbon terms as producing the same amount in New Zealand; even taking into account the environmental cost of transport, some imported foods may be far less energy-intensive than their local counterparts. Studies in Germany and the UK have reached similar conclusions,

Further details about who conducted the research are here: http/www.lincoln.ac.nz/story21175.html

The fact you weren't aware of how NZ produced animals can be more better fro the environment shows you don't know the full ecological cost of buying local produce over foreign. And exactly where are your "well founded" examples that buying locally is definitely better for the environment, especially considering how energy intensive farming in the UK is?

To turn things around, do you really know what the price is? Perhaps its your turn to start backing up your statements with evidence/proof/facts etc.

I have provided the above. I have not seen a single example in science to show that local food is always the best for the environment. When I consider the environment, I realise we all live in the same world. That means I am prepared to look at the overall cost to the environment rather than how much our farmers are getting paid for what I buy. The above mentioned studies show that a global production network can provide a more environmentally kind product. Just think, the supermarkets could be helping to save the environment by buying from low energy intensity farming from foreign places. I woudl take saving the environment over some local farmer's job any day.

So, I have a scientific study showing solely relying on the UK for our production (as well as meaning we starve as the UK doesn't produce enough food) will be more damaging to the environment. Maybe you have some scientific studies to show that making sure everything we buy is produced in the UK is the most environmentally sound way?

 

[andywg]

So lets get a little more exact here, i want to probe your views of "adapt or die" or only the strong live".

Based on your way of viewing life, would you see it to be a waste of time looking after a disabelled pensioner who had no experience to offer to society?

I personally prefer a humane caring society for all within it regarding things that are not their fault, but as far as business goes there is no room for compassion. A disabled pensioner does not choose to be disabled and old when they could have chosen fully fit and young. All people up to 16 have a right to the same staqndard of education. Just because your dad was a farmer does not mean you have to be. I know the bass player in my old band became a musician rather than a farmer like his dad.

Why should I have to supplement his earnings just because he chose a career that has no future? I shouldn't.

Or how about people who look after deaf and dumb or severely mentally retarded children?

In both these cases, the people we are looking after have no benefet to society as they have nothing to offer us from a financial point of view, they will be a strain on our resources until they day they die. But we don't let them die just as we don't leave our dead to rot in the countryside, because we have respect, compassion and tolerance for our fellow human beings.

Again, you are looking at this wrong. My quote was about life, not our society we live in now. And look at life, not our society, life in its true and varied wonderful forms. How often do you see life caring for weak parts. Disabled fish? It gets eaten. The environment changes; those that can adapt survive, those that can't die out. Life (and nature) is a very harsh teacher where you only get one chance.

There is more to life than us. You have to stop thinking the world exists purely for humankind's benefit.

I think your black and white way of viewing life is flawed and certainly very heartless, ignoring many ethical/moral issues.

And your ability to misinterpret what I am saying and then criticise me for the misinterpretation is fantastic. I was pointing out that life's motto (not mine) is adapt or die. The entire theory of evolution is based on that premise. If you cannot adapt to perform well in the current environment then you become extinct.

Also, life has been around for roughly 0.5 billion years, we as a society who care for elderly less than 2000 years. Which of these is the most successful model. We may one day find our compassion costs us. Who can say?

Ooo, your facts there are very flawed.

Anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record in Africa about 130,000 years ago, we haven't been around for 0.5 billion years, there is a great deal of difference between the Australopithecine Lucy that lived 3.2million years ago, she was not a human being, just a human ancester.

Grandparents have also been around a lot for at least 30,000 years, and most likely even longer than that;

http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3876623.stm


Please research your facts more before making such bold statements.

Please read my posts before getting on your high horse. I said we as a caring society. I don't recall the Romans caring for their disabled in too great a way, what with them leaving females to die on the door steps so that they could have boys. Recognising the value of people born with disabilities from birth is a somewhat recent thing. I don't recall a great deal of help for disabled people even as recently as the Victorian times. I also read very little about specific care for elderly people as they get older. I may be wrong, bu I doubt very much that we had any real caring society further back than 4-5,000 years ago.

And where is your evidence that the moment anatomically modern humans appeared we had a society that took care of all the sick, weak and old. Oh wait, there isn't any! Not once did I say that we as humans have been about for 2,000 years.

Again, read my posts more carefully before posting, or (like above) you will go ranting and raving and looking very foolish. Putting words in my mouth and then telling me those words are wrong is not a good way to debate. Your reply above is just sloppy and I had come to expect much better of you.

Now, perhaps we should look at your figures (since you provide them). The oldest definite time you have stated for grandparents (hardly the sign of a truly caring society as grandparents can be as young as 32 with childbearing beginning at 16, so hardly old and decrepid) is 30,000 years ago. surely you cannot tell me that you consider that a long time compared to the 500,000,000 years (roughly) that life has existed on this planet. Even if grandparents have been around for 10 times as long, we still only have 300,000 out of 500,000,000. Still not impressive, eh?

We humans, with a caring society, are very much the anomaly for life (just likein our attempts to control nature and natural elements such as electricity rather than just co-habit with them). To say that the motto of life is adapt and die would be to pay homage to the fossil record.

Think bigger! Can you be sure thaqt the local farm isn't more energy intensive and producing a smaller batch of apples and is thus costing far more energy than a larger foreign producer who perhaps produces enough to save enough eneregy to cover the energy cost of exporting many apples and thus is globally greener?

The environment is far from a black and white, local and far matter.

Yes i'm pretty sure food produced and packaged locally in this country would be more environmentally friendly than food produced and packaged in countries far abroad, can you give me any fact-backed examples of such, perhaps of lets say fruit or veg, that prove otherwise?

Yes I can, and I did above. your "pretty sure" does not agree with the scientific findings. A fact based scientific study by a university shows a flaw in your thinking. In case you missed it, here it is again:

The “food miles†efficiency of the New Zealand dairy industry in producing and delivering products for the British market has received new confirmation from a Lincoln University report released today. (27 July)

The report shows that in the production of New Zealand dairy product the generation of greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, all implicated in global climate change - is less than in the British dairy system.

The Lincoln study’s central finding is that the UK produces 35 percent more emissions per kilogram of milk solid than New Zealand and 31 percent more emissions per hectare than New Zealand - even including transportation from New Zealand to Britain and the carbon dioxide generated in that process.

The 25-page report, authored by Professor Caroline Saunders, Director of Lincoln University’s Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, and Andrew Barber of The Agribusiness Group, is titled Comparative Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of New Zealand’s and the UK’s Dairy Industry.

It follows the first Food Miles report by Saunders, Barber and research assistant Greg Taylor, published in July last year.

That report, which drew considerable critical response from UK trade and environmental interests, examined energy use and carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of four products - milk solids, lamb, apples and onions.

In a landmark conclusion it found that there was greater energy efficiency in New Zealand for the production of dairy product, lamb and apples, and an advantage in relation to onions if storage costs for the UK product were included in the calculations.

This latest report focuses exclusively on the dairy sector and adds in greenhouse gas emissions.

The methane emissions originate from enteric fermentation in dairy cows and cattle and from manure management. The nitrous oxide emissions are a combination of direct and indirect emissions from synthetic fertiliser and animal waste.

The earlier report, which restricted the analysis to energy use and carbon dioxide emissions, showed that New Zealand was even more efficient for dairy production than is shown in the new analysis which adds in methane and nitrous oxide. The new work, however, clearly demonstrates that the efficiency balance remains strongly in favour of New Zealand.

“Our report clearly demonstrates the fallacy of using a simplistic concept like ‘food miles’ as a basis for restrictive trade and marketing policies.

“It is obvious that production systems and not transport are the major contributor to the differences in greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.â€

And because you keep asking for the results of scientific studies:

The Lincoln study’s central finding is that the UK produces 35 percent more emissions per kilogram of milk solid than New Zealand and 31 percent more emissions per hectare than New Zealand - even including transportation from New Zealand to Britain and the carbon dioxide generated in that process.

...

“It is obvious that production systems and not transport are the major contributor to the differences in greenhouse gas emissions and energy use.â€

Local produce is not always the best for a global planet.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Ok, here is the link to the story regarding scientific research (note it is lamb, not beef):

http/www.newstatesman.com/200705210019

A study conducted by New Zealand's Lincoln University found that producing one kilogram of lamb in the UK was four times as costly in carbon terms as producing the same amount in New Zealand; even taking into account the environmental cost of transport, some imported foods may be far less energy-intensive than their local counterparts. Studies in Germany and the UK have reached similar conclusions,

Further details about who conducted the research are here: http/www.lincoln.ac.nz/story21175.html

The fact you weren't aware of how NZ produced animals can be more better fro the environment shows you don't know the full ecological cost of buying local produce over foreign. And exactly where are your "well founded" examples that buying locally is definitely better for the environment, especially considering how energy intensive farming in the UK is?

