Hugh's War on Waste

VfM4meplse

Caterina wrote: »

I am (99.9% of the time) an almost lifelong vegetarian, with odd foraging into vegan. After many judgemental years I have come to the conclusion, in my older years, that I cannot change the world by bearing a grudge to people who do not live like me.

If you hold a gripe about someone breeding cattle for meat, then you need to hold a gripe with each and every person who eats it too, those who wear leather, wool, silk, who eat cheese, honey, eggs...by implied connection we are all culprits.

It would be lovely to live in an OS run, peacefully vegan society, but it ain't gonna happen in my lifetime, so I just live as lightly as I can, stumbling on my double standards now and then, a fish and chips here, a slice of chorizo there, but trying my best and gently going back to my ways after failing yet again.

So does Hugh and everyone else, we are all human and for one I applaud each and every effort anybody does to improve life for people, animals and the Earth.

The point is, he's not in a position to set himself on a pedestal and preach to the rest of us. Yet he does.

Gigervamp

How does he set himself on a pedestal? And he's not preaching, he's teaching. How many people would have realised the terrible conditions that battery and broiler chickens live in, if he hadn't done his TV shows about it?

moneyistooshorttomention

He's not telling people to do something he doesn't do himself from what I can see.

I can think of people who preach environmentalism - but the next second you spot them on a plane or having more than 2 children and think ********es.

But he isn't preaching vegetarianism and practicing meat-eating. He advocates "eating the lot" and he "eats the lot" and that's consistent and not at all hypocritical.

The fact that some of us (including me) disagree with him eating meat doesn't detract from the overall message he is preaching in any way.

As far as I can see - he is being honest/consistent in his message and that counts for something.

martinsurrey

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

He's not telling people to do something he doesn't do himself from what I can see.

I can think of people who preach environmentalism - but the next second you spot them on a plane or having more than 2 children and think ********es.

But he isn't preaching vegetarianism and practicing meat-eating. He advocates "eating the lot" and he "eats the lot" and that's consistent and not at all hypocritical.

The fact that some of us (including me) disagree with him eating meat doesn't detract from the overall message he is preaching in any way.

As far as I can see - he is being honest/consistent in his message and that counts for something.

its not his ethics that get me, its his economics.

Its quotes like this, when talking about a £6 free range chicken.

"It isn't that free-range chicken is expensive, it's that intensively reared chicken is ludicrously, and I would say shamefully, cheap"

Gigervamp

But he's right. Chickens are sentient creatures. Like cats and dogs, they each have their own personalities. Two of my girls were sisters, yet they were like chalk and cheese. One was quiet, but watchful. The other was like a ditzy blonde, who loved to perch on my shoulder and tell me all about her day.

And yet, cheap chickens are kept in horrible conditions, suffering burns from the ammonia, they're bred to grow fast, but their legs can't take the weight. They're killed at just over a month old. (My chicks took 4 months to grow to full size.) And all because the public think it's their right to eat cheap chicken, caring nothing about the life those poor chickens had.

Chicken should be expensive. You don't have to eat it, there are plenty of protein options, so the "my family has to eat and I'm on a limited budget" reply doesn't wash. I can't afford truffles (the fungi, not chocolates) so I make do with truffle oil instead.

Pollycat

martinsurrey wrote: »

its not his ethics that get me, its his economics.

Its quotes like this, when talking about a £6 free range chicken.

"It isn't that free-range chicken is expensive, it's that intensively reared chicken is ludicrously, and I would say shamefully, cheap"

I agree with the above.
Some of these so-called presenters have no concept that some families have NO choice at all to buy intensively reared chickens because that's all they can bloody afford!

Tom Kerridge - who I've always liked said on Food & Drink that people should be concerned about the origins of the meat they're eating.

Well, Tom (& Hugh), get in the real world where that ain't always possible when you're struggling to feed your family. :mad:

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Pollycat wrote: »

I agree with the above.
Some of these so-called presenters have no concept that some families have NO choice at all to buy intensively reared chickens because that's all they can bloody afford!

Tom Kerridge - who I've always liked said on Food & Drink that people should be concerned about the origins of the meat they're eating.

Well, Tom (& Hugh), get in the real world where that ain't always possible when you're struggling to feed your family. :mad:

They could choose to eat less or no meat? Definitely worth going semi or full time vegetarian if you're on a budget.

