Resist the new orthodoxy
Councils pushing the vegan agenda believe that it will help tackle climate change, but lazy assumptions about the benefits could be devastating to livestock farmers and our countryside, says Mo Metcalf-fisher
WHEN one thinks of a local councillor, it is easy to conjure up the image of a busybody, readily attending endless meetings about potholes, litter and public lavatories. It would be easy to give their activity little notice, particularly when the everyday drama of Westminster dominates the news. While it is true that many seek local office for the sole good of their community, it would be naive to assume their interests are limited exclusively to allotment allocation. Rather, council chambers can be hotbeds for radicals, providing a stage for eccentrics to champion their own causes, irrespective of how niche they are. In the 1980s, left-wing urban councils climbed over one another to declare themselves ‘nuclear-free zones’, regardless of the fact that nothing resembling a nuclear reactor had ever been near their inner-city council wards. Today, a modern version of this absurdity is slowly taking hold of councils in the most unlikely of places: the movement for state-backed veganism.
In Oxfordshire, the county council has voted to go fully plant-based at all meetings and civic events to “tackle climate change”. No more ham-and-cheese sandwiches for hungry councillors, but instead, lavish platters of exotic fruit and vegetables. All taxpayer-funded, of course. Despite protests from local farmers, Oxfordshire’s tiny Green Party contingent pushed through the policy to set an example to its humble electorate. Owing, no doubt, to the new political make-up of the council, both Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors waved through their Green coalition partners’ proposals without hesitancy and with little evidence of consultation with agricultural experts.
Shortly after appeared the council’s new publicly funded website, Climate Action Oxford, which lists a number of ways local subjects can also play their part in reducing emissions. Number one on the list? Adopting a plant-based diet. Clearly ignorant of the reality that red meat produced in Britain is among the most sustainable in the world, it conveniently cites global figures on agricultural emissions to prop up its commandment.
Over in Haywards Heath, Sussex, the local council has signed up to the Plant Based Treaty; the first authority in Europe to do so. Among other things, the treaty wants its signatories to apply a ‘meat tax’ on shoppers and halt the expansion of farmland. Meanwhile, animal rights group PETA was quick to give its seal of approval to Hythe Town Council after one of its supporters – another Green councillor – successfully spearheaded a policy to drop meat and dairy items from council menus.
Recognising the link between the more militant animal rights movement and anti-meat and dairy crusaders is important here. Lord Deben, chair of the UK’S Climate Change Committee, has previously said vegan activists were wrong to argue that eating meat was not environmentally friendly and were “muddying” the debate by calling for plant-based diets. “They do it because they have other views about animals, but they have to accept that it is not about climate change,” he said. Animal rights groups are utilising easier access to local government to implement their ultimate agenda under the guise of environmentalism. In Oxfordshire, the Green councillor behind the all-plantbased policy is a supporter of the “Hunt Saboteurs organisation” and previously led calls to ban trail hunting on council land. A coincidence? Unlikely.
It would be wrong, however, to dismiss these examples simply as puerile political posturing. They matter not because there is any problem with people adopting plant-based diets, but because of the lazy assumption that moving from meat to a non-meat diet always provides a benefit for the environment. When Oxfordshire showcased its first all-plant-based lunch, a simple Freedom of Information request showed that not only did it cost the taxpayer more, but crucially, the council had no idea where the produce on offer – including watermelon and mango – had been grown. How does an avocado flown in from South America retain eco-superiority over a humble piece of grass-fed beef from a farm just outside Oxford?
Our climate is ideal for growing grass for animals to eat. Around two-thirds of UK farmland is better suited to growing grass than other crops. If we did not graze livestock, we could not use it to produce food. What then becomes of this land if livestock farming is eradicated? It’s a vital question that proponents of this movement struggle to answer convincingly.
The Countryside Alliance has followed developments in Oxfordshire closely. Persistent pressure and media attention has ensured opposition councillors are working at building consensus against the current status quo. Not a draconian ‘meat equals bad, plant-based equals good’ policy, but ‘locally sourced and sustainably produced equals good, food miles and heavily processed equals bad’. Livestock farmers produce sustainable, seasonal produce while maintaining and enhancing the countryside we love. Without a buoyant market for their produce, the countryside risks being turned into an unmanaged wasteland. Keeping a watchful eye on the goings-on of your local authority is vital if we are to counter misinformation. Unless we challenge the animal rights agenda at every level now, we will find that what was once a niche cause has become a new orthodoxy.
How does an imported avocado retain ecosuperiority over a bit of locally farmed beef?