Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Sainsbury's to promote a vegetarian diet based on Oxford Uni scientist recomendations Watch

    • TSR Group Staff
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So finally a mainstream supermarket is stepping up and accepting that the consumption of meat is bad for our health and the health of the planet.

    This is refreshing in a time where most people are happy to put their fingers in their ears and ignore the health warnings from scientists and researchers that animal products are responsible for poor health and poor environment.

    And for those of you that don't care about your health, the health of other sentient beings, or the health of our planet, you will also save money by being vegetarian through earning vouchers and additional reward points.

    Full Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...at-consumption

    What are your thoughts? Do you care? If not then why not (ignorant bravado)?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kalclash)
    So finally a mainstream supermarket is stepping up and accepting that the consumption of meat is bad for our health and the health of the planet.
    This is a broad-brush health claim which is not backed up by the scientific evidence without further qualification of your statement

    The consumption of meat is NOT 'bad for our health'.
    • TSR Group Staff
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    This is a broad brush health claim which is not backed up by the scientific evidence without further qualification of your statement

    The consumption of meat is NOT 'bad for our health'.
    The World Health Organisation has labelled processed meat as a Group 1 carcinogen and red meat as a Group 2 carcinogen. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that points towards animal products as leading to heart disease, cancer and other health issues.

    The impact of animal products on the human body is not new news, it is however only now becoming more widely believed and accepted.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    You've now introduced a new word to your original claim: 'processed'. This is not what you originally said. As for your other spurious claim about red meat, this is what the WHO actually says about it:

    7. Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean exactly? In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence. Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.

    Reference: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

    Again, this isn't quite as clear cut as you'd like it to be. 'Limited evidence...positive association' is very far from your much more concrete assertions of risks to health. But you know this anyway don't you: it just doesn't fit with your narrative so you avoid addressing it.

    There is in no way any 'overwhelming scientific evidence' that animal products lead to the hysterical outcomes you suggest. This is just propaganda, but most people will know this anyway. You really shouldn't peddle hysteria without at least being concrete on the evidence (and its shortcomings) which you're trying to rely on.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I don't really understand the project. How does Sainsbury's profit?

    If it's just an attempt to show themselves to be 'responsible' I for one am really not endeared to a seller which wants to 'encourage' me to live one lifestyle rather than another, and would rather take my business somewhere where they will just shut up and take my money in exchange for the stuff I want.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kalclash)
    So finally a mainstream supermarket is stepping up and accepting that the consumption of meat is bad for our health and the health of the planet.

    This is refreshing in a time where most people are happy to put their fingers in their ears and ignore the health warnings from scientists and researchers that animal products are responsible for poor health and poor environment.

    And for those of you that don't care about your health, the health of other sentient beings, or the health of our planet, you will also save money by being vegetarian through earning vouchers and additional reward points.

    Full Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...at-consumption

    What are your thoughts? Do you care? If not then why not (ignorant bravado)?
    No I will not be going vegetarian.....why you may ask BACON that's why.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    You've now introduced a new word to your original claim: 'processed'. This is not what you originally said. As for your other spurious claim about red meat, this is what the WHO actually says about it:

    7. Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean exactly? In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence. Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.

    Reference: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

    Again, this isn't quite as clear cut as you'd like it to be. 'Limited evidence...positive association' is very far from your much more concrete assertions of risks to health. But you know this anyway don't you: it just doesn't fit with your narrative so you avoid addressing it.

    There is in no way any 'overwhelming scientific evidence' that animal products lead to the hysterical outcomes you suggest. This is just propaganda, but most people will know this anyway. You really shouldn't peddle hysteria without at least being concrete on the evidence (and its shortcomings) which you're trying to rely on.
    From that same page:

    This evaluation by IARC reinforces a 2002 recommendation from WHO that people who eat meat should moderate the consumption of processed meat to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. Some other dietary guidelines also recommend limiting consumption of red meat or processed meat, but these are focused mainly on reducing the intake of fat and sodium, which are risk factors for cardiovascular disease and obesity. Individuals who are concerned about cancer could consider reducing their consumption of red meat or processed meat until updated guidelines related specifically to cancer have been developed.
    Nobody is arguing that eating meat is a prime killer, but there is a very strong scientific basis for claiming that moderating your meat consumption is good for your health. A substance does not need to be as dangerous as, for example, smoking for there to be a good basis for recommending moderation.

    And of course, the environmental benefits are obvious and many.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    From that same page:



    Nobody is arguing that eating meat is a prime killer, but there is a very strong scientific basis for claiming that moderating your meat consumption is good for your health. A substance does not need to be as dangerous as, for example, smoking for there to be a good basis for recommending moderation.

