I am aware of the global implications of the meat industry, covered in the second programme.
Shame Horizon put it all over so poorly
Again the point that seemed to be mad, not that well is eat a lot less meat.
The growth hormones and antibiotics issue skirted over very quickly as was so much.

Who decides to make these programme like this ?

Watching the second programme reinforces what a poor job the Horizon crew do.
Michael Lachmann appears to be the main culprit and Mosely must have input so he must take blame too.

If this was supposed to be informative and educational about 5/10

We have a new oxymoron
"ethical carnivore"
I prefer willful ignorance

Massive subject that could have been covered so much better with a lot less padding and jollying around the world.

"I'd rather be born and stay alive. "


Tough that ain't the issue. As stated animals are bred for consumption. The moral question all veggies ignore is the question of no existence versus existence to eaten. All British lambs live in fields.

And they won't because they know all too well it would be career suicide to do so. There would need to be a collective decision and that won't happen until the problem becomes far more acute than it is currently.



Indeed, and these are issues governments are going to have to address, and in a properly creative manner, rather than fanny around doing just enough to appeal to the green lobby, which is generally what is going on now. We had it easy in the latter part of the twentieth century, especially here in Britain. North Sea Oil and its subsequent riches lulled us into a false sense of security and little was done by successive governments to create a financial buffer for the problems that they knew fine well back in the 1970's were lurking just around the corner.

Actually it's not only oil which is the issue but also the scarcity of rare earth elements (the largest deposits of which sit within Chinese territories), gold, copper, bauxite etc, etc. The list goes on. We can't keep taking from the earth in the quantities we are, that's a given, our lifestyles need to change big time if we are to survive. That in itself is a selfish view as it will not only be humans who suffer but the entire ecosphere as a whole. Do we honestly want be bearing that kind of responsibility on our shoulders?

It really is time to be blunt about these things, in fact such bluntness is long overdue. Our choices are limited already and they will only lessen with time if significant action is not forthcoming. We can all play our part in this if the incentive is there, and what better incentive than our continued survival. Those who won't conform or want to go out in a blaze of glory can do so, give them all melee weapons and let them fight it out amongst themselves on some remote Pacific atoll. Bit harsh but its one solution

You continually skirt around the edge like a virgin at a prom. Simple fact is the animals i eat would not have been born if they c weren't going to end up at morrisons. It isa simple choice born to be eaten or never exist. 

Curious isnt it, how one goes to join a thread, views the current particpants, and reaches for the nosegay, wondering whether ones time could be better spent elsewhere.  Even though I sort of agree with some comments.  I lived for 7 years with a dedicated near vegan, (but mercifully not quite vegan) vegetarian, and am enjoying life and food much more now I don't.  We managed some good compromises - I ate a lot more vegetarian, holidayed in Turkey instead of France, and she cooked me a steak for my birthday - real cow steak.

She undoubtedly influenced my thinking, and I make a conscious choice of knowing where meat comes from, and only knowingly paying for produce reared without cruelty.  So no Fois Gras, and no veal, but also no cheap chickens - only free range.  Like Dina was prepared to accept cheese in French pizzas was vegetarian until proven otherwise, I don't check where the chicken in my British Airways sandwich comes from.  But where I can exercise the choice, I do, for meat produced without cruelty.

I know I can be an arrogant bugger, but I don't presume to play God, and decide that evolution should work some other way. The fauna on this planet is the way it is because of a food chain and its consequences.  I'm not sure its a bright or helpful idea buggering about with that.  So no veggie - but committed to no cruelty in farming.

I thank you for motivating me towards a higher degree of semantic precision in future . 

Happy to help. A good rule of thumb is to substitute the word 'some' or 'most' for the word 'all' when making a statement; thus 'most swans are white' is more accurate than 'all swans are white'. 

Indeed. Sometimes, of course, pedantry is useful; for example in the small print in a legal agreement, it is important that the precise meaning of each word is clear, as uncertainty/ambiguity might lead to financial loss or, in extremis, to prosecution. That is why the legal profession is attractive to those of a pedantic bent.