To turn things around, do you really know what the price is? Perhaps its your turn to start backing up your statements with evidence/proof/facts etc.

I have provided the above. I have not seen a single example in science to show that local food is always the best for the environment. When I consider the environment, I realise we all live in the same world. That means I am prepared to look at the overall cost to the environment rather than how much our farmers are getting paid for what I buy. The above mentioned studies show that a global production network can provide a more environmentally kind product. Just think, the supermarkets could be helping to save the environment by buying from low energy intensity farming from foreign places. I woudl take saving the environment over some local farmer's job any day.

So, I have a scientific study showing solely relying on the UK for our production (as well as meaning we starve as the UK doesn't produce enough food) will be more damaging to the environment. Maybe you have some scientific studies to show that making sure everything we buy is produced in the UK is the most environmentally sound way?

Your article is very black and white and does not reveal the whole picture of the situation, check out this news article;

http/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml....xml&page=1

"Analysis of the industry reveals that for many foods, imported products are responsible for lower carbon dioxide emissions than the same foodstuffs produced in Britain. Even products shipped from the other side of the world emit fewer greenhouse gases than British equivalents.

The reasons are manifold. Sometimes it is because they require less fertiliser; sometimes, as with greenhouse crops, less energy; sometimes, as with much African produce, the farmers use little mechanised equipment. The findings are surprising environmental campaigners, who have, until now, used the distance travelled by food as the measure of how polluting it is."

"Researchers and farmers in Britain have raised doubts over the accuracy of the New Zealand figures"


""With meat in the UK, there is also a supermarket issue. Each of the supermarkets runs its own abattoir, so if you sell your lamb to Tesco, you have to send your lamb to Tesco's abattoir, even if you pass several local abattoirs on the way. As a result, the meat picks up a huge amount of 'in-Britain' food miles from farm to abattoir then to packaging before it gets to its final destination."

"If we could sort it out so that meat was slaughtered and packaged locally, it could make the whole process far more efficient."

"British apples are better for the environment during autumn and winter, but not in spring and summer"


"Prof Caroline Saunders, who led the research, said: "Food miles are a very simplistic concept, but it is misleading as it does not consider the total energy use, especially in the production of the product."

But other studies of fruit and vegetable production have revealed a more complex picture. Research by the centre for environmental strategy at Surrey University has shown that British apples are better for the environment during autumn and winter, but in spring and summer it is "greener" to import them."







So basically, the supermarkets (which you support) are one of the major reasons why food sold in this country is less environmentally friendly. The out of season stocking of fruit and veg and the supermarkets running of their own abotoirs, are a major reason why fruit, veg and meat is in general less environmentally friendly than the stuff produced abroad.

Lol, so in a way, the data you gave to support your arguement of what the supermarkets are doing, in actual reality proves they're one of the main causes of the problem in the first place .

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Oh, by the way Andy, if your "adapt or die" or "let the strong prosper" or whatever motto only applies to buisness, then how do you view battery farming? It is one of the most inhumane and immoral forms of farming, however it is also one of the most wide spread and profitable.
The fact that supermarkets support it, lowers my respect for them a great deal. You seem to refuse to admit/accept there is anything not admirable about the way supermarkets are run, but surely you do not agree with battery farming?

 

[andywg]

Oh, by the way Andy, if your "adapt or die" or "let the strong prosper" or whatever motto only applies to buisness, then how do you view battery farming? It is one of the most inhumane and immoral forms of farming, however it is also one of the most wide spread and profitable.
The fact that supermarkets support it, lowers my respect for them a great deal. You seem to refuse to admit/accept there is anything not admirable about the way supermarkets are run, but surely you do not agree with battery farming?

*sigh*

I only ever said adapt or die. You brought in the "only the strong prosper" confusion because you couldn't (and still haven't been able to) deny that life does have that motto. You really are starting to grasp at straws where you refer to confusion over an issue where the misdirection was caused by you (see the example about society vs fossil history of man above).

I was using it to apply to business. You tried to bring society into it and I pointed out how our current society is not all life, and may welol not even be a very good example of life. Life thrives by adapt or die. Can we truly consider our society better than whatever social structure crocodiles or sharks have when they have lived for so much longer than us?

