We are urgently developing research requirements with other European laboratories to make sure we understand and the disease (Schmallenberg) better.BBC accused of climate change 'bias'
THE English meat industry has blasted the BBC for allowing ‘anti-meat eating lobbies’ to ‘hijack’ the climate change agenda.
The English Beef and Lamb Executive (Eblex) said an item aired at the start of the One Show on BBC1 last night (Monday, December 7) portrayed the meat industry as the ‘scapegoat for global emissions’.
In an opening piece to camera Lucy Siegle, journalist and environmentalist, said: “Eighteen months ago I stopped eating meat to save the planet and I think if more people did the same then we would be well on our way to a sustainable future.
“Experts say we need to reduce animal farming by up to a third if climate change targets are to be met,” she added.
Charles Campion, a food critic, was intended to ‘balance’ the argument but Eblex complained the industry had not been represented and the show failed to use the facts and figures it had provided.
James Wilde, Eblex spokesman, wrote to the One Show to express his ‘disappointment’.
“We did not realise the BBC had adopted an editorial policy of encouraging the population to eat less meat,” he wrote.
“None of the statistics we supplied were used as far as we could tell, and the piece came across as a soapbox for Lucy Siegle to push vegetarian views.”
Mr Wilde said ‘sweeping statements’ were unhelpful and that one measure in isolation would not solve the problem.
“‘Experts agree’ that cutting meat consumption by a third would meet emissions targets,” he said, but added: “They also agree that if driving was banned on the planet, we could all eat as much meat as we wanted.”
Globally, livestock production is thought to contribute between 14-18 per cent to greenhouse gas emissions. In the UK that figure is between 5-7 per cent and emissions have been cut by 17 per cent since 1990.
“The truth is that in the UK, because of our climate, geography and expertise, we have one of the most efficient livestock production industries in the world. The picture painted last night bore little or no resemblance to the situation in the UK,” said Mr Wilde.
Last week Eblex launched an industry roadmap setting out how the beef and sheep farmers will cut emissions by 11 per cent by 2020 (from current levels) to meet Government targets.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (14)
Anonymous | 9 December 2009 6:45 pm
That's to be expected coming from Mr Wilde, I am sure he won't be complaining if it was the other way around. The truth is livestock production creates more then 51% of human-caused global greenhouse gas emissions according to a recent paper published by former and current World Bank environmental experts in the World Watch Magazine http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294.
The 18% figure is an old figure from the 2006 FAO Livestock’s Long Shadow report.
As for Mr Wilde saying "experts agree" that if driving was banned on the planet, we could all eat as much meat as we wanted.
By this logic they also agree that if meat was banned on the planet, we could keep on driving our SUVs, flying around the planet and have as many showers as we wanted.
So it is not the BBC that is biased but it is Mr. Wilde who represents the livestock industry that is biased.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
sebastian miro | 9 December 2009 7:13 pm
Meat and dairy industry is a real global threat, in terms of deforestation, pollution, water and grains misuse, greenhouse gases emissions, and the vast financial cost to treat illnesses related to eating meat and dairy; solution Mr Wilde: if you see your meat business is crumbling; why dont you simple choose another activity? that improves people s health; protect forest, channel water and grain to people instead of factory farms, protect water sources; a sustainable activity with the environment that avoids the lifelong cruel treatment that any animal receives since they are born till they are killed for consumption. I like happy endings
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Worldwatcher | 9 December 2009 10:42 pm
Mr. Miro, maybe Mr. Wilde hasn't yet chosen another activity because he hasn't yet been informed of initiatives by cattlemen in the U.S., documented here: http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Will-Climate-Change-Proposals-Pay-You-Enough-To-Quit-Farming/2009-12-07/Article.aspx?oid=964725&fid=VN-HOT_TOPICS&aid=760
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous2 | 9 December 2009 11:02 pm
Please Mr. Wilde,wake up from your silken slumber, the evidences are so clear. Every year 56 billion livestock are killed for food. Now that means that we have many times over this number in living livestock and since it is proven that the methan emitted by these livestock is dozens of times more heat-trapping than CO2, you don't need to be an expert to figure it out yourself. So everbody,
please Be Vegan, Go Green and Save the Planet.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10 December 2009 1:01 am
Latest figures show that livestock production accounts for 51% of GHGs in the atmosphere. Livestock is responsible for GHG (greenhouse gases) more potent than CO2. For eg methane is 72 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat into the atmosphere but breaks down in 7-10 years as opposed to about 100 years for CO2. Nitrous oxide from the livestock industry is 296 times stronger than CO2 at holding in heat. To compare livestock with driving a car is totally naive as the livestock industry has manifold problems to our environment and their GHGs are more potent than CO2 and much shorter lived. Livestock farming is unsustainable which can be seen by livestock producers requiring government and tax payer money to survive. If there were no governmental subsidies for the livestock industry then the cost would be significantly higher and we would eat far less of it and not have such environmental degradation as we are seeing now.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Be Vegan | 10 December 2009 6:41 am
Livestock emissions contribute to 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions, obvioulsy Mr. Wilde wants to protect his industry but at what cost? If we want to save the planet we have to stop eating meat. Not only can you not compare cars to livestock (since the contribution of livestock is much larger than all cars, trucks and airplanes combined) but its the most easy and effective and simple way to reduce greenhouse gasses. Every person just simply gives up the piece of meat on their plates. No need to change your life, or stop living or stop driving (which is simply not possible) Just eat vegetarian products instead of meat. Its really not a big deal? It is just a piece of meat! Not only will you be far healthier, so will the planet. Less Geenhouse gas emissions, and also less grains being fed to livestock while our brothers and sisters in many parts of Africa are dying of hunger. (Did I mention 70% of the Amazon is cut down for livestock feed, according to the U.N) We have so little fresh water on the planet - but we give it to cattle to drink and in turn dump the fecal run off from livestock into our freshwater rivers etc, which end up polluting our freshwater supplies. Be a hero, for yourself, and the planet - just be vegan, its SO EASY.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bazza Hawkeye | 11 December 2009 2:45 pm
The whole climate change debate is based upon mis-leading "evidence" from so called scientific experts who have been proved are cooking the books to suit thier theories. The climate is changing and there is nothing mankind can do about it. It happens to be due to a little thing called nature! Ice age, heat age, ice age, heat age, ad nauseum. Crusties, bunny huggers and lentil eaters all gather under the ecology banner. For some reason BBC and others give them credibility. 100 years ago they would have been in the workhouses or mental institutions. Why have we allowed them to hijack our lives. ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11 December 2009 4:49 pm
Rubbish!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11 December 2009 6:54 pm
All these anti meat eating folk seem to have missed a vital point: a lot of waste food unfit for human consuption such as sugar beet pulp, brewers grains etc would be going into landfill and producing a slow release of methane as the products break down - so cattle are doing everyone a favour by reducing landfill and methane emissions, as well as producing food on land unsuitable for arable crops, so helping to meet the demand of an increasing population.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mick MOOR | 12 December 2009 9:51 am
I am sick to death with listening to urban imperialists spouting forth on their lifestyles. I repeat, without farmers, they would have to hunt/ gather their food every day. Over millennia, the best way of producing food in a particular place has evolved; we can't grow arable crops where I live, but we contribute by producing milk and meat. The wonderful Peak District landscape about which these people wax lyrical has been created by this very process, and nothing else!
Mick MOOR
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment