In response to Philip Boucher-Hayes' documentary

Escapees

Fair deuce to the poster who raised the matter with NUIG... although I'm quite taken aback by how they've handled things! It would really make you wonder how things are run over there.

Birdie Num Num

Escapees wrote: »

Fair deuce to the poster who raised the matter with NUIG... although I'm quite taken aback by how they've handled things! It would really make you wonder how things are run over there.

A bit over the top by the OP but equally so is the vying for someone's head and the juvenile tattletale approach by some posters.

UsedToWait

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

A bit over the top by the OP but equally so is the vying for someone's head and the juvenile tattletale approach by some posters.

Who was vying for anyone's head?

What you call 'juvenile tattletale' was actually seeking clarification as to whether published letters, sent from the School of Law in NUIG, alleging that both RTE and Darina Allen have violated the ECHR and other unspecified 'equality legislation', (highly dubious claims which were lent credence by virtue of the author's position as a law lecturer), have the imprimatur of her employer, or whether they, in fact, represent an abuse of her position.

banie01

UsedToWait wrote: »

Who was vying for anyone's head?

What you call 'juvenile tattletale' was actually seeking clarification as to whether published letters, sent from the School of Law in NUIG, alleging that both RTE and Darina Allen have violated the ECHR and other unspecified 'equality legislation', (highly dubious claims which were lent credence by virtue of the author's position as a law lecturer), have the imprimatur of her employer, or whether they, in fact, represent an abuse of her position.

Nail on the head!

Worztron

I finally got around to watch it. Wow, such lazy and incredibly biased programing. Hayes never detailed what he ate for the 28 days, he never mentioned the names of the silly vegan websites that said supplements were unnecessary. His incompetence is to blame for his resulting unhealthiness. Why did he only focus on the negatives and never mentioned positives (e.g. lower cholesterol, etc.). Funny how he compared the protein content of almond milk vs dairy milk but deliberately did not mention the much higher protein content in soy milk vs almond milk. PBH is a clown. RTE show such crap nowadays.

SinSim2

RESPONSE FROM RTÉ:

We have received your complaint regarding the first episode of Series 3 of What Are You Eating? and its reflection of following a vegan-based diet.

In the programme the presenter set out to reflect the experience of an average Irish meat-eating person embarking on a vegan-based diet for the first time. The programme deals with the fact that veganism is a philosophy however, given the nature of the programme, the emphasis was put on the diet. That said, many experts were interviewed to provide their views and expertise on a vegan-based diet and veganism, and others who provided the context of why the majority of the population eat meat.
In accordance with the programme research and in consultation with an expert dietician the programme team were made aware that there is a rise in people following what they believe to be a vegan diet as opposed to the ideology. This was referred to in the interview with the Roger Yates from the Vegan Information Society who accepted this to be the case.

As programme makers we set out to be transparent about the way the diet was followed and for this reason it was important to point out to the audience that the reason the presenter felt out-of-sorts, had lost bone density and muscle was that he had not followed the diet properly. This was not designed to subliminally or otherwise promote processed meat nor do we believe it did. The programme included significant information of what can and should be eaten on the diet (including the health benefits of doing so) and provided the viewer with sufficient information to draw the conclusion that if the diet is followed properly it has many benefits.

The presenter qualified information regarding an assertion made by a contributor about a World Health Organisation study that states that processed meat is carcinogenic when consumed at high levels but it also states that it is not yet possible to quantify what the level of risk of the carcinogen is, this was not an encouragement to ignore those risks or to deny them in any way but was done to ensure that the point was made and to reflect the overall findings of the study in a balanced manner.

The issue of the pros and cons of a Vegan diet has been debated widely on RTE. The Claire Byrne show devoted two length items to it in the last year. In that case the head of Go Vegan World took part in the debate along with Keith Walsh and Rachel Pilkington.

Thank you for taking the time to make the complaint and for sharing with us your views and approach to veganism. It is a topic of interest to our audience which we will continue to approach in a variety of different ways across the schedule.

