An Taisce Green Schools

Upstream

Tilikum17 wrote: »

You lost me at lol.

A mod no less.

Between yourself & gozunda. Grown men/women using lol is frightening.

One rule for you, one rule for everyone else.

https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=lol&forum=&user=866784

Stop frightening yourself :pac:

gozunda

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Just on methane emissions...
https://i.imgur.com/F2qbNTb.jpg
Livestock account for 51% of methane emissions. That's just over half....

Why aren't the rest of the emitters brought into the conversation as well, I wonder?

Incidentally, livestock emissions are compensated for by the methane coming from carbon dioxide absorbed by grass and other crops and that methane again breaking down over its half life of 12 years into carbon dioxide and water. Unlike the other sources, which are being ignored?

The percentage of carbon emitted by all forms of agriculture plus forestry and all other land use sectors combined is estimated at 24%* of total emissions gobally .

*

This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter, and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector.

The bizarre thing is that this fact is omitted by the majority of carbon calculations. It also doesnt help that in most instances agriculture is lumped with other distinct sectors such as forestry and separate land use making agriculture's carbon emissions appear bigger than they really are.

It remains that energy use (25%) , industry (21%) and transportation (14%) whose emissions are primarily related to the use of fossil fuels are each greater than the emissions for all types of agriculture and when combined make up some 60% of all carbon emissions.

And yet we are being told again and again by some that agriculture which feeds people is the bigist badist wolf knocking on the door- to the exclusion of nearly everything else - wtf?

Much like the An Taisce 'Climate Change - Resource Pack' :rolleyes:

http://www.cleantech.guide/p/cc4i/1929/

gozunda

Tilikum17 wrote: »

You lost me at lol. A mod no less.Between yourself & gozunda. Grown men/women using lol is frightening.

Can't discuss the facts of the post no?

It doesn't help that your agriculture related posts being risible as a misinformed and frankly hilarious espousing of the vegan way.

So a lol or two is not really surprising tbh. In one way it's a hell of a lot quicker than using an infinite number of wtf exclamation marks .

Heres an example of the type of thing I'm talking about ...

Tilikum17 wrote: »

‘Look over there, they’re just as bad as us’
The world is changing, ye can piss & whine as much as ye like. But ye know it.
Irish farmers will be left behind

Ah the rational voice of veganism - much like a rhino with a bad case of flatulence on a stormy night

I'll refer you back to a previous exchange in f&f

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106112839&postcount=158

Goodnight.

dmakc

To be fair at least he said calf and not baby cow lol

markodaly

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Just on methane emissions...

Livestock account for 51% of methane emissions. That's just over half....

Why aren't the rest of the emitters brought into the conversation as well, I wonder?

Incidentally, livestock emissions are compensated for by the methane coming from carbon dioxide absorbed by grass and other crops and that methane again breaking down over its half life of 12 years into carbon dioxide and water. Unlike the other sources, which are being ignored?

How do you mean ignored? If you are referring to oil and gas, then clearly you have not been paying attention to the huge drive to create carbon-neutral energy, by way of wind farms and solar in this country and others. The banning of diesel, the rise of EV's, the adopting of smart grids and use of batteries for storage clean energy.

The oil and gas industry has been in the crosshairs of NGO's and environmentalists for decades now. Finally, though there appears to be a demand from consumers and voters for change. The next ten years will bring about a huge fundamental change in how we generate electricity and power our cars. Even Saudi Arabia see the writing on the walls, when it comes to their primary export.

Now, however, the past few years farmers as in the line of fire, rightly or wrongly, and they will have to adapt.

I feel that farmers are unnecessarily defensive when it comes to their own role in the issue of climate change and the environment.

You may find it funny and all giving out about An Taisce, however, the real change will be driven from the EU and what they want they will get, so if you think this is just a fad that will just pass and the Irish beef and dairy industry can plod along like normal for the next 50 years, then who is the actual deluded one here?

markodaly

Say my name wrote: »

Show us the study so.

Here it is.
https://josephpoore.com/Science%20360%206392%20987%20-%20Accepted%20Manuscript.pdf

Do you dispute this study, if so where is the peer-reviewed study that backs up your assertion?

markodaly

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

And Irish planes release as much greenhouse gasses as livestock. I'm sure it'll be headline news in the morning...
https://www.farmersjournal.ie/planes-release-as-much-greenhouse-gas-as-livestock-453917

Behind a paywall, can you post the article or the study behind it?

markodaly

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

LOL, can you explain why aircraft emissions aren't mentioned by the perpetually offended when global warming is discussed?
Is it that it's easier not to sacrifice their own pleasures by exclusive focusing on others perceived to be non politically correct for the easy social media likes or what?