Talk to any business executive about staying in business and they will tell you the same. Businesses that do not adapt will die.

To your last point in detail, I do not agree with battery farming. At heart I tend to be an empathetic person who would like to see a good outcome for all (including foreigners, rather than a "so long as my local farmer has money I don't care about the rest of the world". I try and pursuade people that battery farmed is not the ethical thing to buy. The fact is, many people don't care. Hopefully one day people will care more at which point the supermarkets and stores will have to reduce their reliance on battery farming or else face the prospect of dying as people move to free range and/or organic (assuming the labellers stop whoring the "free range" label).

Supermarkets also support organic and free range products, so for that they get credit in my book.

 

[andywg]

Your article is very black and white and does not reveal the whole picture of the situation, check out this news article;

http/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml....xml&page=1

"Analysis of the industry reveals that for many foods, imported products are responsible for lower carbon dioxide emissions than the same foodstuffs produced in Britain. Even products shipped from the other side of the world emit fewer greenhouse gases than British equivalents.

The reasons are manifold. Sometimes it is because they require less fertiliser; sometimes, as with greenhouse crops, less energy; sometimes, as with much African produce, the farmers use little mechanised equipment. The findings are surprising environmental campaigners, who have, until now, used the distance travelled by food as the measure of how polluting it is."

"Researchers and farmers in Britain have raised doubts over the accuracy of the New Zealand figures"

Of course the British farmers don't like it, it would mean that the greenies would have to buy NZ lamb and other foreign goods. Heaven forbid we put the environment on a global scale before our farmers!

""With meat in the UK, there is also a supermarket issue. Each of the supermarkets runs its own abattoir, so if you sell your lamb to Tesco, you have to send your lamb to Tesco's abattoir, even if you pass several local abattoirs on the way. As a result, the meat picks up a huge amount of 'in-Britain' food miles from farm to abattoir then to packaging before it gets to its final destination."

"If we could sort it out so that meat was slaughtered and packaged locally, it could make the whole process far more efficient."

But considering how the transport is not all the problem, I doubt it would make the British Lamb cleaner for the environment. Why? Because otherwise the British farmers would have claimed so.

So basically, the supermarkets (which you support) are one of the major reasons why food sold in this country is less environmentally friendly. The out of season stocking of fruit and veg and the supermarkets running of their own abotoirs, are a major reason why fruit, veg and meat is in general less environmentally friendly than the stuff produced abroad.

Lol, so in a way, the data you gave to support your arguement of what the supermarkets are doing, in actual reality proves they're one of the main causes of the problem in the first place .

Umm, would you like to perhaps cast that "your link helps my argument" mirror at yourself. Note the points here:

""Prof Caroline Saunders, who led the research, said: "Food miles are a very simplistic concept, but it is misleading as it does not consider the total energy use, especially in the production of the product."

But other studies of fruit and vegetable production have revealed a more complex picture. Research by the centre for environmental strategy at Surrey University has shown that British apples are better for the environment during autumn and winter, but in spring and summer it is "greener" to import them.""

Remember the point about food miles being very simplistic. This means that just choosing local foods is a lazy way to approach being environmentaly friendly. Out of interest, what apples (especially as you hate just having granny smiths) are grown and picked in mid winter in the UK? And I can't somehow see low intensity (non battery) farming in the UK being able to sustain our somewhat large population.

The simple fact is you haven't defeated my point at all. I said that not all foods will be better for the environment on a global scale. You come back with a link that says some products are at some times of the year, but cannot argue against the fact that food miles are not the be all and end all. At some point we may have to decide, global environment, or local farmers. I say again, I know where my vote goes.

And where would you draw the line on only buying local? Once you have abolished the sale of any foreign foods, would we then have to have an English beef vs Scottish beef debate, maybe ban those evil jocks from polluting the world driving their meat and cows down form up there? Then maybe we could section off England (south east vs midlands vs north east vs north west vs south west)? I could end up eating only things that are grown and produced in South East Essex.

Or maybe not. Maybe we could take a cold look at the true environmental cost of the food we buy (including when we buy it) regardless of sentimental feelings for local businesses. And it could be better for taste. All those people moaning that supermarkets don't hang meat long enough, if you go to some very nice steak restaurants in London the beef is hung for the journey over, providing the sort of meat those with finer tastes crave, and at the same time it could be saving the environment. Win-Win, eh?