If any member of the public is of the opinion that a programme or segment of a programme broadcast on RTÉ has breached a provision of Section 39(1)(a), (b), (d) or (e) of the Broadcasting Act 2009 or failed to comply with a provision of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland Codes and is not satisfied with RTɒs response they are entitled to make a complaint to the BAI. Information on codes and on the complaints procedure can be found on the BAI website.


Kind regards,
Grainne McAleer

SinSim2

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT:

Sent on the 9th of march:

I am writing to complain about the most recent episode of "What are you eating?" broadcasted on Thursday, 8 Mar 2018. The presenter of the programe takes on a "vegan diet".

Firstly, vegan or veganism is not a diet. It is an ideology. If the programe was really about eating habits or a specific diet it should have taken on a whole food plant based diet. I repeat, there is no such thing as a vegan diet, only a vegan ideology. In the programe it is described as a fad diet. I for one was offended by the programe, especially the sacrifice of the duck.

The programe fails to explain with clarity what veganism is, therefore presenting the Irish public with a skewed idea which could only lead to confusion.

The programe also allows itself to imply that eating processed meat or red meat is safe. Processed meat is a level 1 carcinogenic, no matter how pedantic you want to be.

A whole food plant based diet cannot and should not be presented by or measured by the incompetency of the on-taker of that diet. The programe unreasonably sowed seeds of fear in the public based on nothing and ironically subliminally promoted level 1 carcinogenic processed meat. This is very serious - you cannot play with people's health.

Anyone who is well informed can see that the programe was more a a mockumentary and there is observational evidence that could suggest that there was an agenda on the part of RTÉ and this is something that needs further looking into.

Yours faithfully

A genuinely concerned Irish citizen

SinSim2

To me it's obvious that 'What are you eating?' / RTÉ / Philips Boucher-Hayes were out to discredit veganism:

1. Misrepresent and de-value:

This was done by reducing veganism to, and I quote: "a fashionable diet" at the off set, and putting it in a category with "other fad diets".

Did he say that many people confuse veganism with a diet, when in fact the act of excluding other animals from their food choices is just one way in which a vegan adheres to his or her ethical values? Unfortunately, he didn't.


Boucher-Hayes lists three possible motivations for going vegan and in this order:

- internet influence (you can't get any more vague than that)
- environmental concerns
- worry about animal welfare

- Do you think he stated that many people are motivated by their realisation that a sentient being, such as a cow, has the right to her life and her offspring? You're right, he didn't.

Boucher-Hayes proceeded to equate being vegan to being "a vegetarian purist" - which leads me on to my next point and RTÉ's next tactic...

2. Confuse:

Fashionable diet? motivated by environmental concerns? purist vegetarianism? motivated by worries of animal welfare?, vegans get mad?, give an animal fresh air before you slaughter him?...What???

All of these were given to describe veganism either directly from Boucher-Hayes or through conversations. It's understandable then, that a lot of non-vegans would be confused and have misconceptions and are more likely to perpetuate both the confusion and misconceptions (on boards.ie for example). I'm sure RTÉ have good researchers. How could they get it so wrong?

Apart from using the catchphrase descriptions such as "fashionable diet", "vegetarian purist and "fad diet" to de-value veganism, Boucher-Hayes also uses street interviews to unravel veganism for the viewers...

From the interviews we would conclude that a vegan is "a person who doesn't eat meat and is against dairy", "no animal products", and "completely animal friendly". One interviewee states that she doesn't want to eat animals that have been raised in cruel conditions - again lending to the idea of "animal welfare". Did you hear anything about a sentient being, such as a pig, having a right to live his or her own life free from harm? Me neither.

Boucher-Hayes then asks the street goers, "what do vegans eat?". The interviewees proceeded with their answers; "very little", "vegetables and grains", "tofu!". One interviewee says, regarding what vegans eat, "it's horrible! you want the real stuff, d'ya know what I mean?" :-( unfortunately I do.

