‘They’re jumping on an ill-informed bandwagon’
Charities and student bodies have been accused of “jumping on the bandwagon” and using ill-informed debate on livestock production, diet and climate change expressed in the media to promote meatfree diets.
The decision taken by two leading cancer charities to encourage people to adopt a meat-free month as a fund-raiser, together with Edinburgh University Students’ Association debate on a motion to cease the sale of meat in their cafes and restaurants, brewed up a social media storm.
Commenting yesterday, NFU Scotland president Andrew Mccornick said that it was regrettable that such organisations had jumped on a misinformed bandwagon.
“It’s extremely important that the facts around the role of staples like meat, dairy and eggs in a healthy diet and Scottish farming’s green credentials are fairly represented and these charities have a responsibility to do that,” said Mccornick.
He said that food produced in Scotland had some of the highest standards in the world when it came to animal welfare, traceability and the environment.
“We hope these important charities recognise the anger and frustration that these campaigns have caused and take steps to ensure that the agricultural community can return to giving them their full support in the future,” he added.
And while Macmillan yesterday said that it would stop actively promoting the approach, the campaign remained live on its website.
Meanwhile a meeting of Edinburgh University Students’ Association (EUSA) onthursdaysawanumber of agricultural students from SRUC’S Edinburgh campus denied the right to contribute to the debate – and asked to leave the event.
“While we’re not affiliated with Edinburgh University for our degrees, the agricultural college is on the university campus and many of our students spend their first year in the university’s halls,” said John Mcculloch, an SRUC student who is also a member of the NFUS Next Generation committee and west region chair of the YF agri-affairs committee.
He said that as agricultural students would therefore be directly affected by the proposals to stop the sale of meat on the campus, it seemed heavyhanded that some of the group was asked to leave and unfair that they hadn’t been allowed to contribute to the debate.
“Especially so as many of the arguments being used to support a ban were based on media reports and opinions rather than verifiable evidence – and the motion seemed to owe as much to the fashion amongst universities as it did to saving the planet,” he said.
He aded that while an amendment to carry out a feasibility study on any move to stop meat sales was passed by a large majority – raising the possibility of a university-wide referendum on the issue – the result of the secret ballot on banning meat wouldn’t be revealed until 4 February – but Mcculloch added that the high degree of support for the amendment indicated that a ban looked unlikely to be adopted.
Alan Clarke, chief executive of Quality Meat Scotland (QMS), said that it appeared that the motion didn’t understand the true facts of Scottish red meat production – and that he was seeking a meeting with EUSA to spell out the country’s high standards of animal welfare and exceptional environmental credentials.
No-one was available to comment at EUSA.