Again, they absolutely are!

Many airlines will allow you to offset your carbon footprint by paying a bit extra and most airlines have clear targets, guidelines and policies regarding this issue.

Qantas has been doing this for ten years.
https://www.qantas.com/au/en/qantas-group/acting-responsibly/our-planet.html

Aer Lignus gets the Tutu treatment
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/archbishop-desmond-tutu-makes-carbon-offsetting-plea-to-aer-lingus-843464.html

Desmond Tutu has urged Aer Lingus to start carbon-offsetting its flights.

Ireland’s flagship airline launches its first service between Ireland and Seattle in the US later this week, and the South African elder statesman is backing change.

The carrier is part of the first airline group worldwide to set its own carbon emissions targets.

Willie Walsh, Chairman of IGA (owners of BA, Aer Lingus, Iberia) has this to say.

IAG chief executive Willie Walsh will today call on airlines and governments to support the United Nations’ proposed system to ensure the airline industry can play its part in tackling climate change at a global level.

He will also announce that IAG is the first airline group worldwide to set its own carbon emissions targets. The Group’s carbon efficiency will improve from 95.4 grammes of CO2 per passenger kilometre in 2015 to 87.3 by 2020.

Speaking at the Aviation Leadership Summit in Singapore, Willie Walsh will stress that the airline industry is the only sector that has agreed to reduce its net carbon emissions with the introduction of an emissions cap from 2020 and a 50 per cent cut by 2050.

http://www.iairgroup.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=240949&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2139338

The airline industry is clearly taking this seriously.

Where is the IFA in all this? What about An Teagasc?
Any leadership from them, or are they sitting in a bunker plotting on how to lobby the government on how to stop carbon taxes?

So either, some of you need to get out more from that farmer echo chamber and realise that those 'other' sources of carbon and greenhouse gases are also trying ways to reduce their impact and farmers are not unfairly treated in any way shape of or form.

Again, the level of defensiveness and ignorance here is both interesting and disappointing.

gozunda

markodaly wrote: »

How do you mean ignored? If you are referring to oil and gas, then clearly you have not been paying attention to the huge drive to create carbon-neutral energy, by way of wind farms and solar in this country and others. The banning of diesel, the rise of EV's, the adopting of smart grids and use of batteries for storage clean energy.
The oil and gas industry has been in the crosshairs of NGO's and environmentalists for decades now. Finally, though there appears to be a demand from consumers and voters for change. The next ten years will bring about a huge fundamental change in how we generate electricity and power our cars. Even Saudi Arabia see the writing on the walls, when it comes to their primary export. Now, however, the past few years farmers as in the line of fire, rightly or wrongly, and they will have to adapt. I feel that farmers are unnecessarily defensive when it comes to their own role in the issue of climate change and the environment. You may find it funny and all giving out about An Taisce, however, the real change will be driven from the EU and what they want they will get, so if you think this is just a fad that will just pass and the Irish beef and dairy industry can plod along like normal for the next 50 years, then who is the actual deluded one here?

I believe that was refering to the constant bombardment of agriculture by certain lifestylists to the exclusion of everything else.

You may have missed this ...

...It remains that energy use (25%) , industry (21%) and transportation (14%) whose emissions are primarily related to the use of fossil fuels are each greater than the emissions for all types of agriculture and when combined make up some 60% of all carbon emissions.

And yet we are being told again and again by some that agriculture (which feeds people) is the bigist badist wolf knocking on the door- to the exclusion of nearly everything else - wtf?

http://www.cleantech.guide/p/cc4i/1929/

As for the An Taisce thing - the criticism is valid.

Under Climate Actions - the bizarre and irrelevant inclusion of a 'cruelty free' tick box option ....

But in that section not a word about food waste or teaching children about this or advocating that they help reduce same.

​In Ireland it is estimated that there is over one million tonnes of food waste disposed of each year. The carbon foot print produced by this food waste is huge* - but not a mention by our concerned friends - why is that?

The pack whilst supposedly lauding a green agenda is in itself mostly rubbish imo.

As is most of the virulent anti farming rhetoric spun out under the cloak of misinformation here and elsewhere

*

The carbon footprint of wasted food is estimated at 3.3 gigatonnes globally. If food waste were a country, it would rank behind only the US and China for greenhouse gas emissions.

https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/news-and-media/press-releases/Pages/Cut-food-waste-this-Christmas.aspx

Panch18

Fair play to the airlines, they have managed to bring a good old bit of “self regulation” into it and promise promises promise

Why don’t they immediately cut the number of flights by 20% which would have a dramatic reduction in the worst kind of athmoapheric pollution in an instant

The truth of the matter is that nobody wants to curtail there lavish lifestyles, they want to maintain thwir 4 or 5 foreign trips per year and f””k the environmental impact of that

Panch18

how come the oil producing countries don’t get saddled with the emissions of what they produce and export but Ireland and NZ get saddled with their Agri production even though the vast majority of it is exported??

markodaly

Panch18 wrote: »

Fair play to the airlines, they have managed to bring a good old bit of “self regulation” into it and promise promises promise

Why don’t they immediately cut the number of flights by 20% which would have a dramatic reduction in the worst kind of athmoapheric pollution in an instant

The truth of the matter is that nobody wants to curtail there lavish lifestyles, they want to maintain thwir 4 or 5 foreign trips per year and f””k the environmental impact of that

You are mad for the whataboutery. Always keen to point the finger at someone else apart from your own industry that you work in.

Carbon offsetting has been a thing in the airline and tourism industry for over a decade now. At least the recognise the way the wind is blowing unlike the bunker mentality often displayed here.

markodaly

Panch18 wrote: »

how come the oil producing countries don’t get saddled with the emissions of what they produce and export but Ireland and NZ get saddled with their Agri production even though the vast majority of it is exported??

More whataboutery.

Oil and gas have been in the firing line for decades, and are being sued for the damage and contribution to climate change.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/5/17519236/colorado-climate-change-lawsuit-exxon-suncor

Exxon are now lobbying for carbon taxes.

markodaly

gozunda wrote: »

I believe that was refering to the constant bombardment of agriculture by certain lifestylists to the exclusion of everything else.

Really? Where is the evidence for this or is it all just 'feelzzzz' now?

I have pointed out that other industries have been in the firing line for decades, and some are actually actively trying to change their ways, notably the automotive industry.

Perhaps its the fact that the agriculture industry, in particular, the beef and dairy industry still think likes its 1990 in terms of its sustainability and environmentalism. I.e they have done sweet **** all in regards their on contribution to mass extensions of animal and plant life.
For this they deserve 100% the criticism on doing well, nothing.

As for the An Taisce thing - the criticism is valid.

Under Climate Actions - the bizarre and irrelevant inclusion of a 'cruelty free' tick box option ....

I suppose it's better to have organic or cage-free eggs than caged eggs? I don't know, it's a little opaque and subjective, but the reaction, snowflakey and all we get from farmers about it, shows us way more about them then that question.

But in that section not a word about food waste or teaching children about this or advocating that they help reduce same.

So, its not the question itself, its the lack of detail and elaboration on it.
Still, you dont think its a bit of an overreaction?

In Ireland it is estimated that there is over one million tonnes of food waste disposed of each year. The carbon foot print produced by this food waste is huge* - but not a mention by our concerned friends - why is that?

I don't know. Do you expect the print out to contain and tackle every conceivable solution? Even if they did mention it, something else would have been brought up as the proverbial stick.

The pack whilst supposedly lauding a green agenda is in itself mostly rubbish imo.

As is most of the most of the virulent anti farming rhetoric spun out under the cloak of misinformation here and elsewhere

Yes, everyone has it out for the farmers. :pac:

Panch18

markodaly wrote: »

More whataboutery.

Oil and gas have been in the firing line for decades, and are being sued for the damage and contribution to climate change.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/5/17519236/colorado-climate-change-lawsuit-exxon-suncor

Exxon are now lobbying for carbon taxes.

Sorry can you answer the question I asked. Why aren’t the oil producing countries responsible for what they produce whilst the agri producing countries are for what they produce?

Double standards no??

Panch18

markodaly wrote: »

You are mad for the whataboutery. Always keen to point the finger at someone else apart from your own industry that you work in.

Carbon offsetting has been a thing in the airline and tourism industry for over a decade now. At least the recognise the way the wind is blowing unlike the bunker mentality often displayed here.

So how does the airline industry do carbon offsetting?? Growing plants and trees I believe. And tell me this now, what do farmers do, grow plants and trees by definition no??

Panch18

markodaly wrote: »

You are mad for the whataboutery. Always keen to point the finger at someone else apart from your own industry that you work in.

Carbon offsetting has been a thing in the airline and tourism industry for over a decade now. At least the recognise the way the wind is blowing unlike the bunker mentality often displayed here.

Also the airline industry “carbon offsetting” is a load of rubbish when in a lot of instances they are claiming credit for planting that would havopen regardless of them

Dakota Dan

Panch18 wrote: »

So how does the airline industry do carbon offsetting?? Growing plants and trees I believe. And tell me this now, what do farmers do, grow plants and trees by definition no??

They pay extra to offset their carbon footprint, seemingly if you pay to offset your carbon footprint everything will be grand. Same as coal you can burn as much as you want when you pay the carbon tax plus VAT.

gozunda

markodaly wrote: »

Really? Where is the evidence for this or is it all just 'feelzzzz' now?

I'm not here to hand feed you. The PP is not the only one to highlight this. Read the thread and others if you are in any doubt.

markodaly wrote: »

I have pointed out that other industries have been in the firing line for decades, and some are actually actively trying to change their ways, notably the automotive industry.Perhaps its the fact that the agriculture industry, in particular, the beef and dairy industry still think likes its 1990 in terms of its sustainability and environmentalism. I.e they have done sweet **** all in regards their on contribution to mass extensions of animal and plant life. For this they deserve 100% the criticism on doing well, nothing....

The point made was clearly not about who has been in the 'firing line for decades' (sic'). You either bizarrely misunderstood what was said or are deliberately being obtuse.

It remains it is the endless throwing of misinformation bs by certain lifestylists here, that nothing is worse than agriculture which is being highlighted.

And ironically you prove this by again by more of the same. You appear to know as much about changes and developments in agriculture as you do about environmental issues. But whatever - do continue with the mudslinging.

If you wish to actually discuss the issue at hand and rather than exhibiting your belligerence in your comments- you should actually provide better arguments than generalised rubbish such as this type of Absolute bull****e whataboutery

Perhaps its the fact that the agriculture industry, in particular, the beef and dairy industry still think likes its 1990 in terms of its sustainability and environmentalism

gozunda

Regarding An Taisce 'Action Pack" (sic)

markodaly wrote: »

....
I suppose it's better to have organic or cage-free eggs than caged eggs? I don't know, it's a little opaque and subjective, but the reaction, snowflakey and all we get from farmers about it, shows us way more about them then that question.

Wtf have 'caged eggs'(sic) or 'cruelty free' got to do with Climate Actions???? In the context of this ' Action Pack' - it's pure vegan speak rubbish. Whoever put that pack together needs to go back to secondary school at least. Your excusing of it - is more transparent than anything else that you have said.

markodaly wrote: »

So, its not the question itself, its the lack of detail and elaboration on it. Still, you dont think its a bit of an overreaction?...I don't know. Do you expect the print out to contain and tackle every conceivable solution? Even if they did mention it, something else would have been brought up as the proverbial stick.

You believe highlighting misinformation and lack of relevant information aimed at school children is 'overreacting' lol? Even those hard of understanding could appreciate that there is a complete absence of one of the significant issues relating to Climate Action. Even our goverment have pointed this out - see the link I provided for details if you dont believe that. Why do you think that is?

Ah I see - you are saying it's ok to criticise farmers and agriculture but rubbish masquerading as 'Climate Action' is fine by you? Ok so ...

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, everyone has it out for the farmers. :

Well you do for certain. Dont like people pointing this out? Why is that?

Panch18

Dakota Dan wrote: »

They pay extra to offset their carbon footprint, seemingly if you pay to offset your carbon footprint everything will be grand. Same as coal you can burn as much as you want when you pay the carbon tax plus VAT.

It seems that tax takes carbon out of the athmosphere

BarryD2

gozunda wrote: »

Absolute Horlicks

Bord Bia remit covers a number of different areas including research and development which employs scientists and experts to work in the area of food research and which also helps promote Irish produce and provides support to the Irish agricultural and horticultural sector.

Ah come on now! Lets call a spade a spade, the role and functions of An Bord Bia couldn't be clearer. You must surely be confusing same with Teagasc?? Bord Bia are a marketing/ sales agency. They spend a lot of public money for the benefit of the food sector in the marketing of food products. It's a state advertising agency. And as with all advertising, the public is well advised to use their critical faculties.

https://www.bordbia.ie/corporate/governance/Pages/Governance.aspx

https://www.bordbia.ie/corporate/governance/pages/bordbiafunctions.aspx

Bord Bia Functions
The functions of Bord Bia set out in the Bord Bia Act 1994 , as amended by the Bord Bia Amendment Act 2004, are as follows:

1. The functions of the Board shall be to promote, assist and develop in any manner which the Board considers necessary or desirable the marketing of Irish food and livestock and the production, marketing and consumption of horticultural produce.
2. The Board shall have all such powers as are necessary, desirable, expedient or incidental to the performance of its functions.’’.


The particular functions of Bord Bia, as amended by the Bord Bia Amendment Act 2004, without prejudice to the generality of the functions of the Board shall be to—

(a) survey, investigate and develop markets and potential markets for food and horticulture,
(b) collect and disseminate market intelligence and provide information and advice in relation to supply and demand and market trends and trade opportunities in food and horticulture,
(c) conduct or provide for the conducting of reviews, surveys, symposia, analyses and studies in relation to trade in, and markets and potential markets for, food and horticulture,
(d) provide or arrange for the provision of publicity, advertising and promotional campaigns for the purpose of encouraging the increased consumption of food and horticulture or particular categories of food and horticulture and for the purpose of expanding trade in food and horticulture,
(e) establish, equip and operate, and provide for the establishment, equipment and operation of, and assist in the operation of, exhibitions, show rooms, information bureaux and similar establishments for the purpose of encouraging increased consumption of food and horticulture or particular categories of food and horticulture and for the purpose of expanding trade in food and horticulture,
(f) publish and distribute or provide for the publication and distribution of magazines, journals, reports and similar documents for the purpose of encouraging the increased consumption of food and horticulture or particular categories of food and horticulture and for the purpose of expanding trade in food and horticulture,
(g) operate such quality assurance schemes as may in the opinion of the Board, be appropriate to the Board's functions and conducive to maintaining or improving the quality of all or part of any category or categories of food and horticulture and, if so requested by the Minister, carry out evaluations of quality assurance schemes operated or proposed to be operated by other persons or bodies and applicable to all or part of any category or categories of food and horticulture,
(h) encourage or promote the undertaking by other persons or bodies of such actions as may, in the opinion of the Board, be appropriate to the Board's functions and conducive to maintaining or improving the quality of all or part of any category or categories of food and horticulture,
(i) administer such schemes, grants and other financial facilities involving the disbursement of—

(i) European Union Funds,
(ii) Exchequer Funds, or
(iii) other funds,as may from time to time be authorised by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance.


Bord Bia acts as a link between Irish food, drink and horticulture suppliers and existing and potential customers throughout the world.

_Brian

Interesting article showing how animal farming was incorrectly given such a bad reputation regarding emissions.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968

Misinformation and propaganda are strong tools.
The emotional issues Vegans and Veggies have associated with farming are indeed very strong, but it’s important to know it doesn’t make them right. Because they really really beleive in something does not make it true. The only parallel that can be drawn accurately is cult membership where the end belief overpowers all else.

Buford T. Justice XIX

markodaly wrote: »

Again, they absolutely are!

Many airlines will allow you to offset your carbon footprint by paying a bit extra and most airlines have clear targets, guidelines and policies regarding this issue.

Qantas has been doing this for ten years.
https://www.qantas.com/au/en/qantas-group/acting-responsibly/our-planet.html

Aer Lignus gets the Tutu treatment
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/archbishop-desmond-tutu-makes-carbon-offsetting-plea-to-aer-lingus-843464.html



Willie Walsh, Chairman of IGA (owners of BA, Aer Lingus, Iberia) has this to say.


http://www.iairgroup.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=240949&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2139338

The airline industry is clearly taking this seriously.

Where is the IFA in all this? What about An Teagasc?
Any leadership from them, or are they sitting in a bunker plotting on how to lobby the government on how to stop carbon taxes?

So either, some of you need to get out more from that farmer echo chamber and realise that those 'other' sources of carbon and greenhouse gases are also trying ways to reduce their impact and farmers are not unfairly treated in any way shape of or form.

Again, the level of defensiveness and ignorance here is both interesting and disappointing.

Thanks for that, theres a few things in there I must look a bit more into.