Boucher-Hayes also gets help from a shop assistant in his local organic store where he asks her if she's vegan. She states, "I'm afraid if I call myself vegan a lot of vegans would get mad"... "I consider myself vegan"... but "I'm not 100% vegan"... "I'm flexitarian and **I'm praying that one day when this (organic farming?) becomes big enough that's it's either that we are all going to go organic and every chicken and every cow is going to see the light of day OR we are going to be smart about it, and go vegan and care about our bodies and the environment".

This is beyond confusing. So, she is vegan but she is not vegan but she almost is vegan, and she prays that one day we'll give animals fresh air and sunshine before we eat them? Humane exploitation? Humane slaughter? Oxymoron? ...or even better, why not look after our bodies and the environment and go vegan? Because veganism is about health and climate change, right? No. They are tremendous benefits though. This is just another example of how the program jumbles everything together and creates confusion for the uniformed spectator. I feel sorry for the shop assistant - they unashamedly used her for their hit piece. She's probably just still figuring it out.

**Veganism does not hope that one day all cows, chickens and pigs will live outdoors while they are being exploited or before they are slaughtered - "humane exploitation and humane slaughter are oxymorons.

All of this would be fine if he was highlighting misconceptions about veganism but this is actually how he establishes how the audience is to understand veganism and there is not a point at the end of the introduction in which he dispels misconceptions and puts the record straight. If he did, it would have been a good start and it might have sounded something like this - veganism is:

“an ideology that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose.

He could have added:

"Unlike the word "vegetarian", the word "vegan" specifically implies moral concern for animals. Therefore the ideology extends to more than just diet. Vegans don't wear leather, fur, wool or silk and are against zoos, circuses, rodeos, animal testing and any other industry that exploits or abuses animals.

Then he could have said:

"In dietary terms, it refers to the practice of dispensing with all animal produce, including meat, fish, poultry, eggs, animal milks, honey, and their derivatives. Many people confuse veganism with a diet, when in fact not eating other animals is just one way in which a vegan adheres to his or her ethical values - respecting the lives of sentient beings"

"In short, vegans believe that a sentient being, human or non-human, has the right to live his or her life without harm."

and in a perfect world he would have added:

"To show integrity I am not going to use a food show to make a hit piece on an ideology, rather I am going to test a whole food plant-based diet, and while I'm at it I'm going to give it my best effort and follow a diet recommended by a nutritionist and a dietitian, and I'm going to leave veganism to serious journalism that is focused on rights and liberties."

3. Create doubt (tobacco industry tactic) and concern:

Philip Boucher-Hayes did't follow the instructions of his dietitian and the results were not good. This one doesn't need much explaining so here is my very long rhetorical question:

Why would a rational and logical person who is working for Ireland's national broadcaster, which is paid by the public, undertake a diet for the benefit of the public's better understanding of the diet not take the supplements advised by the dietitian, when the dietitian explicitly told him that not taking supplements is where the diet goes wrong?

Was it actually a program about not taking supplements when advised? Because that's all anyone could have learnt about from the the program. Well, we also learnt that it's a confusing world inside Tv land.

And we must remember that 'go wrong' with regards to health is not to be taken lightly.

Fair enough, in the program Boucher-Hayes does give his motivations for not taking the supplements recommended by the dietitian:

"The dietitian told me to take supplement but I think it will be more interesting not to take one and see what happens to my body"

"And there's lots of "vegan" websites saying it's not necessary [to take supplements]"

But by logic alone we can see that neither one of these answers explains his decision not to take the supplements. The whole bases of the program would not be thrown out the window to make the program more interesting. That's just silly.

Taking advice from "vegan" websites just because they have the word vegan in them or because someone else in a hypothetical situation might use this website for nutritional advice doesn't ring through as rational or logical, especially when public health and ethical choices are being dealt with.

