Towards a reintroduction of animal meal in Europe ?!

Books, television programs, films, magazines or music to share, counselor to discover ... Talk to news affecting in any way the econology, environment, energy, society, consumption (new laws or standards) ...
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 29/11/12, 07:50

Obamot hello
You even contradict yourself, since you say:
Janic wrote:
the world population is moving towards an almost total vegetarianism by obligation rather than by choice.

And further :

Janic wrote:
Politics like the economy will have to make choices

There is no contradiction between the two! Politicians, by professional necessity, have a global view on society, therefore with the possibility of orienting their politics according to these parameters. The individual with a view restricted to his small person even if the information (more or less oriented) multiply For example the tobacco mentioned where the individual smokes for his pleasure in the indifference for his entourage. On the other, the State which limits global consumption by restrictive laws without prohibiting on an individual level. The more the stress increases, the less the individual will have the choice. It is the same for the bidoche, overall production can not develop "to infinity" to satisfy the pleasures of the table of bidocheurs. It will suffice to follow closely America among the largest producers and consumers, the greatest number of sick people, who feed their cattle on the backs of developing countries desertifying the agricultural landscape by the industrial production of GMO corn or not and soy. Industrial farms hardly see fodder that does not fatten fast enough.
As Sen_No_Sen reminds us, we must nevertheless emphasize that according to the ambient paradigm, it is not the consumption of meat that will come at the top of the concerns (neither today nor tomorrow) but a world that will have to come out of the oil infusion , governed by the law of supply and demand: except to consider the kg of meat at € 500.— by means of a distribution key depending on forage consumption and the petroleum that we had to consume in this girl ...? I'll believe it when I see it!

You won't have to wait long! Symptomatic: the case of anti-theft devices on meat in supermarkets. It must be believed that this comes at the top of the concern of some!
Which will not happen by the way, since farm animals do not eat so much grain, but mainly stems (or at least what humans do not eat primarily, so we are not in competition with them on this point.)

This is only valid for traditional breeding which tends to be restricted to be replaced by industrial breeding as for pigs or poultry where these are sectors which have become almost exclusive (almost 90%)
We could then discuss for a long time yet, what shortage humanity will suffer first (like the shortage of oil VS the lack of water or what do I know ...) long before being concerned with eliminating meat products almost completely (as in your prediction!) even if there are cause and effect relationships between all these questions, this will certainly not be the decisive element in the action of politicians. In this domain, it’s not them who chooses anyway but people have been told to me (laugh out loud)

The people chosen when the choice is left to them, not when it ceases to be possible.
It is therefore to be hoped that the change of course will not be made by obligation! Because we could wait a very long time and because we must hope that it will intervene well before.
It is wishful thinking! : Cheesy:
So precisely not! Limitations are always made by obligation, rarely by personal choice. : speed limit, alcohol limit, tobacco limit, drug limit. Individuals capable of limiting themselves are rare (and besides why would they limit themselves, life is short and the pleasures that the individual can give themselves are limited) and, I return the ball to you, limiting yourself is psychologically bad !
Janic wrote:
otherwise it's like considering that the melting of ice depends on free will! At its very beginning perhaps, but now more.

Hundreds of millions of people take cancer or cardiovascular disease well, yet they know the causes (such as smoking, alcohol, junk food, lack of exercise) does that mean that stopped!

This vision is abstract for many of those who are supposed to know the causes (how many are really interested in these subjects?) They would have to visit hospitals with the relationship between pathology and consumption as on cigarette packs, which doesn’t in disuade nobody so far!
So exactly why were they stopping something considered bad for themselves when the state promoted it directly or indirectly by the lobbies. Wasn't the State the promoter of tobacco by its monopoly?
One of them is the excessive consumption of refined white sugar contained in sodas: forbidden to drink that to teenagers, to see ... if this way you will be followed ...