Now, compare and contrast, if you will, the rather effusive praise being bestowed on the airline industry in its efforts to mitigate the effects of their release of carbon sequestered for millions of years with the demonisation of livestock farmers in their role in management of carbon that was already part of the carbon cycle and in no way adding to the carbon overload being experienced currently

A rather strange dichotomy, don't you think?

_Brian

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Thanks for that, theres a few things in there I must look a bit more into.

Now, compare and contrast, if you will, the rather effusive praise being bestowed on the airline industry in its efforts to mitigate the effects of their release of carbon sequestered for millions of years with the demonisation of livestock farmers in their role in management of carbon that was already part of the carbon cycle and in no way adding to the carbon overload being experienced currently

A rather strange dichotomy, don't you think?

It’s not about fairness, it’s a drive to stop animal farming that has whatever current hot topics tagged into in an attempt it to give it credibility.

Dakota Dan

Panch18 wrote: »

It seems that tax takes carbon out of the athmosphere

When checking it out only some airlines have a voluntary charge for passengers to offset their carbon and the air line passes it on for recycling growing trees etc. but I doubt many passengers pay that extra charge to the few airlines availing of it yet they are hailed as hero’s for offsetting carbon.

Funny how there are no trees of vegetation growth that are on all Irish farms used as carbon offsets.

gozunda

markodaly wrote: »

If calcium is a concern you can get more calcium from soybeans per 100g than the same amount of milk per 100ml, in fact, more than twice as much.

People think that milk is the only source of calcium, which stems of course from marketing and lobbying and advertising on TV.

Sure, milk is a good source of calcium, as well as other things. But the point is beware of slick advertising by various interest groups that tell half-truths.

Farming lobbies around the world are not shy to flex their muscles in this regards. Just look at the state of US food production and its impact on the general population.

Scrolling through the thread - I had seen this bit of whataboutery previously and had ignored it as yet another irrelevant piece of misinformation. But allowing for the posters defence of other similar misinformation - allow me to set this straight.

It is a fact that raw soybeans do indeed contain approx twice the amount of calcium found in dairy milk. However that's where this comparison ends. Quick Google search.

It is a fact that Soy Milk when compared to Dairy Milk contains much lower amounts of calcium and it has to be artificially fortified to bring it in line with the amount of calcium available in real milk.

(Dairy) Milk naturally contains between 290 and 300 milligrams of calcium in 237 ml, compared to just 10 milligrams in 237 ml of (unfortified) soy milk.*[/quote]

They might sit near each other on the dairy shelves of your supermarket, looking like variations of the same thing, but soy milk and cow's milk have little in common. Soy milk is made from the liquid in the soy plant left over after food manufacturers grind and soak soybeans. When it comes to calcium, cow's milk wins hand down against unfortified soy milk, which contains much less calcium.

* measurements converted to metric.

https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/difference-between-soy-calcium-dairy-calcium-3036.html

The other important issue with soy milk is the phytate content found in soy products. Phytate is known as an anti-nutrient and when ingested in high doses may inhibit the absorption of calcium in the body. Soy actually has one of the highest phytate contents. This means that whilst soy milk made with calcium sulfate are sources of calcium, but also sources of the anti-nutrient that reduces calcium absorption.

https://americanbonehealth.org/blog-post/how-do-phytates-impact-calcium-absorption/

So yes indeed "the point is beware of slick advertising by various interest groups that tell half-truths"

markodaly wrote: »

...I say this as someone who eats meat twice a day, 7 times a week.

markodaly wrote: »

Are Irish people even aware that soy is a much better source of Calcium than milk? ..

Why can't humans cut out the middle man so and get their dietary needs from plants?

I detect a big fat smelly hairy rat in all that tbh ....

gozunda

BarryD2 wrote: »

Ah come on now! Lets call a spade a spade, the role and functions of An Bord Bia couldn't be clearer. ...

Yeah and your ability to add your own spin to selective abstracts from the Bord Bia website is well demonstrated. :rolleyes:

However you have been already busted. It remains that Bord Bia remit covers a number of different areas including commissioned research and development which employs scientists and experts to work in the area of food research and which also helps promote Irish produce and provides support to the Irish agricultural and horticultural sector.

Have to ask btw what exactly have you against supporting irish producers and improving the quality of Irish food? Is it a personal thing?

For clarity here's the summary of their current activities relating to the manufacture, marketing and food quality taken directly from their website.