The ultimate message from me here? Don't take everything at face value, and certainly don't just believe anythign the greenies tell you. If they had their way we would all buy British Lamb. Let's look at the numbers in the scientific study to see what that would mean:

According to here the average consumption of lamb per year is 3kg in England. The last census in 2001 (according to wiki) had our population at 49,138,831. that gives an annual consumption of 147,416,493 kg, or 147.5 tonnes.

British lamb production (from your link) is at a rate of 2,849 kg of Carbon emissions per tonne, so 420,227.5 kg, or 420 tonnes per year to feed us all at current population levels. New Zealand lamb production is at a rate of 688 kg pre tonne, despite travelling 11,000 miles, so would give annual carbon emissions of 101,480 kg, or 101.5 tonnes.

So, supermarkets, by offering us NZ lamb, can save us over 300 tonnes per year of carbon emissions. Suddenly the local farmer doesn't seem such a green idea. According to this article each car in the UK uses 4.3 tonnes per year. Just by stocking NZ lamb we can save the equivalent of taking around 74 average cars off the road.

So remember, look deeper; the environment is a very complex area and sound bites do not tell the whole story.

 

[CFC]

And where would you draw the line on only buying local? Once you have abolished the sale of any foreign foods, would we then have to have an English beef vs Scottish beef debate, maybe ban those evil jocks from polluting the world driving their meat and cows down form up there? Then maybe we could section off England (south east vs midlands vs north east vs north west vs south west)? I could end up eating only things that are grown and produced in South East Essex.

Thats a great idea, when are you running for office? You've won my vote

 

[andywg]

Thats a great idea, when are you running for office? You've won my vote

Don't laugh. I don't think there is too much farming round by you. All you will get is wated bird seed from pigeons and the left over burgers from Twickenham rugby matches...

 

[OohFeeshy]

And it could be better for taste. All those people moaning that supermarkets don't hang meat long enough, if you go to some very nice steak restaurants in London the beef is hung for the journey over, providing the sort of meat those with finer tastes crave, and at the same time it could be saving the environment. Win-Win, eh?

Semi-on-that-note, one of the more technical/scientific food programs did tests with steaks hung for varying amounts of time. They found that hanging only improves it up to a point, and after that point it actually doesn't taste as good. I had a look for the website, but since I can't remember the name of the programe or owt I couldn't find it.

Edit- oh, here we are. T'was Heston Blumenthal – In Search Of Perfection. A very interesting program indeed.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Oh, by the way Andy, if your "adapt or die" or "let the strong prosper" or whatever motto only applies to buisness, then how do you view battery farming? It is one of the most inhumane and immoral forms of farming, however it is also one of the most wide spread and profitable.
The fact that supermarkets support it, lowers my respect for them a great deal. You seem to refuse to admit/accept there is anything not admirable about the way supermarkets are run, but surely you do not agree with battery farming?

*sigh*

I only ever said adapt or die. You brought in the "only the strong prosper" confusion because you couldn't (and still haven't been able to) deny that life does have that motto. You really are starting to grasp at straws where you refer to confusion over an issue where the misdirection was caused by you (see the example about society vs fossil history of man above).

I was using it to apply to business. You tried to bring society into it and I pointed out how our current society is not all life, and may welol not even be a very good example of life. Life thrives by adapt or die. Can we truly consider our society better than whatever social structure crocodiles or sharks have when they have lived for so much longer than us?

Talk to any business executive about staying in business and they will tell you the same. Businesses that do not adapt will die.

To your last point in detail, I do not agree with battery farming. At heart I tend to be an empathetic person who would like to see a good outcome for all (including foreigners, rather than a "so long as my local farmer has money I don't care about the rest of the world". I try and pursuade people that battery farmed is not the ethical thing to buy. The fact is, many people don't care. Hopefully one day people will care more at which point the supermarkets and stores will have to reduce their reliance on battery farming or else face the prospect of dying as people move to free range and/or organic (assuming the labellers stop whoring the "free range" label).

Supermarkets also support organic and free range products, so for that they get credit in my book.

But just because supermarkets support organic and free range products, does that make the fact that they sell battery farmed products any better?