It's only relatively recently that humans (except for the likes of the Inuit) have eaten meat so often; daily or indeed at every meal. It cost our ancestors an awful lot of time and effort to keep livestock going over winter.

moneyistooshorttomention

martinsurrey wrote: »

its not his ethics that get me, its his economics.

Its quotes like this, when talking about a £6 free range chicken.

"It isn't that free-range chicken is expensive, it's that intensively reared chicken is ludicrously, and I would say shamefully, cheap"

Actually - many would argue (including me) that £6 for the number of meals possible from a chicken isn't at all bad going. I would tend towards thinking "Chicken = 4 helpings of something" myself and I think that's reasonable personally.

There are plenty who think along "rubber chicken" lines and could stretch a chicken to a lot more meals than that and I think that's an absolute bargain personally.

Bearing in mind that its a living creature we are talking about here - then....nope...I don't think that's at all unreasonable as a price.

If you cant afford it (ie decently cared for it) then don't eat it...simples...

...and that's part of the reason why I don't eat meat myself. My own personal limits are reached at 30p per egg:eek: (which is what organic free range eggs cost each:eek::() - but vast majority of my diet is vegetarian (in the main - because that's all I can afford personally).

The way I see it = I cant afford humanely-treated meat - so I cant afford meat - so I don't eat meat. Simples....

martinsurrey

Gigervamp wrote: »

But he's right. Chickens are sentient creatures. Like cats and dogs, they each have their own personalities. Two of my girls were sisters, yet they were like chalk and cheese. One was quiet, but watchful. The other was like a ditzy blonde, who loved to perch on my shoulder and tell me all about her day.

And yet, cheap chickens are kept in horrible conditions, suffering burns from the ammonia, they're bred to grow fast, but their legs can't take the weight. They're killed at just over a month old. (My chicks took 4 months to grow to full size.) And all because the public think it's their right to eat cheap chicken, caring nothing about the life those poor chickens had.

Chicken should be expensive. You don't have to eat it, there are plenty of protein options, so the "my family has to eat and I'm on a limited budget" reply doesn't wash. I can't afford truffles (the fungi, not chocolates) so I make do with truffle oil instead.

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

They could choose to eat less or no meat? Definitely worth going semi or full time vegetarian if you're on a budget.

It's only relatively recently that humans (except for the likes of the Inuit) have eaten meat so often; daily or indeed at every meal. It cost our ancestors an awful lot of time and effort to keep livestock going over winter.

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Actually - many would argue (including me) that £6 for the number of meals possible from a chicken isn't at all bad going. I would tend towards thinking "Chicken = 4 helpings of something" myself and I think that's reasonable personally.

There are plenty who think along "rubber chicken" lines and could stretch a chicken to a lot more meals than that and I think that's an absolute bargain personally.

Bearing in mind that its a living creature we are talking about here - then....nope...I don't think that's at all unreasonable as a price.

If you cant afford it (ie decently cared for it) then don't eat it...simples...

...and that's part of the reason why I don't eat meat myself. My own personal limits are reached at 30p per egg:eek: (which is what organic free range eggs cost each:eek::() - but vast majority of my diet is vegetarian (in the main - because that's all I can afford personally).

The way I see it = I cant afford humanely-treated meat - so I cant afford meat - so I don't eat meat. Simples....

I respect all of your opinions on chickens, and your right to have them, I have a different attitude to chickens, I don't expect anyone to try and ban free range as they see it as a waste, and I equally don't expect anyone to try and get supermarkets to ditch cheaper alternatives that meet the minimum UK standards of welfare, while claiming the alternative "isnt expensive".

Now if he would come out and say, "I only want well off people to eat meat that has been reared to the highest standards or it to be a real treat for those on low incomes" I would have less of a problem, as that is what he means.

Gigervamp

Pollycat wrote: »

I agree with the above.
Some of these so-called presenters have no concept that some families have NO choice at all to buy intensively reared chickens because that's all they can bloody afford!

As I said in my post and has been pointed out by others, that reply doesn't wash. Chicken is not essential to a healthy diet. If you must have meat, buy less, but better quality and use other proteins.

Anyway, a lot of people eat far more than the recommended amount of protein.