Again, it's not about prohibition (it's you, who talks about prohibition, not me!) but of rarefaction of the product ! When there will be no more sweet sodas, teens will turn to what existed before these sodas like their elders who consumed only a few refined sugars before the industry took them over.
So I hear your opinion, but what is curious is your perpetual angle of attack which is reluctant to consider the concepts of basic pedagogy - however glaring - in the arsenal to be taken into account to "stimulate the good choice". Hence the unhappy words sometimes used.

It all depends on the point of view where you stand! As you underline it is MY angle of attack which does not exclude or replace any other. I am opposed to refined products like you, but they seem priority to you while I do not give them more or less priority than other food consumption. Each product can be favorable or unfavorable to health and, FOR ME, I do not make a difference between the harmful products that it is these refined products or other processed products like alcohol and therefore the bidoche too.
So why is it my angle? For the importance that this has on society in general (whether for health, ecology, ethics) and as a trigger for pathologies in the same way as other products destroying health. In addition, it is an area that I know to practice on a daily basis and not to have an abstract knowledge, only intellectual. It is therefore a signal, a warning, in the midst of many others which saturate the individuals who receive them and therefore cause them to be neglected or rejected. It's life !
But not being heard does not mean having to be silent as you do for refined sugars or the acid / base ratio whose role is no more to be overlooked.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 29/11/12, 09:45

Janic wrote:Politicians, by professional necessity, have a global view on society

A “global view”, but taking into account human nature, is precisely what is lacking in this type of reasoning.

Janic wrote:
Obamot wrote:As Sen_No_Sen reminds us, we must nevertheless emphasize that according to the ambient paradigm, it is not the consumption of meat that will come at the top of the concerns (neither today nor tomorrow) but a world that will have to come out of the oil infusion , governed by the law of supply and demand: except to consider the kg of meat at € 500.— by means of a distribution key depending on forage consumption and the petroleum that we had to consume in this girl ...? I'll believe it when I see it!

You won't have to wait long! Symptomatic: the case of anti-theft devices on meat in supermarkets. It must be believed that this comes at the top of the concern of some!

Was it famine that governed this? No!
(Since, moreover, we see that it is the law of the market that governs insecurity ...)

What a mule head : Cheesy:

Janic wrote:
Obamot wrote:Which will not happen by the way, since farm animals do not eat so much grain, but mainly stems (or at least what humans do not eat primarily, so we are not in competition with them on this point.)

This is only valid for traditional breeding which tends to be restricted to be replaced by industrial breeding as for pigs or poultry where these are sectors which have become almost exclusive (almost 90%)

That's a bit what I said: local problem, return to traditional farming is an intrinsic part, hence rising costs and relative decrease in consumption. CQFD.

Janic wrote:
Obamot wrote:We could then discuss for a long time yet, what shortage humanity will suffer first (like the shortage of oil VS the lack of water or what do I know ...) long before being concerned with eliminating meat products almost completely (as in your prediction!) even if there are cause and effect relationships between all these questions, this will certainly not be the decisive element in the action of politicians. In this domain, it’s not them who chooses anyway but people have been told to me (laugh out loud)

The people chosen when the choice is left to them, not when it ceases to be possible.

Does Janic want a world government, which will dictate his will at the local level? : Cheesy:

Janic wrote:
Obamot wrote:It is therefore to be hoped that the change of course will not be made by obligation! Because we could wait a very long time and because we must hope that it will intervene well before.
It is wishful thinking! : Cheesy:

You're not the only one : Cheesy: : Mrgreen:

Janic wrote:So precisely not! Limitations are always made by obligation, rarely by personal choice

Those that last ...: always by free will and not perceived as such! Not like "food totalitarianism" which would become de facto compulsory ....

In short...:

Janic wrote:Limitations are always made by obligation: speed limit, alcohol limitation, tobacco and drug limitation.

Why, did the limitations work? I did not know! : Mrgreen:
speed limit? Total failure, we come to traffic moderation measures (baffles, roundabouts, narrowing of the road, alternate parking on opposite lanes etc) precisely because we can not count on it.
alcohol limitation Total failure, damn it, but I don't know if you are aware that alcohol is prohibited below the legal age, which did not prevent the explosion of consumption among young people? You weren't aware: you dream my dear.
tobacco limitation Total failure, ditto, even after bans in public establishments, consumption does not decline, on the contrary!
drug limitation Total failure, you are not aware of what is happening in Marseille and in Europe?