And to turn things around- "so long as my local farmer has money I don't care about the rest of the world" is not my main point. I am all for the well being and rights of foreign workers, but you do not seem concerned about that when i raised concerns about the issues of some of the working conditions of african workers employed supermarkets who were being exposed to toxic chemicals which were have a negative effect on their health, you seem to think this is ok as long as they're getting employed even if at the expense of their health- if you really cared, you would be against such workers getting abused by the system as they currently are.
The way things currently are, african workers are getting employed at the expense of their health and the well being of our own. Do you seriously see no issues with this?

I was using it to apply to business

Well battery farming is buisness. You disagree about battery farming, but then again this ignores your "strong or die" motto. What do you have to say to that- you can't have it both ways. On the one hand you somehow expect farmers to miraculously come up with cheap animal products but still expect the farmer to somehow afford to give the animal some sort of quality of life when the supermarket is paying 3p for every chicken he sells.

The cheaper the price someone pays for an animal, the more the farmer has to reduce the quality of life of the animal as the less money he can afford to pay to give that animal any quality of life.


On my mothers farm, years ago we used to own and raise our own cattle. Over the years, supermarkets and foreign competeticion forced the price payed for cows so low, that while it took us to spend £500 to raise each cow, we were only getting payed £400's for each cow.
The only way we could have stayed in the profit, was to reduce the quality of life for the years, keep them locked up in over-crowded barns all year long and feed them off poor quality food, slaughter the cows while they were still only calves etc. We refused to do this, so we stopped farming/owning cows.


You gloryfy the cheap costs supermarkets offer for their foods, but the less you pay the less quality of life the animal is likely to get- this is all buisness. Battery farming is buisness. Where can you apply your motto to this with your morals?

Do you not sympthathise for farmers who go out of buisness because they refuse to reduce the quality of life of their livestock to meet the cheap price demands of the supermarkets?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

So basically, the supermarkets (which you support) are one of the major reasons why food sold in this country is less environmentally friendly. The out of season stocking of fruit and veg and the supermarkets running of their own abotoirs, are a major reason why fruit, veg and meat is in general less environmentally friendly than the stuff produced abroad.

Lol, so in a way, the data you gave to support your arguement of what the supermarkets are doing, in actual reality proves they're one of the main causes of the problem in the first place .

Umm, would you like to perhaps cast that "your link helps my argument" mirror at yourself. Note the points here:

""Prof Caroline Saunders, who led the research, said: "Food miles are a very simplistic concept, but it is misleading as it does not consider the total energy use, especially in the production of the product."

But other studies of fruit and vegetable production have revealed a more complex picture. Research by the centre for environmental strategy at Surrey University has shown that British apples are better for the environment during autumn and winter, but in spring and summer it is "greener" to import them.""

Remember the point about food miles being very simplistic. This means that just choosing local foods is a lazy way to approach being environmentaly friendly. Out of interest, what apples (especially as you hate just having granny smiths) are grown and picked in mid winter in the UK? And I can't somehow see low intensity (non battery) farming in the UK being able to sustain our somewhat large population.

The simple fact is you haven't defeated my point at all. I said that not all foods will be better for the environment on a global scale. You come back with a link that says some products are at some times of the year, but cannot argue against the fact that food miles are not the be all and end all. At some point we may have to decide, global environment, or local farmers. I say again, I know where my vote goes.

And where would you draw the line on only buying local? Once you have abolished the sale of any foreign foods, would we then have to have an English beef vs Scottish beef debate, maybe ban those evil jocks from polluting the world driving their meat and cows down form up there? Then maybe we could section off England (south east vs midlands vs north east vs north west vs south west)? I could end up eating only things that are grown and produced in South East Essex.

Or maybe not. Maybe we could take a cold look at the true environmental cost of the food we buy (including when we buy it) regardless of sentimental feelings for local businesses. And it could be better for taste. All those people moaning that supermarkets don't hang meat long enough, if you go to some very nice steak restaurants in London the beef is hung for the journey over, providing the sort of meat those with finer tastes crave, and at the same time it could be saving the environment. Win-Win, eh?


The ultimate message from me here? Don't take everything at face value, and certainly don't just believe anythign the greenies tell you. If they had their way we would all buy British Lamb. Let's look at the numbers in the scientific study to see what that would mean:

According to here the average consumption of lamb per year is 3kg in England. The last census in 2001 (according to wiki) had our population at 49,138,831. that gives an annual consumption of 147,416,493 kg, or 147.5 tonnes.

