Today the Guardian newspaper has pointed out a serious issue with the NHS menus. The NHS have a blanket ban on all smoking as it is in the patients best interests, but meat is perfectly acceptable. It has been near a year since the World Health Organisation (WHO) released ground breaking paper stating that red and processed meat are as dangerous to our health, as any cigarettes. Read more.
The NHS allows fast food chains in its hospitals. Patient menus offer a wide selection of meats every day. And creamed potatoes, beef casserole and sweet chilli pork and rice are recommended “healthier choices”. Patients can tuck into disease-promoting animal flesh, but do not enjoy unrestricted hedonism. Meat eaters who enjoy a relaxing cigarette after dinner are prevented from doing so, apparently in their own and others’ best interests, thanks to a blanket ban on smoking.
We’ve all seen people putting money in animal charity collection boxes with one hand, while eating a beef burger with the other. But even staring absurdity in the face, most of us don’t notice a problem. We only see it once we’re ready to. Until then we flick it away: “pets are different”, “pigs are meant to be eaten”, “we have to have our iron”, “all farmed animals are treated well”, “you can slaughter animals humanely”, and so on. Read more.
A report released by International Research Panel (IRP) urging world leaders to deliberately make meat products so expensive so as to discourage consumers from buying them.
Professor Maarten Hajer of Utrecht University in the Netherlands authored the report, released by the UN’s International Research Panel (IRP), which is comprised of 34 scientists and 30 governments.
“All of the harmful effects on the environment and on health needs to be priced into food products,” Hajer told The Washington Post. “I think it is extremely urgent.”
Meat, he argued, should be taxed at the wholesale level to raise the price and deter consumption. He and other members of the IRP assert that livestock creates 14.5 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that the panel says contribute to climate change.
“We think it’s better to price meats earlier in the chain,” Hajer told The Guardian. “It’s sexier to tax it at the consumer level, but not as effective.”
“Dealing with consumer choices is an extremely touchy issue, but you have to deal with it, because there will consequences,” former European Union environment commissioner Janez Potocnik told The Guardian. Potocnik is co-chairman of the IRP. “The time is coming when we will not be able to sweep it any more under the carpet.”
Rachel Premack, a columnist for The Washington Post’s Wongblog, said the UN’s report deserves serious consideration in the United States. “It may be delicious, but the evidence is accumulating that meat, particularly red meat, is just a disaster for the environment — and not so great for human beings, either,” she wrote, asserting that agriculture consumes 80 percent of water in the US – most of that being for meat.
For a kilogram of red meat, you need considerably more water than for plant products.” Premack added, “Along with a tax, a meat cutback could be achieved by making plant-based diets more appealing and less expensive.”
The below video is from a obviously angry meat eater but interesting non the less.