Manufacturers
The Bord Bia/Irish Food Board website is intended to set out those services which we offer to Irish 'manufacturers' (companies which supply Irish food and amenity horticulture products around the world).

The Starting a Food Business option explains how we can assist entrepreneurs and early start-ups.

The Insight and Research option includes all the research Bord Bia has commissioned and published as well as our marketing intelligence newsletters. It also describes our consumer insight programme - foresight4food - which is designed to encourage and facilitate a consumer-centric approach to innovation and branding.

Growing your Business describes our services in the local market and our Brand Forum.

Export Support sets out the services we offer to those venturing wider afield including our programme of international trade fairs.

Sustainability describes our Origin Green programme.

Consultancy Services is a notice required under EU State Aid Regulations which Bord Bia might choose to invoke.

Irish manufacturers are invited to contact our Dublin office as listed on the Contacts page if they cannot find what they expected here or alternatively complete an Enquiry Form on this site which will be directed to the appropriate staff member.

Manufacturers from other countries interested in sourcing ingredients from Ireland should consult the Buyers section of this website.

Manufacturers looking for non-food raw materials (e.g. packaging) should consult Enterprise Ireland's site for information on Source a Product or Service from Ireland.

Bord Bia are also authorised to manage the Irish Food Quality Mark scheme

Only the Bord Bia Quality Mark means that food has been produced to the highest Bord Bia quality standards and you know where it comes from. This is because it is independently checked at every stage. So by looking food with the Quality Mark when shopping, you can rest assured that it will look after you and your family.

Oh and support food quality standards

https://www.bordbia.ie/industry/farmers/quality/pages/sustainabledairyassurancescheme.aspx


Dont like any of that? Well tough. Truth hurts.

BarryD2

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah and your ability to add your own spin to selective abstracts from the Bord Bia website is well demonstrated. :rolleyes:

However you have been already busted. It remains that Bord Bia remit covers a number of different areas including commissioned research and development which employs scientists and experts to work in the area of food research and which also helps promote Irish produce and provides support to the Irish agricultural and horticultural sector.

Have to ask btw what exactly have you against supporting irish producers and improving the quality of Irish food? Is it a personal thing?

For clarity here's the summary of their current activities relating to the manufacture, marketing and food quality taken directly from their website.

I don't find anything wrong with any of the above, it's all fine and dandy.

However it is plainly a case of double standards for people here to say the public should trust the advice from An Bord Bia but distrust the advice from other agencies and bodies concerned with environmental & dietary matters.

Do you think Bord Bia could publish a report or run a campaign advising the public to eat less of certain foods?? Of course they couldn't. At best they can stay Schtum if they have reservations. Because to do so would run against their core objectives... marketing and sales! They're not setup or paid to undermine their own markets, regardless of rights or wrongs of any given issue. They're not impartial nor should they be. That's not their role.

gozunda

BarryD2 wrote: »

I don't find anything wrong with any of the above, it's all fine and dandy.

However it is plainly a case of double standards for people here to say the public should trust the advice from An Bord Bia but distrust the advice from other agencies and bodies concerned with environmental & dietary matters.

The only other 'agency' (singular) which is highlighted and rightly criticised imo in this thread is An Taisce a group whose original remit is to perserve the countries Built heritage. Whatever other causes they have adopted is irrelevant to the fact that their Action Pack is ****e.

Not only have they included irrelevant veganisms such as "cruelty free" "vegan pot luck" (sic) as "Climate Actions" etc - they have also managed to omit some of the really important aspects of climate action notably Food Waste reduction.

If we are going to leave this lot push a vegan agenda - then I propose we leave Creationists the same freedom to teach evolution in our schools as well. Fair is fair as my mother used to say.

BarryD2 wrote: »

Do you think Bord Bia could publish a report or run a campaign advising the public to eat less of certain foods?? Of course they couldn't. At best they can stay Schtum if they have reservations. Because to do so would run against their core objectives... marketing and sales! They're not setup or paid to undermine their own markets, regardless of rights or wrongs of any given issue. They're not impartial nor should they be. That's not their role.

What's with all the whataboutery? And whatever you believe about the big 'evil' Bord Bia - repeating it does not make it any more believable. I still do not understand what you have against Bord Bia supporting Irish food and producers. I do not see them "undermining their own markets" - where you get that?
Perhaps you would like them to promote Soya Milk produced by one of the global mega corporate interests instead. Would that make you happy?