If I asked a structural engineer what was the surest way to construct a building without integrity and be assured it would fall, he might say something like construct a building without a foundation. If I was then to proceed to construct a building without a foundation you would either conclude that I wanted it to fall or that I was stupid. I don't believe Boucher-Hayes is stupid. Do you?

As I see it ,and it's only my opinion, RTÉ appear to want to weaken the possibility of a foundation that the general public may come to have with veganism in the future. And this is how they attempted to do it:

- Take a ideology based on ethics

- Package the ideology as a fashionable diet while only paying lip service to the ideology's core values

- Present false, confusing and conflicting ideas about the ideology (now a fashionable diet)

- Propose to test the fashionable diet (formally an ideology) with professional guidance

- Ignore the professional guidance, setting the test of the fashionable diet (formally an ideology) up to fail

- Convert the fashionable diet back into an ideology again. This is done to let veganism, the ideology, bare the weight of the negative results. And it is done by asking, I quote: "the last unanswered question about veganism" before they cut to the the test results. The question? Is it right to kill these animals just because we can when we can get protein from so many other places?" (The answer given was yes, once you eat all the animal and it's not done on an industrial scale - remember the oxymoron?) As I said, it has been converted back to an ideology just before the test results.

- Present the horrifying results of the food habits of an ideology (formally a fashionable diet) to the public.

- Let the ideology bare the weight of the negative results.

- Let the negative results create doubt in the public's mind (tobacco industry tactic).

- Sit back while your faithful minions throw around ad hominems, straw man arguments, disregard and general ignorance on boards.ie ;-D

It doesn't matter what else was in the program. All RTÉ wanted to do was to sow the seed of doubt. It's not rocket science.


All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

{Arthur Schopenhauer}

Translation: First watch it on RTÉ. Second, read about it on boards.ie. Third, wait for another country to come to their senses and follow.


We can do better than this, we ARE better than this. Do some good research, have a think, watch a video. Think about aligning your actions with your heart. This is only about the animals. Nothing and no one else. So when you do think about it, only think about the animals and what their lives are worth to them, not to you.

L1011

I don't see how it discredits veganism.

PBH didn't follow advice and had issues. It was made damn clear that not following advice was bad from the outcomes and the remonstrations from professionals.

I never got any idea from it that it was being proposed as a fashionable diet without merit.

SinSim2

L1011 wrote: »

I don't see how it discredits veganism.

PBH didn't follow advice and had issues. It was made damn clear that not following advice was bad from the outcomes and the remonstrations from professionals.

I never got any idea from it that it was being proposed as a fashionable diet without merit.

Are you vegan?

SinSim2

SinSim2 wrote: »

L1011 wrote: »

I don't see how it discredits veganism.

PBH didn't follow advice and had issues. It was made damn clear that not following advice was bad from the outcomes and the remonstrations from professionals.

I never got any idea from it that it was being proposed as a fashionable diet without merit.

Are you vegan?

Are you saying it didn't discredit plant based diets or are you saying it didn't discredit an ideology based on not exploting animals?

https://goveganworld.com/psychology-becoming-vegan/

AnnoyedWithRTE

Dated 7/6/2018

Re: What Are You Eating?

Dear

RTÉ does not accept your contention that the programme was biased or contained inaccuracies. In the programme, the presenter set out to reflect the experience of an average meat-eating person in Ireland embarking on a vegan-based diet for the first time. This is the context for the programme.

While the programme addresses the fact that veganism is a philosophy, given the nature of the programme the emphasis was put on the presenter’s experience of the vegan diet rather than the ideological commitment to the philosophy of veganism. Nonetheless, many individuals were interviewed to provide their views and expertise on following a vegan-based diet and veganism, as well as others who provided views on why most of the Irish population eat meat.