And besides, we know that, especially with any prohibition, restriction, or obligation leading to a challenging area, we always end up with the opposite end. You still don't understand, huh ... you ...

Although what you say below is a joke, it is not!
If we admit that Janic's paradigm is universal (!), He who wrote:Individuals capable of limiting themselves are rare (and besides why would they limit themselves, life is short and the pleasures that the individual can give himself are limited)

This is why it is difficult to understand this obstinacy of adding to the present difficulty, another, in the form of a ban!
While it has nothing to do directly - since felt differently from one individual to another (such as punishment in some, frustration or what do I know in others, or liberating in the wise?).
While it has nothing to do directly: since motivation by the lowest unmet need (assumed, or to be satisfied) is not governed by a standard or absolute hierarchy. And so it does not depend in any way on the quantitative aspect, but more surely qualitative. How to achieve it by bans? !!!!!

Isn't this an elitist worldview, which leads to such sarcasm!

Janic wrote:and, I send the ball back to you, limiting yourself is psychologically bad!

It is not so much limiting oneself that in itself would be “psychologically bad”, but rather the perception of the obligation to do something (or any other obligation in this regard) and therefore against one's will or worse: s 'acting prohibited.
It is not so much the need for constraint which plays, but rather the fact that said need is not expected, it cannot therefore be realized or fulfilled by default. ( : Mrgreen: understand who can ...)

Janic wrote:
Obamot wrote:
Janic wrote:otherwise it's like considering that the melting of ice depends on free will! At its very beginning perhaps, but now more.

Hundreds of millions of people take cancer or cardiovascular disease well, yet they know the causes (such as smoking, alcohol, junk food, lack of exercise) does that mean that stopped!

This vision is abstract for many of those who are supposed to know the causes (how many are really interested in these subjects?) They would have to visit hospitals with the relationship between pathology and consumption as on cigarette packs, which doesn’t in disuade nobody so far!
So exactly why were they stopping something considered bad for themselves when the state promoted it directly or indirectly by the lobbies. Wasn't the State the promoter of tobacco by its monopoly?

Always this logic around the challenge field, you do not go out!

Janic wrote:
Obamot wrote:One of them is the excessive consumption of refined white sugar contained in sodas: forbidden to drink that to teenagers, to see ... if this way you will be followed ...

Again, it's not about prohibition (it's you, who talks about prohibition, not me!) but of rarefaction of the product ! When there will be no more sweet sodas, teens will turn to what existed before these sodas like their elders who consumed only a few refined sugars before the industry took them over.

It’s amazing how you can walk on it : Mrgreen: However, I would have sworn that the VGL forbade all consumption of meat, as for applying it on a global level, via a supposed opportunistic obligation (or supposed "de facto") it's a beautiful fantasy.

I stop it because I already perceive the sausage that will follow and that you will do - as in the previous post, itself preceded by dozens of others : Cheesy: - to avoid answering the major objections which arise from the merits. A kind of inapplicability against good will VS despite?

Note somewhere this is a good sign: it proves that you are aware that they exist and that you have no convincing answer to oppose them.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 29/11/12, 11:11

Note somewhere this is a good sign: it proves that you are aware that they exist and that you have no convincing answer to oppose them.
It is a point that we have in common!
It's surprising to see how much we can walk on each other I would have sworn that the VGL forbade all consumption of meat, as to apply it on a global level, via a supposed opportunistic obligation (or supposed "de facto" ") it's a beautiful fantasy.

