277
EU Lobbying: a 'scientific paper' describing efforts to reduce meat eating as ‘zealotry' turned out to be a propaganda tool against the EU’s green deal and beating cancer plan (web.archive.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/europe@feddit.de
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The 'Dublin Declaration of Scientists'm on the Societal Role of Livestock', launched at the Irish government agricultural agency Teagasc in October last year and signed by over 1,000 scientists, and was covered by newspapers including the Telegraph and the New York Post, is a short document that argues for the nutritional, environmental and social benefits of meat-eating. It says that livestock is “too precious to society to become the victim of simplification, reductionism or zealotry”.

But hundreds of pages of emails, meeting minutes and other documents obtained through freedom of information requests reveal that the Declaration was written, released and promoted by agribusiness consultants, and has been used by trade groups and lobbyists to oppose green policies in Europe.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

What's mysterious about the identification with meat-eating? If you learned to do something wrong, so that you are used to it, it takes severe effort to unlearn it. So, once you are confronted with it being wrong, you can either accept the fact and adjust or if you are not able to have to deal with the cognitive dissonance by strengthening your personality around the wrong and bend the facts in whatever way neccessarry to fit that bill.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    I'm referring more to people who were brought up with certain expectations and have never once in their lives considered those expectations. Not just around food, but everything. These same new generations I am referring to will have their own version of the same and some next gen people will complain about them the way we complain about boomers. Remember that we're all going to be boomers eventually, but not all people are built equal and many can adjust with these changes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm completely with you on everything you said and would like to add one missing point: Not every change has to be right.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    I'm also of the opinion that much of what changes over time is stylistic and cultural rather than necessary. People think that their parents' and grandparents' clothes look dated and press on to find the new, cool look. In the end, it's a bit like consumerism-driven cultural changes more than anything.

    I am further of the opinion that we've already reached a good technological peak in that all human needs can be met currently if we decide to put resources into it, although we can certainly find refinements and efficiencies in existing technologies. The limit isn't reached, but we might not really benefit from more. Rather, we should be focusing on improving the human experience instead of chase the next great thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent