Meat must be rationed to four portions a week, says report on climate change

The “Global Warming” crowd is at it again:

Meat must be rationed to four portions a week, says report on climate change
Study looks at food impact on greenhouse gases
• Return to old-fashioned cooking habits urged

People will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change, a major new report warns.

The report, by the Food Climate Research Network, based at the University of Surrey, also says total food consumption should be reduced, especially “low nutritional value” treats such as alcohol, sweets and chocolates.

It urges people to return to habits their mothers or grandmothers would have been familiar with: buying locally in-season products, cooking in bulk and in pots with lids or pressure cookers, avoiding waste and walking to the shops - alongside more modern tips such as using the microwave and internet shopping.

Full Story

This smacks of Marxist control measures. :mad:

I don’t like the tactic or tone of the article, but given the recent processed milk product scandals in China, I’m not sure the idea of eating locally whenever possible and only eating what your great-grandparents would recognize as food is such a bad one. And any energy-saving tips are (or should be) welcome now, with winter coming and natural gas prices predicted to take a sharp rise.

I don’t like the tone of the article, either. Those pronouncements usually come from people who have no intention of changing their habits. They just want us poor trash to change ours.

I have a question for those who would have us eat only locally-grown, in-season food. What are we supposed to eat for the nine months out of the year it is too cold for anything to be in season?

Where I live, most of us don’t own enough property to grow a year’s worth of food in the (very short) summer, nor can most of us stay home all day (like our grandmothers did) to can the produce. I would love to walk to the food shops, but there aren’t any within walking distance – and I live in the city, not the suburbs.

What would the “ration meat” crowd say if they found out Grandma’s habit was to serve meat at every meal? :rolleyes:

Yeah, obviously it’s easier to eat local produce if you live in, say, California, vs Michigan. Notice that’s where a lot of these movements pop up. And most of us don’t have the luxury of being able to walk to markets or grocery stores, that’s for sure. Thank you, suburban planners. :rolleyes:

But it can be done in little bits anywhere, and not necessarily because of climate change as the primary reason. I’m typing this with one hand because I’ve got a half-eaten Michigan apple in the other. Apples are in season here. Why would I NOT prefer to buy ones that are grown locally by local farmers, require less fuel for transport to stores, and keep jobs in state? And it’s not just in-season produce. My local markets sell breads baked at local bakeries and dairy products from a dairy farm in the county. These are comparable in price (and often cheaper, about $1 cheaper per bread loaf) than national chain brands and the quality is vastly better. And again, it supports the local small business owners and keeps jobs here. I’m always happy when the stores label which products are made in Michigan because whenever possible I will purchase those products over ones from half a continent away.

Plus, summer fruit season is an excuse to buy up in-season blueberries and peaches and freeze them for winter. Of course our great-grandmothers didn’t have that option. Not all advances are bad. :smiley:

It’s not just a problem in the suburbs – you’d be surprised how few supermarkets there are in cities. There are plenty of very high-priced gourmet food shops, but the regular supermarkets are miles away.

We used to have one about half a mile from my house – that was a great convenience. Unfortunately, like many urban supermarkets, it was more expensive than suburban supermarkets, and that, combined with the fact that most of the people shopping there were either lower- or fixed-income people, didn’t help profitability, and the store closed. :frowning: Too bad, because they had great meat sales. :smiley:

We do have some wonderful local produce during the summer, and I try to buy that (I could buy more if they would ever consider having the farmers’ market on Saturday, instead of during the week, when I have to work). You’d be amazed at how good the local peaches and melons are here! Of course, this only works for a few months out of the year. The rest of the year, all we grow locally is ice and snow. :smiley:

Does fish count as “meat”? Sort of like our Catholic abstinance?

And just what is “modest” anyhow?

Oh well, not likely to happen.:shrug:

We should be concerned about our fish suppliers as well. On a recent trip to a local Kroger for a fish dinner, I left empty handed because all but the very expensive items in the fish case were labeled “Product of China”.

If you read old novels and pay attention to what people ate, it is evident that in some places people did not eat a lot of meat, but ate staggering amounts of food, including more dairy products than most of us consume now.

In other places, the meat consumption was enormous; well beyond what we would consider “normal” now.

It has been my impression, admittedly gained from reading those novels, that the nature of the local food supply largely determined what people ate.

So, for the UN to say “eat less meat” and also “eat local stuff” doesn’t square.

Also, I have noticed over the years that old country homes often have “summer kitchens”; usually a smallish, very open building just a few steps from the home itself. People had those because, in cooking foods to can, people used big cauldrons and burned a lot of fuel (almost always wood) to cook the stuff in, sterilize the jars and caps, etc. Obviously, it generated so much heat that people couldn’t tolerate doing that in their own houses, and had summer kitchens to avoid it.

I don’t think people quite realize that home energy consumption in the “old days” was a lot higher than it is now. That’s why so many houses and business buildings have been “retrofitted” to save energy. Single pane windows, loose construction and no insulation didn’t hurt a thing if you had steam heat with a big coal boiler going in the basement. If you have ever been in a house with so much as a wood cookstove, you would understand that as well. I remember my father telling me that when he was a kid, his mother’s cook stove heated the whole house, as well as cooked the food. That’s one of the reasons old houses have high ceilings and transoms over the doors. If you cooked at all, you had to let some of the heat go up and out of the house, even in the dead of winter. This is not all that cold a part of the country, but it’s still in the 40s and 50s most winter days, and you wouldn’t open transoms or windows to let heat out unless you simply had to.

There’s a lot to be said for home canning and cooking from basics, but saving energy isn’t one of them.

Good gracious, where in the world do these people come from?!! Why don’t they just say to eat no meat at all? That’s where they’re headed, it looks like.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.