Would you be obsessed with the notions of forbidden? Vg is not forbidden anything, nor is it forbidden other poisons, some smoke, others drink alcohol, get drunk on chemicals and do not forbid anything, d 'others like me are organic, abstainers by choice, natural medicines, etc .... A prohibition is generally accompanied by frustration, while a choice releases these frustrations, it is therefore the reverse. Personally among the things that I do not consume none is forbidden to me, nor frustrates me, on the contrary tobacco smoke bothers me and makes me cough, alcohol is disgusting to taste, the bidoche is also repugnant to see, to touch and also to smell its disgusting odors: where are the prohibitions?
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 29/11/12, 12:07

Janic wrote:
Obamot wrote:Note somewhere this is a good sign: it proves that you are aware that they exist and that you have no convincing answer to oppose them.
It is a point that we have in common!

Amusing! I didn't know that I was avoiding the fundamental questions that I had raised myself! : Cheesy: : Mrgreen:

Janic wrote:Would you be obsessed with the notions of forbidden?

No, but I take into account those who try to impose them on us by the gang ... : Cheesy: : Mrgreen: Unbeknownst to our own free will, by peremptory justifications and without taking into account our free will (... or what do I know).

Janic wrote:
Obamot wrote:It's surprising to see how much we can walk on each other I would have sworn that the VGL forbade all consumption of meat, as to apply it on a global level, via a supposed opportunistic obligation (or supposed "de facto" ") it's a beautiful fantasy.

Vg is not forbidden anything, nor is it forbidden other poisons, some smoke, others drink alcohol, get drunk on chemicals and do not forbid anything, d others like me are organic, abstinent by choice, natural medicines, etc ...


Did you forget the episode where Janic stuffs himself with his half : Cheesy: : Mrgreen:

Janic wrote:[...] I put on weight as fast as my wife! But it was due to the pies that I stuffed myself ... [...]
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post245470.html#245470


Janic wrote:A prohibition is generally accompanied by frustration, while a choice releases these frustrations, it is therefore the reverse.

It's funny seen from this angle:
- would the choice of eating meat free them from said frustrations?
- would you suggest that the prohibitions issued by political choice as you suggest above and which would lead to food restrictions on a planetary level, would be excluded from the whole procession of frustrations, which would not fail to follow !?
- and all of a sudden, you would admit that an unnatural constraint could have a psychological impact so important that it would be felt as a deprivation in one case, but in another you would persist in ignoring that said frustration would have the deterrent aspect that we note, and that would go against the effect sought by those who are moving towards a food reform and that we try to inform in a forum... you will tell me so much : Lol:

Janic wrote:Personally among the things that I do not consume none is forbidden to me, nor frustrates me, on the contrary tobacco smoke bothers me and makes me cough, alcohol is disgusting to taste, the bidoche is also repugnant to see, to touch and also to smell its disgusting odors: where are the prohibitions?

Among the people who read you, there are many:
- who like the smell of tobacco without smoking (this is my case for certain tobaccos like the Amsterdamer)
- almost never drink alcohol but enjoy a good glass of wine on occasion, if only a few times during the year (whose tannins are anti-carcinogenic by the way)
- do not necessarily need meat or animal by-products, which do not require killing an animal.

Certainly, some words persist in Manichaeism. Pity.

Anyway, do you seem to tolerate that some people eat fish now? : Cheesy: Do flexitarians fall into the category? : Mrgreen: : Cheesy:
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 29/11/12, 12:46

Janic wrote:
There is no contradiction between the two! Politicians, by professional necessity, have a global view on society, therefore with the possibility of orienting their politics according to these parameters.


Could you give me examples of countries where such politicians exist? : Lol:
If the ruling class had a global vision, we would not be in the current situation.
The leaders of so-called liberal democracies are put in place by economic power, their role only is to bridge the gap between economic decisions (taken non-democratically in "Think thank" s) and the mass of voters / consumers ( and not citizens).
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 29/11/12, 13:10

Janic wrote:
A prohibition is generally accompanied by frustration, while a choice releases these frustrations, it is therefore the reverse.


It's funny seen from this angle:
- would the choice of eating meat free them from said frustrations?