These interviews included interviews with individuals who embrace the vegan lifestyle and who provided a positive and diverse account of the lifestyle, beliefs, and diet they follow. These included interviews with Roger Yates of the Vegan Information Project, with the advocates of veganism who featured on the Vegan walking tour and with a ‘vegan butcher’. The programme also featured contributions with a chef who demonstrated how to make tasty and nutritious vegan food and with a dietician who gave practical nutrition tips for newcomers to the vegan diet. The programme provided viewers with a fair reflection of the positive aspects and benefits of a vegan lifestyle. The programme also reflected the views of those who eat meat. As a meat-eating individual who decided to follow the vegan diet for a period, the presenter provided his experience of exploring the diet. In summary, we are satisfied viewers were provided with a breadth of information sufficient to enable them to form their own views on veganism.

There were others interviewed in the programme who voiced opinions that veganism was not for them. However, the programme contained no condemnation of the lifestyle or philosophy of veganism.

You make specific complaints about the diet and the resultant loss in bone and muscle mass. From the outset and on a number of occasions the editorial narrative made it clear that the dietician recommended a particular approach to the diet. It was pointed out that the presenter did not follow the recommendation of the dietician.

During the second consultation with the dietician, she emphasised that the resultant losses are not attributable to the fact that a vegan diet was followed; rather that it was not followed properly. Recommended supplements were not taken and there was a significant deficit in calorie intake which the resultant weight, bone density and muscle loss were attributed to by the consultant dietician. The dietician clearly pointed out to the presenter that it was his approach to the diet that was at fault. As programme makers we set out to be transparent about the way the diet was followed and felt that it was important to point this out to the audience to enable them to make up their own minds about the diet the presenter followed. As the presenter did not follow the dietician’s advice he did not experience all the results of assiduously following the vegan diet. Furthermore, the machine used by the dietician was of a medical standard and the calculations made by her in the programme What Are You Eating were based on her interpretation as a qualified expert in dietetics and her professional experience of using the Tanita machine.

The presenter qualified information regarding an assertion made by a contributor about a World Health Organisation study that states that processed meat is carcinogenic when consumed at high levels but it also states that it is not yet possible to quantify what is the level of risk of the carcinogen. This was not an encouragement to ignore those risks or to deny them in any way but was done to ensure that the point was made and to reflect the overall findings of the study in a balanced manner.

The comments made by Darina Allen, who is known to be colourful in her comments, clearly demonstrated her initial reaction to the advent of vegetarianism in the 1970s. She made clear that her own reaction at that time was irreverent. The inclusion of this comment by Ms Allen could not reasonably be regarded as a reflection of the programme makers’ views on veganism.

Regarding the point you make about the comments made by the presenter in response to Dr Bill Schindler the point the anthropologist makes in the programme is that the ability to hunt animals for their meat (a more nutrient dense food) is attributable to the largest and most significant jump in brain and body size. The response merely highlighted this fact. It was the fact that meat was eaten - not the volume that was eaten - that made a difference. Therefore no reasonable interpretation of the comments could regard the point you make about the omission of a reference to volume as a distortion.

In answer to your specific query regarding the manner in which the animals killed during the production were slaughtered, they were killed in accordance with the applicable laws regarding the slaughter of game and poultry. Additionally, we are satisfied that the demonstrations were carried out by an experienced team in a manner that did not cause any disproportionate harm to the environment, using tools that have been used safely for millions of years. The contention that the manner in which the demonstrations were carried out could have harmful implications for any imitation of such acts in a way that would be damaging to viewers is therefore totally refuted.

Overall the programme explored and reflected the plurality of views in Irish society on veganism. The programme makers accept and respect that some of the views and attitudes expressed in the programme would have been totally contrary to the beliefs of people who are vegan. However, we must assert again that the programme was fair and complied fully with the Broadcasting Act and the relevant Codes of the BAI.

We would like to thank you for taking the time to raise your concerns with us, and for sharing your views on the programme and about veganism.

RTÉ states that the What Are You Eating? Programme was fully compliant with all the provisions of the relevant legislation and regulatory Codes.


Yours etc

Grainne McAleer

Head of Lifestyle Programmes

RTÉ Television