British lamb production (from your link) is at a rate of 2,849 kg of Carbon emissions per tonne, so 420,227.5 kg, or 420 tonnes per year to feed us all at current population levels. New Zealand lamb production is at a rate of 688 kg pre tonne, despite travelling 11,000 miles, so would give annual carbon emissions of 101,480 kg, or 101.5 tonnes.

So, supermarkets, by offering us NZ lamb, can save us over 300 tonnes per year of carbon emissions. Suddenly the local farmer doesn't seem such a green idea. According to this article each car in the UK uses 4.3 tonnes per year. Just by stocking NZ lamb we can save the equivalent of taking around 74 average cars off the road.

So remember, look deeper; the environment is a very complex area and sound bites do not tell the whole story.

I see you choose to ignore a very important part of the the article Andy, which if you included it in your post, would change a great deal of things;



""With meat in the UK, there is also a supermarket issue. Each of the supermarkets runs its own abattoir, so if you sell your lamb to Tesco, you have to send your lamb to Tesco's abattoir, even if you pass several local abattoirs on the way. As a result, the meat picks up a huge amount of 'in-Britain' food miles from farm to abattoir then to packaging before it gets to its final destination."

"If we could sort it out so that meat was slaughtered and packaged locally, it could make the whole process far more efficient."




What do you have to say to this? Fact, your glorious supermarkets are a part of british food products not being as environmentally friendly, although you choose not to adress this issue in your post.


I have never said food miles are the be all and end all of the situation- one of the reasons why i posted my news article, was because your original one was not as indepth on the subject and did not question as many issues.
Also i find it patronising that you repeat what in essence messages i have already said to you i.e. "So remember, look deeper; the environment is a very complex area and sound bites do not tell the whole story.". Lets keep the personal attacks aside i.e i'm "clutching at straws", i could very much apply such things to you in this post if i lowered myself to it- such personal attacks almost always generally lead to threads becomming less civilised, so regardless of what you think of a persons attitude, as long as they're acting in a civilised and mature manner, try to keep to the topic at hand and leave out the posts which could be taken as personally insulting, i know you are cleverer enough to know better.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

And it could be better for taste. All those people moaning that supermarkets don't hang meat long enough, if you go to some very nice steak restaurants in London the beef is hung for the journey over, providing the sort of meat those with finer tastes crave, and at the same time it could be saving the environment. Win-Win, eh?

Semi-on-that-note, one of the more technical/scientific food programs did tests with steaks hung for varying amounts of time. They found that hanging only improves it up to a point, and after that point it actually doesn't taste as good. I had a look for the website, but since I can't remember the name of the programe or owt I couldn't find it.

Edit- oh, here we are. T'was Heston Blumenthal – In Search Of Perfection. A very interesting program indeed.

Have you tasted the difference though? Of course hanging the meat inproves the taste, and of course like anything you can over-do it (decent sized water changes are beneficial for fish tanks, but you can take out too much at once, just as you can take out too little).
The longer the meat is hung the more it costs the supermarket, so supermarkets will hang meat for as little as posible as much as they can get away with it. If you speak to a professional chef, you will find that he is not buying the bloody red beef steaks at supermarkets for his cooking, but the properly hung/matured meat from elsewhere- do you know of any top chefs (which are not sponsered by supermarkets) who advise supermarket meat as better than locally produced properly hung meat?

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

And where would you draw the line on only buying local? Once you have abolished the sale of any foreign foods, would we then have to have an English beef vs Scottish beef debate, maybe ban those evil jocks from polluting the world driving their meat and cows down form up there? Then maybe we could section off England (south east vs midlands vs north east vs north west vs south west)? I could end up eating only things that are grown and produced in South East Essex.

Thats a great idea, when are you running for office? You've won my vote

You two completely misunderstand my point.

I would not be against foriegn food imports from third world countries in particular like places in africa or brazil or thailand etc, if the supermarkets actually practised more fair trade.

Fair trade means that both foreign and native farmers benefet- the foreign farmers getting a proper deal for products instead of being abused by our system, and our farmers are not forced out of the competeticion.

I think if andy was really on the side of foriegn farmers and not just for his wallet, then he would agree with fair trade even if he didn't like our own farmers.

Also, as in the article i gave, the supermarkets are a major part of why local sourced products are not as environmentally friendly as they could be, as explained in the article.