When an individual consumes what he likes I do not see where he would be frustrated whether it is the jug or the carrots!
- would you suggest that the prohibitions issued by political choice as you suggest above and which would lead to food restrictions on a planetary level, would be excluded from the whole procession of frustrations, which would not fail to follow !?

Here again you are obsessed with prohibitions. The state knows from experience that the bans are ineffective as you also point out. It is therefore not prohibited but restrictions such as speed limits, blood alcohol level, etc ... then it frustrates people who feel limited it is almost inevitable (like motorists who can not stand speed limits)
- and all of a sudden, you would admit that an unnatural constraint could have a psychological impact so important that it would be felt as a deprivation in a case,

Another mix! It is not an unnatural constraint, equitable sharing automatically harms those who want to keep their achievements and their privileges, it is the privileged who feel this as a deprivation, the others having not had access until then , cannot feel frustrated that they are limited or taken away from what they do not have.
but in another you would persist in ignoring that said frustration would have the deterrent aspect that we note, and that would end up contrary to the effect sought in those who are moving towards a food reform and that we tries to inform in a forum... you will tell me so much

Un forum can not inform, for this it is necessary to go to the specialized sites whether it is in this field or another, at most it can encourage to inquire. And since only the interested party inquires, this automatically limits its impact. So whoever wants to consider a food reform or other, he does like me, he seeks, learns, studies and reform or not.

Janic wrote:
Personally among the things that I do not consume none is forbidden to me, nor frustrates me, on the contrary tobacco smoke bothers me and makes me cough, alcohol is disgusting to taste, the bidoche is also repugnant to see, to touch and also to smell its disgusting odors: where are the prohibitions?


Among the people who read you, there are many:
- who like the smell of tobacco without smoking (this is my case for certain tobaccos like the Amsterdamer)

Do not be a donkey to have sound, it is smoke not the product itself because I also like the smell of the Amsterdamer. (we don't catch flies with vinegar!)
- almost never drink alcohol but enjoy a good glass of wine on occasion, if only a few times during the year (whose tannins are anti-carcinogenic by the way)

Everything is here : " A voucher As if alcohol had something good in itself: don't we also say a good cigarette, a good binge, a good cold, a good flu, a good cancer too! for tannins, it is like polyphenols as if cancer found a protective factor there whereas alcohol is a factor of cancerization (the counter poison being used to balance the poison?)
- do not necessarily need meat or animal by-products, which do not require killing an animal.

The "need" side is subjective, the drug addict also needs his drug, which does not make it a necessary reference. Everything that animal by-products can contain is also found (and without drawbacks) in the plant kingdom. So apart from honey and eggs (although that can be discussed) dairy products require the slaughter of the calf and the shortening of the life of the dairy cow by exhaustion (and its slaughter also in excruciating suffering for everyone , but the fiddlers don't care, he's not the one bleeding white.) : Cry:
Anyway, do you seem to tolerate that some people eat fish now?

Oh, did I say that? Or ?
Otherwise I tolerate that everyone eats what he wants, including his leather shoes if he wants, I don't have to decide anything for anyone: by what right? The forum is an exchange of views, not a site specializing in these particular points and, I repeat, those who want to know more learn from the best informed sources.
Do flexitarians fall into the category?

Everyone is where they want! There is something for everyone ... and even disgust! The little boxes are just used to not mix everything!
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Animal meal soon to be authorized in the EU.




by sen-no-sen » 15/02/13, 12:40

These flours, prohibited since the mad cow crisis in 1997, will again be able to feed the fish from June ...

While the crisis of consumer confidence in industrial food products has never been more severe, the European Commission has just authorized fish farmers to feed farmed fish with pork and poultry meal .

This method of feeding has been prohibited in the EU since the “mad cow” crisis in 1997, due to the risk of contamination by BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy.


So it's done for the fish ... the rest comes slowly:


The Commission "intends to propose another measure to reintroduce the use of PAT (processed animal protein) from pigs and poultry for poultry and pigs" by 2014.


http://www.20minutes.fr/article/1101225/leurope-rouvre-porte-farines-animales
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 178 guests