    And of course, the environmental benefits are obvious and many.
    I have no problem with that, and totally agree with you that moderating meat consumption is probably good for your health. What I take issue with, I think fairly, is a rather blanket assertion that 'the consumption of meat is bad for you' which was the OP's original claim, and for which no credible scientific evidence exists.

    There are too many spurious health claims about food around, particularly at the moment - shouldn't we be proceeding on the basis of sound science rather than snappy soundbites which use careless wording that results in misunderstandings?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is fantastic news! More supermarkets need to follow suit to help reduce the demand for meat. From a public health perspective, we should all be concerned about widespread antibiotic use in animal agriculture as a driving force for antibiotic resistance, potentially plunging us back into the pre antibiotic era. Not worth all the bacon sarnies in the world imho.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kalclash)
    So finally a mainstream supermarket is stepping up and accepting that the consumption of meat is bad for our health and the health of the planet.

    This is refreshing in a time where most people are happy to put their fingers in their ears and ignore the health warnings from scientists and researchers that animal products are responsible for poor health and poor environment.
    I think this is brilliant news becoming vegan or encouraging a similar lifestyle often gets a lot of ridicule, so it's a great idea for a supermarket to encourage shoppers to cut back on their meat consumption without being too 'in your face' about it. Will probably encourage a lot more people to go veggie.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    I have no problem with that, and totally agree with you that moderating meat consumption is probably good for your health. What I take issue with, I think fairly, is a rather blanket assertion that 'the consumption of meat is bad for you' which was the OP's original claim, and for which no credible scientific evidence exists.

    There are too many spurious health claims about food around, particularly at the moment - shouldn't we be proceeding on the basis of sound science rather than snappy soundbites which use careless wording that results in misunderstandings?
    Well bloody said!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Is chicken giving us cancer now? How about fish, or eggs? They doing it too? smfh
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kalclash)
    So finally a mainstream supermarket is stepping up and accepting that the consumption of meat is bad for our health and the health of the planet.

    This is refreshing in a time where most people are happy to put their fingers in their ears and ignore the health warnings from scientists and researchers that animal products are responsible for poor health and poor environment.

    And for those of you that don't care about your health, the health of other sentient beings, or the health of our planet, you will also save money by being vegetarian through earning vouchers and additional reward points.

    Full Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...at-consumption

    What are your thoughts? Do you care? If not then why not (ignorant bravado)?
    Problem with being a vegan is you eat more to get thicker on waist end, which also is more expensive and not the same tastes, lets also not forget your very limited on what you eat. Vegetarian development need massive investment, but I think once the massive development has happened I'm sure majority would go vegan, its just the current vegan state isn't good.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    When I was diagnosed with anemia my doctor recommended red meat for me..why would he do that if it's bad for my health?
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Too dull a subject. Galf of the article is concerned with environmental impact.
    Imo the article was about getting people to eat a more balaned die. More fruit and veg for greater nutrition. I cnat see the harm in that. Its not suggesting people go vegetarian, just they have their five a day.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    Is chicken giving us cancer now? How about fish, or eggs? They doing it too? smfh
    According to the news this morning, toast, bread and crisps are. :sad:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kalclash)
    So finally a mainstream supermarket is stepping up and accepting that the consumption of meat is bad for our health and the health of the planet.

    This is refreshing in a time where most people are happy to put their fingers in their ears and ignore the health warnings from scientists and researchers that animal products are responsible for poor health and poor environment.

    And for those of you that don't care about your health, the health of other sentient beings, or the health of our planet, you will also save money by being vegetarian through earning vouchers and additional reward points.

    Full Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...at-consumption

    What are your thoughts? Do you care? If not then why not (ignorant bravado)?
    The over-consumption of meat that prevails in much of the western world is the threat, not consumption per-se. Too much red meat in particular. Most western meat eaters eat about 3-4 times more meat than is healthy. This is encouraged by heavy marketing, supermarkets and social pressures from places like restaurants and burger chains.

    There is simply not enough productive land in the world (and productive land area is declining) to produce all the animal feedstuffs to support the western meat-intensive diet if it is taken up in the rest of the world. Efforts by burger chains to penetrate global markets like China, India and Africa are succeeding in boosting their demand for meat as well. The inevitable result will be major global food shortages in the coming years. There will also be huge climate change effects as countries attempt to scale up the beef herds. Brazil is destroying forest to replace with grazing cattle, as are many other countries.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    According to the news this morning, toast, bread and crisps are. :sad:
    Yeah, if you burn them :rofl:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    Yeah, if you burn them :rofl:
    Apparently, toast should be golden-coloured. I am not sure if crisps are already considered 'burnt'? :confused:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Meat, poultry, fish is the worst isle to stock in the morning. I say good riddance
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 26, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.